Putting Questions to Heinsohndeutsch english español français
Berlin · 2021 Uwe Topper
Putting Questions to Gunnar Heinsohn
Our first millennium timeline…is it really 700 years shorter?
Gunnar Heinsohn's method, which he has been using since his Sumerian book (1988) and honed to unsurpassable sharpness in the last ten or fifteen years, is the stratigraphic chronology.
Heinsohn's method of revising historiography arises from the knowledge that time periods in the early history of Mesopotamia with their events and people were duplicated by modern archeology. This was due to the fact that the European excavators of the 19th century took seriously the chronology as laid down in the Bible, with its excessive numbers (based on the unimaginably long life of the patriarchs) and located "Abraham" at around 2100 BC using the theological dating system.
When digging into the layers, what was found was roughly assigned to the culture as being described in the Bible, and cultures were dated at too early periods. This meant in turn that completely new empires had to be postulated to fill gaps such as the Akkadians and Sumerians, when only Assyrians and Babylonians had existed: One found remnants from four successive great empires in front of one, but eight came to be accepted. The discoveries made had to be spread over two millennia instead of several centuries. Heinsohn's investigations ("The Sumerians did not exist", 1988) now establish that nowhere exists a sequence of layers from these eight epochs, including deposits that could prove at least temporal intervals.
Building on this knowledge, Heinsohn applied the same method to the European Middle Ages and found there, too, stratigraphy was not used when dating the first millennium of classic chronology: only a few centuries can be read from the layers, again meaning that about 700 years had been added by historians. Again, they had to create empires for which there were no archaeological finds, or assign them to finds from other epochs.
Based not on stratigraphic but on literary, that is, historical, astronomical and calendar documents handed down, we (Topper) have also determined an artificial extension of the period between the Roman emperors and the Renaissance of around 700 years. Can this be coincidence- or confirmation from another angle?
Through the archaeologically developed layer sequence dating, Heinsohn recognized 700 years as redundant. The archaeologists are to blame for this grotesque misjudgment. Heinsohn proves it: They worked sloppily. But the archaeologists could defend themselves saying, we did not cause this mistake, we followed the commonly accepted historical chronology: The error was already there. After the clarification by Heinsohn, we can correct the dating of the shift sequence for which the historians are responsible.
The question arises: what could have caused the historians (whoever they be?) to inflate the first millennium of the Christian era by 700 years? Didn't they know any better - or was some hidden intention behind it?
It’s assumed they did it to antiquate the event called "Jesus Christ" far into the past, because age increases the credibility (as already Topper 1998). But was this a deliberate falsification of an already known timescale or was it well-intentioned attempt to create a historical backstory where none was previously available?
Thirty years ago Illig and Niemitz determined that 300 to 500 years were counted too much in the Middle Ages, which gave rise to Illig's thesis of the 297 phantom years in the Middle Ages, still advocated today. An already known scale was assumed, subsequently enlarged by a precisely defined insert. The end of the gap lies with Illig and Heinsohn at the beginning of the tenth century: 911 and 930 AD, but in contrast to Illig, at the end of his loophole, i.e. around 930 AD, Heinsohn perceived a catastrophe that brought antiquity to an end.
Other colleagues in this field, e.g. Christoph Marx, have long seen this catastrophe occurring much later, not until between 1260 or 1350, which Heinsohn takes no notice of. Such a recent date for the end of ‘uncertain’ time and the beginning of ‘certain’ history would (of course) call into question empires, kings and cultures - at least force completely new investigations, and would obviously require an enormous amount of rethinking.
The insertion of centuries into the course of history, the invention of emperors or statutes - who might create such fantasies? The corrective of shifting back and forth of heroes and dynasties means they originally stood somewhere very different from where they’re assumed to now, whether done arbitrarily or for a reason: They’re All In The Wrong Time.
Heinsohn believes he can put it right. Take the example of Emperor Augustus, said to have ruled 2000 years ago. Heinsohn is now correcting his position at 700 AD ; it was moved backwards 700 years by the forgers. That’s become his working principle: Dated layers are compared with the known finds and then re-dated according to the time calculation. What does Heinsohn do with the surplus of previously attested emperors and heroes? They are labelled as "alter egos" of real people.
It is important to both of us that no conspiracy is suggested. Kammeier's term 'Great Action' for the re-creation of history by humanists and clerics at the beginning of the modern era leads straight to the idea of agreement, even a conspiracy, covertly operating in the background. "On the other hand, I have shown that the process looked more like a dance, with pirouettes and zigzag runs, dancing forwards and backwards, with opponents and allies. They were not aware of the scope of their forgery and - above all - had no overall view of the structure of the action. Even the gentlemen in leading positions were not all of the caliber of Piccolomini. Instead of action, another expression chould be coined: creation, as re-creation of history." (Topper, Die Große Aktion 1998, p. 268)
Heinsohn is more realistic than his predecessor Heribert Illig, who had posited an agreement between Emperor Otto (III) and Pope Silvester (II). The following passage from Heinsohn (in the original in English) confirms this: "It is important to understand that the contents of the empty centuries created by these calculations were not simply invented with an intent to deceive. They were flawed attempts at reconstructing real history and contained countless rounding errors. And yet, one feels these attempts were anchored in real history. There were massive distortions but few deliberate falsifications in the construction of the chronology of the 1st millennium „AD“. There were no falsifiable textbooks after the devastations of the Tenth Century Collapse. Thus, there was no chronolopgy conspiracy. It was all about salvation. Until the excavations of the 19th and 20th centuries very few people had reason to doubt this pious chronology. And after the gaps were discovered, they were usually skipped or clumsily filled. But all this has to be the subject of independent research."
(see https://q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohn-polish-origins.html - p. 53 last paragraph)
The reason for this re-creation of history is clear, it is "salvation". And Illig had already emphasized this. The aim was to establish the year 1000 AD as the beginning of the last period of time, a time of peace.
Topper sees the result less directly: "The counting of the past years always contained, openly or hidden, the thought of the coming catastrophe, the “Last Judgment”. As a result, the imagined passage of time became limited at both ends, a yardstick with which one can work positions to indicate where one is currently and at which point some earlier event is located." (Jahrkreuz 2016, p. 11)
The aim was therefore to fix or even move the time for the Last Judgment.
Heinsohn believes that a correspondence exists between layers (evidence) and chronology which can be established: But he is sometimes wrong, because the description of the layers and their dating are subject to respective interpretations of style comparisons, coins, etc. The mosaic from Damascus (Umayad mosque, 8th century) is certainly very similar to that of the Villa Arianna (Boscoreale, 1st century); both seem to use the vanishing point perspective that only emerged in the Renaissance.
The "Great Action" of the Church, described by Johnson, Kammeier and others, creating a historical sequence appropriate to the expectation of salvation, was not based on any archaeological assumptions. We believe, without being able to conclusively prove it, but inferring from many signs, that the story sequence, as set up by the Great Action and expanded to this day, is purely a work of art, created from scraps and fragments, full of fantasy, without knowledge of any actual events, and probably associated with a political, religious and social claim to power.
In contrast to Heinsohn's method, Topper believes that a realistic historiography with our means, without a fundamental re-examination of all historical figures and chronicles before about 1500 AD, is impossible, and therefore shifting alter-egos and phantom times back and forth cannot produce reliable results. Neither reality, nor any exact dates.
Heinsohn has a pattern to his approach to shortening time: There are far fewer archaeological find layers than any recorded in the catalog of historic chronology. Topper also has a sensible argument for reducing the historians' time indications: The basis for their fictional periods were invariably backward calculations using precession (Trithemius, Scaliger, Petavius, Isaac Newton), and since the precession rate had invariably made leaps forward, the time indications have to be shortened for realistic viewing. When determining the new cosmic values (year length, precession rhythm) after the catastrophe, i.e. at the beginning of the introduction of the AD count, it was determined that the distance to “Jesus” would have to be about 700 years longer than assumed, and therefore that amount was added.
This process was chaotic, carried through individually by brilliant men like Trithemius, Scaliger, Kalwitz (Calvisius). ... until one-gradually-agreed-on-model was finalised through Councils and so on. The difference is only in the method used: Heinsohn tries to save a coherent remnant from the manipulated chronology, Topper looks at the processes involved in creating this chronology and recognizes its arbitrariness, which does not allow any further conclusions to be drawn apart from the intention of the main actors.
Mr. Heinsohn, what was it like back then? Was there ever any originally real year count, later manipulated until it contained their desired number of years? What did this year count depend on?
Uwe and Ilya Topper on August 25, 21 - transl. helped by Nick Weech
See our website:
Gunnar Heinsohn: Rome in the 1st millennium http://www.ilya.it/chrono/dtpages/Heinsohnuebersetzung.html
ders .: http://www.ilya.it/chrono/dtpages/Heinsohn-Illig.html
Peter Winzeler: Heinsohn's and Toppers theories in comparison http://www.ilya.it/chrono/dtpages/Winzeler%20Heinsohn.html
Uwe Topper on Heinsohn's 700 years: http://www.ilya.it/chrono/dtpages/Heinsohn%20700%20Jahre.html
Ps .: Who should have forgotten: In 2013, I discussed and translated Petherick's opinion on Hardouin: http://www.ilya.it/chrono/dtpages/HardouinsProlegomena.html
Several times there Pehterick talks of an artificial extension of the Christian calendar by 700 years, which (apart from the vain assumption 1 = 753 a.U.C.) has been making more and more sense for the last 120 years, reinforced now by “stratigraphical reality”, as Heinsohn explained.
I would like to write a comment to this text: