The original article titled “The Trap of False History” that was published on this site was the work of Gyula Tóth translated to English from the original Hungarian, and concerned Heribert Illig’s and Uwe Topper’s Phantom Time hypothesis in connection to the accuracy of the Hungarian chronicles. This very recently recorded lecture’s title is “The Sack of Rome, and – The Dark Ages?” and starts off by explaining the problem of the different calendars used in the world before, during and after the Middle Ages. What was the true purpose of inserting 300 years into European historiography? Was it done on purpose? In those crucial years, what significant events took place that were artifically disconnected from their original protagonists and who were these protagonists?
Category Archives: Metahistory
Michelangelo Naddeo, Italian researcher, believes that the first civilization in Europe had already appeared in the Neolithic and it belonged to the ancient people living in the Carpathian Basin, the Hungarians. (…) The Indo-Europeanists will probably be shocked even by the thought of their common history having been called into question. What led you to this theory, which is very likely to astound the people of our country? In fact, in your next book, which is about to appear, you state nothing less than that we are the most ancient inhabitants of Europe…
The alphabets of ancient Norse monuments found in both Europe and Central Asia have stemmed from a common origin in a very remote past. Then, it was only a natural development for the Turkish, and the Germanic tribes that, although in locations so far away from each other, they could seperately carry on with this heritage of writing. I hold the belief that I have been able to prove the claim summarized above by reading the monuments written in Futhark alphabet, or the Oldest Runic, in Turkish through the help of the Göktürk alphabet. (…) The European scholars have come to recognize from the very beginning the obvious similarity between the character forms of the Primitive Norse stones and those of the Central Asian Göktürk monuments, but for certain various reasons have refrained from tackling this point by denying all kinds of plausible relations. All throughout the period of 160 years that elapsed between the years of 1730 and 1893, that is between the discovery of Orhun monuments and their definitely final decipherment, fanciful theories were fabricated about the Vikings’ (or Indo-Germans’, or Celts’, or Goths’) prehistoric emigrations into Central Asia, and the erection of Orhun stones as landmarks of their presence and civilization dating back to several thousands of years BC in that region. Only when in 1893, it was understood that these inscriptions were not written in any other tongue but pure Turkish, then those fanciful theories were discarded, and the proposed pre-historic datings were revised to be not earlier than AD 700.
The following article was translated from the source by Kartavirya. All footnotes are mine apart from where indicated. Continuation of the summary of the research of Juan Moricz1 The first news On September 12th 1965, the biggest newspaper in Ecuador, the Quito daily “El Comercio”, published on its front page an extraordinary report about the […]
When Heribert Illig developed his theory known as the Phantom Time theory he drew his arguments mainly from the history of the Western part of Europe. He drew attention to the immense amounts of forged documents that remains from the Carolingian empire, the Palatine Chapel of Aachen with its architectural features preceding its own time by several centuries, the extraordinary calendar correction of pope Gregory XIII and the conspicuous and inexplicable lack of any archaeological findings, being typical for the era.
Of course he also addressed the oddities of the Byzantine empire: he mentioned the end of construction, the decline of the knowledge of writing, the transformation of events of the era in question into (quasi) fairy-tale and the inexplicable and unmotivated rewriting of chronicles. His arguments are in themselves heavy enough and worthy of consideration. However, Illig never addressed one issue, never referred to it with a single word – in fact, it seems he was not even particularly aware of the problem: the issue of the legacy of the Hungarian chronicle tradition. Specifically, this Hungarian chronicle tradition, which supports its hypotheses with such elementary strength, should have enjoyed an elevated position in his book or even a separately devoted chapter. It is not coincidence that lately our medieval chronicles have become surrounded by a conspicuous great silence. While in single issues of our renowned historical journals efforts are being made to “refute” the facts of falsification of our chronology, they do not even dare mention the issue of our [Hungarian] chronicles.