phantom time theory

Kveto from Prague · Post by **Kveto from Prague** » Thu November 6th, 2008, 8:05 pm

this might be slightly off topic but im hoping somebody knows something.

Does anybody here know anything about Helibert Illigs Phantom Time Theory. the one that says there are 3 missing centuries from the dark ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis

my first instinct is to reject him as a crackpot, but id like to keep an open mind (even if hes dismissing one of my favourite eras, the dark ages).

i just wanted to find out if theres anyone out there whos actually read his books/theories, not just dismissed them outright.

thanks
keny from prague

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Thu November 6th, 2008, 9:47 pm

I had never heard of it before. I tried to read the wiki article but I only got confused.

EC2 · Post by **EC2** » Thu November 6th, 2008, 10:52 pm

[quote=""Divia""]I had never heard of it before. I tried to read the wiki article but I only got confused.

[/quote]

I've heard about it in passing but never followed it up.

Spitfire · Post by **Spitfire** » Fri November 7th, 2008, 3:41 am

Most of my theories on time, I learned from Star Trek episodes! Lol!

Personally I think most of that stuff is a bunch of hooey, but who am I to say, as the study of space and time is definitely NOT my forte!

Volgadon · Post by **Volgadon** » Fri November 7th, 2008, 10:55 am

If his strongest case is the paucity of archaeological evidence, then it is a very weak case indeed.

annis · Post by **annis** » Fri November 7th, 2008, 5:07 pm

This is a new one for me, Keny. It seems to hang on differing interpretations of dating processes, and reading some of the discussion about it made my eyes cross, as mathematics is definitely not my thing.

I did come across this pared down critique which goes over the main points against it, though.
http://conspiracycom.blogspot.com/2007/ ... ber-6.html

And for those whose brains can cope with detailed maths, this is a paper by Uwe Topper, a supporter of the theory who seems to be rethinking it.
http://www.ihaal.com/Issue2/The%20lost% ... pinion.pdf

Btw, talking about conspiracies, I recently read a book which might appeal to you
Richard Blake's "Conspiracies of Rome", which is set in Rome , 609 AD. it's full of fascinating detail about a little-known period, and is a good tale as well, full of twists and turns and an unexpected ending. It's the first in a series, apparently.

Kveto from Prague · Post by **Kveto from Prague** » Sat November 8th, 2008, 7:35 pm

Btw, talking about conspiracies, I recently read a book which might appeal to you
Richard Blake's "Conspiracies of Rome", which is set in Rome , 609 AD. it's full of fascinating detail about a little-known period, and is a good tale as well, full of twists and turns and an unexpected ending. It's the first in a series, apparently.[/QUOTE]

cheers for the tip. another addition to my wish list

Kveto from Prague · Post by **Kveto from Prague** » Sat November 8th, 2008, 7:56 pm

[quote=""annis""]This is a new one for me, Keny. It seems to hang on differing interpretations of dating processes, and reading some of the discussion about it made my eyes cross, as mathematics is definitely not my thing.

I did come across this pared down critique which goes over the main points against it, though.
http://conspiracycom.blogspot.com/2007/ ... ber-6.html

And for those whose brains can cope with detailed maths, this is a paper by Uwe Topper, a supporter of the theory who seems to be rethinking it.
http://www.ihaal.com/Issue2/The%20lost% ... pinion.pdf

Btw, talking about conspiracies, I recently read a book which might appeal to you
Richard Blake's "Conspiracies of Rome", which is set in Rome , 609 AD. it's full of fascinating detail about a little-known period, and is a good tale as well, full of twists and turns and an unexpected ending. It's the first in a series, apparently.[/quote]

i was exposed to the basics of the theory by an austrian friend of mine who knows that illig is famous/infamous in german historians circles. however, there doesnt seem to be an english translation of his theories. id find them interesting to peruse at least. and it does seem to support one of my personal feeling, that we know a lot less about history than we think we know. historical records are often the product of one individual who may or may not have been accurate and that source being repeated my susequent historians.

a few things seem to be going for his theory. first is that pope Slyvester and otto III instigated it so otto would be the emperor of the melinium. from what i know of otto and gerbert (sylvester), hes one of the few individuals capable of such a stunt.

also it claims many historical figures like Charlemagne, alfred the great, and haroun al rashid were fictional. a lot of the facts from these figures have always seemed suspect to me(charlemagne crowned emperor on Xmas day in 800 always seemed a little farfetched). It also dismisses the Islamic golden age of Al Andalus (which the lack of islamic architecture in spain from that period definitely supports)

but illigs theory seems incredably Euro-centric to me. I wonder how Jewish and Islamic calandars figure into it. Also astronomical records (like Halleys comet for starters) and tree rings and so forth. it still seems the wealth of evidence is against him. it seems easier to find arguments against his theory.

unless Illig gets it translated into english and garners a lot more support and can counter his critics, i think his "theory" will remain in the realm of unsubstansiated conspiricies

donroc · Post by **donroc** » Sat November 8th, 2008, 8:37 pm

I am not familiar with any of the above, but I have read the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky who resynchronized Old Testament and Egyptian history, and claimed Greece did not have a Dark Age.

I. Velikovsky: The Dark Age of Greece -- sorry, this should have been a link.

His book Oedipus and Akhnaton also deals with the above.

Eigon · Post by **Eigon** » Mon December 29th, 2008, 9:11 pm

keny - what's wrong with Charlemagne being crowned on Christmas Day, 800? Right into the Middle Ages, English kings wore their crowns ceremonially on Christmas Day, among other special times, because it was a good time to get everyone important together so they could see you wearing your crown. Having the original coronation on Christmas Day wasn't unheard of, either - William the Bastard - sorry, Conquerer - was crowned on or near Christmas Day 1066 (and there was almost a riot).
I seem to remember that there is a letter existing, between Alfred the Great in England and Charlemagne, which talks about importing mill stones - an odd thing to fake, if you were going to fake the existance of Charlemagne, I would have thought.

On the other hand, I studied the Greek Dark Ages for a year at university, only to find out later that those three or four hundred years were based almost entirely on a dodgy list of pharaohs, so no wonder the pottery evidence was very sparse and poor quality - and no wonder poems from just before the 'Dark Age' period turned up almost unaltered in the period just after it.