Holocene Heresy

Brown coal (lignite) strip mining in the Rhine Valley west of Cologne uncovered a roman aqueduct under neath 7 metres of sand and gravel that was being studied for its heavy mineral content, the results being published in 1997 by Boenigk and Hagedorn: Das Profil FR 125: Holocene Sedimente I’m Elsbachtal und hire Schwermetallgehalte, – Archaologie im Rheinland 1996: 169-172;Koln. One of the author’s Eva Hagedorn published a summary of the project on her website here.

She published two photographs of the Holocene sediments, one which showed that roman aqueduct was covered by Holocene sediments. (The reference is about FR 125 but the photos are for FR 126).

The Holocene period is our present day one and is conventionally dated from 11,700 years BP to the present.

Prof. Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn has published a revised 1st millennium history in which his thesis is that there are some 700 phantom years so that the Roman Period ended ~235 AD, which is equivalent to ~935 AD, from which we have well documented history. In short this suggests that the Roman Period was terminated by a, possibly global, catastrophe associated with the Comet of Justinian; there is some evidence that this comet might have been Venus. A summary of Heinsohn’s thesis is published online here.

Heinsohn’s thesis rests on stratigraphical evidence that Lyn E. Rose wrote in Pillars of The Past, p. 275,276:

“What I would call the ruthlessness of Heinsohn’s method lies in its almost exclusively stratigraphical approach. If something does not fit the stratigraphical evidence then it cannot be true; if it myth, fiction, poetry, error, or even fraud.

Heinsohn insists that no matter what the documents and the monuments may ‘say’, ancient civilisations reveal their existence — and also their sequence — in the ‘strata’ that they have left behind. The physical evidence, be it only debris, tends to lie ‘above’ the layers of any earlier peoples and ‘below’ the layers of any later peoples. Though technically the word stratigraphy means writing ‘about’ strata, one could say that in a sense history itself is already “written” ‘in’ the strata. Accordingly, Heinsohn wants to reconstruct ancient history from the ground up (almost literally!).

For better or worse, Heinsohn’s method does remain ruthlessly stratigraphical, and is largely non-literary. Ancient texts and documents (Manethon and the various king-lists, for example) are not allowed to intrude into the process. Any literary evidence ‘must’ accord with the underlying strata, or else it is to be disbelieved.

Geologically this is easy to understand because if, for example, we have 3 disparate locations all of which have a recognisable common sedimentary layer on which 3 different younger strata are laid on top, so no one site has all three younger strata all occurring one after the other on top of the reference stratum, then all 3 younger strata have to be of stratigraphically the same age. In geology these would be called lateral facies changes. There error historians commonly make is assuming these three different strata follow in sequence, one after the other, when in reality they are all the same age but just in different locations.

Heinsohn has previously published a revised history of the Middle East for the Bronze Age period, and asserted that stratigraphically there were only five ancient civilisations, and not eleven currently held to exist. Heinsohn asserts that the Sumerians were actually the Chaldeans, etc. In one stratigraphical cross section Heinsohn’s thesis has been tested, and his thesis found correct.

It is crucial to understand that falsification of Heinsohn’s thesis requires the existence of unambiguous stratigraphic evidence, field evidence, for the eleven ancient civilisations. Any argument using literature or non stratigraphic evidence is invalid. I am informed that no empirical falsification of his Middle East revised history has occurred, and on this basis, I am now also assuming that his 1st millennium 700 phantom years are also valid. These revised periods of history has profound geological implications.

The reason for this is because a recent paper cited by the Daily Mail Australia, online version here has concluded that the Earth has been getting hotter for the past 10,000 years, contradicting studies that humans started global warming.

If we assume the Holocene sediments have been deposited at the termination of the Roman Period, ie an event circa 935AD, which implies it might also have been the Pleistocene ice age that terminated the Roman Period, then any progression from an ice age to the present climate has to be described as “warming” whether global or local. Of course we need to include the Little Ice Age as well in our deliberations. I also wonder whether the appearance of the Chinese Fleets in Italy during the 15th Century, described by Gavin Menzies, was to reconnect with the rest of humanity after the Comet of Justinian catastrophe? That catastrophe may also have terminated the Mayan and Toltec, and Easter Island civilisations.

Have a long think about the implications of the Pleistocene Ice Age event terminating the Roman Warm Period during the 10th century AD. And then read Romans 13 discussed here at the Bionic Mosquito, when Andronicus states :

I have cursed them and I will curse them,’ was the reply, ‘these public scourges, these drinkers of blood that have turned the world upside-down.’

Both Christianity and Islam, to mention two institutionalised faiths, had their origins in Heinsohn’s 700 Phantom Years.

And it may well be that the pervasive fear of a climate tipping point, or catastrophe has its origins in the Roman Period termination catastrophe.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s