INTRODUCTION
The Hungarian Calendar is a particular kind of chronological system (which remains hypothetical while awaiting official recognition), which holds that Julius Caesar had introduced the Julian calendar in the year of CE 154 (a year calculated through a process of astronomical retro-counting from the present day), exactly 1852 years ago.
The officially accepted and universally propagated date for the introduction of the Julian calendar is the year of BC 45,which differs by 198 years from the proposed date (CE 154) of The Hungarian Calendar.
Only one explanation is possible to explain this 198 year difference: we have a hidden surplus history of 198 years, or to put it more plainly, 198 years of our history has been invented.
In simple language, this means that pupils of the educational system of today, our children, are forced to learn an invented history of almost 200 years in the context of the official curriculum.
The Hungarian Calendar has determined the date of CE 154 as the starting date of the Julian calendar, by simple astronomical calculations. These calculations essentially count back year by year from the current year’s vernal equinox (the day in Spring with equal day and night) and the results of the “new chronology” are then validated by critical analysis of the historical solar eclipses.
A signally important conclusion of The Hungarian Calendar is that the dates of the vernal equinox (spring point) in the starting year of the Julian calendar (CE 154) and at the time of the Augustan correction (CE 208) were both on March 21.
This statement can be easily checked by astronomical retro-counting of time.
The Hungarian Calendar answers the main question: why was it that Pope Gregory, in 1582, amended the calendar (very correctly, by the way) only by 10 days ?
The Hungarian Calendar also hypothesises (on the basis of the same backward counting of the time) that Jesus Christ was born in CE 194 (supposing that Jesus died when He was 33 years old).
The Hungarian Calendar hypothesises the phantom period of time (almost 190 years) to lie between the years of 960 and 1150 in the traditional chronological system. Consequently, the years of 960 AD and 1150 AD, as currently labelled, are analogical. They are coincident in time and indicate the same astronomical year on the time axis.
The further consequence of the previous statement is that the gap between the birth of Jesus and the year of 1150 cannot coincide with the astronomical CE time.
Since the phantom period means the lack of any time-flow, no historical event can be assigned to it, irrespective of the fact that we are taught otherwise.
This also proves our conclusion that, in the Roman/Vatican version of the so-called Christian chronology, there was either a misunderstanding or a deliberate readjustment.
I will try to illustrate this conclusion with detailed analysis.
Summarizing the results of my investigations, I have determined that the related chronology is correct up to the year of 960 AD. This is the same year astronomically as 1150 AD, which is important, because since then time has been counted or amended accurately to the present year, which we call 2006 CE.
So, how was it possible to insert 200 fictive years into our history?
How could this insertion have remained unnoticed for so long?
How was the hidden readjustment of our calendar performed?
When was our common history filled up with imaginary events?
Who are those personalities who must now be erased from our history books forever?
This study tries to give you the answers, not just to these questions but to a number of other, very similar and equally exciting, questions.
|
| Download book as PDF (2,40MB) |
The aim of this study is to provide astronomical support for the
Hungarian calendar hypothesis, by means of a critical analysis concerning
those solar and lunar eclipses which occurred during the
350-year period following the introduction of the Julian calendar,
and which are recorded in literary works.
I am well aware that not everyone is familiar with the Hungarian
calendar hypothesis, so I shall repeat it here briefly.
In the year 46 BC, Julius Caesar inserted two “leap” months into
the calendar between November and December, a total of 54 days
(not 90 days, as some suggest!). By doing so, he corrected the old
Roman calendar. We count our years backwards from the present, so
this year of writing is AD 2005. However, if we count backwards
from the present astronomically, we discover that Julius Caesar made
his corrections in the year CE 153.
The consequence of the correction gave January 1st as the starting
point, similarly to the Old Roman calendar, which date was determined
by the first new moon following the winter solstice.
„Caesar did not reform the Roman calendar, but abandoned it and
instituted the solar calendar of 365.25 days which was stable and
agreed with the seasons” (Bickerman, p.47).
Caesar disregarded the moon as a tool for measuring time,
although it was quite fortunate to have the new moon for the yearbeginning
of the first year in the reformed calendar.
What does it mean in other words? No account of the moon was
taken in this system???
What it means is that from this moment on, the lunar calendar ceased
to exist and was replaced by the solar year for time measurement.
The Julian calendar was introduced in the 709th year of Rome (ab
urbe condita). At that time it could not be foreseen that subsequent
generations [after an elapse of 16 centuries] would mistakenly label
the famous year of a.u.c. 709 as 45 BC.
In fact, this year corresponds to CE 154 in the Hungarian
Calendar!
It is a very important argument of The Hungarian Calendar (HC) -
which can be also checked easily by astronomical backward counting
- that the time of the vernal equinox, the MEQ point at the introduction
of the Julian calendar and at the time of the Augustus as well,
occurred on the same date, that is on March 21st [in years CE 154
and CE 208 respectively].
Nothing is new at all in my above statement, since academical science
similarly counts the time backward using the year-length of the
Julian calendar.
If we would take seriously the database of the Encyclopedias
(which contain the date of March 25 as the MEQ date for the time of
Julius Caesar), we would be forced to put Julius Caesar back into the
fourth century BC.
The Hungarian Calendar also offers a solution for the worrying
question of why the Gregorian calendar in AD 1582 corrected only
10 days instead of the theoretical (erroneous) 13 days.
The title of my book shows that I wish to discuss the measurement
of time, chronology, on the basis of an unorthodox hypothesis. I do
not dare to dig into the deep past, going back only to the beginning
of the Julian calendar, which can be determined quite well in time,
and from which moment (according to our academical science) we
count the solar years invariably. From the beginning of the Julian calendar,
the „error” of that calendar totals 13 days (10 days + the
Gregorian calendar), and the correction was, very rightly, made by
the scientists.
Our present chronology, according to which we have just started to
live in the year of 2005, has been checked many times. The astronomical
programs reassure us that now everything has been in complete
order for centuries. Or, more exactly, everything is in almost
complete order.
2005 as a year-number is a non-recurring period of time. The year
of 2004 - or more exactly the 2004th year of our chronology, that is
the 2004th year after the birth of Christ - has passed away. In the
process of time-flow the time-determination of an event is non-recurring,
indicating the place of a single occurrence uniquely.
In our world, the starting point of the most widely used secular
chronology is the year in which Jesus Christ was born, according to
the ecclesiastical tradition.
Today we connect this year scientifically to the calculations of
Dionysius Exiguus, according to which the year of Jesus` birth, that
is the year of the „Incarnation of Our Lord” became the 1st year of
the new chronology, and which was the same as the 1st year of the
195th Olympiad, the 754th year of the foundation of Rome, and the
312th year of the Seleucide year-counting method.
Our chronology, based on the calculation of Dionysius Exiguus
and on the statements of humanists from the 16th and 17th centuries,
seems to be inaccurate and problematical in many ways.
First of all because Christ was not born in the „year of Jesus’ birth”.
The events preceding the birth of Christ are dated with the indication
of „before the birth of Christ” only since the 17th century.
Considering the above, it is worth stating briefly what chronology
actually means.
In one sentence, it is a professional measurement of time, the
counting of time backwards!
„TIME IS THE PROPER DIMENSION OF HISTORY. A fact is
historical when it has to be defined not only in space but also in time.
A fact is placed in the fourth dimension, that of Time, by measuring
its distance from the present. Chronology, an auxiliary of history,
enables us to state this time-interval between a historical fact and
ourselves by converting the chronological indications of our sources
into units of our own time reckoning.” (Bickerman, p.9)
To explain in one sentence the aim of chronology, perhaps we
should call on Bickerman again, citing him as follows:
“The purpose of chronology is therefore to convert the chronological
references of our sources into the Julian dates of our era (BC or AD).”
It is a well-known fact that the records of numerous astronomical
observations reached us through various chronicles and in old
accounts of travels, and for ages there have been more or less successful
efforts (naturally with less success in the case of the older
events) to identify those astronomical observations.
It is an open secret for historians that history is mostly written after
the events by the victors. Consequently, in every case the veracitycontent
of the record must be examined very carefully.
Archaeoastronomy is an interesting branch of science, since it
connects astronomy, an exact natural science, with historical science,
which is an extremely subjective one. What principally connects
them is time. Both parties must learn something additional, the
astronomer by getting some historical knowledge, and the historians,
for their part, by gaining some experience in recognizing astronomical
phenomena.
Nobody can question the „historical” events which took place on
11th of August 1999, when above Eurasia a total solar eclipse was
observed. But how far can we travel into the past and still have the
same sense of security. Academical science is very optimistic in this
regard, since we are told at school that we can journey safely as far
back as the beginning of the first millennium BC. That is to say, by
studying astronomical phenomena (mainly meaning solar and lunar
eclipses) we can go back to the past and can examine about 2800 years.
Because of the fact that the year-length of the Julian/Gregorian
calendar, which is in use today, can be calculated only from its introduction
(45 BC), in my book I do not wish to mention any earlier
events. After 400 years of research, the representatives of official science
have long ago reached a consensus and declared that our
chronology completely coincides with astronomical chronology.
For a better understanding, their certainty in complete synchronism
relies on the following: Our chronology is determined by absolutely safe corner-stones, as
for example, the beginning, 45 BC, and the death of Caesar on the
ides of March in 44 BC - and, going into the AD period, - the
„engraved in stone” date of the death of Augustus Caesar, which is
determined as 19th of August AD 14!
These corner-stones are as steady as a rock, the astronomical
descriptions of available literary sources, which „seem” to be very
exact, cannot shift them at all. When the researchers could not find a
suitable astronomical solar eclipse for the time just preceding the
death of Augustus, they qualified such ancient records as „no more
than artistic license”.
Or we can have another comment; ”In ancient times the Sun was
often credited with an eclipse around the time of the death of a
famous person”…
By the way, as we shall see, scientists were forced to use similar
methods in order to square events with their own consciences. In
other cases, when the visibility of great astronomical events could
not be questioned, their quick answer explaining the lack of historical
records was that the sources have not survived up to our own
times.
Let me start in an unorthodox way with my listing of an event from
a traditionally „false solar eclipse”, since in our chronology, as I have
already mentioned, there is one absolutely safe corner-stone, which
is the year of AD 14. For centuries the scientists tried to solve the
problem: why is it that for that year which is determined with
absolute certainty, suitable solar eclipse for Italy can not be found?
Up to the end of the 19th century there were heated debates caused
by the fact that within the period starting from the beginning of the
first century and ending with the death of Augustus Caesar on 19th
of August, scientists also could not find for Italy any solar eclipse
which happened to be close to totality. The weakening of the preconditions
for the search did not particularly help, since for the period
of AD 8 – AD 16 there is no solar eclipse that could be connected
to the Romans. The believers in historically recorded eclipses had,
as their counter-argument, the eclipse of 15th February AD 17 (see
the Total and Annular Solar Eclipse Paths: 0001-0020). The track of
this eclipse in Ginzel passes from Libya via Greece to the Danube
delta, and the track thus crossed the Mediterranean. Of course, the
three year long period is too great, it would upset the chronology in
full, would disturb the list of the consuls, and in general it would
question all the results of the careful scientific activities which were
performed earlier.
Considering this danger the researchers reached a consensus, stating
that 19th of August AD 14 (the day of the death) is indeed an
unmovable chronological corner-stone, while, in relation to it, the
solar eclipse of AD 17 is false.
Naturally, the sources cannot be silenced, which is why for more
than one hundred years the systematical invalidation, doubting and
discrediting of these sources continues. Using scientific methods, I
need hardly add.
The result of 100 years in this vein prompts Schove’s reaction:
„In ancient times the Sun was often credited with an eclipse
around the time of the death of a famous person. Such a statement
usually amounts to no more than a stock of literary compliment.
Augustus seems to be no exception.” (Schove, p.5)
In such a case the typical counter-argument is, immediately at
hand, stating that the author is not contemporary, he was collecting
data considerably later from uncertain sources and compiled his
report from them. Using this technique, Dio Cassius (who is usually
very respectable) also becomes discredited. (LVI, p.29)
Eusebius, who put his record in nice chronological order when
saying „Defectio solis facta et Augustus…moritur” [Obscuration of
the Sun happened and Augustus…died.], was accused that he „does
not claim totality, or even that the eclipse occurred before the death
of Augustus.” (Schove, p.6)
Naturally, Schove does not deny the existence of these sources, but
he thinks that the false „solar eclipse of AD 17 is the probable basis
for the reports of Dio and Eusebius.”(Schove,p.6)
And it is obvious in such cases, when the solar eclipse looked for
(in the wrong place) cannot be found, an argument is formed, that
„there is possible confusion with the observed lunar eclipse of AD
14.” (Schove, p.6)
It is our good luck that the 198 year long time-difference of the
Hungarian Calendar gives us a surprising result: 58 years after the introduction of the Julian calendar that is on 14th
August HC/CE 212, which is earlier by five days than the time of the
death of Augustus, the various astronomical programs indicate a
solar eclipse, which completely satisfies all my needs. According to
the illustrations of Oppolzer, Ginzel and Espenak
(http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html) as well, the total
solar eclipse can be observed at a nearly analogical area. The track
of totality starts from the Spanish Carthago Nova at the moment of
sunrise, runs in the direction of Sardinia, while at Neapol, Nola and
Arpi the darkness is total. In Rome it was morning time so the darkening of the sun was probably 98%. Since it is approximately a solar
eclipse of West-East direction, it does not mean anything either that
the illustration of Espenak indicates 2h 23m delta-T for the given
time-period.
Let us specify the solar eclipse:
HC/CE 212 S. 212. Aug. 14
Total solar eclipse above Southern-Europe
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEcat/SE0201-0300.html
0212 Aug 14 06:48 T 87 0.431 1.025 39.8N 85.8E 64 96
02m12s
Sources: Cassius Dio, Roman History,LVI,29,Loeb Classical Library, Translation by Earnest Cary
“During a horse-race at the Augustalia, which were celebrated in
honour of his birthday, a madman seated himself in the chair which
was dedicated to Julius Caesar, and taking his crown, put it on. This
incident disturbed everybody, for it seemed to have some bearing
upon Augustus, as, indeed, proved true. For in the following year,
when Sextus Apuleius and Sextus Pompeius were consuls, Augustus
set out for Campania, and after superintending the games at
Neapolis, passed away shortly afterward at Nola.
Indeed, not a few omens had appeared, and these by no means difficult
of interpretation, all pointing to his fate for him. Thus, the sun
suffered a total eclipse and most of the sky seemed to be on fire:
glowing embers appeared to be falling from it and blood-red comets
were seen. When a meeting of the senate had been appointed on
account of the emperor’s illness, in order that they might offer
prayers, the senate-house was found closed and an owl sitting on it
hooted. A thunderbolt fell upon his statue that stood upon the Capitol
and blotted out the first letter of the name “Caesar”. This led the seers
to declare that on the hundredth day after that he should attain to
some divine state. They deduced this from the fact that the letter “C”
signifies “one hundred” among the Latins, and the remainder of the
word means “god” among the Etruscans. Now these signs appeared
beforehand while he was still alive: but people of later days were
struck also by coincidences in the case of the consuls and of Servius
Sulpicius Galba.”
Eusebius/Jerome (ed/Schoenr, II 1866,147 or ed. Fotheringham,
1923, p.253)
“Defectio solis facta et Augustus…moritur.”
In English:
“Obscuration of the Sun happened and Augustus…died.”
I do not wish to illustrate and to compare with the above genuine
eclipse any of the solar eclipses which are situated in invented, imagined
times and oriented badly, since the comparison does not make
sense. Naturally, my statement relates also to the event of Schove
(Schove, p.5), which is indicated as “S.17, Feb.15 FALSE YEAR FOR
ECLIPSE OF AUGUSTUS SOLAR ECLIPSE AFTER HIS DEATH”.
This solar eclipse cannot be connected in any way to Augustus
Caesar who died 195 years later at Nola!
Below I show you the figure of solar eclipses for the period of CE
201-220 from the above-mentioned NASA web page, and the map of
the CE 212. Aug.14 solar eclipse with 122.3 minutes of delta-T proposed
by Mucke/Meeus.
I could actually end my study with the analysis of this solar
eclipse. Determining the calendar by retro-calculation produces the
solar eclipse (wich was looked for during the last 400 years by the
science) exactly at the time and place originally recorded, too
improbable to be mere coincidence.
Augustus Caesar did not live to see his 76th birthday (autumnal
equinox, 23rd of September), and just a bit earlier than that date we
have an observable total solar eclipse in the area of Rome, Neapolis
and Nola.
By the way, my method of identification of this eclipse compliments
the scientists who are studying the ancient world. They reconstructed
carefully and very accurately the ancient relative chronology,
and very rightly did not allow their well-established system to be
disturbed by an indeed false solar eclipse which at a distance of 3
years from its rightful place.
Now The Hungarian Calendar simply has the only task of screening
out the non-contemporary literary sources, while academical science
must declare that Ptolemaios, or more precisely that humanist
who forged under his name, is a swindler. (But not an ancient
swindler, as Robert R. Newton had already qualified him.)
Naturally, considering the 200-year time-shift, all of the historical
solar eclipses identified earlier mistakenly, should be re-examined
again, and the delta-T values must be recalculated once more.
I think there will not be a need to change the starting year of our
present calendar, since the time indeed can be counted further on
from the year of CE 1, just by taking into consideration a different
historical framework. The year of CE 154 as the beginning of the
Julian calendar can be remembered easily, and the year of CE 199
(which up to now was considered as AD 1) is also not a difficulty for
calculations. For a long time it has been accepted that the birth of
Jesus can precede by 4-7 years the year of AD 1. The 2002
Hungarian edition of The Hungarian Calendar indicated the year of
Jesus’ birth as CE 194, supposing that he lived 33 years.
Finally, in connection with this solar eclipse about Augustus we
shall remember that he was born in CE 136 on the day of the autumnal
equinox, and in CE 212 he passed away before 23rd of
September.
For the sake of those who are still not convinced by my argumentation
I will continue with the listing of the astronomical events.
For a change I offer you the lunar eclipse, which followed the
death of Augustus Caesar.
Its traditional date is the night of 26–27 of September in AD 14.
(The more detailed studies tell us that it was more likely in the early
morning.)
Before I give the date of the genuine lunar eclipse let us restate the
opinion on the basis of the earlier research. Let us point out the most
important fact: the above identification has been accepted! Despite
its problematical character. I dare to say, despite the tremendous
problems connected with it!
Schove is quite laconic when he says that “The eclipse occurred
fairly soon after the death of Augustus, as the Pannonian legions
mutinied in the hope of extorting better pay and conditions of services
from the new emperor, Tiberius, or, alternatively, deposing
him.” (Schove, p.4)
On the basis of the traditional chronology this lunar eclipse is of
obvious importance, since there is none other available after the
death of Augustus on 19th of Aug. The researchers were forced to
use what they had at hand…
A little acquaintanceship with Roman history would suggest what
might have happened when legions mutinied (in this case, three
Pannonian legions), involving the saluting of a new emperor and a
March on Rome. Tacitus says that things went differently on this
occasion, in so far as Junius Blaesus, on hearing of the death of
Augustus and the accession of Tiberius, had allowed his men a rest
from military duties, either for mourning or rejoicing.
Percennius, who had once been a leader of one of the theatrical
factions, and learnt from the applause he received as an actor how to
stir up a crowd, ”in conversations at night or at nightfall, gradually
influenced” one part of the soldiers.
After some time this former leader of one of the theatrical factions
gathered round him all the most disaffected soldiers. (XVI)
Finally, when there were others ready to join the mutiny, he called
a gathering for discussion of their demands. (XVII)
They then piled up turf and raised a mound so that they might have
a more conspicuous meeting-place. (XVIII)
After the intervention of tribune Blaesus, with the consummate
tact of an orator, the turbulent soldiers decided on sending the son of
Blaesus as an envoy to the emperor in order to state their case. (XIX)
Meanwhile the companies, which prior to the mutiny had been
sent to Nauportus to make roads and bridges, also started to revolt,
and plundered the neighbouring villages and Nauportus itself. (XX)
Hearing about the mutiny, Tiberius sent his son Drusus to
Pannonia accompanied by dignitaries of the State and with two praetorian
cohorts, in order to take the necessary measures according to
the situation. (XXIV)
Drusus arrived… (XXV)
The night, which had threatened an outbreak of violence, was
calmed by an accidental event: in the clear sky the moon grew suddenly
dark. (XXVIII)
The question was raised very early whether the interval of about
39 days between the death of Augustus on Aug.19 and the eclipse on
Sept. 27 is sufficient to accommodate the events which have to
occur: news of the death of Augustus travels from Nola and Rome to
Pannonia, the revolt occurs, a messenger travels from Pannonia to
Tiberius, Drusus and his cohorts make their way to Pannonia, presumably
from Rome.
Schove laconically decides this question: ”Ginzel 1899 (197) considers
the time be sufficient.”
I declare, on the contrary, that the time is insufficient! But I declare
a lot more serious things!
As an example I declare that the mutiny of the “leader of one of
the theatrical factions” is simply a literary work, which was written
by Poggio Bracciolini (the great son of Firenze) at the beginning of
the 15th century, and on the basis of the Roman History of Dio
Cassius.
I do not wish to deny the possibility of a revolt in Pannonia following
the death of Augustus; I only exclude the possibility of such
an early (as September) lunar eclipse connected to it.
The author who uses the pseudonym of Tacitus knows very well
the traditional chronology, which is why he is forced to mention an
early starting winter and the winter camp of soldiers, because his
source contains the hint about a lunar eclipse of certain winter-time.
He is quite aware of the fact that his literary retrocalculated lunar
eclipse for AD 14 got a late September date; while in his source the
winter would be mentioned. Naturally the winter is completely different
in Rome than it is in Pannonia.
And beyond this, in connection with this mistaken lunar eclipse
there is another very big deficiency, which was already offered to the
researchers for consideration by Struyck and Stockwell. Since the
middle of the eclipse according to their calculation was at 6h30m, the
soldiers could not be impressed with an especially large-scale effect,
considering the fact that the bigger part of the eclipse occurred in
daylight.
To put it simply, I can examine this early morning lunar eclipse of
27th Sept. in AD 14 from every angle but I get the same result all the
time, which is that this eclipse is bleeding from many wounds…
Using The Hungarian Calendar, however, we search for eclipses
approximately 198 years closer to us in time, and a considerably different
picture emerges. We have a lunar eclipse five months after the
death of Augustus.
My offer as the date of the genuine lunar eclipse is 24th January in
HC/CE 213! In January the sun rises considerably later in the morning,
so the middle of the total lunar eclipse calculated to happen at
6h34m local time, could be a lot more attractive than the other one,
which happened at dawn in AD 14.
Below I present, in full, the contents of the two related literary
works:
P. Cornelius Tacitus, “The Annals” I.16–I.28
“This was the state of affairs at Rome when a mutiny broke out in
the legions of Pannonia, which could be traced to no fresh cause
except the change of emperors and the prospect it held out of license
in tumult and of profit from a civil war. In the summer camp three
legions were quartered, under the command of Junius Blaesus, who
on hearing of the death of Augustus and the accession of Tiberius,
had allowed his men a rest from military duties, either for mourning
or rejoicing.”
“That terrible night which threatened an explosion of crime was
calmed by a mere accident. Suddenly in a clear sky the moon’s radiance
seemed to die away. This the solders in their ignorance of the
cause regarded as an omen of their condition, comparing the failure
of her light to their own efforts, and imagining that their attempts
would end prosperously should her brightness and splendour be
restored to the goddess. And so they raised a din with brazen instruments
and the combined notes of trumpets and horns, with joy or sorrow,
as she brightened or grew dark. When clouds arose and
obstructed their sight, and it was thought she was buried in the
gloom, with that proneness to superstition which steals over minds
once thoroughly cowed, they lamented that this was a portent of
never-ending hardship, and that heaven frowned on their deeds.”
Cassius Dio, Roman History
Loeb Classical Library, Translation by Earnest Cary
“This rival, then, he got rid of at once, but of Germanicus he stood
in great fear. For the troops of Pannonia had mutinied as soon as they
learned of the death of Augustus, and coming together into one camp
and strengthening it, they committed many rebellious acts. Among
other things they attempted to kill their commander, Junius Blaesus,
and arrested and tortured his slaves. Their demands were, in brief,
that their term of service should be limited to sixteen years, that they
should be paid a denarius per day, and that they should receive their
prizes then and there in the camp; and they threatened, in case they
did not obtain these demands, to cause the province to revolt and
then to march upon Rome. However, they were at this time finally
and with no little difficulty won over by Blaesus, and sent envoys to
Tiberius at Rome in their behalf; for they hoped in connection with
the change in the government to gain all their desires, either by
frightening Tiberius or by giving the supreme power to another.
Later, when Drusus came against them with the Pretorians, they fell
to rioting when no definite answer was given them, and they wounded
some of his followers and placed a guard round about him in the
night to prevent his escape. But when the moon suffered eclipse, they
took the omen to heart and their spirit abated, so that they did no further
harm to this detachment and dispatched envoys again to
Tiberius.”
Summarizing all the above said, I can state for sure that a starting
date of CE 154 for the Julian calendar is supported by a solar eclipse
of great effect, and by a lunar eclipse that occurred at a realistic time.
On the other side, academical science devoted to consensus in its
research activities, cannot produce or document any suitable solar
eclipse and any lunar eclipse, which could be fitted realistically to
the death of Augustus.
Feeling more reassured by the above results let us turn to another
eclipse. In the previously mentioned basic work of Ginzel, under
serial-number 33 for AD 5 we have an annular-total solar eclipse on
the date of 28th March. In order to find this solar eclipse on the map
of Espenak we should watch carefully the Amazon-Dakar area
(Figure 0001-0020). Unfortunately Ginzel does not remain faithful
to himself when he tries to prove that despite its very small phase, the
eclipse could be seen in Rome. (“Die kleine Phase konnte beim dem
tiefen Stande der Sonne wahrnehmbar sein.”)
Dio Cassius records events according to the years in which consuls
held office rather than by date. When the author discusses events of
200 years in the past, it is proper to mention a spectacular solar
eclipse. And it is also a fact that nobody used to accuse Dio of being
precise chronologist or that he usually arranged his commentary in
strict chronological order. By the way, Dio became a historian after
he had a divine inspiration in a dream (I wonder from which god he
received his gift?). His words are well chosen, his manner of writing
is rhetorical, and he frequently deviates from the subject.
The identification of this solar eclipse is very old and connected to
Calvisius (1620) and Petavius (1627). Naturally not all astronomers
were satisfied with this solar eclipse running along the Amazon-
Dakar line, which is why Seyffart for example had chosen 6th
February AD 7 instead. But this was also unsuitable, since its total
path did not contact the surface of our globe. Why was it in the past,
and why is it even today that everybody is attached to this mistaken
identification? The reason is, naturally, that Dio Cassius named the
consuls, and as we have seen at the death of Augustus Caesar, in the
case of Roman chronology the priority is always given to the consuls,
whenever the consuls and the solar eclipses “are fighting” each other!
I have already agreed with this concept in the case of Augustus, and
now I support this idea once again. But only on condition that our
source remains free from invented additions in brackets…
Let us see what Dio writes:
”At this time, in the consulship of Cornelius and Valerius Messala.”
I cannot see any good reason to accept the action of some people,
who provided Dio with bracketed explanations as additions:
”(Cn) Cornelius (Cinna) und (L.) Valerius Messala”.
“My” consuls can be put in 3 BC,and their names are as follows:
L.Cornelius Lentulus
M.Valerius Messala
Using the 198-year shift of The Hungarian Calendar it is quite
straightforward to find the genuine solar eclipse, which is:
HC/CE 197 S.197. June 3!
This hybrid eclipse, illustrated by Oppolzer and Ginzel, had the
track of totality moving along the line of Tunis, Crete and Cyprus,
just a bit further south than Sicily. It can also satisfy the most fastidious
tastes. And it is well visible in Rome.
Unlike for Schove, for me it is not necessary to include the road
makers and the miners of southern Spain among the observers. And
unfortunately for Schove, the Dakar-Khartoum rally was not yet
organized either, since such participants might have really seen the
solar eclipse of AD 5 very clearly.
In the case of my solar eclipse, the academical officials might not
worry about the delta-T either, since its shadow has a West-East
direction.
In the system of co-ordinates of The Hungarian Calendar, this solar
eclipse took place two years after the death of Herod, or in other
words, preceding by 15 years the death of Augustus, in the year of
the above mentioned consuls. The orthodox year corresponding to
the consular year is 3 BC, and not AD 5. So we can witness 1 (one)
year of error in the system (referring to the 199 years of difference).
Generally, the traditional error of the list of the consuls is exactly the
same.
The specialist-scientists dealing with the Roman relative chronology
must decide between themselves who is to blame: was it Dio
who made the mistake of one year or seven years, or they just simply
muddle things up dealing with one pair of consuls.
According to The Hungarian Calendar, based on Dio and the solar
eclipse itself, the correct year is 2 BC. For an example, if we replace
the consuls of 2 BC with the consuls of 3 BC, our system is becoming
perfect. Another possibility would be that one pair of consuls had
been left out from the time preceding 3 BC.
The beauty of my argument is that I did not need assistance from
the lost “Universal Chronicle” of L. Cornelius Bocchus nor from
Seneca either. And I did not need to create (as Schove was forced to
do) a hypothesis like “Possibly this small eclipse had been predicted
by astronomers and was noticed because it was expected”
.
Anyone still not sufficiently convinced by my explanation, should
consider that the error of Dio is 6 years in comparison with the
Hungarian Calendar. And naturally the sceptic should read book LV
of Dio!
Anyhow, I am offering a well-observable annular solar eclipse,
while Ginzel’s event cannot be observed at all in hilly Rome at sunset.
Meanwhile, moving backward in time, let us check the following
solar eclipse, against which cannot be proposed too much by traditional
chronology:
HC/CE 164 S.164, Sept .4.
An annular solar eclipse above the skies of Southern Europe
0164 Sep 04 08:46 A 76 0.201 0.963 17.9 53.7E 78 136 03m 48s
When, during the spring of 2002, I became convinced that we have
200 years of error in our chronology, I remarked about this annular
solar eclipse (which occurred physically at very good observation
points): a corresponding literary source must be found!
It took quite a lot of time before I came across the source. And I
found it, of all places, in the footnote (see below) to Ginzel’s solar
eclipses under his serial number of 31. The Chronicon Paschale
records a solar eclipse in the XII year, somewhat anachronistically,
mentioning the VII INDICTION. It is very clear that here we have
the result of a retrocalculation, since the “indictio” starting from
September 1st was invented a lot later.
As we learn from official records, the Chronicon Paschale was
compiled during the time of emperor Heraclius, from sources quite
varied in credibility. Scientifically, it was said of it, that the compilation
had happened on the basis of Roman contemporary works that
had already been lost before our own time.
According to the recently accepted calculation, on the basis of the
consuls’ table (list) this solar eclipse is placed at the year of 36 BC
or a.u.c.718. (This is the year of Publicola and Nerva as consuls.)
One hundred years earlier the solution for the same problem was
given as a.u.c. 717 (Ol.186,1) and 36 BC, May 19, certified by a
solar eclipse.
The source of the Chronicon Paschale was taken very seriously,
and if we check the track of totality of the total solar eclipse, we can
conclude that it is not so bad. Moving from Rabat to the Lybian
coast, and further south than Alexandria. Researchers have been
wont to accept events a lot worse than this, especially in those cases
when it is very difficult to guess the location.
I offer Alexandria as the location. And for “year XII” my suggestion
is that it means the 12th year of a calendar beginning in CE 154.
(According to the retrocalculation made by the Byzantine author the
12th year had started from 1st of September.)
In any event, the solar eclipse (36 BC) was not considered by science,
so I can only state that this dropped false event is situated just
199 years distant from the solar eclipse preferred by me.
Chronicon Paschale (Corp. Hist. Byzant.Bonn 1832 p.360, 361)
“XII Ind. VII.
Publicola et Nerva Cocc,coss.
II. Augusti Caesari.
Solis eclipsis accidit
Let us continue with another solar eclipse:
HC/CE 168 S.168, Dec. 17.
0168 Dec 17 06:17 A 83 0.556 0.916 10.2N 83.7E 56 386 12m 15s
On the map of the solar eclipses it is not a striking phenomenon,
and worse, the observer who made the report for us, saw it in the
morning together with the sunrise. The location is the same as the
location of the previous case, which is Alexandria. In 198 years of
time-distance there is really no suitable event, although offers were
suggested, as for example 31 BC, Aug. 20!
I do not wish to analyse this wrongly identified weak event, which
has been already dropped by science as well. Perhaps the names of
the consuls are important, since according to the traditional chronology
Messala Corvinus should be placed in 31 BC.
Chronicon Paschale (Corp. Hist. Byzant. Bonn 1832 p.360, 361)
XVI Ind. XI
Octav. Aug.II et Corvilio coss.
VI. August Caes.
Solis eclipsis facta est.
 |
Download the book as PDF |
