Figure 1 - uploaded by Petra Ossowski Larsson
Content may be subject to copyright.
West-Roman dynasties (black bars) dated forward by 232 years according to our hypothesis, compared with East-Roman dynasties (red bars) on the real time line (red year numbers). Black year numbers = conventional western time line (RomAD). Green bar = Childeric's regnal time.
Source publication
This article is about the historical consequences of our scientifically reinforced hypothesis that the West-Roman empire is conventionally dated some 232 years too old. We offer an alternative interpretation of some Roman heirlooms retrieved from the grave of the Frankish king Childeric, and from a Japanese grave dated to the late 5th century.
Context in source publication
Context 1
... also explains why there are no "western" coins of the Tetrarchy and the Constantinian and Valentinian dynasties (RomAD 284 to 392) in Childeric's treasure. These dynasties would have reigned after 518 (see figure 1), long after Childeric's death. The siliqua attributed to Constantius II, dated 351 to 355, is of course a problem, but there is a Constantius in the Theodosian dynasty. ...
Citations
... We do not think so, because the astronomical years -37 and even -21 were many years before Julius Caesar, Augustus and the annexation of Egypt to the Roman empire if our scientifically reinforced hypothesis is correct (ref. 22). Sorry that this might sound like a conspiracy theory, but "Theon" the astronomer told the historians that it was Augustus who reformed the Egyptian civil calendar in -21. ...
In this article we take a closer look at the Egyptian civil calendar and its primary sources to see if this provides useful understanding for the Egyptian chronology. Scientific dates for e.g. the Egyptian New Kingdom do still not comply fully with the historical consensus chronology in force. This might be due to the lingering use of outdated scientific parameters, perhaps because of historical bias at Egypt's transition from sovereign kingdom to Roman province.
