Preface

(AD stands for Anno Domini, see Abbreviations. Chronology and time reckoning has different meanings: see Explanations. Sometimes I use “AD system” or “AD time” as synonyms for AD time reckoning.)

This lack of interest is understandable since professional historians emphasise that the open questions about the more than 2000 years old AD era have long since been resolved.

The only exception to this disinterest is Heribert ILLIG’s book on the falsification of our chronology, “The Invented Middle Ages “., generally called the most famous “Phantom Time Theory“. 

It is a well-known historical fact that there were many forged documents in earlier times. The usual purpose was to retroactively prove the origin of specific claims (e. g., inheritance and property rights). ILLIG, too, based much of his work on the existence of a considerable number of forged documents.

In my opinion, ILLIG’s fiction became famous mainly because science (instead of refuting it with plausible counterarguments) put the stamp of “conspiracy theory “, short “CT“, on it. In our time, many people like fiction (although many also consider it fact), e. g. science fiction, (sci-fi), and even conspiracy theories. CTs are based on accusing certain groups of “misdirection”, “secrecy”, and “stealth”. Undoubtedly, this also finds a strong emphasis on ILLIG’s theory.

(As an aside, my general opinion on CTs is that people usually make them up after the fact. However, not entirely without reason. Because throughout history, there has always been a lot of misdirection and “manipulation” to enforce an interest. I call this a “conspiracy practice”. Since the manipulated cannot understand what has happened and why and are reluctant to admit that they have been misled, they invent a conspiracy theory for the unpleasant situation that has arisen spontaneously, as the result of many manipulations, not necessarily coordinated in a conspiration).

The main difference between science fiction and CT is that sci-fi is characterised by rational or seemingly logical reasoning. I enjoy sci-fi, but CTs don’t make me angry either because I tend to think they might also have a kernel of truth like the origins of legends. Despite my indulgent attitude, I have so far found all fiction and conspiracy theories I have read, including ILLIG’s theory, unacceptable.

Nevertheless, my present hypothesis is a distant relative of ILLIG’s theory and originated on the fringes of these two “fashionable genres”. I classify my own “invention” in the genre of “historical fiction “, as I mentioned above.

It resembles science fiction because one of the definitions of sci-fi says that it “deals with unrecognised problems and offers a rational solution to them.” My writing offers a rational, astronomical solution to suspected historical issues that science does not recognise. At the same time, my hypothesis can also be considered a conspiracy theory, although I only touch on misdirection, secrecy, and camouflage.

I state: 
A significant miscalculation of AD time cannot be ruled out! 
I claim that the possible error in the AD time reckoning is: 
Insertion of 220 years of historical events 
that never took place! 
A "confusion" of the AD time by 220 years is possible!

I use the term “confusion” because the word may mean both intentional and accidental mistakes. Moreover, the most significant event of the AD time reckoning has been shifted in the opposite direction than the other ones, and this bidirectional falsehood is a “confusion” indeed.

The above statement is, of course, only a hypothesis until proven by scientists in the fields concerned.    

(This is why I ask the reader to put my “feverishly exploratory” statements, even definite statements, in conditional mode. Unless my hypothesis can be proven by scientific rigour, I have written a scenario on systematically constructing complex historical fiction. While entertaining myself, I learned a lot about history and astronomy!)

Although it starts with an ABSTRACT, the present hypothesis is not a scientific work. I summarise my observations in a simplified form, hoping that this simplification results in better clarity. Even though what I have to say is complex.

Scientists can regard my view as fiction alone because I am not an expert in the concerned fields, but only an amateur, a computer engineer interested in calendars, history, and time reckoning. But the abstract is not intended only for experts who happen to stumble across my blog; it can be helpful for any reader to decide if he is interested in this topic.

At my age, I would be particularly pleased to be accused of having too vivid an imagination because I follow Mark Twain: “You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”

Having come across a seemingly impossible hypothesis, I may shock the esteemed reader. Although my theory refers to long past times, it also causes the present. Therefore, I hope it will provide new ideas for those interested in history and astronomy, whether my fiction is true or just a reflection of my imagination.

I can see that my hypothesis is extraordinarily bold, and my imagination is so fierce that only an amateur may propose such a hypothesis. Already by the hint of a similar theory, any respected authority could lose its scientific reputation.

The AD time reckoning used today 
was verified astronomically. 
So, I want to show that exactly on an astronomical basis: 
“Another historical chronology” seems to be possible.

In this study, I try to present my hypothesis understandably but also concisely. At the same time, I tried to check some historical data on an astronomical basis. Precise astronomy as a rational means of proving the hypothesis may offer a chance to get some experts thinking about the new year numbers.

This “intermediate way” is not easy because the average reader might have little knowledge about the necessary astronomical basics. Therefore, the reader can skip the astronomical details, and it is sufficient to understand the gist of the text accompanying them. And for readers interested in background information, there is the possibility of instantly accessing the underlined references in the text by screen-clicking. However, I would prefer to recommend that you study the details afterwards. It may be sufficient to use the buttons Abbreviations and Explanations when reading on screen.

There are also some less essential references in the text to give sources (especially the source of images), which cannot be clicked. Some of the attached pictures and figures can be enlarged by clicking.

I consider the AD time reckoning only as a year scale in which an old historical course, i. e. a more extended period, could also be wrongly classified.

Of course, it would never have occurred to me to change the AD system, which has been familiar for a long time! Therefore, I remain with the AD time system and assign a new AD year or date to certain old events. To facilitate the distinction, my “new AD years“, which are proposed in the context of my hypothesis, are marked with the equivalent year notation CE (Common Era) for AD and BCE (Before CE) for BC. (See Abbreviations, or Common Era – Wikipedia)

Shortly, my hypothesis is an imagination 
on the one side 
but is an invention based on astronomical facts 
on the other side. 
The decision is yours whether you see my hypothesis as 
“a novel theory of phantom time.” 
or 
“a novella on phantom time theory”.

Of course, the reader is right to ask how an amateur can have the courage to make such a far-reaching hypothesis.

The following thought-provoking quotations and my comments on them are my attempt to “explain” my audacity:

Quote from the English historian-politician Edward H. “Ted” Carr (1892-1982):

“The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy.”

My comment:

-Therefore, history writing is inherently subjective, even according to the known and respected historian. Thus, even an amateur can fantasise about history or theorise about falsifying it in the past.

Napoleon Bonaparte, Churchill, Dan Brown, and others said:

“History is written by the victors”.

My comment:

– Indeed, the victors rewrite past events to make their “own history” seem better.

– But the chronology and a given time reckoning should be written by the stars of the heavens!

“Chronology is the backbone of history “, the old saying goes. But there is no consensus among historians on the absolute historical chronology. The fitting of the quasi-known “relative chronological fragments” is in many cases questionable. This applies mainly to older (ancient) events, e. g. “as many Egyptian chronologies as there are Egyptologists”.

There is already a seemingly clear consensus in the chronology of the last 2000 years of European history, reflected in the AD time reckoning.

It is possible, however, that this mirror is still curved!