When Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz introduces his paper on the “phantom time hypothesis,” he kindly asks his readers to be patient, benevolent, and open to
The Phantom Time Hypothesis • Damn Interesting Damn Interesting The Phantom Time Hypothesis Article • Written by Alan Bellows • Non-Fiction • November 2005 © 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s). Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/the-phantom-time-hypothesis/ Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz When Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz introduces his paper on the “phantom time hypothesis,” he kindly asks his readers to be patient, benevolent, and open to radically new ideas, because his claims are highly unconventional. This is because his paper is suggesting three difficult-to-believe propositions: 1) Hundreds of years ago, our calendar was polluted with 297 years which never occurred; 2) this is not the year 2005, but rather 1708; and 3) The purveyors of this hypothesis are not crackpots. The Phantom Time Hypothesis suggests that the early Middle Ages (614-911 A.D.) never happened, but were added to the calendar long ago either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents, or by deliberate falsification by calendar conspirators. This would mean that all artifacts ascribed to those three centuries belong to other periods, and that all events thought to have occurred during that same period occurred at other times, or are outright fabrications. For instance, a man named Heribert Illig (pictured), one of the leading proponents of the theory, believes that Charlemagne was a fictional character. But what evidence is this outlandish theory based upon? It seems that historians are plagued by a plethora of falsified documents from the Middle Ages, and such was the subject of an archaeological conference in München, Germany in 1986. In his lecture there, Horst Fuhrmann, president of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, described how some documents forged by the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages were created hundreds of years before their “great moments” arrived, after which they were embraced by medieval society. This implied that whomever produced the forgeries must have very skillfully anticipated the future… or there was some discrepancy in calculating dates. This was reportedly the first bit of evidence that roused Illig’s curiosity…he wondered why the church would have forged documents hundreds of years before they would become useful. So he and his group examined other fakes from preceding centuries, and they “divined chronological distortions.” This led them to investigate the origin of the Gregorian calendar, which raised even more inconsistency. In 1582, the Gregorian calendar we still use today was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII to replace the outdated Julian calendar which had been implemented in 45 BC. The Gregorian calendar was designed to correct for a ten-day discrepancy caused by the fact that the Julian year was 10.8 minutes too long. But by Heribert Illig’s math, the 1,627 years which had passed since the Julian calendar started should have accrued a thirteen-day discrepancy… a ten-day error would have only taken 1,257 years. So Illig and his group went hunting for other gaps in history, and found a few. For example, a gap of building in Constantinople (558 AD – 908 AD) and a gap in the doctrine of faith, especially the gap in the evolution of theory and meaning of purgatory (600 AD until ca. 1100). From all of this data, they have become convinced that at some time, the calendar year was increased by 297 years without the corresponding passage of time. Sometimes a hypothesis which challenges convention can be alluring, particularly when it could plausibly fit most of the facts. But as Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All of the evidence presented by Illig and his group (mostly written in German) is circumstantial at best. Their hypothesis does raise some interesting questions and point out some inconsistencies in history, but to jump to such an outlandish conclusion indicates an unscientific approach to the problem. Further, their suggestions for the possible motives behind this calendar conspiracy border on absurd. For instance, the first hypothesis they put forward is that Otto III modified the calendar so that his reign would include the year 1000 AD, because this would put him in his God’s good graces according to his understanding of Christian millennialism. So although history and the future are both strange places, neither seems to be quite as strange as Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz imagines. © 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s). Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/the-phantom-time-hypothesis/ Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ? 138 Comments Sources Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist? (Adobe Acrobat file) Wikipedia entry on Heribert Illig A Phantom Time FAQ (thanks Hans) Monumenta Germaniae Historica Charlemagne Related Clever Hans the Math Horse Up in the Air The Third Reich's Diabolical Orbiting Superweapon Mincemeat and the Imaginary Man Share This Credits Writing: Alan Bellows Alan Bellows is the founder/designer/head writer/managing editor of Damn Interesting. Copyright © 04 November 2005 All Rights Reserved. Last updated 06 July 2022. If you wish to repurpose this copyrighted work, you must obtain permission. 138 COMMENTS JustAnotherName Posted 05 November 2005 at 05:35 am Although I believe it is important to know of other theories and movements propounded through the centuries and feel that analyzing them can provide some valid information, I have already come to the conclusion this group is no more than intelligent blithering idiots. I know their type. I have a brother much like the so-and-so pictured above. Alan Bellows Posted 05 November 2005 at 10:24 am JustAnotherName said: “I have already come to the conclusion this group is no more than intelligent blithering idiots. I know their type.” Forgive me, but to judge anyone (or their ideas) based on their perceived “type” seems to be the polar opposite of open-mindedness. Don’t you think it’s better to stick with the facts, and judge the theory indepedently of the man? He is asking important questions, even if he’s mistaken about the answer. Godrock Posted 05 November 2005 at 10:40 am Important questions considered, one must arrive at the “what if”. What if what they are hypothesyzing is at least well founded, if not particularly accurate. …and what if I could blow cheeze balls out me bum? Schroedinger Posted 05 November 2005 at 03:24 pm I would ask if carbon dating applies to art works, then the Medieval Period did, indeed, exist..this dating serves as an excellent reference point…..I would add that Allan Bellows is quite correct: Illig does raise some important points-nevermind the man……… if he is correct, he certainly deserves our respect. Schroedinger Posted 05 November 2005 at 03:25 pm What am I saying!! Carbon dating….Does exist!! at least according to the knowledge base of our 21st century…….. Alan Bellows Posted 05 November 2005 at 04:24 pm Schroedinger said: “I would ask if carbon dating applies to art works, then the Medieval Period did, indeed, exist.” Illig, and those who subscribe to his theory, point out that carbon dating only indicates the approximate age of the item, not its calendar year. So if carbon dating indicates that an item is about 2000 years old, Illig would say that the item came from about 295BC rather than 5 AD. Crazy? Depends on who you ask. I don’t buy it based on the evidence Illig uses, but I don’t completely discount the possibility that a few extra years have been slipped into the calendar at some point. I hold it in doubt, but I try to keep my mind open to possibilities. Schroedinger Posted 06 November 2005 at 11:20 am Allan: carbon dating can come to an approximation within a couple of hudred years…..so, if the Medieval period lasted about 3-400 years, one could suppose the method would be accurate…..like you, I have an open mind and value this trait tremendously-there are plainly ludicrous suppositions( such as the sun revolving around the earth); Illig’s merit more than that adjective, I think…… marlond Posted 07 November 2005 at 08:58 am What a chilly reception! Don’t get your fingers near all those minds snapping shut. A good test of this hypothesis is to carefully compare several civilization’s calendars for the period of the first millennium and once an agreement has been made, THEN compare that body of dates to OUR western calendar. If all ‘primitive’ (i.e. non-christian calendar-using) civilizations have no events to correspond to that period, well then it would be time to take another look at our beliefs about what happened during our ‘dark ages’. Sterling Posted 07 November 2005 at 02:51 pm I don’t completely discount the possibility that a few extra years have been slipped into the calendar at some point. I don’t think anyone would seriously contest the possibility that we may be missing or adding a few years here or there. It’s why so many dates in history are marked “circa” or “about”, and of course the Gregorian Calendar was not adopted uniformly by all nations, I believe Russia was the last large Christian-tradition nation to adopt it – after the Bolshevik Revolution. So there’s a ten or eleven day fuzzy period for dates between 1582 and 1919; historians often must doublecheck dated documents during that period to figure which dating standard was being used, if the document does not so indicate. In most cases we’re talking about an error of a few days, at most a few years. It should go without saying that such dating errors are usually the result of error. Malice or conspiracy are fairly rare. The idea that there was a conspiracy to add three centuries to the historical record is absurd. Its primary error is in mistaking quantity for quality – yes, there is a relative dearth of historical documentation for the period in question. But there is not a total dearth, and the dearth is not universal but mainly focused on Europe. We have a documented chronology, not just of Western materials but also of documents of Chinese and Muslim extraction. And then there are astronomical records, which would seem to be incontrovertible. nicolay77 Posted 07 November 2005 at 06:56 pm I believe that the lost years could perfectly be true. However in this world this is totally irrelevant. Remember all the fuzz about the year 2000 ??? This is far more complex to address. This is about databases. They are far more important that history records right now, at least economically. No one will change them to another date even if all this is proved true. Millions and million dollars wasted innecesarily. They will even pay studies to prove this theory false if they consider it necessary to protect their investment. And there are other calendars. Chinese calendar comes to mind. We can try to correlate events with boths calendars to see other discrepancies. JustAnotherName Posted 08 November 2005 at 05:59 am Alan Bellows said: “Forgive me, but to judge anyone (or their ideas) based on their perceived “type” seems to be the polar opposite of open-mindedness. Don’t you think it’s better to stick with the facts, and judge the theory indepedently of the man? He is asking important questions, even if he’s mistaken about the answer.” No. MoogleYuna Posted 08 November 2005 at 06:29 am It’s interesting that this man has such a theory, because certain parts of Terry Pratchett’s book ‘The Thief of Time’ have hypotheses such as ‘History Monks’ borrowing long periods of time during the middle ages (when nothing very much was happening) and using them at a time when things got busy…… marlond Posted 08 November 2005 at 06:53 am On second thought, what Sterling said. haydesigner Posted 08 November 2005 at 07:03 pm Well, if it is 1708, then carbon dating does not exist yet, so it can not prove anything. Geez, do I have to explain everything? JustAnotherName Posted 09 November 2005 at 06:03 am marlond said: “On second thought, what Sterling said.” Okie dokie. I gave you an out. Here we go. Remember, KEEP AN OPEN MIND. I KNOW this man is wrong due to Bible Prophecy. As a Jehovah’s Witness, I am thoroughly learned in the Bible as well as Bible Prophecy. Bible prophecy is given in many, many forms in the Bible. The most outstanding are those built on the very well known to Ancient Jews as the counting of “Times”; Time, Times, Half a Time, Days of years and so on. That is why the Nation of Israel as well as the Samaritans who were despised by the Jews (Look up John 1:40,41; John 4:7-42 {verse 25,26 and 42 being most pertinent} and Pagan Nations around them KNEW when the Messiah was going to appear, they had the calculated number of years based on 30 day LUNAR months. And while this is just fine for prophecy, it does not do well for true calculating of time. LUNAR months were also sufficient for harvesting and celebrations meaningful to Ancient Jews. For instance, a very important Jewish Holiday just passed where they believe Adam was created (please forgive me if I am incorrect with the year, I did not memorize it as it has nothing to do with REAL TIME) 5,177 years ago as they base this on Lunar months and years consisting of, I believe, 360 days. Actually, it is 6,030 years ago. We know this, relying on the Gregorian Calendar (silly of us) and utilizing TWO pivotal dates where Bible events and history agree ocurred; 539 BCE is the year when Persian Kung Cyrus overthrew Babylon. In 537 BCE a Jewish remnant arrived at their homeland. THAT marked the end of the prophsied 70 desolation which began 607 BCE. Hold on, I am not done. In 455 BCE the order to rebuild Jerusalem was issued. A Bible account that is also documented in history. So, by utilizing these dates (539 BCE and 455 BCE as pivotol as Bible and History agree) and the tremendous task that not only has been thoroughly researched by the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses but by many, many Bible Scholars, you can count back to the “date” Adam was created. 4026 BCE. The Bible has painstakingly recorded years by either stating the passing of years OR who was reigning as King or Prefect here and there for so many years. Moving forward and utilizing Bible prophecy of Times, Time and the above already stated; in the case of the Messiah 483 years after 455 BCE brings you to 29 CE. (Remember, NO ZERO YEAR) Jesus was Baptized at age 30 which marked the Messiah’s arrival. Then, comes the prophecy that brings us to our day. The year 1914. 2520 years after 607 BCE. Now, many can argue that we are blithering idiots, a cult, Bible Thumpers and the like. However, I can assure you due to the amount of years that have passed based on Bible Prophecy, there are NO MISSING YEARS OR CENTURIES. The only, and I mean ONLY missing anything Bible Scholars counting and counting ever come up with is “a missing day.” Joshua 10:12, 13b (“b” meaning drop down to the latter part of this scripture) states: It was then Joshua proceeded to speak to Jehovah on the day of Jehovah’s abandoning the Amorites to the sons of Israel, and he went on to say before the eyes of Israel: “Sun, be motionless over Gibeon, And moon, over the low plain of Ai’ja-lon. …And the sun kept standing still in the middle of the heavens and did not hasten to set for about a whole day. Now, to address the issue of the Dark Ages and centuries not even passing and so on, all I can say is if you count the years in the prophecy, you WILL come to 1914 which had serious global ramifications. WWI. There was some tinkering with the calendar. It is VERY WELL documented, in history and the churches, that Jesus was born October 1st or 2nd (we usually just say October 1st but we do realize there is a “missing day”) not December 25th. Many of you may already know this; it is becoming common knowledge. There were some changes with the calendar for certain; but more for celebrations and so on. Really, how could EASTER always be on a SUNDAY when it is meant to celebrate Jesus’ ressurection. Well, I assume it just makes it easier for the Churches and everyone else to do it on a Sunday instead of keeping up with the calendar. This is an OVERVIEW only. It can only explain to you why “I” and all Jehovah’s Witnesses would find this man and the group who are doing very hard and no doubt well meaning research to be garbage not worth condsidering. We have already PROVEN to ourselves there are no missing years let alone centuries. Now, KEEP AN OPEN MIND and the next JW that is at your door, or one you work with, or there is a family member that is a JW or you know a friends’ cousins’ inlaw is one, ask him or her about the date of 1914. You will make their day and possibly several one hour a week visits for a few weeks, as I am sure, as it did all JW’s and those who just wanted to know, it takes a bit of Biblical and Historical research to understand the counting of prophetic years and the significance of 1914. Sorry if I have overstayed my Welcome on this particular subject. I will NOT be posting or reading on this subject again. See you on another article. Alan Bellows Posted 09 November 2005 at 09:40 am Citing scriptures to disprove a scientific theory? Oy. I think, perhaps, you need to take your own advice regarding an open mind. rp2 Posted 09 November 2005 at 10:28 am Sorry everyone, its all my fault. I went back in time and pulled a prank. 21st century.. hah, you people are funny marlond Posted 09 November 2005 at 01:37 pm Actually, JustAnotherName has a point. More specifically his mention of the Jewish calendar which has been calculated, maintained and celebrated independently from the christian calendar and the vatican. Any discrepancy would surely be revealed by comparing the two. Oy indeed! ecthelion Posted 12 November 2005 at 05:46 pm While JustAnotherName might have a point, he also says “We have already PROVEN to ourselves there are no missing years let alone centuries.” The silly Jehovah’s Witnesses have apparently become the most intelligent people on earth, I suppose. Nothing has been proven as of yet. It is quite possible that centuries were added to the history books and fictional characters conjured up, and it is just as likely that none of that really happened. In the major Japanese mythological texts, the Nihongi and Shojiki (not sure about the name of the second one), it has been definitively demonstrated (by cr0ss-referencing with Korean and Chinese historical texts and records) that historians in Japan fabricated mythological characters, passing them off as history. Often, historical characters were split into separate personalities in the text to make up for missing years in timelines (there are definable gaps during alleged timelines in those texts). Not only that, they claim that a Japanese civilization colonized a small section of land in southern Korea in the 4th century AD. First of all, not only did the Japanese at the time not have the technology and means to invade and hold a territory (horses and bronze/iron swords were introduced into Japan from Korea around that time – given the fact that these were in Korea and China far longer than they had been in Japan, it would be impossible for the Japanese to gain that kind of proficiency in that single century to defeat established powers), their sailing technology was far inferior to anything the Chinese or Koreans had at the time (mind you, this is the 300’s and 400’s we’re talking about here, not the Middle Ages – samurai and ninja would not exist for at least another 700 years, and the Japanese had quite a primitive civilization composed of locally-governed towns compared to their neighbors to its east). The point of this little digression is that after the Korean kingdom allied to the Japanese state (Yamato-Wa) at the time (there is si… truncated (106,614 more characters in archive)