The Phantom Time Hypothesis

[w_ockham]

I'm writing a paper on the "Phantom Time Hypothesis".  You can Google this, or refer to this paper by Niemitz http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf, or this by Illig http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/illig_paper.htm, or this article about it on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A84012040. Briefly, the

Comments

[w_ockham]

Thanks for these comments. In reply to the 'sufficient reason' objection (why not 1000 years, why not all history) I have ignored the more extreme versions because they are inherently implausible, whereas the 300 year version is grounded in a sufficient reason (the apparent discrepancy between Julian and Gregorian calendar system, of about three days, and is superficially plausible (we have fewer written record for the 'dark age' period than for the classical or post dark-age period.

My specific question was whether ordinary people in the early middle ages used a dating system in the way we do - as opposed to just the learned.

Otherwise, the main objections I can see are:

1. The initial motive for the hypothesis depends on whether the Romans dated the equinox on 24th March or 21st. Even if they did date it on the 21st (and I have not seen any evidence that they did), the inconsistency could easily be explained by (1) bad calendars - there were a few known mistakes in the Julian calendar (2) poor calculation of the equinox - no accurate method was found until Ptolemy, whose calculation is consistent with standard chronology.

2. The assumption that there are few documents dating from that period is false. There are many, particularly from the Carolingian period. And of course there is Bede, and the Anglo-Saxon chronicle.

3. There were separate dating systems in a number of Western and Middle-Eastern cultures, e.g. the Alexandrian, the Byzantine, the Jewish, the Arabic. To suppose a conspiracy spanning different administrations and churches is less plausible than any alternative.

4. There were many original works produced during that period (e.g. Bede, Eriugena). It is much more difficult to forge an original work than an ordinary one.

5. There were many copies of the same works produced by different hands and dispersed in widely different locations. To forge all of these down to the handwriting, in a way that has so far escaped modern paleographic science would be a tremendous task. This would have to include forging the copyist's errors in a way that made them look like genuine errors, and dispersing the families of documents in a geographically realistic way.

6. A large scale forgery would be massively expensive - each manuscript copied could be up to a year's work, and would have to encompass many thousands of MS. Billions of pounds in today's terms.

Using Hume's principle (rather than Ockham's), namely that of two explanations choose the least difficult and least implausible, we should conclude that the Romans miscalculated the equinox date, and the Ptolemy, and subsequent astronomers, calculated it correctly.

But I am still interested in whether ordinary people used calendars.

[stevenotto]

The added years have interested me for years (ouch). Since I stumbled on Quedlenburg where Heinrich Himmler for 5 years did a yearly death connection ritual to his former self as the King who's relative changed the dates. He also had this thing about a 1,000 year Reich.

I see the 296 year addition as the most likely explanation of why so very little has been found that relates to the missing years that can be accurately dated. Most dates being cross referenced to other dates, for example pottery to tree rings. So errors just stay in the system ... and no one wants to scream, "I've been doing this pottery dating work for years and we have all been fiddled the books to agree with the professor."

As to the calender use. It wasn't even really considered. The seasons were judged by the star signs. Kings and others gave year placement. Place placement was far more important.

Interestingly the main calenders (kept by strange little men in turrets) of the time were 'averaged' out in about the year 1,000. The Jewish calender, the Roman calender (kept with/by successions) the eastern calender etc.

By far the best way to work out the real dates is the 532 volcanic explosion that brought on the "dark ages". Using this as a datum line makes for facinating insights. This gives a date that for the collapse of the Roman Empire as probably our 253 - when the Romans were defeated by the German tribes in Germany - their superb transport system collapsed with a lack of sun for feed. They never got the act together after this. (Worth looking David Key's book on Catrstrope)

Also of interest are sub sets like Emperor Charmine - the king who never was - who did so much in so short a time that he must have had a Lear jet to fly over the dense forests of germany to his numerous exploits. There is much that is contradictory in his personal history. And need I even mention King Arthur ?

Good that you are writing about this.