Zoltan Simon
I am an independent Canadian Hungarian scholar, interested in an absolute chronology of the ancient world. Chronology is the backbone of history. Mankind expects to find soon, perhaps unearth, a reliable absolute chronology of the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean. However, there are no tenured and paid scholars of chronology, a non-existing science, in any country. There are at least seven competing chronologies (from super long to super short) in our days, but only one of them has been confirmed by astronomy. Instead of an incomplete Egyptian and Assyro-Babylonian "dead reckoning" backwards in time, I utilize long intervals of 500 years preserved by Hebrew, Phoenician, Greek, and Irish-Scottish traditions, with generation counts. Further, I incorporate every astronomical record or tradition, particularly those describing solar and lunar eclipses and comets. Also, synchronisms between rulers have a decisive role in my synchronistic chronological table. Besides Eurasia, I have several unpublished papers about the ancient chronology of the Mexica, Aztecs, Toltecs and Chichimecs, with 1011 CE as the year of the Fifth Sun (el Quinto Sol). I was born in Budapest (Hungary) in 1949, and immigrated in Canada in 1976. My original professions are geologist and land surveyor, with diplomas from Hungary. I worked for two decades in Canada in the civil, traffic and mining engineering fields, including with AutoCAD.
Supervisors: [too many names]
Phone: 1-587-306-9825
Address: www.correctingworldhistory.com (URL)
72 Best Crescent, Red Deer, Alberta T4R 1H6, CANADA
Supervisors: [too many names]
Phone: 1-587-306-9825
Address: www.correctingworldhistory.com (URL)
72 Best Crescent, Red Deer, Alberta T4R 1H6, CANADA
less
InterestsView All (17)
Uploads
The author has a plethora of published and unpublished works (books and papers). He could offer a condensed Phoenician and Judean chronology on a single page each, or could write longer papers, elaborating on that subject. After several years of unsuccessful communications with editors dealing with ancient history and archaeology, he ended up writing about antique maps and geography. His new paper entitled “The reliability of Ptolemy’s longitudes by the identification game” offers solid scientific identification for Ptolemy’s 810 toponyms.
The field of ancient history and archaeology is becoming less and less academic and more confusing. Most of the researchers, the “scholarly consensus,” keep eliminating the fix points, mainly astronomical absolute dates, from the chronology of ancient nations or cultures. The world is expecting accurate dates for most events and reigns in the remote past while unwilling to spend a penny on it. Officially, chronology is not a science. It does not have a single tenured professor in any university of the world. How could mankind expect progress in a science that does not have paid professors, only confused volunteers?
Voltaire once wrote, “History is the lie commonly agreed upon.” Looking at the never-ending dispute between “science” (radiometry) and archaeology (as a non-science?), with seven+ ancient chronological schemes suggested by competing groups, one may agree with him.
In China, a recent survey of the literature reveals that at least 44 different dates, from 1130 to 1018 B.C., a span of 112 years, have been proposed.” The instant author’s unpublished paper on China gives 27 January 1116 B.C. for the Shang Dynasty’s end, the day of the last emperor’s execution.
So far, contacting journals of ancient history and archaeology gave me a feeling like going to a hernia surgery. Usually, the editor-in-chief is apparently stressed out, being busy with the next issue. I hope that there are a few Editors-in-Chief at history and archaeology journals, under less pressure or stress. Not all of them need to grind their brains how to create cover-ups or invent lame excuses to ignore important research. I believe in the existence of open-minded reviewers in each science but do not intend to live forever.
My papers about astronomy-based chronologies of the ancient world are not under consideration by any publisher. The number of my readers at Academia.com and ResearchGate keeps multiplying. Why not to turn this situation into profit for a good publisher?
I have many unpublished papers on the chronology and archaeology of the Mexica. Modern authorities assume that they left the island of Aztlan [apparently the Bahamas] in A.D. 1168 or 1116, but the correct year was 1064. The latter date was recorded by the native historian Chimalpahin and others. This event took place 52 full years after the “flood”, a minor but permanent submersion of their ancestral land on 31 August 1011. The Stone of the Sun (Piedra del Sol) depicts this rebirth of the sun after a “night”, a total eclipse there just before noon, followed by terrible earthquakes. The Mexica spent 28 years at Snake Mountain, the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio, next to the Crooked or Overhanging Hill with seven caves. That effigy mound was built for the honour of Quetzalcoatl, the celestial serpent. It was Halley’s comet. Radiometry yielded the exact matching year for their New Fire ceremony, in the circle or egg in the serpent’s mouth. The next key event is A.D. 1243 when captive Aztecs killed many Xochimilcans, cutting off their ears. The king of Colhuacan turned off his head by the terrible sight and smell, near the end of the Codex Boturini. Mexican archaeologists are puzzled that the Aztec orange ware pottery appears in Central Mexico a century too early, but they overlooked several missing folios in the sources. Therefore, their non-astronomical chronology is 104 years off the correct time frame.
Similar problems exist in the chronology of the ancient Near East. Scholars arbitrarily picked an unspecified solar eclipse record in the eponym year of Bur-Sagale in Assyria. Others copied this “fix point”, harmonizing it with Babylonian and Egyptian dates. The same “scholarly consensus” assumed that the Sothic calendar has never changed or been reformed, despite that the words “Menophres Era” indicated otherwise. The original Egyptian calendar’s beginning and first day must be related to Thoth, an early king of the First Dynasty, as his son’s ivory tablet recording it. His reign cannot be shifted to c. 2750 B.C. My preprint on that Sothic fault line or calendar reform in Egypt supports that need for modification. A difference of c. 120 years exists between the estimates of archaeologists and the results of radiometry in the days of King Tut or earlier rulers. No archaeologist seems to care about the fact that the earliest Irish and Scottish traditions kept the continuous reckoning of their years from their departure from Egypt. The latter event is associated with the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.
Scholars should discuss the possibilities of an ancient conspiracy between the ancestors of the Jews, Scots, and Irish, adding Eusebius, Diodorus, Herodotus, and Solinus to them, the latter with the 737 years duration of Carthage from its foundation. Most of them had a world view with their Exodus out of Egypt in 1511 B.C. Eusebius used 1511 B.C., adding an arbitrary interval of 505 (75+430) years to it. He assumed that the “true” interval of 430 years of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt, starting at Year 75 of Abram, would fix the Era of Abraham at 2016 B.C. He made a blunder because Abraham was not a son of Israel. Let alone that those patriarchal years were reckoned in half years, as in Babylonia earlier. The 90-year-old Sarai was still beautiful and soon gave birth to Isaac.
If such conspiracy did not exist, and their traditional time frame is correct, then scholars of the past two centuries created that conspiracy against the well-founded 1511 B.C. A champion of it was E. Thiele, the inventor of a “telescopic” rubber chronology of overlapping co-reigns for Israel and Judea. His book was accepted by a university publisher, serving him as a license to destroy the chronology of the Near East. Prejudice calls Herodotus’ two identified solar eclipses ‘fabulous.’ They took place in 478 and 477 B.C. Such ignorance creates an error of two years in the dates of the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis. Bickerman’s Roman consular list is misinterpreted. He states that it was an error to reckon dictator years separately. The life of Romulus is associated with three solar eclipse traditions. Since he was 18 years old then, the true date of Rome’s foundation is 745 B.C., instead of Varro’s incorrect 753 B.C.
A “scholarly consensus” sticks to the principle of “dead reckoning,” ignoring the unwanted astronomically fixed dates. We have not heard official declarations from archaeologists claiming that 100% of the records have been unearthed in every country. None of the scholars would give a guarantee that the real highest regnal year of each king is known with absolute certainty. The childish method of “dead reckoning” may have worked, but the results are unscientific. A “scholarly consensus” may be useful temporarily but cannot block the advancement of sciences.
Can objective-thinking editors of the world see a need to start addressing the ignored astronomy-based chronologies of ancient civilizations? (In what regions and centuries? I could offer a complete scientific chronology for ancient Egypt, or a certain country.) Without a scientific/astronomical framework, most scholars seem like squirrels that spend their lives running ahead in a closed rotating cylinder, in circles. This circus cannot be called progress.
A recent paper entitled ‘Robinson Crusoe’s travels on maps from Costa Rica to Russia’ shows that “human logic” in the world is not universal. Two educated persons may give diagonally opposite solutions or explanations in each debate.
If you are a brilliant author that editors of journals have always rejected, you should not feel lonely. You are great and not alone. Perhaps you should remember the popular saying, “It does not matter how much you know, but whom to you know and…”
I wished to show you a completely brand new, beautiful, and clearly understandable ancient world beyond any scholarly consensus and the “Iron Curtain” of closed-minded reviewers. Those reviewers remind us to the famous words of Mark Twain, “The only person who likes change is a baby with a wet diaper.” Modern archaeology and ancient history look and smell much like that proverbial baby if the backbone of history is chronology.
A healthy debate is essential in every science, so participants could learn about the “third side” of the coin. The advancement of many sciences depends on your attitude.
In general, emphasis is devoted to the problem of an exact chronology based mainly on original eclipse records. Two cardinal eclipses – those of 22 October 2137 BC and 22 February 720 BC – have been identified about two centuries ago. The author has found a cluster of six confirmed solar eclipses and a cluster of five identifiable lunar eclipses observed well before the end of the Shang Dynasty. In addition, he offers one more solar eclipse and further three identified lunar eclipse records. Also, he examines the astronomical canon of Emperor Yao and proposes an approximate date 2347 BC for the conception of that system. He pays attention to the optimum values of Delta-T or clock-time error based on the results of today’s best astronomical authorities on those issues, also using his long list of identifiable eclipse records of the ancient world.
The author has a plethora of published and unpublished works (books and papers). He could offer a condensed Phoenician and Judean chronology on a single page each, or could write longer papers, elaborating on that subject. After several years of unsuccessful communications with editors dealing with ancient history and archaeology, he ended up writing about antique maps and geography. His new paper entitled “The reliability of Ptolemy’s longitudes by the identification game” offers solid scientific identification for Ptolemy’s 810 toponyms.
The field of ancient history and archaeology is becoming less and less academic and more confusing. Most of the researchers, the “scholarly consensus,” keep eliminating the fix points, mainly astronomical absolute dates, from the chronology of ancient nations or cultures. The world is expecting accurate dates for most events and reigns in the remote past while unwilling to spend a penny on it. Officially, chronology is not a science. It does not have a single tenured professor in any university of the world. How could mankind expect progress in a science that does not have paid professors, only confused volunteers?
Voltaire once wrote, “History is the lie commonly agreed upon.” Looking at the never-ending dispute between “science” (radiometry) and archaeology (as a non-science?), with seven+ ancient chronological schemes suggested by competing groups, one may agree with him.
In China, a recent survey of the literature reveals that at least 44 different dates, from 1130 to 1018 B.C., a span of 112 years, have been proposed.” The instant author’s unpublished paper on China gives 27 January 1116 B.C. for the Shang Dynasty’s end, the day of the last emperor’s execution.
So far, contacting journals of ancient history and archaeology gave me a feeling like going to a hernia surgery. Usually, the editor-in-chief is apparently stressed out, being busy with the next issue. I hope that there are a few Editors-in-Chief at history and archaeology journals, under less pressure or stress. Not all of them need to grind their brains how to create cover-ups or invent lame excuses to ignore important research. I believe in the existence of open-minded reviewers in each science but do not intend to live forever.
My papers about astronomy-based chronologies of the ancient world are not under consideration by any publisher. The number of my readers at Academia.com and ResearchGate keeps multiplying. Why not to turn this situation into profit for a good publisher?
I have many unpublished papers on the chronology and archaeology of the Mexica. Modern authorities assume that they left the island of Aztlan [apparently the Bahamas] in A.D. 1168 or 1116, but the correct year was 1064. The latter date was recorded by the native historian Chimalpahin and others. This event took place 52 full years after the “flood”, a minor but permanent submersion of their ancestral land on 31 August 1011. The Stone of the Sun (Piedra del Sol) depicts this rebirth of the sun after a “night”, a total eclipse there just before noon, followed by terrible earthquakes. The Mexica spent 28 years at Snake Mountain, the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio, next to the Crooked or Overhanging Hill with seven caves. That effigy mound was built for the honour of Quetzalcoatl, the celestial serpent. It was Halley’s comet. Radiometry yielded the exact matching year for their New Fire ceremony, in the circle or egg in the serpent’s mouth. The next key event is A.D. 1243 when captive Aztecs killed many Xochimilcans, cutting off their ears. The king of Colhuacan turned off his head by the terrible sight and smell, near the end of the Codex Boturini. Mexican archaeologists are puzzled that the Aztec orange ware pottery appears in Central Mexico a century too early, but they overlooked several missing folios in the sources. Therefore, their non-astronomical chronology is 104 years off the correct time frame.
Similar problems exist in the chronology of the ancient Near East. Scholars arbitrarily picked an unspecified solar eclipse record in the eponym year of Bur-Sagale in Assyria. Others copied this “fix point”, harmonizing it with Babylonian and Egyptian dates. The same “scholarly consensus” assumed that the Sothic calendar has never changed or been reformed, despite that the words “Menophres Era” indicated otherwise. The original Egyptian calendar’s beginning and first day must be related to Thoth, an early king of the First Dynasty, as his son’s ivory tablet recording it. His reign cannot be shifted to c. 2750 B.C. My preprint on that Sothic fault line or calendar reform in Egypt supports that need for modification. A difference of c. 120 years exists between the estimates of archaeologists and the results of radiometry in the days of King Tut or earlier rulers. No archaeologist seems to care about the fact that the earliest Irish and Scottish traditions kept the continuous reckoning of their years from their departure from Egypt. The latter event is associated with the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.
Scholars should discuss the possibilities of an ancient conspiracy between the ancestors of the Jews, Scots, and Irish, adding Eusebius, Diodorus, Herodotus, and Solinus to them, the latter with the 737 years duration of Carthage from its foundation. Most of them had a world view with their Exodus out of Egypt in 1511 B.C. Eusebius used 1511 B.C., adding an arbitrary interval of 505 (75+430) years to it. He assumed that the “true” interval of 430 years of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt, starting at Year 75 of Abram, would fix the Era of Abraham at 2016 B.C. He made a blunder because Abraham was not a son of Israel. Let alone that those patriarchal years were reckoned in half years, as in Babylonia earlier. The 90-year-old Sarai was still beautiful and soon gave birth to Isaac.
If such conspiracy did not exist, and their traditional time frame is correct, then scholars of the past two centuries created that conspiracy against the well-founded 1511 B.C. A champion of it was E. Thiele, the inventor of a “telescopic” rubber chronology of overlapping co-reigns for Israel and Judea. His book was accepted by a university publisher, serving him as a license to destroy the chronology of the Near East. Prejudice calls Herodotus’ two identified solar eclipses ‘fabulous.’ They took place in 478 and 477 B.C. Such ignorance creates an error of two years in the dates of the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis. Bickerman’s Roman consular list is misinterpreted. He states that it was an error to reckon dictator years separately. The life of Romulus is associated with three solar eclipse traditions. Since he was 18 years old then, the true date of Rome’s foundation is 745 B.C., instead of Varro’s incorrect 753 B.C.
A “scholarly consensus” sticks to the principle of “dead reckoning,” ignoring the unwanted astronomically fixed dates. We have not heard official declarations from archaeologists claiming that 100% of the records have been unearthed in every country. None of the scholars would give a guarantee that the real highest regnal year of each king is known with absolute certainty. The childish method of “dead reckoning” may have worked, but the results are unscientific. A “scholarly consensus” may be useful temporarily but cannot block the advancement of sciences.
Can objective-thinking editors of the world see a need to start addressing the ignored astronomy-based chronologies of ancient civilizations? (In what regions and centuries? I could offer a complete scientific chronology for ancient Egypt, or a certain country.) Without a scientific/astronomical framework, most scholars seem like squirrels that spend their lives running ahead in a closed rotating cylinder, in circles. This circus cannot be called progress.
A recent paper entitled ‘Robinson Crusoe’s travels on maps from Costa Rica to Russia’ shows that “human logic” in the world is not universal. Two educated persons may give diagonally opposite solutions or explanations in each debate.
If you are a brilliant author that editors of journals have always rejected, you should not feel lonely. You are great and not alone. Perhaps you should remember the popular saying, “It does not matter how much you know, but whom to you know and…”
I wished to show you a completely brand new, beautiful, and clearly understandable ancient world beyond any scholarly consensus and the “Iron Curtain” of closed-minded reviewers. Those reviewers remind us to the famous words of Mark Twain, “The only person who likes change is a baby with a wet diaper.” Modern archaeology and ancient history look and smell much like that proverbial baby if the backbone of history is chronology.
A healthy debate is essential in every science, so participants could learn about the “third side” of the coin. The advancement of many sciences depends on your attitude.
In general, emphasis is devoted to the problem of an exact chronology based mainly on original eclipse records. Two cardinal eclipses – those of 22 October 2137 BC and 22 February 720 BC – have been identified about two centuries ago. The author has found a cluster of six confirmed solar eclipses and a cluster of five identifiable lunar eclipses observed well before the end of the Shang Dynasty. In addition, he offers one more solar eclipse and further three identified lunar eclipse records. Also, he examines the astronomical canon of Emperor Yao and proposes an approximate date 2347 BC for the conception of that system. He pays attention to the optimum values of Delta-T or clock-time error based on the results of today’s best astronomical authorities on those issues, also using his long list of identifiable eclipse records of the ancient world.