In 1728, the last work of Isaak Newton, 'The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended'
became published. Quite rapidly, however, it fell into oblivion. Wrongly, Newton's observations were taken as easily disprovable speculations that might belittle the reputation of the most prominent scientist of his epoch.
Referring to astronomical records and comparing the different traditions, Newton had come to the conclusion that the written history of ancient Greece once had been aged deliberately: »..they have made the Antiquities of Greece three or four hundred years elder than the truth.«
Later on, this statement is repeated explicitely: »The Greeks have therefore made the Argonautic Expedition about three hundred years ancienter than the truth,...«
In addition, already Newton had realized that simple ageing of records did not explain everything. There were other inconsistencies like the many twofold recorded individuals: »For reconciling such repugnancies, Chronologers have sometimes doubled the persons of men.«
Newtons had restricted his analysis onto the chronology of the ancient times. As the cause of the observed discrepancies cannot be found there, he had to offer his readers a speculative summary:
»And whilst all these nations have magnified their Antiquities so exceedingly, we need not wonder that the Greeks and Latines have made their first Kings a little older than the truth.«
Newtons analysis had been rejected by contemporary historians. The astronomical evidence he offered, has been ignored. In 1758 the book 'Defense de la Chronologie fondee sur les monuments, contre le systeme chronologique de Newton'
was published by Nicolas Feret, with the circularly reasoning attempt, to confirm the traditional history using the chronological arrangement of its relics. Newtons criticism became buried in oblivion...