h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Given that Charlemagne had two biographers, Einhard and Nokter the Stammerer, and Einhard's life, as well as his authorship of not only the Vita Karoli, but other works, are clearly documented, I have an extremely hard time thinking that 3 centuries are completely fabricated.

There is archaeological evidence of a battle in 732, and not only are there Frankish accounts of the Battle of Tours, but Arabic ones (see : http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html for three brief translated examples of these accounts). Several of these accounts refer to a 'Charles', as well as a Duke of Acquitaine (Eudes or Odo the Great) whose early life is obscure (as most folks' were) but is clearly seen in various documents from 711 on. There are Arabic accounts of Charlemagne, as well, and coin hordes in both Europe and the Middle East contain intermingled coins (carbon dated, mind you) with both Charlemagne and the various Caliphs of the time. See Pirenene's Mohammed and Charlemagne, and for a more recent (and more grounded in science take) Hodges & Whitehouse's Mohammed, Charlemagne, and the Origins of Europe: Archaeology and the Pirenne Thesis or Patrick Geary's Before France & Germany. Many of these books rely on numismatics and carbon dating, as well. The claim that there is little written documentation in Europe itself is at least partially valid, but what about the copious written information about trade with Charlemagne (which was quite heavy) written in Arabic? Not to mention that the supposed 'dearth' of information is not exactly a 'dearth'...just less than other periods. We see this throughout history. There are periods of fewer records, yet no one claims that these historical periods were completely fabricated.
So for the 'phantom time' theory to be correct, not only would the church and state in Europe have to be in on the game, but so, too, would the entire Muslim world. The Caliphates in Iberia, North Africa, and the Arabian peninsula would all have had to be cajoled into agreeing with this massive shift, and somehow, I'm not buying it. Not to mention that having encountered both Illig and Neimetz before, I find their theories are great...until you start asking 'what about this? or that? Or this other thing?'...there are distinct problems.

I'm still chasing down research, but I think the theory may have some validity as far as an incorrect chronology goes.

What it's saying is not that these things didn't happen, but that they may have been misplaced in time. For instance, a battle may have taken place, but it may have been attributed to the wrong people, or given the wrong date.

When we keep in mind that there was no central timekeeping, the fact that one culture says 'This happened in the 3rd year of King So-and-So', and the other culture says, 'Yeah, but that's our 14th Year of Whoever', it might be possible.

After all, the chances that medieval chronologists got *everything* right is exactly nil, IMO.

I suppose it's possible that Charles the Great existed, but didn't do everything that was claimed about him. As one researcher put it, he would have to have been three people, besides being a universal genius. It's interesting.

These sorts of discoveries are made all the time on a smaller scale - say, everyone has always believed that the Battle of X took place at such-and-such a time. Then it turns out it was later, or earlier...

One example I read about this morning was in the placement of a solar eclipse described by a Greek historian. Researchers did the calculations: it either took place in the 6th Century BCE - or 25 years earlier. Hard to say.

Do saints have any bearing on this? Were there hagiographies that had dates in them. E.g. Saint Jaylo, Patron saint of bottom implants - born 843 died 904. There would need to be a huge amount of faking to create enough stories to fill this time gap. Is there a huge gap in evidence here other than missing pig sale records - though missing pig sale records should be accounted for?

The problem with many saints is that they did not, in fact, EVER exist.

There are saints who were originally holy wells. No lie. Saints who were figures from myth, folklore, etc. Saints who got confused with somebody else.

This is quite apart from the question of how the saints allegedly died. Try reading Byzantine martyr stories - they beat George Romero, hands down. Or St Ursula, who went down the Rhine in a boat containing 11,000 virgins... (Do you know what St Barbara is really holding on that tray? Or why St Lawrence has a BBQ grill in his hand? No, and you don't want to, either.)

Saints are a dodgy category of being.

Try this saint, plucked at random from an official list, St Abban:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abb%C3%A1n

Note that his official biography makes him live for about 300 years. Or he could have been two different people, which might explain why he rates *two* feast days.

Anyway, his story is told for some political purpose. A political superhero.

As it happens my daughter got married in the church of St Lawrence, Cowley and I do know his grilly story.
Baddies: "Tell us where the church's treasure is!"
St Larry: "No, shan't"
Baddies: "You'd better or we'll roast you alive!"
St Larry: "OK then but it will take a couple of days."
Baddies: "We'll give you a couple of days."
Other church folks organise hiding the treasure and round up the poorest people they can find.
St Larry: "These people are the treasure of the church!"
Baddies: "D'oh! Do you want us to marinate you first?"
St Larry: "Turn me over, I'm done this side!"
----------
The 300 year old saints fit your missing years story.

I like your script.

Yeah, that would make sense, wouldn' it? About the 300 years?

What about kings dates and stuff like that? There must have been monarchs all over the place and they would have at least had a number of years as ruler, which people would remember
"This is the third year of the rule of King Vestboy III. That's two more than his father and two and a half years longer than his grandfather. He must be doing something right."

Yeah, remember in the Bible when it says, 'King Vestboy was a great ruler. He came to power in the 14th year of King Elvis, and reigned until the 2nd year of Queen Madonna...'?

Coordinating this stuff is a chore.

I was reading about Egyptologists yesterday, and they have a lot of trouble with that. Depends on who you're talking to, whether Cheops (Khufu) had a short or extra-long reign.

You'd think they'd keep a diary or something wouldn't you.
Dear Diary, got up, got dressed, made some laws and stuff. Oh yeah,I forgot I conquered the stalactites and the stalagmites; put up taxes and lowered the age of consent; sold some slaves and bought a toothbrush. Should I have my hair cut or get the court wizards to lower my ears? Decisions, decisions!
Signed Cheops.
PS (yuck I hate my name. It sounds like a cut of meat. I'm getting bored with it. I'm going to call myself Kungfu, nah sounds too Chinese. What about Khufu? Yeah, that sounds more Egyptian.
Note to self: Tomorrow name a city Memphis then Elvis will have somewhere to be born.

Good diary entry. (Although Elvis was from Tupelo, Mississippi. I, on the other hand, was born in Memphis......so Khufu was no doubt thinking of me...)

Dear Diary,

What was I thinking of? Elvis won't be born in Memphis. But there are rumours that the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, I'm bored fill in the rest, grandfather of Dmitri Gheorgheni is thinking of having children and he would like his (repeat previous list of greats) grandson to be born there, and, as he is a great pal of mine, and I beat him at arm wrestling this morning, I am feeling generous. Anyone with two gh's in the same name should come from somewhere special. It's not as good as a kh but I am divine.

Note to self: ask the guards to give him his arm back.

Your generosity is overwhelming. This diary has potential...