The Phantom Time Hypothesis #CCT3

CCT3= Creepiest Conspiracy Theory 3

The phantom time hypothesis is a historical conspiracy theory asserted by Heribert Illig.
First published in 1991, it proposes a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III,Pope Sylvester II and possibly Constantine VII [yeah, the then emperor of the Byzantine Empire]. It says that they had fabricated Anno Domini [AD] dating system retrospectively so that it placed them at the year AD 1000, that is to rewrite history.

Heribert Illig was born in 1947 in Vohenstrauß, Bavaria. He was active in an association dedicated to Immanuel Velikovsky, catastrophism and historical revisionism, Gesellschaft zur Rekonstruktion der Menschheits- und Naturgeschichte. From 1989 to 1994 he acted as editor of the journal Vorzeit-Frühzeit-Gegenwart. Since 1995, he has worked as a publisher and author under his own publishing company, Mantis-Verlag, and publishing his own journal, Zeitensprünge. Outside of his publications related to revised chronology, he has edited the works of Egon Friedell.
Before focusing on the early medieval period, Illig published various proposals for revised chronologies of prehistory and of Ancient Egypt. His proposals received prominent coverage in German popular media in the 1990s. His 1996 Das erfundene Mittelalter also received scholarly recensions, but was universally rejected as fundamentally flawed by historians.^[3] In 1997, the journal Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften offered a platform for critical discussion to Illig's proposal, with a number of historians commenting on its various aspects.^[4] After 1997, there has been little scholarly reception of Illig's ideas, although they continued to be discussed as pseudohistory in German popular media. Illig continued to publish on the "phantom time hypothesis" until at least 2013.

Heribert Illig

 Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation, and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.^[2] According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, would be a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of close to three centuries (AD 614 to 911) added to the Early Middle Ages.

The proposal has found no favour among mainstream medievalists.

Illig  has actually 3 main points supporting his hypothesis :

1.The scarcity of archaeological evidence that can be reliably dated to the period AD 614–911, the perceived inadequacies of radiometric and dendrochronological methods of dating this period, and the over-reliance of medieval historians on written sources.

2. The presence of Romanesque architecture* in tenth-century Western Europe, suggesting the Roman era was not as long ago as conventionally thought.

3.The relation between the Julian calendar, Gregorian calendar and the underlying astronomical solar or tropical year. The Julian calendar, introduced by Julius Caesar, was long known to introduce a discrepancy from the tropical year of around one day for each century that the calendar was in use. By the time the Gregorian calendar was introduced in AD 1582, Illig alleges that the old Julian calendar should have produced a discrepancy of thirteen days between it and the real (or tropical) calendar. Instead, the astronomers and mathematicians working for Pope Gregory XIII had found that the civil calendar needed to be adjusted by only ten days. (The Julian calendar day Thursday, 4 October 1582 was followed by the first day of the Gregorian calendar, Friday, 15 October 1582). From this, Illig concludes that the AD era had counted roughly three centuries which never existed.

Criticism :

• The most difficult challenge to the theory is through observations in ancient astronomy, especially those of solar eclipses cited by European sources prior to 600 AD (when phantom time would have distorted the chronology). Besides several others that are perhaps too vague to disprove the phantom time hypothesis, two in particular are dated with enough precision to disprove the hypothesis with a high degree of certainty. One reported by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History: "The eclipse of the Sunne, which chanced before the Kalends of Maij, when as Vipsanus and Fonteius were Consuls, (and that was not many yeeres past) was seene in Campania betweene the 7 and 8 houres of the day" in 59 AD; and one as reported in Photius' epitome of Philosturgius' lost history: "When Theodosius had entered the years of boyhood, on the 19th of July, a little after noon-day, the sun was so completely eclipsed that the stars appeared" in 418 AD. Both of these dates and times have confirmed eclipses. In addition, observations during the Tang Dynasty in China, and Halley's Comet, for example, are consistent with current astronomy with no "phantom time" added.
• Archaeological remains and dating methods such as dendrochronology refute, rather than support, "phantom time".The Gregorian reform was never purported to bring the calendar in line with the Julian calendar as it had existed at the time of its institution in 45 BC, but as it had existed in 325, the time of the Council of Nicaea, which had established a method for determining the date of Easter Sunday by fixing the Vernal Equinox on March 21 in the Julian calendar. By 1582, the astronomical equinox was occurring on March 10 in the Julian calendar, but Easter was still being calculated from a nominal equinox on March 21. In 45 BC the astronomical vernal equinox took place around March 23. Illig's "three missing centuries" thus correspond to the 369 years between the institution of the Julian calendar in 45 BC, and the fixing of the Easter Date at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.
• If Charlemagne and the Carolingian dynasty were fabricated, there would have to be a corresponding fabrication of the history of the rest of Europe, including Anglo-Saxon England, the Papacy, and the Byzantine Empire. The "phantom time" period also encompasses the life of Muhammad and the Islamic expansion into the areas of the former Roman Empire, including the conquest of Visigothic Spain. This history too would have to be forged or drastically misdated. It would also have to be reconciled with the history of the Tang Dynasty of China and its contact with Islam, such as at the Battle of Talas.

So, what do you think?
Lemme know in the comment section
Source:
BuzzFeed

Wikipedia

*go to link to know more

Here's an intresting video on the topic: