HISTORY: Fiction or Science # 5

Support the show:
https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US

Buy Grow kit:
https://modernmushroomcultivation.com/

Transcript:
http://anatolyfomenko.com/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle
https://youtu.be/3Say79Pcg8I

https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/70399806
Speaker 0 (0s): Welcome back my friends, we are back again with our friend and a toll, a four Manco history Fiction or Science left off. Number four, the foundations of archeological methods have been based on the scallop Jerian chronology from the very beginning. Let us begin. 

13.1, the ambiguity of archeological datings and their dependence on the existing chronology. The reader may inquire about the state of affairs concerning other methods of dating historical sources and artifacts use nowadays modern archeologists speak of the ignorant diggers of the previous centuries in painted tones. 

Since many artifacts have become defaced in the search for valuables, the archeologist count a a S Y S excavated 7,729 mounds in thee Vladimir sues doll area, a S S spits in has the following to say about it. When the items found in excavations in 1851 to 1854 came to the disposal of the <inaudible> sorry for the pronunciation guys, Rummy on Stev museum, they were a chaotic pile of materials with no markings whatsoever. 

And no one could tell which mound this or the other object had belonged to the grandiose excavations of 1851 through 1854 shall be mourned by the scientists for years to come. Nowadays, the excavation methods are a lot more advanced. However, applying them to ancient excavations is as impossibly is an impossibility. Since these have already been conducted by the diggers of the past, the basics of archeological dating methods are as follows. 

The best way of reducing the age of a given European culture is finding out which Egyptian dynasty, this European tribe traded with the findings of my son. I made Greek in the Egyptian mounds of the 18th and 19th dynasties allow the archeologist to consider the dynasty and the culture as contemporaries similar vessels are found later on in mice and I together with a particular kind of pin that is later also found in Germany near some urns, a similar urn is found near a finger together with the different kind of pen, which resembles the one found in Sweden in the so-called borrow of king Bjorn, which can thus be dated as a contemporary of the 18th, 19th Egyptian dining in his disease. 

However, it turns out that king Bjorn barrel could not have a belong to Bjorn king of the Vikings, a a well-known medieval character. Sure. Since it predates his time by about two millennia, firstly, one fails to understand what criteria of similarity have been used here. Secondly, and a lot more importantly, I might add all that all of these methods are heavily dependent on the all priority datings of the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh died. 

Dynasty's this method, which is also known as the Dominos method and all similar ones are based on pure <inaudible> subjectivism in that principally on a scale of Jerian chronology, newly found artifacts, such as vessels are compared to similar findings dated in accordance with the consensual chronology, the alteration of the chronological scale scale automatically alters the chronology of the new archeology findings and erroneous chronology, completely invalidates all such methods. 

It is a little wonder that the archaeologist investing there trust in such methods are constantly confronted with bizarre facts. It appears that in certain remote parts of India, Europe, what encounters, the coexistence of things whose prototype's in the east are separated from each other by centuries. These furthermore L S T a line firmly denies all connections between king Bjorn's Baro and the medieval Beorn king of the Vikings. 

This method tells us only that Bjorn borrow is contemporary to the 18th, 19th Egyptian dynasties. It tells us nothing about the possible datings and these actual rains, which may well be medieval along with Bjorn Viking. The first screen teams of Egyptian chronology were based on the work of monotheists who had compiled the list of the pharaohs, allegedly in the century, BC and grouped them into 30 dynasties. 

Having added up all the years of Raines and assuming that their rains have all been consecutive, the figures, he got proved, formidable, Flanders portray Elle Barnhart, and other Egyptologists had estimated the duration of the history of ancient Egypt to equal five to 6,000 years. This is how the long chronology of Egypt was born. 

The one that had been prevalent for a long time E Meier and his followers had developed a so-called a short chronology as an alternative. It's a problem is that the pharaohs and their entire dynasties often reigned simultaneously as COE ruler's in different parts of the country. Men, a Theone was making the assumption that the state had been a monolithic one under a single ruler. And so he had lined all of the Pharos in D sequence, and that was considerably extended. 

The entire history of the state. We should add that the short chronology of Egypt is still way too long and should really have been called a slightly shorter chronology. As we have already mentioned in reference to the data provided by the Egyptologist Henrik brew. Gosh, the so-called short chronology is also based on a theoretical foundations. We learned that its creator IE Meyer has based his deductions on the annual records and entries referring to memorable events made by the pharaohs themselves. 

However, this chain of knowledge has reached us as separate links with many gaps and distortions. This is why attaching the archeological and material to the Egyptian scale does not solve the problem of absolute or indeed even relative dating 13.2, the excavations of Pompei, the dating of this towns destruction, the excavations of the ancient town of Pompei are a perfect illustration to the problems that arise and the dating of archeological materials. 

First and foremost, it isn't clear which years eruption destroyed it. Apparently the 15th century author Jacopo son, a Xero wrote, we were approaching the town and could already see it's towers, houses, theatres, and temples untouched by the centuries. It is assumed however that the town of Pompei has gotten destroyed and completely buried after the eruption of nine a D. 

This is why the archeologists have to interpret sun a zero in the following manner. In the 15th century, some of the buildings of Pompei were already emerging from the debris. It is that assume that Pompei had been covered by a thick layer of earth. Since the ruins of the town were only found in 1748, and discovery was purely accident. Accidental Herculaneum was discovered in 1711. Nowadays the history of the discovery of Palm Pompei is related after the documented recollections of that epoch as follows during the construction of a canal on the river Sarno 1594 to 1600, the ruins of an ancient town were found. 

Nobody had the nearest notion. It might be Pompei, methodical, scientific excavations were started as late as 1860 by Giuseppe Fiorelli. However, his method of work was far from the usual scientific standards. The excavations were indeed conducted in a barbaric manner. Nowadays it is hard to estimate the damage done by the sheer vandalism of the time. 

If somebody thought a picture or a figu...