30 Questions About the Phantom Time Hypothesis09.11.26

- Phantom Time - http://www.fantomzeit.de -
FAQ
written by jb on December 8, 2006 @ 07:20 | Comments are disabled

30 Questions Regarding the Phantom Time Theory

by Jan Beaufort (Würzburg)

[updated version from January 26, 2009]

Contents

1. What is the purpose of chronology?

2. What is the function of a calendar?

3. What is a system of dating (era/chronological reckoning)?

4. What are relative and absolute chronologies?

5. What are BP (Before Present) dates?

6. What approaches exist for the critical examination of chronology?

7. Who is Heribert Illig?

8. Who was Immanuel Velikovsky?

9. What is the Phantom Time Theory (PTT)?

10. How did Illig arrive at his thesis—which strikes both laypeople and experts as strange—of an Early Medieval "phantom time" (PT)?

11. Why does Illig, as a first approximation, estimate the duration of this medieval phantom time to be approximately 300 years?

12. Why, in a second step, does Illig narrow down this phantom time to the years between 614 and 911 AD?

13. Can Charlemagne really be so easily erased from history?

14. Are artificial extensions of chronology a phenomenon completely unknown to historians?

15. Does the PTT claim that the artificial extension of the medieval chronology is the product of a global conspiracy?

16. According to the PTT, how did this artificial extension of the medieval chronology come into existence? 17. Is the assumption that Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus was the architect of an artificial extension of the chronology well-founded?

18. Is it conceivable that a forged medieval chronicle could be the source of an undetected calendar error that is now present in all the history books and calendars of the world?

19. Does the historiography of the Arab world not disprove the "Phantom Time Hypothesis" (FZT)?

20. Does the Islamic calendar not begin in the year 622 AD with the Prophet Muhammad’s flight from Mecca to Medina?

21. But even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that a falsification of time on the scale suggested by Illig was possible, what could the motive have been?

22. And even if there might have been valid reasons for a falsification of time within the Islamic world, the question remains: what was the motive of the original inventor of this "phantom time"?

23. Was our Christian calendar not established in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus?

24. What about the rest of the world? Surely there were not "dark centuries" everywhere?

25. Cannot the "Phantom Time Hypothesis" be refuted using computer-aided astronomical retrocalculations?

26. Do scientific dating methods, such as radiocarbon (C14) dating and dendrochronology, not demonstrate the absurdity of the "Phantom Time Hypothesis"?

27. Should not the massive falsification of time postulated by this hypothesis have left traces everywhere?

28. Are there really no traces left anywhere of what Illig calls "the greatest falsification of time in history"? That seems hardly conceivable, doesn't it?

29. Is it possible that no one ever noticed the deception? The "Phantom Time Hypothesis" (FZ) would have effectively torn apart genealogies or even the biographies of individual people—surely someone must have noticed this?

30. Final question: Was there really so much forgery in the Middle Ages, or is that merely a claim made by proponents of the Phantom Time Hypothesis? And isn't it practically impossible that all writings from the Carolingian era were forged?

Literature

1. What is the purpose of chronology?

Chronology is a science that examines how the peoples of this earth divide and measure—or have divided and measured—time. Furthermore, it investigates how such divisions can be most effectively structured for various specific purposes. [Ideler I 5 f.]

The mathematical and astronomical foundations of timekeeping are the subject of astronomical chronology. The application of these foundations by humans across different cultures and historical periods is studied by historical chronology. Historical chronology serves as an auxiliary historical science. [von Brandt 30]

Chronology distinguishes between three types of temporal order:

a natural, cosmic order: day and night, the lunar month, the solar year

two artificial orders:

(a) a cyclical order: the calendar (a guide through the year) [see Question 2]

(b) a linear order: the era (a system of year-counting), which tallies calendar years [see Question 3]

Cosmic movements and rhythms form a natural temporal structure, which serves as the basis for two artificial orders. Both of these artificial orders could be described as "calendrical" or as "calendar systems." However, a calendar in the strict sense refers to the organization of the year—a system that recurs periodically and is therefore cyclical. The second, linear order is known as a system of year-counting or an "era."

2. What is the function of a calendar? The word “calendar” comes from the Latin *calendarium* and originally referred to a Roman ledger for interest payments, which was organized according to the beginnings of the months (*calendis*). A calendar constructs an artificial, cyclical temporal structure based on the cosmic order. While this structure is rooted in natural phenomena...

It incorporates the day, the lunar month, and the solar year, yet arranges them into a system that often deviates from the natural order—or, at the very least, no longer corresponds to it. It is precisely this deviation that renders the system useful for social and, in particular, religious purposes.

For instance, the artificial year consists of either 365 or 366 days—even though the length of the astronomical solar year remains constant. Our artificial month has detached itself from the natural lunar cycle and is, on average, about one day longer than the duration of a single lunar orbit. The seven-day week corresponds approximately—though only approximately—to one-quarter of a lunar orbit. The day is subdivided into the artificial units of hours, minutes, and seconds—units that cannot be found anywhere in the natural world.

Regarding the calendar in this narrower sense—as a cyclical system—it should be noted that it forms the basis for the religious liturgical calendar. The cycles of Christmas and Easter are determined by the principles of the solar calendar and a lunar calendar reconciled with it. It was the gradual drift of the calendar date for Easter toward the summer that ultimately led to the Gregorian calendar reform. [see Question 11 regarding the calendar reform]

3. What is a system of year-reckoning?

A system of year-reckoning—as a linear ordering principle—can be distinguished from the calendar, which functions as a cyclical structure. A system of year-reckoning (also referred to as an era, a chronological system, or simply chronology) is a linear framework that counts years forward or backward from a specific point in time, which is arbitrarily designated as the starting point. In our Christian system of year-reckoning, the birth of Christ serves as this zero point. The year zero itself does not exist in this system, as the number zero was unknown in antiquity. Consequently, the year 1 BC is immediately followed by the year 1 AD. One might initially assume that a system of counting years is not an artificial construct at all, given that it merely tallies the Earth’s orbits around the Sun. The Earth’s revolution around the Sun is a natural phenomenon; consequently, the count of these revolutions should also be natural. In this view, counting years would be no different from counting the annual rings of a felled tree—simply recording a state of affairs as it exists in nature. However, matters are not quite so straightforward. For instance, the ancient Egyptians used a calendar that defined the solar year as exactly 365 days (with no leap years). Because this year was a quarter of a day too short, the Egyptian calendar gradually drifted out of alignment with the astronomical solar year. Even more significant discrepancies arise in the Islamic calendar, which is not based on the solar year; an Islamic year consists of exactly 12 lunar months, making it approximately 11 days shorter than our solar year. [Regarding the Islamic system of timekeeping, see also questions 4, 20, 28, and 29.]

These examples demonstrate that a system of counting years does not simply organize astronomical phenomena; rather, it primarily organizes calendar years. It therefore presupposes the existence of a calendar—an artificial, cyclical system—and is itself an artificial construct. This is further underscored by the fact that the introduction of a year-counting system was generally not motivated by astronomical concerns. Such systems were established to commemorate and contextualize historically significant events. By organizing these events into a chronological history, those who created these systems often pursued specific political or religious objectives.

The critique of chronology, which will be the focus of the following discussion, is, above all, a critique of the various systems used to count years—including the Christian one. 4. What are relative and absolute chronologies?

Perhaps the oldest and most widespread method for anchoring significant events within collective memory is by referencing the regnal years of rulers. Sources often contain phrases such as: “In the 5th year of Pharaoh Amenophis,” “in the 10th year of the Great King Xerxes,” or “in the eighteenth year of Jeroboam” (2 Chronicles 13:1). In Luke 3:1–2, we read: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene; and during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas—the word of God came to John, son of Zechariah, in the wilderness.”

Such accounts—regardless of who wrote them, when they were composed, or whether they are factual or fictional—allow the events described to be situated in time relative to one or more rulers. This enables the creation of what are known as relative chronologies. These relative regnal chronologies can be expanded; for instance, by using king lists or other documents and monuments, we can reconstruct the sequence of individual rulers.

We speak of an absolute chabsolute chronology. [For an introduction to the Christian calendar, see questions 22 and 23.] Similarly, the Islamic calendar counts from the year of the Prophet Muhammad’s flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina; this event is dated to the year 622 AD. [For more on the hijra, see question 20.]

Other significant examples include the Seleucid era—frequently used in antiquity—which begins in 312 BC, and the ancient Roman system of dating *ab urbe condita* (“from the founding of the city”), which starts from the mythical founding of Rome in 753 BC. There is also the Era of Diocletian, in use since the reign of Diocletian (beginning in 284 AD); it appears in the works of early Christian authors and remains in use today within the Coptic Church. [For more on the Era of Diocletian, see question 23.] Also important are the various “eras of the world” employed by Jewish, early Christian, and Byzantine authors, which calculate time from a theoretical moment of the world’s creation. In one such early Christian system—there are several, but the one referred to here appears in the works of Eusebius and Orosius, among others—the birth of Christ is dated to the year 5199 from the Creation. [Ideler II 430, WU 134 f.]

Another ancient system, used for scholarly purposes, is the Era of Nabonassar—found in Claudius Ptolemy’s *Almagest*—which begins in 747 BC.

In addition to these conventional absolute chronologies, one must also mention “BP” (Before Present) dating, a modern scientific method. It establishes an absolute chronology by counting backward from the year 1950. [regarding this dating method, see Question 5]

When the discussion turns to potential errors in the established historical chronology, it is, in no small part, the complex interplay between these relative and absolute chronologies that will come into focus.

5. What are BP dates?

"BP" stands for "Before Present." This is a dating method used within the context of scientific dating techniques (such as radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology [see Question 26]). The BP scale counts backward from the year 1950. For instance, the year 1500 AD corresponds to 450 BP.

The advantages of the BP dating system for scientific research are clear. Scientific dating methods—such as radiocarbon dating—initially yield only BP values. The same applies to astronomical events calculated retroactively. Mapping these to AD dates is, from a scientific perspective, an additional step that requires its own specific justification.

Departing from the traditional correlation between BP and AD dates, the "phantom time hypothesis"—developed by Heribert Illig [see Questions 7 and 9 et seq.]—proposes the equivalence: 614 AD = 911 AD = 1039 BP. Consequently, it follows that 613 AD = 1040 BP; 590 AD (the solar eclipse mentioned by Gregory of Tours [see Question 12]) = 1063 BP; 1 AD = 1652 BP; and 1 BC (the year of Christ’s birth) = 1653 BP.

6. What approaches exist for the critical examination of chronology?

There are several different approaches to the critical examination of chronology, which may create the impression that a certain degree of arbitrariness is at play. This arbitrariness may be one reason why historians are reluctant to engage with recent critiques of chronology. In doing so, they overlook the fact that the objection of arbitrariness can also be leveled against conventional chronologies. [see Question 14] In both traditional and alternative approaches, the boundaries between science and belief are often fluid.

Only the most significant attempts at critical reconstruction can be briefly addressed here. The following approaches can be distinguished:

(a) First, conventional criticism of chronology. This operates within the conventional framework. [for examples, see Question 14]

(b) Second, the approach of Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky’s critique targets what he perceives as an excessively long timeline in Egyptology—a timeline that, in his view, erroneously serves as the foundation for the chronology of all ancient history. As an alternative, Velikovsky proposes a chronology based on the Bible and on an archaeology free from Egyptological biases. [see Question 8]

(c) Third, the reconstruction of ancient history by Heinsohn and Illig. Gunnar Heinsohn, Heribert Illig, and several members of the "Illig group" follow Velikovsky’s critical approach to chronology but discard his "biblical fundamentalism." [cf. Heinsohn’s *Assyrerkönige gleich Perserherrscher!*, Gräfelfing 1996; Heinsohn and Illig’s *Wann lebten die Pharaonen?*, Gräfelfing 1997; and the series of articles on ancient history by authors including Heinsohn, Illig, Weißgerber, and Zeller in the journal *Zeitensprünge*]

(d) Fourth, the "phantom time hypothesis" (FZT) developed by Heribert Illig. Velikovsky’s critique of chronology focused on the history of antiquity. Followers of Velikovsky recognized that the post-Christian era also requires critical examination. This critique took two directions. On the one hand, it led Heribert Illig to formulate the FZT [see Question 7 and Question 9 et seq.]. On the other hand, Christoph Marx put forward the thesis...ronology when a single, consistent starting point for counting is maintained throughout. Our Christian calendar system is one such example.

...from the “Last Great Jolt.” [see point (g)]

(e) The theory of Anatoly Fomenko. Based on statistical analyses of the *Almagest* by Claudius Ptolemy, the Russian mathematician Fomenko concluded that this work must have originated no earlier than the 10th century AD. He placed the beginning of the Era of Nabonassar—used by Ptolemy [see question 4]—at the end of the 5th century AD. Consequently, he argues, the entire history of antiquity should be shifted forward by at least a thousand years; the conventionally recounted history of that era is, in his view, an invention of the modern age. He suggests that actual history can be partially reconstructed through the statistical analysis of texts. [see Fomenko’s major work, *Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating*, Dordrecht et al., 1994] Proponents of Fomenko’s ideas include former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov, Dr. Eugen Gabowitsch, and Alexander Beierbach. Fomenko’s approach is further developed by Davidenco and Kesler [in *Book of Civilization*, with a preface by Garry Kasparov, Moscow, 2001]. Uwe Topper and Christoph Marx incorporate Fomenko’s critique and his method of statistical text analysis into their own attempts at historical reconstruction. [see points (f) and (g)]

(f) The approach of Uwe Topper. Topper combines Fomenko-inspired concepts with Illig’s "Phantom Time Hypothesis" (FZT). It is, in part, this inclusion of the FZT that distinguishes Topper’s critique of chronology significantly from that of Christoph Marx. [see Topper (2000)]

(g) The “Reconstruction of Human and Natural History” (RMNG) by Christoph Marx. Following Velikovsky, Marx assumes that the suppression of accounts regarding cosmic catastrophes—which posed an existential threat to humanity and occurred within historical times—necessitates a rewriting of history. [see Question 8] Like the FZT (Phantom Time Theory), Fomenko, and Topper, the RMNG posits that the post-Christian chronology also requires re-examination. Consistently extending the framework of catastrophism, Marx arrives at the thesis of a final cosmic catastrophe occurring during the *Trecento* (the 14th century). He argues that this event caused a shift in the Earth’s axis—termed the "Last Great Jolt" (LGR)—which, in turn, caused the Julian calendar to go awry [see Question 11]. According to this view, Illig’s FZT is an unfortunate error because its alternative explanation for the 10-day discrepancy in the Julian calendar contributes to the continued suppression of the LGR.

7. Who is Heribert Illig?

Heribert Illig (born 1947) holds a doctorate in German studies and is a systems analyst and independent scholar. He heads the publishing house *Mantis Verlag* and serves as the editor of the journal *Zeitensprünge* (published from 1989 to 1994 under the title *Vorzeit-Frühzeit-Gegenwart*). Both the publishing house and the journal are dedicated to the critical study of chronology—a field discussed in Question 6. Their focus lies on the approach developed by Heinsohn and Illig (mentioned in point (c) of Question 6) and on Illig’s "Phantom Time Theory." The objective of this chronological critique is to uncover or reconstruct an alternative history—one that is presumed to have been suppressed and hidden beneath the conventional historical narrative. The journal *Zeitensprünge* (hereinafter referred to as ZS) serves as the primary publication outlet for a group of scholars from various disciplines who investigate questions of chronology. Together with Gunnar Heinsohn (Bremen), Illig acts as a leading spokesperson for this group. The group’s work follows a tradition that traces back to the ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky. [see Question 8]

8. Who was Immanuel Velikovsky? Velikovsky (1895–1979) was a physician and psychoanalyst, and a student of Wilhelm Stekel. His books include *Worlds in Collision*, *Earth in Upheaval*, *Oedipus and Akhnaton*, and *The Sea Peoples*. Velikovsky is best known for two main theses:

First, he maintained that cosmic catastrophes, occurring within historical times, decisively influenced the course of history. He argued that the terror these catastrophes inspired caused them to be repressed from the collective memory. [see also Question 6]

Second, Velikovsky recognized that so-called "dark ages"—characterized by a scarcity of archaeological finds and historical sources, as well as a lack of technical and artistic development—might indicate errors in chronology. For example, in ancient Greece, the collapse of the Minoan-Mycenaean civilization is conventionally dated to around 1200 BC (the destruction of the palaces), yet the emergence of the *polis* (city-state) did not occur until around 700 BC. Between these two points lie "dark ages"—a period unknown to the Greeks themselves and to all historians prior to the 20th century. The early dating was established based on Egyptian artifacts found in Cyprus, associated with the era of Akhenaten (conventionally the 14th century BC). Velikovsky’s solution was to shift the Mycenaean period forward by 500 years and redate the reign of Akhenaten to the 10th century BC.

American and English followers of Velikovsky, as well as the "Post-Academic Forum" (PAF) established by his translator, Christoph Marx [see Question 6 (g)], focus primarily on Velikovsky’s theory of catastrophes. The group centered around Heinsohn and Illig—which today operates largely independently of Velikovsky—concentrates on...

y – regarding the issue of chronology.

9. What is the "Phantom Time Hypothesis" (PTH)?

The PTH is based on a thesis proposed by Heribert Illig, which suggests that the so-called "Dark" Early Middle Ages is a period that exists only in history books, with no corresponding reality in actual time. According to this view, events, individuals, social developments, written sources, structures, and other material remains attributed to this era were, in fact, retroactively inserted into it. The "Phantom Time" thesis was first articulated in 1991 in the journal *Vorzeit-Frühzeit-Gegenwart*. [Albrecht/Otte] Illig defines this "phantom time" (a term coined by Hans-Ulrich Niemitz)—as a working hypothesis—to encompass the years between 614 and 911 AD.

The PTH attempts to explain the artificial extension of chronology implied by this thesis and to reconstruct the processes that led to this chronological expansion.

10. How did Illig arrive at his thesis of an Early Medieval "phantom time"—a concept that strikes both laypeople and experts as highly unusual?

Illig’s engagement with the work of Velikovsky had sensitized him to problems concerning chronology. Against this backdrop, the suspicion that a chronological error might also be hidden within the "Dark" Early Middle Ages seemed almost logical. Two observations were pivotal to the emergence of the PTH:

First, it was noted that Charlemagne was crowned emperor on Christmas Day in the year 800 AD. This date fits so precisely into a historical-theological framework common in the Middle Ages—according to which the year 801 marked the beginning of the seventh so-called "world day" [see Question 4 regarding the "world eras"]—that the idea of it being a retrospective construct almost inevitably suggests itself.

Secondly, in his concluding address at a 1986 MGH (Monumenta Germaniae Historica) congress on medieval forgeries, the medievalist Horst Fuhrmann drew attention to a phenomenon he termed "anticipatory" forgeries. These are forgeries created centuries before they exerted any political or legal impact. Examples include: (a) the Legend of St. Sylvester concerning the baptism of Constantine—composed in the 4th century, but taking effect in the 8th; (b) the Symmachian forgeries—produced around 500, but taking effect in the 11th; (c) the Donation of Constantine—composed around 750, but taking effect in the 11th; and (d) the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals—composed in the 9th century, but taking effect in the 11th. [Fuhrmann (1986)]

Traditional historians have no solution for the problem of anticipatory forgeries. The only remaining explanation is that something went fundamentally awry in the history of the Middle Ages. While the MGH congress on forgeries (well-documented in six volumes [FM]) brought the widespread practice of medieval forgery into focus [see Questions 27 and 30], the hypothesis that the chronology itself might also have been fabricated was, in essence, merely the next logical step. Yet—perhaps due to deeply ingrained habits of thought—this step remained beyond the reach of traditional historians. The decisive step beyond the conventional view of the Middle Ages was left to Illig, a follower of Velikovsky.

11. Why does Illig, as a first approximation, estimate the duration of the "phantom time" (fictitious period) in the Middle Ages to be about 300 years?

Illig derives the underlying reasons for this from the historiography, archaeology, and architectural history of the Early Middle Ages. [see questions 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 28, and 30]

Illig found significant confirmation for this tentatively assumed duration of approximately 300 years when he examined the premises behind the Gregorian calendar reform. It is well known that the Julian calendar was too slow; the vernal equinox—the point at which day and night are of equal length in the spring—consistently drifted backward within the calendar, occurring around March 10th by the 16th century.

Gregory’s reform essentially consisted of two corrections. First, it accelerated the calendar by omitting certain leap years. This acceleration amounted to approximately one day every 130 years—a figure that also indicates the extent to which the old calendar was lagging. Second, Gregory had 10 days skipped in the calendar, such that October 15, 1582, immediately followed October 4, 1582. As a result, the astronomical beginning of spring once again fell on March 21st—the date traditionally used as the start of spring for the purpose of calculating the ecclesiastical calendar. From these two corrections, one can—*ceteris paribus*—deduce when March 21st was first established as the calendar date for the beginning of spring; for it can be assumed that it once coincided with the vernal equinox. This must have been approximately 1,300 years (10 times 130 years) prior to Gregory’s reform.

y – regarding the issue of chronology.

9. What is the "Phantom Time Hypothesis" (PTH)?

The PTH attempts to explain the artificial extension of chronology implied by this thesis and to reconstruct the processes that led to this chronological expansion.

10. How did Illig arrive at his thesis of an Early Medieval "phantom time"—a concept that strikes both laypeople and experts as highly unusual?

11. Why does Illig, as a first approximation, estimate the duration of the "phantom time" (fictitious period) in the Middle Ages to be about 300 years?

Illig derives the underlying reasons for this from the historiography, archaeology, and architectural history of the Early Middle Ages. [see questions 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 28, and 30]

In this regard, Gregory’s papal bull *Inter gravissimas* notes that the reform aims to restore the state of affairs as it existed at the time of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325). Indeed, there is much to support the assumption that, by the time of the Council, March 21st was already the calendar date for the beginning of spring. However, there is no evidence...
Baghdad. He gifted him the white elephant Abul Abbas, who accompanied Charlemagne on all his travels and military campaigns between 802 and 810. [DeM 49] Arabic sources make no mention of these relations. Harun al-Rashid is primarily known through the tales of *One Thousand and One Nights*. [WU 140]

Construction activity: Written sources from the period between 476 and 855 AD document 1,695 major structures, including 312 cathedrals, 1,254 monasteries, and 129 royal palaces (*Königspfalzen*). Regarding this, the historian Braunfels notes: “Of all these structures, only 215 had been archaeologically investigated [as of 1991], and only a fraction of those have left any remains. The structures that still stand—either in their entirety or in significant parts—can be counted almost on one’s fingers…” [DeM 208]

Palatine Chapel: The masterpiece of Carolingian architecture, the Palatine Chapel in Aachen (c. 792–799), stands as a unique phenomenon in the West. Its direct predecessor, San Vitale in Ravenna, was built more than 200 years earlier; it was not until the Romanesque period of the 11th century that structures comparable to Aachen in terms of construction technique and style emerged once again. [DeM 222 ff.] Consequently, Illig posits that the Palatine Chapel is actually an 11th-century Romanesque church.

Economy: Economic historians hold diametrically opposed views regarding Charlemagne’s financial administration. Some attribute immense wealth to him, while others speak of economic decline. [DeM 161 ff.] Heinsohn has recently demonstrated that coins attributed to Charlemagne (as well as those of Charles the Bald) cannot be distinguished from the coinage of Charles the Simple (898–929). Illig posits that this *Carolus Simplex* was a historical Carolingian figure who served as the archetype for *Carolus Magnus* (Charlemagne). The cognomen *simplex*—meaning "the simple" or "the undoubled"—did not emerge until after the turn of the millennium. [Heinsohn (2001)]

Death: Contrary to his expressed wish to be buried at Saint-Denis alongside his father, Charlemagne was interred in the Palatine Chapel at Aachen. This contradicts the prohibition against burials within churches, which had been established by Charlemagne’s own councils at Aachen (809) and Mainz (813). [DeM 44 f.]

Tomb: Out of fear of the Normans, Charlemagne’s tomb was concealed so effectively that it remained undiscovered for two centuries. In the year 1000, Emperor Otto III located and opened the tomb, reportedly finding Charlemagne seated upon his throne. The tomb subsequently fell into oblivion once more. It was not until 1165 that Frederick Barbarossa rediscovered and reopened it; since that time, the tomb has vanished. By way of comparison, the tomb of Otto the Great in Magdeburg Cathedral was consistently honored and preserved, despite the destruction and subsequent reconstruction of the church itself. [DeM 44 ff.]

Cult: The term *Sacrum Romanum Imperium* (Holy Roman Empire) originated during the reign of Frederick Barbarossa (1152–1190). Frederick ordered the exhumation of Charlemagne, his canonization, and his public veneration. Most of the forged documents concerning Charlemagne date from this period. The iconographic program of Charlemagne’s arm reliquary (dated to around 1170) documents Barbarossa’s imperial aspirations by invoking Charlemagne. [DeM 338]

Biography: Regarding the biography of Charlemagne written by the court scribe Einhard, Leopold von Ranke remarked: “This small book is full of historical errors […]. It is not uncommon for the years of his reign to be stated incorrectly […]; regarding the division of the empire between the two brothers, the exact opposite of what actually occurred is claimed […]; the names of popes are confused, and the wives and children of Charlemagne are not listed accurately; there are so many such transgressions that the authenticity of the book has often been questioned—even though it is, in fact, beyond any doubt.” [DeM 345]

Transmission: In 799, Charlemagne’s son-in-law Angilbert composed an epic in which he described Charlemagne as the “beacon of Europe,” the “head of the world; the pinnacle of Europe; the father of Europe; the most benevolent father; a hero.” In 799, Charlemagne was not yet even emperor. [DeM 35 f.] In an article for *Der Spiegel* titled “A Dark Beacon” (*Ein dunkler Leuchtturm*), Johannes Fried demonstrated that the myth of Charlemagne as the “father of Europe” emerged much later and is a product of the romanticized ideologies of the Napoleonic and Hitlerian eras. [Fried]

The reader is encouraged to consult the books *Das erfundene Mittelalter* (“The Invented Middle Ages”) and *Wer hat an der Uhr gedreht?* (“Who Tampered with the Clock?”) to see for themselves that the list above represents only a small selection from an impressive array of anomalies and peculiar accounts surrounding Emperor Charlemagne.

14. Are artificial extensions of chronology a phenomenon entirely unknown to historians? No, artificial extensions of chronology are well known to historians. The best example is the extension of the chronology of ancient history proposed by the archaeologist and Egyptologist Flinders Petrie. Sir Flinders Petrie, considered the father of modern archaeology, dated the First Egyptian Dynasty to the 6th millennium BC. Contemporary Egyptologists—following Eduard Meyer—place it approximately 2,500 years later: a chronological leap of two and a half millennia. [Birken
(2002) 222]

A current example of a debate on chronology that remains within conventional parameters is the discussion—currently taking place among Orientalists, Egyptologists, and archaeologists—regarding the "short," "medium," "long," and "ultra-long" chronologies of the Middle Bronze Age. This involves discrepancies in dating that span a total of approximately 200 years.

15. Does the FZT (Phantom Time Hypothesis) claim that the artificial extension of the Middle Ages in the chronology is the product of a global conspiracy?

No; such a claim is attributed to it only by its opponents. This is a piece of misinformation that has been disseminated—notably by Tilmann Chladek, an editor at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)—in numerous newsgroup posts. It is also echoed in the distorted presentation of Illig’s thesis found on Chladek’s own website. For Illig’s own perspective, please see question 16 and the following questions below.

Incidentally, the Cologne-based archaeologist Dr. Sven Schütte is given ample space to express his views on Chladek’s website. In doing so, Schütte fully lives up to his reputation as an unobjective polemicist against Illig. Günther Binding, a respected expert on medieval architecture, once made his opinion of Dr. Schütte’s dating methods unequivocally clear during a radio interview. This interview can be read in Illig’s article "Cologne in the Grip of 'Early-Dating' Fever" (*Köln im Frühdatierungsfieber*). How many more times will Sven Schütte serve as the catalyst? [Illig (2008)]

16. According to the FZT, how did this artificial extension of the Middle Ages in the chronology come about?

Illig’s preliminary account, presented in his book *Who Turned Back the Clock?* (*Wer hat an der Uhr gedreht?*) The hypothesis presented is that the "Phantom Time" (FZ) first appears in two historical works attributed to the Byzantine chronicler Theophanes. One of the authors of the second part of this chronicle—known as the *Theophanes Continuatus*—is identified: it is the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (906–959). Illig posits that the first part of the chronicle, traditionally ascribed to a figure otherwise unknown—Theophanes the Confessor—is also the work of Porphyrogenitus. For nearly three centuries of Byzantine history, the Chronicle of Theophanes serves as our most important, and in some instances, our only source. [cf. Runciman 294 f. See also questions 17, 18, 22, 27, 28, and 29]

17. Is the assumption that Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus was the architect of an artificial extension of chronology well-founded?

Historians are aware that Constantine VII was a forger. [Norwich II 78] Whether he can also be accused of falsifying the historical timeline is a question that has not yet been addressed by historians.

It is known that, under Constantine, a group of scholars from various disciplines reviewed all fields of knowledge and compiled their findings into an extensive encyclopedia.

Furthermore, historians know that at some point—though the exact time remains unknown—Byzantine chroniclers shifted from dating historical events according to the Seleucid era (beginning in 312 BC) to using the "Era of the World" (dating from the creation of the world). Illig posits that this transition occurred under Emperor Constantine and was intended to conceal an artificial extension of the chronology.

Furthermore, historians are aware that—with few exceptions—all ancient Greek manuscripts written in majuscule script have been lost. Many were transcribed into minuscule script or excerpted, and subsequently destroyed. Byzantinists suspect that the Patriarch Photius initiated this process of transcription and excerpting in the 9th century. It is certain that this activity continued well into the era of Constantine [Erbse 243 f.]. Illig suggests that Constantine VII was responsible for the entire undertaking [WU 165 ff.].

Given this context of obscure and poorly understood events—some of which took place under the direction of an emperor who engaged in forgery—it is quite plausible that a chronicle containing fabricated time periods and invented events could have been created. [See questions 16, 22, and 29.] While nothing has been proven, the suspicion is well-founded and warrants further investigation.

18. Is it conceivable that a forged medieval chronicle lies at the root of an unrecognized calendar error—one that is now embedded in all the history books and calendars across the globe?

This question addresses a meta-level; it concerns the history of historiography. Which historical works held authority at any given time? Upon which authors and authorities did historians of the past rely? What versions of history and historical narratives were passed down to subsequent generations? In this regard, the world chronicles of Josephus Justus Scaliger and Dionysius Petavius played a particularly significant role. Byzantinists such as Cyril Mango—editor of an English translation of Theophanes the Confessor [Mango/Scott]—or Hans-Georg Beck highlight the high regard in which the Greek Theophanes was held
...it [see Question 16] enjoyed in the Latin West. In this context, Beck speaks of the "canonical" character of the *Chronicle* of Theophanes. [Beck 436]

The authority of Theophanes in the West is easily understood. In the 10th century, Constantinople was considered the center of the educated world. It possessed a continuous historical tradition that led directly from Greco-Roman antiquity into the Byzantine Middle Ages. The West, by contrast, had experienced the political and cultural collapse of the empire under the onslaught of "barbarian" peoples who lacked a written language. [Fuhrmann (1994)]

In the 10th century—following the inexplicably rapid decline of the so-called Carolingian Renaissance (which, according to Illig, never actually occurred—at least not in the 9th century)—Western culture was comparatively primitive and looked to Byzantium as a model. The Ottonian dynasty maintained close ties, including familial ones, with the Byzantine imperial court. An artificial form of "Church Latin"—a language no longer spoken anywhere—was employed for the translation of Byzantine texts.

The first Latin translation of Theophanes likely set the standard for all subsequent historians. Theophanes’ list of emperors and his chronology, which appeared to link antiquity and the Middle Ages seamlessly, provided an unquestioned framework; this framework served to construct the European Early Middle Ages—first in the West, and subsequently worldwide—and has remained valid to this day. [see also Questions 27 and 29]

19. Does the historiography of the Arab world not prove that the "Phantom Time Hypothesis" (FZT) is mistaken?

The history of Arab historiography and its relationship with Byzantium is relatively obscure. The primary source for the centuries in question—between 614 and 911—is undoubtedly al-Tabari’s monumental work, *The History of Prophets and Kings*, a universal history spanning from the creation of the world to the year 915 AD.

Al-Tabari, a Persian by birth who wrote in Arabic, died in 923 and was evidently already familiar with the "long chronology." However, his work is highly inconsistent. A relatively coherent history of the Sassanid Empire (up to the 7th century) is followed by a narrative structured as a more or less chaotic collection of accounts based on *isnads* (chains of transmission—e.g., "A learned from B, who was told by C, who heard it from D," and so on). An *isnad* often consists of six, seven, or even eight links. For any single event, there are typically multiple such accounts, which frequently contradict one another. Only occasionally does al-Tabari designate one of these many versions as the correct one. [For examples of *isnad*-based accounts, see Question 20.]

From the perspective of the FZT (Phantom Time Theory), there are two ways to interpret al-Tabari’s work. Dr. Klaus Weißgerber (2000) favors the first: he attributes the section on the Sassanids to al-Tabari himself, while assigning the remainder of the work to a "school" of al-Tabari—a group that supposedly incorporated the calendar error, which originated with Theophanes [see Question 16].

The second possibility posits that the calendar error arose within the Islamic sphere itself, with al-Tabari—and no one else—being the architect of this chronological falsification. Constantine VII could well have been familiar with this work, which concludes with the year 915, as al-Mas’udi reports that an embassy from Constantine was received with formal ceremony by the Caliph al-Muqtadir in Baghdad in 917. [Hitti 302]

Further research is required to clarify this matter. There are ample grounds and starting points for suggesting that the history of the medieval Arab world has been artificially shortened. For instance, there are the fairy-tale-like accounts concerning the early Abbasid dynasty in Baghdad. Then there is the curious fact that the Egyptian Fatimids, who ruled in the 10th century, drew directly upon the Sassanids of the 7th century in their craftsmanship and art. [Hitti 631] Furthermore, there is the possibility that it was Persian troops who conquered North Africa and Spain in the late 6th or early 7th century—which, in this context, would correspond to the 10th century. Another point to consider is the observation that virtually all Moorish architecture in Spain dates only from the 10th century onwards. [WU 103–106. Regarding the chronology of the Arab world, see questions 20, 21, 27, 28, and 29]

20. Does the Islamic calendar not begin in the year 622 AD with the flight of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina?

The Hijra—the flight of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD—is considered the beginning of the Islamic calendar. According to the FZT [Phantom Time Hypothesis/Chronology], this year is identical to the year 919 AD. However, this is clearly too late for the emergence of Muhammad and the politicization of Islam. For example, al-Tabari—who, according to conventional accounts, died in 923 CE—could not have provided an account of the Prophet’s death and the spread of Islam.

In the *ZS*, Manfred Zeller and Klaus Weißgerber have argued that the *Hijra* might need to be dated several decades earlier.

Weißgerber (2000) points to an account—one that is also found in the tradition—
Historians are aware of a previously unexplained contradiction: Muhammad was born in the so-called "Year of the Elephant." In that year, the Ethiopian commander Abraha—who brought an elephant (or, according to another *isnad* account, thirteen elephants) with his army—marched against Mecca. The army eventually withdrew, having been struck by a mysterious plague (or, according to a different *isnad*, because the elephant refused to go any further). [at-Tabari V 222–235. For the term "*isnad*," see Question 19.] Conventionally, the Year of the Elephant is identified as 570 CE. The problem, however, is that Abraha had already been dead for at least twelve years by that time. Weißgerber provides compelling arguments that Abraha’s campaign must have taken place in 544 CE; consequently, he proposes this as the year of Muhammad’s birth.

Based on an analysis of Umayyad architecture and coinage, Manfred Zeller had previously dated this dynasty 78 years earlier than is traditionally accepted. Further considerations led him to shift the date of the *Hijra* back by 78 years as well. This aligns it with the year that Weißgerber reconstructed as the Year of the Elephant (622 minus 78 equals 544 CE). [Zeller (1993a) and (1993b)]

Recently, a trend has emerged among proponents of the FZT (the "Research Group on the Early Islamic Period") to question the historicity of the accounts concerning the origins of Islam altogether. Authors such as Nevo/Koren, Ohlig/Popp, and Muhammad Kalisch are gaining increasing attention. They apply the same historical-critical methods used to study the history of Judaism and Christianity to the study of Islam. [Weißgerber (2007), Zeller (2008), Beaufort (2008)] Weißgerber maintains his thesis that the year 544—the "Year of the Elephant"—marked the beginning of a new Arab calendar. The early caliphs dated their coins according to this system, and they should be classified accordingly. [ibid., 125]

21. But even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that a falsification of time on the scale suggested by Illig was possible, what could the motive have been?

The question of the motive has not yet been definitively answered. For the West and for Byzantium—where he suspects the origin of this chronological extension lies [see Question 16]—Illig has proposed several plausible motives. [see Question 22] However, Illig’s suggestions have failed to settle the debate regarding the motive. Furthermore, there has been no answer as to why the Arab world would have adopted this "jump in time."

Uwe Topper [see Question 6] had already noted that the interval between the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Hijra (Muhammad’s flight from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD) spans exactly the 297 years to which Illig limits this "phantom time." This connection might have a substantive basis, as the Council saw the condemnation of the heretic Arius, who—much like Muhammad later did—taught that Jesus was not God. [Topper (1999)]

Topper’s solution—equating the "Mohammedans" with the Arians—is problematic for several reasons. [cf. Beaufort (2008)] A historical connection between Arianism and Islam is so plausible—it would, for instance, help explain the rapid Islamization of North Africa and Spain, both of which were previously Arian—that one must wonder why historians did not consider it much earlier.

Further research in this direction would need to clarify how this Arian background is reflected within Islamic tradition. Could Arianism—with its radical focus on moral, internal values—be equated with Shi’ism, which likewise centers radically on moral, internal values? This remarkably early heretical schism from the Sunni mainstream traces its origins to ‘Ali, the (mythical) son-in-law of Muhammad, and elevates him—as a prophet—above Muhammad himself. It is well known that the Shi’a (literally "party"—i.e., the party of ‘Ali) soon split further, as the mainstream faction agreed to a historical compromise with the followers of Muhammad—a compromise rejected by a minority.

To this day, the Shiite Alawites celebrate Christmas and Easter and regard the Quran as a forgery. Anti-Trinitarian sermons attributed to ‘Ali have been preserved; they could just as easily have originated from Arius. It is possible that the history of the followers of Arius—equated here with the followers of ‘Ali—was artificially extended by 297 years by the school of al-Tabari [see Question 19], specifically to obscure the identity between the Alids and the Christian Arians. Indeed, some scholars of Islamic studies have also pointed to the Christian roots of Islam and a subsequent tendency to suppress or erase them. [cf. Lüling (1981) and (1993)]

These considerations could help clarify the motive behind the artificial extension of chronology within the Arab historical record. [on this subject, see also Question 28 as well as Müller and Beaufort (2008)] Furthermore, the fact that Islam is not particularly concerned with chronological leaps is evidenced by the Quran, which—without further ado—equates Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron—equating them implies a chronological leap of approximately 12 centuries.

22. Yet, even if there may have been valid reasons for chronological falsification within the Islamic sphere, the question remains: what motive did the original inventor of this "phantom time" have?

The primary suspect behind this chronological fabrication remains Constantine VII—a scholar occupying the imperial throne of the most cultured state in the world at that time. It is well established that he, more than anyone else, possessed the means to carry out such an undertaking. [see questions 17 and 27] Why, then, did he invent three centuries of "empty" time and populate them with fictitious history?

Illig suggests two main potential motives. First, Constantine may have had personal or dynastic reasons; by extending the chronology, he might have sought to conceal his suspected descent from the emperor-assassin Phocas. Second, the fabrication of history offered a way to effectively obscure the loss of the True Cross to the Persians [see question 12] by shifting the event into a distant, remote past. [WU 157–184]

Beyond the motives identified by Illig, other factors may also have been at play. For instance, Constantine’s manipulation of the chronology pushed the religious reforms of Emperor Justinian (d. 565) back by three centuries. There is hardly any reliable information regarding this—by all accounts, profound—reform; instead, there are many accounts that are clearly distorted. Justinian had elevated orthodox Catholicism to the sole state religion and enforced it relentlessly. In the process, he banned, among other things, the Arian Church [see question 21] and confiscated its assets. It is likely that the innovation of replacing the communal meals of the early Christians with the Mass—performed behind an iconostasis—originated with Justinian. The Constantinian falsification of history may have been intended to reinforce an impression that Justinian himself sought to create: namely, that Catholicism was the original Christian religion. [See Beaufort (2004) and (2008) regarding a hypothesis on the true scope of the Justinianic reform.]

The most recent attempt at an explanation is based on a thesis by Andreas Birken, which suggests that Dionysius Exiguus [see Question 23] should be associated with the complex of forgeries linked to Syncellus, Theophanes, and Constantine VII. [Birken (2006)] If this thesis is correct, the chronological reform attributed to Emperor Constantine was driven by concerns regarding *computus* (the calculation of the date of Easter). This leads to the further conjecture that Constantine’s objective was to establish a uniform method for calculating the date of Easter throughout the empire and to resolve the ancient "Easter controversy." [Beaufort (2007)]

In the West, one must consider the possibility that the "calendar jump" went unnoticed. Illig posits that it was Otto III—along with the pope he appointed, Sylvester II (the scholar Gerbert of Aurillac)—who introduced our current Christian calendar and, with it, the extension of the historical timeline. [WU 125–216]

Gerbert was familiar with the work of Theophanes; he gained access to Byzantine scholarship through the imperial court. Furthermore, during his time in Spain, he became acquainted with Islamic learning and, in all likelihood, the Islamic calendar as well. [Lausser] Thus, the extended chronology was corroborated from two different sources. Since a continuous historical consciousness was lacking in the West [see Question 18], there was no alternative but to adopt the historical error made by others.

If this scenario is correct, there is no need for the West to search for a motive. If, however, it is not the case—and Otto and Gerbert manipulated the records deliberately—then, in addition to the interest (which one might also assume existed in the West) in resolving the dispute over the date of Easter, the motive proposed by Illig appears the most plausible: as an "emperor of the end times" and a "servant of Jesus Christ" (*servus Jesu Christi*), Otto sought to lead the Empire into a new millennium (as evidenced by his seal for the year 1000). [WU 250 ff.]

23. Was our Christian calendar not established in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus?

For centuries, the Roman monk Dionysius Exiguus was considered the first person to use the Christian calendar. [Ideler, Borst (1990), Maier] In his Easter table, presented in 525 AD, he counted the years *ab incarnatione Domini* ("from the incarnation of the Lord"—commonly understood as "after the birth of Christ"). In doing so, he explicitly departed from the earlier Christian custom of counting years according to the Era of Diocletian [see Question 4]—for he regarded Diocletian as an impious man (*impius*) and a persecutor of Christians. [Ideler II 376]

In 1998, Arno Borst discovered an earlier author: Furius Dionysius Philocalus, the calligrapher to Pope Damasus I. In 354 AD, he compiled the most significant Christian calendar of late antiquity. In it, he counted the pre-Christian years *ab urbe condita* ("from the founding of the city [Rome]") and the post-Christian years from the birth of Christ. [Borst (1998) 42, WU 16 f.]

Philocalus evidently found no successors. Nor can Exiguus truly be considered one, since he does not mention Philocalus and his...
...presents his own system of chronology as a new creation. It is perhaps surprising that he counts the years following the birth of Christ in the exact same way as Philocalus. This is remarkable because the date of Christ’s birth has always been—and remains to this day—a subject of debate. The fact that the oldest surviving copies of the Philocalus calendar date from the 16th century—the same century as the Gregorian calendar reform—likely sheds light on this. [LexMA, entry: "Late Roman Book Illumination"]

Just as in the case of Philocalus, Exiguus found no other computists or chroniclers who sought to follow his lead. With the exception of a few isolated and uncertain instances, the next person to use the birth of Christ as a dating reference was the English Benedictine monk Bede the Venerable (c. 672–735 AD). Bede presents a particular challenge, as it is often difficult to distinguish his work from that of a "Pseudo-Bede" known to historians. Notably, he was the first to count backward from the birth of Christ—a practice that did not reappear among other chroniclers until around 1070 AD, three centuries later. [WU 123]

From the time of Bede onward, the Dionysian era appeared more frequently. Charlemagne was the first ruler to employ it in his edicts and official documents—though only on occasion. Louis the Pious also used it sporadically. His sons—Lothair, Louis the German, and Charles the Bald—dated their numerous surviving records solely by regnal years and indictions. It was not until the reign of Charles the Fat that the practice of counting by the years of Christ returned; he used it so consistently that some have even credited him with originating the method. [Ideler II 376 ff.]

Following another period of disuse, the system became more common from the 10th century onward. It has been widespread since at least the end of the 10th century. However, it was by no means generally known or accepted. In numerous documents, it appears alongside other methods of dating, carrying equal weight. Furthermore, it took a long time for a consensus to emerge regarding the beginning of this era. For instance, in the 12th century, alongside the *secundum Dionysium* (Dionysian) system of counting, there existed an era *secundum Evangelium* (based on the Gospels), which began either 22 or 23 years earlier. Popes were very hesitant to use this system; it was not until the 15th century that Eugenius IV began dating his papal bulls according to the Dionysian system. [Ideler II 378 ff.]

From the perspective of the FZT (Phantom Time Hypothesis), it is significant that the proposal by Dionysius Exiguus initially had no impact and subsequently fell into oblivion. According to Illig, the further development was such that dating from the birth of Christ did not reappear with the "suspect" Bede or the equally "suspect" Carolingians; rather, it only came into use—at the earliest—in the 10th century, receiving sanction from Otto III and Sylvester II. Any instances where the Christian era appears to have been used in earlier documents are, in fact, the result of manipulations of the dating line—a practice well known to medievalists. [WU 205 ff.]

24. What about the rest of the world? Surely there were not "dark centuries" everywhere?

In terms of archaeology and art history, "dark centuries"—as well as gaps or duplications in the historical record of the Early Middle Ages—can be demonstrated for regions including Iceland, England, the Frankish Empire, Spain, Hungary, Byzantium, Armenia, Georgia, Russia, Poland, and Sicily, as well as for numerous individual cities. [Otte (2008a).] For an example from Bavaria, see: Illig/Anwander. Jewish literature remains silent for more than two centuries. [Heinsohn (1991), WU 130]

In the West, the absence of structures from this period is conventionally explained by Viking raids. It is said that the Vikings arrived every spring, plundered and burned the land, and departed again in the autumn. [Kinder/Hilgemann 131] Yet, there is no archaeological trace of these Viking raids. [WU 97 ff.] In the East (Georgia and Armenia), the absence of churches from the period in question is attributed to regular Saracen incursions.

Some notable instances of dual dating include:

The Armenian historian Khorenatsi lived in the 5th century. He wrote a history of Armenia covering events up to 440 AD, and the sources he cites also date back to the 5th century. However, he himself is not cited until more than 400 years later, after which point all subsequent historians refer to him. For this reason, many historians place him in the 8th century. [Heinsohn (1996)]

The so-called Hungarian Conquest is dated to the 7th century in the old and significant *Chronicon Pictum* (Illustrated Chronicle of Hungary), whereas conventional historiography places it in the 10th century. The same applies to the birth year of Prince Stephen I. [Weißgerber (2003) 25 ff.]

Dunstan, the “first abbot of the English nation,” founded Malmesbury Abbey, where Aldhelm became abbot in 674. Yet, at the same time, Dunstan served as Archbishop of Canterbury until 988. [Laszlo]

The history of China is presumably unaffected by this artificial extension of the chronology. 25. Can the FZT (Phantom Time Hypothesis) not be refuted with the help of computer-aided astronomical retrocalculations?

Astronomers no longer believe that Illig’s thesis can be refuted by data concerning solar eclipses found in ancient sources. On this point, astronomer Prof. Dieter B. Herrmann states: “Proof against Illig that is absolutely irrefutable in every detail...”
“This thesis can likely not be substantiated based solely on historical solar eclipses.” [Herrmann 213 f.]

The hope of calculating the number of years that have elapsed since the time of Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century AD) by using the stellar longitudes found in his *Almagest* must also be abandoned. Astronomers are aware that, due to the precession of the Earth's axis, the ecliptic longitude of a star shifts by 1° every 72 years. In theory, it should therefore be possible to determine how much time has passed since the *Almagest* was written by examining the longitudinal data in its star catalog. [cf. Krojer 7–15. For a discussion of Krojer’s book—which is problematic from a scientific standpoint—see Illig (2003), Beaufort (2003), and Heinsohn (2003).] However, the dating of this text is far from certain. Furthermore, the original version of the *Almagest*—both the Greek source and its translations—has been lost. As the Arabist Paul Kunitzsch has demonstrated through citations and traces found in the works of other authors, this original version differed significantly from the text we possess today, particularly with regard to stellar coordinates. [cf. Kunitzsch (1974), Kunitzsch (1975), and Beaufort (2001).]

Current discussion focuses on records of solar and lunar eclipses found on Babylonian cuneiform tablets. Many of these accounts, which stem from centuries of systematic celestial observation, are highly precise. In some instances, they contradict the FZT [Conventional Chronology]. To date, however, it has not been possible to date these tablets independently of astronomical retrocalculations, creating a constant risk of circular reasoning. Moreover, the cuneiform data can only be reconciled with the gradual slowing of the Earth's rotation—as measured today—if one assumes the validity of the FZT. (Δ T) must be reconciled. Proponents of a long chronology for the Middle Ages must assume either that this slowing down was suspended for three centuries—starting from the time of the Babylonian records—or that the Earth’s rotation underwent at least one instance of significant acceleration. [cf. van Gent (n.d.) and Stephenson (1997) regarding this issue]

26. Do not scientific dating methods, such as radiocarbon (C14) dating and dendrochronology, prove that the Phantom Time Hypothesis (FZT) is nonsensical?

Radiocarbon (C14) dating and dendrochronology are not straightforward, unproblematic methods. C14 dates are statistical values. They are obtained through the following procedure [according to Blöss/Niemitz]:

Multiple measurements are performed on a single sample. These often yield results that differ significantly—sometimes by as much as two millennia—from one another; an average is then calculated from these values.

The result is “calibrated”—that is, synchronized with samples whose age is assumed to be known. Calibration of C14 data became necessary when the method’s discoverer, Frank Libby, found that ancient samples consistently yielded dates that were too recent. This calibration rendered the method circular and, consequently, useless for addressing chronological questions.

Calibration became more precise in 1960 with the incorporation of dendrochronology (dating by comparing tree rings or wood samples). Because it soon became common practice to also date tree rings using the C14 method, this approach likewise became circular (wood samples dated via C14 ⇔ C14 calibrated via dendrochronology).

Remaining problems include, among others:

Even with calibration, C14 dating remains subject to high levels of uncertainty—often in the range of... for the ancient period. +/- 150 years, which already allows for a "phantom time" span of 300 years.

Much like polling institutes, individual C14 laboratories produce varying dates.

For the period between 0 and approximately 2000 BP, the calibration curve exhibits significant, unexplained irregularities. Physicist Hans-E. Korth has demonstrated that these anomalies disappear if one adopts Illig’s "Middle Ages" thesis (the theory that the early Middle Ages were fabricated or misdated). [Korth (2002) and (2003)]

Radioactive carbon (C14) is generated in the upper atmosphere by solar radiation and is depleted through constant decay. Many factors influence the atmospheric C14 content. The C14 dating method assumes that the level of C14 in the atmosphere has remained constant over centuries and millennia. This "constancy hypothesis" has not been proven; in fact, there is evidence that clearly contradicts it. [Blöss/Niemitz 384, 55–72]

A Swedish research project, presented by Andreas Otte on *fantomzeit.de*, demonstrates that dendrochronology is by no means a reliable scientific method. Particularly in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, there are notable discrepancies that suggest a reduction in the historical timeline by at least two centuries. [Otte (2008b) and Larsson (2008)]

One reason dendrochronology is prone to error is that periodic sunspot activity leads to the formation of similar tree-ring patterns approximately every 22 years. [Blöss/Niemitz 137, Korth (2002) 58 f.]

27. Should ...could it be that the massive falsification of chronology—as postulated by the FZT (Phantom Time Hypothesis)—did not leave traces everywhere?

If we assume that the falsification of medieval chronology originated in the Arab or Byzantine world and was adopted by the Latin West—either largely or entirely without detection—then one would not expect to find any traces of such forgery in the West other than those already known to exist.

Historians are well aware that Benedictine scriptoria, in particular, functioned as workshops for forgeries. They are also familiar with specific centers of such activity, including the monasteries of Reichenau, St. Gallen, Fulda, and St. Denis. These forgeries primarily involved the backdating of texts and legal documents (as well as works of art, buildings, and relics). In addition, there were fabricated histories and biographical narratives. [see FM and VL] Theological disputes were often conducted using backdated, pseudepigraphical texts: if such works gained approval from Rome, they carried significant authority (cf. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite); conversely, if they were rejected by the Pope, they could help shield the author from accusations of heresy. [LexMA, entry: "Pseudepigraphie"]

The web of these fabricated dates and narratives may have been, in part, organized (as the Benedictine congregations were under the authority of Rome). At the same time, it may also have stemmed from the fact that, to be taken seriously, any individual had to establish a meaningful connection to what already existed.

Throughout this, it must be remembered that for a long period, practically only monks possessed the ability to read and write; that Latin was almost the exclusive language of literacy; and that libraries existed solely within monasteries. Consequently, access to literary education was extremely selective. Furthermore, there was no possibility of external verification or correction. The conditions in the Middle Ages were, in fact, ideal for the relatively arbitrary construction of stories—and of history itself. [see also Question 30 on this topic]

In Byzantium, the production of texts may have been subject to stricter state control than in the West. Byzantine caesaropapism established the emperor as the head of both the church and the state. Historians are well aware that, under Constantine VII—the "forger on the imperial throne"—history was written in a systematic and highly organized manner. [see Question 17]

Finally, in the Arab world, one might expect the greatest degree of diversity in historiography. After all, following the conquest of North Africa and Spain, the Arab sphere of influence encompassed several traditional and entirely independent centers of learning—most notably in Persia, Syria, and Egypt.

However, if one accepts Illig’s hypothesis that this empire was, for decades, dominated by the Persian Sassanids, then a centralization of historiography within the Islamic realm also becomes conceivable. In this context, it is significant that it was the Persian scholar al-Tabari who authored the account of the early Middle Ages that would become the definitive reference for Islamic historians.

28. Are there really no traces left anywhere of the "greatest chronological forgery in history" (Illig)? Surely that is hard to imagine?

As mentioned, it is not true that there are no traces. Historians know that, in the West, large-scale forgery took place during the Middle Ages—often in a coordinated fashion. There is irrefutable evidence for this. In this regard, the theory of a chronological forgery does not actually introduce anything entirely new. In an era when only a few individuals were literate, and the production of texts could be controlled by a king, emperor, or pope, the historical narrative was easily manipulated.

For years, authors associated with the "chronological forgery" (ZS) hypothesis have been gathering evidence specifically pointing to such a manipulation of time. Only a fraction of these could be addressed in this introduction. [see questions 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 26]

The most beautiful—and perhaps most profound—trace was discovered by Uwe Topper. In contexts where only an official, state-sanctioned version of history exists—with no room for independent or oppositional historical accounts—historical truth often retreats into the realm of unofficial transmission: oral tradition, legends, myths, and religion. Topper encountered a legend that, uniquely, is found in both the Islamic and Christian worlds: the legend of the Seven Sleepers. [Topper (1994)]

June 27th is the "Day of the Seven Sleepers" (*Siebenschläfertag*). On this day, the Christian world commemorates the Seven Holy Sleepers of Ephesus. According to the story, these seven youths hid in a cave to escape persecution under the Roman Emperor Decius; there, they fell asleep and did not awaken until centuries later. The Seven Sleepers were venerated not only in Byzantium but also throughout the Christian West and the Islamic East. Depending on the specific account, they are said to have slept for a period ranging from 190 to 372 years. According to the 18th Surah of the Quran ("Allah knows best how long they remained"), they slept for 309 lunar years—equivalent to 300 solar years. [see question 3]
The legend of the Seven Sleepers originated in the 6th century, likely first within the Syriac-speaking world. It is noteworthy that the Seven Sleepers have enjoyed—and continue to enjoy—a much greater degree of veneration in the Islamic world than in Byzantium or the West. Even today, there are many "caves of the Seven Sleepers" that serve as pilgrimage sites, attracting large numbers of visitors every year. The Surah of the Seven Sleepers in the Quran is used in preparation for the Friday ritual and is recited several times throughout the year. [Kandler]

Two main versions of the legend of the Seven Sleepers are prevalent within the Islamic world. The first is the account provided by Ibn Ishaq and cited by al-Tabari; in this version, the Seven Sleepers were Christians, and the narrative largely aligns with the Christian legend. According to the second version—attributed to ‘Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad—the Seven Sleepers were Muslims.

The Shi'a Ismailis (the so-called "Seveners") believe that the Seven Sleepers are the Imams (religious leaders) who descended from ‘Ali and are recognized as the only legitimate successors to the Prophet. They remained hidden in the cave during a "time of injustice" that lasted for 309 lunar years. The year 309 of the Hijra (922 AD) marked the beginning of the era of the Fatimids—who trace their lineage back to ‘Ali’s wife, Fatima—and who were destined to fulfill the proclamations of the Seven Sleepers. According to the "Twelver" branch of Shi'a Islam, the 309 years represent the reign of the future Mahdi—the final Imam who is to return as a messianic figure. [Kandler 53. See also Question 21 regarding Shi'ism.]

29. Is it possible that no one ever noticed the deception? The *Futūḥ* (early Islamic conquests) narratives effectively fragmented genealogies and even the biographies of individual figures—surely someone must have noticed this?

The real question is: who could have noticed, and what might they have noticed? Who was reading al-Ṭabarī [see Question 19], or Theophanes [see Question 16]? Even among the most cultured peoples of the Middle Ages—such as the Byzantines (*Rhomaioi*), Persians, Syrians, or Egyptians—reading and writing were the exclusive privilege of a thin upper stratum. In the absence of universal schooling, illiteracy was the norm. Outside of the scholarly caste, reading and writing were generally limited to the drafting and verification of contracts—activities serving purely practical, economic, or political ends.

Given that only a few possessed the literary education required to read al-Ṭabarī or Theophanes, a further challenge lay in gaining access to the texts themselves. How many manuscripts of al-Ṭabarī or Theophanes actually existed? Where were they kept, and who had access to them? Regardless of the precise answers to these questions, it is clear that a further process of selection was at work here.

A third hurdle was the limited capacity for verification. How could one have checked whether al-Ṭabarī or Theophanes were correct? The veracity of historical accounts can—if at all—be assessed by consulting other historical works or by comparing them with material remains. But who, in the 10th century, was in a position to do so? Other historical accounts of the *Futūḥ* did not yet exist. And, in any case, who in the Middle Ages took an interest in the material remnants of bygone eras?

Furthermore, it was undoubtedly no easy task to critically examine the claims of chroniclers across vast geographical distances, or across national and linguistic boundaries. Who in Constantinople knew anything about what was happening in Baghdad or on the Arabian Peninsula? Or what did a Persian know about events in Egypt or Spain?

Finally, it should be noted that the seminal works of al-Tabari and Theophanes shifted the reference points for chronology—al-Tabari introduced the Hijri dating system, while Theophanes established a new era based on the Creation—at a time when Jews and Western Christians also appear to have altered their own systems of reckoning time. [see questions 4, 17, 19, 20, 23] Such manipulations would have made it considerably more difficult for the uninitiated to discern that the chronology had been artificially extended. [WU 121 ff.]

Even if, despite all these obstacles, a learned individual did happen to grow suspicious, what incentive would he have had to get to the bottom of his suspicions? How seriously would he have taken this fabricated history? Would he have truly gone so far—perhaps even driven by rage at such brazen, fraudulent audacity—as to construct a comprehensive, alternative historical narrative?

One might conceivably imagine that one or more of the scholars actively involved in the forgery—whether from the circle surrounding Constantine VII or from a hypothetical "school" of al-Tabari—eventually decided they could no longer participate in the deception. Yet, even this scenario seems unrealistic. Would such deserters or traitors have survived? If they had, would they have had the opportunity to express their views independently in writing? And, ultimately, would anyone have believed them?

It follows from all this that...
Even for contemporaries, it was by no means easy to track down—let alone uncover—the artificial extension of chronology. For subsequent generations, the task became even more difficult. The fact that it might be possible today to reconstruct this phenomenon in its full extent is likely due to the unprecedented improvements in communication afforded by the information society. The modern critic of chronology is no longer a solitary researcher; rather, they have the opportunity to share and discuss their findings with others. This provides the critical endeavor with the necessary staying power to endure in the face of pervasive skepticism. Whether this will ultimately prove sufficient, only time will tell.

30. One final question: Was there really so much forgery in the Middle Ages, or is this merely a claim made by proponents of the "Phantom Time Hypothesis" (FZT)? And isn't it virtually impossible that *all* texts from the Carolingian era were forged?

The subject of forgery is a perilous and unpleasant one. Historians handle it with kid gloves. They often remain reticent, avoiding the naming of specific individuals or instances, and instead take refuge in irony—or self-deprecating irony—thereby hinting that they know more than they are willing to say. The FZT, by contrast, necessitates an open discussion of the topic. This may, in part, explain why historians are so reluctant to engage with it.

Yet, the FZT offers a unique opportunity to approach the problem of medieval forgery in an entirely new way and to loosen deeply ingrained, rigid patterns of thought. Unlike previous critiques of medieval forgery, the FZT does not frame itself as a critique of religion, denomination, the Church, or religious orders. Questions of morality or legitimacy are, at most, of only peripheral interest to it. As shown above [see questions 6, 7, 8, and 10], she has her roots elsewhere, which allows her to approach the subject with an open mind. The following remarks are presented with this in mind.

It is undisputed among historians that an extraordinary amount of forgery took place during the Middle Ages. In the chapter "Forgeries upon Forgeries" (*Fälschungen über Fälschungen*) from his *Invitation to the Middle Ages* (*Einladung ins Mittelalter*), Horst Fuhrmann writes: "The number of forgeries—and the way they were handled—often exceeds our capacity to imagine." [Fuhrmann (1987) 195]

Everything that could be forged was forged: charters, seals, coins, letters, collections of correspondence, *vitae* (biographies of saints), genealogies, *gesta* (accounts of deeds), chronicles, annals, property inventories, library catalogs, martyrologies, necrologies, and so on. Furthermore, related practices or subcategories of forgery included the use of pseudepigrapha (attributing works to false authors), the invention of people and stories, and the backdating of writings, artworks, buildings, and relics—as well as all manner of endowments and foundations. [FM and VL]

The primary purpose of this activity was to substantiate claims of validity or authority of various kinds. These were not limited to material (property) claims, but encompassed all manner of legal and power-related claims. Moreover, theological and philosophical disputes were often conducted using forged, pseudepigraphical, or backdated texts. [FM and VL] Beyond these immediate, practical motives, other factors—such as a simple delight in fantasizing and spinning tales—may also have played a role.

For a long time, the forgery of charters has been the primary focus of scholarly research. This was the primary reason for the emergence of a distinct discipline dedicated to the study of charters—diplomatics—in the 17th century. [von Brandt 98] The Benedictine monk Jean Mabillon (1632–1707) is considered the founder of diplomatics; his six-volume work, *De re diplomatica*, was written in response to accusations of forgery leveled by Jesuits. The Jesuit Jean Hardouin (1646–1729) countered this by attempting to prove that all medieval charters were, in fact, Benedictine forgeries. [Lelarge]

The field of diplomatics has followed Mabillon rather than Hardouin. Nevertheless, Ahasver von Brandt—echoing the views of Horst Fuhrmann—could write: “In the Middle Ages, particularly between the 10th and 13th centuries, the forgery of charters was practiced on such a massive scale that a layperson could scarcely imagine it.” [von Brandt 98]

Yet, the practice did not stop at the forgery of charters. Such forgeries necessitated further fabrications; for instance, the itineraries of kings and emperors had to be adjusted to explain how they could have issued charters from locations across Europe—sometimes even on the very same day. This gave rise to the image of emperors who were constantly on the move.

The case of "Pseudo-Augustine" illustrates that the Middle Ages saw not only the mass forgery of charters but also the widespread production of pseudepigrapha—works falsely attributed to an author. By 1986, scholars had already unmasked dozens of texts wrongly ascribed to Augustine. Thousands of copies of these "Pseudo-Augustinian" works—which were actually the product of various authors, some of whom are known to medievalists—exist... ...still exist today. During the Middle Ages, the spurious works attributed to Augustine were, on average, copied more frequently than the writings of the Church Father that were still considered authentic at the time. [Dekkers]

It is reasonable to assume that the practice of forgery and the creation of pseudepigrapha were not merely tolerated, but actively encouraged, by the highest ecclesiastical authorities. In this vein, the Munich-based church historian Ignaz Döllinger (1799–1890) posited—correctly, according to Horst Fuhrmann—that the primacy of Rome was established with the aid of forgeries. [Fuhrmann (1986) 88; see Question 10] This circumstance might, at least in part, explain the immense scale of forgery that took place during the High Middle Ages. [on this subject, see also Question 27]

The full extent of medieval forgery, fabrication, the creation of pseudepigrapha, and the backdating of documents remains impossible to estimate with precision. To date, there is no systematic study that provides a reliable overview. A primary reason for this ongoing absence is that improved methodologies and an ever-growing body of knowledge continue to bring more forgeries to light. [Dekkers 363]

Against this backdrop, one must address the question of whether it is conceivable that the entire history of the Carolingian era could have been invented or forged. Gerd Althoff, a professor at the University of Münster, describes the challenge as follows: “It would not have been enough to invent Charlemagne alone—as Illig largely suggests—but rather an internally consistent high culture, in all its various facets.” [Althoff 483]

As it happens, the protagonist of this “high culture” described by Althoff is not exactly a model of consistency himself. [see Question 13] Similar points could easily be demonstrated for the rest of that high culture. [DeM and WU] On the other hand, the few elements that do happen to align can be readily explained. [see Question 27]

When asked how many documents might be affected by this chronological falsification, Althoff provides the remarkable answer: “Thousands (or hundreds of thousands).” Since this confusing response is not particularly helpful, we shall use an estimate by Arno Borst as a guide: Borst puts the number of manuscripts from the Carolingian period at 7,000. [Borst (1998) 15]

7,000 is not a large number—a fact made clear by the thousands of copies that circulated under the name of Augustine alone. [see above] Although this concerns a pre-Carolingian author, the sheer volume of copies provides an impression of the productivity of those who produced pseudepigrapha and the scribes who copied them. Furthermore, when one considers that these 7,000 manuscripts include, for instance, 270 charters attributed to Charlemagne—more than 100 of which have already been exposed as forgeries—as well as 70 Lombard royal charters (80% of which are proven to be forgeries, and likely all of them are), the figure of 7,000 begins to be seen in a different light.

After all, the corpus of Carolingian-era manuscripts includes, most notably, the collection of the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, comprising approximately 10,000 pages—not to mention the *Historia Caroli Magni et Rotholandi* by Pseudo-Turpin. Then there is the Plan of St. Gall, which—given the near-total absence of surviving Carolingian structures—must serve as the representative of "typical" Carolingian architecture, even though its distinct crossing and modular, proportional system were features that would not actually be realized until the Romanesque period. Or, finally, consider all those texts—such as those attributed to Bede [WU 122–127] or Eriugena [DeM 367]—which were likely composed after the "phantom time" (FZ) but were retroactively backdated to an earlier era; as such, they cannot be classified as forgeries in the strict sense of the term.

Furthermore, it should be noted that scholars of diplomatics often accept documents as authentic even when the only surviving evidence consists of copies produced centuries later—copies that have not yet been definitively proven to be forgeries. In doing so, they leave unanswered the question of why these copies were produced so long after the originals.

Naturally, there is much more that could be said on this subject [see FM and VL]. One could, for instance, examine the likelihood that Carolingian minuscule script actually originated in the High Middle Ages, or discuss the fact that Carolingian and Ottonian manuscript illumination are often indistinguishable. Another point worth noting is the striking scarcity of books in early medieval monastic libraries—at least, if one is to believe the surviving library catalogs. These matters can only be touched upon here; for further details, the reader is referred to Illig’s books and the journal *ZS*.

Ultimately, the impression remains that the fabrication of 7,000 Carolingian-era manuscripts was well within the realm of possibility. Clearly, much research remains to be done. It would be necessary to determine—insofar as is feasible—who forged what, when, and where; much as has already been accomplished in many instances regarding the works attributed to "Pseudo-Augustine." In any case, it can already be stated that the extent and nature of the forgery activity posited by the FZT do not significantly exceed what has long been known to historians.

Literature

Gisela Albrecht / Andreas Otte: On the Beginnings of the Phantom Time Hypothesis itthese. In: Otte (2007), 32–34

Gerd Althoff (1997): Can a High Culture Be Invented? In: Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 4/1997, 483 f.

at-Tabari (1985) = Ihsan Abbas et al. (eds.): The History of at-Tabari. An Annotated Translation. 38 volumes. New York: 1985–

Jan Beaufort (2001): The Forgery of the Almagest. An Attempt to Vindicate Claudius Ptolemy. In: ZS 4/2001, 590–615 and 1/2002, 32–48

Jan Beaufort (2003): The Forgery of the Almagest and Its Suppression by Franz Krojer. In: ZS 3/2003, 508–515

Jan Beaufort (2004): Correction Regarding Lukas. In: ZS 2/2004, 432–435

Jan Beaufort (2007): Who Invents Historical Time? In: ZS 2/2007, 317–332

Jan Beaufort (2008): Arius and Ali. On the Iranian Roots of Christianity and the Christian Roots of Islam. In: ZS 2/2008, 314–331 [also published at www.radikalkritik.de]

Hans-Georg Beck (1961): The Transmission History of Byzantine Literature. In: Hunger (1961), 423–510

Andreas Birken (2002): The Meteoric Rise of Flinders Petrie. In: ZS 2/2002, 219-233

Andreas Birken (2006): Phantom Time and the Calculation of Easter. In: ZS 3/2006, 748-764

Christian Blöss / Hans-Ulrich Niemitz (1997): C14 Crash. The End of the Illusion of Being Able to Date Using the Radiocarbon Method and Dendrochronology. Gräfelfing

Arno Borst (1990): Computus. Time and Number in the History of Europe. Berlin

Arno Borst (1998): The Carolingian Calendar Reform. Hanover

Ahasver von Brandt (1958): The Historian’s Toolkit. Stuttgart

Eligius Dekkers (1986): The Surprising Success of Pseudo-Augustinian Writings in the Middle Ages. In: FM V, 361-368

DeM = Illig (1998)

Mircea Eliade (1990): A History of Religious Ideas. 4 volumes. Freiburg im Breisgau

Hartmut Erbse (1961): The Transmission History of Classical and Hellenistic Greek Literature. In: Hunger (1961), 207-283

FM = Forgeries in the Middle Ages. International Congress of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Munich, September 16–19, 1986. 6 volumes. Hanover 1988

Johannes Fried (2002): A Dark Lighthouse. In: Der Spiegel 3/2002, 132-141

Horst Fuhrmann (1986): On the Truth of Forgers. In: FM I, 82-98

Horst Fuhrmann (1987): An Invitation to the Middle Ages. Munich

Manfred Fuhrmann (1994): Rome in Late Antiquity: Portrait of an Era. Düsseldorf / Zurich

Robert H. van Gent (n.d.): Bibliography of Mesopotamian Astronomy and Astrology.

Gunnar Heinsohn (1991): Jewish History and the Illig-Niemitz Shortening of the Christian Chronology of the Middle Ages: A Note. In: ZS 5/1991, 35 f.

Gunnar Heinsohn (1996): The Restoration of the History of Armenia and Cappadocia. In: ZS 1/1996, 38–68

Gunnar Heinsohn (2001): Charles the Simple (898/911–923). In: ZS 4/2001, 631–661

Gunnar Heinsohn (2003): Krojer and the Denial of Auschwitz. In: ZS 3/2003, 516 f.

Dieter B. Herrmann (2000): Once More: Was There a "Phantom Time" in Our History? In: Acta Historica Astronomiae, Vol. 10. Thun / Frankfurt am Main 2000, 211–214

Philip K. Hitti (1974): History of the Arabs. London

Herbert Hunger et al. (eds.) (1961): History of the Textual Transmission of Ancient and Medieval Literature, Vol. 1. Zurich

Ludwig Ideler (1825): Handbook of Mathematical and Technical Chronology. 2 volumes. Berlin 1825/26

Heribert Illig (1998): The Invented Middle Ages: The Greatest Chronological Forgery in History. Munich (= DeM)

Heribert Illig (2000): *Wer hat an der Uhr gedreht? Wie 300 Jahre Geschichte erfunden wurden* [Who Turned Back the Clock? How 300 Years of History Were Invented]. Munich (= WU)

Heribert Illig (2003): Rebuttal of the Most Significant Criticism of the Phantom Time Hypothesis to Date. In: ZS 3/2003, 478–507

Heribert Illig (2008): Cologne in the Grip of "Early-Dating" Fever: How Many More Times Will Sven Schütte Be the Catalyst? In: ZS 1/2008, 210–217

Heribert Illig / Gerhard Anwander (2002): *Bayern und die Phantomzeit. Archäologie widerlegt Urkunden des frühen Mittelalters. Eine systematische Studie* [Bavaria and the Phantom Time: Archaeology Refutes Early Medieval Documents—A Systematic Study]. 2 volumes. Gräfelfing

Hermann Kandler (1994): *Die Bedeutung der Siebenschläfer im Islam* [The Significance of the Seven Sleepers in Islam]. Bochum

Hermann Kinder / Werner Hilgemann (1995): *dtv-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte* [dtv Atlas of World History]. Munich

*Der Koran* [The Quran]. Translated by Max Henning. Introduction by Ernst Werner and Kurt Rudolph. Text revision, notes, and index by Kurt Rudolph. Wiesbaden, n.d.

Hans-E. Korth (2002): Anomaly in the C14 Calibration Curve Proves a Leap in the Calendar. In: ZS 1/2002, 49–67

Hans-E. Korth (2003): The Phantom Time Hypothesis and Natural Science – FAQ

Franz Krojer (2003): *Die Präzision der Präzession. Illigs mittelalterliche Phantomzeit aus astronomischer Sicht* [The Precision of Precession: Illig’s Medieval Phantom Time from an Astronomical Perspective]. With a contribution by Thomas Schmidt. Munich

Paul Kunitzsch (1974): *Der Almagest* [The Almagest]. The *Syntaxis Mathematica* of Claudius Ptolemy in the Arabic-Latin Tradition. Wiesbaden

Paul Kunitzsch (1975): Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ: On the Critique of the Transmission of Coordinates in the Star Catalogue of the *Almagest*. Göttingen

Lars-Åke Larsson (2008): The Validity of the European Chronology

Renate Laszlo (2008): Dunstan, First Abbot of the English Nation – On the Antiquity of the Church of Glastonbury. In: ZS 2/2008, 442–446

Abbé Lausser (1976): Gerbert. A Study ...historical account of the tenth century. Geneva

Günter Lelarge (1998): Entry: Hardouin, Jean. On the Handling of Knowledge and Truth. In: ZS 1/1998, 156-162

LexMA = Lexikon des Mittelalters [Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages]. Munich 1977–1998

Günter Lüling (1981): The Rediscovery of the Prophet Muhammad. A Critique of the “Christian” Occident. Erlangen

Günter Lüling (1993): On the Original Quran: Approaches to Reconstructing the Pre-Islamic Christian Strophic Hymns within the Quran. Erlangen

Hans Maier (1991): The Christian Chronology. Freiburg

Cyril Mango / Roger Scott (eds.) (1997): The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813. Oxford

Zainab A. Müller (2007): On the Equating of Ali with Arius and the Identity of the Arians. In: ZS 3/2007, 600–609

John Julius Norwich (2000): Byzantium. 3 volumes. Augsburg

Andreas Otte (ed.) (2007): Time-Leapers [Zeitenspringer] – For Heribert Illig’s 60th Birthday. Oerlinghausen

Andreas Otte (2008a): Phantom Time Worldwide

Andreas Otte (2008b): Critical Dendrochronology

Der Große Ploetz. 32nd edition. Freiburg 2000

Steven Runciman (1983): Byzantium. From Its Foundation to the Fall of Constantinople. Kindler’s Cultural History of Europe, Vol. 8. Munich

Francis R. Stephenson (1997): Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation. Cambridge

Uwe Topper (1994): The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. A Legend and Its Impact. In: ZS 1/1994, 40–55

Uwe Topper (1999): Invented History. Munich

VL = Georg Vogeler / Horst Enzensberger / Thomas Frenz (2000): Virtual Library. Historical Auxiliary Sciences. www.phil.uni-passau.de/histhw/bibliographie/3c.html, /3b1.html, /3b2.html, and /3a.html

Klaus Weißgerber (2000): On the Islamic "Phantom Time" (Islamica I). In: ZS 3/2000, 419–448

Klaus Weißgerber (2003): Hungary’s True Early History. Árpád Conquered the Carpathian Basin as Early as 600. Gräfelfing

Klaus Weißgerber (2007): On the Inscription in the Dome of the Rock (Islamica IV). In: ZS 1/2007, 120–129

WU = Illig (2000)

Manfred Zeller (1993a): The Caliphate of the Umayyads. In: ZS 3/1993, 69–86

Manfred Zeller (1993b): Iran in the Early Middle Ages (up to the 10th Century). In: ZS 3/1993, 87–110

Manfred Zeller (2008): Early Islam – Materials. Forum contributions at www.fantomzeit.de

ZS = Zeitensprünge [Leaps in Time]. Interdisciplinary Bulletin (formerly *Vorzeit-Frühzeit-Gegenwart* [Prehistory–Early History–Present]). Edition and Editorial Staff: Dr. Heribert Illig. Contributing Editor: Prof. Dr. phil. Dr. rer. pol. Gunnar Heinsohn. Gräfelfing: Mantis Verlag

Article printed from Fantomzeit: http://www.fantomzeit.de

URL for the article: http://www.fantomzeit.de/?page_id=61

https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/what-is-the-phantom-time-hypothesis-theory

Anonymous

30 Questions About the Phantom Time Hypothesis09.11.26

Information Epoch 1794457975