伊斯兰年表和地理学的修订
伊斯兰年表和地理学的修订“尽管几代杰出的阿拉伯人尽了最大的努力，但阿拉伯人在伊斯兰教之前的历史仍然令人恼火地模糊不清，”哈佛大学学者、《圣经考古学》执行主编巴里·霍伯曼（Barry Hoberman）写道。伊斯兰教的早期历史处于更糟糕的境地：“伊斯兰研究修正主义学派”现在正在打破经典年表，而其他特立独行的学者则称伊斯兰地理学是阿拔斯王朝的“掩盖”。然而，在这个过程中出现了新的困难。本文的主要目的是将Gunnar Heinsohn的观点引入辩论中，并提出我个人的意见。海因索恩假说我在之前的一篇题为“第一个千年有多长？下面是一个简短的总结。根据海因索恩的说法，公元一千年的标准观点是一种武断的结构，经不起现代科学考古证据的考验。它太长了，大约有 700 年的幻影年。实际上，从第一位罗马皇帝奥古斯都到传统的纪元多米尼 1000 年只持续了大约 300 年。第三世纪的危机始于 230 年代塞维兰王朝末期，恰逢 930 年代开始的十世纪崩溃。这种歪曲是由于崩溃后几个世纪的错误和伪造的积累造成的，当时《纪元多米尼》中的计算在手稿中变得普遍使用。它在 16 年被规范化第和 17第约瑟夫·斯卡利格（Joseph Scaliger，1540-1609）或丹尼斯·佩陶（Denys Pétau，1583-1652）等学者几个世纪以来，然后由耶稣会传教士国际化，从他们接管中国学术开始。由于将 230 年延长到 930 年，世界不同地区同时发生的事件被人为地排序，最终导致第一个千年的现代划分为三个需要重新同步的主要时间段：帝国古代（约 1-230 年代）、古代晚期（约 300-640 年）和中世纪早期（约 700-930 年）。这就解释了为什么教科书历史分布不均，归因于每个时间段的大多数已知事件都局限于三个地理区域之一：对于帝国古代，我们对罗马西南部了解很多，但对欧洲其他地区知之甚少;对于古代晚期，我们对拜占庭东南部了解很多，但对罗马和西欧知之甚少;对于中世纪早期，我们对日耳曼-斯拉夫北部了解很多，但对罗马或君士坦丁堡知之甚少。由于它们被错误的年表所束缚，考古学家在挖掘第一个千年文物时，根据地点的不同，他们的发现日期也不同，即使这些发现处于相同的地层深度并表现出相同的技术进步。为了解释据称相隔 300 或 700 年的出土材料的相似之处，他们诉诸于“复兴”、“模仿”、“spolia（回收材料）或——在完全绝望的情况下——”艺术收藏“的理论。通常，例如，据说查理曼大帝内置了 2钕-世纪罗马风格，材料回收自 2钕世纪。他还应该复兴了帝国古代的古典拉丁语（1圣-3RD世纪），一直到书法风格。帝国古代和古代晚期的当代性意味着罗马帝国的开始和君士坦丁堡的建立大致是同时代的;“从西到东的地理序列变成了从早到晚的时间顺序。”然而，根据海因索恩的说法，拜占庭晚期古代不能简单地叠加在罗马帝国古代之上，因为它本身就太长了 120 年。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。“我们知道，可追溯到古代晚期的地层（Dyrrachium，Alexandria等）缺乏大约120年的考古物质。因此，从公元 290 年代到 640 年代的传统古代晚期没有 350 年，而是只有大约 230 年的住宅地层。帝国古代和中世纪早期的同时性意味着生活在多瑙河以北和莱茵河以东的民族在罗马帝国扩张 700 年后并没有突然从森林居住的原始主义中走出来。例如，撒克逊人从帝国时代早期就与罗马人争夺征服大不列颠的资格。因此，半传奇的卡米洛特亚瑟（Arthur of Camelot）在《不列颠历史》（Historia Brittonum）（829 年）中首次被提及为 dux bellorum，可以与他的另一个自我、奥古斯都时期的凯尔特军事领袖卡穆洛杜努姆的阿特重聚。然而，在这里，对应关系又不是直截了当的，因为传统上位于 800-841 年的加洛林帝国必须转移到 890-930 年代（对应于帝国古代的 190-230 年代）。“查理曼大帝和路易[虔诚者]不属于 8第/9第世纪，但到 9第/10第世纪。这与查理曼大帝在 11 年代后期的 Chansons de Geste 中的出现一致第世纪。混淆的一个来源是将一个查尔斯乘以多个：卡罗勒斯·马格努斯实际上与卡罗勒斯·斯莫比克斯（898-929）相同，并且与其他查尔斯相同。“从地层学上讲......这些法兰克统治者属于公元 890 年代至 930 年代。他们在中世纪早期的阶段与古代帝国的塞维兰时期（190 年代至 230 年代）以及古代晚期查士丁尼王朝的几十年平行。
海因索恩的理论在数十篇长篇网络文章中得到了详细阐述，这是一项正在进行的工作，仍然有许多悬而未决的问题，但它解决了一些关键问题。在“第一个千年有多长”之前，我在两篇文章中介绍了其中的一些问题。在“罗马古代有多假？我从波利多·霍查特（Polydor Hochart）对基督教僧侣在整个中世纪虔诚地复制罗马古代异教文学的普遍观点开始，佛罗伦萨人文主义者后来在欧洲修道院的阁楼上发现了这些文学作品。从这种观念的不协调中，霍查特得出结论，这些罗马文学大多是中世纪晚期或文艺复兴时期的伪造品。但海因索恩缩短的年表为我们提供了一个更好的解决方案：11第世纪，当这些文本中的大多数最后一次被复制时，紧随其后的是帝国古代（=中世纪早期），当它们首次被撰写时。我们的本笃会僧侣们应该一次又一次地复制它们，无视他们焚烧它们或将它们刮干净的神圣职责，这七个世纪从未存在过。在我的第二篇文章《教会历史有多假？》中，我认为罗马天主教会的标准历史相当于一本完全伪造的自传，部分原因是罗马与君士坦丁堡的竞争。在11之前，不可能重建教会的真实历史第世纪来自在教会抄本中捏造或掺假的文学来源。J.M.华莱士-哈德里尔（J.M. Wallace-Hadrill）在谈到圣本尼迪克特的生平时写道：“在没有支持证据的情况下，这种叙述几乎不可能包含任何历史真相。我们可以信任或不信任它，因为我们愿意。学者们普遍倾向于接受它。君士坦丁大帝等更核心的人物也是如此，他的生平和宗教政策几乎完全来自尤西比乌斯，他的作者身份极具争议。学者们倾向于从表面上看尤西比乌斯的叙述的原因是，没有它，他们根本无法写出任何关于君士坦丁的文章。可以说，教会历史是有偏见的，到了颠倒的地步。例如，沃尔特·鲍尔（Walter Bauer）很久以前就提出了一个强有力的论点，即与胜利的教会所传播的故事相反，正统观念是在伟大的异端邪说之前而不是之后的。由于天主教会篡改了自己的历史，它作为罗马帝国的幽灵出现，教皇接管了皇帝的大部分特权——不仅是教皇的头衔，还有帝国财产、公共财政，甚至军事事务——对历史学家来说仍然在很大程度上是模糊的。约瑟夫·阿特威尔（Joseph Atwill）等不墨守成规的学者提供了有趣的见解或弗朗切斯科·卡洛塔（Francesco Carotta），后者理论上可能转移了对凯撒的崇拜。在 Heinsohn 的地层校正 （SC） 年表中，过渡发生在 11第世纪，在格里高利改革期间，罗伯特·摩尔（Robert I. Moore）称之为“第一次欧洲革命”。这仅仅是一个世纪，而不是塞维兰王朝结束后的八个世纪。这解释了教会历史上许多奇怪的不合时宜的地方，例如在1014年正式采用尼西亚信经，在制定尼西亚信经的会议（325）之后的七个世纪，或者13世纪的标准化第由教皇达马苏斯一世（366-384）委托给圣杰罗姆的圣经的拉丁文通俗的世纪。这也解释了为什么基督教建筑和装饰风格 11第和 12第世纪很难与4个世纪区分开来第世纪，促使学者们谈到“12世纪初罗马的古基督教复兴第世纪。要了解罗马对加利利弥赛亚的崇拜，塞维兰皇帝的背景是一个重要的线索。王朝的创始人塞普蒂米乌斯·西弗勒斯（Septimius Severus）在叙利亚娶了埃梅萨（今叙利亚霍姆斯）崇拜的埃拉加巴尔神祭司的女儿。他的妻子朱莉娅·多姆纳 （Julia Domna） 在帝国中发挥了积极作用，尤其是当他们的儿子卡拉卡拉 （Caracalla） 于 211 年 13 岁时成为皇帝时。她死后，她的妹妹朱莉娅·梅萨被送回腓尼基，在那里她密谋将她的孙子埃拉加巴卢斯推上王位，埃拉加巴卢斯从年轻时起就担任埃拉加巴尔的首席祭司。亚历山大·西弗勒斯 （Alexander Severus） 统治了 13 年，叙利亚的统治仍在继续，王朝于 235 年结束。这一时期由叙利亚的历史学家希律王（Herodian）报道，他可能是朱莉娅·多姆纳（Julia Domna）的东方文学圈的成员，就像菲洛斯特拉图斯（Philostratus）一样，为她写了《蒂亚纳的阿波罗尼乌斯的生平》。希律王关于埃拉加巴尔神（阿拉伯语 Ilah Al-Gabal 的拉丁化，“山神”）的信息非常有趣：为这位神建造了一座巨大的寺庙，用金、银和昂贵的宝石装饰华丽。这位神不仅受到当地人的崇拜，而且所有邻近的统治者和国王每年都会向他赠送慷慨而昂贵的礼物。在这座神庙中，没有像希腊和罗马神庙那样由人按照神的形象建造的雕像。然而，寺庙确实包含一块巨大的黑色石头，其尖头和圆锥形的圆形底座。腓尼基人庄严地坚持认为这块石头是从宙斯那里下来的。（第 5 册，第 3 章）在叙利亚崇拜的黑色石头 3RD世纪为本文的主题提供了一个适当的过渡：Gunnar Heinsohn 对阿拉伯和伊斯兰教历史学家面临的问题的解决方案。
穆罕默德和麦加部族的长老将黑石抬到位（13第世纪）
海因索恩谈阿拉伯和伊斯兰教在海因索恩的 SC 年表中，基督教在公元前三个世纪的兴起和伊斯兰教从 7 世纪开始的兴起第到 10第世纪大致是当代的。他们六世纪的鸿沟是虚构的，因为基督教的兴起可以追溯到帝国古代，而伊斯兰教的兴起可以追溯到中世纪早期，这两个时间段实际上是当代的。帝国古代和中世纪早期的重新同步为一些棘手的考古异常提供了解决方案。其中之一涉及纳巴泰人。在帝国古代，纳巴泰阿拉伯人主导了长途贸易。他们的佩特拉市是连接中国、印度和阿拉伯南部与埃及、叙利亚、希腊和罗马的商队路线上丝绸、香料和其他商品的主要贸易中心。 公元 106 年，纳巴泰王国被图拉真（其父亲曾任叙利亚总督）正式并入罗马帝国，成为阿拉伯佩特拉亚省。哈德良在公元 130 年左右访问了佩特拉，并给它起了个名字叫哈德良佩特拉大都会，印在他的硬币上。佩特拉在塞维兰时期（公元 190 年代至 230 年代）达到了城市开花期。然而，令人难以置信的是，这些阿拉伯长途商人“应该忘记了硬币的发行和书写艺术（阿拉姆语）之后 1圣公元世纪，直到 7 世纪才再次学习它第/8第公元世纪（倭马亚穆斯林）。据推测，阿拉伯人在哈德良之后脱离了文明，只是在伊斯兰教的统治下才重新进入文明，并取得了难以理解的科学进步。前伊斯兰阿拉伯人应该沉溺于极端的原始主义中，没有文字，也没有自己的钱，“与从 8 世纪茁壮成长的伊斯兰阿拉伯人形成鲜明对比第世纪，[谁的]硬币不仅在波兰被发现，而且从挪威一直到印度和其他地方，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。此外，阿拉伯硬币可追溯到8第和 9第几个世纪与罗马帝国硬币在同一层中被发现。“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），还包含古代罗马帝国硬币（1圣-3RD世纪）和古代晚期（4第-7第世纪）。“因此，我们拥有令人印象深刻的 7 后宝库第c.阿拉伯硬币与 pre-7 混为一谈第c.7年前的罗马硬币第c. 罗马时代。但是我们没有 pre-7第c.阿拉伯硬币来自几个世纪以来与罗马在7世纪前的密切联盟第c. 句号。在耶路撒冷发行的第一批伊斯兰倭马亚硬币“据说延续了700年前的纳巴泰硬币”。它们通常展示带有阿拉伯字母的犹太烛台，与七个世纪前的犹太硬币几乎没有区别;我们在这里处理的是“只需要几年或几十年，而不是七个世纪”的进化。
架构也提出了类似的问题。考古学家无法将罗马和拜占庭建筑与倭马亚王朝建筑区分开来，因为“8第-10第倭马亚王朝建于 2 年钕美分技术“，并遵循罗马模式。“8 中的倭马亚人怎么可能第c. AD 完美地模仿了晚期希腊化的风格，“Heinsohn 问道，”当没有专家可以教他们如此复杂的技能时？此外，“倭马亚王朝的建筑建在1的晚希腊化建筑之上圣c. 公元前/公元。一个例子是“第二大最著名的倭马亚王朝建筑，他们在大马士革的清真寺。所谓的财政部圆顶的八角形结构矗立在1的完美罗马柱子上圣/2钕世纪。他们应该是spolia，但是......没有已知的被夷为平地的建筑物可以将它们带走。更令人费解的是 8 号楼内巨大的整体柱第/9第c. AD，也属于 1圣/2钕世纪。没有人知道必须拆除才能获得它们的巨大结构。他们的阿拔斯王朝敌人非但没有拒绝倭马亚王朝对罗马古代的奴性“模仿”，反而恢复了这种“模仿”：“8第-10第c.阿拔斯王朝迷惑了历史学家，因为他们复制了化学指纹，罗马玻璃。Heinsohn引自《大卫收藏：伊斯兰艺术/玻璃》，2014年：千层花技术的名字来源于意大利语，意思是“千朵花”，在罗马时期达到了顶峰。这项技术似乎在9世纪被伊斯兰玻璃制造商重新发现第世纪，因为在阿拔斯王朝首都萨迈拉（Samarra）出土了包括瓷砖在内的千层玻璃的例子。我在《第一个千年有多长？》一书中收录了海因索恩（Heinsohn）的一幅插图，其中一幅相同的千层玻璃碗分别归因于1圣-2钕世纪罗马人和 8第-9第世纪阿拔斯王朝。这是另一个令人费解的比较：
海因索恩总结说：“倭马亚王朝的文化与中世纪早期法兰克人的文化一样是罗马文化。他们的 9第/10第世纪建筑是2的直接延续钕c. 公元。中间的700年在现实中是不存在的。“阿拉伯人没有铸币和文字就没有无知地行走了大约700年。这 700 年代表着幻影世纪的世纪。因此，与他们的近邻罗马和希腊相比，阿拉伯人是落后的，有趣的是，他们没有声称阿拉伯人落后的记录。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。这就解释了为什么考古学家经常发现自己对地层学感到困惑。例如，《国土报》报道说，在提比里亚的一次挖掘中，考古学家摩西·哈塔尔“注意到一个神秘的现象：除了倭马亚时代（638-750）的一层泥土外，在同一深度，考古学家发现了一层古罗马时代（公元前37-132年）的泥土。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。”海因索恩认为，中世纪早期的倭马亚人不仅与古代帝国的纳巴泰人相同，而且还以加萨尼德人的名义记录在上古晚期的中间时间段。“纳巴泰人和倭马亚人不仅拥有相同的艺术、相同的大都市大马士革和相同的地层，而且还有一个共同的领土，是另一个著名的阿拉伯民族的家园，该民族也拥有大马士革：加萨尼德人。他们在古代晚期担任拜占庭人的基督教盟友（3RD/4第至 6第c. 公元）。然而，它们在帝国古代就已经很活跃了（1圣至 3RDc. 公元）。狄奥多罗斯·西库鲁斯（公元前 90-30 年）称他们为加桑多伊，老普林尼（公元 23-79 年）称他们为卡萨尼，克劳迪乌斯·托勒密（公元 100-170 年）称他们为卡萨尼泰。在拜占庭时期，加桑王朝的哈里发“与阿拔斯王朝的哈里发一样，在反三位一体的一神论方面享有盛誉，现在可追溯到 8第/9第几个世纪。他们也像伊斯兰阿拉伯人一样，保留了一些贝都因人的习俗，如一夫多妻制。
伊斯兰研究中的修正主义学派今天，许多西方学者都承认，包括《古兰经》在内的伊斯兰经文的年代比正典所声称的要晚。正是在阿拔斯王朝哈里发（750-1258）的统治下，几乎所有关于伊斯兰教起源的传统文本都是在9世纪之后写成的第世纪，主要在阿拉伯以外，特别是在伊拉克。作为与倭马亚王朝冲突的胜利方，阿拔斯王朝对使他们的统治合法化非常感兴趣，并采取了全面的措施来摧毁与他们的叙述相矛盾的来源。正是在阿拔斯王朝的统治下，《古兰经》达到了最后阶段，而反映早期阶段的副本永远丢失了。早期伊斯兰教的另一个众所周知的方面是它的犹太背景，最好的说明是古兰经中135次提到亚伯拉罕（易卜拉欣），就在约瑟夫、大卫、约拿和所罗门之前。整个古兰经（古兰经章节）都致力于圣经传说。“伊斯兰教是在阿拉伯的背景下发展起来的，受到犹太教的强烈影响，”戈登·纽比（Gordon Newby）在他受人尊敬的《阿拉伯犹太人史》（1988年）中说。基督教对伊斯兰教形成的影响也是不言而喻的。除了许多古兰经中对耶稣的引用外，穆罕默德的正典传记还提到了被称为“拿撒勒人”或“拿撒勒人”的犹太基督徒，他们是基督的信徒，他们仍然忠于摩西的律法。他们主要生活在叙利亚，讲阿拉米方言，反对三位一体的基督论，并将基督的神化视为异教徒的离经叛道。君特·吕林（Günter Lüling）认为，“古兰经文本本身的相当一部分是前伊斯兰基督教的赞美诗”，而穆罕默德的麦加对手，“mushrikun”（“结盟者”），不是像以前假设的那样是多神教异教徒，而是三位一体的基督徒。约翰·万斯伯勒（John Wansbrough）对早期伊斯兰手稿的研究，包括对《古兰经》中反复使用的犹太教-基督教一神论意象的分析，使他得出结论，伊斯兰教诞生于最初犹太教-基督教教派的突变，该教派传播到阿拉伯领土，但回望耶路撒冷。1977年，万斯伯勒的学生帕特里夏·克罗恩（Patricia Crone）与迈克尔·库克（Michael Cook）合著了一本名为《哈格主义：伊斯兰世界的形成》（Hagarism： The Making of the Islamic World）的书，该书追溯了伊斯兰教的起源，犹太流亡者试图收复他们在70年代被驱逐的耶路撒冷，并将上帝对亚伯拉罕的应许分配给以实玛利人。从这个角度来看，两集之间长达七个世纪的间隔是相当不平凡的。海因索恩缩短的年表恢复了连续性。据他说，被提多赶出耶路撒冷的弥赛亚犹太人没有在昏迷状态中等待 30 代，然后突然醒来，重新焕发热情并计划重新征服他们失去的城市。语言学和语言学是一致的。2000年，一位化名克里斯托夫·卢森伯格（Christoph Luxenberg）的叙利亚学者出版了《古兰经的叙罗-阿拉姆语解读》（The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran），表明《古兰经》出现在一个语言上是叙罗-阿拉姆语而不是阿拉伯语的地区。根据 Gerd-Rüdiger Puin 的说法，6000 节古兰经经文中约有 20% 最初是用阿拉姆语写成的，来自 1圣/2钕公元世纪。因此，一方面，最近的学术研究将《古兰经》的最终编辑推向了 9第世纪，而另一方面，《古兰经》被证明植根于叙利亚文学和 1 的礼仪圣和 2钕世纪。这个难题在 Heinsohn 的 SC 年表中找到了一个解决方案，它将 2 向前移动钕9世纪之前的标准年表第世纪。后来演变成伊斯兰教的新宗教似乎最初是一场夺回耶路撒冷的弥赛亚运动，不是在罗马人驱逐犹太人七个世纪后，而是在几十年后。丹·吉布森的地理修正主义如上所述，语言学上的考虑指向了《古兰经》的叙利亚语（阿拉姆语）而不是阿拉伯语。这本身就对伊斯兰教的传统地理环境提出了挑战。但是，还有其他原因可以质疑伊斯兰教在汉志的起源。根据《古兰经》的说法，“巴卡”是穆罕默德的古莱奇部落的故乡，与沙特阿拉伯的“麦加”遗址（这两个名字在阿拉伯语文字中非常接近）的认同并没有真正加起来。在《麦加贸易与伊斯兰教的兴起》（1987年）一书中，帕特里夏·克罗恩（Patricia Crone）指出，在穆罕默德时代，今天被称为麦加的地方既不是重要的贸易中心，也不是朝圣地，其贫瘠的状况与古兰经对巴卡的描述完全不符，巴卡是一个拥有田野、草地甚至花园的肥沃城市。此外，麦加从未有过城墙，而巴卡则被描述为一座坚固的城市。2011年，丹·吉布森（Dan Gibson）的一本名为《古兰经地理学》（Qur'ānic Geography）的书阐述了一个开创性的理论，即强大的纳巴泰首都佩特拉（Petra）符合古兰经对巴卡（Bakkah）的描述，以及早期伊斯兰历史上的许多故事，而麦加则不然。2017年，吉布森（Gibson）在他与早期伊斯兰朝拜（Early Islamic Qiblas）的争论中补充说，他表明倭马亚清真寺的朝拜（祈祷方向）是佩特拉，而不是麦加。在第二次伊斯兰内战期间，阿卜杜勒·阿拉·伊本·祖拜尔（Abd Allah Ibn al-Zubayr）改变了朝拜，他是持不同政见的哈里发国的领导人，于683年在麦加避难。祖拜尔将黑石从佩特拉移走，并在麦加为它建造了一座新的克尔白。在那之后的一个世纪里，伊斯兰教分裂为倭马亚王朝的传统主义者和阿拔斯王朝的改革者，前者继续建造面向佩特拉的清真寺，后者则建造面向麦加的清真寺。然而，在 713 年摧毁佩特拉供水系统的地震之后，佩特拉被遗弃并慢慢从记忆中消失。当阿拔斯王朝在750年取代东方的倭马亚王朝时，佩特拉和麦加在正统史学中合并，并为其他古兰经地点确定了阿拉伯地点，如叶斯里卜（麦地那）和海巴尔，穆罕默德在那里与犹太社区打交道。吉布森的论点在大卫·泰勒（David Taylor）执导的纪录片《圣城：发现伊斯兰教的真正发源地》（2016）中有所体现。吉布森的理论与伊斯兰研究修正主义学派所强调的伊斯兰教的犹太根源完全兼容，因为在佩特拉地区比在汉志更容易找到犹太人。纳巴泰人在与塞琉古君主的斗争中一直是马加比人的盟友。但是他们之间有内部分歧，就像犹太人之间一样。纳巴泰国王后来与哈斯蒙尼王朝的竞争成为促使庞培干预的混乱的一个因素。一支罗马军队围攻佩特拉，之后纳巴泰国王阿雷塔斯三世进贡，作为交换，得到了罗马共和国的正式承认。虽然佩特拉成为希腊化的罗马城市，但它肯定也窝藏着反罗马的阿拉伯人和充满弥赛亚期望的犹太社区。吉布森的地理修正主义也与海因索恩的按时间顺序修正主义相吻合，因为两者都确定了在8中接管耶路撒冷的阿拉伯人第-9第几个世纪以来，佩特拉和大马士革的统治者。根据海因索恩的说法，罗马在古代对耶路撒冷的征服和中世纪早期对耶路撒冷的犹太-阿拉伯征服属于同一个广泛时期。让我们仔细看看耶路撒冷的证据。耶路撒冷的考古学不管他们是否愿意承认，考古学家都对耶路撒冷感到困惑。他们最大的尴尬来源之一是在公元 70 年这座城市被提图斯摧毁后，他们无法找到容纳第十军团的罗马堡垒。在《Aelia Capitolina-Jerusalem in the Roman Period， in Light of Archaeological Research》（Brill，2020）一书中，Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah坚持这个问题：“令人惊讶的是，尽管耶路撒冷的军事存在时间很长......没有考古遗迹可以确定地归因于军营，其地点尚未确定。“人们不能低估由于缺乏罗马军营在耶路撒冷的无可辩驳的证据而造成的困难。在现阶段，'缺乏遗骸'的问题没有可接受的解决方案。另一方面，考古学家和全世界都知道提图斯的军队烧毁的希律神庙曾经在哪里矗立，因为“圣殿山”的城墙仍然屹立不倒。奇怪的是，这座俯瞰城市的“圣殿山”具有罗马堡垒的标准尺寸。解决方案是显而易见的：穆斯林称之为阿克萨大院的滨海大道最初是罗马堡垒，最初由希律王为纪念安东尼（安东尼堡）而建造，然后被第十军团使用。它被 11 年的第一批十字军武断地确定为圣殿的位置第世纪，这种错误的归因变得如此根深蒂固，以至于没有人敢质疑它。几十年前，当这个问题最终被提出时，它被以色列学术界压制了，如果不是欧内斯特·马丁（Ernest L. Martin）在与考古学家本杰明·马扎尔（Benjamin Mazar）合作了五年后，于1994年发表了他的非正统观点，他将仍然是一个保守的秘密。正如格雷戈里·韦斯利·布坎南（Gregory Wesley Buchanan）在2011年的《华盛顿中东事务报告》（Washington Report on Middle East Affairs）中所写的那样，“虽然它没有被广泛出版，但可以肯定的是，40多年来人们已经知道，这个被错误地称为'圣殿山'的45英亩，坚固的地方实际上是希律王建造的罗马堡垒——安东尼亚。鲍勃·科努克（Bob Cornuke）在这部30分钟的电影中令人信服地提出了基于文学资料和考古证据的论点。
欧内斯特·马丁（Ernest L. Martin）绘制的安东尼堡（Fort Antonia）和圣殿的可能地点
这场争论与海因索恩的理论没有直接关系，只是为了说明耶路撒冷考古学的混乱状态。然而，直接支持海因索恩理论的是公认的西墙年代，它由 45 条石砌路线组成，其中 28 条在地上，17 条在地下。前七个可见层，由非常大的石块组成，来自希律王朝时期。它们上方的四道中型石头是在倭马亚王朝时期添加的，而最上面的几道小石头则是较新的，尤其是奥斯曼帝国时期的。700 年真的将希律王课程与倭马亚课程分开吗？海因索恩质疑这一假设，考古建筑师莱恩·里特迈尔（Leen Ritmeyer）和其他人为这一假设辩护：“尽管里特迈尔知道倭马亚人直接在公元70年的耶路撒冷废墟上建造，但他认为他们已经等待了600多年。这就是为什么据说圣殿山一直空着（“被遗弃”）直到 7第世纪。
西墙并不是罗马-希律王朝建筑与耶路撒冷倭马亚王朝建筑之间直接连续性的唯一证据。考古学家奥里特·佩莱格-巴卡特（Orit Peleg-Barkat）指出，“倭马亚王朝的建造者使用希律王朝建筑装饰的碎片作为建筑材料。根据海因索恩的说法，“在耶路撒冷的任何地方都没有一系列的定居点层来证实帝国古代和倭马亚王朝中世纪早期之间的几个世纪。因此，从纯粹的地层学角度来看，至少从公元 70 年开始，倭马亚人就与所谓的古代帝国耶路撒冷并肩生活（1圣-3RDc. AD）。这就解释了为什么倭马亚人实际上称耶路撒冷为伊利亚，他们的硬币、印章和里程碑证明了这一点。这是哈德良在 130 年代给这座城市起的名字的阿拉伯语形式（Aelia Capitolina）。由于这个名字应该在两者之间被放弃，学者们想知道为什么倭马亚人“复兴”了它;实际上，古代帝国的罗马埃利亚和中世纪早期的穆斯林伊利亚是一回事.我们对这一时期事件的了解过于零碎，并且被宗教宣传扭曲，无法精确地重建它们。然而，似乎可以肯定的是，耶路撒冷和叙利亚其他地区一样，主要由阿拉伯人居住。据说，60 年代为罗马而战的罗马军团在该地区定居，但根据弗拉维乌斯·约瑟夫斯 （Flavius Josephus） 的说法，这些士兵主要是在叙利亚招募的，“来自那个街区的国王”（犹太战争，第三卷，第 1 章）。因此，海因索恩写道，“阿拉伯纳巴泰士兵，而不是来自意大利的人，在公元 70 年为提图斯征服了耶路撒冷。130 年代哈德良新城 Aelia Capitolina 的建造也是阿拉伯人的作品，他们是建筑大师（与大马士革的阿波罗多罗斯等著名建筑师合作）。这是否意味着罗马在60年代后期用阿拉伯雇佣军征服耶路撒冷与700年后穆斯林征服耶路撒冷是一样的？不。为罗马对抗民族主义犹太人而战，然后为纪念哈德良而建造 Aelia Capitolina 的阿拉伯雇佣军，不能与在耶尔穆克战役（636 年）击败拜占庭罗马人后挪用犹太弥赛亚运动并为自己征服黎凡特的阿拉伯人相同。相反，正如修正主义学者所认为的那样，阿拉伯人的征服是对罗马人的征服的反应——尽管无法解释600年的延迟。然而，重要的是要记住，阿拉伯人在伊斯兰教的旗帜下统治耶路撒冷之前就住在耶路撒冷。没有理由认为阿拉伯联盟是统一和稳定的。根据情况，他们可以为罗马人而战，也可以与罗马人作战，也可以与犹太人作战。此外，在伊斯兰教之前，犹太人和他们的阿拉伯邻居之间没有明确的界限。正如史蒂夫·梅森（Steve Mason）提醒我们的那样，“直到古代晚期，Ioudaioi人才被理解为与其他种族群体相媲美的族群，具有独特的法律，传统，习俗和神。他们确实是犹太人。圣经坚持认为他们与阿拉伯部落和国家有血缘关系，例如摩押人、以东人、米甸人、亚玛力人和以实玛利人——他们都是亚伯拉罕的后裔。根据大卫·塞缪尔·马戈利乌斯（David Samuel Margoliouth）的说法，古希伯来语是一种阿拉伯语方言，甚至耶和华的名字也是阿拉伯语（伊斯兰教兴起之前阿拉伯人和以色列人之间的关系，1921年）。此外，出埃及记 2-3 章使希伯来人征服迦南地起源于米甸地，这大致相当于纳巴泰人的故乡。摩西是米甸祭司（kohen）的女婿，在米甸遇见了耶和华。当然，摩西传统上比穆罕默德早两千年。但是，正如我们所知道的那样，出埃及记的故事实际上可能可以追溯到哈斯蒙尼时期，正如一些“极简主义”圣经学者现在倾向于假设的那样。伊斯兰的征服似乎真的像是同一地区的马赛克征服的翻版，两者可能只相隔几个世纪;它总是关于阿拉伯游牧民族觊觎新月沃地。无论如何，在伊斯兰教的形成时期，阿拉伯人和犹太人在种族上是同质的。只有在主张其自治权时，伊斯兰教才自觉地扩大了犹太人和阿拉伯人之间的鸿沟：从穆罕默德和拉希敦哈里发时期的耶路撒冷，到倭马亚王朝统治下的佩特拉，再到阿拔斯王朝统治下的麦加，祈祷方向的转变就说明了这一点。伊斯兰教和基督教如果我们从海因索尼的观点来看中东的历史视野，我们看到伊斯兰教的诞生与基督教的诞生大致同时，而不是相隔六七个世纪。有明确的证据表明，伊斯兰教是在围绕基督和三位一体的本质的早期教义争论的背景下产生的。将第一个千年压缩到大约300年，不仅符合宗教历史的基本事实，而且更有意义。海因索恩将加萨尼德王朝的一元论与倭马亚王朝的早期伊斯兰教相提并论。伊斯兰教也被基督教异端学家与阿里乌教联系在一起。大马士革的约翰（约675-749）认为穆罕默德“在与阿里安僧侣交谈后”设计了“以实玛利人的异端”。在 12第世纪，克吕尼彼得的住持在研究了他委托的古兰经拉丁语翻译后也这么认为。
利比亚牧师阿里乌斯的肖像（拜占庭圣像的细节）
奇怪的是，阿里乌教几乎没有留下任何已知的物质痕迹，即使在西班牙，它被认为是统治西哥特人的宗教三个世纪。对于拉尔夫·博克曼（Ralf Bockmann，2014年）或亚历山德拉·查瓦里亚·阿尔诺（Alexandra Chavarria Arnau，2017年）等学者来说，这是一个很大的困惑。另一方面，没有关于伊斯兰征服西班牙的当代书面记录，导致一些西班牙作家声称它从未发生过——作为军事行动。阿里乌主义是抵抗耶稣完全神化的总称。将基督视为神圣实体的相反潮流属于诺斯替主义的广义教派。在这里，再次观察到奇怪的事情。伊娃·韦林-费尔德图森（Ewa Weiling-Feldthusen）指出，在诺斯替主义的悠久历史中，存在着一个“缺失的环节”，导致“学者之间关于”如何填补摩尼教（约三至六世纪）和保利教（约九世纪）在拜占庭欧洲部分出现的时间空白“的无休止的讨论和争论。在公元前三个世纪，诺斯替主义是天主教最严重的竞争对手，但尽管天主教会在公元四世纪变得无所不能，但诺斯替主义又存活了七个世纪。诺斯替运动，从马西翁第一次编纂保罗的书信，到法国南部的博戈米尔家族继承人被镇压，按标准年表跨越了一千年——似乎是同一运动的不同浪潮。海因索恩指出，保罗人最初的据点靠近大数，他们的精神领袖是一个自称西尔瓦努斯的人，这个名字也是保罗的旅伴所生的。在诺斯替主义的东方表现形式中，“萨比人”值得特别关注，因为他们在古兰经中被提及为“书中的民族”之一，与犹太人和拿撒勒人并驾齐驱。他们的阿拉伯名字“Subbas”，意思是“沐浴者”或“浸信会”。他们可能隶属于 Elschasaits，这是 Mani 长大的异端犹太基督教运动（在伊斯兰教的前四个世纪，摩尼教在巴格达仍然非常有影响力）。Sabeans人也被普遍认为与Mandaeans（来自manda，相当于希腊语gnosis的阿拉姆语）相同，直到2003年，Mandaeans被限制在伊拉克南部一个一万三千人的社区。他们的圣书是用阿拉姆语方言写成的，与巴勒斯坦曾经使用的阿拉姆语非常相似，他们的文字接近纳巴泰语。虽然他们住在伊拉克，并在幼发拉底河受洗，但他们的经文提到了耶路撒冷和约旦河，证明他们来自那里，也许是在犹太-罗马战争期间。因为他们称自己为纳佐拉亚并尊敬施洗约翰，所以 1652 年第一次见到他们的旅行传教士称他们为“圣约翰的基督徒”。但是，正如B.R.S.米德在她的权威研究中解释的那样，他们的圣经显示约翰诅咒耶稣，称他为魔鬼般的假先知。现在假设曼达人是施洗约翰的门徒的后裔，福音书将他们描绘成耶稣门徒的竞争对手。施洗约翰教派存活了这么多世纪是宗教史上最有趣的谜题之一，在海因索恩的简短年表框架内更有意义。异端犹太教不同分支的历史仍然充满谜团，可以说其中一些可以在海因索恩范式中找到解决方案，这使得古代帝国基督教的诞生、古代晚期的摩尼教和中世纪早期的伊斯兰教的诞生大致是当代的。订阅新列
但是，正如我所说，仍有数百个问题等待一个合理的答案，在全球年表的范式转变开始动摇根深蒂固的学术机构之前，还需要更多的研究。笔记 巴里·霍伯曼（Barry Hoberman），“加桑国王”，1983 年，http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/198302/the.king.of.ghassan.htm 引自海因索恩，“查士丁尼在一千年年表中的正确日期”（2019 年）。 尼古拉斯·斯坦达特（Nicolas Standaert），“耶稣会士对中国历史和年表的叙述及其中国资料”，《东亚科学、技术与医学》，第35期，2012年，第11-87页，www.jstor.org 根据 Paola Supino Martini 的说法，“Caroline minuscule”是“古代 minuscule 模型的复兴”，用于豪华手稿的雄伟的“uncial”也是如此（Paola Supino Martini，“Société et culture écrite”，in André Vauchez ed.， Rome au Moyen Âge， Éditions du Cerf， 2021， pp. 351-384）。 海因索恩，“公元第一个千年的创造”，2013 年。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的耶路撒冷：地层学与纪元多米尼年表的学术信仰”（2021 年），第 91 页。 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，“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，“公元第一个千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 84 页。 JM Wallace-Hadrill， 野蛮人西部 400-1000，布莱克威尔 （1967），2004 年，第 47 页。 我们在尤西比乌斯的《君士坦丁生平》的序言中读到，该书由阿维里尔·卡梅伦和斯图尔特·霍尔（Stuart G. Hall）翻译，并附有介绍和评论，克拉伦登，1999年，第1页：“君士坦丁的生平（Vita Constantini，以下简称VC）不仅是君士坦丁大帝（公元306±37年在位，324±37年唯一皇帝）宗教政策的主要来源，而且是关于他的许多其他方面的主要来源。事实证明，它极具争议也就不足为奇了。一些学者倾向于接受其表面价值的证据，而另一些学者则一直并且高度怀疑。事实上，尤西比乌斯作为作家的完整性经常受到攻击，他的 VC 作者身份被急于诋毁其提供的证据价值的学者否认，讨论特别集中在作品中逐字引用的大量帝国文件上。相比之下，T.D.巴恩斯（T. D. Barnes）关于君士坦丁的主要著作大量使用了VC，而这部作品仍然是君士坦丁最重要的来源。 沃尔特·鲍尔（Walter Bauer），《基督教的正统与死亡》（1934年），Cerf，2009年，第74-88页。罗伯特·摩尔（Robert I. Moore），《迫害社会的形成：西欧的权威与偏差950-1250》（1987年），Wiley-Blackwell，2007年。 理查德·克劳特海默， 罗马：城市概况，321-1308，普林斯顿大学，1980 年，第 70-71 页。J.M. Wallace-Hadrill nottes in The Barbarian West 400-1000， Blackwell （1967）， 2004， p. 30 “最早的教皇文件（可追溯到四世纪后期）来自一个明确无误地以罗马帝国大法官为蓝本的大法官。 约瑟夫·阿特威尔，《凯撒的弥赛亚：罗马人发明耶稣的阴谋》（弗拉维安签名版），CreateSpace，2011年。 弗朗切斯科·卡洛塔（Francesco Carotta），《耶稣是凯撒：论基督教的朱利安起源》，调查报告，Aspekt，2005年。这本书，以及此后所做的其他研究，使我放弃了我早期的工作假设，即凯撒大帝是一个虚构的人物。 罗伯特·摩尔（Robert I. Moore），《第一次欧洲革命》，约970-1215年，巴西尔·布莱克威尔（Basil Blackwell），2000年。 Hélène Toubert，“Le renouveau paléochrétien à Rome au début du XIIesiècle“，载于 Cahiers Archéologiques，第 29 期，1970 年，第 99-154 页。 主要来源：维基百科。 海因索恩，“阿拉伯铸币中断”（2021 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），第 8 页。 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，“阿拉伯铸币中断”（2021 年）。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 51-54 页。 海因索恩，“维京人 700 年没有帆、港口和城镇？一篇文章“2014年，引用 http://otraarquitecturaesposible.blogspot.com.tr/2011/03/typologies-in-islamic-architecture-iv.html 海因索恩，“公元第一个千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 56 页。 海因索恩，“查士丁尼在一千年年表中的正确日期”（2019 年），第 41 页。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 82 页。 大卫收藏：伊斯兰艺术/玻璃，2014 年，第 www.davidmus.dk/en/collections/islamic/materials/glass 页），引自 Heinsohn，“公元第一个千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 56 页。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 50 页。 海因索恩，“公元第一个千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 98 页。 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 700 年了吗？ （2013 年）。 阿米拉姆·巴尔卡，“大人物来了”，《国土报》，2003 年 8 月 8 日，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). Heinsohn，“公元一千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 59-60 页，参考 M.D. Bukharin，“Towards the Early History of Kinda”，《阿拉伯考古学和金石学》，第 20 卷，第 1 期，2009 年，第 64-80 页，第 67 页。 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 700 年吗？ （2013 年）。 阿尔弗雷德·路易·德·普雷马尔（Alfred-Louis de Prémare），伊斯兰基金会，Seuil，2002年，第41-56页;大卫·塞缪尔·马戈利乌斯，《穆罕默德与伊斯兰教的兴起》，《普特南之子》，1905年，第35-39页。 戈登·达内尔·纽比（Gordon Darnell Newby），《阿拉伯犹太人的历史，从古代到伊斯兰教下的教会》，南卡罗来纳大学出版社，1988年，第17、47、105页。 君特·吕林（Günther Lüling），《对伊斯兰教改革的挑战》（1993年），Motilal Banarsidass Publishers，2003年（关于 books.google.fr），第xii-xv页。 帕特里夏·克罗恩（Patricia Crone）和迈克尔·库克（Michael Cook）， Hagarism：伊斯兰世界的形成，剑桥大学，1977年（archive.org），第6-30页。1998年，罗伯特·霍伊兰德（Robert Hoyland）在《以他人眼中的伊斯兰》（Seeing Islam as Others Saw It）一书中提供了其他来源，完善了克罗恩和库克的论点。对基督教、犹太教和琐罗亚斯德教关于早期伊斯兰教的著作的调查和评估（在线在这里）。 Gerd-Rüdiger Puin，“对 Ṣanʿāʾ 早期古兰经手稿的观察”，载于 Stefan Wild 编辑的《古兰经作为文本》，Brill，1996 年，第 107 页及以下，引自 Heinsohn，“耶路撒冷的哈德良倭马亚人。为犹太人和阿拉伯历史伸张正义“（2020 年）。 在“圣城：发现伊斯兰教的真正发源地”中，第51：22页。 Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah， Aelia Capitolina – 罗马时期的耶路撒冷：根据考古研究，Brill，2020 年，第 21-22、42-43 页。 格雷戈里·韦斯利·布坎南，“对耶路撒冷圣殿山的误解”，《华盛顿中东事务报告》，2011 年 8 月。作为补充，电影《即将到来的圣殿》很有趣，尽管它带有宗教色彩。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 106 页。 Orit Peleg-Barkat，“1968-1978 年耶路撒冷的圣殿山发掘，由本杰明·马扎尔 （Benjamin Mazar） 指导，最终报告第五卷希律王的建筑装饰和希律王的皇家门廊”，在 Qedem 57,2017 年，第 29 页以下，引自 Heinsohn，“公元第一个千年的耶路撒冷：地层学与纪元多米尼年表的学术信仰”（2021 年），第 61-63 页。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 19 页。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 69 页。Heinsohn 引用了 I.M. Baidoun 2015/16，“直到早期'阿拔斯王朝'之前，钱币和历史资料中耶路撒冷的阿拉伯名称”，Israel Numismatic Journal（《以色列钱币杂志》），第 19 期，第 142-150 页，（145-46）。 海因索恩，“公元一千年的耶路撒冷”（2021 年），第 108、61-63 页。订阅新列
史蒂夫·梅森，“犹太人、犹太教徒、犹太化、犹太教：古代历史中的分类问题”，《犹太教研究杂志》，2007 年 1 月 1 日。 摩押是亚伯拉罕的侄子（创世记19：31-38），以东或以扫是亚伯拉罕的孙子（25：25），亚玛力是以扫的孙子（36：12），米甸人是亚伯拉罕第二任妻子基土拉的后裔（25：2-4），而以实玛利人是亚伯拉罕的仆人亚甲的后裔。 大卫·塞缪尔·马戈利乌斯（David Samuel Margoliouth），《伊斯兰教兴起之前阿拉伯人和以色列人之间的关系：1921年施韦奇讲座》，牛津大学，1924年。 米甸假说最初由弗里德里希·吉拉尼（Friedrich Ghillany，1863 年，化名理查德·冯·德·阿尔姆）和卡尔·布德（Karl Budde，1899 年）提出，现在已经获得了托马斯·罗默 （Thomas Römer） 等顶级藏书学者的支持（上帝的发明，哈佛大学，2016 年）。 菲利普·戴维斯（Philip Davies），《寻找“古代以色列”：圣经起源研究》，《旧约研究杂志》，1992年。 海因索恩，“查士丁尼在一千年年表中的正确日期”（2019 年）。 仍然在 14 岁出头第世纪，但丁·阿利吉耶里（Dante Alighieri）将阿里乌斯（Arius）和穆罕默德（Muhammad）与地狱的第八个圈子联系起来：玛丽亚·埃斯波西托·弗兰克（Maria Esposito Frank），“但丁的穆罕默德：伊斯兰教与阿里乌主义之间的相似之处”，载于但丁与伊斯兰教，Jan M. Ziolkowski编辑，福特汉姆大学，2014年。 拉尔夫·博克曼（Ralf Bockmann），“阿里乌斯主义的非考古学——迦太基、海德拉和拉文纳的比较案例可以告诉我们关于'阿里安'教会的信息”，载于《阿里乌主义：罗马异端和野蛮信条》，古多·伯恩特（Gudo M. Berndt）和罗兰·斯坦纳赫（Roland Steinacher）编辑，阿什盖特，2014年;亚历山德拉·查瓦里亚·阿尔瑙（Alexandra Chavarria Arnau），“寻找看不见的阿里安人：关于教堂，洗礼和宗教竞争的考古学视角 6第世纪西班牙“，2017年，也可在互联网上找到。 伊格纳西奥·奥拉圭（Ignacio Olagüe），《阿拉伯人》（Les Arabes n'ont jamais envahi l'Espagne），弗拉马里昂（Flammarion），1969年。该论文得到了西班牙阿拉伯学家冈萨雷斯·费林的支持。 Ewa Weiling-Feldthusen，“寻找缺失的环节：Bogomils 和琐罗亚斯德教”，2006 年。 海因索恩，“圣保罗：他活过一次、三次，还是根本没有？ （2020 年）。 盖伊·蒙诺（Guy Monnot），《伊斯兰教与宗教》，Maisonneuve和Larose，1986年。 B. R. S. Mead， The Gnostic John the Baptizer： Selections from the Mandean John-Book Together with Studies on John and Christian Origins， John M. Watkins， 1924.
“Despite the best efforts of generations of distinguished Arabists, the history of the Arabs before Islam remains exasperatingly obscure,” wrote Harvard scholar Barry Hoberman, managing editor of Biblical Archeology. The early history of Islam is in an even worst condition: a “revisionist school of Islamic Studies” is now shattering the canonical chronology, while other maverick scholars call Islamic geography an Abbasid “cover-up”. Yet new difficulties are being raised in the process. The main purpose of this article is to introduce Gunnar Heinsohn’s perspective into the debate, with my own personal input.The Heinsohnian hypothesisI have presented Heinsohn’s “stratigraphically corrected” (SC) chronology of the first millennium in a previous Unz Review article titled “How Long Was the First Millennium?” Here is a brief summary. According to Heinsohn, the standard view of the first millennium C.E. is an arbitrary construct that doesn’t stand up to modern scientific archeological evidence. It is too long by some 700 phantom years. In reality, the period from the first Roman Emperor Augustus to the traditional Anno Domini 1000 lasted only about 300 years. The Crisis of the Third Century, beginning at the end of the Severan Dynasty in the 230s, coincides with the Tenth-Century Collapse starting in the 930s.The distortion resulted from an accumulation of errors and forgeries from the post-collapse centuries, when the reckoning in Anno Domini became commonly used in manuscripts. It was normalized in the 16th and 17th centuries by scholars such as Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) or Denys Pétau (1583-1652), and then internationalized by Jesuits missionaries, starting with their takeover of Chinese scholarship.As a result of stretching 230 years into 930 years, simultaneous events happening in different parts of the world were artificially sequenced, leading ultimately to the modern division of the first millennium in three major time-blocks that need to be resynchronized: Imperial Antiquity (c. 1-230s), Late Antiquity (c. 300-640) and Early Middle Ages (c. 700-930). This explains why textbook history is distributed unevenly, most of the known events attributed to each time-block being localized in one of three geographical zones: for Imperial Antiquity, we know a lot about the Roman South-West, but little about the rest of Europe; for Late Antiquity, we know a lot about the Byzantine South-East, but little about Rome and Western Europe; and for the Early Middle Ages, we know a lot about the Germanic-Slavic North, but little about Rome or Constantinople.Because they are captive to an erroneous chronology, archeologists digging for first-millennium artifacts date their finds differently depending on the locations, even when these finds are at the same stratigraphic depth and exhibit the same technological advancement. To explain the resemblances of excavated materials supposedly separated by 300 or 700 years, they resort to theories of “revival”, “imitation”, spolia (recycled material), or—in utter desperation—“art collections”. Typically, for example, Charlemagne is said to have built in 2nd-century Roman style with materials recycled from the 2nd century. He is also supposed to have revived the classical Latin of Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century), down to calligraphic style.The contemporaneity of Imperial Antiquity and Late Antiquity means that the start of Imperial Rome and the foundation of Constantinople are roughly contemporary; “a geographical sequence from west to east was turned into a chronological sequence from earlier to later.” However, Byzantine Late Antiquity cannot be simply superimposed on Roman Imperial Antiquity, because it is itself 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 overlaps with the period of Anastasius (491-518). “We know that stratigraphies dated to Late Antiquity (Dyrrachium, Alexandria etc.) lack about 120 years of archaeological substance. Thus, the conventional Late Antiquity period from the 290s to 640s AD has not 350, but only some 230 years with residential strata.”The contemporaneity of Imperial Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages means that the peoples living North of the Danube and East of the Rhine did not suddenly emerge from their forest-dwelling primitivism 700 years after the expansion of the Roman Empire. The Saxons, for example, competed with the Romans for the conquest of Great Britain from the early Imperial era. Thus the semi-legendary Arthur of Camelot, first mentioned as dux bellorum in the Historia Brittonum (dated 829) can be reunited with his alter-ego, Aththe of Camulodunum, the Celtic military leader in the period of Augustus. However, here again, the correspondence is not a straight one, because the Carolingian Empire, traditionally placed in 800-841, must be shifted to the 890s-930s (corresponding to the 190s-230s in Imperial Antiquity). “Charlemagne and Louis do not belong to the 8th/9th century, but to the 9th/10th century.” This is consistent with the appearance of Charlemagne in the Chansons de Geste in the late 11th century. One source of confusion is the multiplication of one Charles into many: Carolus Magnus is in fact identical to Carolus Simplex (898-929) and with other Charles in between. “Stratigraphically . . . these Frankish rulers belonged to the 890s to 930s CE. Their phase of the Early Middle Ages ran parallel with the Severan period (190s-230s) of Imperial Antiquity as well as with the decades of the Justinian Dynasty in Late Antiquity.”
Heinsohn’s theory, elaborated in dozens of long web-articles, is a work in progress that still leaves many unanswered questions, but it solves a few crucial problems. I have introduced some of these problems in two articles prior to “How Long Was the First Millennium?” In “How Fake is Roman Antiquity?” I started from Polydor Hochart’s critic of the common idea that Christian monks piously copied, throughout the Middle Ages, the Pagan literature of Roman Antiquity that Florentine humanists later discovered in the attics of European monasteries. From the incongruity of such a notion, Hochart concluded that most of this Roman literature was late medieval or Renaissance forgeries. But Heinsohn’s shortened chronology provides us with a better solution: the 11th century, when most of these texts were last copied, followed closely Imperial Antiquity (=Early Middle Ages), when they were first composed. The seven centuries that our Benedictine monks are supposed to have spent copying them again and again, in defiance to their sacred duty to burn them or scratch them clean, never existed.In my second article, “How fake is Church history?”, I argued that the standard history of the Roman Catholic Church amounts to a totally counterfeit autobiography, partly motivated by Rome’s rivalry with Constantinople. It is impossible to reconstruct the real history of the Church before the 11th century from the literary sources that were fabricated or adulterated in ecclesiastical scriptoriums. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill wrote about St Benedict’s life: “with no supporting evidence, narrative of this kind could contain almost no historical truth. We can take it on trust or not, as we feel inclined. Scholars have been generally disposed to accept it.” The same can be said of more central figures like Constantine the Great, whose life and religious policies are known almost exclusively from Eusebius, whose authorship is extremely controversial. The reason why scholars tend to take Eusebius’s account at face value is that, without it, they simply could not write anything about Constantine.Arguably Church history is biased to the point of inversion. For instance, a strong argument was made a long time ago by Walter Bauer that, contrary to the story propagated by the victorious Church, orthodoxy was preceded, not followed, by the great heresies. As a result of the Catholic Church’s falsification of its own history, its emergence as the ghost of the Roman Empire, with the pope taking over most of the prerogatives of the emperor—not just the title of pontifex maximus, but also imperial properties, public treasury, and even military affairs—remains largely obscure to historians. Interesting insights are provided by nonconformist scholars such as Joseph Atwill or Francesco Carotta, the latter theorizing a probable diversion of the cult of Caesar.In Heinsohn’s stratigraphically corrected (SC) chronology, the transition happened in the 11th century, during the Gregorian Reform, the “First European Revolution” as Robert I. Moore calls it. This is only one century, not eight centuries, after the end of the Severan dynasty. This explains many strange anachronisms in ecclesiastical history, such as the formal adoption of the Nicene Creed in 1014, seven centuries after the Council that produced it (325), or the standardization in the 13th century of the Latin versio vulgate of the Bible commissioned to saint Jerome by Pope Damasus I (366-384). This also explains why Christian architecture and decorative styles of the 11th and 12th century are hard to distinguish from those of the 4th century, prompting scholars to speak of “a Paleo-Christian revival in Rome at the beginning of the 12th century.”To understand the conversion of Rome to the cult of a Galilean Messiah, the background of the Severan emperors is an important clue. The founder of the dynasty, Septimius Severus, had married in Syria the daughter of a priest of the god Elagabal worshipped in Emesa (today’s Homs in Syria). His wife Julia Domna played an active role in the empire, especially when their son, Caracalla, became emperor in 211 at 13 years of age. After her death, her younger sister Julia Maesa was sent back to Phoenicia, from where she plotted to place upon the throne her grandson Elagabalus, who had served since his early youth as head priest of Elagabal. The Syrian domination was continued by the thirteen-year reign of Alexander Severus, with whom the dynasty came to an end in 235. This period is covered by the historian Herodian of Syria, probably a member of Julia Domna’s Eastern-oriented literary coterie—like Philostratus who wrote for her the Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Herodian’s information on the god Elagabal (Latinization of the Arabic Ilah Al-Gabal, “God of the Mountain”) is quite interesting:A huge temple was erected to this god, lavishly decorated with gold, silver, and costly gems. Not only is this god worshipped by the natives, but all the neighboring rulers and kings send generous and expensive gifts to him each year. No statue made by man in the likeness of the god stands in this temple, as in Greek and Roman temples. The temple does, however, contain a huge black stone with a pointed end and round base in the shape of a cone. The Phoenicians solemnly maintain that this stone came down from Zeus. (Book 5, chapter 3)A black stone worshipped in Syria in the 3rd century provides an appropriate transition for the main subject of this article: Gunnar Heinsohn’s solution to the problems facing historians of Arabia and Islam.
Muhammad and Meccan clan elders lifting the Black Stone into place (13th century)
Heinsohn on Arabia and IslamIn Heinsohn’s SC chronology, the rise of Christianity in the first three centuries AD and the rise of Islam from the 7th to the 10th century are roughly contemporary. Their six-century chasm is a fiction resulting from the fact that the rise of Christianity is dated in Imperial Antiquity while the rise of Islam is dated in the Early Middle Ages, two time-blocks that are in reality contemporary. The resynchronizing of Imperial Antiquity and Early Middle Ages provides a solution to some troublesome archeological anomalies. One of them concerns the Nabataeans.During Imperial Antiquity, the Nabataean Arabs dominated long distance trade. Their city of Petra was a major center of trade for silk, spice and other goods on the caravan routes that linked China, India and southern Arabia with Egypt, Syria, Greece and Rome . In 106 AD, the Nabataean Kingdom was officially annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan (whose father had been governor of Syria) and became the province of Arabia Petraea. Hadrian visited Petra around 130 AD and gave it the name of Hadriane Petra Metropolis, imprinted on his coins. Petra reached its urban flowering in the Severan period (190s-230s AD).And yet, incredibly, these Arab long-distance merchants “are supposed to have forgotten the issuing of coins and the art of writing (Aramaic) after the 1st century AD and only learned it again in the 7th/8th century AD (Umayyad Muslims).” It is assumed that Arabs fell out of civilization after Hadrian, and only emerged back into it under Islam, with an incomprehensible scientific advancement. The extreme primitivism in which pre-Islamic Arabs are supposed to have wallowed, with no writing and no money of they own, “stands in stark contrast to the Islamic Arabs who thrive from the 8th century, 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.” Moreover, Arab coins dated to the 8th and 9th centuries are found in the same layers as imperial Roman coins. “The coin finds of Raqqa, for example, which stratigraphically belong 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).” “Thus, we have an impressive trove of post-7th c. Arab coins lumped together with pre-7th c. Roman coins of pre-7th c. Roman times. But we have no pre-7th c. Arab coins from the centuries of their close alliance with Rome in the pre-7th c. periods.”The first Islamic Umayyad coins, issued in Jerusalem, “continue supposedly 700 years earlier Nabataean coins.” Often displaying Jewish menorahs with Arabic lettering, they differ very little from Jewish coins dated seven centuries earlier; we are dealing here with an evolution “requiring only years or decades, but not seven centuries.”
Architecture raises similar problems. Archeologists have no way of distinguishing Roman and Byzantium buildings from Umayyad buildings, because “8th-10th Cent. Umayyads built in 2nd Cent. technology” and followed Roman models. “How could the Umayyads in the 8th c. AD perfectly imitate late Hellenistic styles,” Heinsohn asks, “when there were no specialists left to teach them such sophisticated skills?”Moreover, “Umayyad structures were built right on top of Late-Hellenistic structures of the 1st c. BCE/CE.” One example is “the second most famous Umayyad building, their mosque in Damascus. The octagonal structure of the so-called Dome of the Treasury stands on perfect Roman columns of the 1st/2nd century. They are supposed to be spolia, but . . . there are no known razed buildings from which they could have been taken. Even more puzzling are the enormous monolithic columns inside the building from the 8th/9th c. AD, which also belong to the 1st/2nd century. No one knows the massive structure that would have had to be demolished to obtain them.”Far from rejecting the Umayyads’ servile “imitation” of Roman Antiquity, their Abbasid enemies resumed it: “8th-10th c. Abbasids bewilder historians for copying, right down to the chemical fingerprint, Roman glass.” Heinsohn quotes from The David Collection: Islamic Art / Glass, 2014:The millefiori technique, which takes its name from the Italian word meaning “thousand flowers”, reached a culmination in the Roman period. . . . The technique seems to have been rediscovered by Islamic glassmakers in the 9th century, since examples of millefiori glass, including tiles, have been excavated in the Abbasid capital of Samarra.I included in “How Long Was the First Millennium?” one of Heinsohn’s illustrations of identical millefiori glass bowls ascribed respectively to the 1st-2nd century Romans and to the 8th-9th century Abbasids. Here is another puzzling comparison:
Heinsohn concludes that, “the culture of the Umayyads is as Roman as the culture of early medieval Franks. Their 9th/10th century architecture is a direct continuation of the 2nd c. AD. The 700 years in between do not exist in reality.” “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. . . . the caliphs now dated from the 690s to the 930s are actually the caliphs of the period from Augustus to the 230s.”This explains why archeologists often find themselves puzzled by the stratigraphy. For example, Haaretz reported that during a dig in Tiberias, archaeologist Moshe 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 B.C.E.-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.’”Heinsohn argues that the Umayyads of the Early Middle Ages are not only identical with the Nabataeans of Imperial Antiquity, but are also documented in the intermediate time-block of Late Antiquity under the name of the Ghassanids. “Nabataeans and Umayyads not only shared the same art, the same metropolis Damascus, and the same stratigraphy, but also a common territory that was home to yet another famous Arab ethnicity that also held Damascus: the Ghassanids. They served as Christian allies of the Byzantines during Late Antiquity (3rd/4th to 6th c. AD). Yet, they were already active during Imperial Antiquity (1st to 3rd c. AD). Diodorus Siculus (90-30 BC) knew them as Gasandoi, Pliny the Elder (23-79 AD) as Casani, and Claudius Ptolemy (100-170 AD) as Kassanitai.” In the Byzantine period, the Ghassanid caliphs had “the same reputation for anti-trinitarian monotheism as the Abbasid Caliphs now dated to 8th /9th centuries.” They also, like the Islamic Arabs, preserved some Bedouin customs such as polygamy.
The Revisionist School in Islamic StudiesIt is today admitted by many Western scholars that Islamic scriptures, including the Quran, are of a later date than claimed by the canonical account. It was under the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258) that practically all traditional texts about Islam’s beginnings were written, mostly after the 9th century and mostly outside Arabia, notably in Iraq. As the victorious party in the conflict with the Umayyads, the Abbasids had great interest in legitimizing their rule, and took sweeping measures to destroy sources that contradicted their narrative. It was under the Abbasids that the Quran reached its final stage, and that copies reflecting earlier stages were forever lost.Another well-known aspect of early Islam is its Jewish background, best illustrated by the 135 mentions of Abraham (Ibrahim) in the Quran, just before Joseph, David, Jonah and Solomon. Entire surahs (Quranic chapters) are devoted to biblical legends. “Islam developed against the background of an Arabia strongly under the influence of Judaism,” states Gordon Newby in his respected History of the Jews of Arabia (1988).Christian influence on the formation of Islam is also self-evident. Besides the many Quranic references to Jesus, Muhammad’s canonical biography mentions Jewish Christians known as “Nazarenes” or “Nazoreans”, believers in Christ who remained faithful to Moses’ Torah. Living mainly in Syria and speaking Aramean dialects, they were opposed to Trinitarian Christology and regarded the deification of Christ as a pagan deviance. Günter Lüling has argued that “considerable parts of the Koran text itself were pre-Islamic Christian strophic hymns,” and that the Meccan adversaries of Muhammad, the “mushrikun” (“associators”), were not polytheist pagans, as previously assumed, but Trinitarian Christians.John Wansbrough’s research into the early Islamic manuscripts, including analysis of the repeated use of Judeo-Christian monotheistic imagery in the Quran, led him to the conclusion that Islam was born out of a mutation in what was originally a Judeo-Christian sect that spread to Arab territories but looked back toward Jerusalem. In 1977, Wansbrough’s student Patricia Crone wrote with Michael Cook a book titled Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, which traces the origin of Islam in an attempt by Jewish exiles to recover Jerusalem from which they had been expelled in the 70s, and assigning to the Ishmaelites a share in God’s promise to Abraham.From this perspective, the seven-century hiatus between the two episodes is quite extraordinary. Heinsohn’s shortened chronology restores the continuity. According to him, messianic Jews who were ousted by Titus from Jerusalem did not wait for 30 generations in a state of coma, before suddenly waking up with renewed fervor and plans for the reconquest of their lost city.Linguistic and philology concur. In 2000, a Syriac scholar using the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg published The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran, showing that the Quran emerged in a region linguistically Syro-Aramaic rather than Arabic. And according to Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, about twenty percent of the 6000 Quranic verses are originally written in Aramaic from the 1st/2nd century AD. So on the one hand, recent scholarship has pushed the final redaction of the Quran forward into the 9th century, while on the other hand, the Quran is shown to be rooted in Syriac literature and liturgy of the 1st and 2nd century. That conundrum finds a solution in Heinsohn’s SC chronology, which shifts forward the 2nd century of standard chronology immediately before the 9th century. What later turned into the new religion of Islam appears to have been originally a messianic movement to reclaim Jerusalem, not seven centuries after the expulsion of the Jews by the Romans, but merely decades later.Dan Gibson’s geographical revisionismAs mentioned above, linguistic considerations points to a Syriac (Aramaic) rather than Arabic origin of the Quran. This in itself poses a challenge to the traditional geography of Islam. But there are other reasons for questioning the origin of Islam in the Hejaz. The identification of “Bakkah”, the home of Muhammad’s Quraych tribe according to the Quran, with the site of “Mecca” in Saudi Arabia (the two names are extremely close in Arabic writing) doesn’t really add up. In Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987), Patricia Crone showed that what is known today as Mecca was neither an important trading center nor a pilgrimage destination at the time of Muhammad, and that its barren condition does not match at all the Quranic description of Bakkah as a fertile city with fields, grass and even gardens. Moreover, Mecca never had city walls, while Bakkah is described as a fortified city.In 2011, a book by Dan Gibson titled Qur’ānic Geography expounded the groundbreaking theory that the powerful Nabataean capital of Petra fits the Quranic description of Bakkah, as well as many stories in early Islamic history, while Mecca doesn’t. In 2017, Gibson added to his argument with Early Islamic Qiblas, where he shows that the Qibla (direction of prayer) in Umayyad mosques was Petra, not Mecca. The Qibla was changed during the second Islamic civil war by Abd Allah Ibn al-Zubayr, leader of a dissident caliphate that took refuge in Mecca in 683. It was Al-Zubayr who moved the Black Stone from Petra and built for it a new Kaaba in Mecca. For a century after that, Islam was split between Umayyad traditionalists who continued to build their mosques facing Petra, and the Abbasid reformers who built their mosques facing Mecca. However, after the earthquake that devastated Petra’s water systems in 713, Petra was abandoned and slowly faded from memory. When the Abbasids supplanted the Umayyads in the East in 750, Petra and Mecca were merged in canonical historiography, and an Arabian location was determined for other Quranic locations such as Yathrib (Medina) and Khaybar, where Muhammad dealt with Jewish communities. Gibson’s arguments are presented in the documentary film directed by David Taylor, “The Sacred City: Discovering the Real Birthplace of Islam” (2016).Gibson’s theory is fully compatible with the Jewish root of Islam highlighted by the revisionist school of Islamic Studies, because Jews are easier to find in the region of Petra than in the Hejaz. The Nabataeans had been allies of the Maccabees during their struggle against the Seleucid monarchs. But there were internal divisions among them, just like among the Judeans. And the Nabataean kings’ later rivalry with the Hasmonean dynasty became a factor in the disorders that prompted Pompey’s intervention. A Roman army besieged Petra, after which the Nabataean king Aretas III paid a tribute, receiving in exchange formal recognition by the Roman Republic. Although Petra became a Hellenized Roman city, it certainly also harbored anti-Roman Arabs and a Jewish community simmering with messianic expectations.Gibson’s geographical revisionism also dovetails with Heinsohn’s chronological revisionism, since both identify the Arabs who took over Jerusalem in the 8th-9th centuries with the rulers of Petra and Damascus. According to Heinsohn, the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in Imperial Antiquity and the Judeo-Arab conquest of Jerusalem in the Early Middle Ages belong to the same broad period. Let us take a closer look at the evidence in Jerusalem.Archeology in JerusalemWhether they like to admit it or not, archeologists are confused about Jerusalem. One of their greatest sources of embarrassment is their inability to locate the Roman fort hosting the Tenth Legion after the city was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE. In Aelia Capitolina–Jerusalem in the Roman Period, in Light of Archaeological Research (Brill, 2020), Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah insists on this problem: “Surprisingly, despite the long duration of military presence in Jerusalem . . . no archaeological remains have been attributed with certainty to the military camp and its site has not yet been identified.” “One cannot underestimate the difficulty caused by the absence of irrefutable evidence of the Roman army camp in Jerusalem. . . . At this stage, there is no acceptable solution to the problem of the ‘lack of remains’.”On the other hand, archeologists and the whole world know where once stood the Herodian temple that Titus’s troops burnt down, for the walls of the “Temple Mount” are still standing. Oddly, this “Temple Mount” overlooking the city has the standard dimensions of a Roman fort. The solution is obvious: the esplanade that Muslims call the Al-Aqsa Compound was originally the Roman fort, first built by Herod in honor of Antony (Fort Antonia), then used by the Tenth Legion. It was arbitrarily determined to be the location of the Temple by the first crusaders in the 11th century, and this mistaken attribution became so entrenched that no one dared question it. When the question was finally raised a few decades ago, it was hushed by the Israeli academic establishment, and would have remained a well-kept secret if not for Ernest L. Martin, who after working for five years with archaeologist Benjamin Mazar, published his unorthodox view in 1994 (read this summary in Popular Archeology). As Gregory Wesley Buchanan wrote in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in 2011, “While it has not been widely published, it assuredly has been known for more than 40 years that the 45-acre, well-fortified place that has been mistakenly called the ‘Temple Mount’ was really the Roman fortress—the Antonia—that Herod built.” The argument, based on literary sources and archeological evidence, is convincingly presented by Bob Cornuke in this 30-minute film.
Ernest L. Martin’s drawing of Fort Antonia and the probable site of the Temple
This controversy has no direct bearing on Heinsohn’s theory, other than to illustrate the state of confusion of archeology in Jerusalem. What is directly supportive of Heinsohn’s theory, however, is the accepted dating of the Western Wall, consisting of 45 stone courses, 28 of them above ground and 17 underground. The first seven visible layers, comprising very large stone blocks, are from the Herodian period. The four courses of medium-sized stones above them were added during the Umayyad period, while the small stones of the uppermost courses are of more recent date, especially from the Ottoman period. Do 700 years really separate the Herodian courses from the Umayyad courses? Heinsohn questions this assumption, defended by archaeological architect Leen Ritmeyer and others: “Although Ritmeyer knows that the Umayyads have built directly on Jerusalem ruins of 70 AD, he believes that they have been waiting for over 600 years to do so. That is why the Temple Mount is said to have remained empty (‘abandoned’) until the 7th century.”
The Western Wall is not the only piece of evidence of a direct continuity between Romano-Herodian architecture and Umayyad architecture in Jerusalem. Archeologist Orit Peleg-Barkat notes that, “the Umayyad builders used the fragments of Herodian architectural decoration as construction materials.” According to Heinsohn, “there are no series of settlement layers anywhere in Jerusalem which would be required to substantiate the centuries between Imperial Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages of the Umayyads. So, from a purely stratigraphic point of view, the Umayyads lived, at least since 70 AD, side by side with what is called the Jerusalem of Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd c. AD).”This explains why the Umayyads actually called Jerusalem Iliya, as is attested by their coins, seals and milestones. This is an Arabic form of the name that Hadrian had given the city in the 130s (Aelia Capitolina). Since that name is supposed to have been abandoned in between, scholars wonder why the Umayyads “revived” it; in reality, the Roman Aelia of Imperial Antiquity and the Muslim Iliya of the Early Middle Ages are one and the same .Our knowledge of the events of this period is too fragmentary and distorted by religious propaganda to reconstruct them with any precision. What seems quite certain, however, is that Jerusalem, like the rest of Syria, was largely inhabited by Arabs. It is said that the Roman legions who fought for Rome in the 60s, were settled in the area, but according to Flavius Josephus these soldiers were mainly recruited in Syria, “from the kings in that neighborhood” (Jewish Wars, book III, chapter 1). Therefore, writes Heinsohn, “Arab Nabataean soldiers, not men from Italy, conquered Jerusalem for Titus in 70 AD.” The construction of Hadrian’s new city Aelia Capitolina in the 130s was also the work of Arabs, who were master builders (with renowned architects such as Apollodorus of Damascus).Does that mean that the Roman subjugation of Jerusalem with Arab mercenaries in the late 60s is identical to the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem 700 years later? No. The Arab mercenaries who fought for Rome against nationalist Jews, then built Aelia Capitolina in honor of Hadrian, cannot be identical with the Arabs who appropriated a Jewish messianic movement and conquered the Levant for themselves after defeating the Byzantine Romans at the Battle of Yarmuk (in 636). Rather, the Arab conquest was a reaction to the Roman conquest, as revisionist scholars suggests—albeit failing to explain the 600 years delay. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that Arabs lived in Jerusalem before they came to rule it under the banner of Islam. And there is no reason to assume that Arab alliances were uniform and stable. Depending on the circumstances, they could fight either for or against the Romans, and either with or against the Jews.Moreover, there was no clear boundary between Jews and their Arab neighbors before Islam. As Steve Mason reminds us, “the Ioudaioi were understood until late antiquity as an ethnic group comparable to other ethnic groups, with their distinctive laws, traditions, customs, and god. They were indeed Judaeans.” The Bible insists on their kinship with Arab tribes and nations such as the Moabites, the Edomites, the Midianites, the Amalekites, and the Ishmaelites—all descendants of Abraham. According to David Samuel Margoliouth, ancient Hebrew is an Arabic dialect, and even Yahweh’s name is Arabic (Relations Between Arabs and Israelites Prior to the Rise of Islam, 1921).Besides, Exodus 2-3 makes the Hebrews’ conquest of Canaan originate from the land of Midian, which roughly corresponds to the Nabataeans’ homeland. Moses was the son-in-law of a Midianite priest (kohen) and met Yahweh in Midian. Of course, Moses is traditionally dated two millenniums before Muhammad. But the Exodus story, as we have it, may in fact date from the Hasmonean period, as some “minimalist” biblical scholars now tend to assume. The Islamic conquest really seems like a remake of the Mosaic conquest from the same region, and both may be separated by just a couple of centuries; it is always about Arab nomads coveting the Fertile Crescent.At any rate, during the formative years of Islam, Arabs and Jews were ethnically homogeneous. Only when asserting its autonomy did Islam self-consciously widen the gap between Jews and Arabs: this is illustrated by the shift in the direction of prayer from Jerusalem during Muhammad and the Rashidun caliphs, to Petra under the Umayyads, to Mecca under the Abbasids.Islam and ChristianityIf we look at the historical horizon of the Middle East from a Heinsohnian standpoint, we see the birth of Islam roughly contemporary with the birth of Christianity, and not separated by six or seven centuries. There is clear evidence that Islam arose in the context of the early doctrinal controversies surrounding the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Compressing the first millennium into roughly 300 years is not only compatible with the basic facts of religious history, but makes more sense of them.Heinsohn identifies the monophysitism of the Ghassanids with the early Islam of the Umayyads. Islam has also been tied to Arianism by Christian heresiologists. John of Damascus (c. 675-749) assumed that Muhammad devised “the heresy of the Ishmaelites” “after having conversed with an Arian monk.” In the 12th century, the Abbot of Cluny Peter the Venerable thought the same after studying the Latin translation of the Quran that he had commissioned.
Portrait of Libyan priest Arius (detail of a Byzantine icon)
Strangely, Arianism left virtually no known material trace, even in Spain where it is supposed to have been the religion of the ruling Visigoths for three centuries. This is a great puzzlement for scholars like Ralf Bockmann (“The Non-Archaeology of Arianism,” 2014), or Alexandra Chavarria Arnau (“Finding invisible Arians,” 2017). On the other hand, there is no contemporary written record of the Islamic conquest of Spain, leading some Spanish authors to claim that it never happened—as a military campaign.Arianism is the umbrella name given to the resistance against the full divinization of the man Jesus. The opposite current that focuses on Christ as a divine entity falls under the broad denomination of Gnosticism. And here again, strange things are observed. Ewa Weiling-Feldthusen notes that there is in the long history of Gnosticism a “missing link”, causing “the ever-ending discussions and controversies among scholars” about “the problem of how to fill the temporal gap between the occurrence of Manichaeism (app. third-sixth century) and Paulicianism (app. ninth century) in the European part of Byzantium.” Gnosticism was the most serious competitor to Catholicism during the first three centuries AD, but survived another seven centuries despite the fact that the Catholic Church had become all-powerful in the fourth century. Gnostic movements, covering a millennium in standard chronology—from Marcion’s first compilation of Paul’s epistles, to the crushing of the Bogomils’ heirs in the south of France—appear as different waves of the same movement. Heinsohn has noted that the Paulicians, whose original stronghold was close to Tarsus, had as their spiritual leader a man who called himself Silvanus, a name also born by Paul’s travelling companion.Among the Eastern manifestations of Gnosticism, the “Sabeans” deserve special attention because they are mentioned in the Quran as one of the “peoples of the book,” along the Jews and the Nazarenes. Their Arab name, “Subbas,” means “Bathers” or “Baptists.” They may be affiliated to the Elschasaits, the heterodox Jewish-Christian movement where Mani grew up (Manichaeism was still very influential in Bagdad during the first four centuries of Islam). The Sabeans are also generally recognized as identical to the Mandaeans (from manda, the Aramaic equivalent of the Greek gnosis), who were until 2003 confined to a community of thirteen thousand people in the South of Iraq. Their sacred books are written in an Aramaic dialect bearing much resemblance with the Aramaic once used in Palestine, and their script is close to the Nabataean. Though they live in Iraq and baptize themselves in the Euphrates, their scriptures refer to Jerusalem and the Jordan River, attesting that they came from there, perhaps during the Judeo-Roman Wars. Because they refer to themselves as Nazoraia and honor John the Baptist, the travelling missionaries who first met them in 1652 called them “Christians of Saint John”. But, as B. R. S. Mead explains in her authoritative study, their holy scriptures show John cursing Jesus, calling him a devilish false prophet. It is now assumed that the Mandaeans descend from the disciples of John the Baptist, whom the Gospels portray as competitors to the disciples of Jesus. The survival of John the Baptist’s sect for so many centuries is one of the most intriguing riddle in the history of religions, and makes more sense within the framework of Heinsohn’s short chronology.The history of the different offshoots of heterodox Judaism is still rife with enigmas, and arguably some of them can find a solution within the Heinsohnian paradigm that makes the births of Christianity in Imperial Antiquity, of Manichaeism in Late Antiquity, and of Islam in the Early Middle Ages, roughly contemporary.Subscribe to New Columns
But, as I said, there are still hundreds of questions waiting for a plausible answer, and more research is needed before a paradigm shift in global chronology can begin to shake the entrenched academic establishment.Notes Barry Hoberman, “The King of Ghassan”, 1983, on http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/198302/the.king.of.ghassan.htm quoted in Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019). 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 According to Paola Supino Martini, the “Caroline minuscule” was a “revival of models of the ancient minuscule”, and so was the majuscule “uncial” used for luxurious manuscripts (Paola Supino Martini, “Société et culture écrite,” in André Vauchez ed., Rome au Moyen Âge, Éditions du Cerf, 2021, pp. 351-384). Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millennium CE”, 2013. Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD: Stratigraphy vs. the Scholarly Belief in Anno Domini Chronology” (2021), p. 91. Heinsohn, “Arthur of Camelot and the-Domaros of Camulodunum” (2017). Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020). Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), p. 84. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Barbarian West 400-1000, Blackwell (1967), 2004, p. 47. We read in the introduction of Eusebius’s Life of Constantine, translated with introduction and commentary by Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall, Clarendon, 1999, p. 1: “The Life of Constantine (Vita Constantini, henceforth VC) is the main source not only for the religious policy of Constantine the Great (ruled ad 306±37, sole Emperor 324±37) but also for much else about him. . . . it is not surprising that it has proved extremely controversial. Some scholars are disposed to accept its evidence at face value while others have been and are highly skeptical. Indeed, the integrity of Eusebius as a writer has often been attacked and his authorship of the VC denied by scholars eager to discredit the value of the evidence it provides, with discussion focusing particularly on the numerous imperial documents which are cited verbatim in the work. In contrast, T. D. Barnes’s major book on Constantine, for example, makes substantial use of the VC, and the work remains the single most important source for Constantine.” Walter Bauer, Orthodoxie et hérésie au début du christianisme (1934), Cerf, 2009, pp. 74-88. Also Robert I. Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Authority and Deviance in Western Europe 950-1250 (1987), Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.. Richard Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City, 321-1308, Princeton UP, 1980, pp. 70-71. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill nottes in The Barbarian West 400-1000, Blackwell (1967), 2004, p. 30 “the earliest papal documents (dating from the late fourth century) derives from a chancery unmistakably modelled upon the Roman imperial chancery.” Joseph Atwill, Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus (Flavian Signature Edition), CreateSpace, 2011. Francesco Carotta, Jesus was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity, An Investigative Report, Aspekt, 2005. This book, and other researches done since, has led me to renounce my earlier working hypothesis that Julius Caesar was a fictitious character. Robert I. Moore, The First European Revolution, c. 970-1215, Basil Blackwell, 2000. Hélène Toubert, “Le renouveau paléochrétien à Rome au début du XIIe siècle,” in Cahiers Archéologiques, 29, 1970, pp. 99-154. Main source : Wikipedia. Heinsohn, “Arab coinage hiatus” (2021). Heinsohn, “Mieszko I, destructions, and Slavic mass conversions to Christianity” (2014). Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019), p. 8. Heinsohn, “Mieszko I, destructions, and Slavic mass conversions to Christianity” (2014). Heinsohn, “Arab coinage hiatus” (2021). Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), pp. 51-54. Heinsohn, “Vikings for 700 years without sails, ports and towns? An essay” 2014, quoting http://otraarquitecturaesposible.blogspot.com.tr/2011/03/typologies-in-islamic-architecture-iv.html Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), p. 56. Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019), p. 41. Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), p. 82. The David Collection: Islamic Art / Glass, 2014, on www.davidmus.dk/en/collections/islamic/materials/glass), quoted in Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), p. 56. Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), p. 50. Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), p. 98. Heinsohn, “Islam’s Chronology: Were Arabs Really Ignorant of Coinage and Writing for 700 Years?” (2013). Amiram Barka, “The Big One Is Coming,” Haaretz, August 8, 2003, quoted in Heinsohn, “Arabs of the 8th Century: Cultural imitators or original creators?” (2018). Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), pp. 59-60, referring to M.D. Bukharin, “Towards the Earliest History of Kinda”, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2009, pp. 64-80 (67). Heinsohn, “Islam’s Chronology: Were Arabs Really Ignorant of Coinage and Writing for 700 Years?” (2013). Alfred-Louis de Prémare, Les Fondations de l’islam, Seuil, 2002, p. 41-56; David Samuel Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, Putnam’s Sons, 1905, p. 35-39. Gordon Darnell Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia, From Ancient Times to Their Ecclipse under Islam, University of South Carolina Press, 1988, pp. 17, 47, 105. Günther Lüling, A Challenge to Islam for Reformation (1993), Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2003 (on books.google.fr), pp. xii-xv. Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, Cambridge UP, 1977 (archive.org), pp. 6-30. In 1998, Robert Hoyland refined Crone and Cook’s thesis by providing other sources in Seeing Islam as Others Saw It. A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (online here). Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, “Observations on Early Qur’an Manuscripts in Ṣanʿāʾ”, in Stefan Wild, ed., The Qur’an as Text, Brill, 1996, pp. 107 ff, quoted in Heinsohn, “Hadrian Umayyads in Jerusalem. Justice for Jewish and Arab Histories” (2020). In “The Sacred City: Discovering the Real Birthplace of Islam,” at 51:22. Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, Aelia Capitolina – Jerusalem in the Roman Period: In Light of Archaeological Research, Brill, 2020, pp. 21-22, 42-43. Gregory Wesley Buchanan, “Misunderstandings About Jerusalem’s Temple Mount,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2011. In complement, the film “The Coming Temple” is interesting, despite its religious overtone. Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), p. 106. Orit Peleg-Barkat, “The Temple Mount excavations in Jerusalem 1968−1978 directed by Benjamin Mazar final reports volume V Herodian architectural decoration and King Herod’s royal portico”, in Qedem 57, 2017, pp. 29 ff, quoted in Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD: Stratigraphy vs. the Scholarly Belief in Anno Domini Chronology” (2021), pp. 61-63. Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), p. 19. Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), p. 69. Heinsohn refers to I.M. Baidoun 2015/16, “Arabic names of Jerusalem on coins and in historical sources until the early ‘Abbāsid period’”, Israel Numismatic Journal, 19, pp. 142-150, (145-46). Heinsohn, “Jerusalem in the First Millennium AD” (2021), pp. 108, 61-63.Subscribe to New Columns
Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” Journal for the Study of Judaism, 1 January, 2007. Moab is Abraham’s nephew (Genesis 19:31-38), Edom or Esau is Abraham’s grandson (25:25), Amaleq is Esau’s grandson (36:12), and the Midianites are descendants of Abraham by his second wife Keturah (25:2-4), while the Ishmaelites are descendants of Abraham by his servant Agar. David Samuel Margoliouth, Relations Between Arabs and Israelites Prior to the Rise of Islam: The Schweich Lectures 1921, Oxford UP, 1924. The Midianite hypothesis was first formulated by Friedrich Ghillany (1863, under the pseudonym of Richard von der Alm) and Karl Budde (1899), and has now gained the support of top biblicar scholars such as Thomas Römer (The Invention of God, Harvard UP, 2016). Philip Davies, In Search of “Ancient Israel”: A Study in Biblical Origins, Journal of the Study of the Old Testament, 1992. Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019). Still in the early 14th century, Dante Alighieri associated Arius and Muhammad in the eighth circle of Hell: Maria Esposito Frank, “Dante’s Muhammad: Parallels between Islam and Arianism,” in Dante and Islam, ed. Jan M. Ziolkowski, Fordham UP, 2014. Ralf Bockmann, “The Non-Archaeology of Arianism – What Comparing Cases in Carthage, Haidra and Ravenna can tell us about ‘Arian’ Churches” in Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed, ed. Gudo M. Berndt and Roland Steinacher, Ashgate, 2014; Alexandra Chavarria Arnau, “Finding invisible Arians: An archaeological perspective on churches, baptism and religious competition in 6th century Spain”, 2017, also available on the Internet. Ignacio Olagüe, Les Arabes n’ont jamais envahi l’Espagne, Flammarion, 1969. The thesis is supported by Spanish Arabist González Ferrín. Ewa Weiling-Feldthusen, “In search of a missing link : the Bogomils and Zoroastrianism,” 2006. Heinsohn, “Saint Paul: Did he live once, thrice, or not at all?” (2020). Guy Monnot, Islam et religions, Maisonneuve & Larose, 1986. B. R. S. Mead, The Gnostic John the Baptizer: Selections from the Mandean John-Book Together with Studies on John and Christian Origins, John M. Watkins, 1924.
页:
[1]