Historical Events Database - History

[Myeong In]

I also try to sort out the phantom history. Before looking into histographies, archeology may give some good insight about what happened. Thank for people mentioning Gunnar Heinsohn. He makes some good observation.

To summarize Gunnar Heinsohn's argument:

-Archaeological sites of 1st millennium in Europe and Mediterranean usually only consist around 300 years strata. That means there is only 300 years of building history in 1st millennium. Usually, sites are said to belong to either one periods, the Imperial Roman Period (1st- 3rd century), Late Antique (4th to 6th century) or early middle ages (7th to 9th century). No site consists of more than one period.

-All the sites are few meters deep down in the ground. From Mediterranean to Baltic, it is not uncommon to see that ancient ports are few meters away from the coast.

- Below the 300 years strata is the strata of Hellenistic strata or iron age. The medieval strata (10th century) usually can be found above the 300 years strata with a layer of black earth in between.


- By examining the artifact and architecture, Gunnar Heinsohn notices that style seems that is not changing for 700 years, or in his wording culture standstill for 700 years. The early middle ages buildings from 7th to 9th century usually are praised by scholars to have antique (1st/2nd century) appearance. The Arabs are reported culturally retarded, ie no coins or writing after 1st century and before the rise of Islam despite their frequent contact with Roman or Persian. Similar happened to Polish where 700 years of archeological strata in Poland is missing and their culture doesn't change much and follow the iron age style for 700 years in 8th/9th century.

- It seems to have not enough archeological evident to show the existing of Saxon in post roman Britain.

The impression of extreme poverty under which Anglo-Saxons must have suffered in post-Roman Britain does not only afflict commoners. Their rulers, too, are exposed to dire straits. Since their palaces cannot be found, their courts are conceptualized as transportable, itinerant settings that were erected in the wilderness to impress their homeless subjects, who braced themselves for royal decrees when their Saxon lords showed up:

“The history of the Anglo-Saxon court is largely lost and unknown” (Campbell 2003, 155). / “The Anglo-Saxons, from homelands [in Germany] where the necessary materials scarcely existed, probably had no tradition of building in stone”(English Heritage 2017). “Attempts to demonstrate conclusively significant continuity in specific urban or rural sites have runafoul of the near archaeological invisibility of post-Roman British society” (Jones, 1998, 23).​

One may assume that poor peasants lived in caves or straw huts, whereas the nobility survived in perishable tents that left no tracesarchaeologists could discover. Still, the Saxons would need to eat. Therefore, at least agriculture (90 percent of the economy withlots of hardware) should have left detectable remains. Yet, researchers are stunned by the same enigmatic absence of evidence:

“Whatever the discussion about the plough in Roman Britain, at least it is a discussion based on surviving models and partsof ploughs, whereas virtually no such evidence exists for the Period A.D. 500-900 in England. […] In contrast to the field system of the 500 years or so on either side of the beginning of our era, little evidence has survived in the ground for the next half millennium (Fowler 2002, 28).​

The surprises do not end there because nobody can understand why the Saxons conquering post-Roman Britain did not simply takeover the superbly located Roman settlements and fields: “The Saxons tended to avoid Roman sites possibly because they used different farming methods“ (Southern 2013, 361).

Such an assumption begs the question of why the alternative agricultural technologies left no traces either. Moreover, dozens of plants cultivated during the Roman period did not only become rarer but disappeared entirely:

“[We] learn from Prof. Fleming [2016] that Roman conquerors introduced many — perhaps as many as 50 — new and valuable food plants and animals (such as the donkey) to its province of Britannia, where these crops were successfully cultivated for some 300 years. Among the foodstuffs that Roman civilization brought to Britain are walnuts, carrots, broad beans, grapes, beets, cabbage, leeks, turnips, parsnips, cucumbers, cherries, plums, peaches, almonds, chestnuts, pears, lettuce, celery, white mustard, mint, einkorn, millet, and many more. These valuable plants took root in Britain and so did Roman horticulture. British gardens produced a bounty of tasty and nourishing foods. […] Following the collapse of Roman rule after400 AD, almost all of these food plants vanished from Britain, as did Roman horticulture itself. Post-Roman Britons […]suddenly went from gardening to foraging. Even Roman water mills vanished from British streams. But similar mills came back in large numbers in the 10th and 11th centuries, along with Roman food plants and farming techniques” [Whelton 2016].​

The events that led to the mysterious extinction of plants also caused the devastation of Roman cities like, e.g., Durovernum Cantiacorum (Canterbury of the Middle Ages). Researchers are at a loss to explain why Germanic invaders would rather live in the woods or in caves under constant threat from savage beasts rather than make themselves comfortable in existing Roman structures well shielded by massive walls.



-Campbell, J. (2003), „Anglo-Saxon Courts”, in Cubitt, C., Hg., Court Culture in the Early Middle Ages: The Proceedings of the First Alcuin Conference, Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 155-169
-English Heritage (2017), Story of England. Dark Ages: c 410-1066; English Heritage
-Fleming, R. (2016), “Vanishing Plants, Animals, and Places: Britain’s Transformation from Roman to Medieval”, lecture at Fordham’s Center forMedieval Studies and the New York Botanical Garden, Humanities Institute, Mertz Library, New York Botanical Garden, 30 September 2016
-Fowler, P.J. (2002), Farming in the First Millennium A.D.: British Agriculture Between Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror, Cambridge/UK: Cambridge University Press
-Jones, M.E. (1998), The End of Roman Britain, Ithaca/NY: Cornell University Press
-Southern, P. (2013), Roman Britain: A New History 55 BC-AD 450, The Hill, Stroud; Gloucestershire: Amberley Publishing
-Whelton, C. (2016), “A Canterbury Tale by Saucy Chaucer“; A Canterbury Tale by Saucy Chaucer

-The Justinian Digestae also shows strange phenomena.

Justinian expressly promised the Romans that he would always keep their laws and comments up to date. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the last commentator died 340 years before Justinian: “There remains the fact that between the writing of the classical works, mostly before about AD 230, and the compilation of the Digestae in the AD 530s three centuries intervened” (Crook 1967, Law and Life in Rome, Ithaca/NY: Cornell University Press, page14). Justinian’s Digestae are dated to Late Antiquity (6th century). Yet, the most important legal commentators quoted in the Digestae belonged to the time of the Severan emperors of Imperial Antiquity (2nd/3rd century). Justinian himself wrote the Latin of the 2nd/3rd century of these commentators. His Greek subjects got a readable version – strangely still using Koine Greek of the 2nd/3rd c.– only in the Early Middle Ages (Basilika; 9th/10th century). All these oddities give the impression as if the three epochs [ie: Imperial Antiquity, Late Antiquity, Early Middle Age] existed side by side at the same time. Yet, such a statement would sound bizarre or worse.

Therefore Gunnar Heinsohn proposed that the 1st millennium only consists of roughly 300 years and follows a big catastrophe in 10th century that start the medieval period.

The 10th century collapse is not only confirmed by destructions of human habitats. Extreme natural phenomena are recorded, too. The earth’s history of ALLUVIATION is divided in two main periods of deposition. The first belongs to the shift from the late Pleistocene to the early Holocene. The second one is global, too. In territories that once belonged to the Roman Empire it directly buried artifacts of Roman culture:

“Throughout the Mediterranean Basin, the Levant, Iran, and southeast Arabia, many valleys display two alluvial fills of which the older dates from about 30,000-10,000 yr BP and the younger from about A.D. 400-1850. […] The younger fill is well sorted and stratified and, as in Mexico, displays silt-clay depletion as well as iron loss when compared with the older fill deposits from which it is often derived. […]. The YOUNGER FILL is seen in many widely separated areas to cover structures of Roman age as the period of deposition extended into Byzantine and even medieval times. […] The sections in W. Libya are typical in showing the younger fill deposits in channels eroded into the earlier fill. In most areas, the surface of the older fill was the usable land in Roman times. Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and medieval sherds are found in the younger fill, which also covers entire cities, notably, Olympia in Greece.”. ( L.B. Leopold, C. Vita-Finzi, “Valley Changes in the Mediterranean and America and Their Effects on Humans”, in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 142, no- 1 (March), 1-17/11)​

IMO, cutting 700 years is too much. It doesn't have enough time for some events to develop. But the one big catastrophe conclusion before 10th century makes sense if we consider the information given by C that
1) Caesar born in 379 AD (the corrected version)
2) Justinian is the last Roman Emperor
3) The reason for lacking 1054 supernova record in Europe is loss of civilized structure due to overhead cometary explosion in 564 AD. (The year indicates that it is related to Justinian)
4) Refugees from Northwestern Europe following cataclysms excavated the underground cities at Derinkuyu and Kaymakli in Anatolia.

After the Europe is burnt and it gives rise to the black earth deposit which buries the roman world and that become the new ground of medieval people.

In the case of Rome according to Gunnar Heinsohn

A no less fatal fall at such an incredibly late date is confirmed for ROME, too. Though one would expect traces of the fall-out of the Crisis of the Third Century or of the fall of Eastern Rome in the 6th century, there is hard evidence only for a devastating cataclysm the 10th century:

"The eleventh century marked another turning-point in Rome's urban history. Excavations have revealed that this period [of the beginning of the High Middle Ages; GH] is characterized, in all strata, by a significant rise in paving levels, and the consequent obliteration of many structures and ancient ruins. [...]It is mostly the building types that change radically. For the first time [i.e., not already in the 3rd or 6th c.] we find a typical medieval urban fabric: houses of brick or masonry, and often with two stories, built side-by-side along the thoroughfares. Even more radical is the change in the type of building occupied by the wealthier classes: the increasing conflict within the nobility led to the militarization of the urban landscape, most evident in the spread of fortified complexes dominated by towers, in which the nobles resided. [...]An English pilgrim, Magister Gregorius, who visited Rome at the end of the twelfth or at the beginning of the thirteenth century, when first setting eyes on the city from the surrounding hills, compared the towers to ears of wheat, 'so many that none can count them'." (R. Santangeli Valenzani, “Box 4.2 Rome"; in James Graham-Campbell, M. Valor, The Archaeology of Medieval Europe. Vol. 1: The Eighth to Twelfth Centuries AD, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2013; 130-133/133; )​

In the case of London according to Gunnar Heinsohn

“Many [British] building sequences appear to terminate in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. […] The latest Roman levels are sealed by deposits of dark coloured loam, commonly called the ‘dark earth’ (formerly ‘black earth’). In the London area the ‘dark earth’ generally appears as a dark grey, rather silty loam with various inclusions, especially building material. The deposit is usually without stratification and homogeneous in appearance, It can be one meter or more in thickness. […] The evidence suggests that truncation of late Roman stratification is linked to the process of ‘dark earth’ formation“ (Yule, B. (1990), „The ‘dark earth’ and Late Roman London”, in Antiquity: A Review of World Archaeology, Bd. 64, Nr. 244, September, 620-628).

“Parts [of Londinium] were already covered by a horizon of dark silts (often described as `dark earth'). Land was converted to arable and pastoral use or abandoned entirely. The dark earth may have started forming in the 3rd century” (Schofield, J. (1999), “Saxon London in a tale of two cities”, British Archaeology, No. 44 [May]).

The problem is that how can we make sense of all the histographies about 6th to 10th century. I think some did cover the period but because of the dating system and the confusion of language or mistakes, when after the catastrophe people recollected stories and records and turn them into a coherent narrative, it becomes a mess where archeological evident sometimes doesn't fit.

 

[Jtucker]

I also try to sort out the phantom history. Before looking into histographies, archeology may give some good insight about what happened. Thank for people mentioning Gunnar Heinsohn. He makes some good observation.

To summarize Gunnar Heinsohn's argument:

-Archaeological sites of 1st millennium in Europe and Mediterranean usually only consist around 300 years strata. That means there is only 300 years of building history in 1st millennium. Usually, sites are said to belong to either one periods, the Imperial Roman Period (1st- 3rd century), Late Antique (4th to 6th century) or early middle ages (7th to 9th century). No site consists of more than one period.

-All the sites are few meters deep down in the ground. From Mediterranean to Baltic, it is not uncommon to see that ancient ports are few meters away from the coast.

- Below the 300 years strata is the strata of Hellenistic strata or iron age. The medieval strata (10th century) usually can be found above the 300 years strata with a layer of black earth in between.
View attachment 94944

- By examining the artifact and architecture, Gunnar Heinsohn notices that style seems that is not changing for 700 years, or in his wording culture standstill for 700 years. The early middle ages buildings from 7th to 9th century usually are praised by scholars to have antique (1st/2nd century) appearance. The Arabs are reported culturally retarded, ie no coins or writing after 1st century and before the rise of Islam despite their frequent contact with Roman or Persian. Similar happened to Polish where 700 years of archeological strata in Poland is missing and their culture doesn't change much and follow the iron age style for 700 years in 8th/9th century.

- It seems to have not enough archeological evident to show the existing of Saxon in post roman Britain.


-The Justinian Digestae also shows strange phenomena.


Therefore Gunnar Heinsohn proposed that the 1st millennium only consists of roughly 300 years and follows a big catastrophe in 10th century that start the medieval period.


IMO, cutting 700 years is too much. It doesn't have enough time for some events to develop. But the one big catastrophe conclusion before 10th century makes sense if we consider the information given by C that
1) Caesar born in 379 AD (the corrected version)
2) Justinian is the last Roman Emperor
3) The reason for lacking 1054 supernova record in Europe is loss of civilized structure due to overhead cometary explosion in 564 AD. (The year indicates that it is related to Justinian)
4) Refugees from Northwestern Europe following cataclysms excavated the underground cities at Derinkuyu and Kaymakli in Anatolia.

After the Europe is burnt and it gives rise to the black earth deposit which buries the roman world and that become the new ground of medieval people.

In the case of Rome according to Gunnar Heinsohn

In the case of London according to Gunnar Heinsohn


The problem is that how can we make sense of all the histographies about 6th to 10th century. I think some did cover the period but because of the dating system and the confusion of language or mistakes, when after the catastrophe people recollected stories and records and turn them into a coherent narrative, it becomes a mess where archeological evident sometimes doesn't fit.

@Myeong In thanks for the summary on some of Heinsohn's most compelling arguments.

IMO, cutting 700 years is too much. It doesn't have enough time for some events to develop. But the one big catastrophe conclusion before 10th century makes sense if we consider the information given by C that
1) Caesar born in 379 AD (the corrected version)
2) Justinian is the last Roman Emperor
3) The reason for lacking 1054 supernova record in Europe is loss of civilized structure due to overhead cometary explosion in 564 AD. (The year indicates that it is related to Justinian)
4) Refugees from Northwestern Europe following cataclysms excavated the underground cities at Derinkuyu and Kaymakli in Anatolia.

After the Europe is burnt and it gives rise to the black earth deposit which buries the roman world and that become the new ground of medieval people.

I think your above summation is possibly very close. As you mentioned. Heinsohn is thinking along the lines of Supernova and didn't suspect an overhead cometary explosion or explosions that sets off earthquakes, volcanoes and plagues. Also as it's hard to really grasp just how catastrophic the destruction was and how it may have affected a long-term psychological and technological trauma on the survivors. Avoiding Roman ruins or past settlements would make sense - I would imagine they would be perceived if as cursed and possibly the cause of the catastrophe (which may have been more accurate than not).

4) Refugees from Northwestern Europe following cataclysms excavated the underground cities at Derinkuyu and Kaymakli in Anatolia.

I would agree that these underground cities would have been used as refuge from the cataclysm, but more likely for survivors from the eastern part of the empire due to proximity. As for Brittania and much of western Europe, Heinsohn answers the most likely below:

"One may assume that poor peasants lived in caves or straw huts, whereas the nobility survived in perishable tents that left no traces archaeologists could discover. Still, the Saxons would need to eat. Therefore, at least agriculture (90 percent of the economy with lots of hardware) should have left detectable remains. Yet, researchers are stunned by the same enigmatic absence of evidence"

Most evidence points to the Saxons migrating to an abandoned eastern Britain. And the technological level and quality of life for the Dark Age survivors being very low. It's possible that the after effects of the catastrophe lingered for many decades and these small bands of "barbarians" had flee regularly due to some new threat. The whole period seems environmentally unstable.

Below is an excerpt from a 8th or 9th century Old English poem, entitled "The Ruin". Clearly the Saxon writer has little or no knowledge directly handed down from the ancient world, which by his description is long gone. The Roman ruin in Britain doesn't even have a remembered name.

This masonry is wondrous; fates broke it
courtyard pavements were smashed; the work of giants is decaying.
Roofs are fallen, ruinous towers,
the frosty gate with frost on cement is ravaged,
chipped roofs are torn, fallen,
undermined by old age. The grasp of the earth possesses
the mighty builders, perished and fallen,
the hard grasp of earth, until a hundred generations
of people have departed. Often this wall,
lichen-grey and stained with red, experienced one reign after another,
remained standing under storms; the high wide gate has collapsed.