PHANTOM TIME HYPOTHESIS
- + Add to Faves
- + Translate
- + Share
العربية
ä¸å›½
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€
Italiano
日本語
Português
РуÑÑкий
Español
(Redirected from Heribert Illig)
The 'Phantom time hypothesis' is a theory developed by 'Heribert Illig' (born 1947 in Vohenstrauß) in 1991, which suggests that the Early Middle Ages (more precisely, the period 614–911 AD) never occurred, meaning that all artifacts attributed to this time period are from other times and that all historical figures from this time period are outright fabrications.
Other people who have written essays in support of the phantom time hypothesis include Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, Christoph Marx, Angelika Müller, Uwe Topper and Manfred Zeller. The vast majority of historians believe this theory to be utter nonsense.
The basis of Illig's claims is the paucity of archaeological evidence that can be securely dated to this period; perceived inadequacies of radiometric and dendrochronological methods of dating this period, and the over-reliance of medieval historians on written sources.
For Western Europe, Illig claims the presence of Romanesque architecture in the tenth century as evidence that less than half a millennium could have passed since the fall of the Roman Empire, and concludes that the entire Carolingian period, including the person of Charles the Great, is a forgery of medieval chroniclers, more precisely a conspiracy instigated by Otto III and Gerbert d'Aurillac.
The theory also stems from the belief that during the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in Europe (1582 AD), while compensating for a ten day discrepancy in the old Julian calendar, many dates were falsely (or ineptly) recalculated as the new system created a thirteen day discrepancy. The original mathematical blemish was attributed to the Julian year being 1.3 minutes too long (which is commonly agreed as factual).
None of Illig's work has been translated into English, and his thesis has received little attention in the English-speaking world as a considerable body of evidence immediately refutes his hypothesis. Illig's theories initially (1995 to 2000) received widespread academic criticism.
The main arguments against his hypothesis are:
★ This hypothesis is considered by many to be thoroughly refuted by astronomical calculations based on ancient reports of eclipses. Eclipses allow the calculation of the historical rate of rotation of the Earth and match the predicted lengthening of the day due to tidal effects of the moon with high precision. Even millisecond errors in the calculation would have accumulated and resulted in the eclipse being observed thousands of kilometers away from the reported location. Many independent historical eclipse reports going back as far as 700 BC are in agreement with the traditional historical timeline. [1]
★ Illig underestimates the archaeological evidence and also the research done on the literary sources from the period.
★ Dendrochronology, the method of scientific dating based on the analysis of tree ring patterns, refutes a gap of three centuries.
★ Illig's hypothesis requires a widespread collaboration involving not only the Occident, but also the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic world, in order to fabricate all the synchronisms provided by the sources. Such a collaboration, however, would have been practically impossible to implement in the past.
★ Illig gives no credible motivation for the supposed fabrications, even assuming that they had been feasible. Niemitz suggests two possible motivations: the hypothesis that Otto III redefined the calendar to suit "his understanding of Christian millenarianism," and the hypothesis that Constantine VII's re-recording of historical texts involved altering dates. Neither of these hypotheses are considered to be very credible.
★ Illig's claims regarding the Gregorian Error assumed that Pope Gregory XIII's calculation of the inaccuracy in the Julian calendar, in 1582, was based on the time since the adoption of the Julian calendar, in 46 BC. In fact, Pope Gregory's calculation was based on the time since the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Niemitz's response to this is that scholars in Caesar's time used the same date for the equinox that we do, so if the Gregorian calendar was based on the Julian calendar's state in 325, our current observation of the equinox would not match up as well as it does. This response would imply that the Gregorian calendar is only accurate ''by coincidence'', because the alleged error made in the 4th century (not calculating by the equinox date from the beginning of the Julian calendar) is cancelled out by the alleged error made in the 16th century (the 'lost' three centuries).
★ Illig, Heribert: ''Enhält das frühe Mittelalter erfundene Zeit?'' and subsequent discussion, in: Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 8 (1997), pp. 481-520.
★ Schieffer, Rudolf: ''Ein Mittelalter ohne Karl den Großen, oder: Die Antworten sind jetzt einfach'', in: Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 48 (1997, pp. 611-617.
★ Matthiesen, Stephan: ''Erfundenes Mittelalter - fruchtlose These!'', in: Skeptiker 2 (2002).
★ ''Egon Friedell und Immanuel Velikovsky. Vom Weltbild zweier Außenseiter'', Basel 1985.
★ ''Die veraltete Vorzeit'', Heribert Illig, Eichborn, 1988
★ with Gunnar Heinsohn: ''Wann lebten die Pharaonen?'', Mantis, 1990, revised 2003 ISBN 3-928852-26-4
★ ''Karl der Fiktive, genannt Karl der Große'', 1992
★ ''Hat Karl der Große je gelebt? Bauten, Funde und Schriften im Widerstreit'', 1994
★ ''Hat Karl der Große je gelebt?'', Heribert Illig, Mantis, 1996
★ ''Das erfundene Mittelalter. Die größte Zeitfälschung der Geschichte'', Heribert Illig, Econ 1996, ISBN 3-430-14953-3 (revised ed. 1998)
★ ''Das Friedell-Lesebuch'', Heribert Illig, C.H. Beck 1998, ISBN 3-406-32415-0
★ Heribert Illig, with Franz Löhner: ''Der Bau der Cheopspyramide'', Mantis 1998, ISBN 3-928852-17-5
★ ''Wer hat an der Uhr gedreht?'', Heribert Illig, Ullstein 2003, ISBN 3-548-36476-4
★ Heribert Illig, with Gerhard Anwander: ''Bayern in der Phantomzeit. Archäologie widerlegt Urkunden des frühen Mittelalters.'', Mantis 2002, ISBN 3-928852-21-3
1. Historical eclipses and Earth’s rotation
★ Hungarian Calendar, a similar hypothesis claiming an error of 200 years
★ New Chronology, a proposal by Russian mathematician Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko, makes a similar claim, but asserts a far larger gap in conventional dating on the order of a full missing millennium. It is also generally considered pseudohistory.
★ Less fanciful, but still controversial, is the revised chronology of ancient Egypt proposed by Egyptologist David Rohl. Rohl's thesis, in contrast to Illig's thesis, does not claim any historical events to be fictitious, but only readjusts their chronology.
★ Illig's Hypothesis on Phantom Times - FAQ
★ "Forget about the year 2000, we still live in 1703"
★ Explanation of the "phantom time hypothesis" in English (pdf)
★ Critique of Illig's hypothesis in English
★ A condensed description of the "phantom time hypothesis"
The 'Phantom time hypothesis' is a theory developed by 'Heribert Illig' (born 1947 in Vohenstrauß) in 1991, which suggests that the Early Middle Ages (more precisely, the period 614–911 AD) never occurred, meaning that all artifacts attributed to this time period are from other times and that all historical figures from this time period are outright fabrications.
Other people who have written essays in support of the phantom time hypothesis include Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, Christoph Marx, Angelika Müller, Uwe Topper and Manfred Zeller. The vast majority of historians believe this theory to be utter nonsense.
| Contents |
| Claims |
| Criticism |
| References |
| Debate on the issue |
| By Illig |
| References |
| See also |
| External links |
Claims
The basis of Illig's claims is the paucity of archaeological evidence that can be securely dated to this period; perceived inadequacies of radiometric and dendrochronological methods of dating this period, and the over-reliance of medieval historians on written sources.
For Western Europe, Illig claims the presence of Romanesque architecture in the tenth century as evidence that less than half a millennium could have passed since the fall of the Roman Empire, and concludes that the entire Carolingian period, including the person of Charles the Great, is a forgery of medieval chroniclers, more precisely a conspiracy instigated by Otto III and Gerbert d'Aurillac.
The theory also stems from the belief that during the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in Europe (1582 AD), while compensating for a ten day discrepancy in the old Julian calendar, many dates were falsely (or ineptly) recalculated as the new system created a thirteen day discrepancy. The original mathematical blemish was attributed to the Julian year being 1.3 minutes too long (which is commonly agreed as factual).
Criticism
None of Illig's work has been translated into English, and his thesis has received little attention in the English-speaking world as a considerable body of evidence immediately refutes his hypothesis. Illig's theories initially (1995 to 2000) received widespread academic criticism.
The main arguments against his hypothesis are:
★ This hypothesis is considered by many to be thoroughly refuted by astronomical calculations based on ancient reports of eclipses. Eclipses allow the calculation of the historical rate of rotation of the Earth and match the predicted lengthening of the day due to tidal effects of the moon with high precision. Even millisecond errors in the calculation would have accumulated and resulted in the eclipse being observed thousands of kilometers away from the reported location. Many independent historical eclipse reports going back as far as 700 BC are in agreement with the traditional historical timeline. [1]
★ Illig underestimates the archaeological evidence and also the research done on the literary sources from the period.
★ Dendrochronology, the method of scientific dating based on the analysis of tree ring patterns, refutes a gap of three centuries.
★ Illig's hypothesis requires a widespread collaboration involving not only the Occident, but also the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic world, in order to fabricate all the synchronisms provided by the sources. Such a collaboration, however, would have been practically impossible to implement in the past.
★ Illig gives no credible motivation for the supposed fabrications, even assuming that they had been feasible. Niemitz suggests two possible motivations: the hypothesis that Otto III redefined the calendar to suit "his understanding of Christian millenarianism," and the hypothesis that Constantine VII's re-recording of historical texts involved altering dates. Neither of these hypotheses are considered to be very credible.
★ Illig's claims regarding the Gregorian Error assumed that Pope Gregory XIII's calculation of the inaccuracy in the Julian calendar, in 1582, was based on the time since the adoption of the Julian calendar, in 46 BC. In fact, Pope Gregory's calculation was based on the time since the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Niemitz's response to this is that scholars in Caesar's time used the same date for the equinox that we do, so if the Gregorian calendar was based on the Julian calendar's state in 325, our current observation of the equinox would not match up as well as it does. This response would imply that the Gregorian calendar is only accurate ''by coincidence'', because the alleged error made in the 4th century (not calculating by the equinox date from the beginning of the Julian calendar) is cancelled out by the alleged error made in the 16th century (the 'lost' three centuries).
References
Debate on the issue
★ Illig, Heribert: ''Enhält das frühe Mittelalter erfundene Zeit?'' and subsequent discussion, in: Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 8 (1997), pp. 481-520.
★ Schieffer, Rudolf: ''Ein Mittelalter ohne Karl den Großen, oder: Die Antworten sind jetzt einfach'', in: Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 48 (1997, pp. 611-617.
★ Matthiesen, Stephan: ''Erfundenes Mittelalter - fruchtlose These!'', in: Skeptiker 2 (2002).
By Illig
★ ''Egon Friedell und Immanuel Velikovsky. Vom Weltbild zweier Außenseiter'', Basel 1985.
★ ''Die veraltete Vorzeit'', Heribert Illig, Eichborn, 1988
★ with Gunnar Heinsohn: ''Wann lebten die Pharaonen?'', Mantis, 1990, revised 2003 ISBN 3-928852-26-4
★ ''Karl der Fiktive, genannt Karl der Große'', 1992
★ ''Hat Karl der Große je gelebt? Bauten, Funde und Schriften im Widerstreit'', 1994
★ ''Hat Karl der Große je gelebt?'', Heribert Illig, Mantis, 1996
★ ''Das erfundene Mittelalter. Die größte Zeitfälschung der Geschichte'', Heribert Illig, Econ 1996, ISBN 3-430-14953-3 (revised ed. 1998)
★ ''Das Friedell-Lesebuch'', Heribert Illig, C.H. Beck 1998, ISBN 3-406-32415-0
★ Heribert Illig, with Franz Löhner: ''Der Bau der Cheopspyramide'', Mantis 1998, ISBN 3-928852-17-5
★ ''Wer hat an der Uhr gedreht?'', Heribert Illig, Ullstein 2003, ISBN 3-548-36476-4
★ Heribert Illig, with Gerhard Anwander: ''Bayern in der Phantomzeit. Archäologie widerlegt Urkunden des frühen Mittelalters.'', Mantis 2002, ISBN 3-928852-21-3
References
1. Historical eclipses and Earth’s rotation
See also
★ Hungarian Calendar, a similar hypothesis claiming an error of 200 years
★ New Chronology, a proposal by Russian mathematician Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko, makes a similar claim, but asserts a far larger gap in conventional dating on the order of a full missing millennium. It is also generally considered pseudohistory.
★ Less fanciful, but still controversial, is the revised chronology of ancient Egypt proposed by Egyptologist David Rohl. Rohl's thesis, in contrast to Illig's thesis, does not claim any historical events to be fictitious, but only readjusts their chronology.
External links
★ Illig's Hypothesis on Phantom Times - FAQ
★ "Forget about the year 2000, we still live in 1703"
★ Explanation of the "phantom time hypothesis" in English (pdf)
★ Critique of Illig's hypothesis in English
★ A condensed description of the "phantom time hypothesis"
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
Featured Companies
| Dancing Moon Travel | |
| Alpine Interface Inc. | |
| Travelbugs, LLC | |
| Golf Holidays International |
