So said in 1997 a German egineer leading a group of journalists, writers, doctors and other people with no historical formation other than having head some books.
Here's an article about it, written by the theory ideologist, Niemitz:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf
The idea is that in 1582, when the caledar was readjusted (Gregorian calendar), it was said to be because it was 10 days off. Niemitz says that for the Julian calendar to be 10 days off, 1280 years would be needed (aprox), so pope Gregory, the calendar reformer, must have lived in 1280, and not 1580. 300 years don't fit into the chronology.
They also claim that nothing really happened in the Byzantine world between the years 600 and 900 AD
Harun al-Rashid never existed, neither did Charlemagne, they were all forgeries to give prestige to the early history of the Ottonids and the Umayyads. Muhammad was as mythical as Jesus, and the first four Orthodox Caliphs are also a well elaborated story.
I think it's bull****. Although it's a curious point of view, there's just one argument that kills it: one would need an international conspiracy team of scholars, priests and kings all agreed to fill 300 years of History and not raising suspicion until today. How did they do it?
Now, I don't know about caldenars, but I do know that there's a gazilion of documents that can be dated accurately between the years 600 and 900 everywhere. For example, they claim that there is a phantom spot 583 to 661 AD based on criteria focused in the Middle East, saying that the Umayyads co-lived with the Persian king Cosroes II. But then, what of the well-recorded Byzantine Emperors that lived at the same fantom time?
Here in Catalonia we have documents dated according to the king of France / Frankish Emperor regnal year, these chronologies have been rebuilt and interpretation have been made. There is no room for phantom years.
Anyway, what gets me tired is the common argument: "Historians don't dare challenging the "official" history", as if there was something called "official history". Historians are miope and absurd reactionary fossiles who cannot see further away from their beloved documents, which they believe word by word.
Lucky us, here comes the gang of untrained journalists, engineers and doctors to save the historical day!
Here's an article about it, written by the theory ideologist, Niemitz:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf
The idea is that in 1582, when the caledar was readjusted (Gregorian calendar), it was said to be because it was 10 days off. Niemitz says that for the Julian calendar to be 10 days off, 1280 years would be needed (aprox), so pope Gregory, the calendar reformer, must have lived in 1280, and not 1580. 300 years don't fit into the chronology.
They also claim that nothing really happened in the Byzantine world between the years 600 and 900 AD
Harun al-Rashid never existed, neither did Charlemagne, they were all forgeries to give prestige to the early history of the Ottonids and the Umayyads. Muhammad was as mythical as Jesus, and the first four Orthodox Caliphs are also a well elaborated story.I think it's bull****. Although it's a curious point of view, there's just one argument that kills it: one would need an international conspiracy team of scholars, priests and kings all agreed to fill 300 years of History and not raising suspicion until today. How did they do it?
Now, I don't know about caldenars, but I do know that there's a gazilion of documents that can be dated accurately between the years 600 and 900 everywhere. For example, they claim that there is a phantom spot 583 to 661 AD based on criteria focused in the Middle East, saying that the Umayyads co-lived with the Persian king Cosroes II. But then, what of the well-recorded Byzantine Emperors that lived at the same fantom time?
Here in Catalonia we have documents dated according to the king of France / Frankish Emperor regnal year, these chronologies have been rebuilt and interpretation have been made. There is no room for phantom years.
Anyway, what gets me tired is the common argument: "Historians don't dare challenging the "official" history", as if there was something called "official history". Historians are miope and absurd reactionary fossiles who cannot see further away from their beloved documents, which they believe word by word.
Lucky us, here comes the gang of untrained journalists, engineers and doctors to save the historical day!
