Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)
The New Chronology: The Dark Ages Didn't Exist - Uwe Topper, Heribert Illig
Did
the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?
Edwin
Johnson, a Radical Advocate of the Chronology Criticism
Sensation: A Cause for the Falsification of the Medieval
Time Calculation Found
Isaac
Newton Shortened Greek History by 300 Years
Who
Turned the Clock Ahead? How 300 Years of
History Were Invented
Bavaria
and the Phantom Era: Archaeology Disproves Documents of the Early Middle Ages
The
Invented Middle Ages: The Largest Time Falsification in History
Forget
about the year 2000, we still live in 1703
Ages
Still in Chaos (Conference)
Here are some starting points for researching the proposals that the Early Middle Ages didn't exist, and various studies of the falsification of history.
There were no Dark Ages (600-900) -- that seems like the easiest aspect to establish -- and therefore there was no "re-birth" since there was no "death" of Roman-era knowledge and mythology in the first place.
There are many crackpot theories, such as that Jesus didn't exist, or that even the apostle St. Paul didn't exist, or that all continents were once joined, or that heavier-than-air flight is possible, or that time and free will are illusory, or that drugs have always been the inspirational wellspring for religions. Why should the crackpot theory that the early middle ages didn't exist warrant any discussion in when investigating the origins and nature of religion?
Radical Critic Edwin Johnson wrote an important work, Antiqua Mater, in 1887, which included a little questioning of Paul's historicity, and then wrote in 1894 (7 years later) "The Pauline Epistles: Re-studied and Explained", which started by questioning the historicity of all of Paul's epistles, and continued on to question the reality and existence of all of European history prior to the invention of the printing press.
My modified version of the theory of Tradition is that, prior to the Enlightenment, no one believed in the modern literalist version of Jesus; they entirely didn't think about Christianity in such mundane terms; it was essentially all concerned with mystic experiencing and derived from it, theological doctrine.
According to the modern story, the ancients were stupid and supernaturalist, believing in Christian miracles, while moderns are smart and skeptical, and know that the Bible just reports materialist goings-on, embellished. The truth is the opposite: the ancients were smart, knowing that Christianity was basically mystic-state mythic allegory; the moderns are stupid, mistaking Christianity for literalist claims and projecting their own stupid, clueless literalism onto the pre-Enlightenment era.
Could someone please summarize these theories of falsification of history? I can't figure out what to make of them. I'm a theoretical systematizer of mystic experiencing and allegorical metaphor, not a bean-counter of historical studies.
The theories of no-Jesus, no-Paul/Apostles, and no-Early Middle Ages share a compatible spirit. Debaters of the historicity of Jesus should at least be aware of this. Hermann Detering is staying in the loop on this subject, and he's an important Radical Critic familiar with the no-Jesus theory.
Debating about dating is of central importance to the question of Jesus' historicity and to the broader yet fully relevant question of reconstructing the actual history of Christian origins. Therefore the general subject of time jumping in historical dating timelines is a topic that partly overlaps with and is relevant to the subject of Jesus' historicity -- especially when the subject of time jumping focuses specifically on the history of Christendom.
Detering saw this "new" time-jumping theory of Illig and crew, and pointed out to Uwe Topper, author of the book "Time Falsification", that the author of the important skeptical work Antiqua Mater, Edwin Johnson, proposed the same theory back in 1894, in "The Pauline Epistles: Re-studied and Explained".
I had been planning for a year to discuss Edwin Johnson's book "The Pauline Epistles" here because people have such conservative and diminutive notions of what it means to be "radical", it's like an argument between the liberal-conservatives and the conservative-liberals. Now with the historicity of the Apostles -- leg 2 of literalist Christianity -- being called into question lately, I decided to ask for views about Johnson's book "The Pauline Epistles".
When getting the URL for the online book, I noticed Detering's little comment in German "Anticipates theories of Heribert Illig and Uwe Topper". Searching on those names tonight revealed an entire new burgeoning area of theorizing of which I was completely unaware, addressing my wish to get more insight into what Johnson's "The Pauline Epistles" was getting at.
When I read Johnson's book carefully twice, I was still puzzled over what he was saying. That feeling was like that of a woman who visited the Jesus Mysteries Discussion group and was in a complete daze over the gist of the group (discussing whether a single individual kernel person existed, warranting the label of the Historical Jesus).
The last time I discovered a huge hot but circumscribed area of discussion like this was when I found popular discussion of recent books about Reformed theology.
There are many crackpot conspiracy theories to debunk. Many aspects of many of these crackpot theories fit together well. Aspects of the subject of time jumps are relevant to the origins and nature of Christianity, because the period of Western religion before the printing press was richly packed with the heritage of Greco-Roman religion, which was likely more experiential, mystic, and allegorical than the Christianity of the modern era.
Heribert Illig has a new book, Who Turned the Clock Ahead? How 300 Years of History Were Invented, on the subject of time jumping in historical dating timelines. There are some good webpages in English.
The topic of "The New Chronology" seems to focus mostly on debunking the existence of the years 600-900 (Illig's years are 614-911). That is the mild, conservative, modest theory of adjusting our calendars. Edwin Johnson takes it to a radical extreme, which is why I have trouble grasping what Johnson is saying.
To understand Johnson, the more moderate hypothesis of repudiating the existence of the years 600-900 is an effective stepping stone. I instantly liked doing away with 600-900; that solves at once many cognitive dissonances I have had. Now I can be better equipped to grasp the possible ramifications of Johnson's more sweeping reconceptualization of history.
I'm bored, having figured out many things to my satisfaction about the real nature and origins of religion. A deeper study and a summary of Johnson's The Pauline Epistles may be just what I'm looking for to provide an intellectual challenge and shake open the way for further major paradigmatic shifts.
The online resources about the nonexistence of the Dark Ages (the years 600-900) enable continuing on to study the possible ramifications of Johnson's The Pauline Epistles, which seems to be surprising even to the would-be radicals who are putting forth the minor and slight calendar adjustment of eliminating the years 600-900. Johnson seems to propose their "new chronology" -- squared. The New Chronology proponents are being surprised and humbled upon discovering that Johnson was there first and puts their supposed radicalism to shame.
Johnson doesn't provide an effective summary of what exactly he is proposing. I won't know until my third thorough reading and summarization of Johnson, but it seems that he's saying -- at the extreme -- that the entire corpus of ancient Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian writings was written in the monasteries around 1550 -- or something like that but more moderate.
-- Michael Hoffman
__________________________________
Some resources below include machine translations from German, because as of Oct. 2003, most writing on the subject is in German.
History: Fiction or Science?
Anatoly Fomenko
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/2913621058/
March 2004
Search Inside
Edwin Johnson's 1894 book "The Pauline Epistles: Re-studied and Explained"
Study Version of Edwin Johnson's "The Pauline Epistles - Re-Studied and Explained", 1894 -- Reformatted version for increased comprehensibility. Proposes that the years 700-1400 didn't exist, and that Christianity, the "early" Christian texts, Paul, the Gospels, the Church Fathers, the Dark Ages, and the Middle Ages were literary inventions fabricated in competing monasteries around 1500. Proposes that several centuries before the printing press didn't exist. Uses the questioning of the historicity of all of Paul's epistles as an example to call into doubt the reality and existence of all of European history prior to 1533.
Difficult-to-comprehend 19th-Century English original version, with scanning errors:
http://www.radikalkritik.de/pauline_epistles.htm
http://www.radikalkritik.de/PaulEpistles.pdf - 99 pages
Detering comments at http://www.hermann-detering.de/index.htm: "Johnson's radical late work, which anticipates the theories of Heribert Illigs and Uwe Toppers, among other things."
If I understand Johnson, combined with the Radikalkritik site, the sequence of writings was actually:
Writings of the early Christian fathers
Pauline writings
The Gospels (as complete compositions)
because the early writings are silent about Paul and about the Gospels, and the Pauline writings were silent about the Gospels.
Edwin Johnson also wrote Antiqua Mater, relevant to the Quest for the (dissolving and vanishing) Historical Paul:
http://www.radikalkritik.de/antiqua_mater.htm
-- 1887 -- "The reader may practically confine himself to Justin of
Neapolis as a dated witness from the middle of the second century. He knows no
authoritative writings except the Old Testament; he had neither our ‘Gospels’
nor our Pauline writings; his imagination was a blank where our own is filled
with vivid pictures of the activity of Jesus and of Paul. ... The history of the Church and of its
dogmas properly begins with the period of the Antonines, 138 — 180 A.D. Here we
find ourselves still in the midst of a legendary atmosphere. The foundations of
the ‘Ecclesia,’ in the new sense, are being laid upon the Rock-man, and the
Prof. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz
Article in English
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf
http://www.google.com/search?q="Uwe+Topper"/
click Translate
Book by Uwe Topper
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3878471726
Book by Uwe Topper
Aug. 2003
"As a result of the many interesting mosaic chapters (s. table of contents) an exciting overall view arises to the conditions of the present/immediate discussion with many new, often surprising aspects, which energize for thinking, e.g. over it, whether at all our time calculation is correct, we many well-known, but legendary historical persons spareless to paint should whether our religious conceptions have not nevertheless completely different roots and not nevertheless only many later developed, which applies to all 3 large "book religions" then, but above all whether not everything that we believed to know was based to provided writing certifications in the long run on only in the Renaissance and in the Humanismus and was formed after certain interests and claims to power."
Article by Uwe Topper, 2001
In English (machine translated and slightly cleaned up -- entire article)
Machine translation of top half of article: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.efodon.de/html/archiv/chrono/topper/johnsohn.htm&langpair=de|en
German original:
http://www.efodon.de/html/archiv/chrono/topper/johnsohn.htm
http://www.efodon.de/html/archiv/chrono/topper/johnson.rtf
Article by Walter Haug
http://www.efodon.de/html/archiv/chrono/haug/falsch.htm
http://www.efodon.de/html/archiv/chrono/haug/faelschung.pdf
2001
© walter Haug; published in Efodon synesis No. 2/2001
Machine translation, selected excerpts:
The knowledge that delivered history and the Christian calendar cannot tune us, is conscious to us at the latest since Illigs disassembly of the Karolinger time. A whole epoch was freely invented and taken up to world history. … Can shortening only one epoch solve the many unsettled problems of the historiography from 297 years?
Illig already presented the research results Muscovites of
the Fomenko institute to 1995 in its "time jumps". In
…Illigs time shortening seizes much too briefly.
My research article are built megalithische
… It seems almost impossible that completely it lost all civilization knowledge went and a flowering advanced culture was to have been replaced completely by an ignorant rural culture … the Teutons. More than a half millenium long is not to have remembered anybody more in the region of the building of massif stones. Then however one built again, as if it would not have given a break between them now romanisch, no longer Roman, as if one would remember suddenly again the Roman rundboegen.
That whole delivered history is much too long knitted. …
If one sees the single buildings, which in the questionable thousand years to have
developed times here, times there to be supposed, the tradition strand lies
completely in rubble. How are highly developed architecture and stone-cutter
technology to have been forgotten again and again around whole centuries, not
exercised, then again at completely different place, e.g. in Byzanz, how from
that nothing again to arise? Where is the unbroken continuity of the passing on
of the knowledge of the master to the pupil? Where are the schools, which
arranged these techniques for the specialist, who tells over the building huts
or universities, at which this complex architecture knowledge must have been
passed on? Nobody! … Who can explain plausibly, why it only starting from that
11. Jh. a gotischen architectural style was brought and spread in
Our historical picture developed thus only in the high Middle Ages and in the Renaissance. Here the documents from the early Middle Ages and the antiquity in monasteries emerge, which are everything only copies. Can any originals have without exception disappeared? The probability calculation excludes. The time of 433 v.Chr. (end RK after the Christian calendar) until 1327 (3327 end RK as Thoradatum) and material history is thus completely freely invented only since that time understandably. Fomenko and its predecessor Morozow calculated a shift of Jewish history by 1778 years to the Christian, without being able to state the reason for it.
The Kuernbacher discovery however confirmed now in impressive way this research result and supplies a number, which corresponds nearly exactly to this period, which results from the today valid Jewish calendar: 3760 years after the world creation = Christi birth minus 2000 years result in 1760 years!
Fomenko sees the Habsburger epoch as matrix for all
invented epochs before this time. However from it a mystery, for which also
Fomenko does not have a solution ready, results i.e.: Why does the epoch of the
judaeischen kings in the Luther Bible, in addition, in GermanJewish
translations, at a time, appear when the Habsburger was still not at all
terminated epoch and thus as collecting main could not yet at all be used? A
logical explanation would be that to Fomenko the Habsburger was not contrary
dynasty collecting main for the large historical falsification, but old persons
the will, which would correspond also to the religious spirit of the time at
that time and the existence Jewish, calendar basing on the old person will,
which became the basis of the Christian. Thus again a strong indication for
originally dominating Jew Christianity would be also here found in
Continuous Anno Domini datings gives it officially only since 1431. Finally we are not even safe whether the time of 1350 up to the 30-jaehrigen war took place really in such a way, if around 1431/1499 from the Jewish to the Christian calendar were only changed. Only 1582, with the Gregorian calendar reform, got the Christian calendar its to today valid form.
There were many attempts in the Middle Ages, old persons the will, thus the Jewish calendar to attach at the Christian. It always concerned thereby the time of the birth or Kreuzigung Christi, which was counted on by the beginning of the world (world creation era).
The remarkable is that the oldest documents, which
allegedly already developed in the antiquity emerged only during the
Renaissance as copies, whose originals disappeared, her thus as falsifications
to rate are. The first tying attempts are therefore also most generic term
cure. Thus the Jew specified Demetrios from Alexandria/Egypt Adam erschaffung
on 5000 years before Christi birth, however already made he in the 3. Jh.
v.Chr., when Christ had not lived yet at all! An absolute Nonsens. Into the
same notch Sextus Africanus ("180-250") struck, which counted on 5500
years. Eusebios ("303") decided in its world chronicle for 5200
years. Even the freimaurer of
Thus everywhere the urge after round years, which already once is most suspicious and with material timings absolutely nothing to do have can.
In the second half 2. Century justified the Rabbiner Josse ben Halafta allegedly the today's chronology nearly accurately corresponding the world era with the date "erschaffung of the world" 3758 v.Chr. Allegedly in the year 344 then the Jewish Patriarch Hillel II. from Tiberias/Palaestina decided to put still three years after over on the today valid date 3761 v.Chr. to come. It had not thus taken off according to from the Christian method likewise with two thousand years been busy, these however, but the Jewish calendar had not added, to the Sintflutdatum (propagation of the peoples), 1760 years after beginning of world, with which it (rather its earlymodern inventor) probably still to the common nachkataklysmischen origin of mankind, all the same whether wanted to remind Jews, Christians or Mohammedaner.
It is exposing that allegedly respectable astronomical
computations, those of Dionysius Exiguus already in 6. Jh. the time of the Kreuzigung Christi
(Osterdatum) fixed, on calculations Matthaeus Vlastars in the church father
laws develop, only in 12. to 14. Jh.
were spread. Likewise it is exposing
that 1. and 2. Destruction of the
Article by Uwe Topper
Translate:
German:
http://www.efodon.de/html/archiv/chrono/topper/newton.htm
http://www.efodon.de/html/archiv/chrono/topper/newton.pdf
1999
The criticism at the validity of our historical numbers, which is stated recently with sharpness by the Zeitrekonstrukteure - all in front Marx, Heinsohn, Illig and Gabowitsch -, is not new. One of the largest scientists of the clearing-up age, Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727), had concerned itself and had maintained 40 years long with the problem of the chronology that the historical data recognized at that time lay around several centuries too highly. Above all the highlights of the classical Greeks would have to be moved close around 300 years more near to us.
1998 had given Eugen Gabowitsch, lively by Morosow and
Fomenko, in the citizen of
The controversy over the dating of the antiquity had seized Christian Europe after the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582 far circles. The works of Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) became fundamental, the son of the famous Julius Scaliger. Its first book, directly after the calendar reform published, specified for all mark the measure of the historical numerical data. All later Chronologen could change only in it herumdoktern, essentially however nothing more. The provenzalische catholic Nostradamus (1503-66) had already undertaken (in the letter to his son) the attempt to connect the generation register of the old person of will with astronomical back computations. By rejecting the numerical data (heaths) of the Varro approximately, he arrived with his new method at a at the beginning of the yearly counting: The first year of Adam was appropriate 4173 v. Chr.
http://www.berliner-geschichtssalon.de/html/salonhistorie.htm
1991-heute : A disagreement with the calibration fount publishing house developed, when Heribert Illig at the yearly meeting of the Chronologen spoke a thesis, which maintained the invention of 297 years in world history [the years 614 to 911 didn't exist?], i.e. in the early Middle Ages, in Berlin 1991. The end of this co-operation led to an intensified activity of the Mantis publishing house of Heribert Illig. The book about the "invented Middle Ages" appeared in extended version 1996 in the Econ publishing house and in so far 2 years several editions experienced. The thesis the "invented Middle Ages" seems on many humans obszoen to work. We place against the fact that it was the methodical "training for many years" in chronology questions to emotional less occupied topics, which it made possible to work on this so absurd thesis seeming in the first Hinsehen nevertheless seriously. A summary of the work of the "new historical school", which should appear actually still with calibration fount, came out 1992 as "chronology and Katstrophismus" in the Mantis publishing house and is at present out of print. It is planned to bring the old calibration fount titles out again whereby with "when lived the Pharaonen?" 1997 the first step one did. Until today 10 buchtitel appeared and approximately 90 different authors about 400 articles for the magazine of time jumps contributed.
1998 : Unbridgeable differences over methodology, contents
and genesis of the chronology revision of the Middle Ages lead to a break
between the Mantis publishing house and Uwe Topper. Consequently Uwe Topper
publishes a book in October 1998 for the chronology of the Middle Ages in the
grave blank publishing house. As sharp criticism is expressed both because of
the publishing house choice (the grave blank publishing house is considered one
of the rechtesten publishing houses of
Search Web for "Heribert Illig"
http://www.google.com/search?q="Heribert+Illig"/
Search Web for "Heribert Illig", pages in English only:
http://www.google.com/search?q="Heribert+Illig"&lr=lang_en
Book by Heribert Illig
June 2003
Book by Heribert Illig
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3928852213
Oct. 2002
Reviews:
Peter Gugerell wrote in Aug 2003: Monumentally, a future standard work -- That is a monumental, zweibaendiges work. It requires something tenacity when reading, but that is not critically meant: With this book it concerns around a fact collection, a complete (!) representation and discussion of all archaeological finds of the phantom time (614 - 912). Illig and Anwander created here a book, which will become probable a standard work with enormous diligence and energy. It requires previous knowledge in the area of the phantom time, and should only after Illigs earlier books be read - then however absolutely.
wollersbergerthomas wrote in Oct 2002: Indeed extensively -- Finally! Mr. Illig supplies detailiert investigated material to his phantom time thesis - the 300 years European early Middle Ages actually never took place; the year 614 would correspond the year to 911 after our current time calculation. The evaluation of the mittelaterlichen documents taken place in co-operation with Mr. Anwander is compared in detail with the archaeological finds for the entire Bavarian area. Here it shows up evenly that much was present actually never and only for the purpose of most diverse interests of power was invented. The book pleases me because of its detailedness; at the same time I recommend to bring along however a due portion of patience for everyone when completing. The 2-piece Schmoeker is to be read to some extent thickly and toughly. Who only times with the Phantomzeithese to make familiar wants is with "who has at the clock turned" from Heribert Illig better served.
Book by Heribert Illig
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3548364292
Sep 1996 hardcover
Reviews:
walterbender wrote in October 2002: As history develops? Of the titles the Middle Ages invented by Heribert Illigs book "; The largest time falsification of history "affected so provokant me that I had to buy and read this book simply. One are safe, the book can the point of view extend. It lets become more critical. What is truth, which is falsification? And if it is a falsification, why it became falsified and whom it has used and on whose costs? If one does not know at the end of a book strong over 400 sides really whether everything which one to an important time period of history to know believed, is true or whether it simply around centuries later and besides piece a falsification developed for piece in documents and even buildings in centuries acts it is this welfare SAM, very welfare SAM even. - the book of Illig has aftereffects with attendance of museums, when reading history or perhaps nevertheless only stories? - however and that is particularly importantly, even with reads the current daily paper or a news magazine places itself one inevitably still more critical questions. If it is to have been possible, to always push how Illig represents extremely convincingly, in particular by its papers over building development of Sakralbauten to falsify in the center of the view the cathedral of Aachen, 300 years into history inside it is how easy then only possible small history around the today and now or the yesterday and with goals for morning or purposefully to manipulate the day after tomorrow the day before yesterday, facts and facts a little into a certain direction, until they are so far alienated that them with what is described at the edge something to do to only have? - I have something anyhow, since I read the book always in vain searched, a proof that Illigs are wrong statements. For me as a layman such a proof until today is missing. Isn't Illig right thus nevertheless and it gave lived time between 614 and 911, so its work thesis, but this time was later introduced, when the zeitzaehlung was used arbitrarily of the Ottonen? Didn't it give to Karl the large one really or it only none to traces received today in the form of coins and other articles left, contrary to the much in former times living Romans? Mankind would be it to be goennen, one, besides holy spoken, mass murderer less. One cause a reading of the book, which is unfortunately rather heavily digestible written over far passages, in any case: It sharpens the healthy in relation to distrust indigested and unueberprueft or for even not examinably a taking over, which one regards as fact knowledge.
Peter Gugerell commented: Totally or totally ingeniously, in any case moves interesting, 8 September 1999 Rezensentin/Rezensent: One of the however-funniest historical theories of the last time: The early Middle Ages do not have at all really existed to separate are an invention, a purposeful historical falsification. With that scarcely three centuries (from 614 to 911) also Karl the large one, the karolingische art, the wild Wikinger and much different one disappears. Which like a bad joke sounds, or like the disease picture psychologically of a disturbing, emerges as quite serious-meant and well argued theory. Heribert Illig can present very much material for the supporting of its thesis, and its conclusions are comprehensible and logical. That is not called that they must be also correct, probably however it seriously to be automatically taken must. Despite the very liquid style the book is not a completely light reading; Basic knowledge of medieval history and history of art should the reader bring along. But the trouble is worthwhile itself, because Illigs theory is not only confusing, but also very fascinatingly. (meanwhile also a continuation tape appeared: Heribert Illig: "who has at the clock turned".)
http://www.kitalaltkozepkor.hu/hi_vergessen_e.html or http://lelarge.de/wamse.html
Article excerpts:
>>Our christian chronology is based on the calendar correction of pope Gregorius XIII. In the year 1582 10 days were skipped in order to synchronize the astronomic circumstances with the calendar. This correction did not take into account the mistake which had accumulated in the Julian calendar since the time of Julius Caesar (45 BC). It only corrected the mistake that accumulated since 300 A.D.
>>Specialists claim, that Gregorius refers to the council of Nicea (325 AD). At this council was either the calendar corrected or at least the equinox fixed to the 21st of march. But there is no evidence for this; all facts argue against it.
>>So the time between pope Gergorius XIII and Julius
Caesar seems to be 300 years shorter than originally presumed. According to the
thesis of Heribert Illig 297 years of fictious history have been inserted. For
a fictious period of time - according to Illig from 614 to 911 - there cannot
be authentic evidences. These centuries are also called the "Dark
Ages" anyway for the historical deliveries are as rare as the
archeological findings. Today we do not find any proof of colonization during
the early Middle Ages in originally Roman cities. The historical sources are by
no means contemporary, but have been written centuries later. Hundreds of
Byzantinian towns seem to have been uninhabited during this time. The findings
in islamc
>>If Heribert Illig's thesis is right, there must not be a single serious finding from that period of time. Therefore the rest of the findings dated back to this time had to be examined in detail.
(H.I.in: World on Sunday 1/2000 of 2.1.2000, page 40) translation: Gunnar Ries and Ruth Lelarge
Computer scientist Markus Günther Kuhn writes at
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25
>>A group of people around Heribert Illig present the provocative hypothesis that our historic timeline contains 300 years of phantom time (around 600 to 900 A.D.) that never happened physically. They provide interesting arguments that these dark ages with their distinct lack of documents, graves and buildings were made up a few hundred years later, when the modern A.D. year-numbering scheme was introduced, and that Karl the Great (Charlemagne) is a character of fiction.
>>Most of the detailed argumentation is only available
in German at the moment, most notably in form of the recent books by Illig and
Topper, but there is at least one earlier English paper by Prof. Hans-Ulrich
Niemitz on the same subject, which focuses in particular on why C14 dating and
dendrochronology might fail to confirm the conventional early medieval
timeline. Illig's thesis is a matter of ongoing hot ... debate, especially in
>>The entire discussion suggests that the standards for evidence in pre-1200 history seem to be significantly weaker than what a scientifically trained outsider might naively have expected and commonly accepted school textbook "facts" mostly based on centuries old speculation and compromise interpretations of often faked documents. In any case, excellent exercise material for critical thinking.
http://www.google.com/search?q="Jean+Hardouin"/
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hardouin.html - Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) was a scholar of classical literature. In 1685 he published an edition of Pliny's Natural History. There was nothing unusual about the edition itself, which was considered to be of merit and very well edited. What was unusual was that despite being so knowledgeable about classical literature, Hardouin had very strange ideas about its origins. // According to Hardouin, the majority of classical Greek and Roman literature had not been produced by Greek and Roman authors. Instead, it had been forged during the Middle Ages by a group of Benedictine monks. He also argued that all extant Greek and Roman coins were forgeries. He never revealed why such a vast deception had occurred. He only declared, elliptically, that when he died the reason would be found written on a piece of paper the size of his hand. The reason, unfortunately, was never found."
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Wilhelm+Kammeier%22
Uwe Topper's comments about Wilhelm Kammeier's "The falsification of German history" (Leipzig 1935/Husum 1979)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Christoph+Marx%22
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/sis2002.htm
>>An investigation into progress made in the revision of ancient history since 1952, and possible ways ahead
>>13 - 15 September 2002,
>>The conference marks the Golden Jubilee of the publication in 1952 of Ages in Chaos by Dr Immanuel Velikovsky and acknowledges the Golden Jubilee of the publication in the same year of Professor W F Libby's work on radiocarbon dating.
>>It will bring together both academics and laymen who have contributed to, or have an interest in, the controversy resulting from Velikovsky's claim that the chronology of the ancient world is hundreds of years shorter than hitherto thought. Also attending will be those who, while agreeing that a shortening of chronology is necessary, consider that the one proposed by Velikovsky is untenable in one respect or another.
>>Velikovsky was the first person in recent times to
suggest that the dates ascribed to Egyptian New Kingdom dynasties were
incorrect and that they should be dated centuries later. Once this is done new
and intriguing connections can be made between the Old Testament record and
Egyptian history and another advantage of this down-dating is to remove
enigmatic dark ages from many of the cultures that were in contact with
>>Includes:
>>AD Ages in Chaos: A Russian Point of View, Dr Eugen Gabowitsch
>>Implications for Chronology if Certain 'Historical' Characters are Mythological, Ev Cochrane
Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)