Chronology revisionism of Heinsohn and Guyenot — implications for Frisian history

[Helgiteut]

This is only a thought of mine, early in the making, but maybe Anno Domini is going back to Diocletian. Anno Domini begins 65 years before the failed siege of Jerusalem by Cestius Gallus, and Anno Diocletian begins 68 years before the failed siege of Jerusalem by Constantius Gallus.
(The link is to a pdf that begins to download when clicked, from Qmag, an archive for Heinsohn's journals)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAE
So Anno Domini would mean in the year of "Diocletian Our Lord" and not of "Jesus Our Lord". (The three year gap could be accounted for on the grounds that the date for Jesus' birth is thought to have been "2 B.C." by some chronologers.)

Heinsohn believed that Eusebius, Lactantius and Jerome writing from before "284-351 A.D" onwards as well as Josephus, Tacitus, and Philostrates when writing from "1-66 A.D." onwards, are telling of the same events from different perspectives, with CESTIVS GALLVS being the same man as CONSTANTIVS GALLVS. If one doubts Josephus as being a medieval forgery, it is still likely that the medieval forger copied the history of Eusebius for his own Jewish wars. In both cases, however, the A.D 1-96 years can be removed from the history books as either corroborations of simultaneous events, or as medieval forgeries based on 284-379. Either way, that's an odd but handy 284 years taking us closer to Antiquity. So based on this alone without further revision, we are at most within the years 1823-1826 A.D. Heinsohn also removed a further 400 years from before year 930, though to remove them is less surgical than with the afore mentioned revisions, giving no clear date for where we are now. For now I am happy with this small win agains't the meddling of the Magus, knowing I am at least 284 years closer to the days of yore.

[teijahn]

"I currently find this one of the most fascinating topics related to Oera Linda, perhaps also one of the most important ones. It can help validate OL, and vice versa. I am reading several books on the subject, Guyénot's book arrived this week (also: "Mohammed and Charlemagne", Pirenne 1954)."

" These classic sources have shaped the academic views of our pre-Christian past, which may explain why OL seemed so out of place to many. When the times of Adela, Buda, Alexander, Friso, Askar, etc. are some 600 years less far back in our past, OL's authenticity may become more plausible, more easily imaginable. "

For OL, it would mean that Hidde Oera Linda must have made a mistake relating the 'Kersten' timeline (1256th year) to that of the sinking of Aldland (3449th year).

It is strange that Liko Ovira Linda, who voiced his worries about the clergy subtly distorting all that concerns us Fryas and obliterating all traces of our ancestral heritage, did not use the Aldland timeline, only the year 803 in 'Kersten' understanding. Or did Hidde leave that out copying the letter?

In the beginning of the text, Yes-us was said to have been born 1600 years after Atland sank, in Kashmir.

What if this year was the initial year zero of what we think is the Christian timeline? Then Liko wrote 1600 + 803 = 2403 years after Atland sank and Hidde in the year 1600 + 1255 = 2855 (not 3448). The difference is 593 years.

We would now be living in the year 3623 after Aldland sank and the time of Alexander the Great (c. 300 BCE) would be c. 1700 years ago; the times of king Askar (a.k.a. Black Adel) c. 1400 years ago, not that much older than our 'Karolingian' and 'Roman' archaeological finds.

Very interesting.
Has this suggestion been progressed to a conclusion ?

[ott]

No. There is so much OL-related research possible and interesing, that I easily get distracted.

I have tried to focus on improvement of the the wiki and further study of the Fryas language in the last months (a.o. edited transcription, more consistent spelling and grammar). For the coming time I intend to prioritize creation of a new Dutch translation, a recording of all texts being read in the original language and preparation of a new printed edition.

[Nordic]

While the textual tradition that something major happened at 4.2 kiloyear event (here and here) is not proof one way or another for the chronology question, as everyone in medieval era could be just copying each other, the issue of OL describing peoples migrating all over the place at about the 4.2 kiloyear timeline could be meaningful. Please see here the video and the image below where I have marked the 4.2 kiloyear line with blue line.

timeline.jpg (625.94 KiB) Viewed 2007 times

[Er Aldaric]

I am almost finished with Laurent Guyenot's book on the first millennium and I have to say it's truly compelling. Jan is definitely right about the Oera Linda confirming Chronology Revision and vice versa. I think it might be worthwhile to reach out to Guyenot about the Oera Linda specifically. I'm at the part were he is discussing the Goths / Getae and how their relationship with Arianism is muddy and how Justinian waging war on the Goths on account of Arian heresy is nonsensical. Ideas like the worship of Wralda continuing with the Goths, dying out much later than expected, or that the Romanesque churches that dot Europe may have actually been pre-christian sanctuaries (Perhaps even Fryas Tanfana-Temple) are exciting.

The history the OL tells in tandem with the picture chronology revision paints dispels the idea that NW Europeans were knuckle dragging idiots for thousands of years until suddenly (and with credit to Rome for so graciously conquering them) became at the forefront of sophistication.

[ott]

Well said.

I wrote Guyenot right after I had finished his book, giving a brief summary of the relevant facts and asking if he would be interested. He said he was, so I sent more details, but didn't get a reply yet. Whenever he has prioritime for it, he should know where to go. I will also be too busy with different things in the coming months/year. If others feel motivated to dive deeper into this, I think there will be much to gain.

[teijahn]

While the textual tradition that something major happened at 4.2 kiloyear event

Thank you for this post and your given links. This aspect of OLB/Historical research is fascinating and I'm thinking well worth a deep dive.

[ott]

I agree. Thanks, Nordic, for posting that and Teijahn for the confirmation.
I didn't have time to really look into it, but this branch of research is indeed of major relevance for OL.

[teijahn]

Courtesy of "The Immanuel Velikovsky Archive"

Without having had time to explore the works of Heinsohn and Guyenot, I suggest it's likely that they would be acquainted with Velikovky's last work, "Dark Age of Greece", (pdf available archive.org) which I find very interesting. Link and quotes from below.

https://www.varchive.org/dag/index.htm

"A chronology with centuries that never occurred made necessary the introduction of “Dark Ages” between the years -1100 and -750 in many areas of the ancient world; these upper and lower figures are already pulled together on the chronological timetable, and still some 400 years are unaccounted for—thus it is spoken of the “mysterious spell of Dark Ages.”1
But when the hinges of history are fastened at correct levels the ghost centuries vanish and the chasm is shown to be imaginary."

"Actually, when in the eighties of the nineteenth century, the Hellenists were coerced, upon the evidence presented by Egyptologists, to introduce those five dark centuries, they did it only after a period of protest and resistance. But now that three generations of historians have lived with those dark centuries as a historical reality, it is even more difficult to part with them. Nevertheless, sooner or later, they will have to part with the phantom centuries, and have the history of Greece and the development of its writing as a normal process without a four-hundred-year gap."

"The conclusion at which we have arrived is this: between the Mycenaean and the Ionian Ages there was no Dark Age, but one followed the other, with only a few decades intervening. The natural catastrophes of the eighth century and of the beginning of the seventh brought an end to the civilization that centered at Mycenae in Greece, to cities and citadels and kingdoms; even the profile of the Greek mainland changed and many islands submerged and others emerged. These changes moved entire nations to migrations in the hope that beyond the horizon fertile lands, not damaged by unchained forces of nature, awaited the conquerors. This explains the break in continuity—the change is not due to some intervening dark ages that left no vestige of themselves, but to the paroxysms of nature and the migrations."

Another view, which I've not had time to digest.
https://www.sis-group.org.uk/papers/200 ... rspective/

[Nordic]

As per research on Gunung Padang in Indonesia (video link), it was abadoned as construction project prior to 4.2 kiloyear event, but re-construction began again at 4.2 kiloyear event:

GunungPadang.jpg (146.68 KiB) Viewed 1915 times

This reminds of OL MS 49-50:

Not only in the lands of Finda [050] did mountains spew fire [...] Earth suffered like this for three years, but when
she recovered, one could see her wounds. [...] Many lands were submerged, others had risen out of the sea [...] Bands of Finda’s folk came roaming across the empty plains, and our dispersed people were exterminated, or joined their ranks [WILDA SKET.HÀRDAR or Yamnaya?]. (MS 49-50)

According to Wikipedia's map on 4.2 kiloyear event, Indonesia is not thought to have been one of the centres of geological change at that time, but in light of OL narrative description I wonder if the changes were global and could have resulted in people starting to e.g. worship sun to secure safe skies at the Gunung Padang. The site was likely well protected from upheaval as it's deep inland and not anywhere near coastlines. The volcanic rock base seems to have been inactive at the time.