
Phantom Time Hypothesis - nikolay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis
======
jerf
While imagining changing the entire world's calendar today is too large by a
couple orders of magnitude, imagine the task of A: getting an entire continent
to change its calendar B: using the by-modern-standards utterly terrible and
slow communication methods C: getting absolutely nobody to hold out despite
the incredible ease of doing so and the general inclination of people to do so
D: leaving no written evidence, commentary in the time, or anything else
written that would survive to later dates to make it clear this happened,
despite the fact that the only way to communicate this change is via written
documentation.

For D, it isn't just about whether the evidence would survive to today, it's
about whether it would survive to, say, the grandchildren of the time, who
might comment on it themselves.

D is, IMHO, what really clenches it... there is simply no way to do this
without a ton of text being generated. You might think, "ah, just tell
everyone to destroy the evidence afterwards", but, first rule of history, past
people are just as human as you are. There's no way you'd get 100% compliance
today; imagine the internet commentary today, imagine telling everybody on the
internet to delete all the evidence of a change like this. Not gonna happen.

It's an amusing theory, as I quite enjoy a good conspiracy theory, but it
makes no sense. Even the putative motives don't begin to justify such work.
Historically speaking, if you are the sort of person who wants to be important
to the calendar, you don't put gaps in to line up to nice round powers-of-ten,
you call yourself a _new_ calendar and start out with a fresh Year 1.

~~~
mikeash
Don't forget E: convincing _other_ continents to change _their_ calendars too,
lest any historical or astronomical events shared between your cultures reveal
the terrible secret.

~~~
nonbel
Reports of astronomical events are missing though:
[http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/2.22/F7.expa...](http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/2.22/F7.expansion.html)

~~~
delazeur
Even if there were no verifiable astronomical records during the period in
question, wouldn't there still be discrepancies related to events from
_before_ that period?

~~~
nonbel
Apparently there are:
[http://www.setterfield.org/Dodwell_manuscript_1.html](http://www.setterfield.org/Dodwell_manuscript_1.html)

Edit: I have no idea how accurate any of this stuff is. From my little
experience trying to figure out the origins of historical claims I have
learned it is very difficult to do so. Poor citing practices abound.

------
chromaton
There are a few of these floating around:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Rohl%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Rohl%29)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_in_Chaos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_in_Chaos)

A common theme is attempting to tie the Bible in with the rest of history.

~~~
Semiapies
The Fomeko chronology is entertainingly batshit, with a history-rewriting
conspiracy of crazy scope and petty motivation. It makes vanishing a few
centuries look like small potatoes.

I think the touch that the New Testament actually refers to events prior to
those of the Old Testament is particularly fun.

------
jobigoud
Fine example of a Wikipedia page where the discussion page is a much more
informative and interesting read than the article itself.

------
dankohn1
One of the amusing aspects of Game of Thrones is that while constructing an
intricately detailed timeline going back thousands of years, George RR Martin
then leaves clues that the timeline may be off by thousands of years.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=tYUsrknjhbEC&pg=PA46#v=one...](https://books.google.com/books?id=tYUsrknjhbEC&pg=PA46#v=onepage&q&f=false)

"Past a certain point, all the dates grow hazy and confused, and the clarity
of history becomes the fog of legend." \- Hoster Blackwood, to Jaime Lannister

~~~
epmatsw
GRRM does love his unreliable narrators. Jon and Sam have an interesting
conversation about how many Lord Commanders there were before him, and there's
a few fan theories spun off out of that. And A World of Ice and Fire is a
"historical" document written by an in-universe character who presents the
history through his own biases.

------
andybak
Classic example of the Baader Meinhof phenomenon. On Saturday night I was
trying to explain this theory to someone and I couldn't remember the name of
it or the time period.

~~~
arto
[http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-
phenomenon...](http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/)

~~~
logfromblammo
That's the one where you buy a car, and shortly thereafter discover that there
seem to be more cars of the same model on the road than before.

In reality, there are the same number as before--plus one if you bought yours
newly manufactured--but your brain is now primed to _notice_ them more often.
Before, they blended in with the myriad of other car models, but now you
notice that _other people_ are driving _your_ car.

~~~
dogma1138
That's in general but it doesn't necessarily work for that example unless you
are talking about a more general classification of a car like a ford or maybe
a ford fiesta (do they still make thos? ah the 90's!).

If you just bought a brand new 2016 model BMW 525i there's a good chance that
if you start seeing more of them it's because there are actually more of them
now. :)

------
NelsonMinar
I like crank theories as much as the next guy, but only good crank theories.
This particular theory requires you be entirely ignorant of Chinese history.
Muslim history, too.

~~~
nonbel
I am not an adherent to any of these missing time theories, but did get
interested in the idea awhile back when watching a documentary about ancient
Rome. It seemed like the same details were being repeated over and over, like
the same story repeated many times. Of course there are many reasons for that,
so please do not get defensive.

Anyway, can you cite the specific evidence for eg chinese eclipses and their
associated dates? Wikipedia cites this page which has that awful scholarship
I've found is typical of chronology discussions:
[http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Phantom%20Time.HTM](http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Phantom%20Time.HTM)

~~~
NelsonMinar
I can't cite all of Chinese written history for you. There's a lot of it, with
precise dating.

------
powera
The fact that articles like this even exist is one of the top problems with
Wikipedia today. One guy with a crazy theory can generate enough "evidence"
and "citations" to make any random bullshit encyclopedic, and there's no "this
is provably false" way to get rid of it.

~~~
dhj
To be fair, it is presented very clearly as a conspiracy theory.

~~~
powera
Two people does not make a noteworthy conspiracy theory.

