The Strange (and Clearly Untrue) Conspiracy Theory Claiming the Middle Ages Are a Myth

According to the Phantom Time Hypothesis, we are living in the year 1725, not 2023. This theory, introduced in 1991 by German historian Heribert Illig and widely discussed in his book The Invented Middle Ages: The Greatest Time Fake in History (Das erfundene Mittelalter: Die grösste Zeitfälschung der Geschichte in German), claims that the period from 614 to 911 CE was entirely fabricated. Illig argues that Pope Sylvester II and Holy Roman Emperor Otto III conspired to create these phantom centuries.

The Origins and “Proof” Supporting the Phantom Time Hypothesis

Illig’s theory suggests that Sylvester II, Otto III, and possibly Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII manipulated the medieval calendar to align their reigns with the year 1000 CE, a symbolic milestone in Christian history. He asserts that they forged historical records to cover up the fabricated period, inventing events such as the Muslim conquest of Spain and the life of Charlemagne. Illig points to the scarcity of original documents from the early Middle Ages and inconsistencies between the Julian and Gregorian calendars as evidence that the timeline does not align.

Despite being widely dismissed as a baseless conspiracy, Illig’s Phantom Time Hypothesis has garnered some supporters. Among them is Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, a chemistry professor and former head of the history of technology department at the University of Applied Sciences in Leipzig. In his 1995 paper titled “Did the Early Middle Ages really exist?” [PDF], Niemitz argued that historians have mistakenly added roughly 300 years between antiquity (1 CE) and the Renaissance (1500 CE).

Anatoly Fomenko, a mathematics professor at Moscow State University, is another notable advocate of the Phantom Time Hypothesis. His “Russocentric” interpretation extends beyond Illig’s “Eurocentric” view, proposing that human history only began in the 800s. Fomenko claims that ancient civilizations like Egypt, China, Greece, and Rome are mere “phantom reflections” of medieval events.

As journalist Rex Sorgatz notes in The Encyclopedia of Misinformation, which examines the Phantom Time Hypothesis alongside other well-known conspiracies, Fomenko’s approach to history is akin to “folding a map,” radically reordering the past. His alternative timeline suggests the New Testament predates the Old Testament, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun are the same individual, and the Trojan War from Homer’s Iliad was actually part of the Crusades.

Exposing the Flaws in the Phantom Time Hypothesis

“Like every convincing falsehood,” notes Leland Renato Grigoli in Perspectives on History, an online publication by the American Historical Association, “the Phantom Time Hypothesis (PTH) contains a kernel of truth.” While numerous primary sources document events in early medieval Europe, many are later copies made “as originals deteriorated, were lost, or simply duplicated for convenience,” Grigoli explains. The absence of original documents, often lost to war, disease, or deliberate destruction, makes verifying the copies’ accuracy challenging.

This challenge gives the Phantom Time Hypothesis a sliver of plausibility. However, this credibility vanishes when examining other historical evidence. Dendrochronology, the study of tree rings, confirms the existence of the so-called phantom centuries. Additionally, a wealth of books, artworks, and artifacts from the Islamic Golden Age, pre-Columbian Americas, and China’s Tang Dynasty further disprove the theory.

Grigoli argues that the Phantom Time Hypothesis “is rooted in a narrow, Eurocentric view that has historically dominated medieval studies.” Illig’s Eurocentric theory erases the early Middle Ages, a period Sorgatz describes as “remarkably unremarkable in European history,” coinciding with significant cultural and scientific advancements in the Islamic world and China’s Tang Dynasty. Fomenko’s Russocentric version, on the other hand, suggests civilization began around the time of Kievan Rus’s founding in the 800s, aligning with Russia’s historical origins.

“Both versions of the hypothesis manipulate history to serve their own narratives,” Sorgatz concludes.

The Phantom Time Hypothesis remains hard to debunk because evidence against it can be twisted to support its claims. Illig argues that artifacts like those showing the Islamization of the Iberian Peninsula or records of Charlemagne’s military exploits could be dismissed as fabrications orchestrated by Otto and Sylvester.

“Counter-evidence,” Sorgatz notes, “only fuels the conspiracy. Every historical rebuttal demands another layer of explanation, threatening to collapse the entire timeline. Even if you’re certain Charlemagne existed, can you prove it? And can you definitively prove anything that occurred before your lifetime?”