Gunnar Heinsohn: Enigmas of 3000 to 300 BC

Did the Romans nostrify the history of the Etruscans to prolong their own chronology?

Tim Cullen collected many observations to support such an assumption.

The two maps below also show indisputable similarities between the political constellations in the Phoenician period of the Etruscans (9th-6th c.), and in the Punic period of the Romans (6th-3rd c.).

Indeed, nowhere can one find Punic (centered on Carthage) or Roman cities (in Italy) with building layers from the 6th-3rd century BC that are super-imposed upon building layers of Phoenician (centered on Tyre) or Etruscan cities from the 9th-6th century BC.

The strata found in the ground are – roughly speaking – dated either 9th-6th or 6th-3rd century.

There is, per individual site, always only a single package of strata to fill one but never two consecutive periods.

Archaeologists don’t deny it.

They explain it by saying:

“Etruscan cities have generally been built over from the Romans onwards, and houses have left little trace“
(Etruscan Architecture 2018).

Their firm belief in our textbook chronology forbids them to imagine the simultaneity of both histories.

Two different narratives about one and the same history were, indeed, transformed into two consecutive histories.

This did not disturb anyone until archaeology began and hard evidence could only be found for one of the two periods.

The similarity of the, e.g., portrait styles (eyes, hair, beards etc.) in the 9th/8th century and in the 5th/4th century were then interpreted as a consciously planned renaissance.

However, such an interpretation cannot replace the missing strata and residential quarters in the ground.

Continue reading the article in PDF format by clicking here

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Guest Authors, History. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Gunnar Heinsohn: Enigmas of 3000 to 300 BC

  1. John Miller says:

    Does Professor Heinsohn have a single *even hypothetical) chronology, that spans everything from the so-called ‘Sumerians'(in reality the Chaldeans), up(down?) to the point where the chronology is more or less accurate? One that would include Chaldeans, Assyrians, Persians, Romans(and whoever else)?

  2. Gunnar Heinsohn says:

    For the territories from Egypt to India I published chronological overviews in 2006 (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/empires_lost_found.htm). Tim Cullen inspired me to, eventually, include Europe/Italy. Yet, there is still a lot of work to be done.
    Gunnar Heinsohn

    • John Miller says:

      Thank you very much for that.

      I was wondering if, having studied and investigated both the ‘Classical’ and the ‘Early Mediaeval’ Periods, how much real time you believe might have elapsed between the time of “Nimrod” and Otto III the Holy Roman Emperor.
      Clearly it is not the “over 3000 years” that our textbooks state that it is today.
      Thank you.

      • Gunnar Heinsohn says:

        A rough time-scale will be published at the end of my brief text EXODUS. The time span between the end of the Uruk Period (conventionally 3100 BC) and the death Otto the Great (+973 AD) has some 1200 years with archaeological strata.
        Gunnar Heinsohn

  3. johnm33 says:

    It’s pretty much confirmation bias on my part but Alan Wilson has a chronology that puts the Trojan war about 650bce which, if the celtic stories of their arival in Britain is true, fits. He’s with Velikovsky as far as Akhkenatun goes, and places the Trojan war as the war of succesion after his dethronement. The ‘Helen’ that the fight was about was the princess buried alive as a punishment by Ay=Ahkerre=Ashurbanipal, this was never admitted publicly so she was ‘kidnapped’ alledgedly. When Ay went home he left Gen. Atreus/Horemheb as regent.
    His nephews Rameses1=Necho1=Agamemno and Seti1=Psamteck1=Menelaus then became Pharoahs in turn. Menelaus eventually marrying the child of King Tutankhamun and Helen=Ankhesenpa,aten and they eventually had Ramese II=Necho II who fought Hattusilus III at Kadesh and his alter ego Nebuchudnessar at Carcamesh. After his brief period of madness Nebuchudnessar married his daughter to Rameses II and the moon temple at Abu Simbal has Hattusilus II=Nebuchudnessar [the great king] either side of the doorway flanked by his daughter then his vassal Rameses II=Necho II= Asencheres
    The Greek kings of the seven fortified cities, gateways to the Nile from the med[seven gated thebes] needed no excuse for war with the pirates of Troy who exacted tribute from every ship that passed through to the black sea. It was only after this that the Greeks established themselves as overlords of Greece. The Greeks I suspect aquired their knowledge from their new slaves, and had some of their enslaved celtic poets write ‘Homers’ works possibly the only extant Druidic texts.
    The Greeks never aquired the sophisticated ancient poetic culture from the celts but all this is told also in the theban plays though disguised less ably.

  4. Pingback: Gunnar Heinsohn: Exodus | 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.