Lets say that nothing of the history that take place before 0AD is true but just made in the medival ages by different people of different reasons. What do you think happend before 0AD if that was a fackt(im not saying that it is, its just a thought).

Well, it doen not need be a what-if.
There is actually a group of german historians who made some research and now they claim that our historiography made a jump of almost 300 years somewhere between 600 and 900. That would mean that the whole story of Charlemagne has been made up.
I`ll look for the links, we had a discussion about that on the europa universalis forum already and as I started it it shouldn`t be hard to find :)

The links to the Zeitsprung-theory website. Also a link to the discussion on the europa universalis forum. Not much people were really impressed by the proof ;)

the "Zeitsprung" - website (English summary) (http://www.lelarge.de/wamse.html)

the actual site (in German) -> see phantomzeit and textarchiv for the "proof" (http://www.lelarge.de/)

Zeitsprung-discussion on europa universalis forum (http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50864)

interesting, very interesting. It would ruin all of today's history.

If that's true, I guess the Pyramids just kind of...popped up, you know? Same with Stonehenge, I'd assume. Oh, and the Parthenon is probably just some rocks that fell together really well.

There's no way that history could have been fabricated like that.

That seems like a big rubbish to me. Did they convince the entire world to do so? Did the arabs and the chinese, for instance, also decide to fabricate 300 years(and how did he come to the conclusion that it was exactly 297 years and how did he come to the years 614 and 911?)?
Oh, and wasn't it in the year 622 that the Hegira took place? Did they also fabricate Mohammad. If that's true, then the Islamic calendar only starts in the year 919. Amazingly, by this time the arabs were already masters of the middle east, north africa and most part of Iberia. Did this hapen from one day to the other? How does the author of these thesis explains the differences in the european geopolitics between the VII century and the X century? :rolleyes:

I'd laso like to hear about China. I'm not any expert, but I'd like to hear from Knight-Dragon something about these 297 years.
Plus, I do not know about other places, but here the christian era only started to be used in official documents in the XIV century. Before the years were counted ab urbe condita, ie, since the foundation of Rome. Was this calendar also shifted in 300 years?

And what about that "obscure" datation method, Carbon 14 they call it. Are all the labs that do the analysis also in this sort of world medieval conspiracy? :rolleyes:

And finally (and decisive in my opinion), the oldest important historical event that we know the exact day it ocured is a battle that took place in the VI century BC between th lydians and the medes. During the battle, a fortunate event happened: a solar eclipse took place, and the armies ceased the fighting and a peace treaty was signed because the two kings thought that it was a sign from the Gods that they had gone too far. The historians knew more less the year, but thanks to astronomical calculations the day could be tracked and found out to be the 28th of May 585 BC. If 300 years of history had been made up, then they would find out that no eclipse had ocured in that place at that time period.

Check here (http://www.umich.edu/~lowbrows/reflections/1999/lsimmons.2.html). It is the 9th paragraph.

Originally posted by MCdread
I'd laso like to hear about China. I'm not any expert, but I'd like to hear from Knight-Dragon something about these 297 years.Those years were arguably the Golden Age of Imperial China with the Sui and Tang dynasties. The Chinese were great at recording stuff and we had some extensive records left fr this periods; also poems, private works etc. Pretty hard to fabricate.... There was also extensive archaeological stuff left over. ;) Including the Grand Canal. Try fabricating that....

This is more philosophical than historical. The idea that none of what we believe is true has been suggested before. The two most notable cases were both in the 20th century. First, the philosopher Bertrand Russell suggested that perhaps the world was just created 20 minutes ago. Wrinkles on faces, dinosaur fossils, and all your memories have just been placed here by god to mislead you. This is unlikely in the extreme, but still possible. It's worth mentioning that Russell did not believe this theory, he just used it as an example for the value of skepticism when analyzing data or appealing to authority.
The second case was Dr. Einstein, who said that the only constant in the universe is the speed of light, and everything else depends on this point of view. General relativilty is complicated, but here's an example. Sound is actually a series of waves created by atoms knocking into eachother. What we percieve as sound, howeever, is what we hear. This is not what sound truly is, but rather how we experience it from our point of view.
I'm not much a fan of metaphysics, personally (I'm a philosophy grad student, by the way). I think it's entertaining enough and it has its place, but it's one of the less practical branches of philosophy in terms of a normal person's life. We could debate about whether all triangles really have three sides for eternity, and while it might be diverting, it's not the sort of thing that puts gas in the car or bread on the table. Just my two cents.

Isn't Kripke's reading of Wittgenstein along similar lines - ie that after a while there is no value in questioning whether anything TRULY exists and at some point we have to accept reality as being, well, real and just get on with it.

NB - my jurisprudence might be a bit rusty but I THINK that's what he was on about (I may have also spelt his name wrong :blush: )

Yes, that's right. If I recall, he was addressing the question of why everything exists instead of nothing. This led to how we really know anything exists. This is why I try to stick to ethics and avoid metaphysics whenever possible.

it's an interesting but useless discussion I think. You won't find an answer. So what if nothing is true? Now what? Nothing you can do about it. Thinking about this kind of things only trains the mind.

As to Zeitsprung, that idea is based on the fact that most of the german historiography from the period of ~600-900 cannot be confirmed by meanings of archeology. We cannot find most of the cities mentionned by old chronicles from those days for example. His explanation toward islamitic and byzantine time-changes sounds more obscure though... here though the "sprungs" could have been made in different times, or the timescale could have been "fixed" later.
As to chinese - well, it doesn`t mean that the chinces changed their history at all - there are no common points between their and european historiography before ~1200 so differences in timescale from before could hardly be proved or dismissed that way.

On the other hand the theory of Zeitsprung gives a nice solution to the common historical problem of "ghost-states" of south-eastern Europe from the early middleages. The existance of states as Samo-state, greater Moravia, 2 Bulgarian kingdoms, Kingdom of Avars and the Greater Serbia are hardly to be proved - most info is very obscure and there are again hardly any archeological proofs. THAT would be a blow to the balkan nationalismus though ;)

So, how do you handle with the informations that we can get from exact sciences, such as Physics and Astronomy, and the particular example I gave in my earlier post, not to mention the results of carbon 14?

There's more world outside Central and Eastern Europe.
And btw, there have been indirect contacts with China earlier.

the greater serbia is a story made up centuries later by serbian nationalist, at least that's what my history teacher told me. Serbian nationalism is incredibly new to the world, and the whole idea of a Serbian kingdom, conquered by the Ottomans, is unaccurate or even completely false.

Originally posted by MCdread
So, how do you handle with the informations that we can get from exact sciences, such as Physics and Astronomy, and the particular example I gave in my earlier post, not to mention the results of carbon 14?

Well, the answer of the Zeitsprung theoreticians is that the c14 method is wrong ;) I don`t get much of his explanation as my german is not that great so I cannot give you his arguments....


There's more world outside Central and Eastern Europe.
And btw, there have been indirect contacts with China earlier.
Well, when? and were those between cultures of which we have written resources, which also had a clear calendar which we know?

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
the greater serbia is a story made up centuries later by serbian nationalist, at least that's what my history teacher told me. Serbian nationalism is incredibly new to the world, and the whole idea of a Serbian kingdom, conquered by the Ottomans, is unaccurate or even completely false.
I wouldn`t go that far. We have more information of Serbia being actually a state under Dusans in the 13th and 14th century, and actually treatening the Byzantines even earlier, till it was finally defeated in 2 campaigns by the Ottomans (the first is the infamous Kossov-polje, the 2nd annihilated the restants of Sernbia)
however, I have more doubts, and not only me, about a Great Serbia in 800....

But was it a Serbian state? From what I heard the asnwer is no. It was a state, but not necessary a Serbian one.

Originally posted by Kasperus

Well, the answer of the Zeitsprung theoreticians is that the c14 method is wrong ;)

How convenient for them. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Kasperus

Well, when? and were those between cultures of which we have written resources, which also had a clear calendar which we know?


Both China and Rome for instance, knew about each other, or better said, knew about the existance of the other. I once read a book where it said that there exist chinese records of at least to roman embassies to China. However the author thought that they were probably indian merchants trying to get some advantadge of the name Rome. And the name of the roman emperor at the time seems similar to the one that is preserved in the chinese records. I do'n have the details here, but I think it was during the ruling of the antonines in Rome.
And there's allways the Silk Rout.

But, the romans had contacts with India, and there were roman merchants living there, so...

You can allways check for know geological events in the tree rings or in the ice polar layers, such as the vesuvius eruption.
You don't need to create a wild theory to solve a problem on one zone of the globe.
The Zeitsprung is a fake and worst than that, a bad one. I'm sorry, but even Charroux or von Daniken had a better effort.

What if... All apples were really made of cellulose and other organic materials...? :eek:

...:D

Originally posted by MCdread
Both China and Rome for instance, knew about each other, or better said, knew about the existance of the other. I once read a book where it said that there exist chinese records of at least to roman embassies to China. However the author thought that they were probably indian merchants trying to get some advantadge of the name Rome. And the name of the roman emperor at the time seems similar to the one that is preserved in the chinese records. I do'n have the details here, but I think it was during the ruling of the antonines in Rome.
And there's allways the Silk Rout.

But, the romans had contacts with India, and there were roman merchants living there, so...Well, the Romans knew of 'Seres', where the silk they imported in massive amts came from. Though they got most details wrong (incl how silk was produced). It was the Persians' fault - they're acting as middlemen betw China and Rome and growing rich on it. :)

The Chinese knew of a powerful far western kingdom they called Ta-Ch'in, west of Persia. Few details though. It was probably Roman Syria though, not Rome itself.

As for that Roman embassy, there was such an entry in Chinese records of an embassy received fr Ta-Ch'in, but they were probably Roman merchants, rather than official representatives, eager to do business thru the tribute system. On the Chinese side, the Chinese sent out an envoy fr Chinese-rule Turkestan during the Eastern Han (1st century AD). The envoy managed to get to the shore of a western sea (prob. the Persian Gulf), before turning back due to rumors by locals (prob. Persians ;)) of great dangers, monsters, blah blah blah.

Roman coins had been unearthed in Cambodia, which was an important trading point betw China and India.

Also the Chinese and the West missed each other by one or two generations in Bactria, Central Asia. Alexander the Great's armies penetrated into the region, and the Greeks stayed, even after the Successor Wars began, setting up a few kingdoms there. One or two generations after the last Greek kingdom in the area was grinded into dust, the first Han Chinese armies penetrated into the region, where they found the unique Graeco-Indian sculpture form (something like that) and this influence travelled back to China thru the Silk Road. ;)

@ Willemvanoranje
That of Stefan Dusan? It was Serbian but not necessary a state I would say ;). Most probably a group united south-slavic tribes under one stronger clanchief - the common "statehood" in the middleages. Anyway, according to the "Palgrave Concise Historical Atlas of Eastern Europe" (D.Hupchick/H.Cox) it has been already a state for the first time in the 9th century and then again since the 11th. we even know most of its kings. Under Stefan Dusan it reached the "Greater Serbia" from Bosnie up to Athens and Stefan Dusan even declared himself Byzantine Emperor (he died before he could have really claim the title though). After the country collapesed after his death and the Turks slowly gained territory it was slowly conquered by the ottomans (famous battle of Kosovo-polje 1389) and eventually annexed in 1456 by Mehmed the Conqueror.

Originally posted by MCdread

How convenient for them. :rolleyes:



Both China and Rome for instance, knew about each other, or better said, knew about the existance of the other. I once read a book where it said that there exist chinese records of at least to roman embassies to China. However the author thought that they were probably indian merchants trying to get some advantadge of the name Rome. And the name of the roman emperor at the time seems similar to the one that is preserved in the chinese records. I do'n have the details here, but I think it was during the ruling of the antonines in Rome.
And there's allways the Silk Rout.

But, the romans had contacts with India, and there were roman merchants living there, so...

You can allways check for know geological events in the tree rings or in the ice polar layers, such as the vesuvius eruption.
You don't need to create a wild theory to solve a problem on one zone of the globe.
The Zeitsprung is a fake and worst than that, a bad one. I'm sorry, but even Charroux or von Daniken had a better effort.
well, 1st of all i don`t know how c14 works. From the proof of the guy I take that when the c14 was designed it proved for some reason wrong so they adjusted it with 300 years (note that i don`t understand anything from it further, i just tell what he wrote)

further, well, the fact that there has been contact doesn`t mean there are written resources about that from both sides with fixed dates. The calendars of various cultures weren`t as fixd as today. Not every calendar has the same amount of days (islamitic year is iirc 10 days shorter for example), even the lengths of calendars has been changed during the centuries.

Another thing: who knew actually in the ancient time or in the middleages what year it was? most people were illiterates anyway - only the high clerus could read and write. The church had thus the possibility of just announcing that iw was year x instead of year y and everybody was happy. Note that it was still before the great schisma so both Byzantium and Rome had the same religion. Islamitic calendar and literature was high developed eventually but not right in the beginning, so we don`t know how, why and when they actually started counting years - i mean, it is already proven that "our" christian calendar is also wrong - at least a few years. We now measure time by seconds but they did not do that 1000 years ago.

Concluding: I`m not arguing that the guy is right, in fact I find it hard to believe as well. Still, there are things that we cannot with current knowledge and resources confirm or even get to know. the medieval period is still quite obscure and it is strange enough that especially from that period we have so few information. But well, if that period never existed then that explains the lack of proof.
The fact is that some universities started already further research on that theory. It doesn`t mean that the whole Zeitsprung will soon end in the same cathegory as Atlantis and we will only hear more about it through media like the discovery channel ;)

Originally posted by Kasperus

well, 1st of all i don`t know how c14 works. From the proof of the guy I take that when the c14 was designed it proved for some reason wrong so they adjusted it with 300 years (note that i don`t understand anything from it further, i just tell what he wrote)


Kasperus, the method od carbon 14 works in the following way:

There are 3 carbon isotopes in nature: C12, C13 and C14. C12 means that it has 14 particles in the nucleus. C12 is by far the most common and is stable. C14 is formed in the atmosphere in a reaction where a nitrogen atom suffers a colision by a neutron and originates a proton and an atom of carbon 14 (which has a nucleus of 6 protons and a 8 neutrons).
Every living organism needs carbon to live, therefor the radioactive atoms of carbon 14 are also found in the organism, because they are aquired from the environment. When the organism is alive, the quantity of carbon 14 in the body is constant, because the atoms that decay will be replaced by new ones through the metabolism. When the organism dies, the carbon 14 will decay to nitrogen again, and the quantity will decrease. The number of C12 atoms for each C14 in the nature is known. Physicists define the half-life time, which is the time when half of the radioactive material has decayed to half. In the case of C14, it was found to be ~5500 years (I don't remember the exact value). This means that after 5500 years the quantity of C14 in the sample will be half of the initial value, which can be measured by comparing with the quantity of carbon 12 (the normal one).
So, if the decay is constant, it is easy to calculate the age of a sample if the quantity of C14 is determined.

Since the % of C14 in the atmosphere has not been exactly the same throughout the history, we have measured it in tree rings or polar layers, which allows us to calibrate the initial formula.

There you go. I hope it was not too complicated to follow.


It seems to me that we have different approaches to the subject. You seem to focus on historiographic and archeological records. And I, being a physicist, try to find proofs that I can confirm with a mathematical calculation. It can allways be said that C14 has an associated error, as any experimental data has, although it is an error quite inferior to 300 years, I asure you. ;)
But we can calculate with an astounding precision the ocurrence of events like eclipses, and even determine in what regions it was seen, and in which of those it was total, and then compare that with historical records and find out that they match. This seems to me an absolute evidence.

Of course, nothing of this dismiss the possibility that certain records may not be in correspondance with reality. Balkan history may need to be totally rewritten, but yes, there was history, known or unknown, during the period between the VII and the X century.

Much as I hate to intrude levity in such quality discussion:D, why stop with history? What if all of you are figments of my imagination? This whole concept has been a favorite of Science Fiction writers for generations. Kieth Laumar's Trip to the City for example. The movie The Matrix is little more than the same idea carried on by a hostile culture.

As a (former) scientist, I learned that all we perceive is illusion in substance, or of substance. "Solid" objects are mostly empty space. All the colors of the rainbow are a tiny speck in the entire spectrum. Time is an illusion in many ways also. Reality is more akin to a map than a movie. What if RA Heinlein was right, and we are all zombies?

J

PS I take heart from Da Cart. Cogito ergo sum.

What will really bake your noodle:

If the world was created ten minutes ago with everybody just as it is and memories in place, how would you know?

Simple - I'm always AT LEAST ten minutes early for all my appointments. So, when I arrived there'd be no world yet in existence and I'd notice it being created before my very eyes.

Cant believe you didn't consider that possibility :rolleyes:

Consequently, most people feel that while it may be fun to discuss things like this, that it's a generally useless discussion. But philosophers study metaphysics to undertand the nature of the universe. We all generally assume that the universe really exists. The question is: how do you know? How do you know that reality is what your senses have led you to believe it is? As you begin to answer this question, you start to understand what the universe truly is.
So it's not a pointless hypothetical question. There's just not much paid work in trying to answer it.

Originally posted by Rodgers
Simple - I'm always AT LEAST ten minutes early for all my appointments. So, when I arrived there'd be no world yet in existence and I'd notice it being created before my very eyes.

Cant believe you didn't consider that possibility :rolleyes:

:lol: I saw an episode of the 1980s version of the Twilight Zone about this...

Originally posted by MCdread
So, how do you handle with the informations that we can get from exact sciences, such as Physics and Astronomy, and the particular example I gave in my earlier post, not to mention the results of carbon 14?

Just to add my 2 cent to those who rely on science conclusively supporting an argument. Science isn’t exact. Our understanding of the world is based on scientific “theories” and the methods based on them. These theories are the best explanation of how things happen at this point in time.

Carbon dating may be replaced in the future, or even de-bunked as a tool.

As for this thread – I would have to see a lot more evidence to consider this missing 300 years a serious proposal

Carbon-14 dating is a good example of how you should employ the cynicism we were talking about. Dating organisms using C-14 assumes that the level of Carbon 14 on the planet is constant. How do we know how much C-14 was in the atmosphere 20,000 years ago? We don't, and that's a critical assumption, so of course the results of dating using this technique are suspect.
Do I think dates arrived at using Carbon-14 are correct? Yes. Personally, I do.
Is it possible that they're not? Sure! And it's not like a wild, ridiculously slim possibility, either. There's a reasonable cause for doubt.
So maybe history, on this score at least, isn't true.
Maybe...

.... bit like assuming the speed of light is a constant :lol:

Seriously, it would take a radical leap for carbon dating to be wrong by 300 years to support this one page missing history argument. Not impossible..... but radical.

How do we know how much C-14 was in the atmosphere 20,000 years ago?

We measure it in the best way we can, in Greenland's ice mainly. And then we use it to calibrate the method. Is it 100% right? Certainly not. There can be many ways it can fail, but I'm not seeing what will take for it to be adequate for ages after the the X century and 300 years wrong for before. Because that's what it takes. For both the theory to be correct and the C14 stand, it has to be the case that the 300 years error only exists for samples older than the VII century. Hmm... I really don't think so.

However I must say once more that C14 is not my main argument. It is the eclipses' records from before the year when the fake is said to have started.

I agree. This theory draws a very long bow.

I was just making a philosophical statement about scientific "facts". Have to find some use for my BA (Hons) majoring in History and Philosophy of Science ;)

Originally posted by Phillip_martin
Have to find some use for my BA (Hons) majoring in History and Philosophy of Science ;)

Well, I can only think of one use: teaching the history and philosophy of science...;)

The weird thing is I ended up in IT as a Trainee Programmer. Currently an Analyst/Designer so not too far removed from philosophy :lol:

Ah, the other application of a liberal arts education: "okay you got all that partying out of your system, now it is time to go to work!"

My younger brother a history major is now a stock broker with his own house and two new cars. Me an anthropology major undergrad went into grad school for anthro and I might finish the degree this year. I share a small honda and a small apartment with my wife (also an anthro prof).

Nothing exists, and if it did, no one could know it, and if they knew it, they could not communicate itOf all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"] they are notThese quotes are from the Ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras (490-420BC), who along with other Sophists claimed that true knowledge was unattainable. Or in other words "This is my truth, now tell me yours". This view is based on the fact that Many things prevent knowledge including the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human lifeWe have no way of knowing the truth, because are views are tainted by are views, are briefness of life. So we know no truth.

However, Descartes proved it was possible to know one thing for sure,I think, therefore I am.Or it is possible to know your own existence. However, it is impossible to guarantee anyone elses. With my entire existence ensured, I cannot however prove no-one elses. Everyone elses existence could be simply figment of my imagination. This leads on nicely to Sophilism, an immaterial view that originated from Bishop Berkeley's views of immaterialism.

Bishop Berkeley
He believed the world does not exist in the material sense, everything we concieve is concieved by God. Are sense's (sight, touch, smell etc.) are purely thoughts created by God. We are essentially exist in Gods immense imagination.

Sophilism
The following is a proposition:
Knowing my own existence doesn't prove other peoples or even the world's existence. This view leads on to the egocentric view that the rest of the world is purely a figment of my imagination. I have no idea that you, the reader exists. I maybe able prove my own existence, but not yours. This view replaces Gods mind as in Berkeley's view, with my mind. You essentially exist in my immense imagination. If you try to prove to me that you exist, you can't, you cannot prove it either way. You are a figment of my imagination.
End of proposition.

There no way of knowing anything, we live in pure doubt. We use suppositions every day, we give everything are best guess, never knowing whether it is right or if it is wrong
Science is based on the same suppositions, science can prove nothing
Thus we cannot know truth

As you can see, philosophy can end us up in doubt.

p.s. I'm sorry if you find this a little confusing.