1.4 Interpreting Period-Insertion

We examine when was it possible to insert many years and how long the inserted period can be. Connecting, we also outline some “ideas” that can be used to implement the insertion of never happened historical events.

Historians have determined the annual time-distance and dates of the most basic ancient historical events by astronomical “countdown”, back-calculation. That is, by retroactive calculations back to the dates of an astronomical phenomenon that occurred at the same time as the event in question and was recorded together with it. The usually long interval between real (or in some cases only estimated) astronomical coincidences was filled by the (sometimes not precisely known) relative historical chronology (order of rulers, consuls, papal lists, etc.).

Most of the regularly observed astronomical phenomena are periodic (phases of the moon, planetary alignments, i.e., conjunctions, etc.). That is why the exact timing of ancient historical events is easy to miss, confuse and confound with cycles or multiples of cycles belonging to the given celestial phenomena. And the error, the insertion is difficult to detect, especially many years later.

When years are inserted relative to a particular astronomical phenomenon e.g., the date of a specific full moon, as a reference time, the date of the actual historical event is “pushed back” to the astronomical date of another, similar but an earlier full moon.

Unfortunately, the astronomical years do not have their own year marking; their year is identical to the serial number of the historical calendar years. This common identification of the years makes it difficult to detect even a longer inserted period. (The so-called JD Julian day is an artificial astronomical number, which can also be vice-versa converted into incorrectly numbered years and dates, too.)   

I think that obviously, only a period insertion is possible that complies with the following principles:

• it occurred before the spread of AD time reckoning,
• it does not violate the long-existing weekly cycle,
• it does not break the long-existing leap year cycle,
• it does not violate astronomical cycles.

It seems evident that a fictitious historical period can only be created between really happened historical events. Regardless of whether it was a deliberate falsification or just an error was accepted afterwards, the virtual time gap in the accurate chronology had to be filled with fictitious historical events. Otherwise, it would have been effortless to discover the error later.

Of course, there can be no “time gap” in continuous astronomical time. 

As we have seen, the year designations in antiquity did not go back a long time. Only a few historians cared about how many years earlier an old event happened. This required tedious calculations and historical considerations because only “ad hoc” year designations were recorded for short periods. That is why an inserted period was challenging to realise afterwards before introducing the AD system.

However, the fictitious historical event is difficult to discern today, too, because we have become accustomed to our calendar years and take them for granted. Today, we think back “numerically” to the old historical events described somewhere. By simply subtracting the calendar year of an old event, we can answer how many years earlier the old event took place. We do not think back in historical event order as scientists did before the existence of a retrospective time reckoning system. Therefore, the fictitious event appears to be realistic at first glance since even the wrong year assigned to the fictional event can be subtracted from the year of the calculation.

Nowadays, we think in terms of AD years, and that is why we keep the AD system in this blog, as already mentioned above. This way, it is easiest for us to formulate the effects of inserting, even if the AD time reckoning is wrong as assumed.

That is, we merely “transform” the year of specific historical events into another AD year whenever it seems to be necessary. We are doing the same as how researchers have transformed the year of Jesus’ birth from AD1 to 7BC.  

To see what an insertion results and how to interpret it, let us look at Illig’s theory as an example, demonstrated in the figure below:

By omitting the insertion of the 297 years of ILLIG, the events in AD1 are shifted to AD298, to their original position. If Jesus had been born in AD298, that year could be named IlligAD1 in the calendar beginning in the assumed initial year of Jesus’ birth. If we were to make this change, we would have to write now IlligAD1725, 297 years less than AD2022.

However, we remained in the familiar AD time. Let us interpret the circumstances in this given environment. Due to the insertion, the AD era consists of three parts of different attributes, as in the figure above:

• the 1^st period before the beginning of the insertion is “invariant”,
• the 2^nd period the insertion itself is “incriminated”,
• the 3^rd period after the insertion is “incremented”.

Invariant means that the AD year of the actual historical events of this pre-fictional era remained intact, relative to AD1, uninfluenced by the insertion. On the other hand, the entire invariant period was pushed back in time, and these events appear even older for us when we look back today.

The incriminated insertion period is not as simple as it seems to be at first glance. Assuming, for example, that an ancient warlord had a battle 10 years before the beginning of the insertion and had another struggle 12 years after the start of the insertion. In this case, part of an actual historical sequence of events appears in the incriminated period. Likewise, if a great scientist is born 30 years before the end of the incriminated period, but his book is first completed 20 years after the incriminated period, the actual event of his born remains in the incriminated period. These possible overlaps show that the insertion can partly be filled by really happened historical events, too. Of course, the period between the overlaps must be filled with fictional events. It is also clear that if an era has been inserted into history, it does not mean that the whole period should simply be erased because all its events are fictitious, as Illig claims.

Let’s look at a particular case. We know that the Islamic calendar starts in the summer of AD622, which falls within the historical years that Illig says do not exist, i.e., a drop in the insertion, according to Illig. However, this does not mean that the Islam event did not occur. On the contrary, the beginning of the Islam calendar, counting back from the present day according to the erroneous AD calendar, falls precisely in AD622 because our countdown results in a “timespan” of 2022-622 = 1400 years. This is because the Islam and AD calendar were synchronised in this way, of course, retroactively. On the other hand, it also means that according to Illig, the Islamic calendar did not start 622-1=621 years after AD1, but 622-297 = 325 years after IlligAD1= AD298, i.e., much closer to the later birth of Jesus. (In fact, in AD2022, the Islamic Hijri year is 1443-1444, depending on the date, because the Hijri year of the Islamic lunar calendar is shorter than the AD year.)

Of course, the AD-year of given events in the incriminated part is increased relative to AD1 by a fraction of the insertion’s length (depending on the event’s position within the incriminated region).

The above also implies that, for a 220-year historical jump in time, less than 220 years of fictitious events could be sufficient to fill the time gap. In practice, a few dozen fictitious events would seem to fill the 220-year period.

I called the 3rd period “incremented”. Incremented means that the AD years of the actual historical events of this post-fictional era are increased, relative to AD1, by the number of years of the insertion. On the other hand, the year distance of the actual historical events belonging to the incremented period counted backwards from today is accurate.

Let’s see what long the inserted “time gap” could be at all:

One must be aware that it was only after the fall of the Western Roman Empire that it became possible to insert a long fictitious period (within the AD scale). The explanation is that the Roman era is a well-documented, continuous chronological period that cannot be interrupted by long insertions. That is why the lower limit for insertion is AD476, the year of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

On the other hand, after the fall of the Western Rome Empire, there was a transitional period in which there were no well-organized states in Europe, and therefore, literacy was rarer than before. This period is called the “Dark Age” or “Dark Middle Ages” (See Explanations). There was a possibility that some documents were later removed but especially inserted! The history of this after-Rome-time is not well-known; its chronology is incomplete and uncertain! It was possible to make a whole period appear much longer than it really was. Historical events could be inserted that never took place and/or extended in duration or time-distance and therefore wrong.

The acceptable period for insertion can be narrowed down by considering that Venerable Bede was the first to apply AD1 and the AD designation of Exiguus for time reckoning.

This means that AD725 can no longer be an “incriminated year”. In other words, AD725 is probably the most minor year in the wrong AD chronology, which falls already in the “increased” zone. It is correct, i.e., in the accurate year-distance counting back from the current year!

Based on this reasoning, 
the most likely interval for inserting a fictitious period is 
between AD476 and AD725. 
A total of 249 years is therefore available 
to "accommodate" a possible insertion. 
These 249 years could include 
the 200 years of Hunnivári or the 247 years of Szekeres, 
but the 297 years of Illig cannot fit in. 
Illig’s phantom time era is simply too long to be inserted.

However, there is a serious issue! 
The AD525 "Exiguus' year" and the AD725 "Bede's year" 
are 200 years apart! 
The gap of the Hunnivári theory 
just "fits" into these 200 years! 
But how should it be possible 
to fit my 220 years into these 200 years?

I must admit, this is where it became exciting for me! So I have searched and found a solution to this issue! Because the extra 20 years had to be “eliminated” somehow! But the “how” will only be revealed towards the end of my story!

• The question naturally arises:

How can history that never happened be inserted among the events of actual history? The proponents of falsification, such as the theorists above, offer some ideas. For example, it is possible to make “historical duplicates”. One could double describe a battle that happened in another year in the same or a slightly different place, even with a warlord of a similar name. One can invent members of a dynasty of rulers who never existed, thus extending and adding weight to the history of that dynasty. The length of a proper sequence of events can be extended. It is possible to invent a whole series of popes who never existed, as Hunnivári has shown.

As a complement to the above ideas, the already mentioned Easter tables (as we will see later) could also contribute to the confusion of the AD time reckoning.

All these “practices” cover up the inserted period and give the impression that no fictitious historical events exist.

To finish these arguments, I note:

The radiometric and dendrochronological (tree ring) or similar dating methods only provide information about the elapsed years. The resulting elapsed years can be back-calculated according to any time reckoning system, whether the starting year of the given system is correct or not.