Chronology revisionism of Heinsohn and Guyenot — implications for Frisian history

Dating of the various texts in relation to other sources, archaeology, geology, genetics etc.
User avatar
Nordic
Posts: 147
Joined: 31 Dec 2022, 11:08

Re: The chronology revisionism of Gunnar Heinsohn and Laurent Guyenot and its implications for the history of Frisia

Post by Nordic »

Already years before I read OL I had noted that when attempting to link up different people's chronologies, there is abnormally often difference of some years, some decades or even centuries. Whereby by "adjusting" the time tables such amounts one would get perfect matching results. Counter-arguments are that ancient peoples may have purposefully used similar and titles from generation to generation (e.g. OL Finns, backed up by Norse and Finnish sources; president Bush #1 and Bush #2 both winning with coalition over Iraqi president Hussein) or that warring situations could last for decades or centuries, with each side only recording down their own notable changes (major victory or defeat).

By logic the standard assumption ought to be that there are missing centuries and the time is counted too short. I suspect that to be the case with culturally Roman-Christian Jordanes chronology of Goths, that it originally started from the same 4.2 kiloyear event as OL does (forum post). Furthermore, we now know with certainty this happened with Norse-Christian (read: culturally Roman-Christian) Norse saga compilers, whose compilations strech from Adam to Viking age kings with an erroneous tally count:
Now we shall speak of how Norway was founded in the beginning, how the line of kings began there or in other lands, and why they are called Skjoldungs, Budlungs, Bragnings, Odlings, Volsungs or Niflungs, from which the lines of kings come. There was a man named Fornjot ['ancient-giant' i.e. Iku-Turilas]. [...] The king was called Burri [later in same text: Burri, who we call Finn] who ruled over Turkey [Tyrklandi i.e. Byzant, perhaps originally corruption of Turku, Finland or Turci; or Toroni, Greece or THÍR.HIS.BURCH of Tunis story]. His son was Burr, who was the father of Odin, King of the Gods [Ásakonungs, ...]Adam was the first man that God made. Seth was his son, and his son Enos, and his son Kaynan, and his son Malaleel, his son Phareth, his son Enoch, his son Mathusela the Old, his son Lamech [list continues to Noah, Saturnus, Jupiter, Persian Darius, Trojans etc ...]This count was one less than seventeen on both tallies. He was king when the [this compilation] book was written. They proceeded from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, mccclxxx and vij years [AD 1387] (source: Frá Fornjóti)
By comparing that above version list with the 4.2 kiloyear to 1800 BC predecessor lists (Weld-Blundell prism) in Sumerian King List, Oera Linda book, or even the Biblical lists putting the same names in c. 2000 BC time frame, we can see that the Norse-Christian list skips over vast millenias. Resulting in erroneusly short reading when counting generations backwards from medieval rulers (forum post, second post).
User avatar
teijahn
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Dec 2023, 01:05
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: The chronology revisionism of Gunnar Heinsohn and Laurent Guyenot and its implications for the history of Frisia

Post by teijahn »

I am about a hundred hours into research on chronology, prompted by this thread, and it is indeed a very deep dive and a quite wide stream. I have concentrated more on researchers who have explored multiple views than those who have conducted their research independently, although I have read articles and summaries of quite a few "revisionists" as they are noted. There are, to my surprise, dozens and dozens of serious researchers on the topic, whose estimates of "phantom" periods of history vary from approx. 250 years (James) to 700 years (Heinsohn), and I think there are other cases for even longer periods of reduction required. I don't have a conclusion, and may never have, but I am absolutely clear that the conventional historical chronology is way out, and absolutely unreliable. For me, the Velikovsky Dark Ages "insertion" of about 450 years stacks up very well, but that's just one period whereof the accuracy is in contention.

It will probably only ever be unravelled and some common ground reached when archaeology and dendrochronology have provided a lot more insight as to the past, and when researchers might collaborate better/more than they do. It will also require of the mainstream Historical & Archaeological Heirarchies, the "Guardians of the Dogma" as John Crowe so aptly puts them, to make room for consideration of fresh/revised input.

I've not computed or even attempted to - what and where the effect might be on the OLB, though there certainly will be an effect, at least on dates/timelines.

Some articles that I found very useful:
https://www.sis-group.org.uk/papers/200 ... ive/#intro
https://www.rogerswebsite.com/ah/whichr ... ksbest.pdf (Roger Waite)
https://www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohns-latest.html
https://www.rogerswebsite.com/Velikovsk ... nOrder.pdf (Alan Montgomery)

Cheers
Er Aldaric
Posts: 36
Joined: 21 Jan 2023, 17:42

Re: The chronology revisionism of Gunnar Heinsohn and Laurent Guyenot and its implications for the history of Frisia

Post by Er Aldaric »

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.
Guyenot actually mentions Velikovsky in his first millennium book and it seems Heinsohn was very much acquainted with his works. There was a discussion about the 'EU' theory on this forum, but sadly the topic seems to have died. Since that post I've been investigating the theory and its proponents and I do think that it's very much relevant to the OL. In fact the OL, Chronology revision, and Plasma cosmology seem to work together as a sort of revisionist tripartite. Heinsohn says that the collapse of the 230's, 530's, and 930's in the first millennium were all apart of the same cosmic catastrophe by looking at the layer of 'black earth' which occurs on the same strata at each supposed different time period.

Not only does history looks so different when this cosmic factor is applied, but our present too. We currently live in a time of cosmic 'peace' which seems to not have been the norm.
User avatar
ott
Posts: 218
Joined: 08 Dec 2022, 16:16
Location: Drenthe, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chronology revisionism of Heinsohn and Guyenot — implications for Frisian history

Post by ott »

Two more related articles by Guyénot, on Unz:
  • Byzantine Revisionism Unlocks World History (June '23)
  • The Constantine Hoax and the Forgery of Western History (Feb. '24)
Post Reply