第一个千年有多长？
第一个千年有多长？Gunnar Heinsohn基于地层学的年代学
这是一篇由三部分组成的文章的最后一部分，该文章主张公元第一个千年的激进修正主义。在第 1 部分和第 2 部分中，我研究了公元一千年大部分时间的标准历史中的一系列基本问题。在这里，我提出了我认为是解决这些问题的最佳方法。我们习惯于依赖一个普遍接受的涵盖整个人类历史的全球年表，以至于我们把这个年表看作是给定的，是时间本身的简单表示，就像我们呼吸的空气一样不言而喻。实际上，这种年表使我们能够相对精确地将所有民族历史上的所有重大事件放在一个时间尺度上，这是一种复杂的文化结构，在16世纪后期之前没有实现。耶稣会士在计算中发挥了重要作用，但我们现在熟悉的年表的主要设计师是一位名叫约瑟夫·斯卡利格（Joseph Scaliger，1540-1609 年）的法国胡格诺派教徒，他着手协调所有可用的编年史和日历（希伯来语、希腊语、罗马语、波斯语、巴比伦语、埃及语）。他用拉丁文写成的关于年表的主要著作是 De emendatione temporum （1583） 和 Thesaurus temporum （1606）。耶稣会士丹尼斯·佩陶（Denys Pétau，1583-1652 年）在斯卡利格的基础上，于 1628 年至 1657 年出版了他的 Tabulae 年表。因此，我们的全球年表，教科书历史的支柱，是现代欧洲的科学建构。像其他欧洲规范一样，在欧洲文化统治时期，它被世界其他地区所接受。例如，中国人在宋朝（960-1279 年）就已经编纂了一部长篇历史叙事，但耶稣会传教士对其进行了改造以适应他们的公元前-公元历法，从而产生了 1777 年至 1785 年间出版的 Joseph-Anne-Marie de Moyriac de Mailla 的 13 卷 Histoire Générale de la Chine。一旦中国历史被牢牢地铆接到斯卡利格的年表上，其余的就随之而来。但有些人不得不等到19第世纪在这个框架中找到自己的位置;印第安人有非常古老的记录，但没有一致的年表，直到英国人给了他们一个。说实话，古代帝国的年表从未完全确定。艾萨克·牛顿（Isaac Newton，1642-1727）在《修正的古代王国年表》中建议大幅减少当时公认的希腊、埃及、亚述、巴比伦和波斯的古代。今天，古代年表在学术界仍然有待商榷（例如，阅读大卫·罗尔（David Rohl）的“新年表”）。但是，当我们接近公元前时，由于书面资料丰富，除了细微的调整外，年表被认为是不可触及的。然而，直到公元九世纪，还没有主要来源提供绝对的日期。事件的日期是相对于其他一些具有当地重要性的事件，例如城镇的建立或统治者的加入。在纪元多米尼（公元）最近发生的事件的年代直到十一世纪才变得普遍。因此，第一个千年的总体时间表仍然依赖于大量的解释，更不用说对来源的信任了。与早期的时代一样，它在科学发掘开始前几个世纪就被固定下来了（19第，主要是20个第世纪），而且，正如我们将看到的，它的权威是如此之大，以至于考古学家即使地层数据与它相矛盾，也会屈服于它。树木年代学（树木年轮测年）和放射性碳测年（有机材料测年）几乎没有帮助，而且无论如何都不可靠，因为它们是相对的、相互依存的，并且以某种方式在标准时间轴上校准。由于第 1 部分、第 2 部分及以下部分所揭示的原因，一些研究人员认为现在是第一个千年年表范式转变的时候了。阿纳托利·福缅科和两个罗马这些修正主义者中最著名的是俄罗斯数学家阿纳托利·福缅科（Anatoly Fomenko，生于1945年）。他和他的同事格列布·诺索夫斯基（Gleb Nosovsky）一起制作了数万页来支持他的“新年表”（查看他们的亚马逊页面）。在我看来，福缅科和诺索夫斯基已经为传统年代学中的许多重大问题发出了信号，并为其中许多问题提供了合理的解决方案，但他们的全球重建是以俄罗斯为中心的。他们对统计方法的信心（本视频中的一个很好的演示）也被夸大了。尽管如此，福缅科和诺索夫斯基必须为许多其他人提供刺激和指导。对于他们工作的第一方法，我推荐他们的系列第一卷历史：小说或科学（这里是 archive.org），特别是第7章，“中世纪历史中的'黑暗时代'”，第373-415页。福缅科和诺索夫斯基的一个重大发现是，我们的传统历史充满了双联体，这是由讲述相同事件的编年史的任意端到端排列产生的，但“由不同的人，从不同的角度，用不同的语言，用不同的名字和昵称写成相同的人物。因此，整个时期都被重复了。例如，从俄罗斯尼古拉·莫佐罗夫（Nikolai Mozorov，1854-1946）之前的作品中汲取灵感，福缅科和诺索夫斯基展示了庞培/凯撒/屋大维和戴克里先/君士坦提乌斯/君士坦丁之间的惊人相似之处，从而得出结论，西罗马帝国在某种程度上是东罗马帝国的幻影复制品。根据福缅科和诺索夫斯基的说法，唯一的罗马帝国的首都是在博斯普鲁斯海峡建立的，比其在拉蒂姆的殖民地建立早了大约 330 年。从十字军东征时代开始，罗马神职人员，其次是意大利人文主义者，以君士坦丁堡的真实历史为模型，制作了一个倒置的时间顺序，以君士坦丁堡的真实历史为模型，伪造了意大利罗马的早期历史。随之而来的是巨大的混乱，因为“许多中世纪文件混淆了两个罗马：在意大利和博斯普鲁斯海峡”，两者都通常被称为罗马或“城市”。一种可能的情况是，提图斯·李维（Titus Livy）的《历史》的原型是关于君士坦丁堡的，君士坦丁堡是“罗马人”的原始首都。福缅科猜想，最初的李维是在十世纪左右写的关于君士坦丁堡的，所以当他把这座城市的基础（urbs condita）放在他那个时代之前大约七个世纪时，他就离目标不远了。但是，由于它被彼特拉克重写，并被后来的人文主义者重新解释（阅读“罗马古代有多假？”），在两个“罗马”的建立之间（从公元前753年到公元330年）之间引入了大约一千年的时间鸿沟。然而，根据福缅科和诺索夫斯基的说法，即使是君士坦丁堡的日期也是错误的，整个序列发生在最近：君士坦丁堡建立在公元十世纪或十一世纪左右，而罗马则在公元 330 或 360 年后，即公元 15 或 16 世纪左右。在这里，像往常一样，福缅科和诺索夫斯基可能会夸大其词地破坏他们的最佳见解。德国时代时代在1990年代中期，独立于俄罗斯学派的德国学者赫里伯特·伊利格（Heribert Illig），汉斯·乌尔里希·尼米茨（Hans-Ulrich Niemitz），乌韦·托珀（Uwe Topper），曼弗雷德·泽勒（Manfred Zeller）等人也确信中世纪公认的年表有问题。他们称自己为“Zeitenspringer”（时间跳跃者），认为大约300年——从公元600年到900年——从未存在过。Niemitz（“中世纪早期真的存在吗？”，2000年）和Ilig（“异常时代——最佳证据：最佳理论”，2005年）对他们的方法进行了英文总结。德国人的讨论最初集中在查理曼大帝（伊利格的书）上。关于查理曼大帝的消息来源往往是矛盾和不可靠的。他的主要传记，埃金哈德的《维塔·卡罗利》（Vita Karoli），据说是“为了后代的利益而写的，而不是让遗忘的阴影抹去这位国王的一生，他是他那个时代最崇高、最伟大的国王，以及他的著名事迹，后世的人几乎无法模仿”（来自埃金哈德的前言），是以第一位罗马皇帝奥古斯都的苏埃托尼乌斯的生平为蓝本的。查理曼大帝的“帝国”本身，从800年到三个王国的混乱，只持续了45年，违背了理性。费迪南德·格雷戈罗维乌斯（Ferdinand Gregorovius）在他的《中世纪罗马城史》（8卷）（1872年）中写道：“伟大的查尔斯的形象可以比作一道闪电，他从黑夜中出来，照亮了大地一段时间，然后把黑夜抛在身后”（伊利格引述）。难道这颗流星只是幻觉，关于他的传说几乎与历史毫无关系吗？查理曼大帝的主要问题在于建筑。他在亚琛的帕拉蒂尼教堂展示了 200 年的技术进步，例如在 11 世纪之前从未见过的拱形过道第世纪。相反，查理曼大帝在殷格海姆的住所是以 2 的罗马风格建造的钕世纪，据说材料是从 2 中回收的钕世纪。伊利格和尼米茨对这种荒谬提出质疑，并得出结论，查理曼大帝是奥托皇帝为使其帝国主张合法化而发明的神话前身。8 的所有加洛林人第和 9第他们的战争也是虚构的，大约公元 600-900 年的时间跨度是一个幻影时代。Gunnar Heinsohn以钱币学为由反对这一理论：已经发现了大约15,000枚带有Karlus（或者Karolus或Carlus）Magnus名字的硬币。Gunnar Heinsohn的突破在我看来，来自不来梅大学的Gunnar Heinsohn是年代修正主义领域最有趣和最有说服力的学者。他最近的英文文章发布在这个网站上，他2016年在多伦多的会议做了很好的介绍。海因索恩专注于确凿的考古证据，并坚持认为地层学是确定考古发现年代的最重要标准。他一次又一次地表明，地层学与历史相矛盾，考古学家应该在逻辑上迫使历史学家进行范式转变。不幸的是，“为了与预制的年表保持一致，考古学家在不知不觉中背叛了自己的手艺。当他们在世界不同地区挖掘相同的文物或建筑结构时，他们会将它们分配到不同的时期，以满足历史学家的需求。当他们在同一地点和同一层发现他们已经归因于不同时期的文物混合物时，他们会用荒谬的“传家宝理论”来解释它，或者称它们为“艺术收藏品”。“考古学家对正确确定 1圣-千年挖掘现场，当他们发现与之相关的硬币时。硬币测年层被认为是最科学的精确度。但是学者们如何知道硬币的日期呢？来自硬币目录！这些目录的作者是如何知道这些钱币的日期的？不是根据考古地层，而是根据罗马皇帝的名单。但是皇帝是如何确定日期的，然后如何分类到这些名单中呢？没有人确切知道。很多时候，考古学家在同一定居点或同一墓葬中出土了据称日期相差甚远的硬币。一个例子是公元 458-481 年在位的法兰克王子 Childeric 的著名皮包。对于海因索恩来说，这些硬币不是“硬币收藏”，而是“表明罗马皇帝同时被人为地分散在两个时代——帝国古代和古代晚期”。海因索恩的著作不容易概括，因为它是一项正在进行的工作，因为它几乎涵盖了全球所有地区，并且因为它有大量的插图和历史和考古研究的参考。没有什么可以取代对他的文章的艰苦研究，并通过个人研究完成。我在这里所能做的就是试图反映他研究的广度和深度以及他结论的重要性。我不会转述他的话，而是广泛引用他的文章。从现在开始，只有其他作者的引文才会缩进。除了下一幅和最后一幅之外，所有插图都是从他的文章中借用或改编的。最好的起点是他自己的总结（“海因索恩简述”）：“根据主流年表，欧洲主要城市应该在大约 230 年的三个城市时期展示——以危机和破坏的痕迹隔开——不同的建筑分层群，毫无疑问，这些建筑群是用罗马材料和技术建造的罗马风格（古代/A>古代晚期/LA>中世纪早期/EMA).在迄今为止已知的大约2,500个罗马城市中，没有一个是预期的三个阶层群体相互叠加的。...任何城市（至少涵盖从古代到中世纪盛期的时期 [HMA; 10第/11第c.])只有一个（A或LA或EMA）罗马格式的不同建筑地层组（当然，有内部演变，维修等）。因此，所有三个被标记为A或LA或EMA的城市领域同时存在于罗马帝国中。无法删除任何内容。所有三个领域（如果他们的城市继续存在的话）都同时进入 HMA，即都属于以全球灾难告终的 700-930 年代时期。这种相似性不仅解释了 700 多年来令人难以置信的技术和考古进化的缺失，而且还解决了拉丁语语言石化之谜 1圣/2钕和 8第/9第c. CE。这两个文本组都是当代的。换句话说，从其他文章中可以看出：“从公元 930 年代之后开始的中世纪盛期不仅被发现——正如预期的那样——与中世纪早期（结束于 930 年代）的正上方有关。它们也被发现 - 这在时间上令人困惑 - 直接在帝国古代或古代晚期的上方，在930年代大灾难后定居点继续存在的地方。“在任何一个遗址中，只有大约230年的时期（它们都具有罗马特征，如帝国硬币，腓骨，千层玻璃珠，别墅乡村等）被灾难性的大火终止。由于可追溯到 230 年代的大灾难与可追溯到 530 年代或 930 年代的大灾难具有相同的地层深度，因此大约 700 年的 1圣千年的历史是幻影般的岁月。换句话说，第一个千年只持续了大约 300 年。“根据地层学，所有更早的年代也必须比现在更接近700年。因此，拉泰纳晚期（公元前 100 年至公元前 1 年）的最后一个世纪移至公元 600 年至 700 年左右。在整个地中海世界，“三个时间块已经离开了 - 在任何一个地点 - 只留下了一块覆盖了大约230年的地层。无论在哪里发现它们，帝国古代和晚期的地层都位于十世纪以下，因此真正属于中世纪早期，即公元 700-930 年。古代、古代晚期和中世纪早期的区别是一种没有现实基础的文化表现。海因森提出了这三个时期的同时性，因为它们“都位于相同的地层深度，因此必须在公元 230 年代（也是 520 年代和 930 年代）同时结束。“因此，现在在我们的历史书上按时间顺序发现的三个平行时间块必须回到它们的地层位置。这样，“中世纪早期（约公元700-930年代）成为最终可以书写历史的时代，因为它也包含帝国古代和晚期古代。由于将 230 年延长到 930 年，历史现在分布不均，每个时间段的大部分记录事件都位于三个地理区域之一：罗马西南部、拜占庭东南部和日耳曼-斯拉夫北部。如果我们看一下书面资料，“我们有 [对于 1圣-3RD世纪]是罗马的聚光灯，但对 1圣-3RD世纪在君士坦丁堡或亚琛。然后我们聚焦于拉文纳和君士坦丁堡，但对这 4 个第-7第世纪在罗马或亚琛。最后，我们在 8 世纪聚焦亚琛第-10第世纪，但几乎不知道罗马或君士坦丁堡的任何细节。我同时打开所有的灯，因此可以看到以前被认为是黑暗或完全无法识别的连接。每个时期都以人口、建筑、技术和文化崩溃结束，这是由宇宙灾难引起的，并伴随着瘟疫。历史学家“已经确定了在欧洲三个地区（西南 ;东南 和斯拉夫北部 ） 在 1圣千禧年。“（1）帝国古代，（2）古代晚期和（3）中世纪早期的灾难性结局位于中世纪盛期（从公元930年代左右开始）之前的同一地层平面上。”因此，这三次毁灭性的文明崩溃是一回事，海因索恩称之为“十世纪的崩溃”。海因索恩对三个应该同步的时间块的识别不应被视为精确的并行性：“这个假设并不声称纯粹的 1：1 并行性，其中公元 100 年报告的事件可以简单地补充公元 800 年的信息。地层同一性仅意味着所有可追溯到帝国古代或古代晚期的真实事件实际上都发生在中世纪早期（从地层学的角度来看）。此外，所有三个时间块的长度都不相同。这是因为根据海因索恩的说法，古代晚期（从284年戴克里先统治开始到641年希拉克略去世）大约120年太长了。从查士丁尼崛起（527 年）到希拉克略去世（641 年）的拜占庭部分实际上更短，并且与阿纳斯塔修斯时期（491-518 年）重叠。換句話說，不僅是整個千年，而且古代晚期本身也必須縮短。重复是其幻影年份的原因。因此，查士丁尼与波斯皇帝科斯罗一世（531-579）的战斗与他的直接继任者与科斯罗二世（591-628）相同——尽管考古学家决定将银德拉克马归于科斯罗一世，将金第纳尔归于科斯罗二世。古代晚期的其他复制品包括罗马皇帝弗拉维乌斯·狄奥多西（379-395）与拉文纳和意大利的哥特式统治者弗拉维乌斯·狄奥多里克（471-526）相同，后者同名，只是增加了后缀riks，意思是国王。“在半个世纪的某个时候，随着对无法再计算或重建的原始文本的操纵，一个人的两个名字变成了两个不同名字的人，一个放在另一个后面。”哥特式战争也被重复了：奥多亚瑟和他的儿子塞拉在 470 年代进行的战争，以及托蒂拉在 540 年代进行的战争，“我们处理的不是两场不同的意大利战争，而是关于同一场战争的两种不同叙述，它们按时间顺序一个接一个地联系在一起。
作者同时拍摄的三个 230 年时间区块的视觉效果
与伊利格和涅姆蒂兹相比，海因索恩的方法的优势在于，他并没有真正删除历史：“如果人们删除了通过错误地将平行时期按顺序排列而人为创造的时间跨度，那么只会失去空虚，而不是历史。通过将七个世纪以来被切碎和散落的文本和文物重新组合在一起，有意义的史学首次成为可能。事实上，“罗马历史的形象更加丰富。来自冰岛的众多演员（用罗马硬币;Heinsohn 2013d）到巴格达（其9第c. 硬币与 2 位于同一层钕c.罗马硬币;Heinsohn 2013b）最终可以被绘制在一起，编织出这个拥有2.500个城市和85.000公里道路的广阔空间的丰富多彩的织物。罗马应用于罗马，海因索恩的理论解决了一个一直困扰着历史学家的难题：从三世纪末到十世纪没有任何可追溯的遗迹（在第 1 部分中提到）：“公元一千年的罗马仅在帝国古代建造住宅区、厕所、水管、污水处理系统、街道、港口、面包店等（1圣-3RDc.)但不是在古代晚期（4第-6第c.)在中世纪早期（8第-10第c.).自 3 的废墟以来RD世纪位于10的原始新建筑之下第世纪，帝国古代在地层上属于公元 700 年至 930 年的时期。“罗马帝国的心脏在3之间的七个世纪里没有新的建筑RD和 10第c. CE。3的城市材料RDc.在地层上与早期的10第它被消灭了。在下图中，图拉真论坛的地板（Piano Antico 2钕/3RDc. AD）直接被封印罗马文明的大灾变的黑泥（fango）层所覆盖（稍后会详细介绍）。
为了填补他们被人为拉长的千年，现代历史学家经常不得不对他们的主要来源进行暴力。正如福缅科已经指出的那样，Jordanes（他自己是哥特人）在 6 年代中期写的 Getica 中将 Getae 和哥特人视为同一个人第世纪。在他之前和之后的其他历史学家，如克劳迪安、塞维利亚的伊西多尔和凯撒利亚的普罗科皮乌斯也使用格泰这个名字来指代哥特人。但西奥多·蒙森（Theodor Mommsen）拒绝了这一说法：“格泰人是色雷斯人，哥特人是日耳曼人，除了他们名字的巧合相似之外，他们没有任何共同点。然而，考古学家对格泰人和哥特人居住在300年相距的同一地区这一事实感到困惑，并且没有解释格泰人在哥特人出现之前是如何消失的，以及在300年间隔内缺乏人口统计学。此外，有证据表明，与 Mommsen 的说法相反，他们的文化之间非常相似，包括服装，正如 Gunnar Heinsohn 指出的那样：哥特人在 3RD/4第C. “从头到脚都努力打扮得像他们神秘失踪的前辈一样”（1圣/3RD-c。Getae），并继续“制造 300 年前的陶瓷，将技术演变倒退到基督教之前的 La Tène 陶器。根据海因索恩的说法，“格泰和哥特人的身份可以帮助解决哥特历史上一些最顽固的谜团”，例如公元一世纪罗马的盖特-达契亚战争与大约 300 年后罗马的哥特战争之间的强烈相似之处。达契亚领袖Decebalus（意为“强者”）可能与哥特人阿拉里克（意为“万物之王”）相同。通过这样的过程，“处理同一事件的不同来源被拆分（和改变），使同一事件被描述两次，尽管从不同的角度，从而创造了一个比考古学可以证实的实际历史进程长两倍的年表。
盖提亚囚犯和哥特式战士，都穿着同样的衣服，包括弗里吉亚帽子
君士坦丁堡“虽然在古代晚期和中世纪早期，罗马没有建造带有厕所、供水系统和街道的新住宅区，但在帝国古代和中世纪早期，君士坦丁堡却没有建造这些住宅区。[...]这两个城市在第一个千年的三个时代中只有一个城市性的基本组成部分。虽然在罗马，它们可以追溯到古代帝国，而在君士坦丁堡，它们可以追溯到古代晚期，但从建筑和建筑技术的角度来看，它们几乎无法区分。这是因为，实际上，它们“共享相同的地层层位”。然而，拜占庭有一些非住宅建筑可追溯到帝国古代。最重要的是它的第一个有记录的渡槽，建于哈德良（公元 117-138 年）时期。“这被认为是一个谜，因为拜占庭的实际创始人君士坦丁大帝（公元 305-337 年）直到 200 年后才扩建这座城市。”实际上，“哈德良的渡槽将水输送到君士坦丁 100 年后的繁荣城市，而不是几个世纪前的所谓荒地。谜团消失了。当查士丁尼翻修从哈德良渡槽中取水的大教堂蓄水池时，他不是在400年后，而是在它建成后不到100年才这样做。中世纪早期被称为拜占庭的黑暗时代，始于希拉克略统治后的 641 年，结束于巴西尔二世（公元 976-1022 年）统治下的马其顿文艺复兴。用历史学家约翰·奥尼尔（John O'Neill）的话来说，“查士丁尼大帝死后大约四十年，从七世纪上半叶开始，三个世纪以来，城市被遗弃，城市生活走到了尽头。直到十世纪中叶才有复兴的迹象。对于海因索恩来说，这个时期和大多数其他“黑暗时代”一样，是一个幻影时代。从查士丁一世（公元 518-527 年）开始的查士丁尼王朝与马其顿王朝相同，我们可以从马其顿文艺复兴的发起者君士坦丁七世（913-959 年）开始算起。查士丁尼（公元 527-565 年）和巴西尔二世之间的 400 年时间实际上只持续了 70 年，相当于十世纪的崩溃。除了考古学，还有“查士丁尼（公元 527-535 年）法律发展中的不合时宜和谜题”，写于 2钕-c. 拉丁语。“在塞维兰早期的 300 年中，没有一个法学家RD世纪和查士丁尼的 6第世纪教科书日期包含在文摘中。此外，没有一个 550 年代后的法学家把手伸向《文摘》。因此，“从塞维兰人到中世纪早期结束，大约有 700 年没有罗马法学家的评论。此外：“查士丁尼的希腊臣民必须等待 370 年 [直到公元 900 年代]，才收到 2 的 Koine 希腊语法律版本，这是一个谜钕c. 自 700 年以来已停止使用。这一切“只有在否认帝国古代、古代晚期和中世纪早期的地层同时性时，才显得很奇怪。塞维兰王朝和查士丁尼王朝是同时代人，这说明两者都与一位名叫科斯罗的波斯皇帝作战。根据海因索恩的说法，罗马帝国和君士坦丁堡帝国的基础大致是同时代的。它是“从西到东的地理序列，[它]变成了从早期到后期的时间序列”。“戴克里先没有居住在废墟中，而是与奥古斯都同时生活。他的首都不是罗马。他在安提阿、尼科米底亚和锡尔米乌姆都有住所。从那时起，他孜孜不倦地为保护奥古斯都帝国而努力。海因索恩关于东方戴克里先和西方屋大维奥古斯都同时期的假设（一致统治）将他与福缅科区分开来，福缅科认为奥古斯都是居住在君士坦丁堡的罗马皇帝的虚构复制品。海因索恩在看待两个罗马首都之间关系的方式上也与福缅科不同：他接受罗马的优先地位，并假设戴克里先是屋大维奥古斯都的下属。另一方面，福缅科认为君士坦丁堡是帝国的原始中心。这与戴克里先作为西方同行马克西米安的上级的地位是一致的。戴克里先从一开始就是东方皇帝。他出生在今天的克罗地亚，在那里他建造了自己的宫殿（斯普利特），几乎没有踏足过罗马。马克西米安被派往罗马统治，他本人来自巴尔干半岛。拉文纳拉文纳是一个特例，因为它位于罗马和君士坦丁堡之间：它长期处于拜占庭的控制之下，但却是“古代晚期西方的首都”（弗里德里希·威廉·戴希曼）。拉文纳被称为“回文”，原因由历史学家黛博拉·莫斯科普夫·德利安尼斯（Deborah Mauskoppf Deliyannis）（古代晚期的拉文纳，剑桥大学，2014 年）解释，海因索恩引用：“拉文纳的城墙和教堂通常是用重复使用的砖砌成的。学者们不同意这些spolia的使用是否具有象征意义（例如，对罗马异教的胜利），或者它们的使用是否仅仅与材料的可用性和费用有关。换句话说，它们的使用是有意义的，还是实用的，还是两者兼而有之？它是否展示了皇帝控制现有建筑物建设的权力，还是教堂拆除它们的权力？或者，当拉文纳的建筑建成时，罗马的spolia是否只是被认为是令人印象深刻的公共建筑的理所当然。/ 所有这些的一个显着特征 建筑是，像城墙一样，它们是由早期的砖块制成的 罗马建筑。[...]人们期望用spolia建造一座高贵的教堂。在这里，人们感觉到一种绝望的努力，试图将一种不适合它的情况强加到公认的时间框架中。海因索恩的修正主义解决了这个问题：建筑及其材料当然是当代的，而不是相隔300年。拉文纳的民用和军用港口也存在问题，根据约旦人的说法，该港口可以容纳240艘船只，其灯塔被老普林尼称赞为可与亚历山大的法罗斯相媲美。“然而，被认为是奇怪的是，在公元 300 年左右所有港动停止后，它仍然被据说在 5 年创造的马赛克来庆祝第/6第世纪。甚至 Agnellus 在 9第世纪知道灯塔，尽管这座城市据说在 6 年代后期变成了废墟第世纪。安德里亚·阿涅勒斯（Andrea Agnellus，约 800-850 年）是拉文纳的一位神职人员，他撰写了从帝国开始到他那个时代的拉文纳历史。在彼得殉难的皇帝维斯帕先（公元 69-79 年）之后，阿涅勒斯在 500 年后的事件发生之前没有报告任何事情。他写了圣阿波利纳里斯被圣彼得派往拉文纳建立拉文纳教堂，然后写了拉文纳第一座教堂的建造（公元 549 年的圣阿波利纳雷），显然没有意识到两者相隔了半个世纪。再一次，我们在这里看到历史学家如何通过在他们的编年史中插入幻影时间来对他们的来源施加暴力。根据 Heinsohn 的说法，Vespasian 和 Agnellus 之间只过去了大约 130 年。
圣阿波罗纳雷大教堂的马赛克（公元 500 年左右）
查理曼大帝和欧洲黑暗时代追随伊利格和尼米茨的脚步，海因森指出，查理曼大帝在殷格海姆的住所就像一座罗马别墅，其历史可以追溯到 2钕而不是来自 9第c. CE。正如一个专门介绍该建筑的网站所指出的那样，它“没有加固。它也不是建在自然保护的地点，这在建造城堡时通常是必要和习惯的“（防御工事 2009 年）。海因索恩评论说：“就好像查理曼大帝不了解他自己那个时代的变幻莫测，表现得像一个仍然生活在罗马帝国的元老院议员。他坚持使用罗马屋顶瓦片，但忘记了防御工事。难道他不仅伟大，而且疯了吗？没有发现可归因于查理曼大帝或任何加洛林王朝的中世纪防御工事。挖掘殷格翰的考古学家“被一个建筑群所震撼，该建筑群——从供水到屋顶——都是'基于古董设计'（Research 2009），因此，似乎是 700 年前罗马轮廓的转世。圣至 3RDc. CE。他的亚琛住所（不包括教堂）也是如此：“挖掘者意识到，亚琛的帝国古代和亚琛的中世纪早期不可能相距700年，而必须同时存在。这似乎令人难以置信，但材料发现，包括地砖，都明确无误地说明：亚琛的罗马下水道系统完好无损，以至于中世纪早期的亚琛人“将自己与罗马的下水道系统联系在一起”。这同样适用于交通路线：“从罗马时代开始的持续使用也适用于内城道路和路径网络的大部分地区。[...]罗马道路已经在东北-西南方向的圆顶-四德鲁姆 [普法尔茨合奏] 中有所记载，一直使用到中世纪晚期。如前所述，海因索恩反对伊利格和尼米茨关于卡鲁斯·马格努斯不存在的结论，理由是有大量以他的名字命名的硬币。然而，他补充说，“这些硬币有时令人惊讶，因为它们可能被发现与700年前的罗马硬币混为一谈。删除 700 年解决了这个问题，同时将查理曼大帝的宫殿与 2钕/3RD世纪罗马建筑。紧随十世纪崩溃之前的加洛林时代是罗马帝国的时代。“今天的研究人员将查理曼大帝视为罗马帝国复辟（restitutio imperii）的推动者。他们认为他的时代是一个灭亡文明的巧妙而有意识的复兴。然而，查理曼大帝本人对这种观念一无所知。[...]他没有在任何地方宣称他生活在罗马帝国的辉煌之后的许多世纪。就像“加洛林王朝的建筑师在中世纪早期建造了在形式和技术上与帝国古代相似的建筑物和水管”一样，“加洛林王朝的作家在中世纪早期以帝国古代的拉丁风格写作。因此，约克的阿尔昆（Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus，公元 735-804 年）在查理曼大帝的宫廷中恢复了帝国古代的古典拉丁语（1圣-3RD世纪）在许多黑暗的世纪之后。阿尔昆还撰写了《命题》（Propositiones ad acuendos iuvenes），该书被视为拉丁语中最早的数学问题概况。“我们不明白阿尔昆是如何学习数学的，并在3危机之后用西塞罗的拉丁语写下来RD和 6第世纪，当时没有来自雅典、君士坦丁堡和罗马的老师来指导他。海因索恩表明，查理大帝、秃头查理、胖子查理和简单查理似乎具有相同的签名，并且可能是同一个人，尽管海因索恩“尚未就必须保留多少加洛林卡罗卢统治者达成最终意见”。必须指出的是，Karlus 是 Karl 的拉丁语形式，这是一个斯拉夫名词，意思是“国王”，几乎不是一个人名。海因索恩评论说：“我们被告知，在奇维塔斯·通格罗姆（大致是列日教区）的领土上，有两位名叫丕平的法兰克领主。每个人都有一个儿子，名叫查尔斯。一个是查尔斯·马特尔，另一个是查理曼大帝。每个查理人都对法西边境的撒拉逊人发动了一场战争，对撒克逊人发动了十场战争。[...]这位作者将丕平和查尔斯都视为另一个自我。此外，海因索恩最近提出：“从地层学上讲，查理曼大帝和路易[虔诚者]不属于8第/9第世纪，但到了 9第/10第世纪。他们经历了 2 年末马库斯·奥勒留 （Marcus Aurelius） 和康茂德 （Commodus） 瘟疫的动荡钕世纪。卡鲁斯被称为奥古斯都皇帝并不排除他与意大利其他拥有相同头衔的人同时代。海因索恩提到，在殷格翰发现的金币“让查尔斯佩戴的皇冠感到惊讶，使他看起来像是罗马的初级伙伴。
撒克逊英格兰撒克逊人应该在公元 410 年开始接管英格兰，但考古学家在那个时期找不到他们的任何踪迹。撒克逊人的房屋和骶骨建筑不见了，没有农业的痕迹，甚至没有陶器的痕迹。Heinsohn通过提出中世纪早期最早的盎格鲁撒克逊人（8第-10第世纪）是罗马帝国古代（1圣-3RD世纪）;“这意味着罗马人和盎格鲁撒克逊人同时战斗，并相互竞争，以控制凯尔特不列颠。在阿尔弗雷德大帝（公元 871-899 年）的城市温彻斯特，没有发现任何与他的统治相匹配的考古遗迹。“没有人知道盎格鲁-撒克逊国王能够在哪里开庭。尽管一些学者试图诉诸于8世纪不列颠群岛上没有固定资本的流动法院的想法第至 10 点出头第C. 期间，消息来源没有暗示这种无家可归的统治者。他们将 Venta Belgarum/Winchester 描述为威塞克斯无可争议的首府。由于 9 中没有建筑分层第c. Venta Belgarum/Winchester，流动法庭理论必须扩展到流动国家理论，因为阿弗雷德的官僚和他的臣民也没有固定的宅基地。然而，有没有可能整个国家一直在移动而不留下痕迹？考古学家确实在温彻斯特发现了大量的建筑物，但它们是典型的 2钕-世纪罗马风格，与查理曼大帝的情况不同，考古学家认为它们是真正的 2钕世纪而不是模仿 2钕世纪。“然而，罗马时期 2钕/3RDc. 在带有木星柱的论坛上与罗马联排别墅 （domus）、寺庙和公共建筑的建筑层 [...] 取决于温彻斯特的 10第/11第c.建筑层。“这三者之间没有地层RD和 11第c. 容纳国王的 9第c. 宫殿。然而，有一个 2钕/3RDc.温彻斯特的罗马时期宫殿，没有人声称拥有所有权。因此，根据 Heinsohn 的说法，2钕/3RDc.建筑层属于阿尔弗雷德时期。这也与阿尔弗雷德硬币的罗马风格一致（就像查理曼大帝的硬币一样）。海因索恩关于中世纪早期和罗马古代同时期的理论解开了传说中的亚瑟王之谜：“卡米洛特的凯尔特统治者亚瑟，活跃在撒克逊人和罗马人同时竞争征服英格兰的时代，在奥古斯都皇帝时期最优秀的凯尔特军事领袖卡穆洛杜努姆的阿西-多马罗斯身上找到了另一个自我， 其考古证据转移到基于地层的日期，即公元 670 年代至 710 年代。“卡米洛特，克雷蒂安·德·特鲁瓦（约公元 1140-1190 年）对亚瑟宫廷的称呼，直接源自罗马科尔切斯特的名字 Camelod-unum。”因此，卡米洛特的亚瑟和卡穆洛杜努姆的阿特，通过重聚，从默默无闻中走出来。这很好地说明了海因索恩如何，而不是消灭历史的一部分，而是将它们带入历史的光芒中。8 中的维京人第世纪与法兰克人和撒克逊入侵者同时代：“1圣-3RD以及 4第-6第c.斯堪的纳维亚人就是我们今天所说的维京人。地层上只属于他们的 8 的证据第-10第c. 期间已分布在整个 1圣千年填补了1000年的时间跨度，其结构既不被理解也不被挑战。“维京9第c. 事实上，带有方帆的长船与带有方帆的罗马长船位于相同的地层深度。后者被错误地定为 700 年，比 2 年早钕c. CE。因此，斯堪的纳维亚人认为，在所有主要发展领域，如城镇、港口、防波堤、王权、铸币、一神教和帆船，都延迟了 700 年，这源于年代观念，使罗马时期比地层学允许的要早 700 年左右。
在法兰克人、撒克逊人和斯拉夫人的土地上也发现了类似的问题——也就是说，在考古发现通常可以追溯到中世纪早期的地区。因此，保加利亚的普利斯卡和普雷斯拉夫市，据说建于 9第世纪，与1完全一致圣-3RD世纪罗马建筑和技术。“保加利亚不同考古学派之间关于普利斯卡和普雷斯拉夫是否属于古代、古代晚期或中世纪早期的永恒争论永远无法得出结论，因为他们都是对的。”中国、阿拉伯、以色列海因索恩缩短了第一个千年的年表，解决了全球许多地区历史上的根本矛盾。例如，它解释了“为什么手工纸的发明需要大约700年的时间才能从中国传播到东西方。“日本神秘地没有纸张，离中国如此之近，直到 8第公元世纪，当它突然在40个省份产生时，也可以通过考虑到汉代在地层上比教科书年代学上年轻约700年来解释。其他问题包括汉代和唐代艺术无法区分的事实：
阿拉伯人历史上的不一致也得到了解决。“没有人理解纳巴泰人的继承者，以及他们的阿拉姆语，主导着东方亚洲和西方罗马帝国之间的长途贸易，如何在无法铸造硬币或签署合同的情况下生存大约700年。这种极端的阿拉伯原始主义与从 8 中茁壮成长的阿拉伯人形成鲜明对比第到10的开始第公元几个世纪。他们的硬币不仅在波兰被发现，而且从挪威一直到印度和更远的地方，当时已知世界的其他地方正试图从中世纪早期的黑暗中爬出来，如果不是阿拉伯人保持文明的活力，文明可能会永远消失。另一方面，“例如，拉卡的硬币发现，在地层上属于中世纪早期（8第-10第世纪），还包含帝国古代的罗马帝国硬币（1圣-3RD世纪）和古代晚期（4第-7第世纪）。订阅新专栏
“大约700年来，阿拉伯人没有铸币和文字，就没有无知。这 700 年代表着幻影般的世纪。因此，与他们的罗马和希腊邻国相比，阿拉伯人落后是不正确的，有趣的是，这些邻居从未声称阿拉伯人落后过。在古代遗址的地层学中，阿拉伯硬币的地层深度与1的罗马帝国硬币相同圣到3年初RDc. CE。因此，现在从 690 年代到 930 年代的哈里发实际上是从奥古斯都到 230 年代的哈里发。从奥古斯都到 230 年代的罗马人都知道他们是阿拉伯腓力斯的统治者。从同一时期的 1-230 年代到 290-530 年代（“古代晚期”）的罗马人将他们称为加珊王朝哈里发，与阿拔斯王朝哈里发一样，以反三位一神论而闻名，现在可以追溯到 8 年第/9第几个世纪。海因索恩的文章包含大量考古学家的引述，他们对他们的确凿证据和他们公认的年表之间的矛盾感到困惑，但通过屈服于年表来背叛他们的手艺。以下是以色列考古学家摩西·哈塔尔（Moshe Hartal）在《国土报》文章中的引用：“在为促进加莱基内雷特酒店扩建而进行的挖掘过程中，哈塔尔注意到了一个神秘的现象：在倭马亚王朝时代（公元638-750年）的一层土层旁边，在同一深度，考古学家发现了一层古罗马时代（公元前37年-公元132年）的土层。我遇到了一个我无法解释的情况——相隔数百年的两层地球并排躺着，“哈塔尔说。“我简直傻眼了。”
罗马和阿拔斯王朝的千层碗是相同的，但据说相隔七个世纪
虽然海因索恩还没有专门写过关于第一个千年以色列的文章，但他已经注意到历史记录中同样的空白。正如以下在耶路撒冷以色列博物馆拍摄的招牌所说：
大灾变假说海因森与俄罗斯出生的科学家伊曼纽尔·维利科夫斯基（Immanuel Velikovsky）开创的灾难范式有关，他于1950年出版了《碰撞中的世界》（麦克米伦），随后又出版了《混沌时代》和《剧变中的地球》（Doubleday，1952年和1956年）。尽管维利科夫斯基的著作当时遭到了科学界的猛烈抨击，但他关于大约一万年前一颗巨型彗星尾巴引起的重大灾难的假设已经得到证实。越来越多的人认为，12,000年前标志着年轻树妖地质时代开始的全球气温突然下降始于彗星撞击，将大量尘埃和灰烬吹入大气层，使太阳黯然失色多年。这颗灾难性的彗星和后来的彗星可能构成了世界范围内关于飞龙和喷火龙的神话的基础（在这里阅读）。在公元一千年，海因索恩收集了 230 年代、530 年代和 930 年代由宇宙灾难和瘟疫引起的三次主要文明崩溃的证据，并认为它们是一回事，在罗马、拜占庭和中世纪资料中有不同的描述。这些灾难中的第一次导致了始于 230 年代的“第三世纪危机”。教科书历史主要将其定义为“罗马帝国在野蛮人入侵和迁入罗马领土、内战、农民叛乱、政治不稳定的综合压力下几乎崩溃的时期”（维基百科）。疾病发挥了重要作用，最著名的是起源于埃及佩卢西姆的塞浦路斯瘟疫（约249-262年）。在疫情最严重的时候，据说罗马每天有5000人死亡（凯尔·哈珀（Kyle Harper），《罗马的命运：气候、疾病和帝国的终结》，普林斯顿大学，2017年）。尽管拉丁文资料没有提到它，但考古学家在几个城市观察到的巨大破坏表明，这场危机是由宇宙灾难引发的。在罗马，“图拉真的市场——已知世界的商业中心——遭到了大规模破坏，再也没有修复过。所有11个水道都被摧毁。第一个在1453年之前没有修复。如上图所示，在3RD世纪，在10之前没有新的建筑第世纪。这种情况在伦敦等许多其他西方城市重复出现，通常被解释为土地被转为耕地和畜牧业或完全废弃七个世纪的证据。但更有可能的是，泥浆主要来自宇宙灾难。在意大利三世纪危机三百年后，东方帝国受到相同现象的影响，古代晚期历史学家沃尔夫·利伯舒茨（Wolf Liebeschuetz）指出，其影响“就像三世纪的危机”。那个时期的古代历史学家，如凯撒利亚的普罗科皮乌斯、卡西奥多罗斯或以弗所的约翰，都记录了气候灾难，他写道：“太阳变暗了，黑暗持续了十八个月。[...]由于这种莫名其妙的黑暗，庄稼贫瘠，饥荒来袭。為了解釋這個“微型冰河時代”，這是由樹優和冰芯數據相對證實的，一些科學家，如大衛·凱斯（David Keys）假設了大規模的火山崩裂（Catastrophe： An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World， Balanine， 1999， and the Channel 4 documentary based on it;另閱讀這篇文章）。其他人则认为“公元 536 年的彗星撞击”导致气温在几年内骤降多达 5.4 华氏度，导致农作物歉收，给罗马帝国带来了饥荒。其虚弱的居民很快就变得容易感染疾病。根据普罗科皮乌斯的说法，541 年，腺鼠疫袭击了罗马的佩鲁西姆港，就像 300 年前的塞浦路斯瘟疫一样，这次蔓延到君士坦丁堡，仅在查士丁尼的首都，每天就有大约 10,000 人死亡。用约翰·洛夫勒（John Loeffler）的话来说，“彗星如何改变了人类历史的进程”：“惊恐的市民和商人逃离了君士坦丁堡市，将疾病进一步传播到欧洲，在那里它摧毁了远在德国的饥饿的欧洲人社区，杀死了三分之一到一半的人口”（另请观看迈克尔·拉赫曼（Michael Lachmann）的BBC纪录片《彗星的故事》（The Comet's Tale）。
查士丁尼在君士坦丁堡上空的彗星
根据海因索恩的说法，第三世纪的西方崩溃和第六世纪的东方崩溃都与930年代开始的“十世纪崩溃”相同。帝国外围地区的考古学记录了这种文明崩溃：“从斯堪的纳维亚半岛到东欧和黑海的广泛破坏可以追溯到中世纪早期（公元 930 年代）末期。这场灾难发生在'第三世纪危机'或'第六世纪危机'期间似乎没有发生破坏的地区。考古表明，奥地利，波兰，匈牙利，保加利亚也在10早期遭到袭击第世纪，以及斯洛伐克和捷克领土。保加利亚大都市普利斯卡基本上消失了，被大量的侵蚀物质（崩积层）扼杀，也被称为“黑土”。所有波罗的海港口突然神秘地“经历了不连续性”。海因索恩所说的“十世纪的崩溃”是中世纪历史学家所熟知的，但通常归因于入侵。马克·布洛赫（Mark Bloch）在他的经典著作《封建社会》（1940）中写道：“从上次入侵的动荡中，西方出现了无数的伤痕。这些城镇本身也未能幸免——至少斯堪的纳维亚人没有幸免——如果其中许多城镇在掠夺或撤离后从废墟中重新崛起，那么他们正常生活进程的这种中断使他们在漫长的岁月中处于虚弱状态。[...]沿着河道，贸易中心已经失去了所有安全[...]最重要的是，耕地遭受了灾难性的损失，经常沦为沙漠。[...]当然，农民比其他任何阶级都更被这些条件逼到绝望。[...]从土地上获得收入的领主们很贫穷。这场剧变标志着古代世界的终结，随之而来的是封建世界的出现。盖伊·布卢瓦（Guy Blois）在《一千年的转型》（The Transformation of the Year One Thousand）一书中将这种转型描述为全球性的、突然的。在一些地区，比如他详细研究的马孔奈地区，“二十到二十五年足以从上到下改变社会景观。“从一种情况到另一种情况的不知不觉的过渡没有温和的进展。剧烈的动荡影响了社会生活的方方面面：新的权力分配、新的剥削关系（领主制）、新的经济机制（市场的破坏）以及新的社会和政治意识形态。如果革命这个词有什么意义的话，它很难找到更好的应用。与此同时，转型的实际因素和过程在很大程度上仍然是神秘的，因为 10第世纪是“我们历史上最神秘的时期之一”，并且“在我们的集体记忆中几乎没有留下任何痕迹”。来自10的信息来源第世纪几乎不存在，而来自 11第世纪对 10 的弊病不是很明确第世纪。11世纪初的人们第世纪生活在上个世纪和现在之间，上个世纪是一个充满破坏、解体和混乱的时代，一个充满希望的时代，很快就会催生历史学家所说的“十二世纪的文艺复兴”。海因索恩评论说：“十世纪的崩溃比人类历史上任何其他震撼世界的事件都更接近现在。然而，它也是研究最少的。...我们还不知道是什么力量足以为我们的星球带来如此令人难以置信的转变。虽然它一定是巨大的，但我们仍然无法重建宇宙情景。这是因为大多数处理灾难的来源都向后转移了。然而，我们所拥有的为数不多的西方编年史 11第世纪确实通知我们。僧侣Rodulfus Glaber在1026年至1040年间写作，提到997年12月，“空气中出现了一个令人钦佩的奇迹：一条巨大的龙的形状，或者说身体本身，从北方飞来，向南飞来，带着耀眼的闪电。这个神童几乎吓坏了所有在高卢人看到它的人。格拉伯还提到，在 993 年至 997 年之间，“维苏威火山（也被称为瓦肯火山）的张口比他的口子要频繁得多，喷出许多巨大的石头，夹杂着硫磺火焰，甚至落到方圆三英里的距离。[...]与此同时，意大利和高卢几乎所有的城市都被大火蹂躏，甚至罗马城的大部分地区也被大火吞噬。[...]与此同时，一场可怕的瘟疫在人类中肆虐，那就是一团隐藏的火，无论它燃烧到什么肢体，它都会吞噬它，并将它从身体上切断。[...]此外，大约在同一时间，一场最严重的饥荒在整个罗马世界肆虐了五年，以至于没有一个地区不因缺乏面包而挨饿，许多人被饿死。在那些日子里，在许多地区，可怕的饥荒迫使人们不仅以不洁的野兽和爬行的东西为食，甚至以男人、女人和儿童的肉为食，甚至不考虑亲属;因为这种饥饿是如此猛烈，以至于成年的儿子吞噬了他们的母亲，而母亲忘记了他们的母爱，吃掉了他们的婴儿。公元年表的诞生帕特里克·盖里（Patrick Geary）在《记忆的幻影：第一个千年末的记忆与遗忘》（Phantoms of Remembrance： Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium）一书中写道：“那些生活在这个凯撒拉另一边的人感到自己与这个早期的时代隔着巨大的鸿沟。早在十一世纪，那些承诺以书面形式为他们的同时代人或后代保存过去的人似乎对他们的家庭、制度、文化和地区过去知之甚少，了解也更少。[...]然而，他们深深地关注着这个过去，几乎被它所占有，他们捏造的过去成为他们现在计划的目标和理由。从十世纪崩溃的“归零地”开始，他们从点点滴滴中重建了这段过去——一种“恢复的记忆”的形式。正是这种娱乐，我们拥有：“我们认为我们对中世纪早期的了解很大程度上是由十一世纪男人和女人不断变化的问题和关注点决定的，而不是由更遥远的过去的问题和关注点决定的。除非我们理解在十一世纪起到过滤器作用的心理和社会结构，从现在主义的需要的角度压制或改变接受的过去，否则我们注定要误解那些早期的世纪。十一世纪人类对早期的混乱观点可以解释后来被编入历史书的时间顺序扭曲。在几代人的时间里，Rodulfus Glaber 仍然称之为“罗马世界”（上文引文），在他那个时代之前几十年就被灾难、瘟疫和饥荒摧毁了，在几乎神话般的时代被理想化并被推回。这与基督教的兴起相吻合，基督教在起步阶段被世界末日主义所主导。在马太福音24：6-8中，当耶稣的门徒问他：“告诉我们，这什么时候会发生，你来临和世界末日有什么征兆？”他回答说：“各地必有饥荒和地震。这一切只是分娩痛苦的开始。“在幸存者的心目中，”海因索恩写道，“古代的众神失败了，但圣经中的世界末日书被证明是正确的。在整个帝国中，自发皈依犹太教派别的人数迅速增加。《启示录》听起来像是对刚刚过去的大火的总结：“发生了一场大地震，太阳变得像动物毛麻布一样黑，满月变得像血，天上的星星落在地上，[...]地上的君王、大百姓、将军、富人、有权势的人，以及所有的人，无论奴隶还是自由人，都躲在山洞里，藏在山的岩石里。[...]冰雹和火夹杂着鲜血，大地上下起了雨。三分之一的地球被烧毁，三分之一的树木被烧毁，所有的绿草都被烧毁。像一座燃烧着大火的巨大山一样的东西被扔进了海里。[...]一颗巨大的星星从天而降，像灯一样燃烧，落在三分之一的河流和水源上。（摘自约翰启示录第6章和第8章）海因索恩认为，《启示录》直接影响了时间顺序的转变，因为它的第20章假设耶稣和灾难之间有一千个时期：“然后我看见一个天使从天上下来。/他抓住了龙，/撒旦，把他锁了1000年。/在1000年完成之前，他不能再愚弄列国了。教父塞普里安努斯（公元 200-258 年，即修订后的年表为 900-958 年）是他遭受重创的迦太基城灾难的幸存者，他写道：“我们的主已经预言了这一切。战争和饥荒、地震和瘟疫将无处不在“（《论死亡》）。Rodulfus Glaber 在第二卷的末尾也写道：“这一切都符合圣约翰的预言 [启示录 20：7]，他说魔鬼将在一千年后被释放。海因索恩建议《编年史》的作者迈克尔·普塞洛斯（Michael Psellos，约公元 1018-1078 年）担任按时间顺序转移的主要工程师。为了更准确地理解基督教在按时间顺序重置中所扮演的角色，我们需要对早期基督教的历史有一个清晰的认识，正如我在第2部分中所展示的那样，我们没有。几乎可以肯定的是，与教会历史学家所写的相反，罗马世界直到十一世纪的格里高利改革才被基督教所统治。加洛林王朝坟墓的发掘使人们对那个时代的基督教产生了怀疑：“挖掘者最近分析了来自86个不同地点的96个加洛林王朝墓葬的内容（日期为751-911年，但大部分来自查理曼大帝和虔诚者路易时代），对一种极其普遍的做法感到震惊，类似于卡戎的obol。这笔钱被用作贿赂传说中的摆渡人穿越冥河的手段，冥河是将生者世界与死者世界分开的河流。更令人费解的是——但在海因索恩范式中是合乎逻辑的——其中一些硬币是罗马硬币。11世纪时间顺序混乱的一个可能因素来自传统的罗马计算，导致300年延伸到一千年。罗马历史学家计算了 ab urbe condita（“自城市建立以来”）的年份，缩写为 AUC。一位名叫狄奥尼修斯·埃克西古斯的僧侣确定耶稣的出生发生在公元 753 年。这意味着公元 246 年，即公元 3 世纪危机期间，有 1000 AUC 落下。生活在大灾难后不久的人（如狄奥尼修斯）相信他们生活在 1000 AUC 左右。他们很容易被引导相信他们真的生活在基督之后的1000年。实际上有人认为，Anno Domine 中的“Dominus”最初是指罗马的创始人罗慕路斯。将罗慕路斯变成基督很容易，因为这两个传奇人物都有相似的神话属性。像基督一样，罗慕路斯也遭受了牺牲的死亡，然后罗马人“开始为罗慕路斯欢呼，就像神所生的神一样，国王和城市的父亲，恳求他的保护，以便他应该永远用他的仁慈恩惠保护他的孩子”（提图斯·李维，《罗马历史》I.16）。（无论我们是否将罗慕路斯和基督之间的相似之处作为利维是中世纪或文艺复兴时期捏造的另一条线索，都没有多大区别。在某个阶段，人们在教会的引导下，将他们生活在罗慕路斯之后一千年的观念转变为生活在基督之后一千年的观念。这种转变是基督教化过程的重要组成部分：就像教会将许多异教神灵、圣地和圣日基督教化一样，它将澳元基督教化为公元。AUC在11世纪仍在使用（一些编年史家，如Chabannes的Ademar，也根据圣经年表计算了年数），从而加剧了这种混淆。由于根据狄奥尼修斯的说法，耶稣出生于公元 753 年，因此 AUC 与公元的混淆增加了 753 年，这大约是海因索恩所说的第一个千年增加的幻影时间的长度。然后，教会太乐于填补真空，让自己看起来比实际更老，伪造了诸如Liver Pontificalis，Donation of Constantine和伪Isidorian的decretals。 教皇神职人员强加了他们长达千年的基督教历史，而实际上，他们的基督在格里高利七世（1073-1085）之前仅300年就被钉在十字架上（在奥古斯都统治下）。在我上一期的评论部分，埃里克·尼布斯（Eric Knibbs）教授反对公元年表是在十世纪崩溃后由格里高利改革者或其直接前任强加的理论。他提供了证据，证明公元日期已经在九世纪的手稿中使用。例如，在圣加仑抄本，Stiftsbibliothek 272（此处为第245页）中，我们读到“anno dccc.vi。ab incarnatione domini“（”在 806 年从主的道成肉身“）。在 Ms. lat. 2341， Paris， Bibl. nat. （here） 中，庆祝复活节的未来日期以“anno incarnationis domini nostri iesu christi dcccxliii”（“我们主耶稣基督道成肉身的年份 843”）的形式给出。另一个案例是巴伐利亚国家图书馆（此处）的 Clm 14429，它在第一对开页上注明了复制日期：“anno domini dcccxxi”（“主 821 年”）。然而，转念一想，我发现这个反对意见是不确定的，因为没有办法知道抄写员是否始终如一地使用公元日期。上面提到的 Rodulfus Glaber 在 1026 年至 1040 年之间写作，说明了这个问题。在第二卷第8节的亲笔手稿中，鲁杜尔夫斯给出的日期是“道成肉身的888年”，而不是988年（根据我的拉丁文-法文版中编辑的脚注）。在第 1 卷第 23 节中，他提到了本笃八世（1012-1024 年）担任教皇期间发生的一件事，并将其追溯到“主道成肉身的 710 年”。编辑在脚注中纠正了他：“事实上是在 1014 年，但鲁杜尔夫斯更正的手稿无可争议地带有 710 年的日期;没有什么能解释这样的错误。可以解释这种错误的一件事是年表的浮动状态。最有可能的是，Rodulfus从其他人那里借用了这些“错误”的日期，而没有意识到它们是在不同的日期尺度上调整的。即使是带有公元 806 年等日期的手稿也可能注明日期错误，也就是说，由年表较短且生活在公历时代的人写的。Rodulfus所说明的是，公元年代系统并不是一夜之间就确定下来的，不同的人可以将不同的公元年代归因于最近的时代。对公元九世纪的手稿进行逐案检查，应确定日期是否与十世纪崩溃后幸存的这些手稿一致。从公元日期早在格里高利改革之前就已经确定的前提出发，历史学家认为，当中世纪的人看到1000年临近时，他们一定担心最坏的情况。这个假设已被证明是错误的：我们的消息来源对所谓的“1000年的恐惧”保持沉默。然而，像理查德·兰德斯（Richard Landes）这样坚持其真实性的历史学家诉诸于有趣的论点，例如“沉默的共识掩盖了极大的担忧。[...]无论何时何地，中世纪作家都尽可能地回避千禧年的主题。更令人信服的是，缺失的“对 1000 年的恐惧”有力地证明了 AD 计算是在 1000 年之后开始使用的。结论在前两期中，我指出了质疑许多来源的真实性和公认的年代的各种理由。我的一些工作假设现在可以得到纠正。在第 1 部分中，“罗马古代有多假？我同意波利多·霍查特 （Polydor Hochart） 反对将罗马帝国的书籍保存到 14 世纪的可能性第-15第世纪，因为僧侣在 9 中复制了它们第, 10第或 11第世纪。基督教僧侣在昂贵的羊皮纸上复制异教徒的作品是不可信的。相反，我们完全有理由相信，每当僧侣拿到这些书时，僧侣们要么销毁它们，要么报废它们以重新使用羊皮纸。因此，霍查特得出结论，这些来自罗马帝国的书籍是伪造的。但海因索恩修订后的年表现在给了我们一个更令人满意的解决方案：这些作品的原始构成（1圣世纪）及其中世纪副本（9第最早的世纪）不是相隔七个世纪或更长时间，而是最多相隔一两个世纪。这 9第世纪仍然属于罗马时代，基督教当时还处于起步阶段。这并不能消除对中世纪或文艺复兴时期欺诈的怀疑，但可以减少它。我们现在可以用不同的视角来阅读罗马的资料。在第 2 部分“教会历史有多假？”中，我专注于教会历史，并同意耶稣会图书馆员让·哈杜安（Jean Hardouin，1646-1729 年）的观点，他得出了一个可怕的结论，即所有归因于奥古斯丁（公元 354-430 年）、斯特里顿的杰罗姆（公元 347-420 年）、米兰的安布罗斯（约公元 340-397 年）的作品，以及许多其他人的作品，都不可能在 11 世纪之前写成第或 12第世纪，因此是伪造的。我们现在可以认为哈杜安既是对的，也是错的。他估计这些作品比官方声称的要年轻得多（尽管可能有些夸张），但他得出它们是赝品的结论并不一定正确;如果奥古斯丁、杰罗姆和安布罗斯在地层学上确实属于最早的中世纪末期，那么难怪他们攻击的异端邪说与宣扬他们的中世纪教会一样。笔记 尼古拉斯·斯坦达特（Nicolas Standaert），“耶稣会士对中国历史和年表及其中国资料的记述”，《东亚科学、技术和医学》，第35期，2012年，第11-87页，第www.jstor.org 页 阿纳托利·福缅科（Anatoly Fomenko）和格列布·诺索夫斯基（Gleb Nosovsky），《历史：小说或科学》，第1卷：介绍问题。对斯卡利格年表的批评。数理统计提供的测年方法。《日食与黄道十二宫》，第6章，第356页。 阿纳托利·福缅科（Anatoly Fomenko）和格列布·诺索夫斯基（Gleb Nosovsky），《历史：小说或科学》，第2卷：王朝平行法。罗马。特洛伊。希腊。圣经。按时间顺序排列的转变（archive.org），第 19-42 页。 福缅科和诺索夫斯基，《历史：小说还是科学》，第 1 卷，第 6 章，第 356-358 页。 海因索恩，“公元第一个千年的创造”（2013 年）。 海因索恩，“查士丁尼在第一个千年年表中的正确日期”（2019 年）。 海因索恩，“罗马的地层学”（2018 年）。 海因索恩，“海因索恩简介” 海因索恩，“致赫里伯特·伊利格的信”（2017 年）。 海因索恩，“4 人的哥特人第世纪和 Getae 的 1圣世纪”(2014). 海因索恩，“查士丁尼在第一个千年年表中的正确日期”（2019 年）。 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确地位”（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确位置”（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“给赫里伯特·伊利格的信”（2017 年）。 摘自海因索恩给埃里克·尼布斯的信，2020 年，传达给作者。 海因索恩，“公元第一个千年的创造”，2013 年。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的伦敦：寻找比德失踪的大都市”，2018 年。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的伦敦”，2018 年。 海因索恩，“查士丁尼在第一个千年年表中的正确日期”（2019 年）。 海因索恩，“拉文纳和年表”（2020 年）。还有“查士丁尼在第一个千年年表中的正确日期”（2019 年）。 海因索恩，“齐格弗里德发现：解码尼伯龙根时期”，2018 年。 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确地位”，2014 年。 海因索恩，“罗马的地层学”（2018 年）。 海因索恩，“波兰起源”（2018 年）。订阅新专栏
西奥多·蒙森（Theodor Mommsen），《皇帝统治下的罗马史》。劳特利奇，2005 年，第 281 页。 海因索恩，“4 人的哥特人第世纪和 Getae 的 1圣世纪：它们是一回事吗？(2014). 海因索恩，“4 人的哥特人第世纪和 Getae 的 1圣世纪：它们是一回事吗？(2014). 海因索恩，“波兰起源”，2018 年。 海因索恩，“欧洲和文明在 1 年内崩溃了三次吗？圣公元千年？2014. 海因索恩、拉文纳和年表（2020 年）。 迈克尔·德克尔（Michael J. Decker），《拜占庭黑暗时代》，布鲁姆斯伯里学院，2016年;埃莱奥诺拉·库恩图拉-加拉克（Eleonora Kountoura-Galake）编辑，《拜占庭的黑暗世纪》（7第-9第 C.），国家希腊研究基金会，2001年。 约翰·奥尼尔（John J. O'Neill），《神圣的战士：伊斯兰教与古典文明的消亡》，Felibri.com，英格拉姆图书，2009年，第231页，引自“公元300年至600年间波兰真的没有人吗？ （2020 年）。 海因索恩，“查士丁尼在第一个千年年表中的正确日期”（2019 年）。 海因索恩，“公元第一个千年的创造”，2013 年。 海因索恩，“奥古斯都和戴克里先：同时代人还是相隔 300 年？2019. 引自 Heinsohn、Ravenna 和年表（2020 年）。 海因索恩、拉文纳和年表（2020 年）。 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确地位”，2014 年，引用防御工事（2009 年），“殷格翰皇帝：防御工事”，http://www.kaiserpfalz-ingelheim.de/en/historical_tour_10.php 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确位置”，2014 年 海因索恩，“拉文纳和年表”（2020 年;参考内部引文）。 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确地位”（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“拉文纳和年表”（2020 年）。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的伦敦”（2018 年）。 摘自海因索恩给埃里克·尼布斯的信，2020 年，传达给作者。 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确地位”（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确地位”（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“拉文纳和年表”（2020 年）。 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确地位”（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确地位”（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的伦敦”（2018 年）。 海因索恩，“阿尔弗雷德大帝的温彻斯特和他的航海家伍尔夫斯坦的海塔布：它们相隔 700 年吗？ （2014 年）。 海因索恩，“维京人 700 年来没有帆、港口和城镇？一篇散文“（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“卡米洛特的亚瑟和卡穆洛杜努姆的多马罗斯”（2017 年）。 海因索恩，“维京人 700 年来没有帆、港口和城镇？一篇散文“（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“维京人 700 年来没有帆、港口和城镇？一篇散文“（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“保加利亚中世纪早期的普利斯卡和普雷斯拉夫首都：它们真的是为了类似于 700 年前的罗马城市而建造的吗？ （2015 年）。 海因索恩，“造纸”（2017 年）。 海因索恩，“梅什科一世、破坏和斯拉夫大规模皈依基督教”（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“查士丁尼在一千年年表中的正确日期”（2019 年）。 海因索恩，“伊斯兰教的年表：阿拉伯人真的对铸币和文字一无所知了 700 年吗？ （2013 年）。 引自海因索恩，“8 的阿拉伯人第世纪：文化模仿者还是原创者？(2018). 照片 M. M. Vogt，在海因索恩，“公元 300 年至 600 年间波兰真的没有人吗？ （2020 年）。 维利科夫斯基假设这颗彗星定居为金星。最近有报道称，“金星有一条巨大的、充满离子的尾巴，当两颗行星与太阳成一条直线时，它几乎延伸到足以挠地球的距离。另请参阅“当行星表现得像彗星时”。天文学家詹姆斯·麦肯尼（James McCanney）对维利科夫斯基给予了应有的赞誉，他是《行星X，彗星和地球变化：关于新大行星或彗星到达我们太阳系的影响的科学论文》和《预期的地球天气和地球变化》，jmccanneyscience.com 出版社，2007年（阅读此处）。 海因索恩，“欧洲和文明在 1 年内崩溃了三次吗？圣公元千年？(2014). 海因索恩，“欧洲和文明在 1 年内崩溃了三次吗？圣公元千年？(2014). Wolf Liebeschuetz，“古城的终结”，载于 J. Rich 编辑的《古代晚期的城市》，劳特利奇，1992 年，引自 Heinsohn，“查士丁尼在第一个千年年表中的正确日期”（2019 年）。 约翰·洛夫勒，“彗星如何改变人类历史的进程”，11月30日第， 2008， on interestingengineering.com/how-comets-changed-the-course-of-human-history 有用的文章：Declan M Mills，“西法兰克的十世纪崩溃和基督教圣战的诞生”，纽卡斯尔大学研究生论坛电子期刊，第 12 版，2015 年，在线 这里. 海因索恩，“十世纪的崩溃”（2017 年）。 海因索恩，“十世纪的崩溃”（2017 年）。 马克·布洛赫， 封建社会 （1940），劳特利奇，2014 年，第 43-44 页。 盖伊·布卢瓦（Guy Blois），《一千年的转变：从自治到封建主义的洛尔南德村》，曼彻斯特大学，1992年，第161、167、1页。 海因索恩，“十世纪的崩溃”（2017 年）。 Raoul Glaber， Histoires， ed. and trans. Mathieu Arnoux， Brépols， 1996， book II， § 13-17， pp. 116-125.订阅新专栏
帕特里克·吉里（Patrick J. Geary）， 记忆的幻影：第一个千年末的记忆与遗忘，普林斯顿大学，1994年，第9页。 帕特里克·吉里（Patrick J. Geary），《记忆的幻影：第一个千年末的记忆与遗忘》，普林斯顿大学，1994年，第7页。 爱德华·亚当斯（Edward Adams），《星星会从天而降：新约及其世界中的“宇宙灾难”》，新约研究图书馆，2007年。 海因索恩，“拉文纳和年表”（2020 年）。 海因索恩，“梅什科一世、破坏和斯拉夫大规模皈依基督教”（2014 年）。 海因索恩，“公元第一个千年的创造”（2013 年）。 海因索恩，“查理曼大帝在历史上的正确位置”（2014 年）。 狄奥尼修斯据说在公元 532 年进行了计算，但由于他生活在拜占庭世界的保加利亚，这个日期对应于古代帝国的 232 年（以及中世纪早期的公元 932 年）。 Raoul Glaber， Histoires， ed. and trans. Mathieu Arnoux， Brépols， 1996， pp. 106-107 and 78-79. 理查德·兰德斯，“对世界末日 1000 年的恐惧：奥古斯丁史学，中世纪和现代”，Speculum，第 75 卷，第 1 期（2000 年 1 月），第 97-145 页，www.jstor.org
This is the final installment of a three-part essay advocating a radical revisionism of the first millennium AD. In Part 1 and Part 2, I examined a series of fundamental problems in our standard history of the greater part of the first millennium AD. Here I present what I believe is the best solution to these problems.We are so used to rely on a universally accepted global chronology covering all of human history that we take this chronology as a given, a simple representation of time itself, as self-evident as the air we breathe. In reality, this chronology, which allows us to place with relative precision on a single time scale all major events in the histories of all peoples, is a sophisticated cultural construct that was not achieved before the late sixteenth century. Jesuits played a prominent role in that computation, but the main architect of the chronology we are now familiar with was a French Huguenot named Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609), who set out to harmonize all available chronicles and calendars (Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian). His main works on chronology, written in Latin, are De emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurus temporum (1606). The Jesuit Denys Pétau (1583-1652) built on Scaliger’s foundation to publish his Tabulae chronologicae, from 1628 to 1657.So our global chronology, the backbone of textbook history, is a scientific construct of modern Europe. Like other European norms, it was accepted by the rest of the world during the period of European cultural domination. The Chinese, for example, had already compiled, during the Song dynasty (960-1279), a long historical narrative, but it was Jesuit missionaries who reshaped it to fit in their BC-AD calendar, resulting in the thirteen volumes of the Histoire Générale de la Chine by Joseph-Anne-Marie de Moyriac de Mailla, published between 1777 and 1785. Once Chinese history was securely riveted to Scaligerian chronology, the rest followed. But some peoples had to wait until the 19th century to find their place in that framework; the Indians had very ancient records, but no consistent chronology until the British gave them one.Truth be told, the chronology of ancient empires was never completely settled. In The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) had suggested to reduce drastically the by-then-accepted antiquity of Greece, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and Persia. Today, ancient chronology is still open to debate in the academic community (read for instance about David Rohl’s “new chronology”). But as we approach the Common Era, the chronology is considered untouchable, except for minor adjustments, because of the abundance of written sources. However, until the ninth century AD, no primary source provides absolute dates. Events are dated relatively to some other event of local importance, such as the foundation of a town or the accession of a ruler. Dating recent events in anno domini (AD) only became common in the eleventh century. So the general timeline of the first millennium still relies on a great deal of interpretation, not to mention trust in the sources. Like for earlier eras, it was fixed centuries before the beginning of scientific excavations (19th, mainly 20th century), and, as we shall see, its authority is such that archeologists surrender to it even when their stratigraphic data contradicts it. Dendrochronology (tree-rings dating) and radiocarbon dating (for organic materials) are of little help, and are unreliable anyway because they are relative, interdependent, and calibrated on the standard timeline one way or another.For the reasons exposed in Part 1, Part 2 and below, some researchers think that it is high time for a paradigm shift in first millennium chronology.Anatoly Fomenko and the two RomesThe best-known of these revisionists is the Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko (born 1945). With his associate Gleb Nosovsky, he has produced tens of thousands of pages in support of his “New Chronology” (check their Amazon page). In my view, Fomenko and Nosovsky have signaled a great number of major problems in conventional chronology, and provided plausible solutions to many of them, but their global reconstruction is extravagantly Russo-centric. Their confidence in their statistical method (a good presentation in this video) is also exaggerated. Nevertheless, Fomenko and Nosovsky must be credited for having provided stimulus and direction for many others. For a first approach to their work, I recommend volume 1 of their series History: Fiction or Science (here on archive.org), especially chapter 7, “‘Dark Ages’ in Mediaeval History”, pp. 373-415.One major discovery of Fomenko and Nosovsky is that our conventional history is full of doublets, produced by the arbitrary end-to-end alignment of chronicles that tell the same events, but are “written by different people, from different viewpoints, in different languages, with the same characters under different names and nicknames.” Whole periods have been thus duplicated. For example, drawing from the previous work of Russian Nikolai Mozorov (1854-1946), Fomenko and Nosovsky show a striking parallel between the sequences Pompey/Caesar/Octavian and Diocletian/Constantius/Constantine, leading to the conclusion that the Western Roman Empire is, to some extent, a phantom duplicate of the Eastern Roman Empire. According to Fomenko and Nosovsky, the capital of the one and only Roman Empire was founded on the Bosporus some 330 years before the foundation of its colony in the Latium. Starting from the age of the crusades, Roman clerics, followed by Italian humanists, produced an inverted chronological sequence, using the real history of Constantinople as the model for their fake earlier history of Italian Rome. A great confusion ensued, as “many mediaeval documents confuse the two Romes: in Italy and on the Bosporus,” both being commonly called Rome or “the City”. A likely scenario is that the prototype for Titus Livy’s History was about Constantinople, the original capital of the “Romans”. The original Livy, Fomenko conjectures, was writing around the tenth century about Constantinople, so he was not far off the mark when he placed the foundation of the City (urbs condita) some seven centuries before his time. But as it was rewritten by Petrarch and reinterpreted by later humanists (read “How fake is Roman Antiquity?”), a chronological chasm of roughly one thousand year was introduced between the foundation of the two “Romes” (from 753 BC to 330 AD).However, even the dates for Constantinople are wrong, according to Fomenko and Nosovky, and the whole sequence happened much more recently: Constantinople was founded around the tenth or eleventh century AD, and Rome, 330 or 360 years later, i.e. around the fifteenth or sixteenth century AD. Here, as often, Fomenko and Nosovsky may be spoiling their best insights by exaggeration.The German ZeitenspringersIn the mid-1990s, independently from the Russian school, German scholars Heribert Illig, Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, Uwe Topper, Manfred Zeller and others also became convinced that something is wrong with the accepted chronology of the Middle Ages. Calling themselves the “Zeitenspringer” (time jumpers), they suggested that approximately 300 years — from 600 to 900 AD — never existed. English summaries of their approach have been produced by Niemitz (“Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?” 2000), and in Illig (“Anomalous Eras – Best Evidence: Best Theory” 2005).The German discussion originally focused on Charlemagne (Illig’s book). Sources on Charlemagne are often contradictory and unreliable. His main biography, Eginhard’s Vita Karoli, supposedly written “for the benefit of posterity rather than to allow the shades of oblivion to blot out the life of this King, the noblest and greatest of his age, and his famous deeds, which the men of later times will scarcely be able to imitate” (from Eginhard’s foreword), is recognizably modeled on Suetonius’ life of the first Roman emperor Augustus.Charlemagne’s “empire” itself, lasting only 45 years, from 800 to its dislocation in three kingdoms, defies reason. Ferdinand Gregorovius, in his History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages in 8 volumes (1872), writes: “The figure of the Great Charles can be compared to a flash of lightning who came out of the night, illuminated the earth for a while, and then left night behind him” (quoted by Illig). Is this shooting star just an illusion, and the legends about him virtually devoid of relation to history?The main problem with Charlemagne is with architecture. His Palatine Chapel in Aachen exhibits a technological advance of 200 years, with for example arched aisles not seen before the 11th century. On the opposite, Charlemagne’s residence in Ingelheim was built in the Roman style of the 2nd century, with materials supposedly recycled from the 2nd century. Illig and Niemitz challenge such absurdities and conclude that Charlemagne is a mythical predecessor invented by the Ottonian emperors to legitimate their imperial claims. All Carolingians of the 8th and 9th and their wars are also fictitious, and the timespan of roughly 600-900 CE, is a phantom era.Gunnar Heinsohn objects to this theory on numismatic ground: about 15,000 coins have been found bearing the name Karlus (alternatively Karolus or Carlus) Magnus.Gunnar Heinsohn’s breakthroughGunnar Heinsohn, from the University of Bremen, is in my view the most interesting and convincing scholar in the field of chronological revisionism. His recent articles in English are posted on this website, and his 2016 conference in Toronto makes a good introduction. Heinsohn focuses on hard archeological evidence, and insists that stratigraphy is the most important criterion for dating archeological finds. He shows that, time and again, stratigraphy contradicts history, and that archeologists should have logically forced historians into a paradigm shift. Unfortunately, “In order to be consistent with a pre-fabricated chronology, archaeologists unknowingly betray their own craft.” When they dig up the same artifacts or building structures in different parts of the world, they assign them to different periods in order to satisfy historians. And when they find, in the same place and layer, mixtures of artifacts that they have already attributed to different periods, they explain it away with the ludicrous “heirloom theory,” or call them “art collections.”“Archaeologists are particularly confident of correctly dating finds from 1st-millennium excavation sites when they find coins associated with them. A coin-dated layer is considered to be of utmost scientific precision. But how do scholars know the dates of the coins? From coin catalogues! How do the authors of these catalogues know how to date the coins? Not according to archaeological strata, but from the lists of Roman emperors. But how are the emperors dated and then sorted into these lists? Nobody knows for sure.”Quite often, archeologists unearth coins of supposedly widely different dates in the same settlement strata or the same tombs. One example is the famous leather purse of Childeric, a Frankish prince reigning from 458-481 AD. For Heinsohn, these coins are not a “coin collection” but “indicate the simultaneity of Roman Emperors artificially dispersed over two epochs — Imperial Antiquity and Late Antiquity.”Heinsohn’s work is not easy to summarize, because it is a work in progress, because it covers virtually all regions of the globe, and because it is abundantly illustrated and referenced with historical and archeological studies. Nothing can replace a painstaking study of his articles, completed with personal research. All I can do here is try to reflect the scope and the depth of his research and the significance of his conclusions. Rather than paraphrase him, I will quote extensively from his articles. From now on, only quotations from other authors will be indented. All illustrations, except the next one and the last one, are borrowed or adapted from his articles.The best starting point is his own summary (“Heinsohn in a nutshell”): “According to mainstream chronology, major European cities should exhibit — separated by traces of crisis and destruction — distinct building strata groups for the three urban periods of some 230 years that are unquestionably built in Roman styles with Roman materials and technologies (Antiquity/A>Late Antiquity/LA>Early Middle Ages/EMA). None of the ca. 2,500 Roman cities known so far has the expected three strata groups super-imposed on each other. … Any city (covering, at least, the periods from Antiquity to the High Middle Ages [HMA; 10th/11th c.]) has just one (A or LA or EMA) distinct building strata group in Roman format (with, of course, internal evolution, repairs etc.). Therefore, all three urban realms labeled as A or LA or EMA existed simultaneously, side by side in the Imperium Romanum. None can be deleted. All three realms (if their cities continue at all) enter HMA in tandem, i.e. all belong to the 700-930s period that ended in a global catastrophe. This parallelity not only explains the mind-boggling absence of technological and archaeological evolution over 700 years but also solves the enigma of Latin’s linguistic petrification between the 1st/2nd and 8th/9th c. CE. Both text groups are contemporary.”In other words, from other articles: “The High Middle Ages, beginning after the 930s A.D., are not only found –– as would be expected –– contingent with, i.e., immediately above the Early Middle Ages (ending in the 930s). They are also found –– which is chronologically perplexing –– directly above Imperial Antiquity or Late Antiquity in locations where settlements continued after the 930s cataclysm.” “There is — in any individual site — only one period of some 230 years (all of them with Roman characteristics, such as imperial coins, fibulae, millefiori glass beads, villae rusticae etc.) that is terminated by a catastrophic conflagration. Since the cataclysm dated to the 230s shares the same stratigraphic depth as the cataclysms dated to the 530s or the 930s, some 700 years of 1st millennium history are phantom years.” The first millennium, in other words, lasted only about 300 years. “Following stratigraphy, all earlier dates have to come about 700 years closer to the present, too. Thus, the last century of Late Latène (100 to 1 BCE), moves to around 600 to 700 CE.”All over the Mediterranean world “three blocks of time have left — in any individual site — just one block of strata covering some 230 years.” Wherever they are found, the strata for Imperial Antiquity and Late Antiquity lie just underneath the tenth century and therefore really belong to the Early Middle Age, that is, 700-930 AD. The distinction between Antiquity, Late Antiquity and Early Middle Age is a cultural representation that has no basis in reality. Heinsohn proposes contemporaneity of the three periods, because they “are all found at the same stratigraphic depth, and must, therefore, end simultaneously in the 230s CE (being also the 520s and 930s).” “Thus, the three parallel time-blocks now found in our history books in a chronological sequence must be brought back to their stratigraphical position.” In this way, “the early medieval period (approx. 700-930s AD) becomes the epoch for which history can finally be written because it contains Imperial Antiquity and Late Antiquity, too.”As a result of stretching 230 years into 930 years, history is now distributed unevenly, each time-block having most of its recorded events localized in one of three geographical zones: Roman South-West, Byzantine South-East, and Germanic-Slavic North. If we look at written sources, “we have a spotlight on Rome, but know little about the 1st-3rd century in Constantinople or Aachen. Then we have a spotlight on Ravenna and Constantinople, but know little about the 4th-7th century in Rome or Aachen. Finally, we have a spotlight on Aachen in the 8th-10th century, but hardly know any details from Rome or Constantinople. I turn on all the lights at the same time and, thus, can see connections that were previously considered dark or completely unrecognizable.”Each period ends with a demographic, architectural, technical, and cultural collapse, caused by a cosmic catastrophe and accompanied by plague. Historians “have identified major mega-catastrophes shaking the earth in three regions of Europe (South-West ; South-East , and Slavic North ) within the 1st millennium.” “The catastrophic ends of (1) Imperial Antiquity, (2) Late Antiquity, and (3) the Early Middles Ages sit in the same stratigraphic plane immediately before the High Middle Ages (beginning around 930s AD).” Therefore these three devastating collapses of civilization are one and the same, which Heinsohn refers to as “the Tenth Century Collapse.”Heinsohn’s identification of three time-blocks that should be synchronized is not to be taken as an exact parallelism: “This assumption does not claim a pure 1:1 parallelism in which events reported for the year 100 AD could simply be supplemented with information for the year 800 AD.” Stratigraphic identity only means that all real events that are dated to Imperial Antiquity or Late Antiquity happened in fact during the Early Middle Ages (from the stratigraphic viewpoint).Moreover, all three time-blocks do not have the same length. That is because Late Antiquity (from the beginning of Diocletian’s reign in 284 to the death of Heraclius in 641) is some 120 years too long, according to Heinsohn. The Byzantine segment from the rise of Justinian (527) to the death of Heraclius (641) was in reality shorter and overlapped with the period of Anastasius (491-518). In other words, not only the first millennium as a whole, but Late Antiquity itself has to be shortened. Duplicates account for its phantom years. Thus the Persian emperor Khosrow I (531-579) fought by Justinian is identical to the Khosrow II (591-628) fought by his immediate successors — regardless of the fact that archeologists decided to ascribe the silver drachmas to Khosrow I and the gold dinars to Khosrow II.Other duplicates within Late Antiquity include the Roman emperor Flavius Theodosius (379-395) being identical to the Gothic ruler of Ravenna and Italy Flavius Theodoric (471-526), who bears the same name, only with the additional suffix riks, meaning king. “At some point in the half millennium with manipulations of the original texts that can no longer be counted or reconstructed, two names of one person have become two persons with different names placed one behind the other.” The Gothic wars have also been duplicated: with the war fought by Odoacer and his son Thela in the 470, and the one fought by ToTila in the 540s, “we are not dealing with two different Italian wars, but with two different narratives about the same war, which were connected chronologically one after the other.”
This author’s visual of the simultaneous three 230-year time-blocks
The strength or Heinsohn’s approach, as compared to Illig and Niemtiz’s, is that he doesn’t really delete history: “If one removes the span of time that has been artificially created by mistakenly placing parallel periods in sequence, only emptiness is lost, not history. By reuniting texts and artifacts that have now been chopped up and scattered over seven centuries, meaningful historiography becomes possible for the first time.” In fact, “a much richer image of Roman history emerges. The numerous actors from Iceland (with Roman coins; Heinsohn 2013d) to Baghdad (whose 9th c. coins are found in the same stratum as 2nd c. Roman coins; Heinsohn 2013b) can eventually be drawn together to weave the rich and colourful fabric of that vast space with 2.500 cities, and 85.000 km of roads.”RomeApplied to Rome, Heinsohn’s theory solves a conundrum that has always puzzled historians: the absence of any vestige datable from the late third century to the tenth century (mentioned in Part 1): “Rome of the first millennium CE builds residential quarters, latrines, water pipes, sewage systems, streets, ports, bakeries etc. only during Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd c.) but not in Late Antiquity (4th-6th c.) and in the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th c.). Since the ruins of the 3rd century lie directly under the primitive new buildings of the 10th century, Imperial Antiquity belongs stratigraphically to the period from ca. 700 to 930 CE.” “The heart of the Imperium Romanum has no new construction for the seven centuries between the 3rd and the 10th c. CE. The urban material of the 3rd c. is stratigraphically contingent with the early 10th in which it was wiped out.” In the illustration below, the floor of Trajan’s Forum (Piano Antico 2nd/3rd c. AD) is directly covered by the dark mud (fango) layer of the cataclysm that sealed Roman Civilization (more on it later).
In order to fill up their artificially stretched millennium, modern historians often have to do violence to their primary sources. As Fomenko already pointed out, the Getae and the Goths were considered the same people by Jordanes — himself a Goth — in his Getica written in the middle of the 6th century. Other historians before and after him, such as Claudian, Isidore of Seville and Procopius of Caesarea also used the name Getae to designate the Goths. But Theodor Mommsen has rejected the identification: “The Getae were Thracians, the Goths Germans, and apart from the coincidental similarity in their names they had nothing whatever in common.” Yet archeologists are puzzled by the fact that the Getae and the Goths inhabit the same area at 300 years distance, and there is no explanation for how the Getae disappeared before the Goth appeared, and for the lack of demography during the 300-year interval. Besides, there is evidence, contrary to what Mommsen claims, of great resemblance between their culture, including in clothing, as Gunnar Heinsohn points out: Goths in the 3rd/4th c. “made great efforts to dress, from head to toe, like their mysteriously missing predecessors” (the 1st/3rd-c. Getae), and continued “to manufacture 300 year older ceramics, rolling back technological evolution to pre-Christian La Tène earthenware.” According to Heinsohn, “The identity of Getae and Goths can help to solve some of the most stubborn enigmas of Gothic history,” such as strong parallel between Rome’s Getic-Dacian wars in the first century AD and Rome’s Gothic wars some 300 years later. The Dacian leader Decebalus (meaning “The Powerful”) may be identical to the Goth Alaric (meaning “King of all”). By such processes, “different sources dealing with the same events have been split (and altered) in such a way that the same event is described twice, albeit from different angles, thereby creating a chronology that is twice as long as the actual course of history that can be substantiated by archaeology.”
Getian prisoner and Gothic warrior, both wearing the same clothes, including the Phrygian hat
Constantinople“While no new residential areas with latrines, water systems and streets were built in Rome during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, they are missing in Constantinople during Imperial Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. […] Both cities have these basic components of urbanity in only one of the three epochs of the first millennium. Although in Rome they are dated to Imperial Antiquity, whilst in Constantinople they are dated to Late Antiquity, from the point of view of architecture and building technology they are nearly indistinguishable.” That is because, in reality, they “share the same stratigraphical horizon.”There are, however, non-residential constructions in Byzantium dated from Imperial Antiquity. The most important is its first recorded aqueduct, built under Hadrian (117-138 AD). “This is considered a mystery because Byzantium’s actual founder, Constantine the Great (305-337 AD), did not expand the city until 200 years later.” In reality, “Hadrian’s aqueduct carries water to a flourishing city 100 years after Constantine, and not to a supposed wasteland centuries earlier. The mystery disappears. When Justinian renovates the great Basilica Cistern, which gathers water from Hadrian’s aqueduct, he does so not 400 years, but less than 100 years after it was built.”The Early Middle Ages are known as Byzantium’s Dark Ages, beginning in 641 after the reign of Heraclius, and ending with the Macedonian Renaissance under Basil II (976-1022 AD). In the words of historian John O’Neill, “About forty years after the death of Justinian the Great, from the first quarter of the seventh century, three centuries, cities were abandoned and urban life came to an end. There is no sign of revival until the middle of the tenth century.” For Heinsohn, this period, like most other “dark ages”, is a phantom age. The Justinian dynasty starting with Justin I (AD 518-527) is identical to the Macedonian dynasty, which we can count from Constantine VII (913-959), initiator of the Macedonian Renaissance. The 400-year period between Justinian (527-565 AD) and Basil II lasted in reality only 70 years, corresponding to the Tenth Century Collapse.Besides archeology, there are also “anachronisms and puzzles in the development of the laws of Justinian (527-535 CE),” written in 2nd-c. Latin. “Not a single jurist from the 300 years between the Severan early 3rd century and Justinian’s 6th century textbook date is included in the Digestae. Moreover, no post-550s jurist put his hand to the Digestae.” So that “There are, from the Severans to the end of the Early Middle Ages, some 700 years without comments by Roman jurists.” In addition: “It is a mystery why Justinian’s Greek subjects had to wait 370 years , only to receive a version of the laws in Koine Greek of the 2nd c. out of use since 700 years.” It all “looks bizarre only as long as the stratigraphic simultaneity of Imperial Antiquity, Late Antiquity, and the Early Middle Ages is denied.” That the Severan and the Justinian dynasties are contemporaries explain that both fought a Persian emperor named Khosrow.According to Heinsohn, the foundation of Imperial Rome and Imperial Constantinople are roughly contemporary. It is “a geographical sequence from west to east was turned into a chronological sequence from earlier to later.” “Diocletian did not reside in ruins, but lived at the same time as Augustus. His capital was not Rome. He had residences in Antioch, Nicomedia, and Sirmium. From there he worked tirelessly for the protection of Augustus’ empire.” Heinsohn’s hypothesis of the contemporaneity of Diocletian in the East and Octavian Augustus in the West (ruling in concert) distinguishes him from Fomenko, who believes that Augustus is a fictitious duplicate of the Roman Emperor residing in Constantinople. Heinsohn also differs from Fomenko in the way he sees the relationship between the two Roman capitals: he accepts Rome’s precedence and assumes that Diocletian was a subordinate of Octavian Augustus. Fomenko, on the other hand, considers that Constantinople was the original center of the empire. This is consistent with Diocletian’s position as the superior of his Western counterpart Maximian. Diocletian was an Eastern Emperor from the beginning. He was born in today’s Croatia, where he built his palace (Split), and hardly ever set foot in Rome. Maximian, sent to rule in Rome, was himself from the Balkans.RavennaRavenna is a special case, because it stands between Rome and Constantinople: it was long under Byzantine control, yet was the “capital of the Occident in Late Antiquity” (Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann). Ravenna has been called a “palimpsest” for the reason explained by historian Deborah Mauskoppf Deliyannis (Ravenna in Late Antiquity, Cambridge UP, 2014), quoted by Heinsohn:“Ravenna’s walls and churches were usually built of reused brick. Scholars disagree over whether the use of these spolia was symbolic (triumph over Roman paganism, for example) or whether their use simply had to do with the availability and expense of materials. In other words, was their use meaningful, or practical, or both? Did it demonstrate the power of the emperors to control construction of preexisting buildings, or the power of the church to demolish them? Or, by the time Ravenna’s buildings were constructed, were Roman spolia simply considered de rigueur for impressive public buildings. / One striking feature to all these buildings is that, like the city walls they were made of bricks that had been reused from earlier Roman structures. […] It was expected that a noble church would be built of spolia.”One senses here a desperate effort to force into the accepted chronological framework a situation that doesn’t fit in it. Heinsohn’s revisionism solves this problem: the buildings and their materials are, of course, contemporary, rather than separated by 300 years.There is also a problem with Ravenna’s civil and military port, which could harbor 240 ships according to Jordanes, with its lighthouse praised by Pliny the Elder as rivaling with the Pharos of Alexandria. “However, what is considered strange is that after all port activities ceased around 300 AD it is still being celebrated by mosaics supposedly created in the 5th/6th century. Even Agnellus in the 9th century knows the lighthouse, although the city had supposedly fallen into ruins in the late 6th century.”Andrea Agnellus (ca. 800-850) was a cleric from Ravenna who wrote the history of Ravenna from the beginning of the Empire to his time. After Vespasian (69-79 AD), the emperor of the martyrdom of Peter, Agnellus doesn’t report anything before events dated 500 years later. He writes about saint Apollinaris being sent to Ravenna by saint Peter to found the church of Ravenna, then about the construction of Ravenna’s first church (Sant’Apollinare dated 549 AD), without apparently being aware that half a millennium separated the two. Again, we see here how historians do violence to their sources by inserting phantom times into their chronicles. According to Heinsohn, only approximately 130 years passed between Vespasian and Agnellus.
Mosaic in the Basilica of Sant‘Apollonare Nuove (dated around 500 AD)
Charlemagne and the European Dark AgesIn the footsteps of Illig and Niemitz, Heinsohn notes that Charlemagne’s residence at Ingelheim is built like a Roman villa dating from the 2nd and not from the 9th c. CE. As noticed in a website dedicated to the building, it “was not fortified. Nor was it built on a naturally protected site, which was usually necessary and customary when building castles” (Fortifications 2009). Heinsohn comments: “It was as if Charlemagne did not understand the vagaries of his own period, and was behaving like a senator still living in the Roman Empire. He insisted on Roman rooftiles but forgot the defenses. Was he not just great but also insane?” No medieval fortification has been found that could be attributed to Charlemagne or any of the Carolingians.Archeologists excavating Ingelheim were “staggered by a building complex that — down to the water supply, and up to the roofing — was ‘based on antique designs’ (Research 2009), and, therefore, appears to be a reincarnation of 700-year-older Roman outlines from the 1st to 3rd c. CE.” The same is true of his Aachen residence (chapel excluded): “Excavators are realizing that Aachen’s Imperial Antiquity and Aachen’s Early Middle Ages cannot have followed each other at a distance of 700 years, but must have existed simultaneously. This seems incredible, but the material findings, down to the floor tiles, speak with unmistakable clarity: Aachen’s Roman sewer system is so well intact that the early medieval Aacheners ‘tied themselves to the Roman sewer system.’ The same applies to transport routes: ‘A continuous use from Roman times also applies to large parts of the inner city road and path network. […] The Roman road, which has already been documented in the Dome-Quadrum in northeast-southwest orientation, was used until the late Middle Ages’.”As mentioned earlier, Heinsohn objects to Illig and Niemitz’s conclusion of the non-existence of Karlus Magnus, on the ground of the great number of coins bearing his name. However, he adds, “These coins are sometimes surprising because they may be found lumped together with Roman coins that are 700 years older.” Deleting 700 years solves this problem, and at the same time matches Charlemagne’s palaces with 2nd/3rd century Roman architecture. The Carolingian era that precedes immediately the Tenth Century Collapse is the era of the Roman Empire. “Today’s researchers see Charlemagne as the promoter of a restoration of the Roman Empire (restitutio imperii). They see his time as an ingenious and conscious renaissance of a perished civilization. Charlemagne himself, however, knows nothing about such notions. […] Nowhere does he proclaim that he lives many centuries after the glories of imperial Rome.”Just like “Carolingian architects erected buildings and water pipes in the early Middle Ages that were similar in form and technology to those of Imperial Antiquity,” so “Carolingian authors wrote in the early Middle Ages in the Latin style of Imperial Antiquity.” Thus, Alcuin of York (Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus, 735-804 AD) brought back to life at the court of Charlemagne the classical Latin of Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century) after many dark centuries. Alcuin also wrote Propositiones ad acuendos iuvenes, which is seen as the earliest general survey of mathematical problems in Latin. “We do not understand how Alcuin could learn mathematics and write it down in Ciceronian Latin after the crises of the 3rd and 6th century, when there were no more teachers from Athens, Constantinople and Rome to instruct him.”Heinsohn shows that Charles the Great, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, and Charles the Simple appear to have the same signature and may be one and the same, although Heinsohn “has not come to a final view on how many Carolinginan Carolus rulers have to be retained.” It must be noted that Karlus is the Latin form of Karl, a Slavic noun meaning “king”, hardly a personal name. Heinsohn remarks: “There have been, we are told, two Frankish lords by the name of Pepin in the territory of Civitas Tungrorum (roughly the diocese of Liège). Each had a son named Charles. One was Charles Martel, the other Charlemagne. Each Charles waged one war against the Saracens on the French-Spanish border, and ten wars against the Saxons. […] This author sees both Pepins, as well as both Charles’, as alter egos.” Moreover, Heinsohn recently suggested that: “Stratigraphically […], Charlemagne and Louis do not belong to the 8th/9th century, but to the 9th/10th century. They live through the turmoil of the plague of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus of the late 2nd century.”That Karlus is called Imperator Augustus does not preclude him being contemporary with others claiming the same title in Italy. Heinsohn mentions that gold coins found in Ingelheim “caused surprise by the imperial diadem worn by Charles making him look like a junior partner of Rome.”
Saxon EnglandSaxons are supposed to start taking over England in 410 AD, yet archeologists cannot find any trace of them in that period. Saxon houses and sacral buildings are missing, there is no trace of their agriculture, and not even of their pottery. Heinsohn solves this problem by suggesting that the earliest Anglo-Saxons of the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th century) were contemporaries of Roman Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century); “that would mean that Romans and Anglo-Saxons had fought simultaneously and in competition with each other for control of Celtic Britain.”In Winchester, the city of Alfred the Great (871-899 AD), no archeology remains whatsoever has been found that match his reign. “Nobody knows where the Anglo-Saxon king was able to hold court. Although some scholars try to resort to the idea of a mobile court with no fixed capital anywhere on the British Isles in the 8th to early 10th c. period, the sources give no hint of such homeless rulers. They describe Venta Belgarum/Winchester as the unchallenged capital of Wessex. Since there are no building strata in 9th c. Venta Belgarum/Winchester, the mobile court theory would have to be expanded to a mobile nation theory because Afred’s bureaucrats as well as his subjects are without fixed homesteads, too. Yet, is it possible that entire nations have always been on the move without leaving traces?”Archeologists do find an abundance of buildings in Winchester, but they are in typical 2nd-century Roman style, and, unlike in Charlemagne’s case, archeologists see them as genuine 2nd century rather than imitation of 2nd century. “Yet, the Roman period 2nd/3rd c. building stratum with Roman town houses (domus), temples, and public buildings on a forum with Jupiter column […] is contingent with Winchester’s 10th/11th c. building stratum.” “There are no strata anywhere between the 3rd and the 11th c. to accommodate the king’s 9th c. palace. Yet, there is a 2nd/3rd c. Roman period palace in Winchester for which no one claims ownership.” Therefore, according to Heinsohn, the 2nd/3rd c. building stratum belongs to the period of Alfred. This is also consistent with the Roman style of Alfred’s coins (as is the case with Charlemagne’s).Heinsohn’s theory of the contemporaneity of the Early Middle Ages and Roman Antiquity solves the riddle of the legendary King Arthur: “The Celtic ruler Arthur of Camelot, active in a time when Saxons and Romans are simultaneously and competitively at war to conquer England, finds his alter ego in Aththe-Domaros of Camulodunum, the finest Celtic military leader in the period of Emperor Augustus, whose archaeological evidence moves to a stratigraphy-based date of c. 670s-710s AD.” “Camelot, Chrétien de Troyes’ name for Arthur’s Court, is derived directly from Camelod-unum, the name of Roman Colchester.” Thus both Arthur of Camelot and Aththe of Camulodunum, by reuniting, come out of obscurity. This is a good illustration of the way Heinsohn, rather than extinguishing parts of history, brings them into the light of history.The Vikings of the 8th century were contemporary with the Franks and Saxon invaders: “1st-3rd as well as 4th-6th c. Scandinavians were the same people we call Vikings today. The evidence that stratigraphically belongs only to their 8th-10th c. period has been spread over the entire 1st millennium to fill a 1,000 year time span whose construction is neither understood nor challenged.” “Viking 9th c. longboats with square sails are in actual fact found at the same stratigraphic depth as Roman longboats with square sails. The latter are wrongly dated 700 years too early to the 2nd c. CE. Therefore, the Scandinavians’ supposed 700 year delay in all major fields of development, like towns, ports, breakwaters, kingship, coinage, monotheism, and sailing ships, is derived from chronological ideas that make the Roman period some 700 years older than stratigraphy allows.”
Similar problems are found throughout the lands of Franks, Saxons and Slavs — that is, in the regions where archeological finds are generally dated to the Early Middle Ages. Thus, the cities of Pliska and Preslav in Bulgaria, supposedly built in the 9th century, are entirely consistent with 1st-3rd century Roman architecture and technology. “The eternal controversies between different Bulgarian schools of archaeology about whether Pliska and Preslav belong to Antiquity, Late Antiquity or the Early Middle Ages could never come to a conclusion because all of them are right.”China, Arabia, IsraelHeinsohn’s shortened chronology of the first millennium solves fundamental inconsistencies in the history of many regions of the globe. It explains, for example, “why the invention of hand-made paper takes about 700 years to spread from China to east and west.” “The enigmatic absence of paper in Japan, so close to China, up to the 8th century AD, when it was suddenly produced in 40 provinces, can be explained, too, by taking into account that the Han stratigraphically are some 700 years younger than in textbook chronology.” Other problems include the fact that Han and Tang art are indistinguishable:
Inconsistencies in the history of Arabs are also solved. “Nobody understands how the inheritors of the Nabataeans and their Aramaic language dominating long distance trade between Asia in the East and the Roman Empire in the West can survive some 700 years without being able to mint coins or sign contracts. This extreme Arab primitivism stands in stark contrast to the Arabs who thrive from the 8th to the beginning of the 10th centuries CE. Their coins are not only found in Poland but from Norway all the way to India and beyond at a time when the rest of the known world was trying to crawl out of the darkness of the Early Middle Ages, and civilization might have been lost for good had not Arabs kept it alive.” On the other hand, “The coin finds of Raqqa, for example, which stratigraphically belongs to the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th century), also contain imperial Roman coins from Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century) and Late Antiquity (4th-7th century).”Subscribe to New Columns
“The Arabs did not walk in ignorance without coinage and writing for some 700 years. Those 700 years represent phantom centuries. Thus, it is not true that Arabs were backward in comparison with their immediate Roman and Greek neighbours who, interestingly enough, are not on record for having ever claimed any Arab backwardness. In the stratigraphy of ancient sites, Arab coins are found at the same stratigraphic depth as imperial Roman coins from the 1st to the early 3rd c. CE. Thus, the caliphs now dated from the 690s to the 930s are actually the caliphs of the period from Augustus to the 230s. The Romans from Augustus to the 230s knew them as rulers of Arabia Felix. The Romans from the same 1-230s period in its duplication to the 290-530s period (“Late Antiquity”) knew them as Ghassanid caliphs with the same reputation for anti-trinitarian monotheism as the Abbasid Caliphs now dated to 8th/9th centuries.”Heinsohn’s articles contain an abundance of quotes from archeologists puzzled by the contradictions between their hard evidence and their received chronology, yet betray their craft by yielding to chronology. Here is how Israeli archeologist Moshe Hartal is quoted in an Haaretz article:“During the course of a dig designed to facilitate the expansion of the Galei Kinneret Hotel, Hartal noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 BCE-132). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation — two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side,’ says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded’.”
Roman and Abbasid millefiori bowls that are identical, yet supposedly seven centuries apart
Although Heinsohn has not yet written specifically about first-millennium Israel, he has noted the same gaps in the historical record. As the following signboard photographed in the Israel Museum of Jerusalem puts it:
The Cataclysmic hypothesisHeinsohn links with the cataclysmic paradigm pioneered by Immanuel Velikovsky, a Russian-born scientist, author in 1950 of Worlds in Collision (Macmillan), followed by Ages in Chaos and Earth in Upheaval (Doubleday, 1952 and 1956). Although Velikovsky’s books were then severely attacked by the scientific community, his hypothesis of a major cataclysm caused by the tail of a giant comet about ten thousand years ago has been vindicated. There is a growing consensus that the sudden drop of global temperatures that marked the beginning of the geological era of the Younger Dryas 12,000 years ago started with a comet impact that blew large amounts of dust and ashes into the atmosphere, eclipsing the sun for years. This catastrophic comet and later ones may have formed the basis for the worldwide myths about flying and fire-breathing dragons (read here).For the first millennium AD, Heinsohn gathers evidence of three major civilization collapses caused by cosmic catastrophe followed by plague, in the 230s, the 530s and the 930s, and argues that they are one and the same, described differently in Roman, Byzantine, and Medieval sources.The first of these cataclysms caused the “Crisis of the Third Century” that started in the 230s. Textbook history defines it primarily as “a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of barbarian invasions and migrations into the Roman territory, civil wars, peasant rebellions, political instability” (Wikipedia). Disease played a major role, most notably with the Plague of Cyprian (c. 249-262), originating in Pelusium in Egypt. At the height of the outbreak, 5,000 people were said to be dying every day in Rome (Kyle Harper, The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire, Princeton UP, 2017). Although Latin sources make no mention of it, the massive damage observed by archeologists in several cities suggest that the crisis was triggered by a cosmic cataclysm. In Rome, “Trajan’s market—the commercial heart of the known world—was massively damaged and never repaired again. All eleven aquaeducts were destroyed. The first was not repaired before 1453.” As illustrated above, thick layers of so-called “dark earth” are found immediately above the 3rd century, with no new construction above before the 10th century. This situation, which is repeated in many other Western cities such as London, is generally interpreted as proof that the land was converted to arable and pastoral use or abandoned entirely for seven centuries. But it is more likely that the mud resulted primarily from a cosmic cataclysm.Three hundred years after the Third Century Crisis in Italy, the Eastern Empire was impacted by identical phenomena, whose effect, notes historian of Late Antiquity Wolf Liebeschuetz, “was like the crisis of the third century.” A climatic disaster is documented by ancient historians of that period, such as Procopius of Caesarea, Cassiodorus, or John of Ephesus, who writes: “the sun became dark and its darkness lasted for eighteen months. […] As a result of this inexplicable darkness, the crops were poor and famine struck.” To explain this “miniature ice age,” confirmed relatively by tree-ring and ice-core data, some scientists like David Keys hypothesize massive volcanic irruptions (Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World, Balanine, 1999, and the Channel 4 documentary based on it; read also this article). Others see “a comet impact in AD 536” causing a plunge in temperatures by as much as 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit for several years, leading to the crop failures that brought famine to the Roman Empire. Its weakened inhabitants soon became vulnerable to diseases. In 541, bubonic plague struck the Roman port of Pelusium, exactly like Cyprian’s Plague 300 years earlier, this time spreading to Constantinople, with some 10,000 people dying daily in Justinian’s capital alone, according to Procopius. In the words of John Loeffler, “How Comets Changed the Course of Human History”: “The terrified citizens and merchants fled the city of Constantinople, spreading the disease further into Europe, where it laid waste to communities of famished Europeans as far away as Germany, killing anywhere from a third to a half of the population” (watch also Michael Lachmann’s BBC documentary “The Comet’s Tale”).
Justinian’s comet over Constantinople
According to Heinsohn, the Western collapse of the third century and the Eastern collapse of the sixth century are both identical with the “Tenth Century Collapse” starting in the 930s. This civilizational collapse is documented by archeology in peripheral parts of the Empire: “Widespread destructions from Scandinavia to Eastern Europe and the Black Sea are dated to the end of the Early Middle Ages (930s CE). The disaster struck in territories where no devastations appear to have occurred during the ‘Crisis of the Third Century’, or the ‘Crisis of the Sixth Century’.” Archeology shows that Austria, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria were also hit in the early 10th century, as well as Slovak and Czech territories. Bulgarian metropolis Pliska basically disappeared, strangled by a considerable amounts of erosion material (colluvium), also known as “black earth”. All Baltic ports suddenly and mysteriously “undergo discontinuity.”What Heinsohn calls the “Tenth Century Collapse” is well known to historians of the Middle Ages, but generally attributed to invasions. Mark Bloch wrote about it in his classic work Feudal Society (1940):“From the turmoil of the last invasions, the West emerged covered with countless scars. The towns themselves had not been spared — at least not by the Scandinavian — and if many of them, after pillage or evacuation, rose again from their ruins, this break in the regular course of their life left them for long years enfeebled. […] Along the river routes the trading centres had lost all security […] Above all, the cultivated land suffered disastrously, often being reduced to desert. […] Naturally the peasants, more than any other class, were driven to despair by these conditions. […] The lords, who derived their revenues from the land, were impoverished.”This upheaval marked the end of the ancient world and would be followed by the emergence of the feudal world. Guy Blois, in The Transformation of the Year One Thousand, describes the transition as global and sudden. In some region like the Mâconnais, which he studied in detail, “twenty to twenty-five years sufficed to transform the social landscape from top to bottom.”“There was no gentle progress by imperceptible transitions from one situation to another. There was drastic upheaval, affecting all aspects of social life: a new distribution of power, a new relation of exploitation (the seigneurie), new economic mechanisms (the irruption of the market), and a new social and political ideology. If the word revolution means anything, it could hardly find a better application.”At the same time, the actual factors and processes of transformation remain largely mysterious, because the 10th century is “a period which is among the most mysterious in our history,” and “has left few traces in our collective memory.” Sources of information from the 10th century are almost non-existent, and the sources from the 11th century not very explicit about the ills of the 10th century. The people of the early 11th century lived with a sense of a radical seizure between the last century, a time of destruction, disintegration, and confusion, and their present, a time full of promises which would soon give birth to what historians call the “Renaissance of the Twelfth Century”.Heinsohn remarks: “The Tenth Century Collapse ran its lethal course closer to the present than any other world-shaking event in human history. However, it is the least researched, too. … We do not yet know what could have been powerful enough to bring about such a mind-boggling transformation of our planet. Though it must have been enormous we still cannot reconstruct the cosmic scenario.” This is because most sources dealing with the catastrophe have been shifted backward. Yet the few Western chronicles that we have for the 11th century do inform us. The monk Rodulfus Glaber, writing between 1026 and 1040, mentions for December of 997, “there appeared in the air an admirable wonder: the form, or perhaps the body itself, of a huge dragon, coming from the north and heading south, with dazzling lightning bolts. This prodigy terrified almost all those who saw it in the Gauls.” Glaber also mentions that, between 993 and 997,“Mount Vesuvius (which is also called Vulcan’s Caldron) gaped far more often than his wont and belched forth a multitude of vast stones mingled with sulphurous flames which fell even to a distance of three miles around. […] It befell meanwhile that almost all the cities of Italy and Gaul were ravaged by flames of fire, and that the greater part even of the city of Rome was devoured by a conflagration. […] At this same time a horrible plague raged among men, namely a hidden fire which, upon whatsoever limb it toned, consumed it and severed it from the body. […] Moreover, about the same time, a most mighty famine raged for five years throughout the Roman world [in universo Romano orbe], so that no region could be heard of which was not hunger stricken for lack of bread, and many of the people were starved to death. In those days also, in many regions, the terrible famine compelled men to make their food not only of unclean beasts and creeping things, but even of men’s, women’s, and children’s flesh, without regard even of kindred; for so fierce waxed this hunger that grown-up sons devoured their mothers, and mothers, forgetting their maternal love ate their babes.”The birth of AD chronologyIn Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium, Patrick Geary writes, referring to the Tenth Century Collapse:“Those living on the other side of this caesura felt themselves separated by a great gulf from this earlier age. Already in the eleventh century those people who undertook to preserve the past in written form, for their contemporaries or their posterity, seemed to know little and understand less of their familial, institutional, cultural, and regional past. […] And yet they were deeply concerned with this past, possessed by it almost, and their invented past became the goal and justification of their programs in the present.”From the “Ground Zero” of the Tenth Century Collapse, they recreated this past from bits and pieces — a form of “recovered memory”. It is this recreation that we have:“Much of what we think we know about the early Middle Ages was determined by the changing problems and concerns of eleventh-century men and women, not by those of the more distant past. Unless we understand the mental and social structures that acted as filters, suppressing or transforming the received past in the eleventh century in terms of presentist needs, we are doomed to misunderstand those earlier centuries.”The confused perspective of eleventh-century men on earlier ages can account for the chronological distortions that later made it into history books. Within a few generations, what Rodulfus Glaber still calls “the Roman world” (citation above), destroyed by cataclysms, plague and famine only decades before his time, was idealized and pushed back in almost mythical times.This coincides with the rise of Christianity, heavily dominated by apocalypticism in its infancy. In Matthew 24:6-8, when Jesus’ disciples asked him: “Tell us, when is this going to happen, and what sign will there be of your coming (parousia) and of the end of the world?” he answered: “There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All this is only the beginning of the birthpangs.” “In the minds of survivors,” Heinsohn writes, “the ancient gods had failed, but the apocalyptic books of the Bible had been proven right. Spontaneous conversions to the various Judaism-derived sects quickly increased throughout the empire.” The Book of Revelation sounded like a summary of the conflagrations just passed:“A mighty earthquake took place, and the sun became black like animal hair sack-cloth, and the full moon became like blood, and the stars of heaven fell to the earth, […] And the kings of the earth, and the great people and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves, and among the rocks of the mountains. […] There came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was rained on the earth. And one third of the earth was burned up, and one third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. Something like a huge mountain burning with fire was hurled into the sea. […] A huge star fell from heaven, burning like a lamp, and it fell on a third of the rivers, and on the sources of the waters.” (from Revelation of John, chapters 6 and 8)Heinsohn suggests that the Book of Revelation directly influenced the chronological shift, because its chapter 20 postulates a thousand period between Jesus and the catastrophe: “Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven. / He took hold of the dragon, / Satan, and chained him for 1,000 years. / He could not fool the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were completed.” Church father Cyprianus (200-258 AD, i.e. 900-958 in revised chronology), a survivor of the catastrophe in his heavily hit city of Carthage, wrote: “Our Lord has foretold all this. War and famine, earth quakes and pestilence will occur everywhere” (On Mortality). Rodulfus Glaber also wrote at the end of book 2: “All this accords with the prophecy of St John , who said that the Devil would be freed after a thousand years.” Heinsohn suggests Michael Psellos (c. 1018-1078 AD), author of the Chronographia, as the main engineer of the chronological shift.To understand more precisely the role played by Christianity in the chronological reset, we would need a clear vision of the history of early Christianity, which we don’t have, as I have shown in Part 2. What is almost certain is that, contrary to what Church historians have written, the Roman world was not dominated by Christianity until the eleventh-century Gregorian Reform. Excavation of Carolingian tombs casts doubt on the Christian religion of that age: “excavators recently analyzing the contents of 96 Carolingian burials from 86 different locations (dated 751-911, but mostly from the time of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious), were shocked by an extremely widespread practice resembling Charon’s obol. That payment was used as a means of bribing the legendary ferryman for passage across the Styx, the river that divided the world of the living from the world of the dead.” Even more puzzling — but logical within the Heinsohnian paradigm —, some of those coins are Roman coins.One likely factor in the chronological confusion of the eleventh century, leading to the stretch of 300 years into a millennium, came from the traditional Roman computation. Roman historians counted years ab urbe condita (“since the foundation of the city”), abbreviated AUC. A monk named Dionysius Exiguus determined that Jesus’ birth took place in 753 AUC. That means that 1000 AUC falls on 246 AD, during the Third Century Crisis. People living soon after the cataclysm (like Dionysius) believed they were living around 1000 AUC. They could easily be led to believe that they really lived 1000 years after Christ. It has actually been suggested that the “Dominus” in Anno Domine originally meant Romulus, the founder of Rome. Changing Romulus into Christ would have been easy since both legendary figures have similar mythical attributes. Like Christ, Romulus suffered a sacrificial death, and then the Romans “began to cheer Romulus, like a god born of a god, the king and the father of the city, imploring his protection, so that he should always protect his children with his benevolent favor” (Titus Livy, History of Rome I.16). (Whether we take the resemblance between Romulus and Christ as another clue that Livy is a medieval or Renaissance fabrication makes little difference.) At some stage, people were led by the Church to change their notion of living one millennium after Romulus into the notion of living one millennium after Christ. This shift was part and parcel of the Christianization process: just like the Church Christianized many Pagan gods, holy places and holy days, it Christianized AUD into AD. The confusion was facilitated by the fact that AUC was still used in the eleventh century (some chroniclers such as Ademar of Chabannes also counted years in annus mundi, based on biblical chronology).Since, according to Dionysius, Jesus was born in 753 AUC, the confusion of AUC with AD added 753 years, which is approximately the length of phantom time added into the first millennium according to Heinsohn. The Church was then too happy to fill in the vacuum and make itself look older than it was, with forgeries such as Liver Pontificalis, the Donation of Constantine, and the pseudo-Isidorian decretals. Papal clerics imposed their millennium-long Christian history, when in reality, their Christ had been crucified (under Augustus) only 300 years before Gregory VII (1073-1085).In the comment section of my previous installment, Professor Eric Knibbs has objected to the theory that the AD chronology was imposed after the Tenth Century Collapse, by the Gregorian reformers or their immediate predecessors. He has provided evidence that AD dates were already in use in ninth-century manuscripts. For instance, on codex Sankt-Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 272 (here page 245), we read “anno dccc.vi. ab incarnatione domini” (“In the year 806 from the incarnation of the Lord”). In Ms. lat. 2341, Paris, Bibl. nat. (here), future dates for the celebration of Easter are given in the form “anno incarnationis domini nostri iesu christi dcccxliii” (“the year of the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ 843”). Another case is Clm 14429 at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (here), which indicates on the first folio the date when it was copied: “anno domini dcccxxi” (“the year of the Lord 821”).However, on second thought, I find the objection inconclusive, because there is no way of knowing if scribes were using AD dates consistently. The problem is illustrated by the above-mentioned Rodulfus Glaber, writing between 1026 and 1040. In Book II, §8 of his autograph manuscript, Rodulfus gives the date “888 of the Word incarnate” instead of 988 (according to the editor’s footnote in my Latin-French edition). In Book 1, §23, he mentions an event during the pontificate of Benedict VIII (1012-1024) and dates it from “the year 710 of the Lord’s incarnation.” The editor corrects him in footnote: “In fact in 1014, but the manuscript corrected by Rodulfus carries indisputably the date 710; nothing explains such a mistake.” One thing that can explain such mistakes is the floating state of the chronology. Most probably, Rodulfus borrowed these “erroneous” dates from others without realizing they were tuned on a different dating scale. Even a manuscript carrying a date like 806 AD could be misdated, that is, written by someone counting years with a shorter chronology and living in the Gregorian age. What is illustrated by Rodulfus is that the AD dating system did not become settled overnight, and that different people could ascribe different AD dates to very recent times. A case by case examination of supposedly ninth-century manuscripts with AD dates should determine if the dating is consistent with these manuscripts surviving the Tenth Century Collapse.Starting from the premise that AD dates were well established long before the Gregorian Reform, historians have assumed that, when medieval men saw the year 1000 approach, they must have feared the worst. This assumption has been proven false: our sources are mute about the supposed “fears of the year 1000.” Historians who nevertheless insist on its reality, like Richard Landes, resort to funny arguments like “a consensus of silence that masks a great deal of concern. […] medieval writers avoided the subject of the millennium whenever and wherever possible.” More convincingly, the missing “fears of the year 1000” make a strong argument that the AD computation came in use after the year 1000.ConclusionIn the two previous installments, I pointed out all kinds of reasons to question the authenticity and accepted dating of many sources. Some of my working hypotheses can now be corrected. In Part 1, “How fake is Roman Antiquity?” I agreed with Polydor Hochart’s objection to the possibility that books from Imperial Rome were preserved until the 14th-15th century because monks copied them in the 9th, 10th or 11th century. Christian monks copying Pagan works on expensive parchments is just not credible. Rather, we have every reason to believe that, whenever they got their hands on such books, monks either destroyed them or scrapped them to reuse the parchment. Hochart therefore concludes that these books from Imperial Rome are forgeries. But Heinsohn’s revised chronology now gives us a more satisfactory solution: the original composition of these works (1st century) and their medieval copies (9th century at the earliest) are not separated by seven centuries or more, but by one or two centuries at the most. The 9th century still belonged to Roman times, and Christianity was then in its infancy. That doesn’t eliminate suspicion of Medieval or Renaissance fraud, but that reduces it. We can now read Roman sources with a different perspective.In Part 2, “How fake is Church history?”, I focused on Church history and agreed with Jean Hardouin (1646-1729), the Jesuit librarian who came to the frightening conclusion that all the works ascribed to Augustine (AD 354-430), Jerome of Stridon (AD 347-420), Ambrose of Milan (c. AD 340-397), ad many others, could not have been written before the 11th or 12th century, and were therefore forgeries. We can now consider that Hardouin was both right and wrong. He was right in estimating these works much younger than officially claimed (though perhaps wih some exaggeration), but he was not necessarily right in concluding that they were forgeries; if Augustine, Jerome and Ambrose really belong, in stratigraphic time, to the end of the Early Middle Ages at the earliest, it is no wonder they are attacking the same heresies as the medieval Church who promoted them.Notes Nicolas Standaert, “Jesuit Accounts of Chinese History and Chronology and Their Chinese Sources,” East Asian Science, Technology, and Medicine, no. 35, 2012, pp. 11–87, on www.jstor.org Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky, History: Fiction or Science, volume 1: Introducing the problem. A criticism of the Scaligerian chronology. Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs,ch. 6, p. 356. Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky, History: Fiction or Science, vol. 2: The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts (archive.org) pp. 19-42. Fomenko and Nosovsky, History: Fiction or Science, vol. 1, ch. 6, pp. 356-358. Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE” (2013). Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019). Heinsohn, “The Stratigraphy of Rome”(2018). Heinsohn, “Heinsohn in a nutshell” Heinsohn, “Letter to Heribert Illig” (2017). Heinsohn, “Goths of the 4th century and Getae of the 1st century” (2014). Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019). Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). Heinsohn, “Letter to Heribert Illig” (2017). From Heinsohn’s letter to Eric Knibbs, 2020, communicated to the author. Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE” 2013. Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD: finding Bede’s missing metropolis” 2018. Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD” 2018. Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019). Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020). Also “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019). Heinsohn, “Siegfried found: decoding the Nibelungen period,” 2018. Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” 2014. Heinsohn, “The Stratigraphy of Rome” (2018). Heinsohn, “Polish origins” (2018).Subscribe to New Columns
Theodor Mommsen, A History of Rome Under the Emperors. Routledge, 2005, p. 281. Heinsohn, “Goths of the 4th century and Getae of the 1st century: are they one and the same?” (2014). Heinsohn, “Goths of the 4th century and Getae of the 1st century: are they one and the same?” (2014). Heinsohn, “Polish origins” 2018. Heinsohn, “Did Europe and Civilization Collapse Three Times Within the 1st Millenium CE?” 2014. Heinsohn, Ravenna and chronology (2020). Michael J. Decker, The Byzantine Dark Ages, Bloomsbury Academic, 2016; Eleonora Kountoura-Galake, ed., The Dark Centuries of Byzantium (7th-9th C.), National Hellenic Research Foundation, 2001. John J. O’Neill, Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, Felibri.com, Ingram Books, 2009, p. 231, quoted in “Were there really no people in Poland between 300 and 600 AD?” (2020). Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019). Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE”, 2013. Heinsohn, “Augustus and Diocletian: contemporaries or 300 years apart?” 2019. Quoted in Heinsohn, Ravenna and chronology (2020). Heinsohn, Ravenna and chronology (2020). Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” 2014, quoting Fortifications (2009), “Kaiserpfalz Ingelheim: Fortifications“, http://www.kaiserpfalz-ingelheim.de/en/historical_tour_10.php Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” 2014 Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020; with references to internal quotations). Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020). Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD” (2018). From Heinsohn’s letter to Eric Knibbs, 2020, communicated to the author. Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020). Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD”(2018). Heinsohn, “The Winchester of Alfred the Great and the Haithabu of his voyager, Wulfstan: Are they separated by 700 years?” (2014). Heinsohn, “Vikings for 700 years without sails, ports and towns? An essay”(2014). Heinsohn, “Arthur of Camelot and the-Domaros of Camulodunum” (2017). Heinsohn, “Vikings for 700 years without sails, ports and towns? An essay”(2014). Heinsohn, “Vikings for 700 years without sails, ports and towns? An essay”(2014). Heinsohn, “Bulgaria’s early medieval capitals of Pliska and Preslav: were they really built to resemble 700 year older Roman cities?” (2015). Heinsohn, “Papermaking” (2017). Heinsohn, “Mieszko I, destructions, and Slavic mass conversions to Christianity” (2014). Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019). Heinsohn, “Islam’s Chronology: Were Arabs Really Ignorant of Coinage and Writing for 700 Years?” (2013). Quoted in Heinsohn, “Arabs of the 8th Century: Cultural imitators or original creators?” (2018). Photo M. M. Vogt, in Heinsohn, “Were there really no people in Poland between 300 and 600 AD?” (2020). Velikovsky hypothesized that the comet settled as planet Venus. It has been recently reported (here) that “Venus sports a giant, ion-packed tail that stretches almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun.” Read also “When a planet behaves like a comet”. Velikovsky is given due credit by astronomer James McCanney, author of Planet-X, Comets & Earth Changes: A Scientific Treatise on the Effects of a New Large Planet or Comet Arriving in our Solar System and Expected Earth Weather and Earth Changes, jmccanneyscience.com press, 2007 (read here). Heinsohn, “Did Europe and Civilization Collapse Three Times Within the 1st Millenium CE?” (2014). Heinsohn, “Did Europe and Civilization Collapse Three Times Within the 1st Millenium CE?” (2014). Wolf Liebeschuetz, “The End of the Ancient City”, in J. Rich, ed., The City in Late Antiquity, Routledge, 1992, quoted in Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019). John Loeffler, “How Comets Changed the Course of Human History,” November 30th, 2008, on interestingengineering.com/how-comets-changed-the-course-of-human-history Useful article: Declan M Mills, “The Tenth-Century Collapse in West Francia and the Birth of Christian Holy War,” Newcastle University Postgraduate Forum E-Journal, Edition 12, 2015, online here. Heinsohn, “Tenth Century Collapse” (2017). Heinsohn, “Tenth Century Collapse” (2017). Mark Bloch, Feudal Society (1940), Routledge, 2014, pp. 43-44. Guy Blois, The Transformation of the Year One Thousand: The Village of Lournand from autiquity to feudalism, Manchester UP, 1992, pp. 161, 167, 1. Heinsohn, “Tenth Century Collapse” (2017). Raoul Glaber, Histoires, ed. and trans. Mathieu Arnoux, Brépols, 1996, book II, § 13-17, pp. 116-125.Subscribe to New Columns
Patrick J. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium, Princeton UP, 1994, p. 9. Patrick J. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium, Princeton UP, 1994, p. 7. Edward Adams, The Stars Will Fall From Heaven: ‘Cosmic Catastrophe’ in the New Testament and its World, The Library of New Testament Studies, 2007. Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020). Heinsohn, “Mieszko I, destructions, and Slavic mass conversions to Christianity”(2014). Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE” (2013). Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). Dionysius supposedly made his computation in 532 AD, but since he was living in Bulgaria, in the Byzantine world, this date corresponds to 232 in Imperial Antiquity (and to 932 AD in Early Middle Ages). Raoul Glaber, Histoires, ed. and trans. Mathieu Arnoux, Brépols, 1996, pp. 106-107 and 78-79. Richard Landes, “The Fear of an Apocalyptic Year 1000: Augustinian Historiography, Medieval and Modern,” Speculum, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 97-145, on www.jstor.org
页:
[1]