The Heinsohn Horizon: The Academic Abyss

The Heinsohn Horizon

Working backwards through the mainstream historical narrative we arrive at the Heinsohn Horizon in the 930s where the mainstream narrative falls into The Academic Abyss and degenerates into fiction, fantasy and fabrication for a period of 700 [phantom] years.

Mainstream historians [and tributary catastrophists] clearly have their eyes wired shut and their index fingers firmly wedged into their ears as they chant: “I can’t hear you Heinsohn”.

Therefore, some 700 years of the 1st millennium (230 to 930s) have neither strata nor tree samples for C14 or dendro-chronological dating.

Archaeological Strata Versus Baillie’s Tree-Rings: Proposal for an Experiment
Gunnar Heinsohn – 8 September 2014
http://www.q-mag.org/_media/gunnar-strata-vsbaillie08-09-2014.pdf
http://www.q-mag.org/the-1st-millennium-a-d-chronology-controversy.html

The problem for many mainstream and tributary historians is that their professional lives are dedicated to filling The Academic Abyss with fiction, fantasy and fabrication.

The Academic Abyss [formerly known as The Dark Ages] has morphed into The Middle Ages as the mainstream has filled the void with debris and detritus.

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 conversion of the Roman Republic to an Empire Julius Caesar, resulting in the Empire’s decay and final denouement in the decline of the Roman Empire leading to the Dark Ages.

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.

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

Once upon a time the mainstream attributed The Academic Abyss to “ruthless barbarians” who destroyed the “old libraries”.

The ancient Roman civilization began to decline soon after the reign of the Antonines, and was overthrown at last by the Northern barbarians.

The treasures of literature and art were buried, and a dark night settled over Europe.

One of the chief causes of the prevailing ignorance was the scarcity of books.

The old libraries were destroyed by ruthless barbarians and the ravages of war.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xiii.v.html#fnf_i.xiii.v-p5.1

Nowadays, as is fully befitting The Academic Abyss, the mainstream manfully struggles with its ignorance as it tries to identify when the Library of Alexandria was destroyed and which set of “ruthless barbarians” actually burnt the books.

Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria:

Julius Caesar’s fire during his civil war in 48 BC;

the attack of Aurelian in AD 270 – 275;

the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391 AD; and

the Muslim conquest of Egypt in (or after) AD 642.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria

As the mainstream peer through this 690 years [i.e. 48 BC to 642 AD] of fog searching for “ruthless barbarians” their myopic gaze fails to recognise any signs of natural disaster.

In reality, the destruction of the aqueducts happened swiftly, and with a power no humans had at their disposal.

This happened, in 234 CE, only eight years after the last system had been completed under Alexander Severus in 226 CE.

At the same time, Rome’s population was reduced from nearly one million to no more than 50,000.

The cataclysm had struck with such force that more than half a millennium passed before Europeans could begin to slowly regain the technological competence of imperial Rome.

Toppling of Rome’s Obelisks and Aqueducts – Ewald Ernst – August 2014
http://www.q-mag.org/_media/ewald-ernst-on-trevor-obelisks-aqueaducts-01-08-2014.pdf

However, where there are neither strata nor tree samples the myopic mainstream has managed to unearth an estimated 269,636 European manuscripts in The Academic Abyss.

Manuscripts per Century

These mainstream manuscripts were mainly manufactured in monasteries.

During a large part of the Middle Ages, a close link existed between the monastic movement and book production: monasteries were not only the most important sources of supply, but also of demand.

We may therefore hypothesize that during the early Middle Ages book production was to a large extent driven by the number and size of monasteries, which was in turn determined by the share of the agricultural surplus that regions and countries directed to this part of the economy.

Monasteries

Charting the “Rise of the West”: Manuscripts and Printed Books in Europe, A Long-Term Perspective from the Sixth through Eighteenth Centuries
Eltjo Buringh and Jan Luiten Van Zanden
The Journal of Economic History – Vol. 69, No. 2 – 2009
http://vkc.library.uu.nl/vkc/seh/research/Lists/Research%20Desk/Attachments/14/Charting%20the%20%27Rise%20of%20the%20West%27.pdf

Maximum manuscript production mysteriously occurred at the end of The Academic Abyss.

The tenth and eleventh centuries witnessed the rise of the local lords who were increasingly able to control the countryside around their castle and who used their power to impose new taxes and duties or to reimpose old ones.

Monasteries often acted as local lords.

The combination of these changes caused a dramatic growth in the monastic movement from 900 to 1300, which greatly increased the production of books.

Manuscripts per Monastery per Year

Charting the “Rise of the West”: Manuscripts and Printed Books in Europe, A Long-Term Perspective from the Sixth through Eighteenth Centuries
Eltjo Buringh and Jan Luiten Van Zanden
The Journal of Economic History – Vol. 69, No. 2 – 2009
http://vkc.library.uu.nl/vkc/seh/research/Lists/Research%20Desk/Attachments/14/Charting%20the%20%27Rise%20of%20the%20West%27.pdf

The manuscript evidence clearly suggests [that during the 11th century] the Machiavellian Monasteries calved up the European remnants of the Roman Empire between themselves by manufacturing the necessary historical narratives [and prodigious pedigrees] from their power bases in France and Germany.

From the Middle Ages onwards, as the centralized Roman power waned in southern and central Europe, the dominance of the Catholic Church was the only consistent force in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Europe#Early_history

In 1049, Leo IX became pope, at last a pope with the character to face the papacy’s problems.

He traveled to the major cities of Europe to deal with the church’s moral problems firsthand, notably simony and clerical marriage and concubinage.

With his long journey, he restored the prestige of the papacy in Northern Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Middle_Ages

Pope Leo IX (21 June 1002 – 19 April 1054), born Bruno of Egisheim-Dagsburg, was Pope from 12 February 1049 to his death in 1054.

He was a German aristocrat and a powerful secular ruler of central Italy while holding the papacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_IX

The Holy Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in central Europe that developed during the Early Middle Ages and continued until its dissolution in 1806.

The largest territory of the empire after 962 was the Kingdom of Germany, though it included the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Burgundy, the Kingdom of Italy, and numerous other territories.

Holy Roman Empire 1034

The German prince-electors, the highest ranking noblemen of the empire, usually elected one of their peers as “King of the Romans”, and he would later be crowned emperor by the Pope; the tradition of papal coronations was discontinued in the 16th century.

The empire never achieved the extent of political unification formed in France, evolving instead into a decentralized, limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units, principalities, duchies, counties, Free Imperial Cities, and other domains.

The power of the emperor was limited, and while the various princes, lords, and kings of the empire were vassals and subjects who owed the emperor their allegiance, they also possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto sovereignty within their territories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

In the Middle Ages, popes struggled with monarchs over power.

From 1309 to 1377, the pope resided not in Rome but in Avignon.

The Avignon Papacy was notorious for greed and corruption.

During this period, the pope was effectively an ally of the Kingdom of France, alienating France’s enemies, such as the Kingdom of England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#East.E2.80.93West_Schism_to_Reformation_.281054.E2.80.931517.29

Therefore, the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 was primarily a co-ordinated Viking Mercenary Invasion on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church and thus probably qualifies as the Second Roman Invasion of England.

Furthermore, reviewing the full scope of the other Norman Conquests it becomes apparent that the Normans were instrumental in establishing the Second Roman Empire.

Norman expansion by 1130

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/who-was-norman/

With the East–West Schism, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church split definitively in 1054.

This fracture was caused more by political events than by slight divergences of creed.

Byzantine_Empire_1095

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#East.E2.80.93West_Schism_to_Reformation_.281054.E2.80.931517.29

Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine when the Machiavellian Monasteries stopped manufacturing manuscripts to manipulate the historical narrative of the 1st millennium.

Similarly, it is impossible to determine when an anaemic academia stopped colluding with the Machiavellian Monasteries to construct the historical narrative of the 1st millennium.

This is [primarily] because radiocarbon dating cannot be effectively used to date the writing on the parchments produced by the Machiavellian Monasteries.

The radiocarbon dating techniques that are used on papyrus can be applied to parchment as well.

They do not date the age of the writing but the preparation of the parchment itself.

While it is feasibly possible also to radio carbon date certain kinds of ink, it is extremely difficult to do due to the fact that they are generally present on the text only in trace amounts, and it is hard to get a carbon sample of them without the carbon in the parchment contaminating it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchment

The Heinsohn Horizon is defined by the materials used to create manuscripts.

Manuscripts were written on “Egyptian papyrus” before the Heinsohn Horizon and then switched to parchment [and vellum] immediately after the Heinsohn Horizon in Europe until locally produced alternatives [cotton paper (circa 1049) and linen paper (circa 1177)] became readily available.

After the conquest of Alexandria by the Saracens, the cultivation and exportation of Egyptian papyrus ceased, and parchment or vellum, which took its place, was so expensive that complete copies of the Bible cost as much as a palace or a farm.

The introduction of cotton paper in the tenth or eleventh century, and of linen paper in the twelfth, facilitated the multiplication of books.800

800
The oldest manuscript on cotton paper in the British Museum is dated 1049; the oldest in the National Library of Paris, 1050.

The oldest dated specimen of linen paper is said to be a treaty of peace between the kings of Aragon and Castile of 1177.

History of the Christian Church, Vol. IV: Mediaeval Christianity, A.D. 570–1073
Philip Schaff – 1882
Christian Classics Ethereal Library
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xiii.v.html

Parchment is most commonly made of calfskin, sheepskin, or goatskin.

It was historically used for writing documents, notes, or the pages of a book.

Today the term “parchment” is often used in non-technical contexts to refer to any animal skin, particularly goat, sheep, or cow, that has been scraped or dried under tension.

Vellum (from the Old French velin or vellin, and ultimately from the Latin vitulus, meaning a calf) in theory refers exclusively to calfskin, and is used to denote a finer quality of material, the finest being “uterine vellum”, taken from a calf foetus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchment

The word papyrus refers to a thin paper-like material made from the pith of the papyrus plant, Cyperus papyrus.

The latest certain dates for the use of papyrus are 1057 for a papal decree (typically conservative, all papal bulls were on papyrus until 1022), under Pope Victor II, and 1087 for an Arabic document.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus#History

However, this is where the anaemic academics excel at obscuration because parchment and vellum that was once deemed “so expensive that complete copies of the Bible cost as much as a palace or a farm” have [somehow] managed to become “cheaper, locally produced products”.

After the conquest of Alexandria by the Saracens, the cultivation and exportation of Egyptian papyrus ceased, and parchment or vellum, which took its place, was so expensive that complete copies of the Bible cost as much as a palace or a farm.

King Alfred paid eight acres of land for one volume of a cosmography.

Hence the custom of chaining valuable books, which continued even to the sixteenth century.

Hence also the custom of erasing the original text of manuscripts of classical works, to give place to worthless monkish legends and ascetic homilies.

History of the Christian Church, Vol. IV: Mediaeval Christianity, A.D. 570–1073
Philip Schaff – 1882
Christian Classics Ethereal Library
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xiii.v.html

Papyrus was replaced in Europe by the cheaper, locally produced products parchment and vellum, of significantly higher durability in moist climates, though Henri Pirenne’s connection of its disappearance with the Muslim overrunning of Egypt is contended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus#History

Similarly, the anaemic academics are attempting to morph parchment from a material that is “very reactive to changes in relative humidity” to a material “of significantly higher durability in moist climates”.

Parchment is limed, scraped and dried under tension.

It is not tanned, and is thus different from leather.

This makes it more suitable for writing on, but leaves it very reactive to changes in relative humidity and makes it revert to rawhide if overly wet.

Parchment is also extremely affected by its environment and changes in humidity, which can cause buckling.

Books with parchment pages were bound with strong wooden boards and clamped tightly shut by metal (often brass) clasps or leather straps; this acted to keep the pages pressed flat despite humidity changes.

Such metal fittings continued to be found on books as decorative features even after the use of paper made them unnecessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchment

Papyrus was replaced in Europe by the cheaper, locally produced products parchment and vellum, of significantly higher durability in moist climates, though Henri Pirenne’s connection of its disappearance with the Muslim overrunning of Egypt is contended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus#History

Clearly, the anaemic academics have been working overtime to fill the The Academic Abyss with debris, detritus and disinformation.

However, the Heinsohn Horizon clearly defines a 700 year period [between the 230s and 930s] where any manuscript:

a) Originated [i.e. specifically dated] during this 700 year period is a forgery.

b) Retrospectively attributed [e.g. by anaemic academics] to this 700 year period is misdated

c) Describing the history of this 700 year period is documenting a fabricated narrative.

Accordingly, a manuscript such as the Notitia Dignitatum that is “usually considered” to document the “Western Roman Empire in the 420s” and the “Eastern or Byzantine Empire in the 390s” is relating a fabricated narrative and has a fabricated provenance.

The Notitia Dignitatum (Latin for “The List of Offices”) is a unique document of the late Roman Empire.

One of the very few surviving documents of Roman government, it details the administrative organisation of the Eastern and Western Empires, listing several thousand offices from the imperial court down to the provincial level, diplomatic missions and army units.

It is usually considered to be up to date for the Western Roman Empire in the 420s and for the Eastern or Byzantine Empire in the 390s.

However, no absolute date is given in the text itself and omissions complicate deriving an absolute date from its content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notitia_Dignitatum

Notitia Dignitatum

Much of our evidence for 4th century army unit deployments is contained in a single document, the Notitia Dignitatum, compiled c. 395–420, a manual of all late Roman public offices, military and civil.

The main deficiency with the Notitia is that it lacks any personnel figures so as to render estimates of army size impossible.

Also, it was compiled at the very end of the 4th century; it is thus difficult to reconstruct the position earlier.

However, the Notitia remains the central source on the late Army’s structure due to the dearth of other evidence.

The Notitia also suffers from significant lacunae and numerous errors accumulated from centuries of copying

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Roman_army

Therefore, in summary, the Notitia Dignitatum is a mainstream “central source” that:

1) Provides “no absolute date”.

2) Contains Taoist symbolism which “predate the earliest Taoist versions” by almost 700 years.

3) Contains “omissions”, “problems”, “substantial duplication” and “lacunae”.

4) All extant examples are fifteenth and sixteenth-century copies derived from a “lost” source.

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/lacunar-amnesia-in-academia/

Notitia Dignitatum Yin and Yang symbol

Similarly, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is a fabrication because it is claimed to be “a fifth-century Greek manuscript of the Bible” conjured up from the The Academic Abyss.

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is a fifth-century Greek manuscript of the Bible, sometimes referred to as one of the four great uncials (see Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus).

The manuscript is not intact: in its current condition, Codex C contains material from every New Testament book except Second Thessalonians and Second John; however, only six books of the Greek Old Testament are represented.

The manuscript is called Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus because

(a) it is a codex, i.e., a handmade book;

(b) its parchment has been recycled; originally inscribed with Scriptural texts, the pages were washed (removing most of the ink) and reused for another text, and

(c) the text that was written on the recycled pages, in the 1100s, consisted of Greek translations of 38 treatises composed by Ephrem the Syrian, a prominent bishop of the mid-300s.

Manuscripts of this sort, consisting of recycled pages, are known as palimpsests.

The later (or, “upper”) text was written in the 12th century.

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Ephraemi

However, the weirdness of the mainstream narrative goes into overdrive when it encounters runes.

The Codex Runicus is a codex of 202 pages written in medieval runes around the year 1300 which includes the oldest preserved Nordic provincial law, Scanian Law (Skånske lov) pertaining to the Danish land Scania (Skåneland). Codex Runicus is one of the few runic texts found on parchment.

The Codex Runicus is considered by most scholars a nostalgic or revivalist use of runes and not a natural step from the Nordic runic script culture of the Viking Age to the medieval Latin manuscript culture.

Codex Runicus

To be continued…

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Catastrophism, Gunnar Heinsohn, History, Language, Radiocarbon Dating. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to The Heinsohn Horizon: The Academic Abyss

  1. Pingback: History Lies | planetamnesia.com - The memory of an ancient life on Earth | Welcome to Planet Amnesia

  2. Pingback: Revised Chronology & The Origins of Civilisation | Louis Hissink's Crazy World

  3. So where does this leave the work of Bede?

    • malagabay says:

      Hopefully my next post will provide some information that might help you to decide…

      Thank you for suggesting just an interesting line of research.
      Regards Tim

  4. C. Whelton says:

    Will the author of Malaga Bay kindly contact me at xxxxxxxxxxxxx Thank you. C. Whelton

  5. Pingback: So Where Does This Leave Bede? | MalagaBay

  6. Pingback: Latin Line Languages | MalagaBay

  7. Pingback: Dating Offa’s Dyke | MalagaBay

  8. Pingback: Heinsohn and The Eclipse Record | MalagaBay

  9. Pingback: Heinsohn and The Missing Trees | MalagaBay

  10. Pingback: Mike Baillie and The Heinsohn Horizon | MalagaBay

  11. Pingback: The Medieval Warm Period and The Heinsohn Horizon | MalagaBay

  12. Pingback: Korea and The Heinsohn Horizon | MalagaBay

  13. Pingback: Peat Bogs and The Heinsohn Horizon | MalagaBay

  14. Pingback: Semicircular Europe and The Heinsohn Horizon | MalagaBay

  15. Pingback: Lawler Events and The Heinsohn Horizon | MalagaBay

  16. Pingback: Déjà Vu Vikings | MalagaBay

  17. Pingback: The Heinsohn Horizon and The Round Towers | MalagaBay

  18. Pingback: Mesoamerican Guide to the First Millennium | MalagaBay

  19. Pingback: Lawler Alignments – Cosmic Clues | MalagaBay

  20. Pingback: Catastrophic English: History of British History | MalagaBay

  21. Pingback: The Arabian Horizon: The Heinsohn Sandwich | MalagaBay

  22. Pingback: The Arabian Horizon – Lost Lands Travel Guide | MalagaBay

  23. Pingback: Russia and the Academic Abyss | MalagaBay

  24. Pingback: The Fold Up Beds of Glen Roy | MalagaBay

  25. Pingback: W F Grimes: The Lost Centuries of London | MalagaBay

  26. Pingback: Ravenna Revisited: Mausoleum of Theoderic – Farce | 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