Lesenswert!
Trevor Palmer gibt auf der Homepage des kürzlich verstorbenen Alfred de Grazia eine wunderbare Übersicht über die aus unserer Sicht "z.T. erfundene Zeit".
www.q-mag.org/trevor-palmer-challenges-g...latest.html#BWhIdyBu
Hier die aktuellen Texte von Gunnar Heinsohn auf der gleichen Homepage:
www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohns-latest.html
"1.1 Introduction
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. He has pointed out that Elagabalus, who died around AD 222, was the last Roman emperor to have constructed a new building on Palatine Hill. Furthermore, the last emperor to have been buried in Rome was Caracalla in AD 218, which was supposedly 258 years before the end of the empire in western Europe. Heinsohn noted that remains of the Theatre of Balbus had been found under a layer of mud around 10 metres thick on the Campus Martius in Rome,
and suggested that this widespread mud layer could be evidence of a tsunami which wiped out imperial Rome, going on to draw attention to archaeological evidence from other countries, including Britain, which indicated catastrophic destructions of Roman cities. He suggested that this major catastrophic event during the 230s was the same as another which had supposedly occurred 300 years later, during the 530s. He went on to propose that the emperors who had reigned in Rome from AD 1 to AD 230 were in fact contemporaries of emperors who had reigned in the east, supposedly from AD 290 to AD 520. So, for example, Augustus was a contemporary of Diocletian, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius of Constantine the Great, Vespasian of Julian, Nerva of Theodosius I, Hadrian of Theodosius II, Marcus Aurelius of Marcian, Septimius Severus of Zeno and Caracalla, Elagabalus and Alexander Severus of Anastasius. In this scenario, the years between AD 230 and AD 290 were chaotic ones, marking the beginning of the Medieval period See here."
Palmers letzter Satz:
"The inevitable conclusion seems to be that, if the Heinsohn model is correct,
there must have been a conspiracy of forgery on a gigantic scale. Is there any other possible explanation? And yet, for the reasons indicated above, the conspiratorial theory is highly unlikely. Whatever plausible aspects there may be to the archaeological, architectural or other evidence, this theory seems unlikely to make much progress unless a convincing explanation can be given for its incompatibility with the current historical evidence."
Und genau hier irrt er!
Welche conspiracy of forgery on a gigantic scale meint er denn?
Es sind keine 20 Autoren, die die Originalquellen für unsere Geschichtsschreibung hergeben sollen und genau diese, so Palmer einige Absätze zuvor, wurden auch noch ständig kopiert, d.h. auch diese Originale fehlen weitestgehend oder vermutlich alle:
"To summarise, there is a high degree of consistency in the information provided by different sources. To some extent, that can be attributed to an author taking material from an earlier source. However, during each century, contemporary events were being recorded by a number of authors,
often in widely separated regions (which would have made collaboration between them impossible), (
wahrlich lächerlich schwierig im römische Reich, Tuisto)yet their accounts are generally consistent with each other, (
logisch, gleiche Matrix) and with other sources such as letters and charters.
Of course, most documents which have survived to the present day have been copied from earlier versions that have subsequently been lost due to human activity or natural decay. (
Klar doch, was sonst?)
In some cases, there may have been several cycles of copying between the original and the version which has survived, each one opening up the possibility of the occurrence of accidental scribal errors or deliberate modifications. Again, because of the general consistency of the accounts that have reached us, a scribal error in a single source can stand out very clearly."
Man staunt, wie jemand so etwas schreiben kann und den Conclusions-Stuß nicht bemerkt, den er daraus zieht.
Ich schreibe gemäß vereinbarter Matrix eine Story bis zum Jahr X, mein Freund in Schottland fährt fort bis zum Jahr Y, dessen Freund (den ich natürlich auch kenne, obwohl er Jahrzehnte oder Jahrhunderte nach mir lebt)in irgendeinem Nest in Spanien fährt mit Z fort und übergibt die Fackel an seinen Freund in Byzanz, der wieder einen in Dalmatien kennt usw.
So oder so: Man benötigte wahrscheinlich keine 20 sogenannte Originalautoren (ad Fontes), bis unsere Geschichte stand.
Es ist an der Zeit, dass wir genau prüfen, wieviel dieser Originalautoren für die 2000 Jahre von -500 bis +1500 XK überhaupt relevant sind. Und damit meine ich keinesfalls jene Pseudos, die aus deren angeblich untergegangener Literatur zitiert werden, sondern nur jene, von denen angeblich noch etwas Originales in Abschriften existiert.