Mathematicians argue that the timeline of the civilization of homo sapience that takes into account only the irrefutably dated non-contradictory events and artefacts shrinks to barely 1000 years in New Chronology, and its key events are moved to their more probable place on the time axis. They define civilization as a hierarchical system consisting of state, army, ideology, religion, writing, and communication.
The irrefutable reason for the crucial statement above is the abnormal behavior of parameter D” of Earth-Moon system from 1000 B.C. to 1100 A.D.: either the Earth increased considerably its speed of rotation (case X) or the Moon was rapidly changing its orbit (case Y) during this period. Both cases X and Y are impossible astronomically.
The irregular behaviour of parameter D” in the Earth-Moon telluric system discovered in 1971 by Dr Robert R.Newton, chief astrophysicist of NASA proves irrefutably that solar eclipses of alleged antiquity reported to us in the “ancient” chronicles were actually medieval or fictitious. Corollary: either astronomy (Case A) or chronology of history is mistaken (Case B).
Case B: 1000 years ago civilization didn’t exist, therefore, people could not write as yet (sic!) to register the events of the full solar eclipses which is theoretically possible if the consensual chronology of the world history is wrong.
Corollary: Astronomy is incompatible with History
See detailed explanation of parameter D” in the Earth-Moon system.
The D” value drops suddenly, and this leap by an entire order begins in the alleged V century A.D.; Beginning with the XI century and on, the values of the parameter D” become more or less constant and close to its modern value; In the interval between the alleged V and XI centuries A.D. one finds D” values to be in complete disarray. Corollary: allegedly ancient eclipses prior to XII century were invented by medieval astronomers. Corollary: timeframe of civilization narrows to abt. 1000 years.
Consensual wrong chronology we still live with was elaborated in XVI-XVII centuries by kabbalist-numerologist Joseph Scaliger and his follower Jesuit Dionysius Petavious. In the course of 40 years of meticulous research, the mathematicians Dr Fomenko and Dr Nosovskiy have developed the theory of New Chronology that corrects, at last, the parameter D” but leads to the deep revision of chronology of the world history.
From 500 A.D. to 1200 A.D. humans have invented instruments, arms, agriculture, writing, trade and industries, the structure of population morphed from clans, tribes, kingdoms, States and Judea-Izrael Empire; changed their religious beliefs from paganism and polytheism to Christianity. From 1200 A.D. to 1350 A.D. they form the Christian Empire of Eurasia.
The Medieval Warm Period of 850 A.D. – 1350 A.D. in Northern Europe A.D. helped the growth of agriculture, construction, trade, and industry. The economic consequences of the Little Ice Age of 1350 A.d.– 1600 A.D. provoked the peasant revolts, Jewish pogroms, the sack of rich Catholic monasteries, the spread of Protestantism and the beginning of the disintegration of Empire of Eurasia.
Europe separates step by step from the embrace of Evil Empire of Eurasia in 1400 – 1600 and splits into competing parts. England builds the Royal Navy to rule the waves and turns from a tiny impoverished kingdom into the enormous British Empire. France mutates into a Monarchy that tries to rule Western Europe and competes with Britain, Austria, and Spain.
The imbroglio of 300 kingdoms of Central Europe stays under Habsburg’s umbrella of Roman Empire of the German Nation that was neither Roman nor Empire. Spain and Portugal discover and colonize the Americas. European provinces of Empire of Eurasia develop arts, science & technology considerably faster than ‘Mongolian’ Center too busy with expansion in and control of Empire of Eurasia.
The Papacy of Rome initiated the myths of Ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, Persia, and Babilon. All parties concerned, i.e. European aristocracy, black and white Catholic clergy, humanists and scientists had vested interests to support the myths of Antiquity but each of them for their own reasons.
The Roman Church moved dowthe beginning of the Christianity by 1200 years to the past into imaginary Ancient Rome and the placeholder Jerusalem to Palestine to justify their leadership of the Western Christianity and its priority over the Oriental Christianity.
The Christianity originated in the Byzantine Empire in XII century as Oriental Orthodox Catholic Christian Church followed by the subsequent splits, mutations into the competing Orthodox, Catholic, Western, Eastern and Oriental Christianity, Mithraism, Judaism, Buddism, and Islam.
By the middle of XVIth century the prime political agenda of Europe that has reached superiority in Sciences and Technologies, but was still inferior militarily, was to free itself from the control of the Evil Empire.
The concerted effort of the Aristocracy, black and white Catholic clergy, the Protestants, Humanists, and Scientists in the creation and dissemination of the ideas of the fictional Ancient World and Dark Ages during the XV – XVIIth centuries served this agenda perfectly.
The fictional Ancient World served their agendas to claim their particular priorities by representing events of the XI-XVI centuries as ones that happened thousands of years before and themselves as inheritors thereof, according to the Ancient Authorities they invented and confirmed by the sources they created under aliases.
The fugitives from Byzantine and inheritors of Eurasian warlords became the European aristocracy, and claimed the self-rule of their lands, the Roman Curia declared its priority over the Oriental Orthodoxy of the Evil Empire.
Protestants translated the New and the Old Testament into native languages to ensure the Christians’s independent exercise of religion without voracious clergy. Humanists and Scientists prepared the Enlightenment under the cover of Antiquity.
Ages in Chaos
It is impossible to make an exhaustive survey of the Russian historical and critical research performed in the XX century, so I shall just give you a brief outline of just what this new Russian critical school is all about.
The first question that needs to be asked in order to understand the issue at hand is one about the exact definition of history. Let us adhere to the formula “history begins today” – after all, history is still in the making, and formulate some general postulations.
Firstly, the traditional model of the past as presented in multitudes of historical books is erroneous. Just how erroneous is what we are trying to estimate, as well as the approximate epoch when consensual history finally became crystallized in its present form if such a thing is at all possible.
And so, our very first question was about the definition of history. One must understand that the object of our critical analysis isn’t the past itself, but rather the surviving records thereof. However, “the past” and “history” strike most people as synonyms, which is incorrect – when people refer to “history”, they can only speak about whatever they read in books and not any real past of humankind.
One can very easily become confused if one doesn’t distinguish between one and the other – a virtual reality populated by a vast number of kings and pharaohs and the real past that we have no substantial information about for the most part. Let us, therefore, remember that history is nothing but our model of the past.
History begins today
The above postulate formulates the very essence of what the Russian critical school is all about. Any historical book we open shall tell us about the historical situation for 7000 B.C. being such-and-such, with similar assessments of “historical situations” for 5000 B.C. and so on, 2800 B.C. marking the birth of the Sumerian civilization. This dating isn’t substantiated in any way at all; the precision of datings is perfectly scholastic in nature, and the great antiquity of documented history is purely arbitrary.
We shall, therefore, refrain from beginning our narration with a distant B.C. dating. Let us take the present as a reference point and move backward gradually, explaining every step of our chronological voyage. One must remember that it isn’t a real past that we are about to explore, but a mere model thereof.
The phrase “history begins today” also applies to our first steps in the direction of an interdisciplinary mindset; this is precisely what the scientists are trying to do nowadays.
The community of people who research critical approaches to history is a very interdisciplinary character itself and consists of mathematicians, computer science experts, professors of history and sociology, chemists, geologists and many representatives of natural sciences in general.
Johan Huizinga wrote that one could hardly fit history into the medieval education system. The representation of historical science in universities had indeed been very limited; there is hardly a single important work on history dating from that period that would be written by a university scholar (up until the beginning of the XIX century). One must also add that history gradually transformed into humanity and therefore not a “science”, strictly speaking.
If one should find it hard to grasp the concept of history beginning today, one might as well consider a situation when alien spaceship lands on planet Earth, and we are confronted with the necessity to explain a great many things to the aliens – our linguistics, our manner of reproduction and the like.
They are likely to ask us about our history, and the dates of historical events. How can one give an exhaustive answer to this question? We would have to explain everything to the aliens step by step and very logically – after all, we can’t expect them to be familiar with our general university curriculum or our model of the past.
Next, we must explicate the fact that history is still being created. Most people say a critical watershed in the entire historical formation is the Gregorian Calendar reform of 1582.
However, in many cases, the veracious historical period begins a great deal later. Three years ago we suggested 1650 as the beginning of the veracious period in history, all prior epochs being in need of thorough research and chronological verification.
Having been in close touch with the community of unorthodox historians for quite a few years, I can say that even this dating is far too optimistic; history is still being created, and this process may even be happening a great deal more rapidly nowadays.
India, for instance, is attempting to introduce a new model of the Indian past – much more grandiose, yet free from conflicts, wars, violence and all “anti-Gandhian” phenomena in general. This ‘politically’ correct version of history is being taught in Indian schools today.
China can be taken as another example. The Great Wall, for instance, has only been built after 1950 – its prior existence is but an old European myth. The reaction of utter surprise and astonishment is very natural.
I have published a paper with the results of my research that lead one to the above-mentioned conclusion; there is another book in existence, written by a professional historian, that says the very same thing.
However, this literature never gets read by the masses; everyone reads newspapers and watches films, which adhere to the model where the Great Wall of China has existed for the last 2000 years.
There isn’t a single old Chinese drawing of the Great Wall of China – the oldest ones come from European books. It has been different for the last 50 years or so; the Chinese Communists built an actual wall, and now declare it to be more ancient than even the most daring estimates of historians.
Another example is the invention of the printing press by the Germans in the XV century, 1440 being the earliest estimation. There is nothing odd about this invention being made in Europe around that time – after all, all European languages use phonetic alphabets.
However, consensual history is trying to convince us that somebody invented printing molds in China 300 years before, in the XI century – for thousands of hieroglyphs, no less. The invention had promptly been forgotten, serving no other purpose than going down in history.
The more plausible version is that a European (possibly Dutch) book about the invention of the printing press in Germany became translated into Chinese around the XVII century and became part of Chinese history.
One must also recollect the alleged invention of the logarithms in China that took place 500 years before they were invented in the Netherlands. The comparison of two publications, European and Chinese, demonstrates that a misprint from Napier’s table of natural logarithms (first published in 1620) was repeated in a Chinese book that is presumed to be 500 years older. Is that the natural way of making history, one wonders?
The Spanish Armada of 300 great vessels also became an important part of Chinese history. Every Chinese history book reports about the construction of a gigantic 300-vessel Armada in 1405; some of the ships are said to have been 150 meters long, which is quite impossible for wooden ships.
This fleet was presumably sent to India, the Arabic countries and so on; the expedition recurred six or seven times, its purpose remains unclear. This is obviously the Great Spanish Armada transformed into a Chinese myth.
As a matter of fact, if one does a bit of research, one shall see the very same process taking place now in Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine.
I come from Estonia, and I learned recently that the Estonians to have the longest history in the world – tribes of proto-Estonians have presumably inhabited the territory of modern Estonia in 5000 B.C.
It is quite naturally a myth that cannot be verified, yet the creation of such myths is still taking place in virtually every country in the world. Everyone tries to trace their history as far back into the illusionary past as possible. This is the historical mindset of the XX century.
The most important period in the making of history falls on the XVIII century. This is when the Russian, the German and the Chinese history was created; the creation of Chinese history, in particular, has been transparent to the extreme, since it amounted to the translation of historical books written in different European languages into Chinese.
All of them have become native a long time ago, incorporated into Chinese history. Chinese writing is not phonetic; the language of the original becomes thoroughly lost in translation, that is. Nearly every major European chronicle, likewise every invention made in Europe, became reflected in Chinese history.
The origins of the real Chinese history date to the XIV century A.D. the earliest, which is ridiculously late from the consensual point of view. Prior to that, history in the traditional European understanding had been nonexistent in China, and may be referred to as “oral history”.
This also applies to Indian history – according to a certain Japanese scientist, modern Indian history is like a telephone directory, with a hodgepodge of names culled from a plethora of chronicles without a single correct dating or indeed any historical events at all.
One can plainly see that a critical approach to history is very much called for; one must, however, say that critical schools of historians are anything but a recent phenomenon – it suffices to mention Sir Isaac Newton, who had been one of the most vehement critics of consensual history in his epoch.
The Russian critical tradition begins with Nikolai Morozov, whose fundamental critique entitled “Christ” was published in the 1930’s.
Nowadays Fomenko and his team of scientists possess unsurpassable mathematical and statistical tools that they successfully use for the critical analysis of historical data, discovering more and more irrefutable facts that prove consensual history to have just about as much in common in reality as a book of nursery rhymes.
Their latest fundamental work is translated into English, and the four volumes are now widely available; one cannot recommend these enough since their release is doubtlessly a very important step towards the understanding of human history as it is, which is miles and miles apart from what we have grown accustomed to believing.
Fomenko is not alone
Most historians and archaeologists are only vaguely familiar with the theory of the Academician A. T. Fomenko, the eminent mathematician, and his numerous works on chronology (written together with mathematician G. V. Nosovskiy for the most part) from very negative hearsay, yet they repudiate and criticize the works of these authors with great ardour and much malice.
Mainstream is adhering to the principle: “I have never read the works of the renegade Fomenko, and never will, but I condemn the horrendous aspersions that they cast on our beloved Antiquity nonetheless!” All of the above notwithstanding the fact that the books that contain criticisms of the consensual chronology and historiography sell in thousands of copies.
Wide masses of historians that comprise the “consensual chronology army” get very limited exposure to the numerous critiques of chronology and history that have been coming out in Germany and several other countries for many a year.
The primary goal of this article is an attempt to familiarize the above with the primary critical works that suggest a radical revision of history and chronology, as well as their authors.
One hopes that a few historians and archaeologists out there will eventually realize the enormous potential of this direction in historical research, once they become aware of the multitude of authors, methods, approaches and historical topics involved in the reformation of history and chronology in one way or another.
The most promising stratum of the audience is comprised of young scientists and the unorthodox minority of broadly-educated people as opposed to the bureaucratic majority of the “historian back office personnel”.
Eminent critics of chronology and historiography in the past
Independent thinkers who weren’t afraid of the fact that historical science and the people whose interests it represents have always been extremely hostile towards all criticisms of chronology, existed in every epoch, alongside the masses of obedient historiographers that were too scared or too reluctant to go against the grain.
Owing to the fact that these independent researchers had possessed the courage to expose blatant contradictions inherent in the very chronological foundations of historiography, official science didn’t manage to keep them out of the general public’s reach. We shall mention some of them below.
The four names one finds below are merely the ones who received the most publicity. Many an honest historian has tried to criticize the condition of historical sources but never dared to cross the border of loyalty to historical science in general, as well as the corporate mass of fellow historians.
They remained in the shade – however, their efforts helped several radical critics of chronology to emerge and voice the existence of the above-mentioned contradictions and very blind spots in history publicly.
Sir Isaac Newton
Readers familiar with the works of Fomenko and Nosovskiy know that the great English physicist had also been an eminent chronologist; they keep emphasizing that in his every book Sir Isaac insists on the necessity of narrowing the historical temporal space drastically. I consider that the great physicist and theologian, rather has put emphasis on criticisms of consensual chronology than on the shortening of the historical period.
Let us assume that Joseph Scaliger, the founding father of the consensual chronology, had been perfectly scrupulous in his work with the historical sources that he had selected for his research.
It is true that he may have invented some of them; however, seeing as how modern historiography regards them as valid historical sources, this circumstance (hardly an extraordinary phenomenon in the past) is of no little importance to us.
On the other hand, we have no reason to assume that Newton wasn’t capable of conducting his chronological calculations without any errors, based on the sources that he had chosen for this purpose. Assuming this, we can claim that Newton de facto proves the following two theorems – empirically, if not logically:
Theorem 1: The system of historical sources is woven of contradictions: some of its parts lead one to conclusions that contradict other parts:
Theorem 2: Consensual chronology as used by the modern historical science is untrue. Furthermore, the general mass of historical sources that we have at our disposal doesn’t allow for its unambiguous reconstruction.
Corollary: Historical chronology is nonexistent.
Moreover, R. Newton had been the first to use statistical considerations for testing the veracity of chronological materials. He can, therefore, be considered the ideological progenitor of the Russian critical school in Chronology (Morozov, Fomenko et al.), which is concerned with natural scientific and mathematical argumentation for the most part, albeit not exclusively.
Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) was a contemporary of Newton and one of the best-educated people of his epoch. A member of the Jesuit order, he had been the director of the French Royal Library since 1683. Hardouin had also been a Professor of Theology who would constantly surprise his listeners by the depth of his knowledge and his tremendous erudition.
Hardouin is the author of several books on philology, theology, history, archaeology, numismatics, chronology and philosophy of history for a complete bibliography. Unfortunately, these oeuvres remain unknown to the wider audience of specialists, one of the reasons being the fact that they’re written in Latin for the most part.
Hardouin’s most famous work is a collection of ecclesiastical edicts in re the assembly of Ecumenical Councils, starting with the I century A.D. and on. When this grandiose oeuvre finally came out in 1715 after 28 years of labour and after the editions of 1684, 1685 and 1693 (11 volumes with comments altogether).
This oeuvre had remained banned by the church for the 10 years that followed, since the ecclesiastical authorities had, understandably enough, been alarmed by the criticisms of sources contained in the conclusions made by Hardouin in the course of his research.
The church had only allowed public access to the materials published by Hardouin after the public renunciation of the latter’s former beliefs, which was perceived as a mere formality by Hardouin’s contemporaries.
From 1690 and on, J. Hardouin had claimed that the works of many ancient authors were written hundreds of years later than whatever was implied by the consensual datings of their lifetimes. In other words, he had exposed the works in question as forgeries.
This critique of sources had been getting ever more scalding; one of Hardouin’s final conclusions had been that nearly all the ancient works of literary art date from the XIII century the earliest.
He had made exceptions in several cases: the works of Cicero, the satires of Horace, Virgil’s “Georgics” and Pliny the Elder’s “Natural History”. However, his famous comments were written about his authors, and so Hardouin may have found it hard psychologically to recognize them as medieval authors.
Hardouin had claimed that Christ and his apostles if they existed at all, must have read their sermons in Latin. He was convinced that the Greek translations of the New and the Old Testament date from a much later epoch than the church presumes.
He had named St. Augustine among the fraudulent Christian classics and didn’t trust the veracity of his works. He had also mentioned the falsification of nearly all of the “ancient” coins, works of art, stone carvings and, particularly, the documents of all the Ecumenical Councils that had preceded the Council of Trident (1545-1563).
The reaction of Hardouin’s contemporaries to his iconoclasm is of as great an interest to us as his criticisms of historical sources. Hardouin naturally got criticized, but usually sotto voce, which leaves one with the impression that the critics themselves were well aware that the publication of apocryphal works had been the norm relatively recently.
Even his most vehement opponents acknowledged that Hardouin’s academic eminence and his highest authority in the scientific world made it unnecessary for him to seek cheap publicity of a nihilist or to amuse himself with disclosures that irritated the ecclesiastical and scientific circles alike.
Only deep conviction about the veracity of the critical approach to chronology and historiography could have made Hardouin dare to oppose the entire canonical science and theology.
It is noteworthy that Hardouin criticized Newton’s book on amended chronology in the same vein of the complete negation of deep antiquity, urging Newton to stop writing about the fictitious “days of yore”.
He had been of the opinion that the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of Troy were the same event in reality, which corresponds to the point of view expressed by Fomenko and Nosovskiy.
Most of Hardouin’s work (including the ones published postmortem) was banned by the church in 1739-1742 and included in the list of banned books. After the death of J. Hardouin, most of the “ancient” sources that he had exposed have been “rehabilitated” and are once again taken seriously be historical science.
If Newton and Hardouin were world-famous scientists whose biographies are known in great detail, the only thing we know about Robert Baldauf, the Swiss philologist, is that he was a Privatdozent of Basel University and published two volumes out of the four that he had intended to publish under the general title of “History and Criticism”, namely, the first and the fourth volume.
These two volumes are of the utmost interest to the critics of chronology and history since Baldauf managed to come to virtually the same conclusions as Hardouin using an altogether different method, that of philological analysis.
Baldauf had studied the archives of the famous Swiss monastery of St. Gallen, formerly one of the key centers of Catholicism, and discovered the traces of the barbaric library raid made by Poggio Bracciolini and a friend of his, both of them highly educated servants of the Roman Curia.
They purloined numerous manuscripts and books that were considered ancient from the library of this monastery, however, the manuscripts may date to a more recent epoch, which wouldn’t preclude them from serving as prototypes for the manufacture of numerous “ancient” works by Poggio and his assistants.
One must also mention Baldauf’s study of numerous presumably ancient manuscripts and the exposure of the latter as recent forgeries for the most part. Baldauf discovered parallels between the “historical” books of the Old Testament and the works of the mediaeval Romance genre as well as Homer’s “Iliad” that were blatant enough to lead the scientist to the assumption that both the Iliad and the Bible date from the late Middle Ages.
Some of the mediaeval chronicles ascribed to different authors resembled each other to such an extent that Baldauf was forced to identify them as works of the same author, despite the fact that the two documents were presumed separated chronologically by an interval of two centuries at least.
At any rate, some of the expressions characteristic for Romanic languages that one finds in both documents fail to correspond with either of the alleged datings (one of them being the IX and the other the XI century).
Apart from that, some of the manuscripts contain distinctly more recent passages, such as frivolous stories of endeavours in public steam baths (which the Europeans only became acquainted with during the late Reconquista epoch) and even allusions to the Holy Inquisition.
Baldauf’s study of the “ancient” poetry in Volume 4 demonstrates that many “ancient” poets wrote rhymed verse resembling the mediaeval troubadours. Unlike Hardouin, Baldauf is convinced that the verse of Horace is of a mediaeval origin, pointing out German and Italian influences inherent in his Latin.
Furthermore, Baldauf points out such pronounced parallels between the poetry of Horace and Ovid (who were presumably unaware of each other’s existence) that one becomes convinced that the works of both belong to a third party – apparently, a much later author.
Robert Baldauf wasn’t alone in his criticism of the style characteristic for the “ancient” authors. As early as in 1847 Borber expressed surprise about the striking similarity of the Druids and the Egyptian priests as described in Julius Caesar’s “De bellum Gallico”, which he considers a later forgery, likewise “De bellum civile” by the same author.
Baldauf sums up his research in the following words: “Our Romans and Greeks have been Italian humanists”. All of them – Homer, Sophocles, Aristotle and many other “ancient” authors, so different in our perception, hail from the same century, according to Baldauf.
Furthermore, their home wasn’t in the Ancient Rome or Hellas, but rather Italy of the XIV-XV century. The entire history of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, likewise the Biblical “history”, which correlates with the above to some extent, was conceived and introduced by the Italian humanists, as well as their colleagues and followers from other countries.
Humanism has given us a whole fantasy world of the antiquity and the Bible, as well as the early Middle Ages, which Baldauf had also considered an invention of the humanist writers. This fictional history, initially drafted on parchment, was carved in stone and cast in metal; it has rooted itself in our perception to such an extent that no positivist criticisms can make humanity doubt its veracity.
In the case of Wilhelm Kammeier, a German critic of historical sources, we don’t know so much as the date of his birth; he was born between 1890 and 1900. He died in 1959 in Arnstadt (Thuringia, former East Germany). He was a lawyer by trade and had worked in Hanover as a notary. He had taken part in World War II and was taken, prisoner.
After that, he had lived in Arnstadt, which became the new home of his family after the destruction of their Hanover residence during the war. All his post-war life he had been afflicted by poverty and state repression. Very probably his death resulted from chronic malnutrition.
The job of a notary provided Kammeier with an excellent basis for the critical research of old documents, which he became fascinated with in 1923. By 1926 he had completed his 292-page manuscript entitled “The Universal Falsification of History”, where he subjects historical documents serving as the basis for the mediaeval history of Germany to rigorous criticism. However, it had taken him many years to find a publisher for this critique.
He sent a brief summary of the key points related to the manuscript to the Prussian Academy of Sciences with a request to be given the opportunity of making a public speech in front of the historians. This request was rejected under a formal pretext that private persons weren’t allowed to address the Academy, with no substantial argumentation given. The mere fact that Kammeier had not held an office in an academic institution sufficed for the rejection of a well-reasoned critique.
Kammeier’s manuscript got published only as late as 1935. This was followed by a brochure, where the criticisms of historical sources were taken further, encompassing the entire mediaeval period in Europe, and seven more brochures on the same subject. This work [g9] has long ago become a bibliographic rarity.
It was published again in a small number of copies as part of the book [g10] that also includes the following works of Wilhelm Kammeier dating from 1936-1939: “Enigmas of Global History – an Answer to my Critics”, “The Mystery of Mediaeval Rome”, “Dogmatic Christianity and the Falsification of History”, and “The Foundation of the Roman Ecumenical Church”.
Finally, Kammeier’s manuscript on the “sources” of the early Christianity and their falsification, previously unpublished and presumed lost, came out as a book [g11].
Official science had only been reacting to Kammeier’s works during the first few years that followed the release of his first book – critically, of course. One of his critics, a certain Professor Heimpel, accused Kammeier of having no positive conception of history.
A critic must naturally be concerned with the positive historical picture first and foremost, regardless of whether or not it is a work of fiction through and through: “If we see the entire historical conception of the Middle Ages disintegrate and transform into a spot of impenetrable darkness, or indeed a gigantic question mark, we shall naturally end up with feeling inner resentment against Kammeier’s criticisms, well-reasoned or not”.
Kammeier’s counter-argumentation was that it hadn’t been his fault that the history of Germany and the entire Ancient World proved a work of fiction to a tremendous extent, the literary and documental sources of the epoch being forgeries.
He only pleaded guilty of discovering this historical falsification, mentioning the necessity to live with a new historical truth that new generations of historians would inevitably face (as we know, they still shudder at the mere thought), alluding to Schopenhauer’s concept of truth needing no permission for its existence. Once perceived, the truth becomes an elemental force: intelligent persons shall try to turn this force to their benefit instead of opposing it.
However, after the reasoned refutation of the historians’ criticisms by Kammeier, the learned scholars have switched to the tried and viable tactics of obstruction and concealment (after all, things that remain unknown to the general public may as well be nonexistent).
The world war that broke out around that time had aided this obstruction greatly. Kammeier’s participation in military action, his captivity and the unsettled state of his post-war life had interrupted his active research for a long time.
The only job Kammeier managed to find in East Germany was that of a schoolteacher. As soon as circumstances allowed, he resumed his research of the “ancient” documents, concentrating all of his attention on the documental foundations of the history of early Christianity.
It is quite possible that he had counted on a benevolent attitude towards this topic from the part of Socialist historiography in an atheistic country that East Germany was striving to become.
Instead of that, as soon as he had offered his critique of early Christian documents to the historians of the German Democratic Republic, he became a victim of repression: he lost his job, the manuscript of his book [g11a] was confiscated and had been presumed lost for a long time; his estate was nationalised, and his family forced to dwell in hunger and poverty.
Kammeier’s research of the “ancient” documents begins with the trivial remark that every donation document (the most common kind of mediaeval documents; donations could assume the form of estate, privileges, ranks etc), must contain information about the nature of the gift, the date of the donation, the names of the benefactor and the receiver and the place where the document was written.
Documents with blank fields (the date, the name of the donation’s receiver etc) are null and void from the legal point of view, and can only serve as historical sources indirectly (in the research of historical falsifications, for instance).
Documents kept in libraries often fail to correspond to these criteria:
One finds documents with no date, or a date that was obviously introduced later – alternatively, the date can be incomplete or transcribed in a manner that fails to correspond with the presumed epoch of the document’s creation.
Documents dating to the same day would often be “signed” in different geographical location.
The analysis of places and dates leaves us with the following picture: all German emperors, regardless of age, health and basic human logic, don’t reside in any capital, but keep on the move all the time, occasionally covering gigantic distances in a single day, in order to make more and more donations to their loyal subjects.
It would be interesting to feed all such data to a computer in order to compile analytical overviews of the movement speed of the German feudal rulers and their supernormal Wanderlust.
However, the tables that the historians have already compiled, demonstrate that German emperors often managed to be present in two mutually distant geographical locations on the same day. For instance, Emperor Conrad is presumed to have been present in 2 or 3 different cities at the same annual Christian feast for 50 years in a row.
The family name of the donation’s recipient is absent from a great number of documents (this is the case with up to half of all surviving documents for some epochs) – one can, therefore, speak of headers at best, valid official documents being a far cry.
Naturally, Kammeier wasn’t the first to discover forgeries during the research of ancient (or presumably ancient) documents. His primary merit is that he had managed to recognize the more or less systematic large-scale activities of whole generations of hoaxers serving the Catholic Church or individual feudal rulers and grasp the real scale of the historical falsification campaign, which had been great enough to surprise historians even before his time.
These hoaxers have destroyed a great many of old originals and replaced them by forgeries. The old text would often be erased with a new one taking its place on an ancient parchment, which would make the forgery look like an “authentic ancient relic” in the eyes of the hoaxers. It would often take a very minor alteration to change the original meaning of an old document completely.
According to Kammeier, the key goal of this prolonged and massive campaign for the falsification of historical documents had been the concealment, distortion and arbitrary extension of the pre-Christian history, with all the achievements of the pagan epoch ascribed thereto.
Apart from that, “legal” acknowledgement of the possession rights must have been in high demand among the new feudal rulers, whose property was acquired from lawful pagan owners rather recently, and in a violent manner. Falsified donation documents were necessary to declare ancient rights of possession; their authorship could be traced to one of the great Christian rulers of antiquity – fictitious entities invented for this specific purpose in many cases.
The general condition of historical sources at the moment can be described as follows: the number of forgeries is mind-boggling, and every “ancient” work of history lacks an original (this is hardly a chance occurrence). However, historians keep on using forgeries in lieu of official documentation – possibly due to the fact that their inveracity has not been proven irrefutably yet, or that such irrefutable proof does in fact exist, but remains concealed from the scientific community.
One can find the following corollaries made by Kammeier in the course of his research of medieval documents in [g12]:
- The humanists took part in the massive falsification of history alongside the Catholic clergy striving to create some proof of the historical significance attributed to their church; this process falls on the XV century for the most part.
- The documents related to the pagan “German” history have been destroyed and replaced by Gallic and Romanic forgeries.
- The existence of Catholic Pontiffs before the so-called Avignon captivity is of a fragmental nature through and through.
- Historical events that preceded the XIII century are beyond reconstruction since all of the earlier documents have been destroyed and replaced by counterfeits.
- The pre-Papal wars between national churches were subsequently presented as a struggle against the heretics and the apostates.
- “Ancient” literature is as much of a forgery as the medieval documents. One of such fake literary works is “Germany” by Tacitus.
- The Catholic clergy can be credited with the invention of the New Testament, or at least a radical rearrangement thereof.
- The church keeps on manufacturing counterfeited “ancient” manuscripts in order to “prove” the authenticity of Evangelical texts and their great age with the aid of the new “findings.”
[g1] Newton, Isaac (1725). Abregé de la chronologie de I. Newton, fait par lui-mème, et traduit sur le manuscript Angloise [par Nicolas Feret]. Paris, Cavelier. Newton, Isaac (1728). The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. London. Newton, Isaac (1728a). La Chronologie des Ancien Royalmes Corrigée. Martin u. a., Paris, 416 S.
[g2] Topper, Uwe (1999). Isaac Newton verkürzte die Griechische Geschichte um 300 Jahre.EFODON Synesis, Heft 4, Juli/August 1999, 4-7. (Isaac Newton shortens Greek History by 300 years.)
[g3] Gabowitsch, Eugen (1999). Newton als (neben Hardouin) geistiger Vater der Chronologiekritik und Geschichtsrekonstruktion. EFODON Synesis, Heft 6, Nov./Dez. 1999, 29-33. (Newton as spiritual progenitor of chronology criticism and reconstruction of history.)
[g4] Topper, Uwe (1998). Die Grosse Aktion. Europas erfundene Geschichte. Die planmässige Fälschung unserer Vergangenheit von der Antike bis zur Aufklärung. Tübingen. (Big Act. Invented History of Europe.)
[g5] Hardouin (Jean) in: Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europea-Americana. Tomo XXVII, 679-680.
[g6] Hardouin (Jean) in: Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste in alphabetischer Folge von genannten Schriftstellern bearbeitet und herausgegeben von J. S. Ersch und J. G. Gruber, Zweite section H-N. Herausgegeben von G. Hassel und W. Müller.Zweiter teil mit Kupfern und Karten, Leipzig, im Verlag von Johann Friedrich Gleditsch 1828, pages 260-263. ( General Illustrated Encyclopedia of Europe & America.)
[g7] Robert Baldauf. Historie und Kritik (Einige kritische Bemerkungen). Bd. I., Der Mönch von St. Gallen, Verlag der Dykschen Buchhandlung, Leipzig, 1903. Bd. IV. Das Altertum [Römer und Griechen] C. Metrik und Prosa, Friedrich Reinhardt, Universitätsbuchdruckerei, Basel, Mai 1902. (History & Criticism.)
[g8] Wilhelm Kammeier. Die Fälschung der deutschen Geschichte. Adolf Klein Verlag, Leipzig, 1935. (Falsification of German History.)
[g9] Wilhelm Kammeier. Neue Beweise für die Fälschung der deutschen Geschichte. Adolf Klein Verlag, Leipzig, 1936. (Fresh Proofs of Falsification of German History.)
[g10] Wilhelm Kammeier. Die Wahrheit über die Geschichte des Spätmittelalters. Verlag für ganzheitliche Forschung, Wobbenbühl, 1979. (Truth about Falsification of Middle Ages History.)
[g11] Wilhelm Kammeier. Die Fälschung der Geschichte des Urchristentums. Bd. 1-4. Husum, 1981-82. (Falsification of History of Early Christianity.)
[g12] Hans-Ulrich Niemitz. Kammeier, kritisch gewürdigt. Vorzeit-Fruhzeit-Gegenwart, 3/4, 1991, 92-107. (Critical Estmation.)