Comet Halley Clock

Life is full of surprises.

Having stumbled upon the Comet Halley Calendar [in the mire of mainstream medieval manuscripts and academic assertions] I wasn’t expecting any more revelations.

I was content with establishing a rough estimate for the number of days in a Earth Year when the Earth experienced it’s orbital excursion between 914 and 1409.

However, in whole numbers, an indicative estimate can be established by assuming the head and shoulders pattern of Comet Halley had an average return period of 78 years while the body pattern averaged out at 76 years i.e. a difference of two year.

This estimate indicates the shortened Earth Year contained 355 or 356 days.


What I didn’t realise was a very intriguing manuscript has recently been discovered in the special collections of the City Library in London.

Last year two members of library staff discovered an unknown manuscript in the City Library Special Collections.

The two members of staff, Rob Hodgson and Simon Bralee, unearthed the manuscript whilst auditing the collections.

The manuscript contains two texts –

the Algorismus (or De Arte Numerandi)
the De Anni Ratione

written by Johannes de Sacrobosco (aka John of Holywood or Halifax).

The Algorismus was the first major text of the Western tradition that dealt with, and examined, the use of Hindu-Arabic numerals.

It became a key text of the medieval European university curriculum.

Before this date, Roman numerals were used.

Dramatic discovery of medieval manuscript – Simon Bralee
University of London – City Library News – 24 April 2017

One of the very eye-catching features of this manuscript is a circular calendar containing 364 days which has a slightly different approach to allocating days across the 12 months of the year i.e. every other month is a hollow month with less than 31 days.

To understand the implications [of a 364 day calendar] the numbers from the Comet Halley Calendar can be re-worked in minutes to establish a Comet Halley Clock.

In this particular instance, the Comet Halley Clock shows a 364 day calendar [during the Earth’s orbital excursion] had an Earth Day that’s only 23 hours and 28 minutes.

The manuscript hasn’t been formally dated [as far as I know] but it’s likely to have been created sometime between [officially] 1235 and the Gregorian Calendar Reforms in 1582.

The mid-point between these extremes falls just at the end of the Earth’s orbital excursion: 1408.5.

Johannes de Sacrobosco, also written Ioannis de Sacro Bosco (c. 1195 – c. 1256), was a scholar, monk and astronomer who was a teacher at the University of Paris

Sacrobosco’s Algorismus aka De Arte Numerandi is thought to have been his first work, and the date is estimated at about 1225, and before 1230.

What Sacrobosco may be most famous for is his criticism of the Julian calendar. In his book on computus, entitled in Latin De Anni Ratione (English: On reckoning the years), dated circa 1235, he maintained that the Julian calendar had accumulated an error of ten days and that some correction was needed.

Parchment is a writing material made from specially prepared untanned skins of animals—primarily sheep, calves, and goats.

In the later Middle Ages, especially the 15th century, parchment was largely replaced by paper for most uses except luxury manuscripts, some of which were also on paper.

The Gregorian calendar is internationally the most widely used civil calendar.
It is named after Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582.

Britain and the British Empire (including the eastern part of what is now the United States) adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752.

If it’s assumed this 364 day calendar was an early attempt to resolve the notorious Julian Calendar problem then this manuscript has some very interesting implications:


The Earth’s orbital period stabilised and it’s period of rotation slowed by 32 minutes between [roughly] 1235 and 1752 when the British Calendar Reforms were implemented.

Arguably, the rise to dominance of the Christian solar sect was delayed until the Earth Year and Earth Day started to stabilise during the 16th century.

Within this context the introduction of Gradualism in 1795 [and the associated banishment of Catastrophism] was the covert continuation of the 1752 Calendar Reforms.

In the natural sciences, gradualism is the theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes, often contrasted with catastrophism.

The theory was proposed in 1795 by James Hutton, a Scottish geologist, and was later incorporated into Charles Lyell’s theory of uniformitarianism.

Tenets from both theories were applied to biology and formed the basis of early evolutionary theory.


The Conservation of Angular Momentum principles imply the slowing of the Earth’s rate of rotation [in this short time-frame] will have been associated with an increase in it’s diameter.

The conservation of angular momentum explains the angular acceleration of an ice skater as she brings her arms and legs close to the vertical axis of rotation.

By bringing part of the mass of her body closer to the axis she decreases her body’s moment of inertia.

Because angular momentum is the product of moment of inertia and angular velocity, if the angular momentum remains constant (is conserved), then the angular velocity (rotational speed) of the skater must increase.


It implies the cartographic evidence tracking this increase in the Earth’s diameter is valid.



It implies the Earth’s history of rotational decay [and inflation] is valid.

Numerous evidences are preserved which prove that prior to the year of 365¼ days, the year was only 360 days long.

The texts of the Veda period know a year of only 360 days.

A month of thirty days and a year of 360 days formed the basis of early Hindu chronology used in historical computations.

The ancient Persian year was composed of 360 days or twelve months of thirty days each.

The old Babylonian year was composed of 360 days.

The Assyrian year consisted of 360 days;

The month of the Israelites, from the fifteenth to the eighth century before the present era, was equal to thirty days, and twelve months comprised a year;

The Egyptian year was composed of 360 days before it became 365 by the addition of five days.

Cleobulus, who was counted among the seven sages of ancient Greece, in his famous allegory represents the year as divided into twelve months of thirty days:

The ancient Romans also reckoned 360 days to the year.

the Mayan year consisted of 360 days; later five days were added, and the year was then a tun (360-day period) and five days; every fourth year another day was added to the year.

In ancient South America also the year consisted of 360 days, divided into twelve months.

The calendar of the peoples of China had a year of 360 days divided into twelve months of thirty days each… When the year changed from 360 to 365¼ days, the Chinese added five and a quarter days to their year, calling this additional period Khe-ying;

Worlds In Collision – Immanuel Velikovsky – 1950 – –


The long term climate forecast is for a continuation of the well established cooling trend.

This forecast also predicts another catastrophic disruption will occur [at some point] in the future…

Gallery | This entry was posted in Atmospheric Science, Catastrophism, Comets, Earth, Heinsohn Horizon, History, Inflating Earth, The Old Japanese Cedar Tree, Uniformitarianism. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Comet Halley Clock

  1. cadxx says:

    Loved this Malagabay, good job.
    Charles Hoy Fort was a great library searcher who liked nothing better than watching astronomers and comets. You would need to go through all of his books as Halley info is probably spread-out among several of them. I can’t be arsed to read them again but there are searchable copies here:
    As I recall, Halley was somewhat unreliable when it came to returning on time.

  2. Martin Sieff says:

    Fully agree. Another superb job.
    How early can Halley’s Comet be plausibly traced? Can it go back as far Justinian’s Raging Bulls?

    • malagabay says:

      The observational sources used in 1986 by Yeomans et al tell an interesting story:

      Last European sighting: 1066 AD
      Last Korean sighting: 989 AD
      Last Japanese sighting: 684 AD – but with a gap at 760
      Only Babylonian sighting; 164 BC
      Last Chinese sighting: 240 BC – but with a gap at 164 BC

      Overall, the observational data fizzles out in 912 AD.

  3. Malagabay you have wandered on turf (or more likely a desert) I have been frequently visiting lately. Mainly re the 360 ‘degree’ circle division. Which may have nothing to do with the fact that presently the year is 365+ days. I have stumbled on something more plausible. Note that talking days of year is talking calendar.

    I had been looking at ancient ones (for agrarian reasons) when after years of staring at them I stumbled on the function. But the later ones had me stumped. Until one day I was forced idle and resigned, and the mind free to wander. Then eureka. The large flat stones at one particular site were not to tie sacrificial virgins but to follow the rising sun – a quarter circle per season. Now seasons are between 87and 94 days, and the only conveniently divisible number in that range is 90. Ie 90 div/quarter; giving 360 divisions to a circle – as a form of scale.

    Other tenuous evidence says the days per year were very variable. That calendar became abruptly obsolete due to heavy misalignment at around 3200bce. Cultural commonalities between mesopotamia and the calendar site indicate that diffusion of knowledge and lore was already widespread. One puzzling item with much curiosity but little sound evidence is this. Around 3200bce cataclysm forced an exodus of a probably semitic speaking calendar building people, at about the same time a semitic speaking folk arrived in sumeria for nobody knows where. As I said, no proof, only a series of coincidences, including a bit of dna.

    But the 360 is more convenient calendar engineering, than to do with days of year. Calendar in question here:

    • malagabay says:

      360 is more convenient calendar engineering

      It’s a very interesting topic.

      I would agree 360 is very convenient for mathematics.

      On the other hand.

      Observationally tracking the progress of the year suggests 364 is also fairly practical.

      It’s good for tracking the quarters…
      And [interestingly] provides 52 weeks of 7 days.

      The International Fixed Calendar (also known as the Cotsworth plan, the Eastman plan, the 13 Month calendar or the Equal Month calendar) is a solar calendar proposal for calendar reform designed by Moses B. Cotsworth, who presented it in 1902.

      The calendar year has 13 months with 28 days each, divided into exactly 4 weeks
      (13 × 28 = 364).

      I guess the only certainty is that there are a lot of possibilities…

      • Not quite. Your mathematical explanation would fit the middle ages and would influence how the calendar evolved to the present. But not 5000 years ago. The only thing to go by then was the quarterly solar movement from equinox to solstice, a period of about 87 to 94 days, mostly never equal. There the quadrant dictates.

        To add to the previous post, the Sumerians/Akkadians appear to have been obsessed by venus especially, and astronomical observations in general. Their maths is base10 (known from language on how they counted) but reverted to base 60 beyond 59. Yet there exists no evidence why they adopted that, or of any astronomical observatories. To them astro phenomena took a cultic meaning. Why???? Inherited the hocus-pocus bit but not the substance behind it?

  4. Tim,

    That slight ocean expansion assigned to 1606 leads to the anecdote of sailing off the edge of the world. I initially assumed it was from the medieval period but have you come across any mention of this in Columbus’ narratives? More specifically when did the sailing off the edge of the world first become common usage? The present reconstruction links it to the Little Ice Age event which actually fits Australian Aboriginal narrations of a recent past when the lands became separated. The tsunami sect have a meteor or bolide smashing into the ocean between Australia and New Zealand; this interpretation assumes the present day geography and sea levels.

    The late Lyall Watson, author of Supernature etc, quoted a tertiary source that described medieval sailors using Venus as a visible navigational aid. Captain James Cook was also sent to the Pacific to observe the transit of Venus, and I’ve always wondered why. Watson, as a biologist, noted that we don’t see Venus easily anymore because our human vision capability has become desensitised over time, or changed by evolutionary pressures; My take is if it was Venus, and it was bright and hence visible then, but not now, has more to do with Venus cooling and becoming less bright than humans losing visual acuity over the same period. Which confirms V’s view of Venus being a recently formed hot planet; (from where remains moot).

    This leads to the question of whether Venus or Halley’s. Velikovsky apparently noted that both Muslims and Jews were Venus worshippers. Or was it generally the Semites who were Venus worshippers from the Bronze age catstrophes and after the Roman Termination Event became divided into Muslims, Judeans and Christians?

    Geologically I’m tempted to link the Tertiary event to the RTE and the LIA to the 1606 event above which coincided with the extinction of the biosphere hangers on from the RTE extinction, Moas in New Zealand, Clovis in the US, large mammals in Australia etc.

    RTE is 610 CE event (+/-)
    HH is 910 CE (+/-)
    LIA is 1606 Event and calendar resetting. Corroborated by Korean Choson Dynasty annals. Destruction of Chinese (Zheng He) fleets etc. My guess is also that the Ming Dynasty Chinese fleets were all over the world setting up new navigational benchmarks to work out the dimensions of the recently expanded Earth from the Tertiary event, (RTE–>HH), but where destroyed by the LIA event that seems to affected the circum Pacific civilisations and as suggested here the 1606 geographical adjustment.

    Hence British Admiralty send Cook out to observe Venus Transit.

    Causes? Halley’s, Venus etc.

    Interestingly this puts a 300 year hiatus between the RTE and the HE which seems to relate to Heribert Illig’s 300 phantom years.

    Is this making sense?

    • malagabay says:

      when did the sailing off the edge of the world first become common usage?

      That’s a research project in it’s own right.

      The mainstream storyline changes over time…

      Inventing The Flat Earth – Jeffrey Burton Russell – 1991

      Five hundred years after Christopher Columbus (1451-1506), history continues to be accompanied by a curious and persistent illusion: the well-known fable that when Columbus discovered America he proved that the earth is round – to the astonishment of contemporaries who believed that it was flat and that one might sail off the edge.

      This error has become firmly established in the popular mind by the media, textbooks, and teachers, despite the fact that historians of science have known and proclaimed for over sixty years that most people in Columbus’ time believed the earth to be spherical.

      Jeffrey Burton Russell sets the record straight, beginning with a discussion of geographical knowledge· in the Middle Ages and what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe.

      Russell then demonstrates why and how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s-and how Washington Irving and Antoine-Jean Letronne were among those responsible.

      Later historians followed the mistakes of these writers, reaching a peak in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when Christians opposed to Darwinism were labelled similar to medieval Christians who allegedly opposed the sphericity of the earth.

      … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …

      This long-needed book reveals the facts behind the deceiving myths that have been professed about Columbus and his time-

      • The Middle Ages were not “dark” – the Christian Church and science were in accord on many substantive questions, including agreement on the sphericity of the earth

      • Washington Irving’s mostly fictional renderings of Columbus and his struggles to be “accepted” were pure imagination

      • The “Flat Error” was proclaimed by Darwinist historians who compared the so-called “flat earth” mindset of the 1400’s with religious people of the 19th and 20th centuries who denied the truth of Darwin’s theory of evolution

      • Columbus did not “prove” that the earth was round to unbelieving ecclesiastical authority- it was already general knowledge

      The geological storyline is static… and generally ignored.

      The Porcupine Trough and Gollum Channel System [to the South West of Ireland] indicates that the initial draining of the European inland seas was a massive event triggered by the splitting of Europe from North America.


    • malagabay says:

      Captain James Cook was also sent to the Pacific to observe the transit of Venus, and I’ve always wondered why.

      That’s another very interesting topic.
      And it’s another research project in it’s own right.

    • malagabay says:

      There are other possibilities:


      A carbon star is typically an asymptotic giant branch star, a luminous red giant, whose atmosphere contains more carbon than oxygen; the two elements combine in the upper layers of the star, forming carbon monoxide, which consumes all the oxygen in the atmosphere, leaving carbon atoms free to form other carbon compounds, giving the star a “sooty” atmosphere and a strikingly ruby red appearance.

      Swan bands are a characteristic of the spectra of carbon stars, comets and of burning hydrocarbon fuels.

    • malagabay says:

      a 300 year hiatus between the RTE and the HE… Is this making sense?

      The “300 year hiatus” looks like it may be a good marker when it comes to aligning chronologies.

      But “300 phantom years” is probably underestimating the scope of the chronology problems…



      • But “300 phantom years” is probably underestimating the scope of the chronology problems…

        Oh good, Gunnar has still plenty to work with……….and I’ve much to chew on as well.

        If this scenario is anything close to being plausible, then a lot of geological ideas, including neo-darwinism which is part and parcel of the problem, will have to be jettisoned.

        The dating of sedimentary rocks remains a problem though, if they can be dated at all unless they contain artefacts.

        It seems therefore he LIA around the Pacific was far more catastrophic end extensive than in Europe. I suspect when it all cooled down the Europeans claimed the LIA devastated circumpacific lands – when the Dutch, Portuguese and Spaniards started their colonial acquisitions in the political vacuum left by the collapse of the Ming Dynasty?

        Good progress!

  5. Clark Whelton says:

    Gunnar Heinsohn’s radically shortened chronology for the 1st millennium AD/CE proposes two catastrophic events within 60 to 75 years of each other. First come the Aurelian plague and Antonine Fires of the 2nd century AD (dated circa 160-170 AD, minus 700 phantom years = 860-70 AD). Rome may have been so terribly scourged by this calamity that imperial administrative functions were transferred to Constantinople. Gunnar suggests the legend of Saint Sylvester taming a putrid dragon in the Roman Forum (…”which each day slew 300 men with his breath…” see ) may date to this era of plague. The second and even more devastating catastrophe is dated by Gunnar to the 230s AD (= 930s). Rome was crushed and entombed (large portions of the ancient city remain buried to this day). Much of the empire was covered by deposits of “dark earth.” The “Crisis of the Roman Empire” was really the end of the Roman Empire. The Forum was not fully excavated until 1900 AD. The lower “backstage” areas of the Coliseum were not fully excavated until the 1930s.
    Could the two catastrophes that snuffed out the Roman Empire and devastated the world have been caused by consecutive passages of Comet Halley?

    • This is the problem – retro-calculating Halley back to Roman times means assuming the present solar geometry hasn’t changed since those times. But if the last change correlates with the Gregorian system CE 1582, then either prior to that the system the same as it is now and only experienced a short term peturbation, or, pre Gregorian time the solar system was quite different and hence Halley’s location(s), using its present geometry, impossible to calculate.

      Given this and the fact British Admiralty sent James Cook to observe Venus’ transit in the Pacific, as well as Lyal Watson’s note that this planet was also used as a daylight navigastional age, I would assign Venus/Mars to the Roman Empire destruction and that Halley’s comet probably a minor bit player in the conflagration.

      Halley’s retro-calculations assume Venus and Mars were in their present orbits, inter alia, but change the orbits of Venus, Mars or Earth, and the calculation bombs out.

      • malagabay says:

        Halley’s retro-calculations assume Venus and Mars were in their present orbits, inter alia, but change the orbits of Venus, Mars or Earth, and the calculation bombs out.

        The interesting aspect of the Comet Halley schedule is that it’s observational.

        If Comet Halley’s schedule was a retro-calculation then finding the acceleration to reduce it’s orbital period down from 79 to 75 years would be difficult to find/explain away.

        The retro-calculation element is trying to figure out where the planets are at each observed return.

        Interestingly, during the orbital excursion the Earth’s orbital track would have been closer to Comet Halley at it’s perihelion.

        There are many moving parts and many variables.

        These variables include the size of Comet Halley – currently about 15 x 8 kilometres – and it’s high relative velocity – “it has one of the highest velocities relative to the Earth of any object in the Solar System” [Wikipedia].

        Whether Comet Halley is “the cause” or just a very useful “metronome” is debatable.

        What’s not so open to debate is that Comet Halley was bigger 1,000 year ago.

        Whether it would have been “big enough” is an unknown.

        On the other hand the concept of “Comet Venus” is very intriguing.

        However, from my perspective, it’s a struggle to understand how “Comet Venus” could have been assimilated into “the system” in about 1,000 years so that by 1618 it meekly conformed to Kepler’s 3rd Law – “The square of the periodic times are to each other as the cubes of the mean distances.”

        Hopefully, we’ll get a little closer to the truth if we can find [and then] follow the evidence…

      • Assimilating “Comet Venus” into the solar system is based on existing forces that are deemed gravitational. If electrical forces are responsible (and magnetic force is inseparable from electric as the two cannot exist without the other in isolation) then we are dealing with quite a different dynamic. The problem is that this dynamic is not presently observed. Peratt’s PIC simulations are directed at galaxy sized objects and those take billions of years to form.

        The other problem is that the solar system dynamics are quite different to everything else celestial since Newton’s equations simply cannot explain spiral galaxies unless additional fantasies are added (and these are easily purchased in the astronomical shop in The Matrix).

        And Electrical forces cannot explain the Solar System dynamics either, even if we invoke Coulomb’s Laws (which are identical in form to Newton’s gravitational equation). Electrically we are no longer dealing with the condensed shape (solid Earth) to which gravity is applied, but the electrical interface between the plasma of space and the “electrical” boundary that defines the Earth. How large is it? Is it measurable? Is it

  6. Carsten says:

    The Roman Empire suffers two destructive crisi’ 3. century in the West and 6. century in the East; according to dedrochronology the established but floating Roman curve ends in 315 but should be moved 218 years forward to 533 just on the eve of the Fimbulwinter 536. That will make the two crisi’ contemporary which is also what Heinsohn argue.
    Actually Procopious write of the 536 and subsequent events which is frost, famine and clouded sun. The Elder Edda and Gildas write of fire and Gildas tell that the cities is tumbled down. Then the Justinian Plague hits.
    With the Roman Empire being heavily urbanized the effect in a time of no medication is so terrible as to give rise to a new religion that can only relate the events in laments unintellible to historians and a few surviving written accounts – Elder Edda and Gildas – and make the Bishops take over local rule and administration within the Empire.
    The Roman Army living as armies does in camps is destructively hit as armies always is and must be reorganized and foederati invited to help resettle and defend the Empire. Ultimately giving rise to France, Germany etc. etc.
    The exact date is somewhat of less importance – discovering the cause of the downfall is important and then chronology may be reset. Accepting this fact is so difficult to do because we are all used to an absolute established chronology but if the foundations is build on wet sand..!

    • Martin Sieff says:

      If the 230 and 533 crises were contemporary, why does Procopius only refer to the second – in his own and Justinian’s time – NOT tot he one of 230.

      Why does n he never mention Alexander Severus who must have been an exact contemporary of Justinian if the two catastrophes were the same one?
      And if the Empire’s administrative functions were moved to Constantinople because of the 230 catastrophe, then why did Constantine found the place and move his capital there at all since on Gunnar’s “Ages in Utter Confusion” model the Cosmic Catastrophe of 230 CE that destroyed Rome wouldn’t even happen for well over 200 years?

      The evidence for cosmic catastrophe in 230 in Rome is overwhelming. That for cosmic catastrophe in 533/5 CE is cumulatively very suggestive.

      But to conflate them, and the history leading up to them has not yet started to be done. There is simply no evidence to support it – except for cherry picking what you want from the archaeological record and ignoring everything else.

      • Clark Whelton says:

        Martin Sieff (MS) wrote… “If the 230 and 533 crises were contemporary, why does Procopius only refer to the second – in his own and Justinian’s time – NOT to the one of 230.”
        CW writes: In Heinsohn’s revised chronology, Antiquity, “Late Antiquity” and “the Early Middle Ages” run in parallel, not in sequence. He identifies the latter two as aspects of Antiquity, which end along with it in the catastrophe of ca. 230 CE. NB: each of these three periods ends in the SAME catastrophe, which — like the periods themselves — has been given three sequential dates: ca. 230 (Antiquity), 530 (Late Antiquity) and 930 (the Early Middle Ages). Again, because textbooks mistakenly place these contemporary periods and catastrophes in sequence, the chronology of the 1st millennium CE has been accidentally inflated by some 700 years.
        MS wrote: “Why does (Gunnar) never mention Alexander Severus who must have been an exact contemporary of Justinian if the two catastrophes were the same one?”
        CW writes: Because two different (but contemporary) monarchs and cities were involved. The 230 catastrophe hit Rome and Constantinople simultaneously.
        MS wrote: “But to conflate them, and the history leading up to them has not yet started to be done.”
        CW writes: An unwise statement. Apparently MS is not aware of the extensive work that has already been done. Along with his 500+-page manuscript, Gunnar has written dozens of papers in English, and many more in German, along with countless messages, with new ones added to his German email list every day. A number of the English papers can be found online in q-Mag.
        One last note. If we leave the year 1 CE where it is now, then according to Gunnar’s revised chronology we are living today in ca. the year 1318. If we leave the year 2018 CE where it is now, then Rome fell (and Antiquity, Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages simultaneously ended) ca. 1088 years ago.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Table 1 in this paper gives Halley dates back to 1403 BC.
    Chaotic dynamics of comet Halley:

    From the conclusion: ‘the estimated sojourn time of comet Halley in the solar system [see paper for formula] turns out to be much smaller than cosmological timescale which poses a serious problem related to the origin of comets.’

    NB the paper is nearly 30 years old so theory may have moved on.

    • malagabay says:

      An intriguing find… and an intriguing problem.
      It’s future is also limited because it’s disintegrating [at an unknown rate].
      Conversely, it’s a growing problem when you start to wind back the clock.

  8. Martin Sieff says:

    The catastrophe of 230 CE marking the True Fall of the Classical Roman Empire is a clear one.

    But the record of history does not stop rolling then.

    On the contrary, the record of almost 50 emperors in as many years for most of the rest of the 3rd century fits well the era of chaos following the great Cosmic Catastrophe of 230 CE.

    And we see NEW religions emerging immediately. There are two Mithras – the Cult of the Unconquered Sun – clearly expressing the terror of darkness in the heavens – and the Christianity of Constantine that absorbs and supplants it.

    But all this establishes Constantine and his Christian Empire, based in Byzantium as the SUCCESSOR of the Classic Roman Empire NOT as its exact contemporary.

    Gunnar and Clark can assert Gunnar’s “model” till they are blue in the face.

    But they have still to establish a SINGLE SYNCHRONICITY between their allegedly simultaneous parallel empires of Augustus and Constantine.

    Arguments of recurring architectural and coin styles or in art are no arguments at all. They are Rorschach blots. By that standard of “proof” the Palace of Westminster built in the mid-19th century England was really built by King Henry III or Henry VI depending on your choice and therefore the 400 to 600 years in between never occurred.

    And clearly George Washington was yet another of Augustus’s “sub-emperor’s” for the West just as Constantine allegedly was for the East, since the classical art styles of 18th century and early 19th century America review those of Imperial Rome so accurately.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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