The Trap of False History

The Dark Pages of the Middle Ages

written by Gyula Tóth
May 4th 2006

The Hungarian Chronicles and the Fictitious Middle Ages

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.

At first glance, our chronicles seem to be in terrible confusion, regarding the issue of dating the reconquest1 [of the Carpathian Basin]: Márk Kálti in his Chronicon Pictum2 mentions a date two-three hundred years earlier than that which is derived from officially accepted chronology. Very well, we might think, we don’t not need to attribute too much significance to the issue, surely he made a mistake in writing or calculus. Yes, but he is not alone with this problem. Namely, Simon Kézai in his chronicle3 leaves the Magyar reconquest at the end of the 800’s, however he dates Attila not in the first half of the 400’s but three centuries later, that is the 700’s! With this both Márk Kálti and Simon Kézai together make clear that it is not their mathematical knowledge which was lacking but they were in fact trying to remedy the same problem, namely the problem of the illegally inserted three centuries, albeit using two opposite methods.

Historical amnesia?

According to the current officially accepted chronology, Attila lived in the first half of the 5th century AD, while the Magyar reconquest took place in the last years of the 9th century AD. The difference in time between the two events is at least 450 years, which has to indeed be considered to be a significant chronological difference. Despite this the Hungarian chronicles cover quite extensively the time of Attila and report the most minute details possible. This same chronicle legacy covers also the Hungarian reconquest in similar extent and amount of detail. After all this we could expect with full justification that our chroniclers, having covered the historical eras mentioned, also should mention the approximately 300 years of the Avar age separating these two events. Faced with this issue, not only do the chroniclers not mention this – they do not even write down the word “Avar”! Further, they date the events in such a way that no time is left for any Avar age, for between the death of Attila and the Hungarian reconquest they claim a distance of five generations and altogether 104 years! Márk Kálti and Simon Kézai give the impression that regarding the events between the era of Attila and Árpád they seem to suffer from some kind of historical amnesia! They skip over 300 years with such nonchalant wastefulness as if these years truly never happened! Would our chronicles’ memories fail in such a way? How is it possible that they remember the Hun times more accurately – it being much further away from them in time, than that Avar era which immediately preceded our reconquest? We must concede: this is very strange! Wherever our ancestors lived during the 300 years of the Avar period they certainly had to have lived in the vicinity of the Carpathian Basin. They should have had first hand information on the Avar empire, with its centre in the Carpathian Basin, assuming of course that there actually existed an Avar empire at all. Because if it did not exist then it is not such a mystery why our chroniclers are so silent about it.

However, the Hungarian chroniclers do not only fail to mention the Avar empire, they also fail to mention the Khazar empire. This silence is strange because preceding our reconquest – according to the official version of history – the Hungarians were part of this very Khazar empire, and – on top of it all – this, during the time between the era of Attila and Árpád! It certainly seems that they failed to tell Márk Kálti and Simon Kézai about this fact, since – as with the Avar empire – they do not mention any form of Khazar empire!

Maybe I do not even have to mention, that the glorious Carolingian empire and its head, Europe’s father, the driver and motivator of world history, the transformer of the world, the patriarch of two continents, Charlemagne does not merit mention in our chronicles either. If not for anything else, but his military campaigns of annihilation of the Avars in the Carpathian Basin, he should have deserved to be mentioned! Of course to be mentioned certain criteria have to be met, namely, and above all, it helps to be a real, existing, historical person!

The quoted passages are from Chronicon Pictum, pages 21 and 22. Országos Széchenyi Könyvtár (National Széchenyi Library)

How much time passed between Attila and Árpád?

The old Hungarian chronicles know of a distance of five generations separating the time of Attila and that of Árpád:

“… and this boy’s ancestry was foretold in a dream, this why he was named Álmos4, who was the son of Előd, son of Ögyek, son of Ed, son of Csaba, who was the son of Etele5.” (Chronicon Pictum)

Our chronicles talk about altogether 100 or 104 years between the death of Attila and the second entry of the Hungarians into the Carpathian Basin:

“677 years after our Lord becoming flesh, 100 years after the death of king Attila, the Magyars or Huns – thus called in the tongue of the people and in Latin called Ungarus – in the reign of emperor Constantinus III and pope Zacharias again entered Pannonia.” (Chronicon Pictum)

The Hungarian chronicles also report such details, according to which Edömén, the brother of Ed – who was the son of Csaba and thus the grandchild of Attila – actually lived to see the Hungarian reconquest and thus he himself together with his household also returned to Pannonia! How would all this be possible if between the death of Attila and the Hungarian reconquest there passed not 100 or 104 years but 442 years (!!!), which is claimed by the official chronology?! It is obvious it simply would not be possible! Thus the conclusion is likewise obvious: either the Hungarian chronicles’ claims are false, or our chronology has been forged, as Heribert Illig suggests!

In any case, the argumentation concerning of the 104 years is not only supported by the Chronicon Pictum but also by the research of the Soviet archaeologists Zakharov and Arendt. But let us see how László Götz writes about this in his work entitled “Keleten kél a Nap”6:

“The so-called Saltov culture discovered at that time was firmly placed within the remains of the Lebedian Magyars (that is by the Soviet archaeologists Zakharov and Arendt). They state that the swords found at Saltov and the Kobán area in northern Caucasus bear closest resemblance to the Magyar weapons of the reconquest era. The Saltov culture appeared in the end of the 8th century and disappeared at the end of the 9th century – so they say. In any case it cannot be a Khazar culture because it is not to be found in particular in the centre of the Khazar empire. It surrounds in a massive semicircle the Khazar centre of the lower Volga: from the middle of the river Don, through the upper part of the river Donets all through the Kubán region all the way to the eastern Caucasus mountains, to the river Kuma. (…) The Saltov-Majack culture is the only archaeological culture in southern Russia (Ukraine), on the territory of which it can be shown that life ceased to exist at the end of the 9th century, that is, exactly simultaneously with the event of the Hungarian reconquest.” (This and all following excerpts by the author)

It is important to note that the Saltov-Majack culture, which the Soviet archaeologists connected to the Lebedian Magyars preceding their reconquest, blossoms approximately 100 years (from the end of the 8th to the end of the 9th century), before it was – at the end of the 9th century, that is at the exact same time of the Magyar reconquest – “depopulated with tragical suddenness”! It certainly is difficult not to recall the death of Attila, the falling apart of his empire and the retreat of his peoples to “Scythia”, and the 100 – 104 years separating said events and the second entry of the Magyars, as written in the Chronicon Pictum!

  1. This event is also called the Second Entry of the Hungarians into their homeland in the heart of the Carpathian Basin. The First Entry (the conquest) is considered to be when the Huns conquered this area in the 5th century. The Second Entry (hence reconquest) is the entry of the Magyars of Árpád in the end of the 9th century. However, there is serious debate about whether it really was a “conquest”, that is, a military taking-by-force of this territory, since there is solid evidence – archaeological, linguistic and cultural – proving that the people who lived here at the time even of the “First Conquest” were kin to the Huns.()
  2. “Illuminated Chronicle”, written before 1360 AD()
  3. Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, written around 1282-1283()
  4. Hungarian ‘álom’ = dream; ‘álmos’ = someone who is dreamy or sleepy()
  5. Or Ethele. The original, non-latinized version of the name Attila. In the Icelandic mythological epic the Edda he is mentioned as Atle()
  6. The Sun Rises in the East.

    “One of the most comprehensive studies examining this complex question [of Magyar-Sumerian connections] is László Götz’s 5-volume 1100-page research work entitled “Keleten Kél a Nap” (The Sun rises in the East), for which the author consulted over 500 bibliographical sources from among the most authoritative experts in the fields of ancient history, archeology, and linguistics. In his wide-ranging study, László Götz examined the development of the Sumerian civilization, the determining cultural and ethno-linguistic influence of the Near-Eastern Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Age civilizations upon the cultural development of Western Eurasia, and the linguistic parallels between the Indo-European, Semitic and Sumerian languages indicating that the Sumerian language had a considerable impact on the development of the Indo-European and Semitic languages which have numerous words of Sumerian origin. László Götz also examined the fundamental methodological shortcomings of Indo-European and Finno-Ugrian ethno-linguistic research. His conclusion is that most Eurasian ethno-linguistic groups are related to one another in varying degrees, and that these groups, such as the Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic groups, were formed in a complex process of multiple ethno-linguistic hybridization in which Sumerian-related peoples (Subareans, Hurrians, Kassites, Elamites, Chaldeans, Medes, Parthians) played a fundamental role.” Source()

, by Kartavirya This entry was posted in Metahistory. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback.

One Comment

  1. simone said:

    I would like to point out some weak points of this thesis.
    First, Islam was not started with the flight of the Prophet Muhammad (on whom be peace and benedictions) to Medina, but 13 years earlier in Mecca. This is well established in the history of Islam.
    Second, and this is well established as well, the reason for the Prophet’s flight (peace and blessings be upon him) was not fear of christian persecution, as indeed christian presence in Arabia was quite limited, although it existed, but rather the necessity to preserve Islam and its followers from the persecution of the polytheists in Mecca, who disbelieved the monotheism taught by Islam, as it also went against their economical interest: the Meccans gained much profit from the fact that their city was the centre of pilgrimage for all Arabia, and in its sacred precinct there were 360 idols, which were adored by the different Arab tribes. Go back to the One God preached by Abraham and Ismael (peace be upon them), and you will lose the money gained from the pilgrims.
    Third, the fact that Arianism and Islam share part of their beliefs, even if they are important tenets, does not necessarily indicate borrowings: similarities between religions can have two explanations: 1) borrowings and influence between cultures: this explains well the similarities, not so well the differences between religions;
    2) that these religions have a common source (God), so they share what is true in them, while their differences are because of men who have corrupted and altered the original teachings.
    They are both possible explanations, but I incline more to the second: it is stronger from my point of view, and this would entail that the Arian “heresy” is not a heresy at all, rather it is closer to a correct understanding of Jesus’ (peace be on him) teachings, confirmed by the later revelation of the Quran from God. There are studies pointing to this, based even on the Bible, and I suggest the book “Muhammad in the Bible” from Prof. Abdu ‘L-Ahad Dawud, former Bishop of Uramiah. It can be found on the web and downloaded.
    Fourth, the theory of the different ways of counting the years (Julian/Christian era) looks quite improbable (although not impossible) but it has two main limits:
    1) it adopts different counting systems according to what suits the theory of the 297 years gap. It should at least demonstrated, for this to be accepted, that the different sources used were actually following the counting attributed to each of them. It is obvious that a single source (for example any historical document from ancient times, like ancient Annals) would always use the same counting method UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE;
    2) it is not strong enough if it is not corroborated by numerous other proofs for the validity of the general theory “Islam comes from Arianism”.
    Lastly, the fact that the Patriarchs of the various cities opened their doors to the muslim invaders can have different explanations. Here I suggest a couple:
    1) the Patriarchs knew that under Islamic law christians are protected and can keep their freedom to worship in the Christian way, on condition of paying a certain tax (which is actually linked to the fact that they do not have to fight for the protection of the community, but rather are protected by the muslim army from foreign invaders). Therefore the Patriarch understood this was not like Roman persecution, and it was better for the christians to live and remain christians rather than to die (as this would not necessarily be martyrdom: they were not being persecuted for religious reasons, but rather were free to be christians). This would be attested by the words of the Patriarch of Antioch: ‘It is better if you submit and pay your levies to our lord, than to be killed or dragged into captivity!’
    2) many early converts to islam were Christians and Jews who saw in the Bible prophecies confirming the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, it could be said that one of the firsts to know that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was a Prophet was a Christian monk called Bahira, who based his deduction on what he found in the Scriptures. This probably goes back to the book I mentioned earlier, “Muhammad in the Bible”. It is possible that the Patriarchs had the same conviction. There are muslim sources attesting that the Emperor Eraclius believed in Muhammad’s (peace and blessings be upon him) prophecy.
    I pray that God guide us all to what pleases Him the most, gives clarity to our minds and hearts and show us the Truth whatever it may be, making us gladly accept it. And may He forgive me for any wrong thing I said.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

  • Just as the Buddha said: “I speak unto them whose eyes are covered but with little dust.” Covered but only a little. That is to say, he does not speak unto them whose eyes are totally covered with dust, and not unto them whose eyes are not covered at all.

     

    - András Lászlo