The phantom time hypothesis claimsCharlemagne did not exist.
Thephantom time conspiracy theory is apseudohistoricalconspiracy theory first asserted byHeribert Illig in 1991. It hypothesizes a conspiracy by theHoly Roman EmperorOtto III andPope Sylvester II to fabricate theAnno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history[1] to legitimize Otto's claim to theHoly Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[2] According to this scenario, the entireCarolingian period, including the figure ofCharlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years (AD 614–911) added to theEarly Middle Ages.
Significant evidence—such as calendars in other European countries, most of Asia and parts of pre-Columbian America—contradicts the hypothesis and it failed to gain the support of historians and archaeologists.[3][4][5][6]
Illig was born in 1947 inVohenstrauß,Bavaria. He was active in an association dedicated toImmanuel Velikovsky,catastrophism andhistorical revisionism, theGesellschaft zur Rekonstruktion der Menschheits- und Naturgeschichte (English:Society for the Reconstruction of Human and Natural History). From 1989 to 1994, he acted as editor of the journalVorzeit-Frühzeit-Gegenwart (English:Prehistory-Proto-History-Present). Since 1995, he has worked as a publisher and author under his own publishing company,Mantis-Verlag, and publishing his own journal,Zeitensprünge (English:Leaps in Time). Outside of his publications related to revised chronology, he has edited the works ofEgon 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 1996Das erfundene Mittelalter (English:The Invented Middle Ages) also received scholarlyrecensions, but was universally rejected as fundamentally flawed by historians.[7]In 1997, the journalEthik und Sozialwissenschaften (English:Ethics and Social Sciences) offered a platform for critical discussion to Illig's proposal, with a number of historians commenting on its various aspects.[8]After 1997, there has been little scholarly reception of Illig's ideas, although they continued to be discussed aspseudohistory in German popular media.[9]Illig continued to publish on the "phantom time hypothesis" until at least 2013.Also in 2013, he published on an unrelated topic ofart history, onGerman Renaissance masterAnton Pilgram, but again proposing revisions to conventional chronology, and arguing for the abolition of the art historical category ofMannerism.[10]
That medieval historians rely too much on written sources.
That the presence ofRomanesque architecture in tenth-century Western Europe suggests that the Roman era was not as long ago as conventionally thought.
That at the time of the introduction of theGregorian calendar in AD 1582, there should have been a discrepancy of thirteen days between theJulian calendar and the real (or tropical) calendar, when the astronomers and mathematicians working forPope Gregory XIII had found that the civil calendar needed to be adjusted by only ten days. From this, Illig concludes that theAD era had counted roughly three centuries which never existed.
Observations inancient astronomy, especially those ofsolar eclipses cited by European sources prior to 600 AD (when phantom time would have distorted the chronology), agree with the usual chronology and not with Illig's. Besides several others that are perhaps too vague to disprove the phantom time hypothesis, two in particular are dated with enough precision to question the hypothesis. One is reported byPliny the Elder in 59 AD.[13] This date has a confirmedeclipse. In addition, observations during theTang dynasty in China, andHalley's Comet, for example, are consistent with current astronomy with no "phantom time" added.[14][3]
Archaeological remains and dating methods such asdendrochronology (tree-ring dating) refute, rather than support, "phantom time".[4]
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 AD, the time of theCouncil of Nicaea, which had established a method fordetermining the date ofEaster Sunday by fixing thevernal 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 325 AD.[5]
Die veraltete Vorzeit, Heribert Illig, Eichborn, 1988
with Gunnar Heinsohn:Wann lebten die Pharaonen?, Mantis, 1990, revised 2003ISBN3-928852-26-4
Karl der Fiktive, genannt Karl der Große, 1992
Hat Karl der Große je gelebt? Bauten, Funde und Schriften im Widerstreit, 1994
Hat Karl der Große je gelebt?, Heribert Illig, Mantis, 1996
Das erfundene Mittelalter. Die größte Zeitfälschung der Geschichte, Heribert Illig, Econ 1996,ISBN3-430-14953-3 (revised ed. 1998)
Das Friedell-Lesebuch, Heribert Illig, C.H. Beck 1998,ISBN3-406-32415-0
Heribert Illig, with Franz Löhner:Der Bau der Cheopspyramide, Mantis 1998,ISBN3-928852-17-5
Wer hat an der Uhr gedreht?, Heribert Illig, Ullstein 2003,ISBN3-548-36476-4
Heribert Illig, with Gerhard Anwander:Bayern in der Phantomzeit. Archäologie widerlegt Urkunden des frühen Mittelalters., Mantis 2002,ISBN3-928852-21-3
^abFößel, Amalie (1999). "Karl der Fiktive?".Damals, Magazin für Geschichte und Kultur. No. 8. pp. 20f. NOTE: This is just a letter to the editor with no academic references, it is not a valid refutation.
^abKarl Mütz:Die „Phantomzeit“ 614 bis 911 von Heribert Illig. Kalendertechnische und kalenderhistorische Einwände. In:Zeitschrift für Württembergische Landesgeschichte. Band 60, 2001, S. 11–23.
^Johannes Fried:Wissenschaft und Phantasie. Das Beispiel der Geschichte, in: Historische Zeitschrift Band 263,2/1996, 291–316.Matthias Grässlin, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 1. Oktober 1996
^EuS 1997 Heft 4.Theo Kölzer (Bonn University) refused to contribute, and the journal printed his letter of refusal instead in which Kölzer criticizes the journal for lending credibility to Illig's "abstruse" idea. A favourable review was published by sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn, which later led to a collaboration between Illig and Heinsohn until 2011, when Heinsohn left the board of editors of Illig's journal and published his rejection of Illig's core idea that the figure of Charlemagne is a high medieval fiction.
Illig, Heribert:Enthält das frühe Mittelalter erfundene Zeit? and subsequent discussion, in: Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 8 (1997), pp. 481–520.
Schieffer, Rudolf:Ein Mittelalter ohne Karl den Großen, oder: Die Antworten sind jetzt einfach, in: Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 48 (1997), pp. 611–17.
