4 ms·

You might worry too much. One of the most fascinating conspiracy theories I ever encountered postulates that the dark ages never happened. That is, this vast d

You might worry too much. One of the most fascinating conspiracy theories I ever encountered postulates that the dark ages never happened. That is, this vast decline of the Roman Empire and ensuing centuries of neglect and intellectual emptiness (which inspires most contemporary worrying about the decline of great civilisations) was not a real thing at all but rather an artifact of how we've dated historical events. The theory itself is very large, complicated, and weakened considerably by its original authors attempt to re-build his own completely different historical timeline after spending most of his theory on showing how we really have very little idea of what was going on before about 1000 AD. But the gist of it is that as you go further and further back, history stops being a coherent timeline of events and starts being a series of snapshots with only rather weak signals used to arrange them and order them. Many of those signals are calibrated against each other, and often evidence that throws doubt on the 'consensus timeline' (as he calls it) is simply discarded, ignored, dismissed as a mistake by the original authors of the material or just written off as a mystery. Just one example among many: Athens is hardly mentioned in works we believe were written during the dark ages, even in books written by people who travelled in the region. On the few occasions that it merits a mention it's described as if it were a small village of no particular importance. But the history books would have us believe that at this time Athens contained the vast ruins of a once great civilisation. It seems very strange that explorers and travellers who wrote about their adventures in that part of the world somehow just systematically forgot to visit Athens, of all places. The theory explains this by suggesting that the construction of the great works in Athens have been misdated quite significantly, and the reason these works don't mention things like the Parthenon is because at the time they were written, these things hadn't been built yet. It claims that many of the things we assume are now ancient and separated from our world by centuries of abandonment and decline are actually early medieval in origin. Anyway, fascinating theory, if only because there's so much potential for hole poking and resultant learning. The debunkings I found on the internet were rather weaker than I had expected and ever since I've been curious as to what exactly was supposed to have created and then ended this mysterious centuries-long "decline".

internaut 10y ago
> You might worry too much. I don't bite my nails over it but it definitely niggles away at me. > One of the most fascinating conspiracy theories I ever encountered postulates that the dark ages never happened. Yeah, the Phantom Time Hypothesis, right? There might be more than one. > That is, this vast decline of the Roman Empire and ensuing centuries of neglect and intellectual emptiness (which inspires most contemporary worrying about the decline of great civilisations) was not a real thing at all but rather an artifact of how we've dated historical events. I have become attached to a cyclical interpretation of history. Mostly because it is not fashionable nowadays. I'll come up with a more convincing rationale later. > But the gist of it is that as you go further and further back, history stops being a coherent timeline of events and starts being a series of snapshots with only rather weak signals used to arrange them and order them. Many of those signals are calibrated against each other, and often evidence that throws doubt on the 'consensus timeline' (as he calls it) is simply discarded, ignored, dismissed as a mistake by the original authors of the material or just written off as a mystery. It certainly is interesting. It makes an historians job similar to that of a crime scene detective. Of course it is a bit of a rabbit hole, you have to trust history didn't begin yesterday or you might go slightly mad. This is the great advantage of those secret surveillance satellites. Our ancestors in an ascendant civilization phase might visit one in a thousand years and discover the 'tape' has been running all the while. > Athens is hardly mentioned in works we believe were written during the dark ages, even in books written by people who travelled in the region. On the few occasions that it merits a mention it's described as if it were a small village of no particular importance. But the history books would have us believe that at this time Athens contained the vast ruins of a once great civilisation. It seems very strange that explorers and travellers who wrote about their adventures in that part of the world somehow just systematically forgot to visit Athens, of all places. Ah but the list of books is not very long and most were destroyed. The Irish saved the Western world with a scriptorium (or maybe we made it all up). Have you seen the TV series Civilization (the first episode entitled 'The Skin of the Teeth' or similar). It is very much in the spirit of this thing. Now you've intrigued me though, and I shall investigate the disappearance of Athens in the Phantom Time Hypothesis.
- zigzigzag 10y ago

internaut 10y ago

> You might worry too much. I don't bite my nails over it but it definitely niggles away at me. > One of the most fascinating conspiracy theories I ever encountered postulates that the dark ages never happened. Yeah, the Phantom Time Hypothesis, right? There might be more than one. > That is, this vast decline of the Roman Empire and ensuing centuries of neglect and intellectual emptiness (which inspires most contemporary worrying about the decline of great civilisations) was not a real thing at all but rather an artifact of how we've dated historical events. I have become attached to a cyclical interpretation of history. Mostly because it is not fashionable nowadays. I'll come up with a more convincing rationale later. > But the gist of it is that as you go further and further back, history stops being a coherent timeline of events and starts being a series of snapshots with only rather weak signals used to arrange them and order them. Many of those signals are calibrated against each other, and often evidence that throws doubt on the 'consensus timeline' (as he calls it) is simply discarded, ignored, dismissed as a mistake by the original authors of the material or just written off as a mystery. It certainly is interesting. It makes an historians job similar to that of a crime scene detective. Of course it is a bit of a rabbit hole, you have to trust history didn't begin yesterday or you might go slightly mad. This is the great advantage of those secret surveillance satellites. Our ancestors in an ascendant civilization phase might visit one in a thousand years and discover the 'tape' has been running all the while. > Athens is hardly mentioned in works we believe were written during the dark ages, even in books written by people who travelled in the region. On the few occasions that it merits a mention it's described as if it were a small village of no particular importance. But the history books would have us believe that at this time Athens contained the vast ruins of a once great civilisation. It seems very strange that explorers and travellers who wrote about their adventures in that part of the world somehow just systematically forgot to visit Athens, of all places. Ah but the list of books is not very long and most were destroyed. The Irish saved the Western world with a scriptorium (or maybe we made it all up). Have you seen the TV series Civilization (the first episode entitled 'The Skin of the Teeth' or similar). It is very much in the spirit of this thing. Now you've intrigued me though, and I shall investigate the disappearance of Athens in the Phantom Time Hypothesis.

zigzigzag 10y ago