NO NEED TO PANICIT’S NOT THE END OF THE WORLDFOR ANOTHER 301 YEARS

Between Antiquity (1 AD) and the Renaissance (1500 AD) historians count approximately 300 years too many in their chronology. In other words: the Roman emperor Augustus really lived 1700 years ago instead of the conventionally assumed 2000 years.

However, the whole well-known historiography of the Middle Ages contradicts this assertion! The easiest way to understand doubts about the accepted chronology and ‘well-known’ history is to seriously systematize the problems of medieval research. This will lead us to detect a pattern which proves my thesis and gives reason to assume that a phantom period of approximately 300 years has been inserted between 600 AD to 900 AD, either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents or by deliberate falsification. This period and all events that are supposed to have happened therein never existed. Buildings and artifacts ascribed to this period really belong to other periods.
(Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz)

The good doctor's paper can be read in full HERE.

Comments

NO NEED TO PANICIT’S NOT THE END OF THE WORLDFOR ANOTHER 301 YEARS — 13 Comments

  1. This is fascinating, and could be true. The early middle ages was a time when most people were poor and illiterate, and only the nobility and the church had organized educations. The period followed one of tremendous destruction of the old order, and this could have caused a great deal of confusion in the populace. I hope more research is done on this – he does bring out the point that our telling of history does depend on understanding and believing the research already done. If that research is wrong, then we will be using wrong assumptions about what we study.

  2. The man is a complete idiot – a fool. Just imagine the amount of money Dan Brown would have made if he had come up with this idea. This bloke writes an academic paper and puts it on the Internet for free.

    Actually, Dan Brown will probably still make a lot of money out of this even though it was somebody else’s idea. Ask the “Holy Blood & Holy Grail” authors if you you need convincing of that.

  3. I gave up early in his paper when he asked me to be patient, benevolent and
    open to radically new ideas
    .

    The last time I agreed to that I ended up married.

  4. Hmm. My mother is something of an expert on EXACTLY THAT Period of Spanish (well, Visigothic) ecclesiastical architecture. Should I pretend I read the paper and was convinced, and then report back on her ensuing meltdown? It could be entertaining, and it would certainly distract me from writing my thesis for a little while…

  5. Well, it doesn’t invalidate historical research. If it was correct then it just means that the accepted chronology has to be adjusted. This is something that historians studying the ancient world have got used to over the years and academics in subjects such as biology and physics should always accept the provisional nature of their research.

    However, having said all that, I’ve never met an academic who would willingly accept that their life’s work has been superseded and people who come up with new ideas are usually savaged by the establishment and are usually long dead before their ideas are grudgingly accepted.

  6. wow. how on earth did those crafty Europeans get the Chinese, Islamic, & Indian historians to insert those three hundred imaginary years into their history books, too?

  7. Wow, I must commend Niemitz on a brilliant piece of pseudo-scientific skulduggery.

    Poking about, you’ll find that the Julian Calendar was ‘set’ at the Council of Nicaea (due to the arguments of when Easter should be celebrated) and the Gregorian calendar was to ‘reset’ the liturgical calendar to be in line with Nicaea.

    As someone who works with dendrochronologists, I feel confident to say that his statements about the science are…factually inaccurate and misleading. 25-30 years ago, there may have been a paucity of evidence in the field, but that is not the case today.

    Finally, I would point out that astronomical occurrences, both reoccurring and singular events, are accurately recorded in both European and non-European sources such that there is no ‘phantom time’.

  8. Tim, I’m just a teensy weensy bit worried about how seriously you are taking this. If I find out that you actually read the whole paper that worry will become panic and I will be sending the OCICBW… Intervention Group round to your place to sort you out before your seriousness becomes terminal.