History: Stretching the Truth

History - Stretching the truth
Anyone who has read the hugely entertaining [and very informative] The History of Britain Revealed: The Shocking Truth About the English Language by M. J. Harper will appreciate that academia has been extremely economical with the truth when it comes to the history of the English language and the history of Europe.

The History of Britain

The reason for this economy is simply because academia has had to make a little go a very long way.

Fundamentally, the mainstream has maintained the illusion of knowledge by constructing a narrative based upon stretching the truth, borrowing from history and [when all else fails] making it up as they go along.

A fascinating article by Gunnar Heinsohn [at Alfred de Grazia’s Quantavolution Magazine website] explores how the mainstream has constructed a 1,000 year narrative [for the first millennium] that is supported by a mere 300 years worth of archaeological evidence.

A wonderful illustration of this stretching relates to the End of Roman Rule in Britain which appears to have occurred “nearly two centuries prior to the conventional date.”

The famous date of 409/410 CE, with the Rescript of Honorius as the date for Rome’s retreat from the British Isles, is misplaced, as is the date for Diocletian’s Saxons.

Honorius (“395-423”) actually belongs to the beginning of the 2nd c. CE (see overview above, p. 39).

Thus, the Rescript of Honorius (possibly not dealing with Britain at all [Esmonde Cleary 1991, 137 f.]) precedes the fall of the Roman Empire (230s = 930s) by one century.

In actual fact, Honorius (as a secondary emperor) belongs to the period of the central emperor, Hadrian (117-138).

After Honorius fails to send help to beleaguered Romans in Londinium (attested to by the city’s major fire dated around 130 CE), it falls on Hadrian to keep the indigenous tribes at bay.

He tries to cage them in with ramparts and walls.

Thus, it is not in the early 400s CE that Roman civilization is wiped out in Britain.

The isles were hit by the same conflagration that devastated the empire in the so-called Crisis of the Third Century.

Thus, Roman England falls nearly two centuries prior to the conventional date.

The traces of that disaster have been shown long ago: “Parts [of London] had been cleared of buildings and were already covered by a horizon of dark silts (often described as `dark earth’) suggesting that land was converted to arable and pastoral use or abandoned entirely.

The dark earth may have started forming in the 3rd century” (Schofield 1999).

CHARLEMAGNE’S CORRECT PLACE IN HISTORY
Gunnar Heinsohn – Gdańsk/Danzig – March 2014
http://www.q-mag.org/charlemagnes-correct-place-in-history.html
http://www.q-mag.org

The end of Roman rule in Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_Roman_rule_in_Britain

Unsurprisingly, the [expletive deleted] Anglo-Saxons “must be looked for in the Roman period”.

Only long after dark earth had strangled 3rd c. London, the Saxons are supposed, around 410 CE, to have begun their takeover of England.

Yet, time and again, archaeologists cannot confirm it.

First and foremost, Saxon houses and sacral buildings are missing.

One gets the impression that the Saxons have lived in graves, apparently needing no food because remains of their agriculture are also difficult to come by: “Whatever the discussion about the plough in Roman Britain, at least it is a discussion based on surviving models and parts of ploughs, whereas virtually no such evidence exists for the Period A.D. 500-900 in England. […] In contrast to the field system of the 500 years or so on either side of the beginning of our era, little evidence has survived in the ground for the next half millennium” (Fowler 2002, 28).

The year 500, of course, is derived from Late Antiquity’s chronology (290s-520s) brought about by duplication of High Antiquity (1-230s).

Thus, the statement “500-900” must be read as 3rd c.-900.
The shock is not restricted to the absence of agriculture.

There is no pottery, either: “The centuries in England that are generally designated Anglo-Saxon have left little or nothing even in this necessary domestic art. Pottery making does appear again in the tenth century” (O’Neill 2009, 228).

The awkward lacuna from 500-900 (actually 3rd c. -900s) supposedly has housed mega-kings such as Offa and Alfred the Great.

What did they eat?

From what cups did they drink?

Who fed the smiths that forged their weapons?

Where would the people pray?

Of Anglo-Saxon churches between 410 and the 930s, “no universally accepted example survives above ground” (Anglo 2013).

And yet, whilst Anglo-Saxons had no serious houses or ploughs, glassware coming from their graves was made in the Roman style of the 1st-3rd c. CE.

It easily matched imperial quality.

The Anglo-Saxons look non-existent in the real world, but seem to be Roman in the netherworld because Roman period graves have been used to furnish their afterlife, whilst the same strata are rejected when it comes to providing them with living quarters.

The reader may already sense that traces of the Saxon rulers, like the remains of the Carolingians, must be looked for in the Roman period, not in post-Roman materials.

CHARLEMAGNE’S CORRECT PLACE IN HISTORY
Gunnar Heinsohn – Gdańsk/Danzig – March 2014
http://www.q-mag.org/charlemagnes-correct-place-in-history.html
http://www.q-mag.org

The Anglo-Saxons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons

Interestingly, the invention of 700 years worth of history [to infill the first millennium] implies that the Dark Ages are so dark because they represent “a period of intellectual darkness” in modern academia.

The Dark Ages is a historical periodization used originally for the Middle Ages, which emphasizes the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.

The label employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the “darkness” of the period with earlier and later periods of “light”.

The period is characterized by a relative scarcity of historical and other written records at least for some areas of Europe, rendering it obscure to historians.

The term “Dark Age” derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.

Originally the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between extinguishing the “light of Rome” after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29

Another surprising implication is that the invention of 700 years worth of history [to infill the first millennium] allowed the church to invent [for themselves] a long and glorious [or inglorious – delete as appropriate] history to bolster their credibility.

The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar.

It has been the unofficial global standard for decades, recognised by international institutions such as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union.

The calendar was a refinement in 1582 to the Julian calendar amounting to a 0.002% correction in the length of the year.

The motivation for the reform was to bring the date for the celebration of Easter to the time of the year in which the First Council of Nicaea had agreed upon in 325.

Because the celebration of Easter was tied to the spring equinox, the Roman Catholic Church considered this steady drift in the date of Easter undesirable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

This also implies that the Roman Empire did not so much Decline and Fall but simply morphed into the Church of Rome which relies upon armies of believers instead of [the more expensive] armies of centurions.

Therefore, whilst reading the front page of your daily paper, you can ponder whether the headline news should really be datelined the 1st May 1314.

This is not just of academic interest because the date will determine whether we are about to experience a full-cycle Monolithic Lawler Event or a more benign half-cycle Fragmentary Lawler Even as determined by the 1,350 year orbital period of the Solar System.

In 1990 J. H. L. Lawler published a historical review of empires and civilisations which closely reflects the 1,350 year climate cycle and highlights the importance of the half-cycle period of 675 years.

Lawler Events

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/solar-system-holocene-lawler-events/

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Astrophysics, Books, Catastrophism, Earth, Gunnar Heinsohn, History, Inventions and Deceptions, Lawler Events, Science, Solar System. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to History: Stretching the Truth

  1. carol smith says:

    That is a book that made me stop and think. It is also a very humorous book as the author has his tongue firmly in the cheek (looking over his shoulder at the establishment) but is wickedly radical at the same time. I see no reason whatsoever why English speakers could not have been living here since at least the beginning of the Bronze Age. I can remember reading an article in Current Archaeology many years ago about feet. English feet differ from Celtic feet – and Egyptian feet are the most peculiar of them all. Anyway, around 2500BC, when the Beaker folk are supposed to have arrived in Britain (not everyone agrees there was a migration) it was found that a skeleton in a Beaker grave had continental feet (read here English). Nothing more on the matter has ever appeared in any book on Stonehenge or Avebury that I have read – and I have read lots of them. Even though it has been divulged more recently that the Amesbury archer had continental connections (via his teeth enamel). What is remarkable is the dissimilarity between the language of the Beowulf poem (which is actually Scandinavian) and the English language – yet Beowulf is said to be the earliest English literature. Actually, the Angles arrived in boats very similar to the later Vikings – and we may imagine they were similar people as they hailed from a part of Denmark. The Jutes also came from the island of Jutland, also in Denmark. Were the so called Angles Scandinavian or English?

  2. Pingback: Friends, Romans, Countrymen | MalagaBay

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s