Terrarius

In 1728, the last work of Isaak Newton, 'The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended' [Text; Faximile], 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.« [p.3]

Later on, this statement is repeated explicitely:

»The Greeks have therefore made the Argonautic Expedition about three hundred years ancienter than the truth,...« [p.32]

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.« [p.4]

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.« [p.376]

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...

Terrarius

Newton's conclusion to explain the dark ages of Greece

»..they have made the Antiquities of Greece three or four hundred years elder than the truth.«

shows a surprising similarity with the thesis of modern critics of chronology (H. Illig, U. Topper et al.), assuming the insertion of three centuries of the early middle ages.

However, the theses cannot be true both:
- If Newton were right, Greek astronomers were dating compatible with CE (Common Era) and there can be no gap in the middle ages.
- If Illig were right, Greek astronomers were not compatible with CE and hence Newton's analysis was faulty.
- If both were wrong, how could they come up with identical explanations? And what's about the many duplicate events and persons? And how did the ancient guys manage three to four centuries of oral tradition (or lost notes?), until someone scribbled the stories down (Ilias, Old Testament apocryphes, Byzantine/Persian/Armenian History, Nibelungenlied)?