A number of readers have asked me to research a bit into “phantom time” which (even if you haven’t read Anatoly Fomenko’s History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)) is an intriguing notion that would destroy a lot of present-day thinking.
The Wikipedia notes on “Phantom Time” relegate the idea to the the trash heap, at least on the surface:
The phantom time hypothesis is a revisionist history and conspiracy theory developed in the 1980s and ’90s by German historian and publisher Heribert Illig (born 1947 in Vohenstrauß, Germany). The hypothesis proposes that periods of history, specifically that of Europe during the Early Middle Ages (AD 614–911), are either wrongly dated, or did not occur at all, and that there has been a systematic effort to cover up that fact. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation, and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[
Of course, Fomenko is not the only researcher to come to the conclusion that there may be 325 years just “made up” in our historical past. Oh, and as Fomenko contends, some of the key figures of what we take to be legit history were more likely made-up fictions who were given names of never-lived people or patterned after then-current-day folk heroes of Roman times.
This is a battle that you’re likely to hear a lot more about. One reason is that the wide-open communication of the internet makes it possible for people to simply “make up” a good yarn and use it to drive traffic to a web site. It works, too.
And the other reason, of course is that “truth” is a very slippery and subjective thing, subject to the winds blowing through society at a particular time. Which is why what an avid Christian may believe about “law” and “justice” may be considerably different than what an avid Muslim, or Buddhist, may believe about “law” and “justice.”
Much of what’s believed is contextual and is based in no small part of how your personal operating system was installed. I refer to the low-level formatting of your perceptions by your parents, their actions, and conferred belief structures. Hell…their whole “way of being” is passed on at a low level that most people never get around to inspecting.
So, having said all this, yes, there are inconsistencies in the historical data, and researchers like Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz (Berlin) have published some quite remarkable papers like the one “Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?” which may be studied online here; it’s 15 pages worth.
This a very worthy paper because it gets to the heart of the calendar-settings debate:
It seems, unbelievably, that Caesar introduced his calendar in 325 AD. This is unbelievable because by then he had already been dead for more than 300 years. If 16 centuries had passed since Caesar’s introduction of his calendar, the Julian calendar in Gregory’s time would have been out of sync with the astronomical situation by 13 days, not 10.
Others, including Fomenko, have noticed oddities like this, too/ Yet defenders of the old (Western) calendar cite factors like dendrochronology, which is the study of tree rings to make their case.
The problem is that even a “hard science” like dendrochronology has issues. For example, if a block of 325 years really was just twisted out of the conventional time-line by the mad monks a-marketing, who did extensive historical revisionism as part of the rewrites of Biblical history in order to “age” Christianity relative to the new religion on the block (Islam), there’s nothing in the tree rings that says “anchor Islam here.” Or, anchor “Christianity here.”
As Hans-Ulrich Niemitz’s work notes:
Uwe Topper and Manfred Zeller pointed out how to resolve some important riddles and research problems of the Islamic and Persian-Arab-Byzantine world using the thesis of the phantom years. Firdowsis’ well-known epic, the Shahname, written around 1010 AD, ends with the last Persian king Yazdegird III, who died 651 AD. The epic tells nothing about the Islamic conquest of Persia and has no allusions to Islam at all.