Chronology criticism has reached France

deutsch  english   español    français


Berlin · 2013  Uwe Topper topper


In a speach delivered in 2005, in Potsdam, I deplored that our criticism of Historiography had not then received recognition in Western countries, despite all our efforts by way of letters and lectures during twenty years. Since February of 2003, we have published articles on our website in four languages, (apart from German in English, French and Spanish) but there had been little if any response from Western Europe. On the other hand, we noted a sudden burst of activity in the Eastern European lands, where our papers and books had been translated into Russian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian. This appears to have been partly due to the explosion of works from Anatoly Fomenko and his associates, but may have also been due to ideological causes.
I suppose that the disappearance of the religious barriers and the braking down of communism in Eastern Europe might have opened the views of a wider public to this new line of thinking: allowing scepticism and doubt into the areas of Historiography.
In the Christian West (Abendland), we find negligence and lack of interest, either due to limited horizons or bound by overconfidence in historical learning. Simple, rational analysis showing, for example, that Jesus is not an historical figure but merely a hero from a religious novel has still to reach the brains of renowned philosophers ... even those who consider themselves to be atheist or agnostic.
There would seem to be a huge gap between the two opposite banks of the river Rhine and yet, as it now turns out, this could simply be due to the language barrier; for now, suddenly France has joined the vanguard. The merit for this must go to François de Sarre who published his book on Chronological Criticism in 2005. For Sarre, academic biologist, grew up bilingual in German and French, and so was able to read the corresponding literature in German. His free access to German research, and our mutual friendship, made this miracle possible. However, his book was not published in hard copy, proving only to be accessible on the Internet through both his and our websites.
Next contribution to mention came from art historian Doctor Sandrine Viollet who, in 2010, sent me a volouminous paper entitled „Sommes-nous en 2010 après la fondation de Rome?“ (Are We at 2010 After the Foundation of Rome?). Therewith she proposes that classic Roman dating, AUC, as invented by Titus Livius, and Anno Domini, the Christian year count, which are generally believed to be 753 years apart, might coincide. Although this elimination of seven to eight centuries from Dark Age history would solve a great many contradictions in common Historiography, I opposed the publication of the paper on our site as the problem lies far deeper and cannot be excised by such a simplistic approach.
In November 2012, a lengthy article of some seventy pages on chronological work appeared as hors-serie No. 9 of the top secret „Magazine of Enigmas in Science and History“, with the interest arousing heading „L’Invention du Moyen Âge“ (The Invention of the Middle Ages) authored by David Carrette and subtitled „La plus grande falsification de l’histoire“ (The Biggest Fake of History). It is richely illustrated and, in enthusiastic language, it gives a fascinating approach to this new science, which is now termed in France as „récentisme“, a word that should be understood as ‚The Theory of Recent Origins of Our Civilisation‘. This term had already been used in Wikipedia in 2010, where my works and person are desrcibed. I am particularly happy with this designation as the term ‚revisionism‘ as used by Fomenko is in danger of being misunderstood by some readers, referring as it does also to discussions of modern history concerning the two World Wars, whereas our research is concerned only with the distant past beyond the age of illumination, to wit: prior to the boundary of 1600 AD.
François de Sarre has written an introduction to the essay by Carrette who, in fact, bases his conclusions mainly on Sarre’s and my own work, introducing the reader also to results of the Russian School around Fomenko and especially to those of the German pioneers such as Heribert Illig, Gunnar Heinsohn and the founders of the Berlin Geschichts Salon (1994). Carrette demonstrates his encompassing insight into these matters by presenting an overall view, adding many new aspects and findings of his own. I believe this is what finally broke the ice, as it were, in France. Discussions have started on many websites, young people have caught the virus and have become interested. Another person of some importance has become involved in the debate: Pierre Dortiguier, renowned philosopher and propagator of Christian Ehrenfels and his „Gestalt-Philosophie“, and who is himself mastering the German language, gave an interview on television that is easily accessible on the Internet.
The final trumpet clarion comes again from Sarre: his eBook version has found a publisher and appeared in paperback in 2013 at Hades éditions at Rouen titled „Mais où est donc passé le Moyen Age? Le récentisme“ (But Where Have the Middle Ages gone? The Recentism). One of the keys he considers appropriate to attract the audience is his finding that the plague of  Iustiniane in the 6th century AD and the pestilence of the middle of the 14th century, called the Black Death, are but one. Thus the Dark Ages shrink to only a century, the last before the Renaissance, solving the enigma that has riddled so many historians.
If anybody considered that the big mistake of Christian chronology is due to misunderstanding, Sarre declares this is false. The physical destruction of records and people teaching the truth, as opposed to church dogma has been the active motor of our Historiography throughout. Christianity started at Avignon, in the valley of the river Rhone in southern France, some 600 years before the present (BP, fixed at 1950 common dating) shortly after a comet struck Earth and caused immense destruction of nature and culture. Therefore our time reckoning doesn’t reach further back; we should count the years only in this manner: backwards from now (BP), since the AD count has no real base, as Sarre explains with many examples.
Not all proposals or conjectures of the new propagators of recentism in France do have my approval but their general line is giving hope for an open-minded and progressive study of the chronological problems before 1500 that had been neglected by our neighbours a considerable long time.
Uwe Topper, Berlin, December 14, 2013


I would like to write a comment to this text: