Heinsohn: Cuckoo in the Nest?

The Forum is provided for both SIS members and non-members to discuss topics relevant to the Society's work. It also provides the opportunity for non-members to ask questions about the Society’s work and/or published material.
All posts are moderated before inclusion. No attachments are permitted.

Heinsohn: Cuckoo in the Nest?

Postby Phillip » Mon 24 Nov 2014 8:31 pm

This subject has been gnawing at the back of my mind for some time. Is Gunnar Heinsohn a serial spoiler? We all know he ruined the debate on revising ancient history by a) deliberately ignoring the Velikovsky 'Exodus Event' based on Biblical numbers by creating his own even more catastrophic catastrophe just prior to Abraham - and then dating this to 1500BC for no reason other than to undermine the Velikovsky Exodus Event, and b) he then claimed all history of any note must have occurred after his invented date of 1500BC, an extreme extension of the idea of revising ancient history, and c) he went on to totally ignore stratigraphy and the basic nuts and bolts of ancient history by mixing EB with LB and MB with Iron ages, and various other tricks and rearrangements that flummox most serious researchers. On top of this d) he took Velikovsky's dubious use of alter egos to new heights of absurdity and unlikelihood and e) all in all he reduced the idea of revising ancient history to farce. No wonder mainstream ignores it.
In the pages of various SIS journals over the last ten years or so Steve Mitchell has tried to assess the validity of AD chronology revisions as suggested by the likes of Illig (300 years) and Hunnivari (somewhat less than 200 years) without coming to a firm conclusion. He did note there was a grey area that Bede could not fully explain away, some 150 years - but at no point did Mitchell say that that amounted to proof of a hole in chronology. He actually thought the archaeology might be missing the Early Saxon period, either because it was really the post-Roman period (Romano British) or was disguised by what archaeologists call the Dark Earth deposit. He suggested this only affected low lying parts of sites (London, Leicester, St Albans etc) and was due to a rise in the water table and/or a rise in water and coastal levels. In other words it was a geological phenomenon. A recent post on In the News concerns an archaeologist having a eureka moment, realising the southern boundary of Middle Saxon London was along The Strand. The street name actually preserved the fact that this was the strand line, and the river level was nearer here than its present position on the next level downwards. They went on to find the southern limits of London in the mid to late first millenium AD. It distinctly differed to that of the Londinium of the Roman period - which spread down much lower towards the present river level. Large parts of Roman London had been abandoned in the post-Roman era - and the same can be seen to have occurred at Leicester and St Albans (as examples). It seems this kind of research was too much for Gunnar Heinsohn and he came blundering along and claimed the Dark Earth was evidence of an otherwise unknown major catastrophic event that struck the whole world towards the end of the Roman Empire. The Illig and Hunnivari revisions of AD chronology were caught up in the cross fire as Heinsohn in his usual style went on to extend their hole in history to an unlikely and impossible 700 years. It completely ruined all the research done by Illig who was left feeling somewhat deflated and angry. The big question here is - did Heinsohn do this on purpose? Is he a cuckoo in the nest whose alternate proposals are designed to wreck the idea of revising BCD and AD chronology?
Phillip
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue 12 Jun 2012 8:19 am

Return to SIS Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron