Heribert Illig’s Theory of Missing History 614–911
Wiki’s sceptical version: Heribert Illig
Illig was born in 1947 in Vohenstrauß, Bavaria. He was active in an association dedicated to Immanuel Velikovsky, catastrophism and historical revisionism, Gesellschaft zur Rekonstruktion der Menschheits- und Naturgeschichte. From 1989 to 1994 he acted as editor of the journal Vorzeit-Frühzeit-Gegenwart. Since 1995, he has worked as a publisher and author under his own publishing company, Mantis-Verlag, and publishing his own journal, Zeitensprünge. Outside of his publications related to revised chronology, he has edited the works of Egon Friedell….
The bases of Illig’s hypothesis include:
The scarcity of archaeological evidence that can be reliably dated to the period AD 614–911, the perceived inadequacies of radiometric and dendrochronological methods of dating this period, and the over-reliance of medieval historians on written sources.
The presence of Romanesque architecture in tenth-century Western Europe, suggesting the Roman era was not as long ago as conventionally thought.
The relation between the Julian calendar, Gregorian calendar and the underlying astronomical solar or tropical year. The Julian calendar, introduced by Julius Caesar, was long known to introduce a discrepancy from the tropical year of around one day for each century that the calendar was in use. By the time the Gregorian calendar was introduced in AD 1582, Illig alleges that the old Julian calendar should have produced a discrepancy of thirteen days between it and the real (or tropical) calendar. Instead, the astronomers and mathematicians working for Pope Gregory XIII had found that the civil calendar needed to be adjusted by only ten days. (The Julian calendar day Thursday, 4 October 1582 was followed by the first day of the Gregorian calendar, Friday, 15 October 1582). From this, Illig concludes that the AD era had counted roughly three centuries which never existed.
For some time now I’ve had the feeling that history as we know it is very wrong. I also thought it must have something to do with religion – that’s usually what it was in bygone times. This was supported by the posts from Malagabay and his Christian churches originally being Muslim mosques, pages on Tartaria and my own researches into early Victorian technology – believe it or not. It’s about things that I’m pretty sure happened but are not recorded in any “official history”.
The Arians and who they were/are had been a mystery to me until it was cleared-up by the post below. I think this is important in the great scheme of things. The Arians were Muslims and this might be a lead as to why there were Muslim mosques that became churches in Europe. Apparently Arius the founder was kicked out of the Roman Catholic church: “…he was exiled to Illyria in 325 after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea condemned his teaching as heresy. It was the greatest of heresies within the early church that developed a significant following. Some say, it almost took over the church.” https://carm.org/arianism
I have a book on Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris “The Mystery of the Cathedrals” by Fulcanelli. He tells us that the cathedral is covered with alchemical symbols and I always wondered how that could be. The posture of the church toward alchemists was never a friendly one, to say the least.
Below is a link to a video that flicks through old still pictures of Notre-Dame. If it is stopped just as it moves to the second picture there is what I assume to be the rear door to the cathedral with a crescent moon above it.
Notre-Dame de Paris – historical pictures
When the bishop of Rome learned that the Arians had taken over his church I don’t suppose he was pleased. I would guess he inflicted gross unpleasantness on the individual mosques as Popes have done throughout history and took them for his own. There may have been a war of religions (something to look out for) Maybe it was the carnage that was in some way covered by the date change? I don’t know, it’s all very strange and intriguing.
The reader may have noticed that Notre-Dame, the picture in the video above is surrounded by soldiers.
We will see below that the art of changing the time-line of civilisations was not new even in those far-off days. The inhabitants of Europe were in the main farmers, farm workers or the appropriate service industries, totally uneducated and probably not aware of the year or even caring. The few who were educated would be easily whipped into shape by the church.
Heribert Illig’s Theory of Invented Time By Arthur Goldwag
The point of using the website above is not so much the debunking webpage itself but the authors “Thoughts on “Heribert Illig’s Theory of Invented Time” at the bottom of the page where his readers are not happy with his sceptical comments:
Keith Edgerley writes:
I’m afraid you really ought to read Illig’s (and Uwe Topper’s) writings in German to follow all the argument.
For instance, its is true that Islam can count backwards over 1600 years. However, as the coordination of calendars dates back to relatively modern times, all this suggests, according to Topper, is that the Gregorian date calculated for the foundation of Islam is wrong.
In fact, if we subtract 297 years from AD 622, the date given for the Hagira in Christian chronology, we arrive at 325, the date of the Council of Nicea, one purpose of which was to determine the divinity or otherwise of Christ, i.e. to pronounce on the Arian “heresy”. Islam, as we know, rejects the divinity of Christ.
I don’t want to go into a complex argument here, which covers such points as the Vandal invasion of North Africa in AD 429, but it does seem a coincidence.
Ged Sweeney writes:
There’s also the fact that the Library of Alexandria was totally destroyed forever. Twice. First by the Arians. And then 297 years later (during the phantom time) by the Muslims. In identical circumstances. Also, the whole idea of a small band of Arabs overruniing Persia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt etc. is ludicrous in the extreme. It is of note that most Muslim architecture etc. is in Syrian or iranian style, not Arabic. It is of note that the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire encompassed North Africa and the Middle east, a population of overwhelmingly Arian subjects. Who spoke a Semitic language. And the names “Arian”, “Moor” and “Muslim” are all European names given to these people, that they never took themselves. “The rise of Islam” is just a continuation of the older “Arian” movement. And it flows seamlessly with the phantom era(and the mythical embellishments) removed.
As someone else noted the famous Hungarian Chronicle covers a period that supposedly lasted over 400 years, but, with precise detail, lists time of only 104 years. It has been treated as nonsense by an arrogant Historical Community, even though it was recorded at the time, not several hundred years after the event. The Phantom Time Hypothesis and The Hungarian Chronicle fit together perfectly. The idea that civilisation fell, three hundred years passed leaving nothing, not even pottery or bricks, and then everyone picked up again exactly where they’d left off three hundred years before is absurd.
Johann Peter FUEREDER writes:
Several years ago i had the chance to be invited at a meeting – in Wels – Upper Austria, where Herbert Illig had been too. Some archaeologists and historian could not refute his theories with comparing facts of the world history(chinese and arabic historical times)…
one thing was interesting:
all the historian do n o t compare the world-wide facts…. and the historical dates of the Babenberg dynasty in Austria had been written completely
and:I have seen falsifications (books from St.Denis /Paris) in a german exhibition…
I have told the staff, but no answer, I sent a letter to the management of the
exhibition: no answer….
From that time I do not believe in our “historical” dates any more as an unchangeable fact. One thousand years: just about 40 generations, what`s that , if we are the descendants of , let me say: 260 000 generations ?
Nothing is for ever !
Gary C writes:
As an African who is the descendant of victims of colonialism and white supremacy and a member of the non-white racial group, I am conscious of the fact that his-story has been altered to create the false belief of white supremacy. Thousands of years of African history and achievements has been omitted and or wiped away from history while dark marks against European history have been rearranged, altered and flat out not recorded in an attempt to shine a golden light on the white race. So while I halt at fully getting behind Illig’s theory, to me, the manipulation of historical facts for political, financial or religious power, is very plausible.
I have not read anything by Illig, and am therefore not commenting on this theory. Phantom and Created time are however quite common phenomena in all the worlds major chronological systems. Chinese chronology for the first two historical dynasties was probably dated too early by Ming scholars – and most of the annals for the Chinese dynasties are to be found on manuscripts written in that period, and printed soon after. These date the start of the Shang Dynasty to c1770BC and of the Chou Dynasty to c1150BC. yet the earliest, pre-Ming annals, the Bamboo Annals give dates which approximate to c1550 and c1025. Intriguingly the Ming chronology correlates the rise and fall of the Shang with two planetary conjunctions, which we now know to have happened. The Chinese associated the change of dynasty and of several reigns with significant celestial phenomena, and it is held by some Chinese historians that Ming astronomers had both the data base and the mathematics to retro-calculate significant celestial phenomena, and having worked out the date of the conjunctions re-dated the rise and fall of the Shang to correlate these political events with the celestial. There is a movement among nationalist Indian historians to reject the dates for Chandragupta Maurya and Chandragupta, the Gupta emperor – currently reckoned to be c320BC and AD320, claiming that western historians have identified the wrong Chandragupta with the ‘Sandrocottus’ who met with and negotiated with Alexander the Great. If so Chandragupta Maurya lived about c900BC and Chandragupta the Gupta emperor in c300. They claim that this proves the accuracy of the traditional date for the Mahabharata at about 3000BC, and presumably therefore its historicity. Al-Tabari the Arab historian left out 500 years of Iranian history – the period of the Arscacids, therefore appearing to date Alexander as living only 400 years before Muhammad. He also left out the entire period of the second temple in Jerusalem, placing Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of the first temple only a generation or so before Jesus. I suspect that this underpins the denial by some current Muslim historians of the existence of the second temple, and therefore Jewish rights to the Wailing Wall. Time is not only relative it is political.