The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The First Millennium Revisionist Archive
How Long Was the First Millennium?
Gunnar Heinsohn’s stratigraphy-based chronology
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

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.[1]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 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 Romes

The 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, 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.”[2]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. 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.[3]Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky, History: Fiction or Science, vol. 2: The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts ( pp. 19-42. 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”.[4]Fomenko and Nosovsky, History: Fiction or Science, vol. 1, ch. 6, pp. 356-358. 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 Zeitenspringers

In 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 breakthrough

Gunnar 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.”[5]Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE” (2013). 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.”[6]Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

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.”[7]Heinsohn, “The Stratigraphy of Rome” (2018).

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.”[8]Heinsohn, “Heinsohn in a nutshell”

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.”[9]Heinsohn, “Letter to Heribert Illig” (2017). “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.”[10]Heinsohn, “Goths of the 4th century and Getae of the 1st century” (2014). 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.”[11]Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

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).”[12]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). “Thus, the three parallel time-blocks now found in our history books in a chronological sequence must be brought back to their stratigraphical position.”[13]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). 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.”[14]Heinsohn, “Letter to Heribert Illig” (2017).

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 [for the 1st-3rd century] 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.”[15]From Heinsohn’s letter to Eric Knibbs, 2020, communicated to the author.

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 [230s]; South-East [530s], and Slavic North [940s]) within the 1st millennium.”[16]Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE” 2013. “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).”[17]Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD: finding Bede’s missing metropolis” 2018. 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.”[18]Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD” 2018. 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.[19]Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

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.”[20]Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020). Also “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

This author’s visual of the simultaneous three 230-year time-blocks
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.”[21]Heinsohn, “Siegfried found: decoding the Nibelungen period,” 2018. 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.”[22]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” 2014.


Applied 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.”[23]Heinsohn, “The Stratigraphy of Rome” (2018). “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.”[24]Heinsohn, “Polish origins” (2018). 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.”[25]Theodor Mommsen, A History of Rome Under the Emperors. Routledge, 2005, p. 281. 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.”[26]Heinsohn, “Goths of the 4th century and Getae of the 1st century: are they one and the same?” (2014). 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.”[27]Heinsohn, “Goths of the 4th century and Getae of the 1st century: are they one and the same?” (2014).

Getian prisoner and Gothic warrior, both wearing the same clothes, including the Phrygian hatGetian prisoner and Gothic warrior, both wearing the same clothes, including the Phrygian hat
Getian prisoner and Gothic warrior, both wearing the same clothes, including the Phrygian hat


“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.”[28]Heinsohn, “Polish origins” 2018. That is because, in reality, they “share the same stratigraphical horizon.”[29]Heinsohn, “Did Europe and Civilization Collapse Three Times Within the 1st Millenium CE?” 2014.

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.”[30]Heinsohn, Ravenna and chronology (2020).

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).[31]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. 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, [for] 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.”[32]John J. O’Neill, Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization,, Ingram Books, 2009, p. 231, quoted in “Were there really no people in Poland between 300 and 600 AD?” (2020). 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 [until the 900s CE], 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.”[33]Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019). 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 [that] was turned into a chronological sequence from earlier to later.”[34]Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE”, 2013. “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.”[35]Heinsohn, “Augustus and Diocletian: contemporaries or 300 years apart?” 2019. 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.


Ravenna 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 [5th century; GH] buildings is that, like the city walls they were made of bricks that had been reused from earlier [2nd/3rd century; GH] Roman structures. […] It was expected that a noble church would be built of spolia.”[36]Quoted in Heinsohn, Ravenna and chronology (2020).

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.”[37]Heinsohn, Ravenna and chronology (2020).

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)
Mosaic in the Basilica of Sant‘Apollonare Nuove (dated around 500 AD)

Charlemagne and the European Dark Ages

In 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?”[38]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” 2014, quoting Fortifications (2009), “Kaiserpfalz Ingelheim: Fortifications“, 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.”[39]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” 2014 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 [Palatinate ensemble] in northeast-southwest orientation, was used until the late Middle Ages’.”[40]Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020; with references to internal quotations).

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.”[41]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). 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.”[42]Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020).

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.[43]Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD” (2018). 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.”[44]From Heinsohn’s letter to Eric Knibbs, 2020, communicated to the author.

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.”[45]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). 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.”[46]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). Moreover, Heinsohn recently suggested that: “Stratigraphically […], Charlemagne and Louis [the Pious] 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.”[47]Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020).

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.”[48]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014).

Saxon England

Saxons 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.[49]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). 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.”[50]Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD” (2018).

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?”[51]Heinsohn, “The Winchester of Alfred the Great and the Haithabu of his voyager, Wulfstan: Are they separated by 700 years?” (2014).

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.”[52]Heinsohn, “Vikings for 700 years without sails, ports and towns? An essay” (2014). 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’ [c. 1140-1190 AD] name for Arthur’s Court, is derived directly from Camelod-unum, the name of Roman Colchester.”[53]Heinsohn, “Arthur of Camelot and the-Domaros of Camulodunum” (2017). 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.”[54]Heinsohn, “Vikings for 700 years without sails, ports and towns? An essay” (2014). “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.”[55]Heinsohn, “Vikings for 700 years without sails, ports and towns? An essay” (2014).

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.”[56]Heinsohn, “Bulgaria’s early medieval capitals of Pliska and Preslav: were they really built to resemble 700 year older Roman cities?” (2015).

China, Arabia, Israel

Heinsohn’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.”[57]Heinsohn, “Papermaking” (2017). 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.”[58]Heinsohn, “Mieszko I, destructions, and Slavic mass conversions to Christianity” (2014). 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).”[59]Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

“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.”[60]Heinsohn, “Islam’s Chronology: Were Arabs Really Ignorant of Coinage and Writing for 700 Years?” (2013).

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[CE]), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 BCE-132[CE]). ‘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’.”[61]Quoted in Heinsohn, “Arabs of the 8th Century: Cultural imitators or original creators?” (2018).

Roman and Abbasid millefiori bowls that are identical, yet supposedly seven centuries apart
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:[62]Photo M. M. Vogt, in Heinsohn, “Were there really no people in Poland between 300 and 600 AD?” (2020).

The Cataclysmic hypothesis

Heinsohn 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.[63]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, press, 2007 (read here). 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.[64]Heinsohn, “Did Europe and Civilization Collapse Three Times Within the 1st Millenium CE?” (2014).

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.”[65]Heinsohn, “Did Europe and Civilization Collapse Three Times Within the 1st Millenium CE?” (2014). 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.”[66]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). 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”[67]John Loeffler, “How Comets Changed the Course of Human History,” November 30th, 2008, on (watch also Michael Lachmann’s BBC documentary “The Comet’s Tale”).

Justinian’s comet over Constantinople
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.[68]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. 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’.”[69]Heinsohn, “Tenth Century Collapse” (2017). 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.”[70]Heinsohn, “Tenth Century Collapse” (2017).

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.”[71]Mark Bloch, Feudal Society (1940), Routledge, 2014, pp. 43-44.

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.”[72]Guy Blois, The Transformation of the Year One Thousand: The Village of Lournand from autiquity to feudalism, Manchester UP, 1992, pp. 161, 167, 1. 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.”[73]Heinsohn, “Tenth Century Collapse” (2017). 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[997], 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.”[74]Raoul Glaber, Histoires, ed. and trans. Mathieu Arnoux, Brépols, 1996, book II, § 13-17, pp. 116-125.

The birth of AD chronology

In 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.”[75]Patrick J. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium, Princeton UP, 1994, p. 9.

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.”[76]Patrick J. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium, Princeton UP, 1994, p. 7.

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.”[77]Edward Adams, The Stars Will Fall From Heaven: ‘Cosmic Catastrophe’ in the New Testament and its World, The Library of New Testament Studies, 2007. “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.”[78]Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020). 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).[79]Heinsohn, “Mieszko I, destructions, and Slavic mass conversions to Christianity” (2014). Rodulfus Glaber also wrote at the end of book 2: “All this accords with the prophecy of St John [Revelation 20:7], 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.[80]Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE” (2013).

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.”[81]Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014). 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)[82]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). 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 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.”[83]Raoul Glaber, Histoires, ed. and trans. Mathieu Arnoux, Brépols, 1996, pp. 106-107 and 78-79. 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.”[84]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 More convincingly, the missing “fears of the year 1000” make a strong argument that the AD computation came in use after the year 1000.


In 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.


[1] 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

[2] 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.

[3] Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky, History: Fiction or Science, vol. 2: The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts ( pp. 19-42.

[4] Fomenko and Nosovsky, History: Fiction or Science, vol. 1, ch. 6, pp. 356-358.

[5] Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE” (2013).

[6] Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

[7] Heinsohn, “The Stratigraphy of Rome” (2018).

[8] Heinsohn, “Heinsohn in a nutshell”

[9] Heinsohn, “Letter to Heribert Illig” (2017).

[10] Heinsohn, “Goths of the 4th century and Getae of the 1st century” (2014).

[11] Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

[12] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014).

[13] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014).

[14] Heinsohn, “Letter to Heribert Illig” (2017).

[15] From Heinsohn’s letter to Eric Knibbs, 2020, communicated to the author.

[16] Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE” 2013.

[17] Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD: finding Bede’s missing metropolis” 2018.

[18] Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD” 2018.

[19] Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

[20] Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020). Also “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

[21] Heinsohn, “Siegfried found: decoding the Nibelungen period,” 2018.

[22] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” 2014.

[23] Heinsohn, “The Stratigraphy of Rome” (2018).

[24] Heinsohn, “Polish origins” (2018).

[25] Theodor Mommsen, A History of Rome Under the Emperors. Routledge, 2005, p. 281.

[26] Heinsohn, “Goths of the 4th century and Getae of the 1st century: are they one and the same?” (2014).

[27] Heinsohn, “Goths of the 4th century and Getae of the 1st century: are they one and the same?” (2014).

[28] Heinsohn, “Polish origins” 2018.

[29] Heinsohn, “Did Europe and Civilization Collapse Three Times Within the 1st Millenium CE?” 2014.

[30] Heinsohn, Ravenna and chronology (2020).

[31] 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.

[32] John J. O’Neill, Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization,, Ingram Books, 2009, p. 231, quoted in “Were there really no people in Poland between 300 and 600 AD?” (2020).

[33] Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

[34] Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE”, 2013.

[35] Heinsohn, “Augustus and Diocletian: contemporaries or 300 years apart?” 2019.

[36] Quoted in Heinsohn, Ravenna and chronology (2020).

[37] Heinsohn, Ravenna and chronology (2020).

[38] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” 2014, quoting Fortifications (2009), “Kaiserpfalz Ingelheim: Fortifications“,

[39] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” 2014

[40] Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020; with references to internal quotations).

[41] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014).

[42] Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020).

[43] Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD” (2018).

[44] From Heinsohn’s letter to Eric Knibbs, 2020, communicated to the author.

[45] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014).

[46] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014).

[47] Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020).

[48] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014).

[49] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014).

[50] Heinsohn, “London in the first millennium AD” (2018).

[51] Heinsohn, “The Winchester of Alfred the Great and the Haithabu of his voyager, Wulfstan: Are they separated by 700 years?” (2014).

[52] Heinsohn, “Vikings for 700 years without sails, ports and towns? An essay” (2014).

[53] Heinsohn, “Arthur of Camelot and the-Domaros of Camulodunum” (2017).

[54] Heinsohn, “Vikings for 700 years without sails, ports and towns? An essay” (2014).

[55] Heinsohn, “Vikings for 700 years without sails, ports and towns? An essay” (2014).

[56] Heinsohn, “Bulgaria’s early medieval capitals of Pliska and Preslav: were they really built to resemble 700 year older Roman cities?” (2015).

[57] Heinsohn, “Papermaking” (2017).

[58] Heinsohn, “Mieszko I, destructions, and Slavic mass conversions to Christianity” (2014).

[59] Heinsohn, “Justinian’s correct date in 1st Millennium chronology” (2019).

[60] Heinsohn, “Islam’s Chronology: Were Arabs Really Ignorant of Coinage and Writing for 700 Years?” (2013).

[61] Quoted in Heinsohn, “Arabs of the 8th Century: Cultural imitators or original creators?” (2018).

[62] Photo M. M. Vogt, in Heinsohn, “Were there really no people in Poland between 300 and 600 AD?” (2020).

[63] 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, press, 2007 (read here).

[64] Heinsohn, “Did Europe and Civilization Collapse Three Times Within the 1st Millenium CE?” (2014).

[65] Heinsohn, “Did Europe and Civilization Collapse Three Times Within the 1st Millenium CE?” (2014).

[66] 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).

[67] John Loeffler, “How Comets Changed the Course of Human History,” November 30th, 2008, on

[68] 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.

[69] Heinsohn, “Tenth Century Collapse” (2017).

[70] Heinsohn, “Tenth Century Collapse” (2017).

[71] Mark Bloch, Feudal Society (1940), Routledge, 2014, pp. 43-44.

[72] Guy Blois, The Transformation of the Year One Thousand: The Village of Lournand from autiquity to feudalism, Manchester UP, 1992, pp. 161, 167, 1.

[73] Heinsohn, “Tenth Century Collapse” (2017).

[74] Raoul Glaber, Histoires, ed. and trans. Mathieu Arnoux, Brépols, 1996, book II, § 13-17, pp. 116-125.

[75] Patrick J. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium, Princeton UP, 1994, p. 9.

[76] Patrick J. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium, Princeton UP, 1994, p. 7.

[77] Edward Adams, The Stars Will Fall From Heaven: ‘Cosmic Catastrophe’ in the New Testament and its World, The Library of New Testament Studies, 2007.

[78] Heinsohn, “Ravenna and chronology” (2020).

[79] Heinsohn, “Mieszko I, destructions, and Slavic mass conversions to Christianity” (2014).

[80] Heinsohn, “Creation of the First Millenium CE” (2013).

[81] Heinsohn, “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (2014).

[82] 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).

[83] Raoul Glaber, Histoires, ed. and trans. Mathieu Arnoux, Brépols, 1996, pp. 106-107 and 78-79.

[84] 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

Hide 240 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Fascinating hypothesis and a great piece! Looking forward to reading other people’s comments!

    • Agree: Not Raul
  2. Actual physical documents from the Roman Empire are exceedingly rare. Apparantly there are a bunch from Herculano, which was suddenly buried under an avalanche of volcanic mud. I guess most of what exists are commecial documents and not histories or religious lit.

  3. Puts the renaissance in a different light. There is so much new historical information coming out now, possible only because of new channels of communication.

    This author convincingly truncates the dark ages. Others seem to be finding out that civilisation is far older than heretofore thought.

    I feel privileged to read pieces like this one.

    • Agree: Alfred
  4. Minor typo near top – ‘air we breath’ should have ‘breathe’

    A big thanks to the author, and to Ron Unz for posting this – one of the most thought-provoking historical series ever on the interwebz

  5. Ano4 says:

    Thank you for your work.

  6. I gave up on P1 because it missed out elementary stuff such as the dating of Plutarch which opposed the basic drift of the essay so nothing else could be trusted at face value. I gave up on P3 when I saw how David Rohl’s work was cited. He presented his ideas in the book “A Test of Time” in the mid 1990’s. The crucial data which undermined his theory is burried in appendix E of his 400 page book when he has to acknowledge that it “clearly argue against the chronology put forward in this book”. I would have thought it completely undermines the book and it would never have been published by a scholar as it would have failed any peer review.

    • Replies: @Ivan
  7. anon[198] • Disclaimer says:

    Such a fascinating read. I wonder if we’ll ever find out what really happened. But I’m really onboard with the general hypothesis that history as we have been taught, from the Sumerians to the Middle Ages, is an epic fabrication.

  8. Almost all parts of this extensive dissertation are presented with a sophistication and documentation far above my poor power, as Lincoln once said, to add or detract. Nonetheless, there exist ample means of settling the argument, namely radio-carbon dating. Some cloth or other carbon-bearing artifact from a Classical-Era Roman grave can be tested and dated absolutely, and we’re done with the uncertainty of written sources referencing solely relatively.
    I strongly suspect this has already been done, and numerous times, and this author has discreetly omitted the results.

  9. Lots of funny ideas …
    Henry Ford was said to “not believe in history and doubt it ever happened” 😛

    In no particular order:

    – The Palatinate Chapel in Aachen is Sassanid (picturing the Universe), not 11th c.

    – Velikowsky´s bane (apart from smoking some seriously vile stuff) was dying before Alvarez&Alvarez put the catholic in cataclysm again; however, they also show the difference in the starkest contrast:
    DO NOT invoke the Comet unless you have tangible and plausible proof*.
    DO NOT mock the words of the scribes and pharisees lest you land in burning shit.
    DO NOT question the Method if all you have is appeals to the “common sense” of the pauperes spiritu or those with an issue (e.g.”biblical archeology”)
    All these are the hallmarks of pseudoscience (sorry, First M.)

    – Two centuries of telescoping would be visible in the tree rings;
    Fourier analysis is routine. Same for lake sediments.

    – It all revolves around Thera, our own little Mount Meru. ~ 1625BC? One olive twig can with effort be debated away – I have seen young poplar growing beside the Autobahn dated at 50,000BP but that doesn´t invalidate the method (even though Urey´s basic assumption – that C-14 production is constant – did not hold); no volcano, no debate.
    Somewhat worse is the ash overlays a procession road ascribed to Ramses II.
    (which would put a face on massive mining in the Rio Tinto district about that time – heavy metals in delta sediments – but I digress)
    The Greenland ice cores – normally the go-to – are inconclusive but the Toba does not register either.

    – Rohl is fun but errs in the wrong direction – and already Flavius Josephus equated the Exodus Hebrews with the Hyksos (who in alliance with the Nubians looted Egypt for over a century before being given the boot by Ahmose I – there is nothing new under the sun).

    *They even shredded Tollmann – who was anything but Däniken;
    it is considered REALLY gauche.
    Where to start? XDA and XFA of the “fango”.

  10. there exist ample means of settling the argument, namely radio-carbon dating

    That’s the first intuition – but it’s probably wrong. Radiocarbon dating is oversold when the matter at hand is a few hundred years and well-provenanced organic matter is scarce.

    There is a level of uncertainty associated with radiocarbon dating, which is influenced by the size of the sample and the location that it came from. (Leave aside issues like contamination and implementation errors for the moment – those are separate, but significant, issues).

    There are all sorts of fudge-factors – and for decades the calculations used a value for the half-life of 14C that was 230 years too short (so there are now a range of calibrations required to homogenise results of new tests to align them with results from historical results obtained using the wrong half-life).

    Even then, you get an estimate of the age of the thing: the estimate is a random variable, and the standard deviation of the estimate means that a 95% confidence interval can be several hundred years wide. (For some reason the reporting standard decided upon was a 1σ interval, which is a 68% confidence interval. This is unacceptably narrow for any analysis: my cynical mind says that the narrow interval was to give the impression of precision in the estimate).

    When the British Museum tested a sample for 6 months (a very long time – longer testing times allow a more accurate estimate of the residual 14C), they got a bunch of non-overlapping intervals. The gap between the lowest value of the lowest interval and the highest value of the highest interval, was 440 years, which was 10% of the presumed average age (this was for a sample thought to be from the 4000s BCE). A range of estimates that wide based on 1σ (68%) CIs, it will give a range of over 800y for a 95%CI.

    So anyhow… radiocarbon dating is not inherently accurate enough to discriminate between 1200±160 years ago and 700±160 (the ‘±’ numbers are assuming an 80-year standard deviation).

    When the gap between the proposed date and the tested date are much wider, it is of more use – for example, the gap between 30CE and 1200 CE is large enough for radiocarbon to be accurate enough to persuasively indicate that the Shroud of Turin is a preposterous 13th century forgery that would not fool a retarded child.

    When the putative dates are closer together, RCD is less useful: it would not help in working out whether the Donation of Constantine was written in the 4th century CE (as claimed for 1000 years) compared with the now-acknowledged reality: that it’s an 8th century forgery. That was proved – to a certainty – by analysis of the language of the text, and errors in the dating structure of the text.

    Horses for courses, in other words.

    • Replies: @the cleaner
  11. Zimriel says:

    “However, until the ninth century AD, no primary source provides absolute dates.” This is false.

    The Venerable Bede provides absolute dates for his chronology. Eusebius before him had an absolute chronicle as well – continued by many successors, like Rufinus and Socrates. Andrew Palmer wrote a whole book collecting “The Seventh-Century In The West Syrian Chronicles”. These are often primary for the lifetimes of the chroniclers. Also providing some consistent dates are the later emperors’ monuments ab urbe condita all commemorating recent events of course.

    Whatever you think of the Theophilus Chronicle hypothesis (I agree it is not primary) if the Christian Chronicle synopsis over the 600s and 700s is indeed only a hodgepodge of local Christian annals, these annals are, still, dependent on an absolute dating system. If independent sources agree on the same wording and the same numbering, it may as well be primary.

    Egypt had the Year Of Martyrs, from Diocletian. Syria maintained the calendar from Seleucus’ entry into Babylon. The Arabs then used their own chronology, admittedly not called “hijri” at the time, but consistent at least according to some starting date or event. One translation is “Year of the Believers’ Dispensation (sanat qada’l-mumineen)”, which seems reasonable. All of these 600s AD. Many inscribed on monuments erected by amirs like Mu’awiya or the caliph ‘Abd al-Malik.

    I haven’t even brought up the Maya Long Count yet. Or tree-ring analysis, pegging events like the late 530s disasters or the 775 solar flare.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Thanks: Ivan
    • Replies: @I Have Scinde
  12. @Zimriel

    But, don’t you know, every document that conflicts with this author’s alternate timeline is an obvious medieval forgery!

    My main question is, if all of antiquity is so much more recent than we’ve been told, why have not more historical documents survived?

    I particularly like the comet/Venus touch. It lets any serious person see that this is on the level of a Moon Landing Hoax article.

    I also enjoy the inconsistencies in argument – Chosroes is clearly the exact same etymologically as Caesar, but here, two people fighting someone named Chosroes must be fighting the same person! Also, there cannot be any period in history where nothing is recorded, or of which there is little physical evidence remaining. Such things cannot be! History must be jam-packed, with everything happening at once, really recently. So recently, in fact, that all written evidence must be forged much later or have been destroyed long ago.

    “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.” I will let that quote sit there for itself, and you can argue what the author is doing.

    Unfortunately, if there are indeed real inconsistincies in the timeline — and it is very unlikely that there are none — articles such as this are impediments. Scholars will reflexively lump any real criticisms in with these types of arguments, and chances to correct any actual honest mistakes or misunderstandings might be missed. So it goes.

  13. gT says:

    Excellent stuff, where there is smoke there is fire so there is definitely something wrong with the accepted timelines.

    Would be interesting to find out how close Mohammed’s rise was then to Christ’s birth, Islam apparently has its own calendar, which would not have been affected by the Church’s intrigues.

    • Agree: American Citizen 2.0
    • Replies: @Not Raul
  14. If’n I did sterling work like this, my name would be emblazoned all over it in fire, because this author belongs on the honour roll of decent academics. I feel edified.
    At school I absolutapositively hated history classes, they were entirely devoid of logic or even just common sense. I felt the teachers were trying to con me into something, or something.
    Now, mystery author, you ain’t gonna stop now, just when it gets interesting, are you? I mean, that bullshit about the Pyramid being 4 000 years old, or how about the nonsense that the whole world started shooting down Whitey because some prince got blown up by some dude in some Austrian street that nobody two hunderd miles away knew even existed… As a matter of fact, what real proof that Jesus existed? That story reeks of propaganda and circular referencing.
    Gods, I hate History!
    Thank you for injecting the common sense I knew must exist in there, somewhere.

  15. G. Poulin says:

    Oh, I would guess about a thousand years. Amiright?

    • LOL: Ivan
  16. Anon[567] • Disclaimer says:

    So how could the same place in, say France or Spain, be simultaneously ruled by Romans, Wisigoths and Saracens?
    When did the battle of Poitiers take place and who was ruling over the place? Why is there a Roman amphitheater built there is Saracens and Franks were simultaneously fighting each other in the vicnity? And why is there no sign of such battle in Roman sources?
    How could the Arabs build the Cordoba Mosque if at the same time Andalucia was a Roman colony?

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    , @Atzavar4
  17. It seems bizarrely out of touch with reality to quote 18th and 19th century historians as authorities. The questions of chronological accuracy have been long since definitively answered by advancing science. The interdisciplinary techniques of modern archaeology in particular have become vastly more sophisticated since I first studied them half a century ago.

    The assertion the author offers dismissing numismatic evidence for historical chronology, claiming “Nobody knows for sure”, betrays his ignorance of the intensive scholarship in this field, which has been a particular interest of mine. The devil, as usual, is in the details. The simple (and dreadfully tiresome) study of die-linking, for one example, provides a conclusive dating technique that in recent years has brought an astonishing new precision to assigning past coinages to their proper sequence of issue and correct year of manufacture.

    As for coins of mixed vintages found together we have the evidence of finds at Pompeii, to cite the most well-known dig having a well documented deposit date. Antique denarii are found in abundance alongside issues just a few months old, because in the ancient world there were few if any people “collecting” old or unusual coins. One purse at Pompeii contained nothing but worn legionary denarii of Marc Antony, minted 110 years earlier of debased silver supplied by Cleopatra before their catastrophe at Actium. It was rumored in antiquity that these coins were debased with iron, an impossible alloy, but their lowered silver content is the reason why people spent them as fast as they got them, and are found today in what specialists call “market hoards”. Hoards of Roman valuables are abundant and have been found consistently over the centuries. In former times, recovered coins were simply spent, trading at their current bullion value long after the empire vanished. Romano-Byzantine coin types were copied by the earliest Caliphs (and by Visigoths in Europe, who also extensively countermarked old Roman bronze issues), providing ample evidence of their familiarity with the still-circulating older money.

    The obvious argument of why no new infrastructure was built in Rome in later years is twofold: one is that the Romans constructed things once, to last. For example, Rome’s main sewer, the Cloaca Maxima, was built in 42 BC and is still in use today. The other is that Rome’s population declined from a million at its height to perhaps 45,000 after the imperial capital moved east to Constantinople, so no new improvements were needed.

    Incidentally, the later emperors at Constantinople dated their vast emissions of bronze coinage with their regnal years, forming a body of solid evidence of the durations of their reigns. That city, formerly named Byzantium, was of great enough commercial prominence to be an imperial mint-city long before Constantine. It had enjoyed eight hundred years of prosperity when Hadrian gifted its people with an aqueduct during his extended tour of the empire – also commemorated on his coinage.

    The notion that Augustus and Diocletian were contemporaries is beyond absurd, as even a casual familiarity with their radically different coinage types and styles immediately verifies.

    • Thanks: Ano4, Ivan
    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  18. Rahan says:

    I love this stuff. The very audacity… Dan Brown is obsolete.

    Would be great to see an action-adventure novel based on this.

    I’m sure I’m not the only one who would gladly provide writing advice in terms of structure, pacing, characters, and so on, should the author ever attempt to produce said novel.

    It would only be published by some brave indie house of two people, in today’s climate, or be self-published if all potentially “you’re literally Hitler” topics are avoided, but hey. Maybe it can then later become a hit somewhere outside of the Anglosphere, you never know.

    • Replies: @Professional Skeptic
  19. Awesome. Brilliant. Courageous.

    I had the same reaction when I first read Fomenko’s treatise some years ago. What you, Heinsohn and your group of scholars have done is apply the very basic principles of Aristotelian logic to ferret out some longstanding contradictions in historical chronology and give some needed consistency to the subject. You are asserting that an often soft document-oriented discipline like history must defer and conform to the results of harder sciences like astronomy and stratigraphic archeology, instead of, as usual (because of history’s numerical dominance), the other way around.

    You recognize that you are instigating a major paradigm change. By my count, however, it is more like a trifecta or perhaps even a double trifecta. First, you are rewriting the chronology of the entire ancient world. Then you are rewriting the history of the major world religions. You are also for perhaps the first time explaining the intense fears and superstitions permeating the ancient world and its religions. Then you are reviving the catastrophism of Velikovsky, with his best-selling Worlds in Collision of 1950, which was put down with such vitriol in the 1970s that not even his friend Albert E. could save him. And because it was put down by fabricating a runaway-greenhouse effect for the planet Venus, which in turn gave birth to global-warming theory, you are also posing a major challenge to the so-called climate-change consensus.

    As a result you will soon have the trolls out in force after your scalp, so to speak. If it’s any consolation you can now properly dub them all as stratigraphic-synchronicity deniers.

    A paradigm change in any field is not easy to get your head around. Try visualizing all your ideas in a subject as if they correspond to the cells in a monarch-butterfly larva going into a chrysalis and coming out the other side as a full-fledged butterfly. Most every cell, though not all, makes the transition but in a wholly different arrangement. As a transition of ideas, it’s barely possible for most people and it’s distinctly unprofitable for many. It’s well said that new paradigms only prevail when the adherents of the old die off.

    Don’t give up your day job. And don’t give up your anonymity unless you are prepared to be doxxed, canceled, threatened, or worse.

    Thank you for this.

    • Agree: Ano4, Alfred
    • Replies: @Julian of Norwich
    , @Robjil
  20. @I Have Scinde

    Holy crap, your reply is so disingenuous.

    For example; “My main question is, if all of antiquity is so much more recent than we’ve been told, why have not more historical documents survived?”

    You literally turn evidence against the historical narrative as evidence against that which is against the historical narrative.

    I cannot even comprehend your thought process, because it makes no sense. The facts are that we don’t have hardly any direct or primary sources; this should tell you that even over short times, such things are not likely to survive. If we extend to this the extended timeline, it makes such survival incredibly rare.

    Instead, you go backwards and say that, “Why haven’t more primary sources survived if the timeline is shorter?”

    Lmao, the fact you even asked that is just so incredibly ridiculous. This article laid it out and you have yet to provide any valid criticism. You just go straight for an ad hoc via claiming it is on the level of “moon hoax” while also saying literal retard level stuff such as what I laid out above.

  21. Ivan says:
    @Jack McArthur

    It was an interesting book nonetheless especially the illustrations.

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  22. neutral says:

    Other problems include the fact that Han and Tang art are indistinguishable

    Or they could simply have copied the earlier horse art piece in later periods.

    Regarding the missing time in general, if this is really true then one should be able to calibrate this with histories of other civilizations at the same time period. The Muslim calendar, or the Indian chronicles would also have to show missing centuries.

  23. I think this author, once upon a time, found out about the Donation of Constantine being a forgery, and, merging that with his frustration at the Dark Ages being a gap in Western Europe’s records, jumped to a conclusion that a whole lot else must’ve been faked.

    But that’s just it—jumped—not found by careful study and argument, but jumped. It’s certainly a fun theory to ponder on a Coast to Coast episode late at night, but in the light of day his arguments are a combination of appeal to authorities, leaving out key evidence, discounting anything from the West that contradicts his theory while being strangely worshipful about all Eastern sources, and generally throwing out “scholarly” quotes to laymen, which is a way many hucksters have bamboozled the masses for centuries.

    The Dark Ages and even the early medieval period in Europe are noted for their lack of written records in many areas, but not all areas. Ireland, for example, had writings from the First Millennium period he disputes; the famous Book of Kells is one such writing.

    • Agree: Julian of Norwich, American Citizen 2.0
    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  24. @I Have Scinde

    If, like the author of this essay, one abandons both fact and reason, then all things are possible and all equally likely.

  25. @Peripatetic Itch

    In this case the paradigm shift appears to be from reason to unreason. Or perhaps from honesty to dishonesty.

    • Agree: ariadna, Seraphim
    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  26. With over 27,000 words in 3 articles, 11,700 in the one just above, have tried to come up with a summary of take-aways from this thought-provoking series for the tl;dr crowd. My précis:

    The calendar of world history we all learned – Roman emperors and Jesus 2000 years ago, etc – is essentially a creation of the Renaissance, after a wave of historical material collected, written, and sometimes ‘found’, by Italians and Vatican priests and monks, seeking to pump up the glories of ancient Rome, Christianity, and the power of the Vatican Popes.

    Our standard historical timeline was then laid out by writers in what we call the 1500s, trying to ‘put together’ and ‘add up’ the more contingent historical dating in that literature, ‘3rd year of the reign of King Charles’ and so on.

    But now, historical scholarship is mounting that there was a combination of errors and deceptions, with a ‘calendar inflation’ of 700 years or so during the first millennium, years that never existed. Consider:

    The ‘official story’ is that the West had hundreds of years of ‘Dark Ages’ with few records and perhaps ‘not much happening’. Well, maybe in fact they didn’t happen all.

    The ‘official story’ is that ancient Rome flowered from the 100s BCE to the 100s CE, building great architecture, minting coinage, and writing great Latin literature, its glories then quickly fading.

    The ‘official story’ is that Byzantium-Constantinople, flowered from the 300s to the 500s, building in the Roman style, minting similar coins, and writing in similar Latin, then declining.

    The ‘official story’ is that Charlemagne and his sons come around the year 800, building in the very same ancient Roman style, minting similar coins, with scribes of the time reviving writing in similar Latin, then declining.

    The ‘official story’ is that European history, is marked by a series of three virtually identical crisis periods, in the 200s (‘Third Century Crisis’), 600s (‘Seventh Century Crisis’), and 900s (Tenth Century Crisis’), periods marked by similar huge political and social upheavals and climate-change disasters (Greta Thunberg take note!) … But isn’t it possible that these three ‘crisis periods’ are in fact the same? That the differences in place, have been transformed, retro-actively ‘ret-conned’ into differences in time?


    A growing pile of archaeological and other evidence, is easier to explain if we assume the official timeline is wrong, and 700 or so ‘ghost years’ were just fabricated. Continually, archaeologists are puzzled by finding groups of coins ‘from differing centuries’ … but actually they may well be from times near each other.

    And there is much major ‘stratigraphic’ evidence, from the layers of rock and earth denoting time-relationships of things found in them, archaeologists again always ‘puzzled’ by construction layers next to each other, which ‘should be many hundreds of years apart’. The barely-changing ‘Latin’ the same ‘over centuries’ in different places. Details such as why Viking ships are quite like Roman-Empire-era ships.

    When the modern calendar was produced, many names seem fudged. Charles the Great, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, and Charles the Simple, may all be quite the same person, not different leaders at different times. Names seem to be spun out and repeated, with I, II, III, IV to fill out lists of popes and kings to fill the centuries that supposedly passed.

    In Renaissance Italy, aristocrats and popes offered huge financial rewards for anyone ‘finding’ ancient manuscripts glorifying ancient Rome. With expert forgers available, much ‘ancient Latin literature’ was ‘found’. The Vatican aggressively sought to be much more ‘ancient’ than Byzantine Constantinople, left feeble and dying after fellow Christian ‘Crusaders’ sacked it in 1204 and stole most of the gold there, leaving it vulnerable to eventual Muslim conquerors.

    Under Western influence and colonialism, the Western calendar laid out in the 1500s, was sold to the rest of the world. Muslim, Indian, Chinese and other cultures all had historical dates assigned to match the Vatican timeline … but leaving the same set of puzzles. Why do artistic items and handicrafts appear in identical style, although allegedly centuries apart in ‘different’ eras?

    One net conclusion of this revisionism, is that Julius Caesar and then Jesus perhaps lived not 2000 years ago, but perhaps in the 700s CE, with Mohammed not long afterwards, everything being much more ‘compressed’ in time before the year 1000, and ‘ancient Greece and Rome’ multiple centuries more recent than is taught in schools.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @xcd
  27. Augustinus’ Confessiones always struck me as rather medieval – and even modern – than classic. As it might turn out, there might be somehting to my notion.
    (The paralells between Augustinus and Rousseau are so tightly knit).

  28. Not Raul says:

    Some scholars think that Muhammad never existed.

    Islam might have started as a non-trinitarian, iconoclastic sect of Christianity.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  29. Not Raul says:

    Arabs didn’t build the Córdoba mosque. The building was already there. They simply turned a church into a mosque.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  30. Not Raul says:

    I’m particularly curious about hearing the author’s opinion about two things:
    1. The Venerable Bede — how does he fit in to this?
    2. How did Romance Language speakers end up with the territory of Romania? According to the conventional history, Roman rule in Dacia wasn’t particularly lengthy.

  31. Robjil says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Heinsohn is a Israel and Jewish Supremacist crazie. He does not use Arist0telian logic when it comes to Israel and Jewish Elite games. He supports every aspect of the big 6 as mandated by our Jewish Elite. He supports wars for Israel in our times. He hates the Palestinians.

    In his essay entitled, “What Makes the Holocaust a Uniquely Unique Genocide?” Professor emeritus Gunnar Heinsohn (b. 1943) argues that the Holocaust is a unique genocide because Adolf Hitler hated Judaism so much that he wanted to destroy every physical, spiritual and intellectual mark of it. Hitler knew exactly what he was doing. Heinsohn shows that Hitler admired ancient Sparta because the Spartans killed their disabled babies. On the other hand, Hitler hated Jews because of the Jewish code of ethics according to which every human life is sacred. Hitler loved death more than Jews love life.

    He thinks that US, the Zion Golem, went to the Middle East to bring “peace”.

    If one prefers examples closer to Palestine, then one might as well look at Iraq or Yemen. Both countries are bleeding under a war index of 5.7. They have been in and out of war since the 1960s although the U.S. has sent massive armies, daunting bomber squadrons or sophisticated drones to bring peace.

    If President Trump wishes to help the parties achieve peace in the Middle East, then he must focus the negotiation on the population growth of the West Bank and Gaza. Perhaps leaders must take measures such as focusing on the education of women or public awareness campaigns to raise the age at which women have their first child to curb the population growth.

    What is Gunnar’s present job for NATO? I don’t think he can be a trusted historian with his antics. He is all about Israel uber alles.

    Gunnar Heinsohn teaches war demography at the NATO Defense College in Rome.

  32. Sean says:

    The clock was set ticking 500o years ago.

    The most violent group of people who ever lived: Horse-riding Yamnaya tribe who used their huge height and muscular build to brutally murder and invade their way across Europe>In this review, we summarize the recent archeogenomic reconstruction of population admixture in Europe and demonstrate that skin lightening happened as late as 5000 years ago …. We show that variations in genes encoding for proteins being responsible for the transport, metabolism and signalling of vitamin D provide alternative mechanisms of adaptation to a life in northern latitudes without suffering from consequences of vitamin D deficiency. This includes hypotheses explaining differences in the vitamin D status and response index of European populations.”

    The Bronze Age was not a very good time for a woman to have bronzed skin No mere mixture with invaders in any proportion can explain how the ancestral allele of SLC24A5 that was common across so much of Europe suddenly began disappearing 5,000 years ago . The other white skin allele (on SLC45A2) swept up from low levels 5000 years ago. Pretty conclusive. The genes for red hair has a big effect in whitening skin. Women with that gene would be at an advantage in the aftermath of the Bell Beaker conquest
    According to studies of IndoEuropean mythology, young Yamnaya men would go off in warlike groups, raping and pillaging for a few years, then return to their village and settle down into respectability as adults. Those cults were mythologically associated with wolves and dogs, like youths forming wild hunting packs, and the youths are said to have worn dog or wolf skins during their initiation .[…] Anthony says that all this offers solid archaeological evidence for the youthful “wolf packs” of Indo-European legends – and sees a link to the myth of the foundation of Rome. “You’ve got two boys, Romulus and Remus, and a wolf that more or less gives birth to them,” he says. “And the earliest legends of the foundation of Rome are connected with a large group of homeless young men who were given shelter by Romulus. But they then wanted wives, so they invited in a neighbouring tribe and stole all their women. You can see that whole set of early legends as being connected possibly with the foundation of Rome by youthful war bands.”

    What is Byzantium’s founding myth, some guy caught a boat?

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @Ano4
  33. Thanks for another great article! The fact that one can only find writings like this outside the rigidly controlled and ossified academic environment is further proof that academe has lost all true significance. PC, gender and race nonsense are merely the final nails in its coffin. The University is dead.

    When writing an article on Charlemagne a couple of years ago, I asked Patrick Geary what he thought about Illig. He replied with a mixture of exasperation and irritation, as he sweepingly rejected Illig’s thesis. Other specialists reacted in the same way, which only served to confirm the dim view I had of the level of contemporary academic debate. Boy, was I glad I had left the university!

    Although not a medievalist myself, I realized that the standard narrative concerning the Merovingians, Longobards, Charlemagne and the Carolingians was nonsensical when I wrote a history of the Marches region in Italy. Those endless lists of Longobard rulers (known only by name but who somehow never struck a single coin, whose graves are unknown etc.), the superhuman qualities ascribed to Charlemagne etc. are simply not credible. Charlemagne was superintelligent, physically strong, a great swimmer and a great singer, indefatigable, a perfect horseman and swordsman, a consummate linguist (although he could not write but was nonetheless able to sign his name), conversant in Frankish, Latin, Greek etc., charming beyond belief, irresistible to women, father to legions of children with dozens of women, etc. etc.

    I wondered how come so many medievalists meekly accepted such nonsense. How come no one ever began to doubt. And no effort has been spared to locate the battlefields where Charlemagne and his men exhibited their martial prowess: Roncesvalles/Roncevaux, Pavia, Saxony, etc. Nothing has ever been dug up, no skeleton, no helmet, no sword, no spear, no remains of a saddle or a horse, nothing at all . Same with the place where his grandfather, Charles Martel is supposed to have defeated the Moors, near Poitiers/Tours, in 732: no trace was ever found.

    For Illig, who also based his theory on astronomical data, 297 years were invented. For Heinsohn, seven centuries.

    In the first case, we are living in the year 1723, in the second case, approximately in 1320.

    There is a lot of work to be done by all those history professors. And it is a lot more fun than to teach millennials about “Gender and Race in Merovingian Gaul,” or “Female and Transgender Warriors in the Carolingian Army, 785-815.”

    • Thanks: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @Old and Grumpy
    , @Adûnâi
  34. DrWatson says:

    What about papal history? Are they all inventions? Perhaps the author overlooked it?

  35. @Robjil

    All fine and dandy, of course. However, if among someone’s various utterances, there are some that you do not agree with, or that are wrong or demonstrably erroneous, this does not mean that ALL his utterances are wrong or untrue.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  36. Ano4 says:

    You conflate two very different things. Yamnaya are not the same as Bell Beaker folks. They are separated by nearly a 1000 years. Yamnaya migration did not destroy Old Europe, Bell Beaker did. Bell Beaker people genocided male lineages of other groups, including those who descended directly from Yamnaya. Bell Beaker were dark haired and brown eyed, they originated in the Iberian peninsula, while Yamnaya migrated from today’s Volga region in Russia. If you want to imagine what a typical Bell Beaker looked like, just look at modern day Basque people. A typical Mediterranean population. In fact, besides the Iberian peninsula, earliest Bell Beaker cultural artefacts are found in Morocco. It is something West European populations, descended mainly from the Bell Beaker males, do not seem aware of.

    BTW, this is also similar to the origins of other Iberic populations in later times.

    • Agree: zimriel
    • Replies: @Sean
    , @No
  37. @Robjil

    What is Gunnar’s present job for NATO? I don’t think he can be a trusted historian with his antics. He is all about Israel uber alles.

    OK, but Einstein was also an unrepentant if nuanced Zionist. Are we supposed to reject his scientific achievements because we don’t like his political views? I personally came onto this topic by reading Fomenko (long before I had seen Heinsohn’s contribution), who came to similar conclusions from astronomical considerations. Do I need to check out his opinions on your issues?

    You need to relate how Heinsohn’s political views informed his scientific views. Otherwise your perhaps quite valid critique is little more than a convoluted ad hom.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Robjil
  38. @Julian of Norwich

    the paradigm shift appears to be from reason to unreason

    Very good essay topic. Now do support it with facts, evidence and examples. I know you can do it. Drive-by shootings are not arguments.

    • Replies: @Julian of Norwich
  39. @DrWatson

    Fomenko got into the topic of duplicate popes. If I recall correctly, he found exactly the same thing. Popes with similar names and biographies in widely disparate eras.

  40. @R.G. Camara

    May I suggest you do some more reading before just repeating the standard narrative? Actually, you cannot rely only on what’s been written in English. Just reading other languages in itself will help you broaden your horizon. And fakes were probably as common in the Middle Ages as they are today

    This would be a good start: Fälschungen im Mittelalter. Internationaler Kongreß der Monumenta Germaniae Historica München, 16.-19. September 1986
    5 Textbände und 1 Registerband. zus. 3945 S. 8º. 1988/1990.
    ISBN 978-3-447-17207-3

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
  41. @Not Raul

    Indeed, it might just be Arianism, which is what some have suggested.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  42. eknibbs says:

    Diocletian in the East (I guess of “Byzantine Rome”) appointed Maximian to be his co-emperor in the West (“Italian Rome”). When did he do this? At the beginning of the “Byzantine Rome” timeline, or the end of the “Italian Rome” timeline?

    It is a difference of centuries in the chronology proposed by the Revisionist in the simultaneity hypothesis above.

    Note that upon opening a certain book I find, in fact within about ten seconds, a year which the Fasti (I wrote about these extensively in the other thread) christen “Diocletian IV/Maximianus III” – i.e., a year named for Diocletian’s fourth consulship (in “Byzantine Rome”) and Maximianus’s third consulship (in “Italian Rome”).

    In “Byzantine Rome,” we have papyri that carry a Diocletian IV/Maximianus III year. In “Italian Rome,” four inscriptions also know a Diocletian IV/Maximianus III year.

    What is this year?

    Now I will just arbitrarily flip forwards in my book. I find another year – 179 consular years after the above Diocletian IV/Maximianus III year – which the Fasti christen according to the consuls Marcianus and Zeno. In the West, one inscription likewise has a Marcianus/Zeno year. This is “Italian Rome,” and the inscription is in Rome itself. In the eastern “Byzantine Rome” we have one Oxyrynchus papyrus and an inscription in Thessalonica that also attest to a Marcianus/Zeno year.

    What is this Marcianus/Zeno year, which came 179 consular years after the Diocletian IV/Maximianus III year? It is perhaps in the middle of the “Byzantine Rome” timeline, in which case it has fallen off the end of the “Italian Rome” timeline. Or it is somewhere in the “Italian Rome” timeline but in the pre-history of “Byzantine Rome.”

    Note that years like this, when the same set of consuls served in East and West, are not all that rare.

    One more. Basilius, the last regular Roman consul, clearly served in the “Byzantine Rome” timeline, 72 consular years after Marcianus/Zeno. The Fasti attest to his consulship. In the West there are four inscriptions that bear a consular year named Basilius. (One of them is from Arles. Is this a “Germanic Rome” inscription really made in the tenth century?) In the East we also have papyri and inscriptions with a Basilius year.

    It is a problem for you, when Basilius was consul. Because he was actually a westerner from “Italian Rome” who fled to Constantinople after Totila’s victory. There, he met none other than Justinian. Is it not strange that he did so? Because your essay suggests that he ought to have been fleeing Odoacer, and so it should’ve been the emperor Zeno who received him. But no, Basilius flees Totila in the West and it is Justinian who appoints him consul in the East.

    In the West, meanwhile, the chronicler Marius of Avenches (I assume he counts as “Germanic Rome”) dates events to the post-consulship of Basilius. (Why is he doing this? Aren’t there plenty of “Italian Rome” consuls, indeed healthy Republican ones, available? Why is he reaching all the way East?) For example, he dates the death of the Merovingian King Theudebert to eight years after Basilius was consul. Gregory of Tours, preserved in pre-Carolingian manuscripts, reports also that Theudebert died at this time: You have to count the regnal years backwards, but it still works out. So Theudebert, a king whose death sources native to “Germanic Rome” place 250 years before Charlemagne’s coronation, is located by sources native to “Byzantine Rome” to a date that, in your simultaneity hypothesis, falls a century or more after Charlemagne. Note also that the “Byzantine Rome” chronicler Procopius knows about Theudebert and reports about him as if he were a contemporary. He is also aware of other early “Germanic Rome” events which he places roughly contemporary to himself writing in sixth-century “Byzantine Rome.”

    Finally: When did there cease to be consuls?

    “Italian Rome” has them for the entire extent of the timeline that you sketch above.

    In “Byzantine Rome” they petre out just at the end these parallel lines.

    In “Germanic Rome,” we only hear about consuls attested in inscriptions/papyri from “Italian” and “Byzantine” Rome, and the only sources with consular dates are exceedingly early ones, and they date primarily according to the latest “Byzantine Rome” consuls.

  43. Sean says:

    You cannot be serious that the Beaker Folk actually looked like modern day Basques!

    DNA analysis shows that Ava had straight black hair, brown eyes…Ava descended via both parents from immigrants into Britain, possibly from what is now the Netherlands, but probably grew up within the Caithness region. Her ancestors likely arrived a few generations earlier; this is supported not only by the DNA analysis but with the style of the Beaker found in her cist (Hoole 2018, 107)

    That is a very large head“Since the Bronze Age, the brain shrank a lot more than you would expect based on the decrease in body size,” Hawks reports. “For a brain as small as that found in the average European male today, the body would have to shrink to the size of a pygmy” to maintain proportional scaling. […]
    “When you select against aggression, you get some surprising traits that come along with it,” Wrangham says. “My suspicion is that the easiest way for natural selection to reduce aggressiveness is to favor those individuals whose brains develop relatively slowly in relation to their bodies.” When fully grown, such an animal does not display as much aggression because it has a more juvenile brain, which tends to be less aggressive than that of an adult. “This is a very easy target for natural selection,” Wrangham argues, because it probably does not depend on numerous mutations but rather on the tweaking of one or two regulatory genes that determine the timing of a whole cascade of developmental events.

    Post conquest/Y-Chromosome replacement there was selection for reduced aggression and lighter coloration. The myths of Rome (sons of a wolf , The Rape of the Sabine Women) seem a pretty good fit with the Yamnaya. The Bell Beaker were close enough to the Yamnaya, but the modern peoples of Europe are the outcome of the Beakers undergoing sexual selection, and the self domesticating selection (execution of lawless males) that Wrangham talks about.The Basques speak a pre-Indo-European language.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  44. While you’re at it, why not throw in the collapse of the Bronze Age? Isn’t that around the time the Egyptians expelled their Hebrew creditors?

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @Alfred
  45. No says:

    The “Beakers are from Iberia” theory has been debunked.
    Also, they wouldn’t be anything like Basques, not at all.
    I could post papers, but I don’t want to deal with you people, specially because this has been destroyed over and over in sites like Eurogenes and Anthrogenica.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  46. @Hans Vogel


    “Go do my research for me to support my point” is a good sign the argument is bunk.

    Like with the Loose Change guys or Moon Hoaxers, the people who demand you just “read this book” or “watch this video” are admitting they cannot make the argument and demand YOU go look at the evidence and convince yourself because THEY cannot explain it logically.

    Bonus for demanding I go learn foreign languages to read the other books that support an argument that you can’t explain.

    The purpose of this article was to explain an argument. Instead the author and you rely on telling the audience to go read other sources to convince themselves, or else just “trust us.”

    You played yourself.

    • Agree: zimriel, Johnny Rico
    • Replies: @No
    , @Hans Vogel
    , @Johnny Rico
  47. Ano4 says:

    What’s the difference between the lady in your picture (a modern day reconstruction) and some Basque woman you could meet today? You really think that such a face could not be found anywhere in Euskadi?

    I know that Euskera is not an Indo-European language, but so was also Iberian. Iberians themselves might have originated in Northern Africa, they clearly had strong connected there as did Beaker folks . We have no information about the language Beaker folks spoke.

    The first attested Indo-European speaking populations in Spain were the Celtiberians who were basically Celts admixed to Iberians and acculturated through the contact with Iberians that they have pushed towards south-eastern Spain.

    That was more than a thousand years later than Bell Beaker cultural expansion started from modern day Portugal (or possibly from Atlantic northern Morocco). It is probably also Celts who brought Indo-European languages to British Islands, there is a fair chance that before that the language spoken there was not Indo-European (possibly Afroasiatic, but we probably will never know what language was spoken by the Megalithic Culture prior to the Beaker folks invasion and the ensuing genocide, neither will we know what Beaker people spoke).

    Fact is, you erroneously mixed up Yamnaya with the Beaker folks. The only think they had in common was Y haplogroup R1b, but their subclades were completely different. Modern day descendants of Yamnaya people are to be found among the Turkic speaking Bashkirs of the Russian Federation. Also Yamnaya people clearly impacted the Armenians and the modern day Assyrian/Syriac people of nothern Irak where Yamnaya type Y haplogroup R1b is found in a significant proportion.

    Interestingly enough, the red hair phenotype that you mistakenly assigned to Beaker folks (which you somehow conflated with the Beaker folks) is found in the largest proportion of the Udmurt people, the neighbors of Bashkirs who have not been assimilated by the into Turkic cultural ensemble during the Golden Horde. Udmurt people speak a ugro-finnic language.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  48. In related news:

    In 1939, Velikovsky brought his family to New York City, planning to spend the summer engaged in research at Columbia University’s library. He was compiling a psycho-historical text to outline the many intriguing parallels he had uncovered between the Greek literary character Oedipus and the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhnaton.

    More recently The Egyptian writer Ahmed Osman has drawn similar compelling parallels between Akhnaton and the biblical patriarch Moses. Akhnaton came from a line of Tutmoses and had a brother by that name. -Moses, meaning “the son of.”

    Seizing on the striking similarities between the religious vision of this “heretic” pharaoh and the teachings of Moses, Sigmund Freud was the first to argue that Moses was in fact an Egyptian. Now Ahmed Osman, using recent archaeological discoveries and historical documents, contends that Akhenaten and Moses were one and the same man.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    , @Alfred
    , @xcd
  49. No says:
    @R.G. Camara

    Although you have a point, that’s not an argument.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  50. Ano4 says:

    The “Beakers are from Iberia” theory has been debunked.

    Wishful thinking from people who don’t want to admit that Beaker folks were probably not Indo-European at all.

    Again: Yamnaya and Beaker people were both Y haplogroup R1b, but their subclades were different and both cultural phenomena were separated by some 1000 years.

    We have no idea what language either Yamnaya or Beakers spoke. They left no writing record and some of their respective direct descendants speak non Indo-European languages today. The Picts in Scotland, descendants of the Beaker migrants also most probably did not speak an Indo-European language.

    Deal with it: Western Europeans are not originally Indo-European, they have only become Indo-European after the Italo-Celtic expansion from the lower Danube in modern day Romania in 1500 before AD.

    It is quite possible that Celts themselves become Indo-European speakers under the influence of Unetice culture located further to the North-East in relation to the original Italo-Celtic Urheimat.

    Sorry, but no Aryan cookie for you if you are a Western European Bell Beaker Y haplogroup R1b descendant…


    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @Mr. Hack
  51. Ano4 says:

    mistakenly assigned to Beaker folks (which you somehow conflated with the Beaker folks)

    Should have read mistakenly assigned to Yamnaya people

    • Replies: @Sean
  52. @R.G. Camara

    One can cloak ignorance and laziness in many ways. Apparently you have a smaller factual basis and less knowledge and have a lot of catching up to do. Hence we cannot discuss on an equal basis. Good luck.

  53. @Hans Vogel

    Shouldn´t we then have some Moorish comment on the Visigoths (who were not terribly scribose before they became Catholic and reconquisty) other than them being strong and unwashed?

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  54. @I Have Scinde

    I particularly like the comet/Venus touch. It lets any serious person see that this is on the level of a Moon Landing Hoax article.

    Immanuel Velikovsky’s peer-reviewed book on Venus as a comet, Worlds in Collision, was on the NYTimes bestseller list for 27 straight weeks in 1950, topping the charts for 11 weeks. The following is an excerpt from a scholarly defense of Velikovsky by Charles Ginenthal, Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky (1995). Sagan was the designated hit-man for the vitriolic establishment counter-attack on Velikovsky in 1974. Back to you.

    Vine Doloria, Jr., in God is Red, (NY 1973), pp. 145-146, sums things up succinctly.

    “As Velikovsky unveiled a concept of the solar system, respectable scholars guffawed at his apparently wild predictions and suppositions. Practically every point he suggested was derided as being totally contrary to what science had already ‘proved’ to be true. Scholars in the major disciplines affected by the thesis ridiculed Velikovsky, announcing satirically that if his thesis were true, it would require certain phenomena to be present, which everyone knew was not the case. All of these wild predictions made in 1950 by Velikovsky were universally rejected.

    “Then the evidence began to come in. Science had new opportunities to conduct sophisticated experiments with the beginning of the space probes. New methods of dating materials began to be developed, the International Geophysical Year of 1958 was held to determine systemat­ically certain facts about the planets, and eventually the Mars and Venus probes by space rockets were made. Universally and without exception Velikovsky’s predictions and suggestions about the planets were confirmed. No other comprehensive explanation of the solar system had returned as many different accurate results as had the theory espoused in Worlds in Collision.

    “Naturally the scholars who had derided Velikovsky did not credit him with the results of his creative thought. They continued the curtain of silence while stealing his ideas as fast as they could read his books. Some of the more prominent scientists had made dramatic announcements that if Velikovsky were right, then Earth, the Sun, Venus, the Moon, Mars, and other heavenly bodies would have certain characteristics. When Velikovsky was proved correct they promptly hedged rhetorically and dodged their embarrassment in double-talk, too chagrined or perhaps too stupid to apologize.”

    Doloria adds on page 148 that,

    “The most common attack now leveled against Velikovsky is that he simply made a series of lucky guesses and hit on quite a few of them. The point that this attack misses is that every prediction that he made had to fit into his general interpretation of the nature of the solar system. He was not simply spinning a tale and casually throwing off unrelated predictions. Rather, everything suggested by Velikovsky originated from the implications of his thesis. His predictions involve pulling together the meaning of numerous fields of interest to form a unified view of the universe.”

    Sagan is also guilty of suggesting that certain predictions of Velikovsky are not properly derived from his thesis; these will be discussed as, for example, Sagan’s claim that Venus’ high surface temperature is not “central to his [Velikovsky’s] hypothesis” or that the magnetic fields of Jupiter are “not linked in its essentials to the fundamental Velikovskian theses.” In all respects Sagan’s assessment of Velikovsky’s predictions is no more than a political ploy without substance or value.

    One is led to ask: Why is it that so many people with modest backgrounds in science and ancient history have been influenced by Sagan’s criticisms of Velikovsky’s theses? I suspect that it is Sagan’s reputation that has been the convincing influence. However, based strictly on the evidence this criticism clearly fails. As stated earlier when entrenched theories are held as absolute authority, that to question them brings forth abuse, then science as open inquiry becomes restrictive and established theory becomes established dogma. Therefore, I can only assume that Sagan is so attached to this dogma that with the uniformitarian axe he has to grind, he is determined to cut Velikovsky from his predictions to save his views of what science should be.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @nokangaroos
  55. Von Rho says:

    The historical “double” characters are exaggerated by Fomenko. Let’s consider Palmyra. The Roman emperor Diocletian, helped by his lieutenant Odenatus, took Palmira twice in the 3rd century AD, since after the first conquest there was the teason of Queen Zenobia. The Russian army helped the Syrian army take Palmyra twice in 2017/2018. In a near future, would a Fomenko’s follower historian consider Diocletian / Odenate to be a Putin / Shoigu double?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  56. @nokangaroos

    That would indeed have been ever so welcome. On the other hand, perhaps all that talk of Moorish conquest since 711 and the Reconquista lasting seven centuries is nonsense. Curious though that it would tie in with Heinsohn’s seven missing centuries.

  57. Von Rho says:

    Although recentism focused a lot of interesting issues, ideology is obvious both for Fomenko and Heisohn. Fomenko is obviously a pan-eslavist inflating Russia when he equalizes his country to Tartaria, but he is not so wrong when he caveats that it happened only under the Godunov, because the criminals Romanov, as the name indicates, were pro West. Heisohn, by his turn, as a modern middling German, is pro EU, equalizing the heyday of Roman Era for North, South West, and South East Europe as well as for Near East (lets remember that EU was an idea of Catholics such as Adenauer, Monnet, La Malfa, etc.). Heisohn seems to have made the same of Uderzo and Gosciny writing about Asterix traveling in a ship with people of all those regions.

  58. Excellent article! This is why I come to Unz. I have to admit that I didn’t find the first article in the series terribly convincing, so I skipped the second one on church history, which I may now go back and read after all. I always did have the feeling that the idea of the ‘dark ages,’ where history just took a breather for five centuries or so, does, when you think about it, seem kinda off.

    All of which raises a good question: What year are we living in now? 1520? 1320? 1720?

    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.

    Hell, in the middle of the third century AD (conventional timeline), Rome actually an Arab for an emperor, named, suitably enough, Philip the Arab.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  59. Ano4 says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    What year are we living in now?


  60. Not Raul says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Freud might have been right about a few things.

    Middle Eastern history is even more politicized than Dark Ages history.

    Much of what passes for conventional wisdom about the Middle East is fraud.

    One example: The (pro-temple) Jews have a different version of Deuteronomy 27:4 than the Samaritans. The (pro-temple) Jews might have changed it in order to move the chief worship site to the temple in Jerusalem, against the instructions given in Deuteronomy.

  61. @No

    And your point would be…?

  62. Atzavar4 says:

    Ignacio Olagüe remarks in his book about the odd muslim conquer narrative we have been taught that Cordobas mosque seems in fact to be arian in origin, the followers of Arrio, the Arians, were a well established heresy among visigoths in spain. So you do the maths, Franks=Romans=True christians (catholics) & “sarracens”=Arians=Visigoths=heretics (yes, because they did loose the war)

    • Replies: @Ano4
  63. Ano4 says:

    I have read his book and found it compelling. The whole Islamic conquest feels very strange. How is it that a few dozen thousand desert dwelling Bedouin people conquered Sassanid Persia and the main part of the Byzantine Empire?

    This doesn’t make sense, unless they have been massively supported by a significant portion of the conquered population. The same is of course true about the conquest of the Iberian peninsula. Interestingly enough, recently medieval Islamic tombs have been found in the areas that did not experience Islamic conquest in Southern France.

    And one has to remember that the Maghreb was mainly Christian then: Tertullian, the Donatists, St Augustine, popes Victor I and Gelasius and so forth. Arius himself, of the Arian heresy fame, was of Lybian Berber extraction. These people were Roman citizens, spoke Latin and were completely integrated into the Roman Empire’s civilization.

    Nevertheless, a massive conversion of Berbers to Islam occurred in a matter of a few generations. Very similar to Al Andalus. Very puzzling.

    So perhaps a significant part of the early Christians disagreed with both Byzantine and Roman church hierarchies and saw the early Muslims as a lesser evil?

    • Replies: @Ano4
    , @Seraphim
    , @Alden
  64. Ano4 says:

    And it seems that in the Maghreb Islam definitely prevailed only around the Xth century AD.

    Anything to do with the the crisis of the Xth century mentioned in the article above?

  65. TheBAG says:

    I have read all the comments and have found no discussion of Mr. Heinsohn’s central thesis, the evidence from stratigraphy. According to Mr. Heinsohn, if you dig down through the layers at ANY site in Europe you will only find a single catastrophe. In some sites this catastrophe layer is dated to the 3rd century, at others it is dated to the 6th century and finally some of the catastrophe layers are dated to the 10th century. But there is ever only one such layer at any particular site. This is Mr. Heinsohn’s central ground truth, isn’t it? If this assertion is indeed true(i.e., at most one catastrophe layer), then isn’t this the most important Truth to which all other information must conform, rather than the other way around? Shouldn’t the most important search be to find a site that has distinct layers for two or even all three of these catastrophes? A single such find would totally demolish Mr. Heinsohn’s argument and then we could return to our comfortable cocoons.

    • Agree: Alfred
  66. @TheBAG

    Good point indeed. So far, nothing has been found. Of course the problems is that it is not possible to know where to look. All the known sites have already been investigated and described, with the results outlined by Heinsohn. New excavations are mostly done wherever a major new building project is being undertaken. And with the government-ordered destruction of economies under the pretext of fighting a “deadly” virus, it will be a long time before some crucial information will be unearthed.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Alfred
  67. @TheBAG

    Precisely – to date, no one has pointed to any excavation having stratigraphic evidence for 3 catastrophes. In addition, Heinsohn discovered decades earlier, that a similar stratigraphic problem occurs for the pre BC period when the Romans knew of the Chaldeans, but not the Sumerians. Again, stratigraphic evidence supporting the mainstream chronology is absent.

    It does seem Heinsohn gets the David Bohm treatment by the scientific mafia – they cannot fault his method and theory so they simply ignore the heretic.

  68. Polymath says:

    Shouldn’t ancient writings about solar eclipses settle this?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  69. RT says:

    Impressive. We are not in 2020, but some few hundred years erlier. So, the Doomsday from the Mayan calendar is still to come?

  70. pB says:
    @Michael Meo

    “can be tested and dated absolutely”
    it is my understanding that radiocarbon dating depends on a lot of vagaries and assumptions and is useful for rough dating and not very useful for exact dates of say a few centuries.

  71. History ended in the 18th century

  72. @Michael Meo

    Yes he is airily dismissive of carbon dating and tree ring dating but I can’t see how they would not prove e.g. that 2000 years really had passed since something belonging to Augustus was created rather than no more than 1300 (or for that matter 1700) years. And what about astronomy? Surely there are eclipses or meteorites which can be dated. And the volcanic event attributed to the 530s can perhaps be associated with Chinese reports of date able astronomical phenomena.

  73. @Peripatetic Itch

    A NY Times best-seller was peer reviewed? Sounds unlikely. Anyway isn’/ this all years out of date?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  74. @Peripatetic Itch

    Some of Velikowsky´s ideas (say, Venus´rotation following impact) are now considered settled science. But as noted the neocatastrophism battle took off only in 1984 and Alvarez&Alvarez had excellent proof while Immanuel had apparitions. Before that, Lyell´s Actualism (roughly “nothing ever happened that we cannot observe today”, against the Genesis Flood people) was more or less Gospel.
    Indeed my old-school professors gleefully recounted how their professors used to put down especially idiotic ideas with “Why not go back to Cuvier all the way?” 😀
    Cuvier was, of course, a giant and right on every count – but in the end Velikowsky only pioneered the ever-more-popular sensationalist-scattershot method of publication:
    It´s probably bullshit, in which case it will be forgotten; and if it happens not to, I have priority.
    It has done a hack job on average quality as well as public trust.
    Contrary to popular belief academia – like evolution – would be worthless without a certain resistance to change; this does not mean ideas should not be aired and discussed –
    only that Joe Q. Public is a poor arbiter.

    (on whether history is science I take the Fifth 😛 )

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  75. @Peripatetic Itch

    You are right to point out my shallow resort to simple derision. Apologies for that.

    The task you set, of detailed rebuttal, is somewhat overwhelming, given the author’s decision to studiously ignore the huge quantity of contrary evidence available in the academic literature.

    Much of this evidence doesn’t relate to written sources, which are for many periods incomplete or non-existant, often subject to bias and self-censorship, often reflecting what the authors thought should have happened rather than what did actually happen.

    Despite the limitations of the written record, academic historians, labouring collectively and incrementally, have produced a highly detailed account of classical and mediaeval societies, their development, interaction, decline and transformation.

    A striking feature of this body of academic work is the degree of historical continuity that it demonstrates. More than ever, European history is seen as a process of evolution from one form of society to another, rather than one of destruction and replacement.

    Even where there are apparently stark discontinuities, such as the fall of the Western Roman empire or the Islamic conquests of the Middle East and Europe, these events entailed processes of both change and continuity, each apparent over extended periods of time.

    Much of recent historical scholarship comprises the detailed study of how, and to what extent, specific aspects of social, cultural, political and economic organisation changed, or remained the same, over time, and how these changes connect existing societies with their successors, or one historical period with another.

    The result is an increasingly consistent and complete picture of interconnected processes leading from one form of society to another. None of this work, so far as I am aware, has arrived at results that challenge the fundamental authenticity of the overall timescale of European history, or the periods into which this is divided.

    Those who would like an authoritative overview of recent hisorical research on these topics might start with Prof Chris Wickham’s ‘Framing the Early Middle Ages’ Oxford University Press, 2005.

  76. @Hans Vogel

    “Fango” in the original has no genetic connotations, and fire, fungus and what have you do not imply synchronicity. Montmorillonites, microtectites, a chemical signature … anything?

    Pretty please?

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  77. Sean says:

    What’s the difference between the lady in your picture (a modern day reconstruction) and some Basque woman you could meet today?

    But there is a huge difference between her and any Scottish girl in her colouring of hair and eyes. That paper I cited shows that the change to white skin happened 5000 years ago. White skin populations did not arrive in Europe then, they arose then and there.

    The only think they had in common was Y haplogroup R1b,

    If they were taking conquered people’s women then the Yamnaya could have altered quite a bit while stile being in the same male line. If so the physical differences would be expected in in the traits selected for when men chose from among an excess of women. Also in the traits selected for when women need to inhibit aggression from demonic males The Basques (compared to Irish or Scots) did not have that selection to such an great extent, and they don’t speak an Indo European language which suggest the Bell Beaker patriarchy was not so cruel among Basques. I don’t pretend to know why.

    However, to get back on topic the myth of Rome’s founding involves sons of a wolf and women stealing, which seem to lie closer to the Yamnaya cult of the early Bronze age that anything associated with the origin of Byzantium.

    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @Ano4
  78. Evidence says:

    Don’t we have astronomical reports that can be used to validate chronology? Did ancients record planet positions or other slow periodic events?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  79. dearieme says:
    @The Alarmist

    The Hebrews in Egypt are a better of fable and fiction, not history.

    • Agree: Alfred
  80. dearieme says:

    “Vespasian (69-79 AD), the emperor of the martyrdom of Peter”: I snort at the idea that 7 centuries can be dismissed so lightly when the absurd yarn about Peter going to Rome is clung to.

  81. @dearieme

    I didn’t mean it literally, of course. I meant: “the emperor traditionnally associated with the martyrdom of Peter”

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  82. @Julian of Norwich

    A striking feature of this body of academic work is the degree of historical continuity that it demonstrates. More than ever, European history is seen as a process of evolution from one form of society to another, rather than one of destruction and replacement.

    I’m sure you may quibble that Turkey is not a part of Europe, though its border with Syria is squarely within the Christian orbit, but I offer you Göbekli Tepe anyway. It’s hard to see it as anything other than destruction.

    Göbekli Tepe is notable for multiple reasons, but they all tie back in to its excessive ancientness. The construction at Göbekli Tepe dates back almost 12,000 years, placing it in a time period that is generally considered to be pre-civilization. It was built right around the same time that the last ice age ended. Göbekli Tepe then went on to be an active civilization for nearly three millennia before being abandoned under mysterious circumstances around 9,000 years ago.

    Velikovsky cited a number of examples of civilizations that had simply disappeared. Among them were ruins of massive cities sitting high in the Andes, where there was no hope of growing the crops needed to feed their millions of inhabitants. Darwin himself, he noted, had visited Andean shorelines raised thousands of feet above the ocean but littered with still incompletely decayed shellfish of contemporary species. This all spoke to massive mountain uplifting after the cities had been well established.

    • Replies: @Julian of Norwich
  83. Bert says:
    @I Have Scinde

    “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.”

    Where there are wooden artifacts to which it can be applied, dendrochronology is reliable and cannot be waved away as Anonymous Author has. The interdependency he refers to is the use of dendrochronological data to calibrate radiocarbon data. Another kind of interdependency is the strength of dendrochronology: ring counts and their associated widths are started from 1950 and by matching the pattern to geographically near trees whose lives partially overlapped can be extended back 12,000 years. It is entirely untrue to say that dendrochronology as a method is calibrated from “the standard timeline.” A sloppy researcher might assume a point on the standard timeline to anchor a segment of the dendrochronological record, but the assumption could be tested by examining the record forward to the present. And of course there is nothing “relative” about a dendrochronological date; it is an absolute date with a small standard error.

  84. @Julian of Norwich

    European history is seen as a process of evolution from one form of society to another, rather than one of destruction and replacement.

    You just have to compare Antique statuary with Medieval one to see this is not true. On the other hand, it is hard to distinguish it from Renaissance statuary. And there are many other examples in technology.
    Professional historians, working within an academic community as you correctly stress, are thinking within a paradigm, otherwise they are expelled from that community. Hense the paradigm cannot be challenged from within.

  85. @Not Raul

    Please read my two earlier articles. I think you will find elements of answers. In the comment section of Part 1 (“How fake is Roman Antiquity”), there are many useful ideas about Romance languages and the connection with Dacians.

    • Thanks: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Not Raul
  86. @nokangaroos

    Indeed my old-school professors gleefully recounted how their professors used to put down especially idiotic ideas with “Why not go back to Cuvier all the way?”

    Ridicule unfortunately has always been the most effective instrument of cancel culture, of which the only thing recent about it is its name.

    Joe Q. Public is a poor arbiter

    Velikovsky actually had quite a few scientists publicly maintaining he needed to be given a real hearing. The 1974 conference of the AAAS was marketed as such but in fact was nothing more than a hatchet job.

    Incidentally one of Velikovsky’s more “unlikely” predictions was that Venus would still be found to have a cometary tail. The discovery of what modern space scientists call Venus’s “ionic tail” is reported in

    Europe’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has shown that this tail stretches some 45 million kilometers into space, more than 600 times as far as anyone realised. It stretches “almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun.” The report is of course careful not to call it a cometary tail and would presumably argue that comets, being nothing but dirty ice balls, have tails consisting of water vapor, a proposition that is becoming more dubious every year. The important and distinguishing characteristic of a cometary tail is that it always points away from the sun, which this one does.

    In another report, this time using comet terminology, the European Space Agency’s Venus-Express probe has made unique observations of Venus during a period of reduced solar wind pressure, discovering that the planet’s ionosphere balloons out like a comet’s tail on its night side. This tail is much smaller.

    Some might even call these observations a spectacular corroboration of Velikovsky.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  87. But, but, in between Han and Tang, the Three Kingdoms happened, along with numerous other events and the appearances of many famous figures.

    This is such a nonsense piece.

    The events and historical figures in between Han and Tang were not occasionally mentioned in some later edited singular works. The later period were immersed in stories of the past. There were countless great poems and beautiful arts. They were all by some Jesuits from far end of Eurasia?!? Really?

    This is truly foolish.

    • Agree: Alden
  88. The ancient world and its timeline is of course interesting. Accuracy is another matter. Just as we cannot be certain of the events of the recent past, for example the assassination of President Kennedy, we can be even less certain of the events of 2000 years ago.

    As we learn daily of the reality of events that have resulted in widespread rioting in various Democrat controlled cities across the United States, we see the distorting effects of political and philosophical influence on what is being reported. The riots are mostly peaceful. Except where they are not.

    How would a historian 2000 years in the future describe the events of the recent past in the United States. Recent history is being rewritten even as we breathe. The Confederacy, which existed a hundred and fifty years ago is being erased. A new history, one pleasing to the historians who are writing it, is being concocted.

    Shouldn’t we make the assumption that earlier historians were just as interested in twisting what they were writing. After all, when your job is to make the King look good, it’s best to do a good job.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  89. @yakushimaru

    I admit the Han=Tang theory would need to be argued, and Heinsohn has not, to my knowledge, produced a detailed argument on China. Now, let’s suppose I didn’t mention about Han and Tang, is there anything else you find truly foolish?

    • Replies: @yakushimaru
  90. @Peripatetic Itch

    Interesting examples. I am not sure they undermine my view. For example, following the fall of the Western Roman empire, the territories that comprised it underwent radical demographic, political, social, and economic changes. Rome was depopulated, the empire’s infrastructure neglected, modes of production and exchange were greatly simplified, political and military organisation became tribal in nature.

    But much was also preserved and arguably enhanced. The barbarian tribes that took possession of the territory admired many aspects of Roman culture, law, order and prosperity, and wanted a share of it. Romans were permitted to retain viable holdings of land and remained subject to Roman laws and customs. The tribes themselves adopted Christian religious and moral principles, and bishops replaced provincial governors as figures of authority exercising a degree of restraint on the excesses of the germanic tribal aristocracy.

    Latin survived as the language of law and scholarship, while legal principles evolved to limit the use of arbitrary violence and allow access to fair judgement well before the development of English Common Law and Magna Carta.

    There was a period justifiably called a dark age, where much of ancient learning and scholarship was lost, to be rediscovered later. But civilisation in the wider social and cultural sense was not lost, it simply changed.

    It is not impossible for an entire society to be eradicated by slaughter or natural disaster, particularly where that society is confined to a limited geographical area. My view is that these conditions were not typical of Europe or indeed the Middle East during antiquity or the mediaeval period. More typical, overwhelmingly so, is that invasion is followed by settlement, compromise and a synthesis of old and new customs and practices. The result is not necessarily fairer than the system it replaced, but that is a different question.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  91. Mr. Hack says:

    Deal with it: Western Europeans are not originally Indo-European, they have only become Indo-European after the Italo-Celtic expansion from the lower Danube in modern day Romania in 1500 before AD.

    Could you expand on this interesting information? I’m aware of the edifying work of Florin Curta who has moved the “Slavic homeland” from the Pripyat marshes to the Danuban region in Romania in the 6th-7th centuries, but I’m not aware of this Indo-European expansion that occurred much earlier in 1500 BC? It appears that the Slavs (an Indo-European group) traversed these same byways much later?

    • Replies: @Ano4
  92. @Hans Vogel

    People are always incredulous when I say I love history because it is ever evolving. Humans are trained repeaters, and learning their mastered lessons are wrong is a tad disconcerting for most. I now can understand why. You seriously want me to learn to write either 1723 or 1320 on my checks? Other than that I am total agreement with your post. Love that modern DNA testing is blowing up the old order of history. Here in the states they want to ignore the remains of giant humans (which is totally cool) and the scattered artifacts of ancient Europeans. Its almost like someone at sometime decided we can’t know our true history, and decided to create Judeo- Christianize myths for us.

    • Agree: GMC
    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  93. @Bert

    Where there are wooden artifacts to which it can be applied, dendrochronology is reliable and cannot be waved away as Anonymous Author has.

    From what I understand, dendrochronology relies on computarized comparisons (with much approximation) between wood pieces. Do archeologist have wood material with enough rings for more than a few decades ? No, therefore, dendrochronology is obviously incapable of providing, by itself, a test for a chronology of one millennium. It always relies on the accepted chronology.

    ring counts and their associated widths are started from 1950 and by matching the pattern to geographically near trees whose lives partially overlapped can be extended back 12,000 years.

    Sorry, I wouldn’t believe this if Prof. Dendochronology in person told it to me. Dendochronological tests are made based on some assumptions. No one would try to match tree-rings from “Roman Antiquity” wih tree-rings from “the Early Middle Ages”, and therefore no one would notice if they match. Heinsohn has been asking for a series of dendochronological tests to test his theory.

    • Replies: @Bert
  94. Alfred says:
    @The Alarmist

    The Hebrews were never in Egypt. That is total fiction. Palestine was a desert at that time. An abandoned outpost of Egypt – because of a prolonged drought. The Dead Sea Scrolls are from Cairo and were placed there in 1947.

    Egyptian artifacts from that period have been found in the centre of Tel Aviv no less. Nothing Hebrew has ever been found from that epoch. They have been searching for over 100 years. Place names are total lies. Jericho never had walls, for example.

    The “land of milk and honey” was Yemen and Hijaz. The descriptions in the Old Testament tally with the geography and the place names. The Saudis have been busy destroying any trace of the Hebrews for obvious reasons. 🙂

    In these turbulent times in the Middle East, I have found myself working on the rise and fall of a late antique Jewish kingdom along the Red Sea in the Arabian peninsula. Friends and colleagues alike have reacted with amazement and disbelief when I have told them about the history I have been looking at. In the southwestern part of Arabia, known in antiquity as Himyar and corresponding today approximately with Yemen, the local population converted to Judaism at some point in the late fourth century, and by about 425 a Jewish kingdom had already taken shape. For just over a century after that, its kings ruled, with one brief interruption, over a religious state that was explicitly dedicated to the observance of Judaism and the persecu­tion of its Christ­ian population. The record sur­vived over many centuries in Arabic historical writings, as well as in Greek and Syriac accounts of martyred Christians, but incredulous scholars had long been inclined to see little more than a local monotheism overlaid with language and features borrowed from Jews who had settled in the area. It is only within recent decades that enough inscribed stones have turned up to prove definitively the veracity of these surprising accounts. We can now say that an entire nation of ethnic Arabs in southwestern Arabia had converted to Judaism and imposed it as the state religion.

    The Rise and Fall of a Jewish Kingdom in Arabia

    • Replies: @ariadna
    , @GMC
  95. @First Millennium Revisionnist

    Why not simply say that the resemblance between Antique and Mediaeval statuary is due to the mediaeval elite consciously seeking to emulate and legitimise the values of the elite of antiquity?

    As a matter of fact, paradigm shifts are highly valued within academic communities. If you are talented enough to develop a new paradigm your market value and academic prestige markedly increase, because this opens up new opportunities for academic labour which you and your colleagues can then exploit.

  96. Alfred says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    More recently The Egyptian writer Ahmed Osman has drawn similar compelling parallels between Akhnaton and the biblical patriarch Moses.

    That would not surprise me at all.

    The Old Testament is a catalogue of fables from many different cultures. The Jews borrowed them and changed the details to suit their purpose. The story of the flood is a good example. It is probably far more ancient than the Jews. The creation of man out of clay is another one.

    The Egyptians, Akhenaton, were the first to come out with monotheism I believe. But it did not last long as the priests preferred a multitude of gods.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  97. Kapyong says:

    Velikovsky ?
    Who can change hydrocarbons into carbohydrates with the stroke of a pen ?

    Perhaps we’ll be hearing the views of von Daniken and Zechariah Sitchin next.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  98. @nokangaroos

    Fango is just the Spanish and Italian word for mud. I am just a simple historian, not an archaeologist or soil scientist.

    • Thanks: nokangaroos
  99. ariadna says:

    A few quick notes:
    —Strong allergy to Christianity: “Common era,”as used in the Soviet educational system and by jews, not nomina odiosa like BC and AC.
    –“first-millennium Israel,” the author says… yes, after all “Israel” is in its 6th millennium right now, isn’t it? What is it, 5780 or thereabouts?
    — By contrast, the Western civilization has no basis in the Greek and Roman antiquity because they did not actually exist, so it is much younger, by at least 700 years.
    — “The Getae were in fact Goths,” but why waste time with piddling details, they were all Amaleks.
    — To think that people capable of such incredible (or rather highly credible) forgeries that created not a Potemkin village but a whole Potemkin universe, were incapable of creating an actual civilization. Furthermore, despite conflicts, wars and natural calamities, through it all, all gentile ethnic and religious groups in Europe agreed on one thing only, and conspired to bring it to fruition: creating a vast forgery to invent a history for the Christian Western civilization.

    • Agree: Robjil, Alden
    • Thanks: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  100. @Old and Grumpy

    Of course, it would be practically impossible to introduce a radical new chronology now. Just imagine what it would cost. Would not be very practical and besides, most people in general have no problem with living with lies and distortions. But it would seem to me all history departments all over the world should start to do serious research and to help create a new history of the first millennium.

    (Currently, “cutting edge historical research” tends to be a silly joke. It is essentially a-historical because it merely projects current issues and modern categories and definitions back into the past: e.g. all those “race” and “gender” studies)

    However, in the end, absolute historical truth is beyond our reach. It is therefore always helpful and a solace to turn to the philosophy of history. One of the most fascinating subdisciplines, honestly.

  101. So after three long meanderings, you draw a conclusion that is very convenient… I for my part will continue to read the ancients and pray to be spared by the moderns!

  102. ariadna says:

    “Place names are total lies. Jericho never had walls, for example.”

    Balaam, a divinator, whose story is in the Book not Numbers (22-24), says he came from Aram, the land of the Biblical Arameans, which has been identified as the inland part of Hijaz, between Taif and Medina. He was called by the king of Moab whose turf was the highlands south of Taif, including parts of the Zahran, “from Ever to the ridge of Jericho (yrhw).
    Cf Secrets of the Bible People, by Kamal Salibi
    So Jericho did not have walls, it had a ridge, and it was in present day Saudi Arabia.

  103. @HallParvey

    It was Benedetto Croce who said that “all history is contemporary history,” although he did so in Italian, of course. And I believe it was Huizinga who remarked that each generation rewrote history.

    Indeed, most historians as you say, want to “make the King look good,” but those are “court historians,” and hardly ever are they real scholars. That’s why “revisionist history” developed in the US and Argentina (in the 1920s and 1930s) and has now become a universal phenomenon.

  104. ariadna says:
    @First Millennium Revisionnist

    “Professional historians, working within an academic community as you correctly stress, are thinking within a paradigm, otherwise they are expelled from that community. Hense the paradigm cannot be challenged from within.”

    Intellectual victimology argument meant to present this whole nonsense as daring if not downright fraught with peril, when in reality any denigration, or denial (to use a term dear to the practitioners) of white Christian civilization with its history in Greco-Roman antiquity is part and parcel of the”woke” institutionalized academic discourse: anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-Western European.

    • Disagree: Peripatetic Itch
  105. Nappu says:

    Is there any pretty timeline infographic with some unified Rohl-Illig-Heinsohn chronology? Or at least of one of them?

    Is there a book we can read from start to finish with all history (and pre-history) presented according to them?

    Pic related

  106. Alfred says:
    @Hans Vogel

    I am entirely in agreement.

    It is one thing to string together narratives from different sources or explain how different coins were found in the same hoard, but it is quite another to fudge extra layers in the “sandwich” of a ruin.

  107. @Wizard of Oz

    Anyway isn’[t] this all years out of date?

    Carl Sagan argued that Velikovsky was absolutely wrong on any number of counts, simply by violating the Newtonian mechanics that is presumed to be the only influence on orbital motion. Velikovsky replied that astronomers were neglecting major electromagnetic influences. He based this on ancient reports from many cultures indicating that the destructive aspects of multiple and repeated catastrophic events were effectuated by fire and lightning from the sky, from this rogue planet Velikovsky identified as Venus. Just as FMR cites from the Book of Revelation.

    The converging ancient images include the Babylonian “torch-star” Venus and “bearded star” Venus, the Mexican “smoking star” Venus, the Peruvian “long-haired” star Venus, the Egyptian Great Star “scattering its flame in fire” and the widespread imagery of Venus as a flaming serpent or dragon in the sky. In each instance, the cometary language is undeniable, for these were the very symbols of “the comet” in the ancient languages.

    That led Velikovsky to predict that the Earth’s magnetic field would extend out to the moon, a prediction that was corroborated in spades, in 1959, when the Van Allen belts were discovered. His theory also suggested that Venus would still have an electric field and this has been corroborated by the European Space Agency. Its Venus-Express probe found that Venus has a substantial electric field, with a potential around 10 V. At least five times larger than expected.

    In discussion with [his friend] Einstein, Velikovsky predicted that Jupiter would be found to emit radio noises, and he urged Einstein to use his influence to have Jupiter surveyed for radio emission, though Einstein himself disputed Velikovsky’s reasoning. But in April 1955 radio noises were discovered from Jupiter, much to the surprise of scientists who had thought Jupiter was too cold and inactive to emit radio waves. That discovery led Einstein to agree to assist in developing other tests of Velikovsky’s thesis. But the world’s most prominent scientist died only a few weeks later.

    The suggestion that Electromagnetic forces play an important role in the universe spawned an entire field of cosmology sometimes referred to as the Electric Universe, Plasma Cosmology, or the Thunderbolts Project. Though not accepted by the establishment, this new perspective is still creating major waves and challenges to things like Big-Bang theory: “A universe teeming with charged particles-the “Electric Universe” of Wallace Thornhill and others — is redefining everything we see in space.”

    Here’s the truth: Scientific confidence in the Big Bang has already collapsed. The dogmatic Doppler interpretation of redshift (shifting of light from distant galaxies toward red on the light spectrum) has crashed and burned. It was this uncompromising interpretation of redshift that led astronomers to place newly discovered, strongly redshifted quasars at the farthest reaches of the universe. But now we know that quasars are found in energetic and physical connection to nearby galaxies. We’ve even seen a quasar in front of a nearby galaxy. All of the most critical evidence is now against the Big Bang.

    Did Velikovsky play by the rules of peer review?

    Before publication of Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky reported in Stargazers and Gravediggers, (NY 1983), p. 87, “The book was given to the [peer review] censors… [Velikovsky] was not informed of what was going on… As [he] heard…at a much later date, in 1952, two of the three censors were for the publication of the book, and one was against.”

    The distinguished Harvard historian Robert Pfeifer, former chairman of the Department of Semitic Languages at Harvard, showed a strong personal interest in Velikovsky’s work and took personal initiative on his behalf. Well before the publication of Velikvosky’s Ages in Chaos, Pfeiffer wrote in 1942, “I regard this work–provocative as it is–of fundamental importance.” And in 1945: “I am firmly convinced that the publication of this book would be of immense value to historical studies.”

    Gordon Atwater, curator of the respected Hayden Planetarium, was fired after having proposed in This Week Magazine that Velikovsky’s work deserved open-minded discussion.

    In 1962, two scientists, Valentin Bargmann, professor of physics at Princeton, and Lloyd Motz, professor of astronomy at Columbia, urged that Velikovsky’s conclusions “be objectively re-examined.”

    The preeminent French archaeologist Claude Schaeffer certainly saw SOMETHING in Velikovsky’s claims. Their communication spanned years. On the vital issue of dating ancient cultures, Schaefer wrote to Velikovsky, “You will be the first among those who get the information before my publication I am not concerned with opinions and chronological schemes, but only with the advance of our knowledge.”

    Other scientists and social scientists that showed deep interest in Velikovsky’s work included astronomer Walter S Adams; archaeologist Cyrus Gordon; and Horace Kallen, one of America’s most respected scholars. In 1950, when Worlds in Collision came out, Kallen was a personal friend of Harlow Shapley, the Harvard astronomer who led the original scientific attack on Velikovsky. But later, Kallen recounted Shapley’s role in the “Velikovsky Affair,” and he ridiculed the hasty and pretentious manner in which the defenders of orthodoxy had dismissed Velikovsky’s hypothesis.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  108. @Michael Meo

    Thank you for a glimmer of scientific rationality. I suspect that it will be ignored by the author of this nonsense and many of his more credulous readers.

  109. Bert says:
    @First Millennium Revisionnist

    You don’t seem to understand how the method works. In a circumscribed geographic area, the ring pattern of an old tree (or piece of tree) is shown to match part of the ring pattern of a younger tree (meaning that they were alive at the same time and experienced the same sequence of wet, dry and average years of precipitation), the ring pattern of that younger tree is then matched with an even younger tree, and so forth until the investigator has a young tree with an uncontested connection with a modern date.

    From Wikipedia’s article on dendrochronology:

    European chronologies derived from wooden structures initially found it difficult to bridge the gap in the fourteenth century when there was a building hiatus, which coincided with the Black Death,[31] however there do exist unbroken chronologies dating back to prehistoric times, for example the Danish chronology dating back to 352 BC.


    As of 2020, securely dated tree-ring data for the northern hemisphere are available going back 12,310 years.

    Your final paragraph is muddled. First, there is nothing called a dendrochronological test; there is only a dendrochronological estimate of the age of a piece of old wood. Second, you don’t compare two pieces of old wood to see if they have similar ring patterns. You date each piece of old wood separately through comparison with samples of younger wood from as near as possible to each piece of older wood and then so forth and so forth until you have matched up to wood with a known modern date. If Heinsohn has been asking for “dendrological tests” perhaps he doesn’t understand what can and cannot be done via the method.

  110. @I Have Scinde

    Thanks for dealing with this nonsense. I have neither the time nor the patience. I only dropped by here with the false hope that First Milennium Revisionist was finally going to admit this whole series was pure punking on his part, in order to demonstrate how easy it is to flim flam willing suckers.

    As someone who dealt with Velikovskyites back in that loon’s hay day, I’ve learned that there are always fools who slurp up pseudo-scholarly nonsense like this. Their motivation seems to be that it gives them an easily earned but false sense of superiority over those who “have not seen the light”. Rational, fact-based argumentation is wasted on them but kudos to you and others for trying.

    • Agree: Robjil
  111. GMC says:

    A great 3 read article – In my Geology courses at Wisc. we read about the ground water rushing into the strata – which would produce a slurry , during earthquakes, volcanic activity etc. This would certainly cover all the water piping, sewage pipes etc. and deceive the layers called – dark strata. But also in the article , Gunnar writes about Constantine VII and I ran into his book to his son dated 925-950 when I was researching where I live today – Khazaria or Pechneg-ville. Harvard library -Anyways, Konstantine wrote a book describing all the districts and their different types of peoples/culture that lived around and commuted towards Constantinople. He told his son about the peoples of the North – the Kievian Rus and the Kharzars and how nasty the Khazars were and how the Kievian Rus had to cunningly find their way down the Dniepr river in the Spring in order to come towards todays Odecca area and then on to Constantinople. Also, there were Iranian geographers, that wrote about how the Khazars ran their Slavic slaves around the Georgian Turk routes and into the Mid East. Can’t seem to get away from these Khazars.

  112. @Alfred

    The Egyptians, Akhenaton, were the first to come out with monotheism I believe. But it did not last long as the priests preferred a multitude of gods.

    Akhenaton may have been the first and only Egyptian king to adopt a monotheism. He seems to have been deposed for it and his whereabouts after being deposed are shrouded in mystery. There does not seem to be any sign of him in his allotted tomb. Osman thus postulates he took his followers, led them around the edges of the Sanai for several decades and emerged with an entirely different origin narrative.

    Osman draws on a number of other striking similarities between the Egyptian king and the biblical patriarch, but I think he can explain them better than I.

    • Thanks: Alfred
  113. Tim too says:

    So why or how would the Chinese get some inkling to do exactly the same thing as putatively occurred in Italy? Do the Chinese agree with the co-lateral stratography of Han and Tang?

    The similarity of a Han and Tang artifact could be cherry picking. Do the Chinese accept any of the alleged time jumping? Seems unlikely or improbable to me. The history records/books of the Chinese were not subject to the same kinds of time jumping possibilities as are imputed to some western clerics, or some other westerners. The Chinese kept their own records, they didn’t farm it out to westerners.

    I’m calling BS on the Chinese time jumping and stratography.

  114. GMC says:

    Very interesting Alfred – I started to researching the Khazarian/ Pechneg- ville area south of you. Not associated with your Mid east hebrew/arab culture mix , that is new to me – thanks. In this article Constantine VII comes up and I read some of his book 925-950, that he wrote for his son about the Peoples/cultures , north of Constantinople. Mainly the Kievan Rus , Khazars etc.and their devious ways of getting around each other , when traveling on the Dniepr R. It was very interesting.

    • Thanks: Alfred
  115. Alfred says:

    If so the physical differences would be expected in in the traits selected for when men chose from among an excess of women

    There is never an excess of young fertile women. That was an impossibility in ancient times. They were not polluted with Christian ideas of one woman per man.

    • Replies: @RT
    , @Anonymous
  116. Robjil says:
    @Hans Vogel

    He is a NATO guy. We all know what NATO has done to our planet. It has not been good.

    He is a NATO propagandists and nothing more than that.

    An Israel firster also.

    A Holocaust fanatic also.

    Three strikes. That is enough for me to be not interested in anything he says.

  117. @First Millennium Revisionnist

    Thanks for the kind reply.

    I have only cursory knowledge of the west history…

  118. @TheBAG

    Shouldn’t the most important search be to find a site that has distinct layers for two or even all three of these catastrophes? A single such find would totally demolish Mr. Heinsohn’s argument

    I’m not convinced. Velikovsky argues that Venus as rogue comet roared through the inner solar system for several millennia, creating havoc like a bull in a china shop whenever it passed close to Earth, and depending on how close. Being highly charged from its origin in Jupiter, much of the destruction would have come from cosmic lightning and would have happened even at several moon distances from Earth. The charge differential seems likely to have diminished over time. So perhaps gravitational/tidal effects were the more important later. Gravitational effects might include the many massive Missoula/Spokane/Bretz floods that roared through the Pacific northwest at the end of the ice-age, the largest discharging about 10 cubic kilometers per hour. (Said to result from the breaking of ice dams, but no ice dam known to man, nor any concrete dam, could hold back that much water.)

    He also believed that the orbit of Mars was also destabilized for a period and that close passes with it also created havoc. Cosmic lightning would seem less important there.

    Now admittedly the dates for these various catastrophes as determined by Heinsholn and by Velikovsky are inconsistent and some work needs to be done to reconcile them. However a close pass by a rogue planet could at least in principle cause either world-wide or more localized havoc on any one occasion. So no, I don’t see the number of catastrophes in any one location to be of consequence. Predictions need to be logically related to the tenets of the theory, and this one is not, IMHO.

  119. @Peripatetic Itch

    Thank you. Wow! I have a lot of new stuff to learn about.

  120. @Polymath

    Fomenko used the diaries of Thucydides during the Peloponnesian War (officially dated circa 411 B.C.) to determine the elapsed time intervals between three solar eclipses. Trying to locate the same eclipses by orbital mechanics proved an abject failure until he postulated that the war actually took place in AD 1039, 1046, and 1057.

    • LOL: Bert, nokangaroos
  121. @Bert

    My English gets sometimes muddled, true. But I understand very well. I just don’t believe that, with the process you describe (matching a decade here and there), you can cover one thousand years without break in the chain of tree-ring evidence. Pieces of wood in good enough condition is too rare anyway in pre-medieval times.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  122. Robjil says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Here is his life history.

    He started with theories for children.

    Born in 1943, Heinsohn has recently retired from the chair of Sociology at Bremen, where he also directed a European Institute of Genocide Research. He has picked Lesefrüchte far and wide, thanks to a very agile mind, often short-circuited by grandiose intellectual ambitions. His early works include a theory of family law, co-authored with Rolf Knieper in 1974, and a theory of kindergartens and teaching through play, in 1975.

    Reshuffling history to give “Israel” first place. Sounds familiar to us. That is all we hear in our “free” press = Israel, Israel, Israel.

    He first became known, or notorious, in 1979, with a very idiosyncratic interpretation of Western European demographic history, Menschenproduktion—‘the production of humans’. In the 1980s, following in the footsteps of another agile mind gone astray, the psychiatrist Immanuel Velikovsky, Heinsohn turned his attention to the ancient world, re-shuffling the established histories of Egypt and Israel to give the latter chronological precedence.

    Next he got involved in economic history and Velikovsky.

    In 1996 he published, with Otto Steiger, a work on the ‘unsolved enigmas of economics’, Eigentum, Zins und Geld—property, interest and money.. He first became known, or notorious, in 1979, with a very idiosyncratic interpretation of Western European demographic history, Menschenproduktion—‘the production of humans’. In the 1980s, following in the footsteps of another agile mind gone astray, the psychiatrist Immanuel Velikovsky, Heinsohn turned his attention to the ancient world, re-shuffling the established histories of Egypt and Israel to give the latter chronological precedence. In 1996 he published, with Otto Steiger, a work on the ‘unsolved enigmas of economics’, Eigentum, Zins und Geld—property, interest and money.

    His jackpot book was 2003’s Sohne und Weltmacht. It blames wars on the surplus of sons.

    But it was in 2003 that Heinsohn hit the mediatic jackpot, with the book currently under review. A work of popular demography, Söhne und Weltmacht’s rapid ascent to best-seller status in Germany was no doubt helped by its subtitle: ‘Terror in the Rise and Fall of Nations’. Heinsohn here is a man with a political-demographic message, coming again from the right. Bluntly put, he wants to warn us that there are too many angry young men outside the Euro-American world today—above all, too many Muslim young men.

    Where did he get this “idea” from? Zion USA.

    As he generously acknowledges, Heinsohn picked up this notion from the us Defense Intelligence Agency. Clinton’s dia Director, Lt-Gen Patrick Hughes, had described the ‘youth-bulge phenomenon’ as a ‘global threat to us interests’ and ‘historically, a key factor in instability’ as early as 1997.

    Here is the summary of this article about Heinsohn’s war concepts.

    Today we are witnessing the rehabilitation of a neo-social-darwinist discourse, a demonization of extra-European youth on a circuit that feeds from cia and Pentagon strategy papers to Bremen research institutes, and from there into the liberal media, nato commands and Israeli public discourse, on the eve of the Gaza attack. In Gunnar Heinsohn, his reception and his ilk, the world is experiencing a vengeful return of ideas that flourished before 1945, with the same scorn for the uncivilized, for lesser breeds, for the rights of other peoples.

    He is a propagandist.

    • Thanks: nokangaroos, R2b, ariadna, Ivan
  123. @DrWatson

    “The information presented above, in each chapter of this work, has all been taken from the surviving historical sources. It is clear that these provide no reason to suppose that the history of what we call the first millennium AD was written down for the first time during the subsequent millennium.

    Instead, all the indications are that it accumulated in incremental fashion, with accounts by historians of events close to their time providing source material for later historians, and also a starting point for the next phase of an ongoing process.

    Without any question, the information summarised in Chapter 3 of the work reinforces the interim conclusions reached in section 2.4. Dates and timescales given in these narrative sources, relating to Roman/Byzantine emperors and also events in “barbarian” Europe, unambiguously support the orthodox chronology, to within a small number of years.

    Similarly, the dates and timescales given in the surviving sources relating to the popes of Rome, summarised in Chapter 4, consistently support the orthodox chronology, to within a year or two”.

  124. @Peripatetic Itch

    By that definition Earth is a comet to, as the moon is well inside the
    hydrogen corona (r~640,000km); let´s not overdo it 😉

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  125. @Kratoklastes

    How was the half life of carbon 14 determined? Since this number is 5730 years perhaps the original calculation from a measurement assumed the false chronology. If it contained only contemporary measurements it is hard to see how it could have escaped the interval of error, especially in such a random decay.

    • Replies: @glib
  126. @Julian of Norwich

    There was a period justifiably called a dark age, where much of ancient learning and scholarship was lost, to be rediscovered later. But civilisation in the wider social and cultural sense was not lost, it simply changed.

    A dark age? Lasting many hundreds of years? Then wow! They just pick up where they left off. Via Appia — still there, in exactly the same state of repair, no reconstruction necessary. Begun in 312, BCE and not rebuilt until 1784 AD. Frost or flood damage be damned. Latin language — picked up from exactly where it left off so long before, not even any changes in slang or expletives. I can’t even pick things up like that from 30 years ago. Roman laws — same, no new crimes invented, it seems, no thinking on punishment evolving. Architecture, building methods, same.

    You need to understand how scholarship like this works. The state of things at stratigraphic Level A is determined, then the same at Level B. All this so far can be very rigorous. At that point some interpretation has to be advanced as to how things got from A to B. This requires imagination and creativity as well as an eye as to what may be acceptable or get you your desired academic position. The interpretation, in your case that everything was lost and rediscovered later, is advanced in the discussion section of your paper. Shortly thereafter, if it meets approval, the distinction between empirical evidence and interpretation is forgotten and everyone in your circle starts to advance the interpretation as fact. Group think.

  127. RT says:

    Who were “they”?
    Romans and Spartans, for example, throughout their historical existence were very “polluted” with the idea of monogamy although they were not Christians.

    • LOL: Alfred
  128. @First Millennium Revisionnist

    Sure there are weaknesses; the Endless Tree is not global and only with luck and independent methods can be parallelized over large distances.
    But if you have one, the same species and region (not rare in Europe), a hundred or so years´window and 3-5 rings are usually enough for a date. (and no, the pros prefer to do it manually like seismics) ETs are built with overlaps of no less than 25 and multiple coverage (ideally); it´s a standard method for the quaternary (last 10,000 ybp), used for landslides all the time (the blinder you are as to timeframe, the more rings you need).
    Frankly I heard no historian working in the same dirt as the scientist (= up to and including medievalists) ever question the method. Even if the chronology is “floating” i.e. without definite beginning and end date and purely relative (say, pueblos in the Southwest) it is valuable.

    – But all that should be easy enough to settle with a few girders from Pompeii; if the charring interferes (not likely) C14 should come up a little too young, the rings are unfazed.
    If there is no wood, use TL.

    • Thanks: Bert
  129. glib says:
    @the cleaner

    As far as I know Libby determined it from ancient Sierra pines, he counted rings to date the pines and the cross calibrated his device.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  130. @Kapyong

    Velikovsky ?
    Who can change hydrocarbons into carbohydrates with the stroke of a pen ?

    Velikovsky, being Jewish, certainly did get carried away trying to explain the so-called Exodus. Since the biblical story said the fleeing Jews were fed with manna from heaven, he let himself be suckered into proposing that the manna was raining down from the comet’s tail, being transformed from natural hydrocarbons.

    He thereby departed from his fundamental rule requiring confirming reports from a variety of ancient cultures
    and provided his critics with easy targets for ridicule, which some extended to anything and everything about Worlds in Collision.

    Details such as these, can be easily distinguished from his more fundamental thesis, which states that Venus is a very young planet, in contradistinction to the then-prevailing consensus that Venus and the Earth are sister planets, formed at the same time and alike in most respects not related to the relative distances from the sun.

    It turns out in fact that essentially every prediction Velikovsky made about Venus came true, in spades. Argon-36, for example, is a radioactive element with a short half life, which has pretty much disappeared from the Earth’s atmosphere in its 4.5 billion years of existence. Argon-40 on the other hand is a decay product of Potassium-40 and hence increases with time:

    The Argon-36 age of Venus’ atmosphere indicates that it was produced very recently, no more than in the last few thousand years.

    On the other hand argon-40 is also an indication that Venus’ atmosphere is young. Argon-40 is a decay product of radioactive potassium-40. Therefore, over time argon-40 should increase in amount to levels comparable to the argon-40 levels found on the Earth if Venus is as old as the Earth. But, interestingly this is not the case. Billy P. Glass in Introduction to Planetary Geology, (NY 1982), p. 314 informs us that,

    “the ratio of the mass of radiogenic 40 Ar [Argon-40] to the mass of Venus is smaller by amount, a factor of 15 than the value for the Earth. Since 40 Ar within a planet increases with time due to radioactive decay of 40 K [potassium-40] the amount of 40 Ar should be higher if the primary degassing took place late in the planet’s history.”

    That Venus has both too much argon-36 and too little argon-40 are clear indications pointing to an extraordinarily young age for Venus. If Venus were as old as the Earth, its argon-36 would have decayed to only a tiny fraction of its present amount. If Venus were an old planet, its argon-40 would have increased in amount to that contained in the Earth.

    The problem with Venus’ atmosphere is argon-36. Argon-36 is a primordial product from ancient times. “The atmosphere of Venus contains as much argon-36 as you would expect to find in the planet’s original atmosphere” (according to M. McElroy, Pioneer experimenter in the Washington Post, Dec. 11, 1979, p. A6). If Venus were 4.6 billion years old, its Argon-36 would have decayed to a level comparable to that found on the Earth. Venus has hundreds of times as much Argon-36 as the Earth. In fact, it has what appears to be exactly the amount of Argon-36 that Venus would have if it were born in the last few thousand years.

  131. @eknibbs

    Good to have you back Prof. Knibbs. We need your counter-arguments for a good debate. I wish Heinsohn would debate directly with you, actually. I’m no match, I admit.
    I’m very well aware that Heinsohn’ theory raises all kinds of new questions of this sort. But I think they can find reasonable hypothetical answers.
    Placing each character precisely on the three timelines is something that it not necessarily possible. Too much uncertainty. But many possibilities.
    On your favourite arguments about consuls, I don’t quite catch the problem. There need not be consuls except in Rome and in Byzantium.
    You ask:

    Or it is somewhere in the “Italian Rome” timeline but in the pre-history of “Byzantine Rome.”

    or :

    Is this a “Germanic Rome” inscription really made in the tenth century?

    But the whole point is that these three timelines are simultaneous. Therefore what is in the third century in Arles, for example can be in the tenth century. Arles is a special case that I haven’t looked into, but it seems that it could indeed be a good test, being both in Roman and Germanic history.

    • Replies: @American Citizen 2.0
  132. @Peripatetic Itch

    I’m interested in the debate on Velikovsky, but I want to emphacize that I could just as well have not mentionned him in this article, and I only mentionned him to give him due credit for having pioneered a consideration of the cataclysmic factor in history.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  133. noname27 says: • Website

    Well this truly puts the Flat Earth into the shade. LOL I wonder if the CIA are behind it.

    • Troll: Peripatetic Itch
  134. @nokangaroos

    By that definition Earth is a comet to, as the moon is well inside the
    hydrogen corona (r~640,000km);

    Bit of a stretch, I think. ESA does not use that language. The corona is not in the classic shape of a cometary tail. And I see none of the other characteristics I would expect from our developing understanding of comets.

    How would you like your herrings served, sir? We have red hot or flaming hot.

    • LOL: nokangaroos
  135. Anon[232] • Disclaimer says:

    Although it is possible the time period of the Dark Ages may be shorter than current scholars think it is, using purses of mixed-era coinage and architectural styles is extremely dubious.

    Problems with the coinage: Before the modern era, coin shortages were common. People had goods to buy or sell, but there weren’t enough coins in circulation to make this easy. So they used anything they had, even coins from other countries and some coins which had a very old mint date. Coin shortages were a chronic problem going back all the way to the very invention of coins. Anybody who knows anything about the history of numismatics or economics is familiar with this.

    For example, in the early years of the US, Spanish coins were in common use because native coins were so scarce. I read a memoir by a woman in New Orleans who mentioned that the Spanish picayune, worth half a real, was in common use in the 1840s (and which gave us the popular term of picayune-of little worth). I’m currently reading a memoir by a native US man working in the US in the 1820s, whose employers were native US citizens, being paid in English shillings and who quotes local prices in shillings. You’d think we’d never separated from Great Britain by this time if you let coins be your only guide.

    Architecture is also dubious for dating. Styles can be invented, forgotten, and reinvented. A style could very well have been invented in ‘Barbarian Northern Europe,’ then imported to Rome, then reintroduced to another place in northern Europe again, or even made its way to the Near East. But if the historical link that documented the transmission isn’t there, you can get your chronology very mixed up.

    Documents with dates, histories of persons and their deeds, family histories, and reigns of rulers are still a much better guide for dating.

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @Hans Vogel
  136. @First Millennium Revisionnist

    I understand and respect your stance on this. However, despite your not mentioning Velikovsky in the first two articles of your series, several people made the jump to him even before I jumped in. So I don’t think you can wholly avoid the issue. And certainly he is the go-to source for much of the ethnographic and geological evidence on catastrophism in the pre-modern era.

    That said, there are certain inconsistencies between the dates he gives and the dates you give. A difference of possibly three millennia, perhaps. To me that doesn’t seem hugely significant in terms of solar system history but you may well see it significant in terms of stratigraphy. Historians of course can only record a catastrophe if they survive it.

    But again IMHO, to gain credibility, you will have to either go with a Velikovskian model or come up with an alternative effector for your catastrophe. If a comet everyone will want to know where is the crater.

    In any case, all the best. It is a fascinating thesis.

  137. Anon[232] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Velikovsky being Jewish should have been a warning flag. When a Jewish guy makes an outrageous claim that goes against all known scholarship–scholarship generated by white European and American scholars and subjected to review over a long period of time–then publishes a book about his ideas, toots his own horn all over the place, and then rakes in a ton of money through book sales scamming the gullible gentiles–

    Well, that should have been a warning to all sensible people that he was full of crap, and he was a con artist who knew less-educated goys were gullible. Velikovsky was a bestseller. Gullible goys made him rich because Velikovsky was smart enough to realize the truth was unromantic.

    Gentiles like romantic, fanciful ideas, especially when they’re in their impressionistic teens and twenties. Usually, they get dose of reality after that age and grow out of it. But not before they make con artists like Velikovsky rich.

    • Troll: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @Robjil
  138. @Evidence

    The ancients were of course incredibly observant watchers of the stars and planets. They had no trouble at all picking out Saturn from the sky and identifying it as a planet/wanderer. To my mind that is a feat beyond most moderns without a telescope.

    Velikovsky, however, made the startling discovery that the early ancient sky watchers did not even notice that brightest object — Venus — in the morning or evening sky. Indeed they only knew but four planets.


    Although modern astronomers have not observed such an event ancient man reports the birth of the planet Venus. Evan Hadingham, in fact, informs us that the ancient Mexicans give the precise number of days in the past when Venus was born.[174] Velikovsky tells us,

    “Ancient Mexican records give the order of the occurrences. The Sun was attacked by Quetzal-cohuatl; after the disappearance of this serpent-shaped heavenly body, the sun refused to shine, and during four days the world was deprived of its light… Thereafter the snakelike body transformed itself into a great star. The star retained the name of Quetzal-cohuatl [Quetzal-coatl] [Brasseur in Histoire des nations civilisees de Mexique I, p. 181 informs]. This great and brilliant star appeared for the first time in the east. Quetzal-cohuatl is the well-known name of the planet Venus.”[175]

    Velikovsky then goes on to cite other ancient authorities that describe the birth of Venus and its description as a “Blazing Star and a “Comet.” He also cites authorities that claim at an early time, ancient man reported a solar system of only four planets. Velikovsky states, “only four planets could have been seen, and that in astronomical charts of this early period the planet Venus cannot be found.

    “In an ancient Hindu table of planets, attributed to the year-3102 Venus among the visible planets is absent. [This according to J.B.J. Delambre, Historie de l’astronomie ancienne, (1817), I, p. 407: “Venus alone is not found there.”] The Brahmans of the early period did not know the five-planet system. [This according to G. Thibaut, “Astronomie, Astrologie und Mathematik” in Grundriss der indoarischen Philol und Altertumskunde, III (1899).

    “Babylonian astronomy, too, had a four-planet system. In ancient prayers the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Mercury are invoked; the planet Venus is missing; and one speaks of ‘the four-planet system of the ancient astronomers of Babylonia.’ [This according to E.F. Weidner, Handbuch der babylonischen Astronomie (1915), p. 61, who writes of the star list found in Boghaz Keui in Asia Minor: ‘That the planet Venus is missing will not startle anybody who knows the eminent importance of the four-planet system in the Babylonian astronomy.’ Weidner supposes that Venus is missing in the list of planets because ‘she belongs to a triad with the Moon and the Sun.’] These four-planet systems and the inability of the ancient Hindus and Babylonians to see Venus in the sky, even though it is more conspicuous than the other planets, are puzzling unless Venus was not among the planets. On a later date the planet Venus receives the appellative: ‘The great star that joins the great stars.’ The great stars are, of course, the four planets Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn…and Venus joins them as the fifth planet. [according to E.F. Weidner ibid. p. 83]

    “Apollonius Rhodius refers to a time ‘when not all the orbs were yet in the heavens.’”[176]

  139. @Ivan

    Yes, a well set out book and he doesn’t come across like the typical egotist. At least he had the courage to use his own name. John Allegro was open in his plan to undermine Christianity but he ended the big time loser.

    Sam Johnson’s preface to Shakespeare:

    “THAT praises are without reason lavished on the dead, and that the honours due only to excellence are paid to antiquity, is a complaint likely to be always continued by those, who, being able to add nothing to truth, hope for eminence from the heresies of paradox; or those, who, being forced by disappointment upon consolatory expedients, are willing to hope from posterity what the present age refuses, and flatter themselves that the regard which is yet denied by envy, will be at last bestowed by time.”

    • Thanks: Ivan
  140. Robjil says:

    Some Jews think Velikovsky’s concepts were “Jewish Science”.

    I use the term Jewish Science here in a special sense with two separate
    denotations as both process and product. It refers to the preconditions of
    Velikovsky’s unique conceptualizations and especially the preconditions as
    manifested by (1) his father, who largely personified for Velikovsky (2) a
    unique strand in the Jewish tradition generally, and by (3) psychoanalysis
    and it also refers to the specific formulations themselves, their peculiar
    methodological basis, their particular expressions or conclusions, and their
    ultimate purpose or function as a legitimate alternate worldview. Immanuel
    Velikovsky felt his Jewishness to be an especially important component of his
    psychological makeup. Through the wife of his grandfather Jacob Velikovsky,
    he believed he could trace his descent from Ezra the Scribe-

  141. @Peripatetic Itch

    Venus appears in modern translation of Ancient Egyptian pyramid texts c.2200 bc (J. P. Allen , second edition, p. 361). It is also shown on the astronomical ceiling of King Seti I tomb (EEF archives 30 Dec 2008)

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  142. Ano4 says:

    Agsin, Yamnaya did not genocide Old European male lineages, Bell Beaker did. Basque people speak Euskera and Picts did not speak a known Indo-European language. Occam’s razor: Bell Beaker did not speak Indo-European.

  143. @Observator

    Thanks. Bracing simple truth in the face of a total LARP, a complete delusion.

  144. Mr. Hack says:

    Deal with it: Western Europeans are not originally Indo-European, they have only become Indo-European after the Italo-Celtic expansion from the lower Danube in modern day Romania in 1500 before AD.

    Could you expand on this interesting information? I’m aware of the edifying work of Florin Curta who has moved the “Slavic homeland” from the Pripyat marshes to the Danuban region in Romania in the 6th-7th centuries, but I’m not aware of this Indo-European expansion that occurred much earlier in 1500 BC? It appears that the Slavs (an Indo-European group) traversed these same byways much later

  145. Ano4 says:
    @Mr. Hack

    “Slavic homeland” from the Pripyat marshes to the Danuban region in Romania in the 6th-7th centuries, but I’m not aware of this Indo-European expansion that occurred much earlier in 1500 BC?

    We know that Slavs and Balts speak Indo-European languages. Balto-Slavic languages are actually on many aspects quite archaic even today and share an extensive vocabulary with Sanskrit. We also know that their males are mainly Y haplogroup R1a. Moreover, we know that in Eurasia proper the earliest clearly identified Indo-Iranian (Aryan) populations were those of the Arkaim Sintashta culture in present day Russia, who were also of Y haplogroup R1a.


    In the Middle East, the earliest Indo-Europeans were the Hittite, who had culturally much in common with the Arkaim Sintashta folks, although they were separated by thousands of miles. We do not know yet what was the main haplogroup of the Hittite male lineages, everything written about it on the internet is currently a speculation. So we don’t know if they were Y haplogroup R1a or anything else. But we know that among modern day Syrians, Jews and Arabs there are some rare and very ancient Y haplogroup R1a subclades. So we know that thousands of years ago there were R1a male lineages in the Middle East.

    The modern day Zoroastrians are the proud descendants of the Persian Aryan people (Iran comes from the word Aryan). Modern day Zoroastrian priests are either haplogroup R1a or I. Y haplogroup I is the second in importance among the Slavs (but not the Balts, where we find the Finno-Ugric Y haplogroup N). Also modern day Northern Indian Brahmin are also mainly Y haplogroup R1a (78% in some higher caste groups). The subclades are the same as Arkaim Sintashta folks.

    Therefore we can attest that these people are without any possible doubt Indo-European Aryans.

    We know that Western Europeans are mainly Y haplogroup R1b. We also know that many historically attested languages of the Western Europe in pre-Celtic / Roman times were non Indo-European. The only one which survived to this very day is the Basque. The Basque people are 98% Y haplogroup R1b and are most probably a very ancient population in the Basque country. We also know that prior to the Celtic migration to the British Isles, the language spoken there was most probably not Indo-European. The Pictish was possibly a surviving dialect of this language in modern day Scotland, it lasted until the early middle ages. The British Isles are overwhelmingly Y haplogroup R1b and have been such since the Bell Beaker culture times. Therefore we can conclude that it is probable that modern day Western Europeans’ ancestors were not Indo-European speakers in pre- Italo-Celtic times and were most certainly not Aryan (they were of a completely different lineage than Arkaim Sintashta folks).

    Italo-Celtic languages and Germanic languages are certainly Indo-Iranian, but they are historically attested only in Antiquity. Although Latins and Celtic people were mainly Y haplogroup R1b, they derived from the Eastern Bell Beaker folks, who have lived side by side with Y haplogroup R1a Corded Ware culture descendants in modern day Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and Romania. This coexistence was at its peak under the Unetice culture of Central Europe.

    It is quite possible that people of Unetice spoke an Indo-European language, we don’t know their haplogroup, but I would bet on R1a and I for the reasons outlined above. The Celtic Hallstat culture derived a lot from Unetice and Lusatian cultures. It is quite possible that the Celts and Latins acquired their Indo-European languages from Unetice as a part of a cultural package.


    • Replies: @Ano4
  146. Ano4 says:

    Italo-Celtic languages and Germanic languages are certainly Indo-Iranian,

    Should have read:

    Italo-Celtic languages and Germanic languages are certainly Indo-European.

  147. @Jack McArthur

    Admittedly, it does appear that Allen identifies the Egyptian god Horus with Venus. I am not competent to judge but I did find enough to cast some doubt on the identification, which involves certain circularities in logic. Horus may in fact as likely be Mars or just the stellar avatar of a recently deceased king together with the celestial ship taking him to his heavenly reincarnation as a star himself. The following review explicitly disputes the identification:

    It is instructive to enumerate Krauss’s principal conclusions—this after some 300 pages
    of detailed analysis. With respect to the principal celestial bodies, Krauss believes it is
    possible to securely identify the planet Venus, Orion, Sirius, and the Moon from literary
    descriptions in the Pyramid Texts.1 These stars are to be identified with Horus, Osiris,
    Isis, and Thoth respectively. We have already presented evidence disputing Horus’s
    identification with Venus and there are equally insurmountable problems with each of the
    other identifications as well.

    What stands out most in Krauss’s survey is how seldom Egyptologists agree with each
    other with respect to the stellar identifications of the primary deities. For Sethe,
    Breasted, and Allen, Horus represents the Sun. For Rudolf Anthes, Horus Soped was to
    be identified with Sirius. For Raymond Faulkner, Horus represents the planet Venus.
    For Krauss himself, Horus is usually to be identified with the planet Venus but he could
    also represent Mars and possibly some of the other outer planets on occasion.
    What is true with respect to Horus is also true with respect to the rest of the Egyptian
    pantheon apart from Re: Choose whichever deity you wish and it is possible to find a
    dramatic difference of opinion with respect to which celestial body he or she is to be
    identified with. If the goddess Nut is identified with the sky by one authority, others
    identify her with the Milky Way. Neugebauer and Parker confidently identify Isis with
    Sirius, yet other scholars identify the goddess with the Sun or Moon with equal
    confidence. Indeed, as we have documented, finding a one-to-one correspondence
    between the early Egyptian descriptions of the various celestial bodies and a modern
    planet or constellation—far from being obvious or conclusive—is virtually impossible

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  148. This author does confirm the length of my experiences as a latchkey kid raised within periodical uncertainties which now amount to doubts of whether I was correct at that time for thinking it was later than thought, or simply precocious. Tizzy I am, at its all his fault.

  149. GeoLeoNeo says:

    “Mozorov”?!? For shame! Make that “Morozov”!! Where’s a good proofreader when you need one? 😉

    For a maddeningly brief thumbnail biographical sketch of Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov, a monumental polymath of post-Romanovian Russia, see Wikipedia’s entry:

    The whole work of Fomenko and his school is based on an explicitly acknowledged debt of gratitude to Morozov’s groundbreaking methods and discoveries, which definitively set the stage for the modern “paradigm shift” toward a statistically verifiable, scientific (some would say “revisionist”) chronology that’s already well underway in Russian and certain foreign academic circles worldwide, though not yet noticeably in the U.S. of A., whose own conformist history exhibits many of the same Medieval symptoms of being a conveniently fabricated (i.e., “fake”) narrative and whose main spokespersons, the “court historians” of the day, are still tainted by a recidivist Russophobia dating back to well before the anti-Communist witchhunts of the McCarthy era—seemingly undergoing a fitful, fateful, perhaps fatal revival on the contemporary political scene.

    Just IMHO, of course. But kudos to the First Millennium Revisionist for so forthrightly raising the issue for us all to scrutinize to our hearts’ content. His tripartite contribution here to the discussion of History: Fiction or Science? should awaken many a sleepwalker through the hallowed halls of discourse.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @GeoLeoNeo
  150. Seraphim says:
    @Von Rho

    It was actually Emperor Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus, 214-275, reigned 270 – 275), an ‘Illyrian’ (like Diocletian who became Emperor in 284) who quashed the rebellion of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra, the widow of Septimius Odaenathus (220-267), the Roman client King of Palmyra.
    But of course in reality it was Putin and Bashar al-Assad!

    • Replies: @Von Rho
  151. American Citizen 2.0 says:
    @First Millennium Revisionnist

    I am glad eknibbs commented again too. This was a great final installment in the trilogy.

    It’s impossible to believe though.

  152. Seraphim says:
    @First Millennium Revisionnist

    Well, actually ‘the emperor traditionally associated with the martyrdom of Peter” was Nero (Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, as Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, reigned 54-68) irrespective whether Peter went actually to Rome or not.
    How do you expect to be taken seriously when you display such blatant ignorance of the most basic facts that you purport nevertheless to judge?

  153. Seraphim says:

    Felicitous name. You made clear the “Ariadne’s thread” through the apparent maze of intellectual rubbish wrapped in pseudo-scientific babble of Mr Guyenot.
    All the pompous discussion about forgeries, chronologies, have a single leitmotiv: Christ did not exist, it’s a ‘myth’ invented and sustained with a forged history for the oppression of the toiling masses, that must be debunked and destroyed for their ‘liberation’ from the yoke of ‘organized religion’ (the code name for the Church of Christ). It is an attack on the Church and the civilization which it built, by all the usual culprits (Jews and their Muslim minions, their ‘Abrahamic cousins’) and their fellow-travelers of fanatical anti-Christians from the atheistic ‘Gauche’ to the paganistic ‘Nouvelle Droite’, masquerading as ‘anti-Zionists’ and ‘courageous’ SJW, to better fool people.

    • Replies: @Tochter
  154. Seraphim says:

    Yes, the quick Islamic conquest wouldn’t have been possible without the defection of the populations affected by the plague of the heresies of Judeo-Christian inspiration. Islam is itself a Judeo-Christian heresy and it quite easily fooled the ‘oppressed’ populations that it came to liberate them from the yoke of ‘Rum’.

    • Agree: Ano4
    • Replies: @Ano4
  155. Alfred says:

    All coins really tell you is that they were abandoned after they were minted. They might also tell you the chronology of various rulers. The Indians minted “Roman” coins at one time. 🙂

    Recently, I read on the Martin Armstrong blog that coins revealing the existence of 3 previously unknown west Roman emperors had been found. Of course, historians ignore these surprises.

    Sorry, I am unable to find the article.

    • Replies: @xcd
  156. dually says:

    I remember being mystified to find recognizable Latin/Roman-sounding commoner surnames recorded in William the Conquer’s Domesday Book from 1086. How could these names have survived the nearly 700 years between the exit of Roman Legions in 383 – among the most tumultuous in history – forward to the beginning of the early middle ages? Moreover, these surnames apparently did not survive the comparably stable later middle ages, up until the present day.

    The confusion in timelines seem less surprising when one thinks of the circumstances of depopulation from disease and “migrants” during that period; and how much tradition one generation of such short lifespans can impart to the next.

  157. @glib

    Libby normalized the production curve (“initial”, dependent on solar activity) using tree rings; you do not need that for half-life, where accurate determination of activity should suffice (otherwise how do they determine half-lives of billions of years?).

  158. Seraphim says:
    @Not Raul

    It can be little doubt that the Visigothic Cathedral of Cordoba was built on the site of an older church dedicated to Saint Vincent of Lerins (+445 AD). The Arian Visigoths renounced Arianism in 589.

  159. @Peripatetic Itch

    So three recognised scholars Allen, Krauss and Faulkner agree that Venus is present in the Pyramid Texts. The no named author in the document you link to misunderstands or misrepresents Ancient Egyptian cosmogony. That Horus can take many forms is irrelevant to Venus being present or not in the pyramid texts. It reads like classic deflection tactics of a stage magician-showman.

    “A judicious examination of the various Horuses and the sources relating to them supports the possibility that the roles in question are closely interrelated and so they may be understood as different aspects, or facets, of the same divine persona.”
    (Ancient Gods Speak, Ed. Redford, p.165)

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  160. @Peripatetic Itch

    – I somehow doubt they got a double-focussing mass spectrometer up there.
    – Have they looked into r-process n,ß,ß production from sulfur?
    – Depending on exact formation Venus would be expected to be poorer in K
    (like e.g. the moon)
    – Herschel´s discovery the orbits follow a simple irrational geometric progression rules out a recent capture in the inner solar system once and for all.

    Then again Herschel was a Jew too … I´m conflicted 😛

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  161. @I Have Scinde

    And yet you believe in the moon landing, even though they got the color of the moon wrong.

    This is a pants-on-head retarded gaffe on the part of those who faked the moon landing, and you don’t care. You want to believe.

    Just shows that the grandstanding about ‘serious’ people is just fighting about whose retarded ideology should be dominant.

  162. Tochter says:

    All three installments of this series have generated a huge number of angry reactions like this, which in my opinion miss the point utterly. It seems obvious to me that the FMR is not trying to tear down Christianity. On the contrary, he is attempting to surgically remove the deformations imposed on the Western spirit by the “usual culprits”, who, one must assume given their diabolical intelligence, have not been idle for the last thousand years in their attempt to undermine Christ by transforming him from a universal spiritual principle easily accessible by all into a historical figure weighed down with just enough extraneous ancient Middle Eastern superstition and authoritarianism to subvert the “spontaneous” Christianity of the evolved soul into just another corruptible power structure. The Catholic Church has been in on the con since day one. These knee-jerk reactions of visceral rejection, accompanied with more personal denigration than necessary, remind me of the reactions of sleepers to the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. FMR is showing us that the con is even older and bigger than we thought, and that salvation cannot come from institutions. I feel like many of those who condemn the work presented here are simply too attached to what Christ called “the world” to accept that it has been under essentially demonic control forever. This series has blown my mind and clarified a number of historical and theological questions I have had. Thank you, First Millennium Revisionist.

    • Agree: Ano4, gay troll
  163. @Tochter

    I certainly do not believe that “Christ did not exist”. In fact, one of the earliest observation that got me interested in chronological revisionism, during my PhD research on medieval culture, was that medieval men (say, 11th-12th century) 1) seemed to be very superficially and recently christianized, and 2) seemed to think of Jesus’s time as quite recent. When they went on the first crusade, for example, with the aim of “avenging Jesus” (against Turks who had destroyed his tomb, but also on the way against Jews who had murdered him) they seemed to think of him a relatively recent dead. Perhaps some day I’ll write specifically on these cultural aspects. In any case, I never expressed doubt about the existence of the historical Jesus: his story, although partly legendary and mythical, strike me as generally very plausible. But how Jesus’s story became the basis of a world religion is another story altogether. I do tend to think, like Tochter, that Christianity was, in part at least, a “Jewish trick” consisting in Judaizing ancient myths, cults, and beliefs, using a Jewish messianic episode. That is another hypothesis that would need much research: I suspect, for example, that Marcionism was not a heresy, but the original thing (more or less).

    • Replies: @Ano4
    , @Tochter
    , @nokangaroos
  164. “by transforming him from a universal spiritual principle easily accessible by all into a historical figure”

    Some people can in good faith believe in the divinity of Jesus but not the incarnation however, St Paul is clearly angered and riled with the apostles and leaves todays good faith reader in no doubt that Paul is not a fictional construct. Those people who angered him did meet Jesus is not disputed in Pauls letters.

    Could you please give some info on what theological points were cleared up for you.

  165. Ano4 says:

    I have read that during Justinian’s crackdown on non-trinitarian Christians in the Byzantine Levant entire stretches of the country got depopulated. Of course when we know how his troops waged the war in Italy, we are not surprised in the slightest at this level of social disruption.

    Same thing about the Maghreb, where things have never been peaceful after the Donatist suppression and the citcumcellions troubles. The fact that the Byzantine retook the place from the Vandals might have had a negative effect on the local romanized Berber populations. And the remaining Vandals have probably just mixed with the Berbers further south in the zones that Byzantine Empire did not control.

    Justinian’s wars and reconstruction of the country were also a reason for tax hikes all across the Empire. Nobody likes paying taxes and in the beginning at least Islamic taxation was easier to swallow because less heavy and complex.

    The Jews supported anything that weakened the Empire and welcomed the Islamic invasion with open arms. In the capital itself the Nika riots were a sure sign of social instability. Byzantium was a clay footed giant.

    But what do we make of Sassanid Iran? It fell to Islamic conquest even faster than Byzantine Empire’s territories…

  166. With regard to the Aleppo codex and the Dead Sea scrolls I remember many professors expressing their amazement about 700 years (roughly the period supposed to exist in between these documents) of careful & faultless copying of the Bible texts by monks in their moisty and cold monasteries. Seven hundred years and no trace whatsoever of this monk’s labor, that must have been continued and repeated by such a lengthy series of other dutifully & faultlessly manuscript copying monks! It seems a repeat of the legend of the Greek Septuagint by 70 translators, who miraculously come forward out of their lockdown with 70 exact copies of the Greek Bible.

  167. Ano4 says:
    @First Millennium Revisionnist

    Christianity might have been a tool used by the Imperial elites to try to cement their multicultural and multi-ethnic masses. They might have held it in contempt, but used it to steer the masses in the direction of a further ethical integration and pacification. In the same manner they might have used Mithraism as a tool to unify the warrior class and Neoplatonic paganism to organize the thought process of the intellectual class.

  168. Tochter says:
    @First Millennium Revisionnist

    Let me be clear. I also believe Jesus Christ was a real historical figure. On a personal level I have had a difficult time reconciling the (1) Jewish, (2) authoritarian, (3) pagan, and (4) mythical elements of institutionalized Christianity, all of which seem fundamentally extraneous and incoherent, with the simple and self-evidently true core of Christ’s teaching. This series of papers has helped me theologically in the sense that I can now see better the extent to which “the world” is fallen. I also would like to ask a question. Is it possible that Revelation was written AFTER the tenth century collapse?

  169. @Ano4

    Yes. Actually, I recently came across a book by Flavio Barbiero, The Secret Society of Moses: The Mosaic Bloodline and a Conspiracy Spanning Three Millennia, (2010), with a very interesting thesis about the connection between mithraism and christianity, a connection that would originate in imperial circles and go much deeper that what is usually assumed. I recommend it.

    • Thanks: Ano4
    • Replies: @Alden
  170. This is really interesting, and it would seem to explain a lot of conundrum, especially in literature, where there is a strange 500 your gap between the productions of late antiquity such as Saint Augustine or boethius and the works of the middle ages. However, is there not some continuous timeline, especially in China for example, whereby by we can date this period? What is the independent Chinese historical records say? Don’t they have a very meticulous records dating back to antiquity? Whence the distinction between the tang and the han in traditional historical treatments? Is Chinese historiography also creation of western historians? I find that hard to believe.

  171. @Happy Tapir

    I agree. The Chinese case would definitely need to be studied meticulously. I stressed the indisputable role of the Jesuits in standardizing Chinese history, but that doesn’t answer all your legitimate questions. Raising questions is the purpose of these articles.

  172. @nokangaroos

    I somehow doubt they got a double-focussing mass spectrometer up there.

    Yep. Truly amazing what they can do, isn’t it. They have even detected Argon-36 in the Crab Nebula. Here’s an article from the New York Times of 1978 explaining the whole thing and grudgingly admitting it supports Velikovsky but misrepresenting his theory to put him down:

    MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. “GLEEKS!” That old expression from his graduate school days punctuated Dr. John H. Hoffman’s excitement as he examined the first scientific data from the Pioneer probes into and beneath the clouds of Venus.

    The data he read on the computer print‐outs constituted what seems to be the most surprising, puzzling and important result thus far in the Pioneer mission. Dr. Hoffman and his colleagues had discovered in the Venusian atmosphere an unexpectedly large amount of the rare gas argon‐36. This confounded the other 114 mission scientists, for it flew in the face of their theories about the formation of the planets.

    An Argon Anomaly

    Argon and Dr. Hoffman soon became the chief topics of discussion and controversy in the corridors and conference rooms here at the Ames Research Center, and over drinks at Rickeys Hyatt House in nearby Palo Alto, where the scientists often gathered after hours. Could the findings be believed? What was Venus telling them about the nature of the solar system?

    Dr. Hoffman, a physicist from the University of Texas at Dallas, headed the mass spectrometer team for Pioneer Venus 2. A mass spectrometer identifies specific elements and molecules by analyzing the mass of constituents in the atmosphere. The position of a peak in the spectrometer data determines the mass and therefore the gas species. Hydrogen is 1, carbon 12. oxygen 16; argon can be 36, 38 or 90. The amplitude, or size, of the peak determines the amount of the gas being observed.

    When the Pioneer probe plunged into the atmosphere on Saturday morning, Dec. 9, Dr. Hoffman and other team members hunched over a computer console in a room off the mission operations center at Ames.

    “Things were going so fast,” Dr. Hoffman recalled, “I don’t really remember when we saw argon, and it took me a while to realize we were seeing an excess of argon‐З6.”

    After the probe hit the surface and ceased transmitting, the Hoffman team retired to a tiny office in the basement of Building 239. As Dr. Hoffman extracted and read the numbers from the printouts, Dr. Michael McElroy of Harvard University recorded them in a black notebook. Dr. Richard Hodges, also of the University of Texas, did some rapid mathematics with a pocket calculator. Dr. Thomas Donahue of the University of Michigan and Dr. Mark Kolpin of Physics International, a Berkeley, Calif., organization, looked on.

    There were data peaks for carbon dioxide, helium, nitrogen, molecular oxygen, neon and argon. They had expected to see some argon, but not much — certainly no more than on earth. What they were seeing, however, was evidence of 100 parts of argon‐36 per million, much more than on Earth.

    Planetary Formation Debated

    While Dr. Hoffman uttered a string of “gleeks,” Dr. McElroy, the theoretician, pondered the possible significance of the data. “This,” he remarked, “has got to have some implications for the way in which the planet was formed.”

    Argon‐36 is one of the gases that was present in the solar nebula, the great envelope of matter out of which the sun and the planets were born some 4.6 billion years ago. It is a volatile element, one that is easily boiled off. Since the inner planets like Venus, Earth and Mars were extremely hot at the time of formation, nearly all the argon and many other primordial gases dissipated or were blown away by the force of other solar gases.

    Now the atmospheres of planets like Venus, Earth and Mars are composed primarily of gases that originated in the planets themselves. Argon‐40, for example, is generated by the radioactive decay of potassium‐40. In Earth’s atmosphere, there is 300 times as much argon‐40 as argon‐36, and even that is a minute fraction of 1 percent of the total atmosphere. On Venus, according to the Pioneer mass spectrometer, there are almost equal amounts of argon‐3б and argon‐40.

    Dr. Hodges made a joke, suggesting that perhaps the mission had proved one of the controversial theories of Immanuel Velikovsky. In several books, Mr. Velikovsky has contended that Venus originated outside the solar system and was later captured by the sun’s gravity.

    “I don’t think so,” Dr. Hoffman said. “Venus has a very circular orbit. If it came from outside the solar system, it probably would have a highly elliptical orbit, like most comets.”

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  173. @Tochter

    I didn’t mean to contradict you. I was answering Sepharim indirectly. I’m of course happy to know that you find my articles stimulating. Yes, I very much think it is possible, even probable that Revelation (or parts of it) was written after the tenth century collapse, as a kind of “Jesus had warned you” argument. There is still much mystery there. One point that needs to be taken into account is that the central part of Revelation (from 4:1 to 22:15) is of non-Christian Jewish origin, for its refers neither to Jesus nor to any Christian theme. Only the prologue and the epilogue are ostensibly Christian. So there are several layers to the book, as to most of the NT.

  174. @First Millennium Revisionnist

    The imagery goes back a long way before the books of the OT. To take just the 1st chapter you reference i.e. the seven spirits of god in Rev 4:5, recalls the seven spirits of Re from the Coffin Texts of ancient Egypt (c. 2000 bc).

    As a whole the book of revelations has multiple links to ancient Egyptian texts which opposes once again your redating attempts because those texts were not translatable in your claimed time frame.

  175. Sparkon says:

    Speaking of comets, according to its article in Wikipedia, Halley’s Comet has been known since at least 240 BC. The famous comet has reappeared in the night sky at regular intervals of 74 to 79 years, making it a reliable cosmic timepiece to register the passage of centuries.

    Chinese observations of Halley’s Comet are of especial importance to astronomers because of the important place this comet had in their growing understanding of them. The earliest confirmed sighting was in 240 BC (in the Records of the Grand Historian)—with a continuous record after 164 BC. A comet observed in 467 BC may have been Halley, but there is insufficient information to be sure. The most accurate records of Halley begin in 12 BC.

    In 1843 engineer and sinologist Édouard Biot translated Chinese records of comets. Astronomer John Russell Hind observed that past apparitions of Halley back to 12 BC in most cases could be matched to these Chinese records.

    A computer calculation of the past orbits of Halley using numerical integration could not continue past 837 AD because a very close approach to Earth made calculation of orbits prior to that too inaccurate. The researchers had started with accurate European measurements from 1759, 1682 and 1607 AD and calculated backwards. However, no accurate European records exist for 837 AD so the researchers looked to Chinese records. From these they obtained a good estimate of the perihelion of Halley for that year. They used that, together with perihelions found from Chinese data for 374 and 141 AD, to provide constraints for their calculation. They were finally able to calculate the orbits of Halley back to 1404 BC

    Apparently, Halley’s Comet has returned more or less on schedule since at least 240 BC, making it highly unlikely any centuries or millennia have disappeared.

  176. @Sparkon

    If true, you’ve got a point, but I seriously question if chronologists have really made sure that they have testimony about Haley’s Comet every 74 to 79 years. And even in that case, there is a possibility that the same event has been duplicated if reported by different authors, as it happens with many other events.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  177. @First Millennium Revisionnist

    “One point that needs to be taken into account is that the central part of Revelation (from 4:1 to 22:15) is of non-Christian Jewish origin, for its refers neither to Jesus nor to any Christian theme”.

    The other correction needed is your claim that Jesus is not mentioned in the aforementioned section of the Book of Revelation. He is mentioned in 12:17, 14:12, 17:6, 19:10, 20:4.

    If you can be wrong with something so easily checked what trust must we give to your other evidence?

  178. @Jack McArthur

    Thanks for correcting me : I should have written : “…for its only references to Jesus (in bold below) have no consistence and can be scribal additions”.

    12 :17 : “Then the dragon was enraged with the woman and went away to make war on the rest of her children, who obey God’s commandments and have in themselves the witness of Jesus.”
    14 :12 : “This is why there must be perseverance in the saints who keep the commandments of God and faith in Jesus.”
    17:6 : “I saw that she was drunk, drunk with the blood of the saints, and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus; and when I saw her, I was completely mystified.”
    19:10 : “Then I knelt at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, ‘Never do that: I am your fellow-servant and the fellow-servant of all your brothers who have in themselves the witness of Jesus. God alone you must worship.’ The witness of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
    20:4 : “Then I saw thrones, where they took their seats, and on them was conferred the power to give judgement. I saw the souls of all who had been beheaded for having witnessed for Jesus and for having preached God’s word, and those who refused to worship the beast or his statue and would not accept the brandmark on their foreheads or hands; they came to life, and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.”

    In the last one, Christ=Messiah has no explicit Christian connotation, though it could also be an addition

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
    , @Not Raul
  179. @Peripatetic Itch

    “The Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa (Enuma Anu Enlil Tablet 63) is the record of astronomical observations of Venus, as preserved in numerous cuneiform tablets dating from the first millennium BC. It is believed that this astronomical record was first compiled during the reign of King Ammisaduqa (or Ammizaduga), the fourth ruler after Hammurabi. Thus, the origins of this text should probably be dated to around the mid-seventeenth century BC.[1] (according to the Middle Chronology)”.

  180. gay troll says:

    If 700 years of artificial history has been added to the timeline since “10th century catastrophe” then we had better start calling it the third century catastrophe and get used to the idea of living in the year 1320. Then we can talk about the 4th century Gregorian reform, 8th century Renaissance, 11th century Industrial Revolution, and 13th century Apollo Moon Landing Hoax.

    If the Gregorian reform occurred in the 4th century, then the canonical Gospels had only existed for 220-280 years. Although Jesus Christ is said to have been crucified around 30 AD, the Gospels make explicit reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD. Therefore the earliest date for the composition of Mark is 70, and the earliest reference to Mark in the literary record occurs in 130. This means that as little as 100 years separates the origin of canonical Christian literature and the hypothesized catastrophe that may have been caused by a comet.

    The FMR says this catastrophe could be the inspiration for passages in the book of Revelation, but this book is commonly dated to 95 AD. It is referenced by 2nd century Christian writers. Likewise, it strains belief that Christ, whether real or literary, would anticipate the apocalypse of Judea a century before a celestial apocalypse befell the Earth, in much the same terms. Although I do not agree with all the conclusions of Joseph Atwill, his work strongly supports the thesis that whoever composed the Gospels utilized Josephus’ “War of the Jews” as source material in order to augur the coming of Titus.

    In the aftermath of a celestial apocalypse, as time and generations passed, survivors would not understand how much time had elapsed since the disaster, or at what date the disaster occurred. If Dionysius Exiguus thought Christ should have been born 1000 years before the disastrous comet, it shows that the birthdate of Christ was not well understood. The Gregorian reform presents us with a black box containing the origin of Christianity; they became the sole possessor of literature during the dark age and they freely destroyed Pagan literature while forging and mutilating other sources at will. Is it possible to push the creation of the canonical Gospels all the way to the 3rd and 4th centuries? Is it possible that the authors of these Gospels originally intended for the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus to coincide with the celestial apocalypse?

    The forensic evidence suggests that Jesus Christ was not a historical figure. So too it denies the existence of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon. The Old Testament says that the law of Moses was rediscovered in the Temple by a king of Judah after being lost for ages (see: Deuteronomic reform). The Jews were subsequently conquered and abducted by the Babylonians around 600 BC. Suffice to say that if King Josiah really rediscovered the Torah in 622 BC, he discovered a work of historical fiction. Alternatively, the Torah could have first been composed at this time or during the Babylonian captivity. Either way, 622 BC is the earliest starting point of authentic Jewish history. The latest starting point is ~250 BC, when Ptolemaic Alexandria produced the Septuagint, the earliest known version of the Hebrew scriptures, which was written in Greek and said to have been translated identically by 70 scholars locked in 70 different rooms. Since there is no known earlier example of the Hebrew scriptures, and since its translation is described as a miraculous event, it is fair to assume that the Torah was originally written in Greek. So too was the New Testament. This is consistent with a Greek empire.

    • Replies: @Anon
  181. @Peripatetic Itch

    Sulfur 😀
    Didn´t show up in the GC, and I said I wanted a double-focussing not a quadrupole.
    (oh, and the Sulzberger rag as scientific reference is a new low)

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  182. @First Millennium Revisionnist

    I´ll admit I always found the Marcionites more original also; looking forward 😉

  183. @First Millennium Revisionnist

    Your response is not in the spirit of truth and that tells me how much trust to place on your other evidence- nil. Time I move on.

  184. @Jack McArthur

    The “spirit of truth”? You sound like a bishop condemning a heretic as an “enemy of the truth”.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  185. @Jack McArthur

    So three recognised scholars Allen, Krauss and Faulkner agree that Venus is present in the Pyramid Texts. The no named author in the document you link to misunderstands or misrepresents Ancient Egyptian cosmogony…. It reads like classic deflection tactics of a stage magician-showman.

    I must admit you do that rhetorical slap-on-the-wrist thing with professorial skill, but you should know it stopped working here at Unz some time ago. You need to up your game to, say, rhetorical water-boarding, or something.

    Then instead of citing references I can get hold of or arguments I can get my teeth into, you expect me go find a book evidently not available on the internet and costing \$30.00 from Amazon, to be on my doorstep two weeks hence. No thanks, I will do the best with what I can find. And as in general Egyptologists have a reputation for being just as incestuous as the other groups LMR critiqued, I’m not about to succumb to your appeal to authority, either. As well Velikovsky concluded Venus settled down about 3500 years before he wrote and while that may be a problem for LMR (but recognizing Mars was destabilized for a period after that, in his estimation), it may well render irrelevant anything about Venus from about 1550 BCE

    Perhaps the most cogent reason for doubt about the identification of Horus with Venus is that Horus was most clearly identified in Ancient Egypt as “Horus Star at the Front of the Sky.” Now ‘Front of the Sky’ for Egyptians meant those stars they could see all year round in the north sky, rotating about the Pole Star. These, they saw, as having eternal life. Venus of course never gets to the Front of the Sky.

    Otherwise I give you the following quotations (some italics added). Waiting for your next rhetorical slap on the wrist or worse…:

    The five visible planets are certainly attested to in Egyptian sources from about 2000 bce.

    Venus is normally called either “the phoenix bird” or “the heron bird” and linked with the god Osiris. All these beings are also attested in other contexts. Only in the Late Period is the name “the morning star” applied to her with certainty …. She receives the epithet “the crossing star.”

    Overall, all three outer planets are linked to different forms of the falcon-headed god Horus, especially connected with royalty.

    In the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts, a “bull of heaven” is mentioned several times. Already Brugsch had supposed that this could be understood as the planet Saturn, and he equally proposed that the “morning god” of these texts was Venus (Brugsch, 1891, p. 322). Rolf Krauss has more recently taken up the question at least for the morning god and has argued that, given the association with the eastern sky in the morning, he should really be considered as the planet Venus (Krauss, 1997, pp. 216–234). This is a possibility, but the evidence is hardly cogent, and an explanation would be needed why the older astronomical monuments never use morning god for the planet Venus.

    Rolf Krauss has interpreted a number of texts with a mention of the “eye of Horus” as references to the planet Venus.6 There is no sound basis for his assumptions, especially since Venus in older Egyptian astronomical texts is clearly linked with Osiris, not with Horus. The eye of Horus is correlated with the Moon and its phases by the ancient Egyptians; indeed for a number of texts which Krauss has adduced for his interpretation, closer investigation of their context makes it clear that they speak about the Moon, not Venus (von Lieven, 2007, p. 179ff.).

    Clemens of Alexandria, Stromateis VI, 4, 35, 3–36, 1 indicates, in a detailed section about priestly scholars in Egypt, four astronomical books as being under the control of the horoscopos (hour-watcher). One of them treats the arrangement of the planets. Modern scholars have shown little confidence in the reliability of such information of supposed high-quality astronomy in Ancient Egypt (e.g., Neugebauer, 1942, pp. 236–239). Still, the extant documents at least show that in the Late Period there was a very real Egyptian occupation with planets, their phases, and their movement, even if the mathematical models used for it are likely to be derived from Babylonia (Hoffmann, 2014, pp. 80–88).

    [R]esearch on the astronomical knowledge of the ancient Egyptians has shown that its basis of exact and scientific observation has, if anything, been overrated. At the recent autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, held at Brown University, Providence, R.I., on October 23–25, Dr. O. Neugebauer, in a communication on “The Egyptian Picture of the Sky” (Science, 90, 410; Nov. 3, 1939), pointed out that while Egyptian and Babylonian astronomy are usually quoted as equivalent foundations of Greek, and, therefore, medieval and modern astronomy, really very little is known about Egyptian astronomy. Investigation of Demotic texts, however, has now shown that Egyptian methods of treating the movements of the moon and planets were only very approximate, and without any consideration of details. This picture, Dr. Neugebauer stated, has now been completed by a Demotic text recently purchased by the Egyptological Institute in Copenhagen, which shows how the aspect of the sky and the setting and rising of the stars was connected with the religious myths. The close connexion of religion, especially so far as the underworld is concerned, with the changing aspect of the sky during the year indicates that the main interest of Egyptian astronomy was not a mathematically detailed description of very complex effects, but merely a rough scheme, just good enough to reflect the main traces of the observed facts.

    The horizon was extremely important to the Egyptians, since it was here that the Sun appeared and disappeared daily. A hymn to the Sun god Ra shows this reverance: ‘O Ra! In thine egg, radiant in thy disk, shining forth from the horizon, swimming over the steel firmament.’ The Sun itself was represented by several gods, depending on its position. A rising morning Sun was Horus, the divine child of Osiris and Isis. The noon Sun was Ra because of its incredible strength. The evening Sun became Atum, the creator god who lifted Pharoahs from their tombs to the stars. The red color of the Sun at sunset was considered to be the blood from the Sun god as he died. After the Sun had set, it became Osiris, god of death and rebirth.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  186. Seraphim says:
    @Jack McArthur

    How much trust you can place on FMR knowledge of the subject was illustrated by his quite frequent historical blunders, e.g. making Vespasian ‘the emperor traditionally associated with the martyrdom of Peter”.
    The whole exercise has nothing to do with truth, but with the iconoclastic anarchistic ‘smashing of idols’ of the ‘institutional’ Church. It is a call for the ‘continuous revolution’ which would be ended only when the ‘Infame (i.e. the Church) sera écrasée’ and the ‘last king will be hanged with the entrails of the last priest’, when the churches will be destroyed or transformed into mosques, bars, or concert halls for the enjoyment of the people liberated from the shackles of ‘organized religion’.

    • Troll: Peripatetic Itch
  187. @nokangaroos

    I said I wanted a double-focussing [mass spectrometer] not a quadrupole.

    Oh, did you now? Now why did I suspect that was the gambit you were going to throw out next?

    The first double-focusing mass spectrometers were put out in 1936, so it’s not like they were new in 1968 or even in 2001 when the following evaluation of the Pioneer instruments was published. Back to you, Mr. Give-me-what-I-want-or-else-I’ll-pack-up-my-marbles-and-go-home:

    Society for Mass Spectrometry
    Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2001, Pages 656-675
    Focus: field-portable and miniature MS
    Mass spectrometry in the U.S. space program: past, present, and future☆
    Peter TPalmera Thomas FLimerob

    While the Pioneer Venus and Mars Viking Lander instruments were developed nearly 30 years ago, their specifications are amazing even by today’s standards. Table 2 provides some comparison data for these instruments. It is somewhat surprising to note that few of today’s miniature MS instruments have comparable size, weight, and power

    And this from 1979

    A neutral particle mass spectrometer has been constructed to measure the composition and abundance of the atmospheric gases of the planet Venus. This instrument is being flown on the Pioneer Venus Multiprobe and will sample the planet’s atmosphere from an attitude of 67 km to its surface. The mass spectrometer is a single focusing magnetic sector field instrument capable of scanning the mass range from 1–208 amu with a sensitivity of better than 1 ppm relative to the dominant gas, CO 2 . It possesses a unique inlet system which is capable of sampling gases from an environment of 770 K and 100 atm. Operation of the instrument is under the control of a microprocessor. Through this powerful device, a highly efficient peak stepping and data compression program is effected permitting transmission to earth of the entire mass spectral output in only 64 seconds at a data rate of 40 bits/s resulting in an excellent altitude resolution of variations of atmospheric composition. An isotope ratio measurement cell purges an atmospheric sample of active gases yielding an enriched rare gas sample for isotopic ratio analysis. To maintain an ultraclean vacuum in the mass analyzer tube, a combination of ion pumping and chemical gettering is employed.


  188. Sparkon says:
    @First Millennium Revisionnist

    I haven’t been able to find a complete record of every visit by Halley’s Comet, but these paragraphs from A Comet Called Halley by Ian Ridpath suggest there are no gaps in the record of Halley’s visits going back over 2,000 years.

    Since its first predicted return in 1759, Halley’s Comet has come back to us three times, in 1835, 1910, and most recently in 1985–86. Historical records, unknown to Edmond Halley, show that the Comet’s previous appearances stretch back far into the past, long before comets were recognized to be periodic. Including its most recent visit, Halley’s Comet has been sighted on 30 occasions, the earliest by the Chinese in 240 BC, and there may be still older records that remain undiscovered.


    Prior to its appearance in 1456, the best observations of Halley’s Comet come from China. For over 2000 years, the Chinese government ran an astronomical bureau whose officials kept a scrupulous watch on the sky, noting anything unusual and interpreting its portents for the Emperors. Their records are an encyclopaedic source of information about ancient events in the sky.


    Surprisingly, the Chinese did not record the Comet’s subsequent appearance in 164 BC, and only vaguely mentioned it in 87 BC. This was vexing for Yeomans and Kiang, who needed to check their calculations for those years. But confirmation came from a different direction: the Babylonians, inhabitants of the Middle East, who assiduously compiled diaries of astronomical information.

    [my bold]

    30 total sightings of Halley’s comet approximately once every 75 years = a total of 2250 years, so there is no evidence of any missing time, years, centuries, or millennia during the period humans have been recording the fairly regular passage of the comet known as Halley’s.

    No doubt history is a jumble of myths, legends, fantasies, and lies with a little truth mixed in here and there.

    The mythical man known as Jesus Christ was not a historical figure, but was cobbled together from several extant god figures at the 1st Council of Nicaea under the direction of the Roman emperor Constantine.

    Indeed, the millennia preceding the first records of Halley’s comet are much better candidates for periods of mixed up time — to say little of fanciful narratives — going back to the dawn of recorded history.

  189. @First Millenium Revisionist

    Karl is a Germanic loan, it became Slavic krol for king because of Karl the Great (just like German Kaiser is from the Latin personal name Caesar).
    Karl is strange for a Germanic male name all right, as it’s not the typical two-word construction, but it’s Old High German nevertheless, meaning boy. (Today’s etymologic descendant is Kerl.) The early Carolingians had a family penchant for terms of endearment for small children as male names. Pippin, Karlmann are of the same ilk.

    • Agree: Ano4
    • Replies: @Njall
  190. Radiocarbon dating and interregional dendrochronology have some calibration issues, that’s true.

    But what they both can do reliably without much wiggle room for subjectivity is give relative chronologies, at least locally (for dendrochronology).
    Wooden Planks under a Roman road thought to have been built after the Romans conquered Gaule were dendrochronologically dated to 4 AD. A carolingian building where I live had a roof beam dated at 850 +- 8 years, which exactly fit the date of the building’s finishing time deduced from written sources. There must be lots of such dates. Not counting the utter implausibility of it all in a connected Roman world.

    The other two teams are cranks, I had thought Heinsohn was a serious scholar, may read what he wrote, but I am afraid it won’t be time well spent.

  191. @Anon

    Documents with dates, histories of persons and their deeds, family histories, and reigns of rulers are still a much better guide for dating.

    Are you sure?

    In German there is a saying; “Papier ist geduldig,” meaning, paper has patience.

    Documents are easy to forge, all the more so in periods when 99% of the population cannot read. Don’t forget that literacy became common only with the Reformation, first in places like the Northern Netherlands, Scandinavia and Scotland, reaching some 15% in the late 16th century if my memory doesn’t deceive me.

  192. Itch,

    (What I meant is a double-focusing is too freaking big and only the newest time-of-flight ones have sufficient resolution; didn´t know about the active gas separator – my bad.)

    Let us then for the sake of argument forget the Velikowsky reference was an inside joke and assume it was actually Ar-36 (that doesn´t show up in the GC).
    Back o´da napkin sez 36.73ppm Ar-36 for Earth and 70%Ar (isotopic composition unknown) for Mercury, so the only thing inexplicable is Earth´s surplus of radiogenic Ar.
    As the moon shows, K and Na can behave as volatiles during formation – so as the gas giants accreted in the “snowstorm” zone, why not a potassium storm for Mother Earth?
    – Alternatively, better outgassing from plate tectonics, or
    – solar wind (pure Ar-36) capture further inwards.

    Venus is a planet – get over it 😀

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  193. @Peripatetic Itch

    You’re getting into the debate on the electric universe, aren’t you?

  194. a_german [AKA "a_German_"] says:

    Nice article, so some centuries where nothing happend did’nt exist. Can live with that. History is more an rewritten marketing illusion of the former and now living emperors and influencers. Surprise surprise.

    Venus is visible with the naked eye and moves in foreground of star constellations? Tell me more, eben if you have only stars at night and no TV in the ancient desert.

    But the simple fact that nobody checked the sedimentation layers between different Old cities is, lets say typical science. A science which is more after correctly spelled names and income then on correct content.

    Shame on you all.

  195. Von Rho says:

    Thank you for the correction! I mistook both Emperors. Aurelianus came back from Palmyra bringing the cult of Solis Invictus, which becames Mithraism. Diocletian, in turn, quashed the rebellion of Alexandria in Egypt and restored the traditional Roman triad of Jupiter, June and Minerva. Or Putin, Lavrov and Shoigu… Who are indeed good guys!

  196. @Sparkon

    In 1843 engineer and sinologist Édouard Biot translated Chinese records of comets.

    Let me guess. The original Chinese records he copied have been lost and are not available for us to inspect.

    • Replies: @Von Rho
  197. Sparkon says:

    Let me guess. The original Chinese records he copied have been lost and are not available for us to inspect.

    You’re free to guess all you want, but the plain fact is the “very numerous” and continuous Chinese records of Halley’s Comet are widely accepted as valid and accurate by astronomers and most historians alike, irrespective of whether or not the original manuscripts exist in their entirety. The oldest extant handwritten copy of the Records of the Grand Historian dates back about 1500 years, and it is far from the only ancient Chinese source on comets.

    Now I’ve tracked down two published papers with lists compiled from Chinese records documenting 30 consecutive passages of Halley’s Comet between 240 BC and 1986 AD:

    The observations of Halley’s comet in Chinese history (Tsu)
    [Use side menu to select page 192]

    The Historical Records of Halley’s Comet in China (Wang & Gong)
    [select page 56]

    I see no reason to doubt the Chinese records. It turns out that Chinese arithmetic is no harder than its Western counterpart, at least for those of us who are numerate.

  198. Seraphim says:

    Hard to believe that a Hippopotamus is litterate in Chinese (if at all).

  199. Njall says:
    @Occasional lurker

    Icelandic dictionaries note that Karl is a word common to all Teutonic languages, and found in old German as kerl, meaning a man (as opposed to a woman); in old English one sees the equivalent word churl (a karl’s son is referred to as a churl’s son) being used — a house-carle is a servant, sometimes used as a term of contempt as when a staff churl is a beggar or an indigent; in Icelandic the ancient Edda distinguishes between karla (men) and kvenna (women). A man is referred to as karlmadur and a woman as kvennmadur. Karla-folk is men-folk or common folk; a karl-barn is a male child.
    In a political sense, the common folk are referred to as karlfolk and (og) kvennfolk, while an elite person is referred to as a jarl or a kongur. In the ancient manuscripts one finds konungur og drotning (queen) juxtaposed as against commoners referred to as karl og kerling (another word for females). The ancient manuscripts sometimes refer to “a karl named (his given name)” or “a sveinn named (his given name)”.

    Karl is occasionally seen as a given name in Icelandic; the question of why any family would name their son Karl, or Sveinn (boy, a lad or youth, a Nordic loan word that shows up in old English as swain, but sometimes used in Icelandic to indicate a servant or attendant too) is sometimes a topic of conversation, on which an elder might opine that the family may not have known any better or have been uncertain as to his pedigree. (A bit like naming your son Hans [or Hanns], a common practice when the father is unknown or not divulged by the mother — hence leading to Hansson [basically His-son], etc. Some say it is derived from the word hani, a rooster or weather cock, especially if that man leaves the pregnant woman without support and a bastard child to care for on her own — and who then becomes “(given name) Hannsson”. That name seems to first appear in Icelandic genealogies circa 1645 on Heimaey in the Westman Islands trading post or fisheries off the south coast of Iceland, and appears to be a Danish or German sailor’s name.)

    The Icelandic national genealogy shows the earliest man known to be named Karl was born in the year 850 AD (per Svarfdaela saga); and, yes, his parentage is unknown, as is the case for a man named Sveinn born 990 AD (per Grettis Saga), his parentage is shown as also being unknown. All indications are, of course, that both of these men proved themselves able and worthy individuals, serving as cause enough for their progeny to, in turn, name their children in their honor — and so these names persist. And yes, Karla-magnus was the translation of Charlemagne, whose history was widely read in Iceland in the earliest of times, and which may have given the name some imprimatur.

  200. Von Rho says:

    I am not a sinologist, but it would be useful to consider what Fomenko questioned (even if I think that he exaggerates a lot about several issues): many Chinese records can be nothing more than translations or adaptations of historical facts from the West. Did the Chinese really invent the press? It would be more reliable if the press was invented for alphabetical writing. As an example, many legends about a universal flood could be indigenous adaptations of the biblical flood made by Jesuits for catechesis using the folklore of each people. In this sense, another example is the syncretic cult between Hinduism and Christianity created by Jesuit priest Nobile in India in the 18th century, which lasted until condemnation by the papacy. Even in popular cuisine this confusion happened: some names like “tikka masala”, a style of cooked chicken, appeared as a corruption of “Taj Mahal”, a title suggested by European customers to an Indian cook who had never heard of this building in his country.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  201. @nokangaroos


    Making a general comment to the article look like a reply comment to me is about as sneaky as anybody gets here on Unz. I don’t get a notification in my email, but if I don’t reply because of that, readers may assume it’s because I conceded your point. I suspect you tried to sneak this little deception past the moderator and I consider it unacceptable behavior.

    Back o´da napkin sez 36.73ppm Ar-36 for Earth … so the only thing inexplicable is Earth´s surplus of radiogenic Ar [Ar-40].

    The Pioneer data showed 100 ppm Ar-36 on Venus, which is almost three times the concentration on Earth. Not sure you can dismiss it with a hand wave.

    As the moon shows, K and Na can behave as volatiles during formation

    You weren’t there to observe the moon’s formation, so what you really mean is: “As our models of our theories about the moon’s formation show”. Put that way, however, the circularity of your reasoning process is well exposed. You make a theory to ‘explain’ why the moon is poor in volatiles, then use the theory, which is not independently corroborated, to prove your explanation for the formation of the moon, which you then use for non-sequiturs like this.

    why not a potassium [snow]storm for Mother Earth?

    Indeed why not? A polar vortex coming from the direction of the pole star containing a cloud of Potassium-40 ions and dropping a few trillion tons of such on Mars and the Earth, but missing Venus entirely. I mean that’s what polar vortexes do, isn’t it? Now where’s our friendly space weather-person when we need him?/s (6.7 trillion tons of Potassium 40 currently in the Earth’s crust.) (The Martian atmosphere contains 1.6 percent argon-40 and 5 ppm of argon-36, which seems to make AR-36 even rarer than on Earth)

    Alternatively, better outgassing from plate tectonics,

    Pure speculation. But it does expose your recognition that Velikovsky was proved correct when he predicted that the surface of Venus would be proved to be hot and recently congealed from molten rock, with millions of volcanoes and a surface barely touched by wind erosion, all of which proved true in spades. NASA scientists resorted to hypothesizing a massive resurfacing of the planet by volcanic eruptions, a suggestion that all but conceded Velikovsky’s point. Hence no tectonic plates at all.

    solar wind (pure Ar-36) capture further inwards.

    OK, that looks promising, at least for the Ar-36 issue, if not for the Ar-40 issue. The solar wind does contain mostly Ar-36 and Venus is 28% closer to the sun than is the Earth, so it presents a cross-section twice as large as the Earth. The solar wind “can stream all the way to planetary surfaces unless thwarted by an atmosphere, magnetic field, or both.” Venus, to be sure, does not have a magnetic field, but its atmosphere is 90 times more dense than earth’s. So you would need to explain how the Ar-36 dispersed itself more or less uniformly all the way down to the surface, especially when it is considerably lighter than the CO2 that makes up 95% of the Venusian atmosphere.

    Argon is composed of three isotopes: 36Ar, 38Ar, and 40Ar. The former two isotopes are primordial in origin with no significant contributions by production within the Earth: 40Ar, however, is produced by decay of 40K (t1/2=1.40×10^9 yr). The initial (or primordial) 40Ar/36Ar ratio of the solar system lies between 10^−4 and 10^−3 (Begemann et al., 1976).

    On Earth as it is not in the heavens: The argon in Earth’s air is nearly all made up of the isotope argon-40 (99.6%), but in space (as measured from the solar wind) a different isotope, argon-36, dominates(84.6%)

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  202. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Hans Vogel

    > “And it is a lot more fun than to teach millennials about “Gender and Race in Merovingian Gaul,” or “Female and Transgender Warriors in the Carolingian Army, 785-815.””

    Is it? I have searched for the former, and found quite a find. It seems far more curious than the current pseudohistory – at least, the famous tranny’s namesake is demonstrating her love of both feminism and Jesus (QED!).

    The story of Radegund, for one, can easily be salvaged from feminism, as it might be viewed as a tale similar to that of Kriemhild who chose to remain loyal to her murdered family.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  203. @Occasional lurker

    FYI, Heinsohn has called for an experiment, but it has not been taken up yet: Read about it in “Gunnar Heinsohn: Archaeological Strata vs Tree-rings: proposal for an experiment”
    Here is the introduction:

    Tree-ring-daters do not agree on the number of years that can be substantiated for the 1st millennium CE. The majority is convinced that they have 1,000 characteristic rings that prove the 1,000 years required for a millennium, confirmed down to the last second by C14. Therefore, they are convinced that scholars living after the year 1000 CE had all the instruments available to construct the chronology from 1-1000 CE as dendro-chronologists find them in their textbooks. The full 1,000 year time-span did not go unchallenged. A minority of painstakingly careful tree-ring-counters is convinced that there are only 782 years between 1 and 1000 CE that can reliably be proven by distinct tree rings. Heribert Illig and his followers have settled for 703 years. Thus, there is no such thing as a dendro-chronological consensus.

  204. @Adûnâi

    Great find indeed! History without reliable sources is always great fun.

  205. @First Millennium Revisionnist

    I found your observations on the confusion of AUC with AD chronology compelling. If Heinsohn is right about the missing seven centuries and with some additional mathematical juggling, we could even more or less retain the current Scaligerian chronology, though with a different starting event.

    In this scheme of thing, Illig would indeed be wrong, but then what to do with Giovanni Carnevale? Actually it could help give Charles a more solid place in history: not su much as Emperor, but as a more regional monarch based in San Claudio near Macerata.

    At least the Roman Catholic Church discreetly supports the version of Charlemagne as a local ruler in Central Italy, by allowing a marble sign to be placed in the church of San Claudio:

  206. @First Millennium Revisionnist

    Thanks for your answer, I’ll read the link!

  207. @Peripatetic Itch

    Forgot to press “reply” before typing – no evil intent; pardon if it caused inconvenience 😀

    – Element distribution on the moon – enrichment of REE in the white anorthosite (highlands, “primary lava ocean”) vs. deficit in K,Na and Fe is best explained by hot formation from an already differentiated (= siderophiles not exposed) Earth and boiling off (the sequence of boiling points fits well). As the planets differ in isotope ratios also (heavier inwards) it is not unreasonable to assume a gradient.
    – For atmospheres of Venus (hotter) and Mars (smaller) passive (= residual) enrichment is to be assumed (Mars is still – in the southern summer – losing water to Jeans escape, like Earth in the early stages). Ar-36 is as heavy as CO2 (for practical purposes) but not photolyzed – it all boils down (heh) to K.
    – The “pancakes” on Venus do look like komatiites, though I haven´t seen anything but radar pics (I do have a Nakhla – Mars pyroxenite – in my collection). It would mean an undifferentiated crust; tidal warming?
    – Still no smoking gun I´m afraid; oh, and it´s “vortices” 😛

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  208. @nokangaroos

    Ar-36 is as heavy as CO2 (for practical purposes)

    So you are perhaps saying that Ar-36, which is 22% lighter than CO2 (Mol. Wt. 44), is no more likely to float on top of the CO2 than oil, with a relative density of 0.84 to 0.96, is likely to float on water. Now I remember you accused Velikovsky of “smoking some seriously vile stuff” and well I think I may need some of it before I could believe either of those propositions.

    The “pancakes” on Venus do look like komatiites

    Well komatiites are micro-crystalline rock while “pancake volcanoes” on Venus average about 25 km across and being made of highly viscous lava are not crystalline at all, so I think I may have to find me a bit more of that seriously vile stuff before I can figure out what possible point you are trying to make here. Meanwhile you might try putting your mind to explaining why these pancakey things occur in the millions on Venus and not at all on its so-called sister planet under our feet. You might also respond to the features on Venus that speak to serious electrical scarring. The following is from

    Venus underwent some kind of cataclysmic event (or events) in the recent past. Giant cracks extend for hundreds of kilometers, for example. Those fractures are accompanied by “coronae”, with deep channels branching out like carved lightning bolts. Vast caldera with upraised rims and glassified, crazed interiors dominate the landscape.

    According to a recent press release, planetary scientists believe that volcanic upwelling melted and swelled the surface. When it subsided, the magma cooled and contracted, leaving behind a network of fractures. Features such as Maat Mons, therefore, are the remains of volcanoes that might still be active.

    However, in an Electric Universe, those formations resemble lightning scars. The cracks are trackways—the remains of electric arcs raking the surface, and the mounds are giant fulgamites. A fulgamite, or lightning blister, develops when an electric discharge pulls charged material from the surrounding area, incidentally dragging the neutral matter with it. A large enough electric arc will act like an enormous plasma tornado, with an extremely low pressure region in the center enclosed by powerful electromagnetic fields. It is this central vortex that can exert forces that crush and melt dust and other substances until they become stone.

    The word, “fulgamite” is uncommon. It appears that it was used first in a paper published by R. D. Hill in the Journal of Geophysical Research 11/1963; Volume 68. Hill’s paper, Investigation of Electron Runaway in Lightning, mentions that lightning rod end caps would sometimes show “mounded” circular formations, “melted and raised above the surface of the metal.”

    According to Ralph Juergens in his paper, Of the Moon and Mars, Searching For The Scars Of Battle (Pensée Journal II, 1974):

    “He [Hill] describes the sides of these fulgamites as ‘usually ridged with closely spaced concentric grooves’ and their bases as ‘usually flared like a bell’. And he remarks: ‘Sometimes the position of the strike is found to wander slightly during the formation of the mound [[as]] shown by the shallow development of the “borrow pits” [[concentric graben?]] from which the mound is built up’.

    “Hill attributes the mounding-up of fulgamites to magnetic-pinch forces at the junction of the discharge with the electrode (lightning rod). His calculations indicate that such forces in a lightning column are easily adequate to raise metallic welts a centimeter or so in diameter, and they neatly account for the bell-shaped fulgamite surfaces as well. The concentric rings and ridges, in his opinion, are best explained as remnants of ripples set up in the molten surface during fulgamite formation by oscillations in the plasma of the lightning column.”

    Electromagnetic pinch forces can be extremely powerful. They are capable of drawing charged particles toward them, which, in turn, drag neutral matter into the center of a compression region. The material is squeezed into a tightly confined area where it might become consolidated. This phenomenon occurs because of the “Bennett Relation“, named after Willard Bennett.

    In previous Pictures of the Day about Venus, it was suggested that geological features should not be viewed in isolation. Craters with wide, flat floors and steep sidewalls; terraced, sinuous canyons with vertical walls, scalloped edges, no outflow debris, and flat bottoms; mesas with forty-five degree “shoulders” and escarpments that are cut by parallel grooves; faults with no sign of strike-slip, with other faults cutting across them at ninety degrees–those formations are anomalous, indeed.

    Shield volcanoes and pedestal craters are visible through the clouds. Such geology is difficult to explain, unless electrical activity is invoked. Gigantic plasma discharges pull material toward them into the center of a vortex. After an electric arc passes, a raised mound of debris remains. Some mounds, like Eistla Regio, can be very large.

    Probably the most important aspect about Venus is its anomalous electric field. Electric Universe advocate, Wal Thornhill is sure that the raised mounds and the mountain tops on Venus are electrically energized:

    “…diffuse electric discharge, known on Earth as ‘St. Elmo’s fire’, occurs preferentially at the higher altitudes of the mountains on Venus. In that thick atmosphere it forms a highly conductive dense plasma, which is a superb reflector of radar signals. The density of the atmosphere at the surface of Venus is about 1/10 that of water. St. Elmo’s fire is a highly ionised state involving actual discharge. Put the two together and you have dense plasma – which conducts like a metal and therefore reflects radar like a metal surface.”

    This explains why some areas on the surface are so reflective to radar: St. Elmo’s Fire is a plasma phenomenon, similar to static electricity, and charged plasma reflects radar like a mirror.

    How Venus was formed and how its blasted and burned surface came about must include electricity’s power. Energetic discharges propagated through its dense atmosphere, leaving the aforementioned structures scattered across its surface. Those cosmic lightning bolts account for the terrain, the electromagnetic field, the temperature variations, the polar vortices and many other aspects.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  209. Seraphim says:
    @Von Rho

    Well yes, the Chinese did invent the press. The world’s earliest dated, printed book, was the Buddhist ‘Diamond Sūtra’ in Chinese language, complete with a beautifully illustrated frontispiece, found along with thousands of manuscripts in the ‘Caves of a Thousand Buddhas’ in the province of Gansu. We know the precise date the scroll was made (11 May 868), who financed it, on behalf of whom and for what purpose: “On the 15th day of the 4th month of the 9th year of the Xiantong reign period, Wang Jie had this made for universal distribution on behalf of his two parents”. Printing was obviously the most economical method to obtain as many copies for ‘universal distribution’, i.e. mass-production.
    It is interesting that in China printing comes in concurrence with the use of paper money. The earliest known use of paper money in China is from the Tang dynasty around year 800, but real paper money was introduced early during the Song dynasty (960-1279) by a group of wealthy merchants and financiers in Szechuan. Notably, Szechuan was the province where Chinese printing first occured. The banknotes issued by the Szechuan group were printed with pictures of houses, trees and humans.
    Moveable type, which replaced panels of printing blocks with moveable individual letters that could be reused, was developed by Bi Sheng, from Yingshan, Hubei, China, who lived roughly from 970 to 1051 A.D.
    By the time of the Southern Song Dynasty (1127 -1279 AD) there were massive printed book collections.
    Oh, but we know that the Chinese steal European inventions!

    • Agree: Ano4
    • Thanks: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  210. @Peripatetic Itch

    – So according to Unmixable Gas Theory ™ (serious IgNobel stuff if you ask me, though fluid unmixing IS crazy) our lowlands should be dunked in CO2. Grim Gretta would love it, as it would disappear into the oceans overnight.
    – I will believe orogeny-by-Birkeland-constriction when I see it; there is a reason Funkenmariechen (with apologies to electrical engineers everywhere 😛 ) should stay away from planetary formation – the same reason retired construction engineers might want not to pontificate on the pyramids.
    – No idea what your definition of “komatiite” is, but the spinifex texture means devitrification. If the things are rhyolite we might have a teensy problem – but that still don´t make her a comet (and a rogue planet might be too Maxwellian).
    – No one disputes the impacts; and tidal heating seems to be more common than previously thought e.g. the moon has a liquid core(!).

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  211. @nokangaroos

    So according to Unmixable Gas Theory ™ (serious IgNobel stuff ….)

    Ah, those IgNobels, So much more fun than those others, which by the way, were instituted to assuage a guilty conscience, and have become too corrupted for words. I’ve always wanted an Ig, now been nominated twice, but no luck so far. More seriously, we know that Hydrogen and Helium leave the earth because of their light weight, that Neon-20 probably leaves Mars, as does Argon-36 for the same reason, that xenon, the heaviest natural gas on Earth (Atomic mass 131) probably does the same. On Titan Nitrogen-14 even seems to escape preferentially to N-15. I have already quoted the Pioneer scientists to the effect that nearly all the argon and many other primordial gases dissipated from the Earth or were blown away. Comment 175. It also seems to have been the most accepted explanation for the lack of water on Venus. So sigh, I think I may prove unlucky in my Ig nomination from you once again. Very sad.

    there is a reason Funkenmariechen [carnival dancers] should stay away from planetary formation

    By which you slyly mean plasma physicists. Well in contrast to astronomy, which was taken over by math types eons ago, plasma physics is an experimental science that has garnered at least one real Nobel prize . It also has the rather amazing property that results found in the laboratory are scalable up or down many orders of magnitude. So when patterns seen in the laboratory are found in stellar space or on Venus, the correspondence should be taken seriously.

    No idea what your definition of “komatiite” is

    I’m good with the following, which seems to be consistent with both my characterization of it as micro-crystalline and yours as devitrified. You still haven’t even tried to tell us what your point is. Scientists have not agreed on what formed these two-billion year old rocks but you incomprehensibly tell me they “look like” pancake volcanoes on Venus and expect me to decipher your point.

    Komatiites are ultramafic volcanic rocks that occur mainly in Archean and Paleoproterozoic greenstone belts. These olivine-rich rocks are assumed to have crystallized from magmas that have about 28-30 wt% MgO. They are characterized by spinifex texture – platy or skeletal crystals of olivine set in a glassy matrix

    a rogue planet might be too Maxwellian

    A nice vacuous way to try and set up an Overton Window. In other words don’t even try to apply electromagnetics to hypothesizes Jupiter ejectae or I will sic the cancel culture on you. WTF is “too Maxwellian.”

    G. F. FitzGerald, Oliver Heaviside, and Oliver Lodge–along with a key German contributor, Heinrich Hertz. It was these Maxwellians who transformed the fertile but half-finished ideas presented in the Treatise into the concise and powerful system now known as Maxwell’s theory.

    the moon has a liquid core(!)

    At last, we agree on something. Wow! You find it amazing (as indicated by your exclamation mark) that the moon still has a molten liquid core some four and a half billion years after it was formed. I was similarly amazed that Velikovsky 70 years ago had the audacity to predict that the moon’s tidal encounters with Venus would have liquified (or partially liquified) it and that Carl Sagan, his designated hit-man, excoriated him for making such an absolutely “stupid” statement. So once again, Velikovsky gets priority for his tidal-heating hypothesis over even you:

    Sagan then writes,

    “Velikovsky believes that the Moon, not immune to the catastrophes which befell the Earth, had similar tectonic events occur on its surface a few thousand years ago, and that many of its craters were formed then… There are some problems with this idea as well: samples returned from the Moon in the Apollo mission show no rocks melted more recently than a few hundred million years ago.”[263]

    It seems apparent that Sagan is quite sure about his evidence even though he states his position without citing where the evidence is found. The Moon formed with the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago and was heated then by its radioactive elements. Thus, the Moon was molten then and atomic dating processes will prove this. Let us see how old the Moon is by these dating processes to determine when it supposedly was last molten. Ian T. Taylor informs us that,

    “The oldest rocks on earth have a reported age of 3.8 billions years. However, it was realized that the moon would have crusted over at about the same time as the earth; since there is no wind or water to cause erosion, it was believed moon rocks would provide a direct radiometric age for the earth. Sure enough, after retrieval of the moon rock samples in the Apollo program, Holme’s estimation was claimed to be exactly confirmed, and the age of the earth confidently stated in the popular press and textbooks to be 4.5 billion years. However, the official reports and scientific journals, in which actual results of the radiometric determinations were given, showed that the ages of the moon rock samples varied between 2 and 28 billion years [according to Whitcome and DeYoung who cite earth and Planetary Science Letters for 1972-77; Science, 1970, Vol. 167, pages 462-555]. Quite evidently, the data for public consumption had been selected to confirm the theory.”[264]

    Based on modern theories, the universe was born about 20 billion years ago. If the Moon was molten when it was born, as Sagan seems to imply, it was molten 28 billion years ago or before the universe was born. Apparently Sagan does not wish to discuss this information or other relevant data about the Moon that contradicts his assertion about the age of the Moon’s last melting.

    • LOL: nokangaroos
  212. xcd says:

    My summary:
    – Though archeologists often find artefacts from multiple eras in the same stratum, they explain them away without revising history.

    – Most historians date the constructions in Imperial Rome — ports, streets, residential quarters, latrines, water pipes, sewage systems, bakeries, etc. — to Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century CE). It has no artefact from Late Antiquity (4th-6th c.) or Early Middle Ages (8th-10th c.).

    – They assign Byzantium to Late Antiquity, though its constructions are nearly indistinguishable in architecture and technology from Rome.

    – They assign Charlemagne’s constructions at Ingelheim and Aachen to Early Middle Ages, though these too match Rome. Charlemagne never implied that he lived many centuries after Rome had fallen.

    – Latin itself showed no change over these 3 eras.

    – For Anglo-Saxons, there is no Early-Middle-Age evidence from of sacral buildings, agriculture or even pottery. Instead, the remains of buildings at Winchester, associated with Alfred the Great, match 2nd-century ones. Instead of his palace, they have found a Roman palace from 2nd or 3rd. century for which they have not identified the owner.

    – The history of Vikings, Franks, Saxons and Slavs have similar problems. In architecture and technology, the cities Pliska and Preslav in Bulgaria, assigned to the 9th century, are entirely consistent with Imperial-Antiquity Rome.

    – 700 years supposedly separate the Han and Tang dynasties of China. Yet, the remains of Tang settlements do not overlie Han ones anywhere. Art from the two dynasties looks indistinguishable. Hand-made paper supposedly took 700 years to spread from China to the West. It supposedly reached Japan only in 8th century CE.

    – The Nabataeans, who used the Aramaic language, dominated the long-distance trade with Asia. Yet there is no evidence of their coins or documents from over 700 years, in contrast to subsequent evidence from Arabs.

    – Rome supposedly began unravelling in the 230s CE due to immigration, revolts, invasion, political instability and plague; however, the massive damage to constructions in several cities remains unexplained. Supposedly c. 530 CE, 18 months of darkness — now proven but unexplained — brought famine to Byzantium; supposedly c. 541, plague struck it, having come from Rome. Refugees spread it to the rest of Europe. Supposedly c. 930, plague struck Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.

    – The resolution of these contradictions requires dropping the 1st to 6th centuries from the time-line. The 3 eras are just one. After some major cataclysm, famine and disease ended this era so severely that subsequent historians were misled. Feudalism folowed.

    • Agree: Not Raul
  213. GeoLeoNeo says:

    P.S.: Somehow the Good Proofreader missed the chief black eye in this article: in large font, in the very title—“Millenium” instead of “Millennium” . Still prevalent today, a goodly 20 years into the New Millennium. By all evidence, even the spellcheckers seem to fall flat over that one.


    • Replies: @Seraphim
  214. Seraphim says:

    All this happens to confirm the prophecy of Saint Paul:
    “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

    But this is nothing new*. These ‘fables’ sprung up the very moment Jesus started His mission. All these fables have one, and only one purpose, to preach ‘scientifically’ (viz. ‘stratigraphy’) to the converted, that the Incarnation of the Son is a ‘myth’ and therefore the Gospels that record the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus are forgeries, that the whole history of Christianity is a forgery, a fraud perpetrated by the ‘priests, Popes, Emperors, Kings’ that must be punished and eliminated from the consciousness of Mankind, and to ‘seduce people’ in believing in them (actually reinforcing their prejudices with a ‘scientific’ patina) and make them active participants in the “destruction of the idols of ‘organized religion”’. Of course, not all of them would go in the streets to pull down the ‘statues of the hated history of oppression of the ‘colored, negros, Jews, ‘pagans’ by the Christians’, but many would and the rest would find ‘reasons’ for that. Feeble minded people, but who believe that they are high on the IQ scale, are particularly vulnerable to this propaganda.

    *”Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. ” (1 John: 18-29).

  215. xcd says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    An extension to that tale: According to Kamal Salibi in a book “Bible Came From Arabia”, the Promised Land Moses led “his” people to was in Western Arabia. In 1977, the Saudi government published a list of thousands of place names in the country. Many names relate to the Old Testament, nearly all in Asir and Hijaz in the West. Ancient Jerusalem was at the present-day village of Al-Sharim.

    That may have been a policy error. Since then, the government has been working to erase history, including Islamic artefacts.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  216. Alden says:
    @Not Raul

    Supposedly Romania was used by the Romans to settle their retired soldiers. It was a long period of enlistment supposedly 25 years. At retirement they were given land. They spoke Latin, even the non Italian troops. That’s the story anyway.

    Italians and some Roman colonies didn’t need to build much for centuries. For instance the law courts or basilicas were easily converted to big churches. Just roof over the big court yard, keep some of the offices library and file rooms and turn the actual court area into the altar area. A simple remodeling job.

    There’s those outdoor theaters, with stone seats and walls all over S Europe. Supposedly they were built during the Roman era or before. The English supposedly lost all memory of the Roman occupation between 425 AD and 600AD when the Pope sent a representative to see if anyone had survived the Justinian Plague.

    But Germans French Austrians Spanish Italians and Balkan Anatolian mid eastern people all believed the Romans and their local ancestors had built the roads public buildings and other structures.

    Interesting articles. Has he turned it into a book?

    Some so called scholar wrote a book claiming the Polo Family, other Italian merchants and the famous Marco never went to China, The Polo book was all lies written by his prison cell mate, a popular author of romance adventure fiction.

    So called scholar based her entire book on the fact that the Great Wall of China was not mentioned in The Travels. Truth is, most of the Great Wall wasn’t even built at the time Polo claimed he traveled to China. It didn’t appear on any Chinese made map of China till the 1600s. There had been sections built of unbaked clay. sort of berms, at various times, but rain and wind destroy unbaked clay over the centuries.

    I need to read all his articles. All I really know is the conventional wisdom PLUS the massive depopulation of the Justinian plague of which most historians of the so called dark ages are completely ignorant

  217. Alden says:
    @First Millennium Revisionnist

    I’ve read a lot about Mithraism , ancient Persia and Zoroastrianism.

    Christianity is much, much more descended from Mithraism than the genocidal OT and the Jewish religion of 1-100 AD or the time of Christ who may or may not have existed. Even the Pope’s 3 tier crown and haloes in pictures of saints are, December 25, are Persian, not Jewish. It took centuries for December 25 to replace Easter, basically the Jewish Passover genocide of Egyptian babies feast.

    The structure of the Catholic Church is Roman. Pope is Emperor. Cardinals are the senate. Bishops are colonial city and provincial rulers. The missionaries were and are the conquering armies of the Romans. The Roman Catholics held the Huns mongols Turks and Muslim Arabs off Europe from 650 to the 1800s. And from 1917 to 1990 continuously plotted and conspirators to destroy Jewish Bolshevism.

    And best of all, for the last 200 years the Roman church has built and maintained an excellent private school system in America where White children are well educated and kept safe from the violent savages in the Protestant founded public schools.

    Who cares about the fraudulent donation of Constantine or fake relics or the Protestant reformation and it’s worship of the Jewish fairy tales and myths of rape incest genocide massacre and treachery?

    Old French saying; Don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does. The American private catholic school system and helping destroy the Jewish soviet union and its occupied countries is what the Roman church does.

    It’s all very interesting. But it’s just more enlightenment reformation atheist Jewish liberal attacks on a great institution that’s done great things for the Western European peoples of the earth.

    The Catholic Church does. Anti Catholics talk and write.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Not Raul
  218. Alden says:

    The Muslim conquest was made possible by a deadly series of plagues from about 450 AD to 700 AD known as the Justinian Plague. There were not enough people left in the Christian areas to resist except in Byzantium. It’s probably the reason so little authentic history was written during those years. It’s also one of the reasons the Vikings were so successful.

    The English had no memory of the earlier Roman occupation by 600 AD and had lost Christianity as well.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  219. Seraphim says:

    Apparently the dwellers of the British Isles have not so thoroughly forgotten that they were Christians in the 5th-6th centuries. It is precisely the time of the ‘Pelagian heresy’, the “dogma quod … pestifero vomuit coluber sermone Britannus [Pelagius]”. They did not lose Christianity but fell into heresy. The tenacity of ‘quatordecimanism’ in the Isles until the 7th century is a proof of early Christianization and ‘conservatism’.
    Prosper of Aquitaine writes in his Chronicle under the year 429: “By the instrumentality of the deacon Palladius, pope Celestinus sends Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, in his own stead, to displace the heretics and direct the Britons to the Catholic faith.”And under year 431: “Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius et primus Episcopus mittitur.”
    This Palladius is the first bishop of Ireland before Saint Patrick, but “neither did those fierce and cruel men receive his doctrine readily, nor did he himself wish to spend time in a strange land, but returned to him who sent him” is said in the Book of Armagh. He went to the ‘Scots who believe in Christ’.

    • Replies: @Alden
  220. Alden says:

    These articles and the entire Ancient Rome is a forgery is simply a replay of the 1500s Lutheran German N European reformation; split from Rome Italy and Popes and become OT wanna be Jew fanatics.

    And even more, the split between the Russian Greek church from Roman church with the Pope. Can’t remember the date, sometime between 1,000 and 1,100 AD.

    It’s obvious to me it’s mainly Russian revival of pre communist superiority over Western European Christianity under Rome and the Popes. Russia is trying to rebuild itself in every way from the 70 years of destruction by Jewish Bolsheviks and 20 years of looting by the American Jew Jeffrey Sachs and the Russian Jew mafia looters.

    I’m sure Russian academics are active in every single field trying to show Russian Eastern European superiority over Western European achievements in every field.

    It’s not all that different from 100 years ago when the new Russian government claimed that Marxist economics, civil war and communism would bring heaven on earth.

    It’s just a thousand year old newly revived religious split that’s all. But instead of arguing over the meaning of filiquoque and church decorations and icons they’re now claiming Ancient Rome and early western Christianity didn’t exist.

    It’s really not all different from the 20th century Bolshevik propaganda about the superiority of soviet communism over Western societies.

    Of course I’m a cynic and always look for motivation.

  221. Alden says:

    I’m just going by the report St Augustine sent back to Rome around 600 AD. Or the conventional history of the report St Augustine sent back to Rome.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  222. Seraphim says:

    The simple fact is that St. Augustin (of Canterbury) was sent to England at the request of King Aethelbert of Kent (who was still a ‘pagan’) to be baptized. The King was married with Bertha, daughter of the Merovingian King Charibert I and great-grand-daugther of Clovis I and Saint Clotilde (she is known as Saint Bertha or Saint Aldeberge). She restored a former Roman church outside the City of Canterbury, dedicated to Saint Martin of Tours [Martin of Tours died in 397]. It was the private chapel of Queen Bertha before Augustine arrived from Rome.
    Bede reports that:”Having been granted his episcopal see in the royal capital, as already recorded, Augustine proceeded with the king’s help to REPAIR A CHURCH HE WAS INFORMED HAD BEEN BUILT LONG AGO BY ROMAN CHRISTIANS”. Anyhow Augustin met British bishops.
    The bishoprics of England were at all times under the jurisdiction of Frankish bishops and the so-called ‘Celtic Church’ was closely aligned with the ‘Gallic’ Church (thing that makes the Brits who think that ‘Brexit’ is THE constitutive feature of ‘Britain’, a bit uncomfortable, as well as the fact that practically ‘Britain’ was most of the time a province of France!). Augustine himself was consecrated by the Frankish Archbishop Ætherius of Arles, Gaul and his mission was heavily supported by the Merovingian Kings.
    The gesture of King Aethelbert is an indication that the ‘Anglo-Saxo-Celto-‘Brits’ eagerly sought their reintegration in the ‘Roman’ world of which they remained a part until the ‘Brexit’ of Henry VIII (a half-hearted ‘Brexit’ and ‘splendid isolation’ as the whole history of England since demonstrates) avoiding, by their direct submission to Rome, a Merovingian domination. His motivations were the same as those of all barbarian kinglets who converted to Christianity: pressure from the native Christian population, enhancement of his personal prestige.
    The ‘conventional history’ is the history of the puns of Pope Gregory as the reason of the Christianization of England (shoving under the carpet the prior history of the Church in the British Isles).

    • Thanks: Alden, Ivan
  223. xcd says:

    At present, fake coins are a part of the tourism industry in many places.

    • Agree: Von Rho
    • Thanks: Alden
  224. Anonymous[208] • Disclaimer says:

    Monogamy in white people predates Christianity by 3000 years or so. And Christianity didn’t even suggest monogamy, the bible has plenty of men with multiple wives. Due to our environment, men lacked the resources to provide for a harem. Since men die all the time, there absolutely were excess women, who did not get to reproduce. This is the very reason we have hair and eye colors, and are the only race with attractive females.

    • Replies: @Von Rho
  225. Von Rho says:

    According to Comte, monogamy was created in the civic-military polytheism of Greece and Rome, which succeeded the priestly polytheism of the civilizations of the Fertile Crescent, which, in turn, succeeded fetishism-animism, from primitive cultures to China. The latter remained animistic and did not have a priestly class because did not develop astronomy, which allowed the Chaldeans to describe stars, who became gods, whose wishes came to be interpreted by priests with astrology. For its part, China had mandarinate as a civil servant (I LOL when I read here people who believe that the Western elite will allow such a primitive culture to conquer the world). Returning to monogamy, it was created in order to prevent women from fighting among themselves when men were at war.

  226. @Seraphim

    We know the precise date the scroll was made (11 May 868…“On the 15th day of the 4th month of the 9th year of the Xiantong reign period…

    Because words in books always are true. Since the book has its date in it, I guess no need at all to use other dating techniques.

    • Agree: Von Rho
  227. Not Raul says:
    @First Millennium Revisionnist

    I’ve heard proposals that the lingua franka of the Roman Empire was Greek, and some of the “barbarians” who attacked from the north (some from near the Danube River) spoke Romance languages. This is similar to the earlier invasions of Italy by the Celts, some of whom were from near the Danube River (the Danube is named after a Celtic deity).

    Linguistic analysis shows Romance Languages and Celtic Languages to be closely related to each other, more closely than each are to most other Indo-European languages.

  228. Not Raul says:

    I’ve been thinking about the influence of Mithraism on Christianity, too. It’s a shame that so many people don’t know about it, or underestimate it.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  229. Not Raul says:

    Supposedly, Moses received the Law in what is now Saudi Arabia.

  230. Not Raul says:
    @First Millennium Revisionnist

    Rev 19 refers to the wedding of the Lamb, which is also referenced in Matt 22 (see references to wedding clothes). This is inconsistent with references to Jesus being mere scribal additions. Rev 19 doesn’t have anywhere near the same meaning without reference to the Gospels.

  231. Seraphim says:
    @Not Raul

    It is rather a shame that so many people overestimate it, because they don’t really know about it.

  232. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @gay troll

    The ancient temples in the middle east are in Greek, not HeBrew.

  233. Late to the party but it’s obvious to me how you can get anachronistic architecture. Some things are probably mislabeled, which is to say what we have are ruins and not complete sites at any rate and we don’t necessarily know exactly what the original looked like. If you have a partial foundation and some walls (the case with the palace of Karl der Große), you can attempt a reconstruction based on other sites but it’s going to be flimsy and speculative. It’s quite likely that what is dubbed his palace might not have been the actual palace, and at any rate it’s known to be Roman material – why could it not have been a Roman building?

    Wrapping back to my first statement, you have these chapels built in 800-900 which clearly seem to incorporate certain features and styles from after. How do? Well, before 1700ish, churches were not seen as archaeological ruins or museums to be preserved as is. They were to be built upon. So if it was ‘completed’ in 850 AD, that doesn’t mean it was completed as it stands today. Indeed, we know it wasn’t if only because of the Theseus’ Ship problem of many of these buildings, namely that something that old which is continuously used and potentially sees warfare and natural disaster is going to need renovations and restorations periodically. Up until rather recently, they didn’t really care to keep exactly in the original style with these reno/restoration work.

    Doubting the historicity of some of these figures is fun but Karl is firstly not a Slavic word and the author betrays his Slavic (probably South Slavic!) origins in implying this. Karl comes from a Germanic root and probably meant freeman or something like that. Rigsthula mentions the rough caste breakdown of Jarl, Karl, and Thrall, or lord, freeman, and slave and they are said to look like you would expect lol. I have not read Fomenko per se but I’ve read some of the surrounding material (excerpts from Falschungen im Mittelalter and discussions about Fomenko and Illig), and while I find the exact amount of fraud surrounding historical artifacts troubling I don’t think that the fraud we can demonstrate actually changes the highlights of the historical narrative all that much. I also think Fomenko and the guy you are relying on overstate the case.

    The likely case is that certain local timelines are fudged to get them to fit nicely. I actually think the dickery is least in European history (particularly England, France, Italy, Germany), though there are likely fictive kings or earls or popes or what have you here and there. For the most part however, I think the historical record from roughly AD 600-now is mostly correct as regards Europe. Recent history is a major exception and narratives on the past 300 years are also exceptions, but even there actually the narratives tend to rely on warping that which exists mostly and less on outright fabrication (though the latter does happen from time to time: see hall of cost death camps).

    With your narrative, you would have to explain the rise and spread of the Romance tongues as well as why the Volkerwanderung are largely done by the time of the so-called “Early Middle Ages.” According to your revised timeline, the vikings would have been incurring into Roman France and Roman Britain (which was also getting tag-teamed by the Anglo-Saxons?). Yet the Saxon and Frankish chronicles seem to suggest otherwise. Unless someone comes out of left field and blows my mind, afaik those chronicles are not forgeries and have been known and copied since they were written.

    Most European cities which were founded in, say, AD 800 or 1100 still have streets and buildings dating to or around that time. Those buildings and streets incorporate new and old material side by side, but nonetheless you would be able to find in some of these cobbled alleys thousand year-old pavers. They’re built and inhabited continuously on the same level. Without a period of deurbanization, descaling, or in other words local collapse, you’re not going to get any major stratification in these areas unless people were to partly demolish these older buildings and mass earth on top before building anew. As above, some of those churches which were built in AD 850 or 950 or whatever were renovated later and the renovations included new architectural techniques/styles.

    On the other hand, in ahistorical societies like Arabia and India and many parts of Southeast Asia which have a very dubious historical record, the case for ‘phantom time’, chronological dickery, and a partly fictionalized history is much better. Early Islamic history is a great example. There’s not really any good evidence of anything “Islamic” for a solid 100 years after the alleged life and death of Muhammad, and the first bits are scant and contradictory. The earliest really good evidence is like the Shahada on the Dome of the Rock iirc and that’s about 100 years later, and still before a complete Koran or Hadith is available. Some societies considered history on par with legend and did not accord accurate record keeping any great priority. Considering places like that, you will never be able to fit them into a proper historical timeline, and the best you can do is sift truth from legend.

  234. @Rahan

    Of course, Dan Brown’s denouement at the end would be that the conspiracy to make 300 years disappear was just an extremely elaborate scam, extending across time and space, to fool some museum somewhere and make a ton of money. I hope you will come up with a similar ending.

  235. What happened to “How fake is Roman Antiquity?” Pt. One? No longer available on Unz

  236. Smith says:

    This piece again fails without the eastern connection, with anciet greco-roman depiction and records in Han China.

    Unless you believe Fomenko’s ridiculous everyone (romans, mongols, chinese) wuz russian wuz byzantine history.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The First Millennium Revisionist Comments via RSS
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement