Not my post (below), but raises the debate about historical timeline. Variants of this theory can be found in many places.
See http://s8int.com - OOPARTS (out of place artifacts) & ANCIENT HIGH TECHNOLOGY
Related concept: archeological dating methods are not credible. There are some articles that dig deeply into the science, with good explanations of each of the prevalent dating methods. Like, particle traces in granite rocks caused by radioactive decay of "primordial" elements, this method depends on the assumption that the rate of radioactive decay is a constant. Radiocarbon dating, method depends on the assumption that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide remains constant. Etc.
* * *
Hive mind or what? QR is getting into this right now too.
>>>/qresearch/11023067
https://www.unz.com/article/how-long-was-the-first-millenium/
Found this article especially and the previous two (linked within) very interesting.
Basically says that there is a quiet debate going on between historians and some archealogists.
The argument is over whether the period from 300-9009 AD really existed or was it triple-counted by using different historians describing the same events with different names by the Jesuit historians in the 16th Century when they were compiling a comparative history of the world.
We may actually be living in the 1400's, based on this archaeological argument and the excavated evidence from around the world.
* * *
Not saying that I agree or disagree with this exact theory, but the point is that reasonable people are questioning the timeline.