Talk:Phantom time conspiracy theory

Older calenders

If the phantom time hypothesis were true, wouldn't the much older russian and Hindu calendars drop it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.158.34 (talk) 18:54, 2006 May 23 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you need to know more about these topics I would recommend you to read "the lost keys" by Florin Diacu. i noticed that this article was appointed for deletion some time ago. I would like to state as a personal opinion that whoever proposed that should be ashamed of participating on this encyclopedia. Free knowledge means no inquisitions, and whoever thought that history is an exact science is dead wrong. Logic should come before temper, and any opinion on this matter should be allowed, even if the Wikipedia editors do not agree. What is most disappointing is that most of the editors never read the works they are giving opinions and providing information about. These are blind opinions. (Andres Guzman). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.251.14 (talk) 06:37, 2007 March 13 (UTC)

The above comment was removed from the talk page in an edit. I have reinserted it as the user who removed the comment was not the one who added it. Apologies if this is a mistake. --Black Butterfly 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Illig Merger

This should probabley be merged with the data from the Heribert Illig entry, under this name. I think Illig's entry should be more about his life, ect. [unsigned] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.152.15 (talk) 23:06, 2005 November 8 (UTC)

I've merged in the relevant information from Heribert Illig. There's a lot of it. Factitious 06:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No original research

In the course of the AfD that I posted on this article, I've become more famliar with Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. [Their emphasis, not mine.]

This article also referenced Wikipedia:No original research, which states:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say. [Their emphasis, not mine.]

In other words, if the refutations are to stay, most of them need the {{fact}} template to insert as most of the refutations currently have no attributed source. Banaticus 01:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please see Talk:Heribert_Illig#Merge for a merger proposal of these two articles. -- Stbalbach 22:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Clarification Would Be Nice

"...which suggests that the Early Middle Ages (more precisely, the period 614–911 AD) never occurred..." Look, maybe it's just because it's late at night. But this reads as if the theory is that we went from 613AD straight to 912AD. I'm not sure what this theory is all about, but I'm certain that it needs to be explained better. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.246.138 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Nope. You've got it. That's the theory. Justin Bacon 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... the hypothesis is that the people who wrote the history books slipped in a few extra years that never really happened. For example, if in 1000 years time somebody claims that the Cold War and the War on Terror were two different front in the same war, and that they were both happening at the same time. That would be a phantom time hypothesis.

perfectblue (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would erase, not add, time. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The theory says that phantom time was added by chronists to time that actually passed. Of course, to rectify the issue you need to erase the added time, but according to Illig it was added in the first place. SchnitteUK (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I thinks it would be more like, if someone conviced us all that that next year was sometime in the 24th Century.

89.101.208.7 (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not at all like what Illig says. He claims that the years between 614 and 911 never occurred, that the time after this period followed seamlessly after the time before, and that the events that took place during these three centuries are either fictitious, or events that took place some other time and were shifted by chronists into this period. SchnitteUK (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I was just watching the show QI (XL series 10, Ep 3 - "Journeys," BBC recording on youtube), where this was presented in the dubious theory segment at 30:28 mins. It's expanded upon further in Stephen Fry's short article on the show's website, here http://qi.com/infocloud/time, but doesn't seem to contain much more data than this article. He does address the original user's question in the show adequately, however, where the main idea of it was an intentional trick being pulled by an emperor, or the elite, as part of a propaganda and political effort. WillJonassen (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This article needs to be substantially rewritten. There was no claim "that the year 614 went to 911" or anything stupid like that. In fact, prior to what we today call the 10th century AD(or as some would say 'CE') there was no set way of measuring what year it was. Various different peoples used various totally contradictory methods. However, in what is now called the 10th century, the Christian Church chose to create a new dating system, where "Year 1" was the year of the birth of Christ. They then placed various events(both historical and some that have been proved to be more myth than reality) into this new dating system. As the church were the only people able to read and write, and who kept records, whatever they said would be taken as gospel truth. They dated the then-present to the 10th Century AD.

What Illig(and various others for hundreds of years) are saying is that, using the references to the birth of Christ as Year 1, then the real time that had passed between "Year 1" and the creation of the new dating system should have placed the then-present in the 7th Century AD, not the 10th. There are various references to how the Church's dating system(which we still use today), showed different people living generations apart, yet actual historical evidence shows them to have been contemporaries. In addition, various "historical figures" as well as various buildings can only be found referenced in the Christian Church's Dating System that was introduced in the "10th Century AD". Astronomers etc. have likewise shown the period to have been written as about 300 years longer than it really was. And the Hungarian Chronicle(arrogantly dismissed by Western "experts" shows a period of about 100 years occurring, when the Western "experts" "know" that it was really more like 400. Various methods were sued to stretch out the actual elapsed time, such as repeating activities with new people, claiming that real contemporaries actually lived decades apart from each other, or simply fabricating people and inserting them into the historical record.

It is very amusing the way this article is treated as some bizarre "fringe", "conspiracy" theory that only the tinfoil hatters would even acknowledge. The same people who have no problem dismissing various Christian Church claims such as the 7 Day Creation, The Ark, Heaven and Hell, The Miracles of Christ etc., nonetheless refuse to question another construct of the same Church....namely the way we date years. However, most of these people are totally unaware that the only reason we say "2014" today is because a group of cardinals a little over a thousand years ago claimed that they were living in the late 900's, and pretty much everyone has just gone along with it ever since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to have an explanation of the theory, rather than just arguments for and against. You are quite free to do that, preferably citing Illig and his cothinkers. Personally, as previously stated, I think this article should be deleted, not expanded. However, you are wrong to state it is just an issue of the dating system. The hypothesis requires the fabrication (or extreme misconception) of diverse slabs of history: the Carolingian dynasty, Anglo-Saxon England, Visigothic Spain, the Islamic conquests etc. I would like an explanation of this, rather than just a pseudo-pedantic discussion of the dating system.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"It is very amusing the way this article is treated as some bizarre "fringe... etc".... that NONSENSE. Whether one is religious or not, there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between being skeptical about something miraculous like the miracles of Christ (to not the Church never actually claimed the "7 days of creation" were to be taken literally) or an history recorded in a very distant past with very few archaeological proof (like the Ark) and dismissing a time period which has been extensively studied and documented. FACT (and I underline fact) is that the current year reckoning was already in use by the VI century and started being widespread in the IX century. SO much for "being invented bu a bunch of cardinals in the year 1000 AD" (which shows total ignorance on how our calendar was created historically. And there are PROOFS for this, not theories. These theories are treated with disdain because they are simply ridiculous. It might fool the gullible people ignorant of history but not those who actually studied it and certainly not professional historians.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.191.249 (talk) 04:58, 2016 December 5 (UTC)

Well, one can't just give a Cliff's Notes version here. That would require actually reading the books to get the full understanding, as well as very thorough explanations. someone merely saying "because x" here will always lead to someone thinking they've found a problem. In fact, the "Arguments against" section has been explained in full,and it's actually strange seeing those listed here. Of course, that gets into the question of just how much should be included in the article, as every argument against PTH has a thorough reason that that argument against is itself flawed. The problem comes in when one asks just how much should be included in the article. Should it be about the concept of PTH, or should it be lengthy essays explaining every minute detail and explanation of PTH? Of course, there'll always be someone who has only the vaguest idea of what is actually being said and will claim "Oh but what about x?", blithely unaware that that has already been explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And a CliffsNotes version wouldn't be appropriate. The article should discuss what sources say about this hypothesis - the problem of course that as I've said this is for good reasons ignored by most academics. Of course, just as Creationists explain away carbon and dendrochronology, so do Illig's supporters. WP:FRINGE also applies. |The article certainly shouldn't suggest that there is any validity to it. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

^ "The article certainly shouldn't suggest that there is any validity to it". So you're basically saying that WP:NPOV should be thrown out the window? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. Wikipedia should not present fringe ideas in a way that makes them look accepted. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why there can't be a short summary of what the hypothesis is. Other articles summarise complex theories and controversies. It shouldn't be a platform to try to convert people. That's why I think this article should be deleted. The supporters of the hypothesis should try to win over more people to it, if the criticisms are so silly, rather than try to hijack Wikipedia and turn it into a weapon for their cause.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the article as it is now basically creates a flimsy strawman, and calls it a conspiracy theory. Various comments here show how ignorant most people are of the facts. Again, the Phantom Time Hypothesis is this:

There was no uniform dating system in Europe. Different peoples used different ways of dating time. Most people were illiterate, and knew only their own ages etc. The only people who kept records, and were able to read and write fluently were the Christian Church.(And this was before the Great Schism.)

In what we today call the late 9th Century AD(or 'CE') the Pope decided to create a new dating system that would be used throughout Europe/Christendom. This new dating system would use the Julian calendar of 365 day years, with every fourth year being a 'leap year' with an extra day. In addition, "Year 1" would be the year of the birth of Jesus Christ.)It is also laughable how some people seem to think that people in the "Year 100" when Christians were a persecuted minority would have been living in a world which used the AD dating system.) Again, only the Christian Church could read and write, only the Christian Church kept records, and there were actually various laws in place which kept the masses ignorant.

The Church came to the conclusion that using the birth of Christ as 'Year 1', then the then-present was the late 900's AD. There was no reason for anyone to dispute this, as the overwhelming majority of people were illiterate and ignorant, and to dispute it would have been heresy. Every year since then has been dated accordingly, up to the present year ("2014 AD"). The first thousand years or so were 'filled in' by the Church over the next years, and every famous Emperor, King, Nobleman, Warrior, Bishop, famous event, battle etc. was given its dating by the Church. In other words, every date from "1 AD" to nearly "1000 AD" was assigned its specific date by the Christian Church around the time of "1000 AD". Nobody before then would have known that they were supposedly living in, eg. 400 AD or 900 AD.

What numerous famous historians since at least the "14th Century AD" have all been saying for nearly 700 years is that the dating by the Church around "1000 AD" was incorrect, and that the period from the birth of Christ until the time of the enw dating was something like 300 years less than what the Church at the time proclaimed it to be.

Nobody has ever claimed that "the year 614 was followed by the year 912" because nobody at the time would have even said it "614" or "912".

What Illig has stated is that two real events that nobody can dispute happened are dated by the Church as having happened in "614" and "911". However, what is disputed is that these two real-life events took place anything like 297 years apart.

There is a lot more to back this up, but that is the general overview. The simplistic strawman that has been beaten down bears no resemblance to the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want specific changes made to the article, please write specifically and concisely what you want changed. We could add another sentence sourced to Illig but the article doesn't say that the year 614 was followed by 912 and your comments about "nobody then" are irrelevant, they aren't in the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give us some examples of these "numerous famous historians".--Jack Upland (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

'What Illig has stated is that two real events that nobody can dispute happened are dated by the Church as having happened in "614" and "911". However, what is disputed is that these two real-life events took place anything like 297 years apart.' If Illig really did say this, it would be good to know what these events were.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Need to find a clearer source, but 614 seems to refer to when " the Sassanid Emperor Khosrau II ("Chosroes") removed the part of the cross as a trophy, when he captured Jerusalem." (from True Cross. Doug Weller (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Somehow Illig knows this to be true, while the coronation of Charlemagne is made up.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Because there's physical evidence for one, but not the other. You may as well say 'Somehow Illig knows World War II to be true, while the Flying Spaghetti Monster is made up'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.232 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If Illig makes this claim, it is an important part of the theory, and should be documented in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Article is biased

I wonder if the author has read the book from Illig? Some "facts" stated here are not considering Illig's counterproposals. For example, the conspiracy was made between Constantine (Byzantine Empire), Otto (German-Roman Empire) and Pope. It is possible that these three have took the chance to modify history. The Muslim claendar, and other calendars do not match (Gregorian, Chinese, it is detailed in the book), these could have been matched later to "fit" to what we know. The main reasons are also stated, with proofs.

Starting critisism with the remark that it is not translated to English - it is ridiculous! So don't throw this theory out of the window too early. After all, Illig's writes: the science of history is based on the writing of history, which is a branch of literature (not exact translation). Abdulka 08:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I came to this article a while ago, and it was rubbish. It still is, completely biased. The astronomical dates of the almagest have come under attack from those who actually understand it, not just historians. Robert newton and Fomenko especially. If their results prove something is that nobody can cite the almagest as ultimate proof. the archaeological proof is weak! Why do you think medievalists are killing themselves to try to explain the stagnation of the middle ages?! as to the conspiracy, Antony Grafton, who i take as an authority, has written that "Perhaps half of the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times, and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to all ecclesiastics before 1100 AD, are fakes." (Forgers and Critics pp. 24). according to Alfred Hiatt, who i consider another authority, "There is strong evidence that certain monasteries produced forged documents on a monumental scale, not only for their own benefit..." Why is it a conspiracy theory to search for responsible of a crime among the best candidates that the best scholars have already identified for us? who is the writer of this article? the inquisition? all the article does is give us what critics say: "They say Illig is wrong, so in conclusion he is wrong" or "astronomical dates contradicts him", citing this and that date without ever citing Illigs position or even better, Fomenko's position who has done a great amount of research on this matter. That is not an encyclopedia article, that is the opinion of a person which we would appreciate he/she posts on a blog and leave the article alone. The irony is that those who call revisionists "pseudo history" are using arguments just as weak as the revisionists. can we just have an article telling us what is going on rather than stating an opinion? shouldn't the choice be left to the reader? AG (NSU) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.202.215 (talk • contribs) 16:56, August 1, 2007

Editors should take into account that current wiki-regs (Specifically WP:NOR) determine that criticism must come from third party sources. This means that in order to say that there has been criticism of an hypothesis you must source it to third parties who are actively criticizing said hypothesis. For example, you cannot say that historians have criticized phantom times for its disregard for evidence by citing the evidence directly (violates WP:NOR), instead you must cite the historian directly using a source in which they offer said criticism. - perfectblue (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Critisism section

In case anybody thinks that I've deleted the criticism section, I haven't. I've divided the section on phantom time hypothesis into 4 sections each covering a single proponent, and have included critisism of each individual with the individual themselves. - perfectblue (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconed. This should be quite easily falsifiable: All it takes is one documented solar eclipse from before the contested era, and astronomers should be able to check if it occured in the "correct" year. Other option: Halley's comet appears every 76 years. It's appearances are well documented in many eras. Find one appearance before the middle ages and one after and see if the intervening period is a multiple of 76 years. There has to be an astronomer who has checked this to debunk this theory.--Mirage GSM (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is of course that those same events were probably used to calculate the dates in the first place.

The Criticism section states that the Greco-Persian war must have ended in 480 BCE because the only possible dates for particular dates are 480 BCE and 14 February 478 BCE... however this is only true if the end of the war was in approximatively 480 BCE, which is assumed in the citation. If instead it was 300 years later there are alternate solution for the same occurrence, specifically 17 August 179 BCE and either 4 Febuary 180 BCE or 6 August 178 BCE. While the whole theory seems a little silly to me it seems like it should be possible to come up with a better cited refutation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.206.204 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1991 or 96?

Here it says 'A theory developed ...in 1991' on his page it says 'put forward in 1996' There is a 5 year difference (anyone else see a bit of irony) I am sure the key words here are developed and put forward, should it be changed? Or does it simply mean that he created the idea in 91, wrote it down, but never publicly showed the theory until 96? Either way, I think some clarification should be made. 09:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems we have a "Phanton time hypothesis hypothesis".

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They're the same year. :P 75.118.170.35 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Are there any examples of actual events being repeatedly recorded in other contexts?

How much of the 'gap' can be explained by the 'absence of a consistently agreed timescale' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Both the Battle of Tours of 732 and the Rus'-Byzantine War (860) are recorded in a wide range of sources. There is no "gap" to explain. Supporters of this theory either claim that events (such as the rule of Charlemagne) were invented or (in the case of the Arab Conquests) occurred at a different date.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lumping disparate ideas

Moved from article:

Rohl
Using Archaeoastronomy as a means of dating events, Egyptologist David Rohl proposed that dates in the history of ancient Egypt, Israel and Mesopotamia have been incorrectly recorded. Rohl's system modifies the chronologies of the 21st and 22nd dynasties, and moves the time of the 19th dynasty forward 350 years in order to match events in Egyptology up with events in other branches of archeology.[Rohl, David M. (1997) Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest". Three Rivers Press, ISBN 0609801309]

According to J.G. van der Land, editor of the Dutch language publication "Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie" (Bible, History and Archaeology), Rohl's time line would resolve some archaeological anomalies surrounding ancient Egypt, but creates conflicts with other areas that make it untenable.[van der Land, J.G. (2000) "Pharaohs and the Bible: David Rohl's chronology untenable"]

Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses assert that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 607 BC[What Does the Bible Really Teach?, page 216, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society], whereas historians date the event to within a year of 587 BC. Their chronology produces a 20-year gap somewhere between the reigns of Neo-Babylonian Kings Amel-Marduk (rule ended 560BC) and Nabonidus (rule began 555BC) in addition to the intervening reigns of Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk, despite the availability of contiguous cuneiform records[Let Your Kingdom Come", Appendix, page 187: "Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.", Watchtower Bible & Tract Society].

OK, it seems bad enough that the article lumps disparate, seemingly unconnected theories together with Illig's as "Variations". But at least some of them share a certain family resemblance. I can't see how either Rohl or the Jehovah's Witnesses fit in here. Seems like some WP:SYNTHESIS going on. Really, unless some evidence of connection between the theories is produced, everything except Illig should probably be removed, and relegated to See Also. Rd232 ^talk 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

None of the others should be in the article unless we have good sources linking them to Illig. I've taken them out. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that they belong in either "see also", or else a single paragraph that begins something like "Others have proposed similar ideas..." --Bobyllib (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability

The german Wikipedia gives a large stub account of this author, summarizing his theory briefly, and stating that it has been published in popular press but ignored by the scientific community. I think we are giving this theory undue attention, and im not sure why. is it even, really, notable? i think a good translationn of the german wp article would be a better task than what we are doing here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look back through the history it would seem this article once included much more information than it currently does but most of it was deleted. I don't know how much of that was translated from the German version, but I've added a template to request a German Translation anyway. -- œ^™ 18:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this theory is not notable and is being given undue weight here.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The point is that "phantom time" the crackpot (you cannot put it otherwise) asserts it did not exist has been extensively studied and there is a lot of documentation, scientific data, etc...

The theory is being ignored just like those theories of people who say "Einstein was wrong" adding "I am not good in mathematics but---", ie. it shows that such claims have very low credibility and their fallacies almost self-evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.191.249 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Paranormal?

I don't understand how this hypothesis is in any way "paranormal." It is a conspiracy theory involving the systematic forgery of historical documents. I don't see anything "paranormal" about that. The hypothesis is certainly unorthodox but I don't understand how it can be described as "paranormal." Can someone please explain why this article falls under the scope of the Paranormal WikiProject?-Schnurrbart (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some conspiracy theories are within the scope of WP Paranormal. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is not paranormal and I've removed that tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Motive??

Ferchrissakes, none of the nutters who proposed this fascinating hypothesis have even put forward a motive for said timeline-tinkering naughtiness. Unless somehow I've been remotely hypnotised to keep skipping that section? Blitterbug 14:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs)

The alleged motive seems to be that it allows for backdating of property records. Your family looks more prestigious if it bought something in made-up-year 810 rather than real year 914. I have no idea how such a fraud could be perpetrated, though, considering that presumably everyone else would have to be in on it. It's a stupid theory, but backdating your property records for increased family legitimacy seems to be the motive they're going for. 69.140.218.132 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A silly explanation for a silly thesis. If the motive was to make one's family look prestigious, then why did the proposed forger Otto III not simply extent the Ottonian dynasty for 300 years and instead invented another family to fill the gap? The same goes for property records, which did not exist in the way you claim them. 21:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

the theory is complete nonsense, and if there is difficulty in citing refutations, it is simply because of notability issues, no historian would waste any ink on even addressing it. Its original inspiration was a trivial failure to understand the Gregorian calendar reform. Illig later realized this and tried to 'salvage' the theory by cherry-picking facts. There is no merit to it other than pop-culture notability, and even that is rather limited. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)-

In fact, it would make more sense for Otto as Holy Roman Emperor to create a fake Roman lineage for himself. And what is the motive for the fabrication of the history of Anglo-Saxon England? If anything, the Normans would have had a motive for minimising it. And the Vikings and Visigothic Spain???--Jack Upland (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What a bunch of maroons. Had anyone actually read anything, rather than just acting smug and superior, all of this is indeed answered.

First the Normans never fabricated anything, and only invaded England over 60 years AFTER the institution of Phantom Time. A ridiculous argument which has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, as the Normans were totally uninvolved.

Next, Iberia was strongly Arian, and rejected Catholic Christianity. The Spanish actually welcomed Islam. What is called the 'Reconquista' is more accurately the 'Conquista'. However, by fabricating a three-hundred+ year period were Iberia was devoutly Christian BEFORE the Islamic incursions, the (Re)Conquista became a noble and Holy mission to reclaim, rather than an invasion.

Next, the Vikings were real, however, evidence shows Vikings entering Europe at the same time as the Muslims. In fact, that's precisely WHY Vikings entered Europe. As slave traders, trading for Islamic gold. This is shown By Viking remains have Islamic coinage and gold that is contemporaneous with the "7th century" centuries BEFORE the Vikings supposedly entered Europe.

There have been two reasons for Phantom Time, one of which is included in the article. namely, the Holy(and realistically superstitious) significance of the Year 1000. It was believed that the world would exist for 6000 years, that Christ was born after 4000 years(still held true by nutters today who believe that the world was created in 4004 BC), and that in the Year 6000(ie. 2000AD) Christ would return. In fact, how many people actually thought that the Year 2000 would bring something massive and religious? Thus, these leaders, would be ushering in the Last Millennium.

Next, when the Western Roman Empire fell, there were Germanic Kings in the West, who still paid tribute to the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople. Coins minted in the West by the German Kings still bore the head of the Byzantine Emperor, rather than the German Kings themselves. Otto wished to revive the Western Emperor, with himself as head, and mint coins with his own face on them. However, this would create a major problem. UNLESS there had already been a German Emperor of the Western Empire, who was the most significant man in Western European history....over a century before. The Otto would merely be the latest in a line of German Holy Roman Emperors, and a descendant of this magnificent figure.(And 'Charlemagne' isn't even a real name, it's a title.) Speaking of which, if Charlemagne was the Holy Roman EMPEROR, than there would be coins with his face on them. However, NOTHING exists today that can be dated to his reign, nothing of him exists(coins with his face, jewels of his, a single building of the hundreds he was supposed to have commissioned). In fact, the earliest record we have of this Emperor existing is from Otto's accounts of history, nearly 200 years after Charlemagne supposedly lived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.232 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see the argument about the German emperors (to some extent), but I think you're missing the point about Anglo-Saxon England. As you say, the Normans have nothing to do with it. However, someone fabricated hundreds of years of English history that never happened. Who and why??? And how did this fabriction survive the Norman Conquest? In any case, these explanations should be inserted into the article with citations.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The same people fabricated all European history, including Anglo-Saxon England. And they would have done so 60-70 years before the Battle of Hastings. The reason they did so was to keep all European history consistent. They would also have had to fabricate Hungarian history(shown to be true that they fabricated over 300 years of Hungarian history, as actual Hungarian chroniclers show a very different history), they would have had to have fabricated Polish history, they would have had to have fabricated French history etc. The Anglo-Saxon history is thus no different to other histories, in that they needed to add 300 phantom years across ALL of Europe(and the Middle East).

As for the Normans, well they would have been brought up in the Catholic faith. And William the Conqueror didn't care how many Anglo-Saxon Kings there had or had not been. He only cared about his 'rightful claim' to be the heir presumptive of Edward the Confessor. Anything and everything else was irrelevant. And remember, before the Renaissance, it was the Church who kept records, and nearly everyone who wasn't a member of the Church was both illiterate and totally ignorant of any history that went back before their own parents' time. 95+% of Normans were ignorant of English history, and the handful who did know anything didn't care one way or the other. All they cared about was that William claimed to be the heir of Edward the Confessor. And that he took that claim by force. What had happened 50 years before was irrelevant, let alone 500 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.232 (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

But who were these people??? Not only did they write voluminous chronicles, like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but they also apparently composed the extensive writings of scholars such as Alcuin, Isidore of Seville, and Bede and attributed them to fictional authors. They invented complicated histories such as the English Heptarchy and Visigothic Spain, practically out of their imagination. They managed to do this in such a way that it was internally consistent, was robust enough to stand up to modern science, and managed to fool the vast majority of historians for centuries. But who were they???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As stated in Illig, and the article, the Christian Church of what is considered the late 10th and early-to-mid-11th centuries.

And it is not "internally consistent" to the point where various scholars have pointed out the flaws over time, yet they are usually met with derision, as "everyone knows" that the BC/AD Chronology is True and Real.

In addition to Illig, others such as Uwe Topper, Sir Isaac Newton, N.A. Morozov, Jean Hardouin, Peter Kreshkin, Robert Baldauf, Edwin Johnson, Wilhelm Kammeyer, to name just a few have come to the same(or similar) conclusions. In fact, Illig is just the latest in a long line of historians since the 15th century to come to this conslusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.232 (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's easy to say "the Christian Church", but what does this really mean? There were a large number of clergy and people in religious orders, spread out over many countries, sometimes in isolated places, without the aid of modern communications or transport. Were they all involved in a vast conspiracy? Anyway, as I said, this should be cited, and placed in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with fringe claims

One of the problems with fringe claims such as this one is that hardly anyone who is a specialist in the field takes them seriously enough to right about them. Se far, all I can find is Steven Dutch[1] who is a Professor at the University of Wisconsin Green Bay, and Cecil Adams of Straight Dope.[2]. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If this article is going to stay, I think there needs to be more historical analysis. The rule of Charlemagne was not the only thing that happened in Western Europe in this period. If the theory is true, Anglo-Saxon England (as documented in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Bede, for example), the Vikings, and the rise of Visigothic Spain and its conquest by the Moors would largely have to have been invented too. Then you would need to reconcile this amended chronology with the history of the Islamic states and the Byzantine Empire, and further afield.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these sources haven't properly analysed the theory. (Dutch is not a historian.) They tend to accept that nothing much happened in Europe around this period, which is false. The problem is that too much happened. In contrast to the stability of the Roman Empire, this was a period of multiple invasions and the rise and fall of transient kingdoms. Hence there is a patchiness of sources.

In addition, some of their arguments don't work. The Tang dynasty isn't really relevant because China had no verifiable contact with the West at this point. There is no lack of synchronicity to explain. Similarly with Halley's Comet. As Dutch admits, 76x4=304, so it shouldn't be too hard to resyncronise Halley's Comet sightings with the amended chronology.(Though that suggests the forgers knew the comet's periodicity.)

And the theory posits some kind of phantom time for the Byzantines and Muslims as well.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added something along these lines, but we need better sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

well, logically the theory only proposes a revision of the Anno Domini era. It essentially says that in what was really the 7th century, some powerful people in Western Europe decided to pretend it was really the 10th century. This does not mean that any event traditionally assigned to the Carolingian period never happened (clearly, Islam did develop and the Muslims did invade Spain, etc.) Any event dated 7th to 9th century might still be historical, it's just the chronology that was garbled. (i.e. Jack Upland's conclusion of "would largely have to have been invented too" is flawed, nothing is necessarily invented, it's just that all the stuff we think happened over 600 years really happened in just 300 years, and everything traditionally dated to between the 5th and the 10th century needs to be re-dated to between the 5th and the 7th century). Plus, specifically Charlemagne is an invention: this is not a necessary conclusion of the falsified chronology but as it were a second claim of Illig's. The proposal is complex and fuzzy enough for 20 years of follow-up publications. But the original 1991 proposal was based on a misunderstanding of Julian chronology, and was exposed as such in 1997 at the latest. The idea is not tenable in any way, so there is little to be gained in asking "what about the Vikings" (etc.). I do believe the article should focus on the surprising popularity it found in 1990s Germany and the associated "pseudohistory" topic rather than pretending that it can be reasonably criticized as if it was somehow falsifiable or coherent. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The theory is premised on the claim that there is little recorded history in the "Dark Ages", which is false. Anglo-Saxon England, Visigothic Spain, the Vikings etc have their own chronology which can't simply be re-dated. Clearly people do believe this theory, but no one much has bothered to argue against it.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty

Without defending this theory, I don't think it requires the Tang Dynasty to have been invented. There was no verifiable contact between Europe and China at this point (unlike the case with the Islamic world). If European history has added in a "phantom" 300 years, this does not require Chinese history to be adjusted: it would just mean that early Chinese history was 300 years older, relative to Europe, than previously thought. The Chinese observations of solar eclipses reinforce the point about astronomy already made. What would be problematic, however, is the contact between China and Islam, such as the Battle of Talas in 751. This again reinforces the point already made about the theory's inability to account for the rise of Islam.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

Which sources meet WP:N? I assume Anatoly Fomenko mentions it in his book. Is that mention being used? --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware Illig's books haven't been translated into English, but are popular in the German-speaking world. There is though A Guide to the Phantom Dark Age by Emmett Scott, published in 2014. That most sources are in German does not make them unreliable per se, or this subject non-notable. Eric Corbett 21:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Who says they're popular, besides Scott's publisher? What do the two German sources say about the topic? --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You should note that this article has been unnsuccessfully nominated for deletion twice, mostly recently by me last year.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the AfDs. Angus McLellan makes a good case. Wish we had details. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the outcome, but I think we are stuck with it. I think editors are showing their naivety. There are plenty of theories that get published in some form. Not all of them will get a Wikipedia article, will they? The lack of sources in English is a good indication of lack of notability. This is not the same as saying that because the sources are German, the topic is not notable. The point is Illig has made major claims about world history, and this has been basically ignored outside of Germany. The lack of notability means there is a lack of serious criticism (as noted above). Evidence against the theory is liable to be removed because it doesn't come from reliable sources. This makes the article very problematic.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Naivety? As opposed to their inability to understand German? Eric Corbett 04:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The German issue is a straw man. If you look at the German WP article, it is arranged differently, but it is not much more extensive than this one (except in its Talk pages). According to the 1st AfD discussion, Illig had his "moment of fame" in 1997. I don't see any argument as to why this is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

So is it your argument that notability expires? Eric Corbett 13:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this theory was ever notable enough. I would like to hear a positive argument in favour of notability. But there isn't really any point, since the article has survived 2 AfDs.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ACADEMIC should apply here. Illig wouldn't qualify, so neither should his theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think this is an example of Wikipedia bias. An article about the child model Kristina Pimenova was recently deleted, even though it could easily have acquired more sources than this nonsense. However, the average Wikipedian is an intellectual, not interested in fashion or tabloid fodder. But historical theories? Of course! Even if they are "bunk".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

First line at the top, people. Jack Upland, best not to respond, such posts really are best ignored or deleted. Doug Weller (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hang on. People are trying to make this a better article. Jack Upland asked questions about the subject matter. I replied with what Illig himself has stated in books, articles etc. How is that NOT 'trying to improve the article'? Yes, this discussion on the Discussion Page has come across as, well, a discussion.

Why would you feel it 'best not to respond' and to 'ignore or delete' talk about the article, and ways of improving it, or at the very least, fleshing it out? Unless you're just trying to push a POV about the article. Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.232 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think these discussions are OK, if they result in improvements to the article. If Illig or his supporters did deal with these points, this should be added, with citations. As it stands, the description of the theory has gaping holes.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:DUE. In articles about fringe theories etc., it is not an improvement to add more coverage of primary literature by proponents. Primary literature can be cited, but only within "due" context so as not to create the impression that the theory has any merit. --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I came here wondering if this is even worth a standalone article? It's basically a fad from German popular media hailing from the 1990s. German Wikipedia has the useful page de:Chronologiekritik for pseudo- or "para-"historical revisionism of chronology. It might be best to compile an analogous page for en-wiki, either in list format or with brief summaries of notable instances in h2-sections; this topic could then be merged into such a page with larger scope. Unfortunately, English does not have a direct translation for German Chronologiekritik; it is a sub-topic of Historical revisionism (perhaps Historical revisionism (chronology)?) --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion twice.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I know and I do not understand your point. I agree it does have some notability. I am suggesting to merge it, not to delete it. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would fit more under pseudohistory. But even with "revised chronologies" alone there is too much material for one article, I think. It would also risk creating a false amalgam, putting together a range of theories that have little in common.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Mistake in Explanation

If you read the paper 'Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?' (reference 1 in the article), then it says that in theory, there were two separate phantom times, the first from 583 - 661, and the second from 750 - 968, as opposed to one phantom time from 614 - 911 as this wikipedia page states. Lorddobba (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)lorddobba, 2nd June 2020

That is what Niemitz thinks. Illig has his own "theory" with only one phantom time, therefore the 614-911 period is preceded by "Illig believed". As soon as you start from the assumption that you can arbitrarily pick and choose which sources to accept, you can also make up arbitrary fake periods, so it is no wonder those people disagree with each other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally I believe Niemitz and Illig don't really exist. Bigfoot flew on a UFO to Uranus and weaved the Bayeaux Tapestry out of his nasal hairs. Then he deposited it at the Library of Congress. DNA testing proves you were present.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Points of improvement

This article has a lot of problems, most of them caused by not being concrete when discussing matters.

• Scarcity of archaeological evidence: the article claims there's a lack of archaeological evidence from the 7th to the 9th Century, but if you look at Category:Archaeological artifacts by century in terms of famous items at least there seem to be more objects than immediately before and after. The article should state precisely what it means, including a concrete discussion about the plenty before and after the period and a discussion on how the artefacts we know of are supposed to be outliers. If there is no such scarcity, the article should clearly discuss how it came to be that Illig perceived it.
• Perceived inadequacies: what were these and why were they supposed to be problematic in the period discussed, but not before or after?
• Over-reliance of medieval historians on written sources: what does this mean? In the absence of modern archaeology, how much reliance on written sources would have been just right, according to Illig? And how do they look at Roman historiography for example?
• Romanesque architecture: I'll take the lack of innovation, but it does contain Byzantine influences, which makes me wonder how Illig addresses the discrepancy: it existed into the 15th Century, so if Romanesque architecture shows that Roman society existed closer to the present than supposed, that would leave three options: 1) Roman influence continued to be felt beyond the notional fall of the Western Roman Empire, but that would leave no room for the lost centuries. 2) The Byzantine Empire existed into the 18th Century. Smirk. 3) The dates of events happening in the West and East shouldn't match up the way they do.
• If 4 October 1582 is followed by 15 October 1582, then how can you come to any other other conclusion than that only a few days are missing, rather than centuries? Call me thick if you want, but the text of the article just doesn't explain the line of reasoning at all.
• With enough precision to question the hypothesis: is this ‘question’ in the technical sense of completely and utter disproving it, or in the normal sense? I suspect it's the former, but either way be explicit for Pete's sake. Did the heavens have had to have taken a break from their usual clockwork orbits for the theory to be true yes or no?
• Dendrochronology refutes, rather than supports the theory: if the ‘perceived inadequacies’ point above has any merit (or should I say... cuts wood? sorry, ha ha ha) then the dendrochronological evidence wouldn't be reliable, would it? Or is this meant to say that it is in fact reliable and that the point is horseshit? Why not just summarise the data as it is?
• Three missing centuries thus correspond: I see no missing centuries in this bit either, just an equinox that shifted by only a couple of days.
• Does Illig really think the Carolingians are fabricated, or is that a conclusion the article draws, something that must be true for the theory to hold but that Illig himself doesn't necessarily agree with?`
• Is it wise to have Proposal and Criticism in separate sections? I think the article would be a lot better if these two sections were merged. If that would make it too long, it should be split by topic.

According to a biography, Illig didn't finish his Egyptology studies, but he did receive what would today be called an MBA and two science bachelor degrees. What is wrong with our education system? Or did his brain go mushy in old age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Please sign your posts. See WP:SIGN.

Many of the things you say are right. The "scarcity of archaeological evidence" exist only in Illig's imagination, dating methods are not inadequate, and so on. This should be rewritten according to WP:NPOV. I will start by integrating the "criticism" into the section above, as WP:CSECTION says. But explaining in detail why Illig believes what he believes is not a good idea, it would lend too much credit to it.

Regarding What is wrong with our education system - scientists are typically specialists who are out of their depth when it comes to other fields. In German, there is a word for that: "Fachidiot". Most pseudoscientists have studied one field and then fall into all the rookie traps when they try to revolutionize another one they do not understand, like Linus Pauling. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I just renamed the sections for now, marked Illig's claims as claims, and simplified the awkward Gregorian-calendar thing a bit. I'll alert WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Smart people are just dumb about a few less things than the rest of us.147.226.211.4 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)