Phantom Time Hypothesis: The year is 1720.
The creator of the Phantom Time Hypothesis, a German historian named Heribert Illig, states that the Gregorian calendar is false and that humanity is really living in the year 1720.
This means that 297 years were ultimately just made up. Heribert Illig believes that three world leaders, Pope Sylvester II, Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, and Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, got together and forged a new idea about historical events while also falsifying documentation to back it up. Minor changes to history all added up to there being an extra 297 years added that doesn’t really exist.
How could this be done?
Heribert Illig states that historians have an inefficient way of tracking history. Historians do not have a concrete way of dating medieval artifacts and also have an over-reliance on written history from old documents. When looking back at the history between the years of 614 AD and 911 AD, this appears to be a relatively uneventful time frame. But when looking at events before 614 AD and after 911 AD, much more went on that were historically significant. Also, there exist mathematical discrepancies between the Julian and Gregorian calendars in how they measure a full calendar year.
What do other historians think about Phantom Time Hypothesis?
Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz published a paper titled ‘Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?’ in which he agrees with the hypothesis that approximately 300 years are added to history. Besides this, most of the other historians aren’t very certain of the Phantom Time Hypothesis. The article states, “Countless historians have chosen to argue it have used recorded dates of solar eclipses to do so, along with documented histories from other parts of the world that overlap the “missing” time periods”.
Why would someone want to distort history?
This is the one key point that seems to be unclear within the article and within the Phantom Time Hypothesis. Why would these three world leaders get together to rewrite history and what do they stand to gain from it? Are they trying to omit or cover up historical events? Did they use any other means of rewriting history other than forging fake documents? These questions remain to be answered within the article.
In summary, the Phantom Time Hypothesis raises some good points as to the flaws in the way historians analyze time periods. If they hypothesis isn’t completely true, it has already done some good. The hypothesis has raised some doubt as to whether the early middle ages existed and had some evidence as to why this may be. Overall, more work must be done to further solidify the theory to gain more notoriety among historians.