Chronology

For people who check facts

is the science of locating events in time. A chronology may be either relative -- that is, locating related events relative to each other -- or absolute -- locating these events to specific datess in a Chronological Era. An arrangement of events, with absolute dates, from either earliest to latest or the reverse, is also called a chronology or a timeline. (See also Chronicle.)

This article is a work in progress, as part of the eventual rewrite of the Egyptian chronology article.

Tools and Techniques of Chronology

Current Issues in Chronology

During the 20th century, many previously accepted conclusions of historical chronology were questioned, both by the introduction of new techniques, by new discoveries, and by claims that not all was well even in the original analysis of existing material. Thus at the start of the 21st century, the chronologies of ancient civilisations in particular were in a state of some controversy. For example, Russian member of Academy of sciences Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko has been very popular lately in Russia with his theory of new chronology of Russia and Europe.

External links

http://devlab.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/chrono.html#6 Dartmouth Introduction to chronology and terminology of Aegean prehistory: Stone Age, Bronze age. A useful professional outline that includes the following note

In general, absolute dates for the Aegean Stone and Bronze Ages are not yet very reliable and many different sets of dates are often in use for one and the same phase or period. A major debate has been raging since 1987 over the absolute date of the great volcanic explosion of the island of Thera/Santorini early in the Late Bronze Age. As a result, absolute dates within the first two-thirds of the second millennium B.C. (ca. 2000-1350 B.C.) are presently in an unusually active state of flux. It is therefore always best to describe an archaeological assemblage in terms of a relative chronological label (e.g. Early Helladic II, Late Minoan IA, etc.) rather than in terms of its supposed duration in calendar years B.C. Indeed, it is often preferable to refer to a particular assemblage by the site and level in which it was found (e.g. Troy VI, Lefkandi I, Lerna V, Ayia Irini VII, etc.), particularly in the cases of archaeological cultures whose precise chronological positions are disputed even in relative terms (e.g. the Kastri Group and Lefkandi I). [For the most recent surveys of chronology, both relative and absolute, see P. Warren and V. Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol 1989) and, for the Early Bronze Age, S. W. Manning, The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon, and History (Sheffield 1995), the latter abstracted in AJA 97(1993) 756 Table 2.]

http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ancient.htm Survey of 20th century revisions of ancient history.

http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/care.html On the Care and Feeding of Revision Hypotheses by Lisa Liel.

http://www.geocities.com/qraal/genesis3.html Another summary of revision ideas, by a religious group.

http://www.centuries.co.uk/studies.htm A specific proposed revision by a number of archeologists.

http://www.nunki.net/PerRenput/TimeLines/Index.html Another specific proposal, by David Rohl.

http://free-history-dictionary-books-hotels-health-maps.mithec.com/ Another example of a proposed alternative chronology. Most scholars would consider this one unlikely.