Heinsohn Horizon: Chinese Christmas Cake

When Europe started carving up the world the acolytes of empire started carving up history to support their beliefs and interests.

By 1850 the acolytes of empire had diced and sliced the Annals of China to create a great and glorious history for Comet Halley all the way back to 11 years before the Christian era.

The valuable details existing in the annals of China, and but recently known in Europe, enable us to trace this famous comet with a high degree of probability to the year 11 before the Christian era, – a most important circumstance, not only as regards the history of this particular comet, but as bearing on the constitution of these bodies in general.

On the Past History of the Comet of Halley – J R Hind
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society – Vol 10 – Issue 3 – 9 Jan 1850


By 1986 the Annals of China [with a little help from the Annals of Babylonia] had provided Comet Halley with a magnificent pedigree stretching all the way back to 240 BC.

Since 240 B.C., Chinese observers have documented a nearly unbroken record of scientifically useful observation of Comet Halley.

After the probable 240 B.C. apparition, only the 164 B.C. return went unrecorded by the Chinese, and with the exception of occasional Korean and Japanese sightings, useful Comet Halley observations made outside China were virtually non-existent for over a millennium thereafter.

The History of Comet Halley – D K Yeomans, J Rahe and R S Freitag
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada – Vol 80 – April 1986


Establishing this definitive history of Comet Halley was a momentous academic achievement.

It was also a miraculous academic achievement.

Scanning ancient archives for unequivocal sightings of Comet Halley requires skill, dedication and clairvoyancy.

Observations in ancient archives aren’t labelled: Comet Halley.

(89) 26th August, 1682.

“On a chi-ssu day in the seventh month of the 21st year of the K’ang-hsi reign-period, a (hui) comet was seen in the longitude of the (Tung-) Ching (22nd lunar mansion). Its tail was over two feet long.”
(CSL, K’ang-hsi Shih-lu, 103/20b; THL 7/20b)

A more detailed account of the comet was given in the CSK and CWHTK.
It is as follows:

“On a chi-ssu day in the seventh month of the 21st year (of the K’ang-hsi reign-period), a (hui) comet was seen to the north of Pei-Ho. It was white in colour and had a tail over 2 feet long pointing towards the SW. It moved towards the NE rather rapidly. On a jen-shen day (29th August), it entered the Wu hour-angle sequent (i. e. between the 24th lunar mansion Liu and the 26th lunar mansion Chang) with a tail of over 6 feet in length.”
(CSK 14/ 194; CWHTK 12/7252)

This is Halley’s comet.

Chinese Astronomical Records on Comets and ‘Guest Stars’
Ho Peng-Yoke and Ang Tian-Se – University of Malaya


Naked eye observations of Comet Halley may appear in ancient archives at anytime during a [roughly] six month long window of opportunity.

last perihelion: 9 February 1986

On 8 November 1985, Stephen Edberg (then serving as the Coordinator for Amateur Observations at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory) and Charles Morris were the first to observe Halley’s Comet with the naked eye in its 1986 apparition.


This six month observational window of opportunity on the erratic Comet Halley may occur at anytime in a six year window of probability.

Halley’s orbital period has varied between 74–79 years since 240 BC


The providential provenance of Comet Halley contains a perplexing pattern.

In fact, given it’s six month long observational window of opportunity, it’s difficult not to conclude the history of Comet Halley contains at least 695 duplicated years.

This duplication suggest the thread of history is broken at the Heinsohn Horizon when the orbital excursions of planet Earth and Comet Halley both began.

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/the-calendar-of-king-john/

On the one hand:

The duplicated years in the Annals of China could be purely coincidental.

Just like the duplicated cultures in the Annals of China are purely coincidental.

If China of Antiquity (the Han Dynasty is usually dated 202 BC to 220 AD) and China of the Early Middle Ages (the Tang Dynasty is conventionally dated 618-907) do not follow one after the other but are chronologically parallel, we, e.g., can avoid the stubborn problem of why identical-looking bronze horses from the two dynasties are dated over 700 years apart.

Papermaking’s Mysterious 700 Years of Secrecy
Gunnar Heinsohn – Feb 2017


On the other hand:

The Annals of China may contain 1,152 years of duplicate data.

Han dynasty 206 BC – 220 AD

The coinage issued by the central government mint in 119 BC remained the standard coinage of China until the Tang dynasty (618–907 AD).
Architectural historian Robert L. Thorp points out the scarcity of Han-era archaeological remains, and claims that often unreliable Han-era literary and artistic sources are used by historians for clues about lost Han architecture.


And the history of Comet Halley may be too catastrophic to contemplate.


Santa Maria Antiqua al Foro Romano

The church was partially destroyed in 847, when an earthquake caused parts of the imperial palaces to collapse and cover the church.

For this reason, a new church called Santa Maria Nova (New St Mary, now Santa Francesca Romana) was erected nearby by Pope Leo IV, on a portion of the ruined temple of Temple of Venus and Roma, where once stood a chapel commemorating the fall of Simon Magus.

Santa Maria Antiqua suffered further damages during the Norman Sack of Rome (1084).

The church of Santa Maria Liberatrice (Sancta Maria libera nos a poenis inferni) was built in 1617 on its ruins, but then demolished in 1900 to bring the remains of the old church to light.


Either way:
Take care and enjoy the holidays.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Arabian Horizon, Catastrophism, Comets, Heinsohn Horizon, History, Inventions and Deceptions, Uniformitarianism. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Heinsohn Horizon: Chinese Christmas Cake

  1. Martin Sieff says:

    The Han-Tang parallel collapses for the same reason that the contemporary existence of the empires of August-Tiberius and Constantine and their successors collapse.
    If these two empires existed at the same time – where are the interactions between them?
    400 or so nonexistent years between 530-930 AD in the West is credible.
    Which would mean, oi proven, that Heribert Illig’s basic insight is correct.
    But Gunnar Heinsohn’s is not.
    700 ghost years from 230 to 930 are not sustainable


    • Clark Whelton says:

      Gunnar Heinsohn’s radical revision of the 1st millennium AD/CE removes some 700 years of chronology, but not 700 years of history. In Heinsohn’s revision, Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages are aspects of Antiquity (1 – ca, 230 AD) and run in parallel with it. All three come to a sudden catastrophic end ca. 230. The city of Rome is destroyed and largely buried (much of ancient Rome still lies buried beneath modern Rome today). The western Roman empire never recovers. The eastern empire does recover, and survives until the Ottoman conquest. To better understand Heinsohn’s revised chronology, it may help to count backward in time. 1066 = Battle of Hastings etc. ca. 1000 = beginning of the High Middle Ages. 930 – 1000 AD = devastation caused by natural catastrophe, with famine, plague, conflict and gradual recovery. Merovingians and beginnings of the castle culture. ca. 930 AD = natural catastrophe, possibly global in scope, that brings Antiquity, Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages to a sudden, simultaneous end. ca. 870 = Aurelian plague and Antonine fires. ca. 860 = Charlemagne, a foederatus of the Roman Empire. ca. 820 = Hadrian. ca. 780 = Constantine. ca. 721 = death of Diocletian. 714 AD = death of Augustus. ca. 700 = birth of Jesus. ca. 670 = Battle of Actium.
      This is a basic outline of Gunnar Heinsohn’s revised history of the 1st millennium as I understand it.

      • Martin Sieff says:

        But the reigns of August and Constantine are heavily documented and the religious culture of the empire in both empires is radically different, Clark.

        Where can you find a single reference from Augustus or his contemporaries to Constantine and his contemporaries or vice versa?

        I have yet to see you, Gunnar or anyone else c come up with a single example o such a interactions.

        How did Constantine for example deal with Herod the Great who supposedly ruled in his part of the empire?

        And what role did Constantine play – or not play – at Actium?

      • Gunnar Heinsohn says:

        It is more complicated still. Not even a letter from Octavian to his brother in law, Mark Antony, has survived. We have no autographs from Antiquity. No document was preserved from Rome’s huge state archive, the tabularium (built [74 m long] around 78 BCE [https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabularium]).

        In textbook chronology, the tetrarchy of Diocletian (284 ff AD) follows Emperor Augustus by some 300 years. Yet, nowhere do we find buildings of the tetrarchy superimposed on strata of the barrack’s emperors (230s-280s AD) that cover ruins of Imperial Antiquity (1-230s AD). In stratigraphy, style and technology (down to the form of swords and the absence of the stirrup) the tetrarchy follows Late Hellenism/Late Republic of the late 1st century BC.

        Tombs from the first half of the 1st century AD are cut into the perimeter wall of the mausoleum (Via Appia) of Maxentius, defeated by Constantine the Great, that supposedly was built in the early 4th century AD. Yet, it must have been built before the tombs, i.e., before 50 AD.

        The tetrarchs repeat wars and battles that were already fought against the same enemies some 300 years earlier etc. (see more in http://www.q-mag.org/). Gunnar Heinsohn

    • I suspect Gunnar is on his third reconstruction in light of all the extant data. The difficulty is dealing with physical or chronological time and artificial time or history, and the underlying assumptions.

  2. Clark Whelton says:

    Louis is right about underlying assumptions… our years of schooling have created expectations about history that are not confirmed by stratigraphy. For example, Antiquity, “Late Antiquity” and “the Early Middle Ages” are all found at the same stratigraphic depth. Why? Because the latter two are simply aspects of Antiquity. Churches we call “Late Antique” were really built in Antiquity.
    “Documentation” for those three aspects of the same historical period is mostly correct. However, by mistakenly placing contemporary periods in sequence, hundreds of imaginary years were accidentally added to our textbooks. An yet, the history contained in those years is mostly real. For example, unlike Illig, who claims that Charlemagne is not a genuine historical figure, Gunnar Heinsohn identifies Charlemagne as a real Roman ally, not a latter-day Roman imitator. Charlemagne lived and reigned in Antiquity. Illig points to the sketchy nature of the archaeological evidence for Charlemagne. Gunnar counters by saying there is ample archaeological evidence for Charlemagne, once we look in the right place. The reason that “the Early Middle Ages” has left almost no archaeological evidence in Italy is that the real evidence is found in Antiquity. In our textbooks, Antiquity (“the crisis of the Roman Empire”), “Late Antiquity” (the disaster of Justinian) and “the Early Middle Ages” (the 10th century collapse) all ended in catastrophes. For Gunnar, all three periods end in the _same_ catastrophe, which has been repeated twice in textbooks because contemporary periods have been incorrectly placed in sequence. For Gunnar, Augustus died in 14 AD/CE. (= 714 AD) Constantine is dated ca. 80 AD (=780 ), long after the death of Augustus, and 110 years after Actium. In other words, Rome and the culture of Antiquity (= Late Antiquity = the Early Middle Ages) was struck down by a massive global catastrophe circa 1087 years ago, never to rise again. About 70 years later came the post-catastrophe, impoverished beginnings of the High Middle Ages.

  3. Martin Sieff says:

    Gunnar and Clark are falling back on their traditional non-argument of trying to prove an impossible hypothesis by attacking other hypotheses or structures.

    The onus is on THEM to provide any evidence whatsoever that Constantine was an exact contemporary of Titus – In other words that the Byzantine building of Jerusalem came within a decade of its destruction by the legions of Vespasian and Titus. Provide the evidence for this amazing theory -please. ANY evidence for starters.

    • Gunnar Heinsohn says:

      Dear Martin!
      It’s good that you challenge me. If you feel compelled to present your questions in the form of profound and superior knowledge that’s fine with me, too.
      The striking similarity between Herodian Temple Mount building technology and masonry (dated to the early 1st c. CE) and Constantine’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre (dated to the early 4th c. CE) has been documented by Shimon Gibson. It made him believe that the Temple Mount structures must have been destroyed not in the 1st but in the 4th c. CE (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.635160).
      That parallel between Imperial Antiquity and Late Antiquity was topped at Tiberias (Lake Kinnereth) where Imperial Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages were found in a contemporary setting: “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 B.C.E.-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‘ “ (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/the-big-one-is-coming-1.96548).
      Since such a stratigraphy would put the Umayyads right after Hellenism (that ends in the 1st c. BCE), i.e. 700 years earlier (or Hellenism 700 years later) than in textbook chronology, one has invoked some surgical geological movements to explain away the evidence. Yet, at Bet Yerah (also on Lake Kinnereth) the immediately post-Hellenistic chronology of the Umayyads was confirmed, and published this year. In a sounding of tower four, “we found that its foundation trench cut several walls of Hellenistic and Early Bronze date”. The western wall of tower five “was founded on an earlier Hellenistic wall”. Tower six covered a “portion of a water channel that appears to have drained the fortified area. The soil inside the channel was reported to contain ‘Roman’ glass and pottery” (Da’adli, T. [2017], “Stratigraphy and Architecture of the Fortified Palace”, in Greenberg, R., Tal, O., Da’adli, T., eds., Bet Yerah. Volume III: Hellenistic Philoteria and Islamic Al-Sinnabra. The 1933–1986 and 2007–2013 Excavations, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority).
      Whenever you come across a super-imposed Umayyad stratigraphy matching textbook chronology (i.e., [1] Hellenism, [2] Herodian, [3] Roman, [4] Byzantine/Ghassanid, [5] Umayyad)] I would be happy to go there, and check it. After all, I searched in vain for six years now. Cordially, Gunnar.

  4. Clark Whelton says:

    Oh dear. Here comes the traditional ad hominem stuff. Martin’s question about Titus and Constantine was really aimed at Gunnar. Personally, I support Gunnar Heinsohn’s thesis because, shocking as it is, it makes more sense than textbook history of the 1st millennium. Last year I wrote a brief article for MalagaBay under the pen name Saucy Chaucer, which can be found here https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/a-canterbury-tale-by-saucy-chaucer/ . I had recently attended a lecture by a professor from Boston College who claims that the collapse of Roman rule in Britannia resulted in the disappearance of the dozens of valuable and nourishing food plants — from beans to turnips to cabbage and mint — that Romans introduced to Britain and which had been successfully cultivated there for centuries. Even Roman water mills disappeared, seemingly too darn tough for Saxons to operate. During this agricultural dark age, the Venerable Bede, while not engaged in writing his learned theses, apparently had to scrounge around in the fields and forests for something to eat. And yet Roman plants, horticulture and mills all came back in the 10th and 11th centuries. Compared with the utter folly of such ideas — which dominate classrooms and textbooks today — Gunnar’s archaeology-based thesis is a breath of fresh air.

    • Re the collapse of Roman rule in Britannia, some time ago I came across a book which attributed that to Boudicea. The story goes thus: The Roman could not conquer the British with military. Their effective solution was to introduce to the British a lavish way of life they could not afford. They gave their ‘gold’ to the Romans for Roman ‘glitter’. Boudicea reversed that and the whole roman system collapsed.

      Apparently the EU is built upon that premise. Two decades ago a friend explained what he saw happening in Portugal. It was not much different. For the past 20 years I saw that repeatedly taking place. Quo Vadis Europe? Many ancient civilisations collapsed in the same manner. Ibn Khaldun was right.

      • Martin Sieff says:

        However, if Rome was overthrown by catastrophe in2 30 CE, which I accept then the entire theory of the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” and of other civilizations too is disproven.

        Rome did not fall because it was too pagan, because of murderous Games in the Coliseum, because it persecuted and martyred Christians or because it destroyed the Jewish Temple.

        Nor did Rome fall because of lead poisoning, or too much taxation, or too much bureaucracy or not enough “freedom.”

        Roman civilization in the Illig/Heinsohn/MalagaBay perspective did not fall at all. It was overthrown by a cosmic catastrophe which no human leader or society could have had any control over.

        The implications of this for history, philosophy, sociology are infinite.

    • Martin Sieff says:

      The mark of cult belief is to accuse every legitimate critic of being ad hominem. You do not disappoint Clark.

      I would very much like to see a convincing elimination of 230 CE to 930 CE for the very simple reason that I would like to be a lot closer to the glories of Roman era civilization and literature than we are on the conventional model. It is also, I believe much more optimistic and encouraging to imagine the human race rebounding back from cosmic catastrophes within a century or two rather than the 500 to 700 years of misery and darkness required by conventional history.

      My point is simple and I repeat it. Where is the evidence to make Constantine and Augustus contemporary. Any evidence at all? I asked you for it. You have given none.

      The evidence for the catastrophic destruction of Britain in 530 CE is clear and that of Rome in 230 is also clear. Nor am I ruling out the possibility that the 300 years of history in between did not exist independently and has to be conflated.

      But for it be conflated, you must have evidence that the different rulers, who built buildings, minted coins and were recorded in histories actually interacted with each other – and you still have provided absolutely none – None whatsoever.

      All you and Gunnar do is when I or Trevor Palmer or anyone else is repeat the mantra of your own interpretation of the historical and archaeological records – which is especially interesting since neither you nor Gunnar has any experience as a historian or archaeologist and I do not believe either of you has ever done any field work.

      Accusing Gunnar’s critics of ad hominem attacks is no answer at all. it’s the kind of tactic “worthy” of cultic true believers. Gunnar is not a god and has certainly been wrong before. His solutions are still full of holes in the historical record and his archaeological suggestions need to be independently verified and supported.

      Attempting to slander and otherwise discredit el legitimate independent minds is unworthy of him – and you. Or at least it ought to be.

      You checked out any mental thought independent of Gunnar nearly 30 years ago, Clark. Unconditional worship is no substitute for scientific debate.

      • Clark Whelton says:

        Martin Sieff wrote… “(Clark) checked out any mental thought independent of Gunnar nearly 30 years ago. Unconditional worship is no substitute for scientific debate.” Prior to this ad hominem nastiness Martin wrote… “The mark of cult belief is to accuse every legitimate critic of being ad hominem.” Thanks to Martin’s revealing comments, I now see why he responds the way he does. The fact that I agree with Gunnar Heinsohn on the primacy of material, archaeological and stratigraphic evidence is anathema to those who place their faith in the primacy of text, in this case the fairy tale textbook history of post-Roman Europe. All this, however, is irrelevant to the matters at hand. Nowhere have I said that Constantine was contemporary with Augustus. If Gunnar takes this position, I am not aware of it. Perhaps Martin is thinking of Diocletian. To those who haven’t seen the manuscript of Gunnar Heinsohn’s book, it can be found at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0cUI6X8yuR7MkNhdmctd01Cb2c/view?ts=595aa356
        The main text is in German, but a summary in English begins on page 486.

  5. Pingback: Supernova SN 185 | MalagaBay

  6. Gunnar Heinsohn says:

    Dear Martin!

    Since the belief that Diocletian lived nearly 300 years after Augustus is yours the obligation to archaeologically prove it is also yours. There are some 2000 sites of former Roman cities (plus a multiple of country villas) to chose from. Your job is easy. I do not expect hundreds of stratigraphies to support your belief. Yet, you should at least present one whose sequence of strata supports such a chronology before I can seriously consider to follow you.

    Since the belief that the Jewish war in the 60s CE against Rome and its LEGIO X FRETENSIS was followed by the Jewish war of the 350s against LEGIO X FRETENSIS the obligation to prove it is yours, too. You should at least present one camp of LEGIO X FRETENSIS from the 350s CE in Israel after the several camps of that legion in Israel from the 60s CE. Israel is a small country where it would be difficult to hide such structures.

    If strata are not your cup of coffee you may begin with art and architecture. Just show the evolution over 300 years in the construction of temples and palaces or in the patterns of mosaics. If you prefer philology show the evolution of Latin or Greek in the inscriptions of the 1st and 4th century CE.

    There are many more approaches to tackle the subject. Yet, if you merely repeat your demand that I obey your historical scheme with blind faith we cannot not make progress. I concede that your ideas have billions of devotees. So why don’t you just call up a few hundred trained archaeologists and historians to sieve through the excavation reports to find the layer-group that will refute me. I will even be content with a single site in which the residential quarters with streets, ovens and latrines of the 4th century are built upon ruins of the residential quarters with streets, ovens and latrines of the 1st century.

    Cordially, Gunnar

  7. Martin Sieff says:

    Gunnar sadly repeats his usual attack to hide the fact that he has presented no defense at all.
    It would be marvelous to find interactions between his Eastern and Western empires. But where are they? He still has not presented a single one. Who did Augustus interact with in the West when he crushed Mark Anthony, eliminated the Kingdom of Egypt and worked so closely with Herod the Great for so long?

    Why is there not a hint in Constantine’s time of interaction with the traditional pagan empire of Augustus? . Why does Tacitus know nothing of the Eastern Empire? And why is Procopius, who gives fully accurate details of the archaeology of the Nea Church in Jerusalem, so ignorant of the Western Empire. Eusebius gets into great detail on the history of the Church from the time of Nero to that of Constantine.

    Gunnar is playing verbal games here. I am no the one presenting a wildly radical and bold, truly revolutionary restructuring of ancient history. He is. But not only has he not proved it. He hasn’t presented a single credible synchronism to support it and give credibility to it.

    I repeated- the evidence for the catastrophic destruction of Rome around 2304 CE is clearly very strong. The case for cutting many hundreds of years from the Dark Ages, as Heribert Illig and Emmett Scott agree is on also very strong. The evidence for the catastrophic destruction of Roman Britain – again extremely strong.

    But the case for convincing people of all of this is completely undermined all of this by insisting on running August, Constantine and their c successors as parallel and simultaneous without any supporting evidence.

    If you can build a convincing case to do so – That is different. That would be great. But you haven’t even begun to.

    All we have is Gunnar – loyally backed by Clark – presenting his interpretation of archaeological layers from genuine field reports but are they cherry picked? Has Gunnar visited these sights? Has he convinced a single mainstream archaeologist? Or at least engaged one or several in debate?
    As I repeatedly emphasize – arguments of identical art and style are no arguments at all. They just equally serve to prove that August built the monuments and major government buildings of the Washington Mall or that the 19th century palace of Westminster “must” be contemporaneous with Cologne Cathedral.

    Gunnar – You never answered the specific criticisms of Ev Cochrane of Aeon or of Trevor Palmer and Lester Mitcham of the British Society for Interdisciplinary Studies in your debates with them on the Bronze Age archaeological record. Nor did you ever answer my questions about the layered stratigraphic archaeological evidence showing the sequence of civilizations from the Chalcolithic through the Iron Age at sites throughout the Middle East region. And I have at least visited some of those locations like Megiddo, Hazor and Troy myself.

    You presented your radical theory. The onus is obviously on you to actually provide some evidence to support it.

  8. Martin Sieff says:

    And I NEVER asked you to “obey” “My ” historical scheme with “blind faith.” I never asked you to “obey” anything. I asked you to provide evidence of historical synchronicity between two powerful Roman Empires that conquered or ruled the same territory – 30 years apart on the “conventional” model – simultaneously on yours. You haven’t,

    Claiming that I tried to force you or threaten you to “obey” “my
    ” historical scheme is ridiculous. But a very revealing way of the way you respond to legitimate questions. That is a ludicrous falsehood. On the contrary. I want YOU to prove YOUR scheme.
    Trying to cover up a failure to answer your critics by false accusations against them just wont cut it.

  9. Martin Sieff says:

    Responding to c Clark – Claiming that you and Gunnar always respect the primacy of archaeological evidence simply isn’t true. Neither of you ever acknowledged striking correlation of archaeological layers in in the Middle East trace back archaeological layers in Israel/Palestine from the Chalcolithic to the through the three strata of the Iron Age.

    I do not believe that either of you has acknowledged, let alone addressed the work of the late Yehoshua Etzion in his massive work “The Lost Bible’, let alone Donovan Courville’s pioneering work “The Exodus Problem and Its ramifications.” Both of these established very strongly the case that the Exodus from Egypt and the ensuing Israelite Conquest of Canaan occurred at the Early Bronze /Middle Bronze Age interchange.

    Etzion in particular did massive work in his book identifying the Iron Age II strata in Israel/Palestine with the archaeological record of the Persian Empire – paralleled throughout the Fertile Crescent – over its 200 years of history amply documented both by rulers’ inscriptions and the detailed histories of contemporaneous Greek historians.
    Gunnar is being very specific in identifying the Jewish Re volt oif 70 AD with a war in 350s AD. In that case, can he – or you – please fill in the detail of the History. How does this work? Who interacts with who? Why are Vespasian and Titus on the one hand and the Christian Roman emperors of the argued “phantom” 350s AD unaware of each other. Are the Roman civilizations in Israel/Palestine simultaneously pagan (60s AD) and Christian (350s AD) Why does Josephus have no awareness of Constantine and his successors?

    As to my cultic reference, you can disprove that very easily Clark. Simply recall or document any time over the past 29 years when you publically criticized or disagreed with any of Gunnar’s arguments.

    Gunnar has bold and brilliant ideas.The entire conception which Malaga Bay blog is committed to, of tracing catastrophic events through the Middle Ages – is fruitful and enormously important. The evidence for trembling astronomers, lethal comet close encounters and overthrows of civilizations is very strong. Hundreds of years I do agree should be examined as likely phantom centuries. But the parallel histories claim still just doesn’t work. You haven’t even started to construct a case for them.

    It isn’t the archaeological record that you and Gunnar insist upon. It is Gunnar’s own very personal interpretation of what is in the archaeological record. People honestly and sincerely see what they want to see there.

    If Gunnar is right you both should be able to present a coherent political history of interaction between two parallel time sequences – in some cases three – that are hundreds of years apart. If your archaeology is correct than establishing the historical interactions should be straightforward. Please do so.


    • Clark Whelton says:

      Martin Sieff (MS) wrote: “As to my cultic reference, you can disprove that very easily Clark. Simply recall or document any time over the past 29 years when you publically criticized or disagreed with any of Gunnar’s arguments.”

      CW writes: MS is very full of himself if he imagines that others are hoping to win reprieve from his petty judgments. Now, I understand MS is in a difficult spot. He’s trying to defend his own chronological ideas while at the same time involving himself in competing chronology issues he only partly understands. I am sympathetic to his situation because It took me three years of translating Gunnar Heinsohn’s manuscripts from German to English, while asking endless questions, before I began comprehending the enormous implications of Gunnar’s revised chronology of the 1st millennium CE. Gunnar himself worked for years of before realizing that Antiquity, Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages all take place within the same ca. 230 year span of time. All three periods come to a sudden, simultaneous end in a global catastrophe which Gunnar dates to ca. 930 CE… 1088 years ago. In this radical revision of history, Charlemagne — the best-known figure of the Early Middle Ages — is not a latter-day reviver of Roman culture. He is a Roman ally who lived around the time of Marcus Aurelius.

      If MS decides to do his own translating, I strongly recommend the DeepL online computer program. It’s not clear if MS has looked through Gunnar’s 541-page manuscript (which is available here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0cUI6X8yuR7MkNhdmctd01Cb2c/view?invite=CNCNt_UL&ts=595aa356
      or if he has read the English summary that begins on page 486. Many of his questions might be answered there. On the other hand, some questions might not have answers yet. Gunnar Heinsohn’s revision of the 1st millennium is a work in progress. The German email list devoted to this subject has more than 30 members, most of whom seem to be constantly sniping at Gunnar’s proposals, while advancing their own ideas. Ideally, academic friction generates light. But, inevitably, it generates heat, as well. That seems to be the case on MalagaBay, as well.

    • Gunnar Heinsohn says:

      Dear Martin!

      To obey your chronology ideas I would, inter alia, also have to believe in the famous “Silent Period” of original Hebrew texts between the 2nd c. CE (Bar Koseva’s [Kokhba’s] Mishnaic Hebrew from Nahal Hever) and the 9th century CE (Codex Cairensis etc.). Moreover, I would have to believe that Hebrew failed to develop. After all, it is without evolution for the 700 years from the 2nd to the 9th century. Thus, you want me to have confidence in assumptions that stretch credulity to the extremes.

      Still, I would follow you if you would prove your point. You could do that by simply showing a single Near Eastern site with Hebrew texts/inscriptions in a 9th century stratum below which follow some twenty cultural strata for the 700 years without Hebrew until, deep down in the archaeological cake, Hebrew is found again in the 2nd century. After such a presentation I could not help but start thinking seriously about the strange fate of Hebrew. Right now I believe the history of Hebrew looks awkward because of the chronology you force upon it.

      You know already that I am not aware of any site anywhere with such a cake of cultural strata between 200 and 900 CE. If you do know such sites (within or beyond Israel), wouldn’t it be fair to not hide them from me any longer?

      The moment you present such sites I will be back. Cordially, Gunnar

  10. Martin Sieff says:

    First I find it truly bizarre that Gunnar refers to a “silent” history of the Jewish people from the second century to the ninth century.

    This is absurd.

    The period from the the beginning of the 3rd century CE to the 6th century CE in both Palestine and Mesopotamia is the most productive and obsessively recorded in Jewish religious history. it is the era of the compilation of the Palestinian and – even vaster – Babylonian Talmuds
    It was also a long era of Jewish self-rule in both the Palestine/Israel and Mesopotamia/Babylonian communities and the names of and sequence of the community rulers have also been clearly recorded.

    Clearly this was not the work of the still invisible, enormous army of dedicated, super-efficient Vatican forgers that the Heinsohn 700 year gap and horizon hypotheses require.

    In terms of archaeology, the Byzantine remains in Israel/Palestine ascribed to the 4th century and the 6th century are massive and th4 evidence of a large Jewish peasant population at that time astonished the archaeologists, who had not expected it.

    I am not the one challenging the established documented record, Gunnar. You are. Please discuss – and explain.
    Second – Nor do I require, nor does anyone – multiple levels of stratigraphic remains sitting neatly on top of each other for 2,000 years. This kind of fantasy only exists in your imagination.

    As the archaeologists who have actually worked on the sites of Jerusalem, Rome, London, Paris and other major cities know only too well, when a site is continually occupied for hundreds of years or even a millennium, later builders do not obligingly, simply build on previous layers of rubble, whether demolished by invaders, cosmic catastrophes or anything else.

    More usually, especially during long centuries of settled occupation, they clear away previous remains and scoop down to create their own secure foundations. Therefore inevitably large quantities of remains from different layers and levels will be found hundreds of years later by later excavators piled together as rubble or as the foundations of other, sites.

    But I doubt you know this Gunnar since you cannot cite a single archaeologist in support of your claims despite your insistence that the archaeological record negates and must over-ride every other form of evidence.

    Yet you yourself are not an archaeologist. You never received any formal training in archaeology. And I do not believe you have ever worked on an archeological dig in your life either as a professional or even, as I have on occasions as a volunteer. So you have no first hand experience of the actual physical conditions in the earth that practicing archaeologists must deal with.

    Third, when cosmic catastrophes did occur, the destroyed older site was not always or automatically resettled afterwards. Often there were centuries when the site in question was not, often testified to in surviving historical annals.

    The cities of Jericho and Ai in particular are examples of this kind of phenomenon in Israeli archaeology, as the late Yehoshua Etzion and Donovan Courville both pointed out.

    Fourth, there are clearly many examples when the horror, suffering and human loss associated with the destruction of cities was so great that the survivors simply picked and relocated elsewhere. This may well have happened in London, where the Anglo-Saxon cities of the 8th and 9th centuries CE – which Gunnar has claimed as proof of the “Heinsohn Horizon” and “700 year gap” have been found within the past 12 years and energetically excavated.

    Can this be explained away?

    Perhaps, but the onus clearly is on Gunnar to do it.

    I do not require continual evidence from 20 strata – or less – at the same site for 2,000 years. That is a condition of Gunnar’s imagination, not of the messiness and unpredictability of human settlement patterns.

    But I have provided two enormous anomalies that he claims can not have existed:
    First, the 63 tractates and the 6,200 pages of the Jewish Talmud.

    When were these written Gunnar? They did not exist in the time Marcus Aurelius when Rabbi Judah the Prince codified basic Jewish law in the vastly slimmer six volumes of the Mishnah. By 1000 CE, however, the entire Talmud is already there – enormous. Hundreds of years before R Saadia Gaon, the dominant religious authority of Babylonian Jewry already takes them for granted. On your model, when were they written please?

    And second, the archaeological record in the Aldwych area of Anglo-Saxon London as vividly described by the Anglo-Saxon chroniclers themselves and now excavated in the 21st century to s considerable publicity.

  11. Martin Sieff says:

    Clark Whelton is obviously in no position to accuse others of petty and personal abuse when he writes CW writes: “MS is very full of himself if he imagines that others are hoping to win reprieve from his petty judgments.”

    But I am not the one fantasizing about the elimination of 700 years of history and the realignment of entire eras when absolutely no evidence for interaction of two such radically different periods exists.

    Clark at least gives us a specific parallelism to work on after, he assures us, at elast three years of poring over Gunnar’s model.

    Charlemagne is to be an exact contemporary of Marcus Aurelius.

    Fine, can you give us any evidence, any evidence at all that either Charlemagne or Marcus Aurelius knew of each other’s existence, Clark?

    After all, Marcus Aurelius campaigned repeatedly on the Rhine frontier against the Germans If Charlemagne was such an important and powerful ally, especially if he led a resolutely Christian Empire where the pagan philosopher Marcus Aurelius manifestly did not, surely they must have at least acknowledged some of those awkward differences.

    Its not my judgments you have to “win reprieve” from, Clark. Its the evidence of history and archaeology – or the obvious lack of any such evidence entirely.

    And from that far from petty judgment, you will find no reprieve.

  12. Clark Whelton says:

    Instead of reading Gunnar Heinsohn’s manuscript (available online) himself and getting answers directly from the source, Martin Sieff (MS) asks questions about Gunnar’s revised chronology of the 1st millennium CE. There is no hint that MS has even read the English translation in that manuscript. I hope MS understands that I have no wish to convince him of anything. If MS is curious about Gunnar Heinsohn’s thesis, but does not read German, then a reasonable grasp of Gunnar’s ideas can be obtained by copying and pasting original text into the DeepL online translation program. A number of papers by Gunnar have been translated into English, but some of the ones I have are several years old and may not be current with the latest research. However, I suggest two papers from 2017… “Rome and Poland in the 1st Millennium CE” and “Architecture in 9th Century Germany Compared to Architecture in 9th Century Rome.” Of special interest is the paper from March, 2014 “Charlemagne’s Correct Place in History” (there may be a more recent version). If MalagaBay subscribers wishing to read these papers will send me an email, or contact me in these pages, I will send pdf copies.

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