← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Ragnar
Thread ID: 10267 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-10-05
2003-10-05 08:05 | User Profile
An Introduction to Heribert Illig:
Forget about the year 2000, we still live in 1703
[url]http://www.kitalaltkozepkor.hu/hi_vergessen_e.html[/url]
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 spain do not begin in 711 with the islamic conquest but not before the early 10th century - and so on.
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.
What stroke Illig was that hardly no of more than 1000 building mentioned in documents could actually be found. The Pfalzkapelle (a huge chappel said to be built by emperor Karl) - the landmark of Aachen - is the most famous building of the questioned time. It has a huge arch which is not likely to exist without any predecessors or successors. The developement from the ability to build small arches to build huge arches cannot be duplicated. According to Illigôs argumentation that has not been disproved yet this building does not belong to the "Dark Ages".
Another example is the "Torhalle" of Lorsch, which would then be dated in the early 12th century inspite of 770 or 870 A.D. The few other churches of the Carolingian era would also fit well into the Ottonian times. The Carolingian bookpaints are in truth also Ottonic and can therefore hardly be distinguished from the artwork of this time.
There are a lot of findings of graves im Middle Europe. Their ages cannot be named in absolute dates, but only in relation to each other. But the obvious succession wasnôt spread over 200 years, but - according to the conventional chronology - over more than 400 years. Doing this, a decrease of population in the 6th century and a still unexplained explotion of population around 1000 A.D. were created.
A lot of research results show that the three centuries and their history can and must be cleared out. This is applicable for the whole Old World from Iceland to Indonesia.
But who has advanced the clock?
The emperors Constantin VII and Otto III and pope Sylvester II are the initiators. Emperor Otto III (emperor from 996 to 1002) wanted to be Jesus Christôs representative on earth at the dawn of the 7th millenium (6000 years after Creation). The pope (999 to 1003) who was enthroned by Otto surported him with his knowledge of Arabian astronomy and mathematics.
Ottoôs mother came from the Byzantinian court, which explains the relations to the Byzantinian dynasty. There, three "empty" centuries could be used well. The Persians had stolen the most important christian relic, the the cross of Golgatha in 614. Only within the fictious time could the return of the relic be explained.
The changing of chronology was concealed by additional arrangements. Changing the reference point of the chronology made sure that only initiated persons could know that manipulations "in the name of god" had taken place.
The Byzantinian changed from 1015 seleucidean era to 6212 after the creation of the world. The christians in the western part of the world changes from the year 419 in the era of martyrs to 1000 years after the birth of Jesus Christ. The jews followed them and changed fom 1015 seleucidean era to 4464 after creation. Up to now it could not be explained why all cultures of Europe changed their chronologies all at the same time, but on the quiet.
The invented but still empty centuries had to be filled with history. So Otto and Sylvester made up stories and a very big emperor Karl. Otto could refer to him as well as the pope, who had enthroned and anointed him emperor.
This Karl got his coronation on the 25 December 800 AD, a day that was determined 497 years earlier to be the last day of the world. So Karl fullfilled the same conditions as Otto III - and now we understand why his (fictious) contemporaries did not jubilate or show any fear. Karlôs coronation was supposed to be inferior to the Millenium-emperor Otto. It gets understandable why the beginning of the year 1000 did not cause any fears: As the change of chronology took place very shortly before the target day, there was no time for any end-of-world moods.
From Otto III to Friedrich II, the figure of Karl got more facets than a real person would ever have had. At other places other stories appeared, such as the fairy tale about (the ficitious) Harun al-Raschid. In this way, the Middle Ages partly invented themselves. Only with this bold thesis the contradictions between buildings, findings and documents disappear.
(Welt am Sonntag 1/2000 vom 2.1.2000, Seite 40)
2003-10-05 08:17 | User Profile
I must say, that I prefer to use the standard C.E. (common era) and B.C.E. (before common era) and not the old religious A.D. (anno Domini - year of our lord) and B.C. (before Christ). It is out-dated.
Thanks for posting this info, Ragnar.
2003-10-05 08:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ritter]I must say, that I prefer to use the standard C.E. (common era) and B.C.E. (before common era) and not the old religious A.D. (anno Domini - year of our lord) and B.C. (before Christ). It is out-dated.
Thanks for posting this info, Ragnar.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure that our Jewish friends agree with you fully on this point.
Walter
2003-10-05 08:45 | User Profile
You're welcome, RItter.
Here's the PS:
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 seem to be some articles on it appearing in English, a Google turned up that one.
The next few years are likely to see a lot of "conventional" history challenged for the excellent reason it was never history at all! And much of it will certainly please the members of this board, rest assured.
2003-10-05 08:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I'm sure that our Jewish friends agree with you fully on this point.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Walter! We can be open-minded about such things. After all, we live in the wonderful and progressive year 46 A.S.!
(That's 46 years After Sputnik -- start of the Space Age, right?)
2003-10-05 15:17 | User Profile
Strange post. 1701! My powdered wig almost fell off my head when I read this. I wonder if the astrologers could come up with something to help us on this. Solstice to solstice, equinox to equinox, is still a solar year. If these have been counted and could be aligned with known events, maybe the truth on this could be determined.
Try to put together a chronology from say, Charlemagne to the First Crusade, or even earlier, from Mohammed to the First Crusade.
Hmmm, something to think about.
Enkidu
2003-10-05 17:38 | User Profile
Ugh! My head hurts. The mind boggles. Charlemagne-fact or fiction? Napoleon said that history was a myth agreed upon, and for simplicity's sake, one might argue, let's just agree on the current version.
I've heard this sort of thing from time to time regarding the ancient Dark age, which it has been suggested is an artefact of inaccuracies in Manetho's list of Pharoahs correlated with Old Testament events, but that I find much easier to swallow than this theory. In either case, the resistance to rehauling the entire corpus of historical literature will be pretty intense.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this.