Chronological Conundrums 2

Finally managed to finish reading, or more like skimming, all the volumes making Charles Ginenthal’s ‘Pillars of the Past Series”; these books are loaded with scholarly information that will take a major effort to digest but one early conclusion may be made – Lyn Rose’s various retrocalculations clinch the argument for the shortened chronology or history as proposed by Ginenthal, in that ‘history’ starts at around 1200 BC. and therefore I have to side with the Ginenthal-Rose historical reconstruction scheme.

The termination of the Roman Period coupled with the appearance of the various, crude megalithic structures such as Stonehenge and other similar constructions during the ensuing Middle Ages is also accepted, though the finely detailed and precise stone work of earlier civilisation construction elsewhere has to be placed contemporaneously with the Roman Period, or earlier. Crucial to understanding these older artefacts will be their geological settings.

Geology tends to ignore anthropological issues because of the belief in the theory of biological evolution and the restriction that belief imposes on the distribution of the human species geologically.

This suggests that the Pleistocene extinction event that killed off the Mega Fauna was also the Roman terminating catastrophe. But Ginenthal et al reach no such conclusion and instead associate the Pleistocene Extinction event with the Velikovsky Event of an earlier time before 1200 BC.

This leads one to rethink the post-roman history and the Heinsohn 700 Phantom centuries.

The Roman aqueduct under Holocene sands and gravels discovered during the mining of the Rhein valley lignite (brown coal) tends to hint at the Roman Terminus Event as the Pleistocene unless there was a global catastrophe that followed the Pleistocene event. Shortening human history, as Ginenthal et al proposed, also requires a shortening of geological history, or more accurately of a less uniformitarianist scheme in which catastrophes are included, in itself a heresy of the first order unless one professes faith in the looming CO2 Catastrophe religion, and then I suppose such faith would permit one to have a more catastrophic view of the past.

The main stumbling block remains the view that from 1200 BC onwards the only civilisation of the Middle East and Roman era; What about the Americas, China and Asia? Did not people there also reach similar civilisational heights? The impression I have from reading the mainstream history is that these peoples were primitives and in need of spiritual salvation by the superior European Christians who spread outwards from the 15th century CE onwards.

This leads me to consider that there was an additional catastrophic event hat terminate the Ming Dynasty as inferred by Gavin Menzies, an event restricted to the Asian Hemisphere, but which did not seem to affect the European hemisphere too much and which marked the start of the Little Ice Age and further species extinctions such as the New Zealand Moa and Lemur, and Australian megafauna.

Of course such catastrophes don’t happen in isolation but are more probably a period of catastrophic events over decades or longer, perhaps.

But the most perplexing issue is explaining the Middle Ages period or the first millenium AD – the Heinsohn Phantom Years, and are the already identified megalthic periods assigned to 4000 BC onwards to 1200 BC correct or are they misplaced because of the presumption of Darwinian evolution, that all these primitive remains are from unevolved humans just out of the stone-age, or are these remains the result of civilised humans being suddenly left out on a limb after a global catastrophe and thus with no survival skills and hence post Roman era artefacts as proposed by Ginenthal et al?

For the present I am fence-sitting the first millennium CE debate and will focus initially on establishing the geological setting of the various ‘old civilisations’ scattered around the Earth.

Whoever thought becoming retired was all beer and skittles…

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.

3 Responses to Chronological Conundrums 2

  1. fabio says:

    Louis, you told about Lemur extinction. Prosimians are restricted now to Madagascar (lemurs) and Southeast Asia (Tarsis, Loris, etc), what gave background to Haeckel’s hypothesis of Lemuria, by which those landmasses would have a common continental origin. Beyond the Wallace line there are no native placental mammals fossils. New Zealand is an insular territory where seem to have be found ancient mammals fossils recently, but egg-layers. The nowadays NZ’s singular terrestrial fauna is limited to birds like the kiwi and the moa (according mainstream scientists, the last moa was extinct in the 18th century), and lizards like tuatara (Sphenodon. BTW, Blavatsky, in her mystical evolutionism, argued that Lemurian mankind would had a third eye and based her explanation, among other facts, in the fact that tuatara has too. But its third eye is only a protuberance from pineal gland, which respond to the light, also in Humans). Thus, there would have be disparities between West and Maori chronologies also.


  2. fabio says:

    Sorry, I would like to make also this post-scriptum: I have not conditions to argue pro or against the phantom years theory, although if I am also graduated in History , since it is a very complex question. However, deceased Brazilian journalist and archaeologist Aurelio de Abreu, one of the most pundit persons I knew, always defended the existence of the “megalithic sailors” culture, which began with Sea People invasion in 1200 BC and spread to Atlantic, Pacific, etc, based on Thor Heyerdahl, Jurgen Spannuth, etc. But I asked him once: why megalithic cultures of Gambia, Tonga, the Guyanas region (Betty Meggers found them in the north side of Amazon mouth), which have dolmens and menhirs, are dated as being so recent (13 to 15th century CE) ? Would have survived these sailors like phantoms along two millennia or would have been the years the phantoms ? I had no answer.


    • Fabio,

      At present I am fence sitting on the phantom years problem – Heinsohn has identified something significant but no one seems to be following up his thesis geologically since the anthropological factor is, to geology, irrelevant due to Lyell’s input.

      There had to be a pole shift at the Roman Terminus event, since even now no one can grow crops and grapes where the people in roman times could in europe and presumably greenland.

      I am wondering whether the belief during the medieval period of the earth being the centre of the system was then an accurate observation, but then this cannot be if Lyn Rose’s astronomical retrocalculations are accepted.

      But then why did Copernicus start disbelieving the sun orbiting the earth model? What changed in the heavens for this to be noticed?

      Also at this time the Ming Dynasty Chinese were sailing everywhere, and the impression I get was these journeys were to establish astronomical survey points around the Earth since the existing calendars were no longer working. So perhaps the story around the Gregorian replacing the Julian calandar in 1582 was purposefully made minor; I recall they also changed the start of the new year from 1 April to 1 January — why?

      So I am fence sitting until I get more data 🙂


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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