The Oera Linda Forum

Gunnar Heinsohn was a German economist and sociologist who wrote on a wide variety of topics. Last February he passed away. Of most interest is his work on the chronology of the first millennium. In a nutshell, he states that the accepted chronology, established by the French Huguenot Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) and the Jesuit Denys Pétau (1583-1652), which has been used in a more or less unaltered form to the present day, does not match up with the archeological evidence. Heinsohn proposed a different chronology, based on the strata (earth layers) found at archeological sites. He came to the remarkable conclusion that what we know as Antiquity, Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages are the same, overlapping period in history. Some 1000 years of the first millennium can be condensed to 300 years according to his theory. Articles (in English) of Gunnar Heinsohn can be found on this website:

https://www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohns-latest.html

Laurent Guyenot is a French medievalist who has expanded on the theory of Heinsohn. I highly recommend the following articles (Part 1-4 under a pen name). For the readers who are looking for a summary I would recommend reading part 5.

Part 1
https://www.unz.com/article/how-fake-is ... antiquity/

Part 2
https://www.unz.com/article/how-fake-is-church-history/

Part 3
https://www.unz.com/article/how-long-wa ... millenium/

Part 4
https://www.unz.com/article/revision-in ... geography/

Part 5
https://www.unz.com/article/a-short-his ... ilization/

Laurent Guyenot has written a book about the chronology of the first millennium, released on the 29th of March 2023, with the title: 'Anno Domini: A Short History of the First Millennium AD'

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BZF9RJ25?re ... _397514860

Guyenot calls the field of first millennium revisionism incomplete and inconclusive, yet it's hard not to use its explaining power. Many historical mysteries come into a new light when Heinsohn first millennium revisionism is applied.
Take for example the time gap between the Frisii, the tribe who lived during Antiquity and the Frisians of the early Middle Ages and onwards. According to mainstream history Frisia was depopulated around 400 CE and slowly repopulated by probably a different people, who just happened to carry the same name. Through the lens of Heinsohn revisionism this time gap would be removed. The Frisii and the Frisians have an unbroken chain between them, they are one and the same people.

Likely first millennium revisionism also has implications for the OL history.

Sad to hear of this passing and many thanks for links and explanations. I was not ware of Guyénot earlier. Agree on the Frisians thing, no idea why mainstream history thinks Frisians somehow are not Frisians. Who else they could be?

Frisian, Norse and Finnish sagas do not contain a consistent year-after-year AD era chronology. We get only sporadic mentions here and there e.g. Bock family saga tells the Viking era began about AD 500, possibly in implicit reference to heathen Hygelac's attack to Christian France (link). While characters like Jesus, Muhammad etc are mentioned, it's unclear to me if the chronology relative to them is the same chronology as used by medieval and renaissance era Christians and not independent of it.

In Frisian lands the arrival of Romans, Celtic Christianity (Arthur's conquests) and later on Roman Catholicism does not make appearance in attested OL texts. We only have texts warning about them and then later on after-the-fact mentions. They may have been part of the original OL narrative, as the main portion of the manuscript ends abruptly.

Lack of actual dates is big issue in Norse saga research. Some researchers backtrack persons in them, counting generations from medieval era backwards to try to gauge what era the medieval Christian Norse or Danish saga authors are referring into. As sideproduct of OL research, it has come to our attention that the above method gets way too new results. In actuality the ancient peoples, also those outside northern Europe, knew the same characters, but in about ~2000 BC era context (more about that here).

Anatoly Fomenko has found out that some Biblical genealogy charts have the same biographical data as some medieval Christian dynasties (and the phenomena extends to Roman emperor biographical data). Fomenko's take on this is that surely the latter, at the time more relevant and still commonly remembered data, was used to forge the Biblical genealogical material. I agree on this chronological reasoning, but disagree on the idea that they're automatically the same persons in historical sense. As the names don't match, but the rule year lengths do, it could mean that the year length dates were afterward artifically implented into pre-existing dynasty charts.

In medieval Europe with near-total Roman Catholic information monopoly no-one was meant to notice this smug joke on making the Catholic kings "holy" by having their biographical data retroactively inserted into Biblical canon (forming the religion of common masses), or the fact that certain northern European saga characters are found also from OT and NT e.g. Fenja and Menja the mill-turning woman in Matthew 24:41 and Luke 17:35. Enoch of OL I consider merely a same name, but not necessarily the same character as the one in Biblical traditions (as we don't have corresponding other context aside the name). Lamech instead must have been originally the same as Nordic Balder/Lemminkäinen(link). Closest OL archetype is the unnamed son of Wodin, though it may be via Rindr connection reference to Váli character instead of Balder character. The Sumerian version duplicates the Wodin character (Ur-Utu, Utu-hejal) so we get both Lugal-melem (Kaukomieli, Lemminkäinen's or Balder's alternative poetic name) and Cul-gi (Suomi 'Finn').

The Sumerian loans must by reason be old (buried in sand until late 1800s and early 1900s), but it's more complicated issue with the Biblical and Quranic loans. If we know, as per Fomenko, that Biblical books were edited still in the post-1000s era, could the editors have inputted at the same time the northern European legends, names and themes there (e.g. Frisial Jol based 6,000 year counting system)? If so, the medieval Judaism, Christianity and Islam we know of is radically newer creation than previously thought.

Ray wrote: ↑09 Apr 2023, 10:26 ...

Likely first millennium revisionism also has implications for the OL history.

Nice info! Revisionism, i like

From the lot of info, i understand the focus in here is the revisionism of the first millenium AD to a lesser extended period of approx 300 years?

At first glance, how does then (in your view) could this have implications for the OL History?
The history it covers or the "aftermath" of preserving the scriptures and related dates?

I mean, if i go through my notes the dates in the first millenium that could be impacted is only the year 803, text written by Liko. And domino effect-wise maybe also the introduction of Hidde in the described year 1256 untill the year 1848 when it was handed over as a last station. All other tales touch history before 1st millenium AD.

What i miss in the revisionism of late is the questioning of the fixed counting of years in written sources as years we interprete know.

In the what-if sphere ... what if the most ancient year (by etymologists PIE-root YER linked to Greek hora) was par example a moon-month, or season, but not a sun-cycle year. An hour is also to be linked with hora. So hora (yer) in fact is just the cycle unit one counts with at that moment in time for a consensus cycle at that moment.

One curious fact related to the missing in reality (and surplus on paper) of approx 600 years: this one i like in the OLB case:

If Kersten was the Budha of 1600 (after Aldland), and Hidde wrote in 3449 (after Aldland), then Hidde wrote in 1848 after Kersten (year 0 does not exist so 1601 as begin). This is a peculiar date for many who are interested in OLB.
But why did Hidde said 1256 nei Kersten reckoning? That is off course again that 592 years (approx 600 years) difference of the Budha living before Christ. So where is the 600 years in surplus? Is it also in the part BC?

What it may be, it is a curious subject at the least


Edit extra:
Wonder the etymology of year (Yer, Jer). If that 'J' in front could be the same as the 'J' of Jarl (Sjarel, Charel - Kerel) and the 'Y' in Yellow (Geel), it could be reflected in a more hard 'g' , 'ch' or 'k'. Then we have an original Dutch etymologie of jaar as 'g'aer (keer). Keer (ga-weer) means 'go-again' (turn, toer'n= doe-weer'n, ga-heen=again).
Elke keer weer. Maybe something to post on the etymology thread for deep-dive ...

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).

There were some good videos recently explaining why the authenticity of Tacitus' works (and similar) is most uncertain (video 1, video 2). 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. As well as the fact that the language is relatively easy to understand for Northern Europeans.

Stratigrafically, it would make perfect sense, but the main problem seems to be the existence of sources dated to 9th or 10th century.

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?

Thus far, I translated KERSTEN BIGRIP and KERSTEN RÉKNONG as 'Christian understanding' and '— reckoning'. Today I replaced 'Christian' by 'Kersten', as I am no longer certain if they (both) referred to what we understand as Christian. If I would only have had access to the Oera Linda texts, and had not heard of christianity, I would relate 'Kersten' to the text about 'Krisen' (a.k.a. Yes-us, Buda, Fo), which ends with a warning by Dela, a.k.a. Hellenia:

This religion, which requires the priests to possess no skills other than eloquence, hypocrisy, and foul play, has expanded from East to West — and will also reach our lands.

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.

Note: Hadrianus Junius wrote 'Batavia' in Latin c. 1577, published posthumously 1588. In the Dutch translation (Nico de Glas, 2011) there is this remarkable phrase (p.94):

(...) this year, which we call 1571 after Christ.

With footnote:

The clearest dating in this book. Literally 'in this year which we call the 1571st year since the Virgin gave birth to her Son'.

What was Junius trying to suggest?

In further confusion of the whole issue, the 1st century philosopher Scythianus can be positively attribute-matched with the Jesus Christ of Bock family saga (short version here, full version here). Name of this philosopher Scythianus' most important pupil? Buddha (source).

Nordic wrote: ↑14 Apr 2023, 15:55(...) the 1st century philosopher Scythianus (...)

How was his time of living dated?

Hegemonius writes in his Acta Archelai (AD 300s):

But a certain person belonging to Scythia, bearing the name Scythianus, and living in the thee of the apostles, was the founder and leader of this sect (Source)

sed quidam Scythianus nomine apostolomm tempore fuit sectae huius auctor et princeps (Source)

'but a certain Scythian named in the time of the apostles was the founder and leader of this sect' (Google translation)

Apostles are assumed to mean the 1st century students of Jesus, as the Scythianus remarks are made in Christian works.

Nordic wrote: ↑14 Apr 2023, 18:27Acta Archelai (AD 300s)

Wikipedia: "preserved only in Latin", "published by (...) librarian of the Vatican Library (...) 1698"

Do you consider this a relevant (trustworthy) source for the chronology debate?

ott wrote: ↑15 Apr 2023, 05:06 Wikipedia: "preserved only in Latin", "published by (...) librarian of the Vatican Library (...) 1698"

Do you consider this a relevant (trustworthy) source for the chronology debate?

This question wasn't for me, but I'll "rede" upon the ACTA ARCHELAI, though I haven't read it myself.

Traditionally attributed to Hegemonius, the Acta Archelai is the oldest and most significant anti-Manichaean polemical text. Originally composed in Greek in the fourth century, it has survived mainly in a near contemporary Latin translation - substantial section of the Greek version has however survived in the Panarion of Epiphanius.

-Mark J. Vermes, Acta Archelai, Manichaean Studies (MAS 4), 2001.

On The Panarion itself:

An Old Church Slavonic translation was made, probably at the Preslav school during the reign of Tsar Simeon I of Bulgaria in the early 10th century. It is preserved in the 12th-century kormchaya of Ephraim.

-Williams, Frank; translator. "Introduction". The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book I (Sects 1-46). 1987. (E.J. Brill, Leiden)

Though the whole text is only found in Latin, we have some in Koine Greek from a text that itself translated into Old Church Slavonic. So the question becomes: which sections of the ACTA ARCHELAI are original, and if any of the Latin is trustworthy. Though the Greek itself could well be lying itself.

Based on above information it seems that the Christian text is fully attested in late 1600s and in partial form in 1100s (the heathen version is newer in attestation). Below is how I view this thing based on what I noted over the years looking at old sources. Heinsohn, Guyenot & Fomenko lines of thought would make it even more different: inclusion of Nordic material in Bible may be medieval, alongside the insertion of medieval dynastical biographical data into pre-existing Biblical dynasties, but the loans into Sumerian and Phoenician texts (from e.g. OL) are older than that.