Historical Revision – The 1000 AD Climate Catastrophe

I’ve been following Gunnar Heinsohn’s research work ever since he discovered that ancient Middle East history was expanded by concatenating local histories serially resulting in exaggerated chronologies.  Heinsohn’s revisionism remains controversial but to date has also not been falsified.

Heinsohn’s methodology is strictly stratigraphical in so far that a past civilisation has to have stratigraphical evidence for its existence. On that basis Heinsohn proposed that the Sumerians were fictitious and were actually the Chaldeans whom the Romans knew about, but who did not know of the Sumerians.

More recently he has identified another fabrication of history, this time during the 1st millennium AD during which a climate catastrophe occurred ~ 950 AD from which we are the survivors. That catastrophe more or less wiped out the Roman Empire, and again, history was fabricated by concatenating local histories into a serial chronology expanding history by some 700 years. Again stratigraphy plays the dominant role in the reconstruction methodology; nowhere are there stratigraphic columns showing all of the interpreted civilisations and human habitation for the period in one place. In some places 10th AD strata overly Roman strata, then elsewhere 500 year strata overly Roman, or 950 strata overly Roman strata. Geologically this is similar to lateral facies change in a sedimentary stratum in which widely disparate sedimentary environments hosting different species of marine or water life are in reality existing at the same time.

The catastrophe of ~ 950AD could have been the Comet of Justinian, but erroneously placed at the 6th century AD.

One suspects that the survivors of this event, and who also documented the events of those times, were the literate monks and clergy of the Roman Church, and would have logically assumed that this latest catastrophe was the one foreseen in scripture and hence would have been the millennium; hence the logical assumption that they were at the end of the millennium, and so had a reference date, 1000 AD, from which they then fabricated the rest of the chronology to explain the remnants of the Roman period that indicated a time of ~ 250 AD etc.

This is a rather controversial revision of recent history but the stratigraphy offers no alternative explanation.

What this revision does do, however, is demolish the assumed chronology from which geological dating is derived, and hence the basis of scientific retro-calculation based on the assumption that the present is the key to the past.

The climate catastrophe that ended the 1st Millennium appears to have been global since there is good evidence that the Mayan civilisation collapsed at the time, but what is even more startling is the implication of the Piri Reis map that shows the Antarctic without ice.

Antartica no ice

If this map is dated to 1000AD and that the antarctic ice cap dates from that time, then we might have history very, very misunderstood.

For a start it means the historical climate reconstructions might seriously in error, if not entirely fictional as presently asserted. If Antarctica was ice free circa 1000AD, then the dating assumptions and ice stratigraphy becomes problematical, especially for historical reconstructions of climate.

One reason for this can be traced to the political machinations of the English Whigs during late 18th and early 19th centuries following on from the French Revolution and discussed by George Grinnell in his “The Origins of Modern Geological Theory” when Sir Charles Lyell published his ‘Principles of Geology’ that then formed the basis of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and both of which theories then informed Karl Marx and F. Engels and the political revolution they created.

Unlike Heinsohn, Charles Lyell ignored the stratigraphical evidence and cherry-picked his facts to fit his political inclination and goal, that of unseating the Tories from government in Britain; he succeeded much as his successors, the socialists of today, have succeeded with their climate-change meme, for they and he are from the same political bloodstock.

Science and politics mixing it together? Oh yes, and adad religion as well since our religious beliefs actually moderate our scientific beliefs; after all no devout Christian could contemplate an uncreated universe, and hence the restrictions imposed by the idea of absolute time.

Suffice it to say that it seems likely that the 1000 AD climate event terminated the Roman Period, formed the basis of the Australian aboriginal dreamtime and other native people’s creation myths, and geologically may have been marked by the Pleistocene extinction event since roman aqueducts appear to have been buried by early Holocene or late Pleistocene sediments near Cologne in Germany.

There are rather interesting times.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. Trained by Western Mining Corporation and polished by De Beers.
This entry was posted in Catastrophism, Climate Change. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Historical Revision – The 1000 AD Climate Catastrophe

  1. fabio says:

    You are geologist so you know that :
    1-Themap fame was spread by Hapgood who is ufologist
    2- Piri Reis nap are not precise. Look at Patagonia linked to Antarctic.
    3- We don’t know if it’s Antarctic: it could be only a supposition based on the classic antipodal theory from ancient Greece.
    4- Even if it was Antarctic, if you remove the ice cap automatically it will happen land uplift by isostatics then the coast side will not change so much in a few detailed map like that


  2. The Piri Reis map is still data, and whether Hapgood was a “ufo-oligist” is unimportant.

    We don’t know what Antarctica would look like if there was no ice present, so removing it is not important.

    The important points are:

    1. Is the map “kosher” ?
    2. If so and it is Antarctica, and it’s provisionally dated to pre date of discovery in the Turkish museum and hence at minimum 1st millennium AD, then
    3. Antarctica was free during the 1st millennium AD.

    If 3 is correct then this causes many problems for our understanding of geological history.


  3. richard says:

    History: Fiction or Science?` is the most explosive tractate on history ever written – however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by solid scientific data.

    The book is well-illustrated, contains over 446 graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays, which never c


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s