The 1st Millennium A.D. Chronology Controversy

Gunnar Heinsohn: Siegfried found - decoding the Nibelungen period

head of dragon standard (draconarius) pinterest

Was Siegfried the Dragon-Slayer Gallic Emperor Victorinus?

Go the the article

Gunnar Heinsohn: Slavic chronological enigmas solved - Poland's Krakow in the 1st Millennium AD

Gunnar Heinsohn: Arthur of Camelot and Aththe of Camulodunum

Gunnar Heinsohn: Tenth Century collapse

Gunnar Heinsohn: Ephesus in the 1st millennium AD - was it destroyed three times or once? 

Gunnar Heinsohn: Paper-making's 700 years secrecy

Gunnar Heinsohn: how did so many Roman elements make it into the Viking Age?

Gunnar Heinsohn: wrecked metropolises of the 1st millennium AD: a comparison

Gunnar Heinsohn: in a nutshell - the revised chronology of the 1st millennium AD

Gunnar Heinsohn: Archaeological Strata vs. Tree-rings: proposal for an experiment

Tree-ring-daters do not agree on the number of years that can be substantiated for the 1st millennium CE. The majority is convinced that they have 1,000 characteristic rings that prove the 1,000 years required for a millennium, confirmed down to the last second by C14. Therefore, they are convinced that scholars living after the year 1000 CE had all the instruments available to construct the chronology from 1-1000 CE as dendro-chronologists find them in their textbooks. The full 1,000 year time-span did not go unchallenged. 
Mainstream dendro-chronologists and dissidents alike, however, fail to inform the public that nowhere in the world has anyone ever discovered a single site that has building strata for a thousand years (intersected by three cataclysms) or for 782/703 years (intersected by at least two cataclysms) respectively, with remains of trees whose rings could be counted and sequenced, and whose organic substance could be carbon-dated. 
Go to the article

See also: A Carbon-14 Chronology 

bristle-cone pines irish oaks phantom years

Michael Baillie: Tree-ring and Radiocarbon Rebuttal of Gunnar's Phantom Time Hypothesis

Michael Baillie Mike Baillie

To whom it may concern.  
Those who discuss the’ phantom time’ hypothesis enjoy semantic games with historical documents. However, scientists have their own approach to issues of chronology...   

Go to the article

Ewald Ernst: Toppling Rome's Obelisks and Aqueducts

Ewald Ernst

From the numerous remarks I have prepared to challenge Palmer’s views, I will focus here on the mysterious felling of Rome’s obelisks, columns, and aqueducts. Yet, as an exemplary illustration of the enormous material gaps in 1st millennium history, I want to shed some light on one of the best established European stratigraphies north of the Alps. It can be admired in Salzburg in Austria (Roman Iuvavum)....

Go to the article

Gunnar Heinsohn: 2nd Answer to Trevor Palmer

Trevor Palmer's Response to Gunnar Heinsohn

Gunnar Heinsohn, Trevor Palmer, Naxos

Dear Gunnar,

Your response to my article, "The Chronology of the Roman Emperors...", was, like all your writings on chronology, full of plausible and interesting arguments in support of a highly-original theory. However, it must be said that the article you refer to in your response seems different in several important respects from mine. Let's clarify a few points.
To start with, you wrote, "Trevor's impressive effort, however, only makes sense if he regards me as someone who wants to abandon genuine rulers, or even turn them into fictitious characters. Never, in scholarly exchanges of nearly half a century, have I come across a more profound misunderstanding".

Yet, in the introduction to my article, I wrote that you "propose that the emperors who had reigned in Rome from AD 1 to AD 230 [Augustus to Alexander Severus] were in fact contemporaries of emperors who had reigned in the east, supposedly from AD 290 to AD 520 [Diocletian to Anastasius I]". Does that suggest that I harbour a "profound misunderstanding" of your position...?

Go to article

In Support of Gunnar Heinsohn: Jan Beaufort: Conspiracy or Religious History?

Is religious, providentialist history the result of a conspiracy? If many people have the same fantasies about the past and write about them accordingly, have they then formed a conspiracy? If theological or political opponents attack each other with Pseudepigraphs, in order to lend an air of authority to their opinions, or to protect themselves against a charge of heresy, have they then conspired...?

Go to article

Gunnar Heinsohn: Answer to Trevor Palmer: Rome's Stratigraphy belongs into the 8th-10th Century A.D.

Gunnar Heinsohn, Naxos

In his ”Chronology of Europe” (here on Q-Mag), Trevor Palmer has amassed (from mainstream history texts) long lists of emperors, popes and non-Roman chieftains of the 1st-6th centuries CE to underline the historical reality of these personalities.

Trevor’s impressive effort, however, only makes sense if he regards me as someone who wants to abandon genuine rulers, or even turn them into fictitious characters. Never, in scholarly exchanges of nearly half a century, have I come across a more profound misunderstanding...

Go to article

Trevor Palmer Challenges Gunnar Heinsohn's Latest

Trevor Palmer, Naxos

It is generally believed that, during the third century AD, the Roman Empire suffered a prolonged period of chaos. Emperor after emperor met violent deaths after brief reigns, and one civil war followed another. Was this just a time of social and historical confusion, or was it the origin of a major chronological anomaly? One who has argued for the latter scenario is Gunnar Heinsohn, who maintains that events at this time may have resulted in three phantom centuries being added to history... 


Go to article

The origin of the controversy:  Gunnar Heinsohn's Latest