A New Chronology for Britain

welkyn

Active member
Messages
37
Reactions
131
(Edit: accidentally posted this before finishing it, will remove this line when it's done)

Just wanted to get this thread up, since I've been thinking about this sort of thing for a while.

Basically, given what we know via Fomenko et al about the paucity of corroborating evidence for the Scaligerian chronology, a lot of fundamental facets of established British history come into question. Given the influence that Britain has supposedly had on the world over the past 3-400 years (or however long it actually was), I thought it might be interesting to look at alternative possible chronologies, to see if we can get an idea of how this island came to be so influential, and who was actually behind that influence.

I thought this might be of interest to our American, Canadian, and Australian members as well, given the cultural ties between Britain and the "Commonwealth"/former Commonwealth nations.

"Roman" conquest of Britain?

My current thoughts are as follows: what passes for "ancient history", by and large (e.g. the sagas of Rome and Greece), is clearly not as ancient as we are taught to believe. It seems to me that a lot of what is passed off as "ancient Roman" is probably from the period that we think of as the Middle Ages, perhaps originating slightly earlier (i.e. the "Feudal period").

"Ancient Greek" remains would likely be the earlier strata of later Byzantine society (the Eastern Empire). It is quite possible that Greece conquered Rome - not the other way around - thence the proliferation of "Greek" culture, architecture, social structure etc. throughout the Italian peninsula.

While I appreciate Fomenko's work on deconstructing the old chronology, I don't quite understand his methodology in constructing his new chronology, and can only comment on it so far as to say that I don't necessarily believe it, though some of his suggestions are quite compelling. I'd like to see what he could do if he took folklore and mythology into account, since a lot of work has been done in recent decades to show the similarities between legendary accounts and real-world events deduced from archaeology and archaeogenetics.


Julius Caesar's failed invasion

Regardless, the fact remains that the ancient history we've received is likely bunkum. On the one hand, this presents some problems as far as British history is concerned, since we were supposedly conquered by the Romans about 1,900 years ago, ditched as a useless backwater some 400 years later, and subsequently re-conquered by a suspiciously similarly named bunch of bastards after a 500 year "dark age", during which the bulk of the supposed written record - scant as it is - is cooked up by Catholic priests, i.e. the Vatican did it. Convenient.

Normans 2.jpg

Norman Warriors and Aristocracy

I'm sure it's not lost on any of us that the names "Roman" and "Norman" are curiously similar. Equally, the support of the Catholic Church for the Norman aggression suggests some kind of relationship between the two. Just as Rome was the vehicle for the spread of "early Christianity" in the supposed "ancient period", so too was Norman rule the vehicle for the consolidation of Papal power in medieval Britain. The English, as well as the Scots, Welsh, and Irish, nominally had their own kind of Catholicism going on beforehand, though they are maintained to have paid homage to the Pope - supposedly - but the fact remains that there were ongoing arguments between the English and Celtic churches on the one side, and the Roman church on the other, up into the 11th century (this is still according to the old chronology, which may be completely worthless on the dating front).

Anyway, my suggestion is that the "Normans" are nothing more than the "Romans". Both represent the increasing power of the Vatican - the latter were simply backdated some 1,000 years to better establish the "authenticity" of the Roman church. The pattern of Papal conquest in Europe is oddly similar to the pattern of Roman conquest of Europe, albeit with some few interesting deviations. France was the first to go; then Spain; then Britain. Rome supposedly never conquered Germany - at least, not in any long-lasting way - so the matter of the "Holy Roman Empire" is rather intriguing, to say the least. It may be that there was some trickery going on regarding the "Gothic conquest" of Rome, and that this sequence of events has actually been turned on its head - alternatively, the Hunnic/Gothic aggression against Rome may well be the early forays of the Tartarian nations against the growing Empire in the south.

Holy Roman Empire 1.jpgHoly Roman Empire 2.jpgAttila the Hun with Gothic Warriors.jpg
The Holy Roman Empire over 500 years; Attila and his Gothic warriors

Leaving all that aside for the moment, the Frankish conquest in Gaul, followed by the Norman conquest in Britain, bears a notable resemblance to Caesar's Gallic Wars, followed promptly as they were by Augustus's invasion of Britain. We even have the near-exact 1,000 year time period between Augustus's landing on southern English shores, and the Battle of Hastings between Harold and William the Bastard in the same area. If we're looking for "event sequences shifted back in time", then it seems plain to me that the Roman conquest of Britain is actually the Norman conquest of Britain.

I'll have to look more deeply into what we know of both periods to see if I can draw more parallels, but off the top of my head, two of the more well-known resistance movements against Norman invasion mirror British rebellions against Roman rule of about 1,000 years beforehand (the Iceni match Hereward the Wake in East Anglia, Caradog ap Cunobelin matches Eadric the Wild in the West Midlands). It's well known that the Roman invasion forced many Britons north, eventually into Scotland; the "harrying of the north" undertaken by William the Conkhead and his sons similarly forced many Angles into Northumbria and lowland Scotland, where they remain to this day.

Iceni Revolt.jpgHereward the Wake.jpgCaradog meets Caesar.jpgEadric the Wild Captured by Normans.jpgThe Harrying of the North.jpg
L-R: Boudicca leads the Iceni against Rome; Hereward the Wake leads the Anglians against the Normans; Caradog meets Caesar after being captured; Eadric the Wild is interrogated by Normans after being captured; the Harrying of the North

After the initial invasion, the Normans - at least as far as the established chronology goes - increasingly overtook the island, dispossessed most of the native nobles (as the Romans had supposedly done a thousand years before), and ushered in a new set of "Pope-approved" bishops, cardinals, and priests from various provinces in the Catholic Empire, to clear up the mess left behind by the local, culturally loyal bishops/cardinals/priests of England and the Celtic countries.

Until the beginning of the (Welsh?) Tudor dynasty some 400 years later, Norman or Norman-derived families ruled the lands, and Catholic priests received the bulk of the wealth through the churches. Indeed, even during and after the Tudor period, most positions of power were still inherited by Norman individuals. The one major change which supposedly occurred during the Tudor period was the split from Rome - that is, the creation of the Anglican Church, and the investiture of the mantle of "Defender of the Faith" upon the monarch (i.e. the Pope in England). What the significance of this supposed split might be in a new chronology, I don't know. I wonder to what degree the "discovery" of the Americas played a part in this game-change, but some curious things begin to happen following the accession of the Catholic Stuarts to the monarchy of Great Britain.

Henry Tudor - First Defender of the Faith.jpgEdward VI - Second Defender of the Faith.jpgElizabeth I - Third Defender of the Faith.jpgJames VI and I of Scotland and England - the first Catholic Defender of the Faith.png
Defenders of the Faith - Protestant, Protestant, Protestant... Catholic?

One of the things which might not be too well known outside of certain circles, is that the British political scene was steadily infiltrated by Venetian merchants and aristocrats during the 17th and 18th centuries. The creation of the first banks, the development of "Enlightenment" philosophy, the separation of church from state, the development of the secular/scientific outlook, and the Industrial Revolution that resulted from all of this, were all heavily influenced by the machinations of Venetian politicians and merchants, increasingly embedded in the British court and Parliament. Nominally this was all under the auspices of the Anglican church, but I'm willing to bet there are some interesting connections between the Venetian element and the Vatican.

Venetian Doge (interesting hat).jpg
A Venetian Doge - nice hat

Of course, it was during this period that a lot of English, Irish, Welsh and Scots emigrated from Britain to the Americas, bringing with them a libertarian, grass-roots church and a distinct "f**k you" attitude to the crown and the institutions of the homeland (i.e. the Norman nobles who still pretty much ran the joint, along with their Venetian comrades). And, during this period, the War of Independence was fought - which the British somehow lost, despite apparently having one of the most imposing Empires the world had ever seen (again, much room for discussion here, but the idea that it "simply wasn't worth" the British establishment's time to keep hold of America doesn't bear up to scrutiny when economics and demographics are brought into the picture - I suspect a sneaky switcheroo somewhere). I could bring the East India Trading Company and the Dutch East/West India Companies into the picture, but it begins to get a bit convoluted. Conventional recent history is not my strong point.

Dutch East India Vessel.jpgEast india Company Soldiers.jpgEast India Merchants.jpgdutch east india soldiers.jpg
Duch East India soldiers; Dutch East India Ship; British East India soldiers, and an East India Company meeting

east india company flag.gifdutch east india flag.gifdutch west india flag.png
East India Company and Dutch East/West India flags

early American flag.jpgAnother Early American Flag.gif
Early American flags

French Flag.jpgRussian Flag.gif
French and Russian flags

That about brings us up to the modern period. Of course, much of the above is "received history", i.e. history-as-they-want-us-to-know-it. I'm willing to bet that a lot of this is wrong, and that the real events were quite different. Still, a few key points crop up which do seem to be legitimate as far as our current state is concerned: namely, Britain was conquered, power was maintained by a minority of foreign individuals, the church effectively ran the show, and a foreign merchant class brought the small island nation to the state of Empire.

Now, the big question in my mind is: what was the draw? Why was it important for the Catholic church to gain power, through its various intermediaries, in what has variously been described as a backwater, barbaric, underdeveloped shithole of an island? And my immediate conclusion, of course, is that we were not so backwater as we have been made out to be.

Given some of what I've learned about "archaeogenetics" (i.e. broad population movements over long periods of time), a few curious things strike my eye: firstly, the Y-DNA haplogroups of Britain and Ireland (i.e. the paternal lines) almost all stem from what would eventually be known as Scythia, around the northern shores of the Black Sea. The rest are mostly descended from indigenous Scandinavians, who are also called "Scythians" (Jordanes mentions a southern and a northern Scythia, the latter being Scandinavia - thanks to Jim Duyer for that information).

Given what we know about the relationship between Tartaria and the Scythians, is it so far-fetched to consider that the assaults on France, Britain, Germany and so on were equally part of the wider take-down directed against a North Eurasian Empire - an Empire in culture, if not in political power? Could the war against Tartary actually originate in the centuries preceding what we call 1,000 AD? This would tie in with the Huns, Goths, and Avars leading successive campaigns against the Imperial state in Europe: if these groups constituted a "proto-Tartary", the conflict might have been going on for upwards of 500 years throughout all of western and northern Eurasia. Of course, the Mongols, Timurids, Golden Horde and so on would be brought into the occasion, though these may well be repeated versions of Attila and his Turkic warriors attacking Rome. Regardless, the image of a broadly east-versus-west, north-versus-south situation seems to be legitimate.

As for the nature of the "Scythian" Empire, there's a remarkably consistent picture of the "pre-civilised" world of the northern hemisphere: what are taken to be Native American traditions fit nicely with Siberian and central Asian traditions, which fit nicely with eastern European traditions, which fit well with northern, western, and central European traditions up until the point of Imperial conquest (whether that's Rome or the Vatican is besides the point here). When we think of Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Turkic, Tartar, Mongol, and Native American cultures, we're thinking of geographically distinct variations on a common theme, which seems to revolve around the centrality of nature, a marked code of honour, reverence of ancestors and natural powers, and a drive towards "harmony". The religion of the Indo-Europeans matches closely with the Tengrism practiced by Turkic and Mongolic peoples of the east, which in turn resonates with the religious traditions of the Plains Indians and other North American natives.

My current working theory is that "Hyperborean culture" spread equally throughout the northern hemisphere, influencing all of the peoples of the north - be they European, Siberian, or American. This influence in turn trickled down to the south, where it met and mixed with another factor - the nature of which I'm not fully sure of - which resulted in the formation of what we think of as the Egyptian-Sumerian-Babylonian matrix, which, at least according to the consensus chronology, served as the "font of civilisation".

Everyone from the Greeks through the Phoenicians to the Arabs to the Indians apparently owes some kind of debt to Mesopotamia (though this is increasingly undermined in various archaeological circles) - meanwhile, the great steps forward taken by northern cultures in terms of animal husbandry, long-term survive/thrive strategies (permaculture), and religious/spiritual development, seem to get ignored or purposefully hushed up/ridiculed/distorted.
 
Last edited:

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
494
Reactions
1,337
Have a listen to this chap if you haven't already. there appears to have been two...well i'll not spoil it by revealing the content before watching.
i downloaded his website before it went away so will post stuff it contained as it throws a remarkable 'light' on what we are force fed.
 

CyborgNinja

Well-known member
Messages
240
Reactions
1,009
seems plain to me that the Roman conquest of Britain is actually the Norman conquest of Britain.
So many good points made in this article. This parallel you make here is excellent. Classic Fomenko technique here.

I do agree however that formenkos reconstruction of history is haphazard. He often makes claims with little to no supporting evidence. I'm sure he had a reason but he never shares it with the reader.

As for backwater nations. Strategically speaking the Isle of Briton is a perfect fall back position for a fleeing people. England was a refuge for our ancestors.

Really good article. Looking forward to more of your work.
 

tupperaware

Well-known member
Messages
194
Reactions
503
(Edit: accidentally posted this before finishing it, will remove this line when it's done)

Just wanted to get this thread up, since I've been thinking about this sort of thing for a while.

Basically, given what we know via Fomenko et al about the paucity of corroborating evidence for the Scaligerian chronology, a lot of fundamental facets of established British history come into question. Given the influence that Britain has supposedly had on the world over the past 3-400 years (or however long it actually was), I thought it might be interesting to look at alternative possible chronologies, to see if we can get an idea of how this island came to be so influential, and who was actually behind that influence.

I thought this might be of interest to our American, Canadian, and Australian members as well, given the cultural ties between Britain and the "Commonwealth"/former Commonwealth nations.

"Roman" conquest of Britain?

My current thoughts are as follows: what passes for "ancient history", by and large (e.g. the sagas of Rome and Greece), is clearly not as ancient as we are taught to believe. It seems to me that a lot of what is passed off as "ancient Roman" is probably from the period that we think of as the Middle Ages, perhaps originating slightly earlier (i.e. the "Feudal period").

"Ancient Greek" remains would likely be the earlier strata of later Byzantine society (the Eastern Empire). It is quite possible that Greece conquered Rome - not the other way around - thence the proliferation of "Greek" culture, architecture, social structure etc. throughout the Italian peninsula.

While I appreciate Fomenko's work on deconstructing the old chronology, I don't quite understand his methodology in constructing his new chronology, and can only comment on it so far as to say that I don't necessarily believe it, though some of his suggestions are quite compelling. I'd like to see what he could do if he took folklore and mythology into account, since a lot of work has been done in recent decades to show the similarities between legendary accounts and real-world events deduced from archaeology and archaeogenetics.


Julius Caesar's failed invasion

Regardless, the fact remains that the ancient history we've received is likely bunkum. On the one hand, this presents some problems as far as British history is concerned, since we were supposedly conquered by the Romans about 1,900 years ago, ditched as a useless backwater some 400 years later, and subsequently re-conquered by a suspiciously similarly named bunch of bastards after a 500 year "dark age", during which the bulk of the supposed written record - scant as it is - is cooked up by Catholic priests, i.e. the Vatican did it. Convenient.

View attachment 15434
Norman Warriors and Aristocracy

I'm sure it's not lost on any of us that the names "Roman" and "Norman" are curiously similar. Equally, the support of the Catholic Church for the Norman aggression suggests some kind of relationship between the two. Just as Rome was the vehicle for the spread of "early Christianity" in the supposed "ancient period", so too was Norman rule the vehicle for the consolidation of Papal power in medieval Britain. The English, as well as the Scots, Welsh, and Irish, nominally had their own kind of Catholicism going on beforehand, though they are maintained to have paid homage to the Pope - supposedly - but the fact remains that there were ongoing arguments between the English and Celtic churches on the one side, and the Roman church on the other, up into the 11th century (this is still according to the old chronology, which may be completely worthless on the dating front).

Anyway, my suggestion is that the "Normans" are nothing more than the "Romans". Both represent the increasing power of the Vatican - the latter were simply backdated some 1,000 years to better establish the "authenticity" of the Roman church. The pattern of Papal conquest in Europe is oddly similar to the pattern of Roman conquest of Europe, albeit with some few interesting deviations. France was the first to go; then Spain; then Britain. Rome supposedly never conquered Germany - at least, not in any long-lasting way - so the matter of the "Holy Roman Empire" is rather intriguing, to say the least. It may be that there was some trickery going on regarding the "Gothic conquest" of Rome, and that this sequence of events has actually been turned on its head - alternatively, the Hunnic/Gothic aggression against Rome may well be the early forays of the Tartarian nations against the growing Empire in the south.

View attachment 15441View attachment 15442View attachment 15440
The Holy Roman Empire over 500 years; Attila and his Gothic warriors

Leaving all that aside for the moment, the Frankish conquest in Gaul, followed by the Norman conquest in Britain, bears a notable resemblance to Caesar's Gallic Wars, followed promptly as they were by Augustus's invasion of Britain. We even have the near-exact 1,000 year time period between Augustus's landing on southern English shores, and the Battle of Hastings between Harold and William the Bastard in the same area. If we're looking for "event sequences shifted back in time", then it seems plain to me that the Roman conquest of Britain is actually the Norman conquest of Britain.

I'll have to look more deeply into what we know of both periods to see if I can draw more parallels, but off the top of my head, two of the more well-known resistance movements against Norman invasion mirror British rebellions against Roman rule of about 1,000 years beforehand (the Iceni match Hereward the Wake in East Anglia, Caradog ap Cunobelin matches Eadric the Wild in the West Midlands). It's well known that the Roman invasion forced many Britons north, eventually into Scotland; the "harrying of the north" undertaken by William the Conkhead and his sons similarly forced many Angles into Northumbria and lowland Scotland, where they remain to this day.

View attachment 15437View attachment 15436View attachment 15438View attachment 15435View attachment 15439
L-R: Boudicca leads the Iceni against Rome; Hereward the Wake leads the Anglians against the Normans; Caradog meets Caesar after being captured; Eadric the Wild is interrogated by Normans after being captured; the Harrying of the North

After the initial invasion, the Normans - at least as far as the established chronology goes - increasingly overtook the island, dispossessed most of the native nobles (as the Romans had supposedly done a thousand years before), and ushered in a new set of "Pope-approved" bishops, cardinals, and priests from various provinces in the Catholic Empire, to clear up the mess left behind by the local, culturally loyal bishops/cardinals/priests of England and the Celtic countries.

Until the beginning of the (Welsh?) Tudor dynasty some 400 years later, Norman or Norman-derived families ruled the lands, and Catholic priests received the bulk of the wealth through the churches. Indeed, even during and after the Tudor period, most positions of power were still inherited by Norman individuals. The one major change which supposedly occurred during the Tudor period was the split from Rome - that is, the creation of the Anglican Church, and the investiture of the mantle of "Defender of the Faith" upon the monarch (i.e. the Pope in England). What the significance of this supposed split might be in a new chronology, I don't know. I wonder to what degree the "discovery" of the Americas played a part in this game-change, but some curious things begin to happen following the accession of the Catholic Stuarts to the monarchy of Great Britain.

View attachment 15443View attachment 15458View attachment 15444View attachment 15445
Defenders of the Faith - Protestant, Protestant, Protestant... Catholic?

One of the things which might not be too well known outside of certain circles, is that the British political scene was steadily infiltrated by Venetian merchants and aristocrats during the 17th and 18th centuries. The creation of the first banks, the development of "Enlightenment" philosophy, the separation of church from state, the development of the secular/scientific outlook, and the Industrial Revolution that resulted from all of this, were all heavily influenced by the machinations of Venetian politicians and merchants, increasingly embedded in the British court and Parliament. Nominally this was all under the auspices of the Anglican church, but I'm willing to bet there are some interesting connections between the Venetian element and the Vatican.

View attachment 15446
A Venetian Doge - nice hat

Of course, it was during this period that a lot of English, Irish, Welsh and Scots emigrated from Britain to the Americas, bringing with them a libertarian, grass-roots church and a distinct "f**k you" attitude to the crown and the institutions of the homeland (i.e. the Norman nobles who still pretty much ran the joint, along with their Venetian comrades). And, during this period, the War of Independence was fought - which the British somehow lost, despite apparently having one of the most imposing Empires the world had ever seen (again, much room for discussion here, but the idea that it "simply wasn't worth" the British establishment's time to keep hold of America doesn't bear up to scrutiny when economics and demographics are brought into the picture - I suspect a sneaky switcheroo somewhere). I could bring the East India Trading Company and the Dutch East/West India Companies into the picture, but it begins to get a bit convoluted. Conventional recent history is not my strong point.

View attachment 15448View attachment 15449View attachment 15450View attachment 15447
Duch East India soldiers; Dutch East India Ship; British East India soldiers, and an East India Company meeting

View attachment 15455View attachment 15452View attachment 15453
East India Company and Dutch East/West India flags


View attachment 15456View attachment 15457
French and Russian flags

That about brings us up to the modern period. Of course, much of the above is "received history", i.e. history-as-they-want-us-to-know-it. I'm willing to bet that a lot of this is wrong, and that the real events were quite different. Still, a few key points crop up which do seem to be legitimate as far as our current state is concerned: namely, Britain was conquered, power was maintained by a minority of foreign individuals, the church effectively ran the show, and a foreign merchant class brought the small island nation to the state of Empire.

Now, the big question in my mind is: what was the draw? Why was it important for the Catholic church to gain power, through its various intermediaries, in what has variously been described as a backwater, barbaric, underdeveloped shithole of an island? And my immediate conclusion, of course, is that we were not so backwater as we have been made out to be.

Given some of what I've learned about "archaeogenetics" (i.e. broad population movements over long periods of time), a few curious things strike my eye: firstly, the Y-DNA haplogroups of Britain and Ireland (i.e. the paternal lines) almost all stem from what would eventually be known as Scythia, around the northern shores of the Black Sea. The rest are mostly descended from indigenous Scandinavians, who are also called "Scythians" (Jordanes mentions a southern and a northern Scythia, the latter being Scandinavia - thanks to Jim Duyer for that information).

Given what we know about the relationship between Tartaria and the Scythians, is it so far-fetched to consider that the assaults on France, Britain, Germany and so on were equally part of the wider take-down directed against a North Eurasian Empire - an Empire in culture, if not in political power? Could the war against Tartary actually originate in the centuries preceding what we call 1,000 AD? This would tie in with the Huns, Goths, and Avars leading successive campaigns against the Imperial state in Europe: if these groups constituted a "proto-Tartary", the conflict might have been going on for upwards of 500 years throughout all of western and northern Eurasia. Of course, the Mongols, Timurids, Golden Horde and so on would be brought into the occasion, though these may well be repeated versions of Attila and his Turkic warriors attacking Rome. Regardless, the image of a broadly east-versus-west, north-versus-south situation seems to be legitimate.

As for the nature of the "Scythian" Empire, there's a remarkably consistent picture of the "pre-civilised" world of the northern hemisphere: what are taken to be Native American traditions fit nicely with Siberian and central Asian traditions, which fit nicely with eastern European traditions, which fit well with northern, western, and central European traditions up until the point of Imperial conquest (whether that's Rome or the Vatican is besides the point here). When we think of Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Turkic, Tartar, Mongol, and Native American cultures, we're thinking of geographically distinct variations on a common theme, which seems to revolve around the centrality of nature, a marked code of honour, reverence of ancestors and natural powers, and a drive towards "harmony". The religion of the Indo-Europeans matches closely with the Tengrism practiced by Turkic and Mongolic peoples of the east, which in turn resonates with the religious traditions of the Plains Indians and other North American natives.

My current working theory is that "Hyperborean culture" spread equally throughout the northern hemisphere, influencing all of the peoples of the north - be they European, Siberian, or American. This influence in turn trickled down to the south, where it met and mixed with another factor - the nature of which I'm not fully sure of - which resulted in the formation of what we think of as the Egyptian-Sumerian-Babylonian matrix, which, at least according to the consensus chronology, served as the "font of civilisation".

Everyone from the Greeks through the Phoenicians to the Arabs to the Indians apparently owes some kind of debt to Mesopotamia (though this is increasingly undermined in various archaeological circles) - meanwhile, the great steps forward taken by northern cultures in terms of animal husbandry, long-term survive/thrive strategies (permaculture), and religious/spiritual development, seem to get ignored or purposefully hushed up/ridiculed/distorted.
Here is one example of the Hungarian side of new chronology with respect to Fomenko. COMMENTS ON FOMENKOLOGY: MY COMMENTS No I recall reading in this area around 4 years ago something about a Priscus of Panium mentioning Caitlin Green: Were there Huns in Anglo-Saxon England? Some thoughts on Bede, Priscus & Attila Hun or Avar King's "ownership" of England (Islands Of Ocean). This supports a bit what you were saying about the Huns/Avars playing a larger role in European lost history.
 
OP
welkyn

welkyn

Active member
Messages
37
Reactions
131
Have a listen to this chap if you haven't already. there appears to have been two...well i'll not spoil it by revealing the content before watching.
i downloaded his website before it went away so will post stuff it contained as it throws a remarkable 'light' on what we are force fed.
I know Alan Wilson, I'm very interested in what he has to say. I appreciate his focus on the older texts, and on less-well-known avenues of archaeological discovery - having said that, I'm not entirely convinced of his interpretation. My own research into the matter has led me to uncover numerous "Arthur figures" spread over a very wide geographic area, all of whom maintain the bear symbolism, Christ analogies, some variant of a Grail mythos etc. I'm not entirely sure that "Arthur" was an exclusively British phenomenon; Arthur may have been, e.g. a Tartarian prince uniting various factions against an external enemy, or he may have been more of a "function" that many different people performed, all of them becoming "the Arthur" of their time - the Great Bear. Apparently some of the oldest motifs surrounding Arthur stem from the Alans (i.e. a branch of the Sarmatians/Scythians) - lots of interesting stuff in that whole field!


So many good points made in this article. This parallel you make here is excellent. Classic Fomenko technique here.

I do agree however that formenkos reconstruction of history is haphazard. He often makes claims with little to no supporting evidence. I'm sure he had a reason but he never shares it with the reader.

As for backwater nations. Strategically speaking the Isle of Briton is a perfect fall back position for a fleeing people. England was a refuge for our ancestors.

Really good article. Looking forward to more of your work.
Fomenko's reasoning is apparently hidden within his 55 books, and he refers readers to his bibliography in general for support of the conclusions he's made. I get the feeling that he would produce a more nuanced chronology with more sources, but of course, that takes time, and he's got to go with what he's got (which is mostly Russian and eastern Orthodox by the look of it).

Britain was maintained to be a major trading hub in current archaeology, for a good few thousand years - we were the centre of the bronze-amber trade between the Baltic and the Mediterranean. Bronze came from Britain to Scandinavia, Amber came through Britain to Iberia and North Africa.

The whole Phoenician thing is quite interesting in this regard, since the Phoenicians effectively ran the Iberian trade routes from the late bronze age onwards. There's some suggestion that the early iron age migration into Britain and Ireland was part Phoenician, part Hallstatt-La Tène Celt - which, in a new chronology, would point to Venetian elements entering into Britain from the Mediterranean (or, along the "trade routes"), while the Hallstatt people are most similar to the Normans (who also have a predominance in the south - Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-U152 is associated with Romans, Normans, and Hallstatt-La Tène Celts). For the former, I can definitely see associations between Portugal/Spain, France, the Netherlands, and the Phoenicians, circling around the issues of East/West India Companies, Venetian merchants, and "colonialism" in America...


Here is one example of the Hungarian side of new chronology with respect to Fomenko. COMMENTS ON FOMENKOLOGY: MY COMMENTS No I recall reading in this area around 4 years ago something about a Priscus of Panium mentioning Caitlin Green: Were there Huns in Anglo-Saxon England? Some thoughts on Bede, Priscus & Attila Hun or Avar King's "ownership" of England (Islands Of Ocean). This supports a bit what you were saying about the Huns/Avars playing a larger role in European lost history.
It's interesting you should bring this up just after I've remembered the whole "Arthur of the Alans" thing (the Alans being associated with the tribes that joined Attila). An old book I happened to read not too long ago, going more deeply into the sources than most, said that Dark Ages Britain was a pretty multicultural place - Balts, Slavs, and Huns definitely featured in the Anglo-Saxon landscape.

Attila is well known and renowned in some Anglo-Saxon texts, particularly those that lack the overt Christian bent of Bede etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all for him to have had a general overlordship of the Germanic peoples - in fact, I'm willing to bet that the fundamental loyalties of the Germanic peoples were to the east, rather than to the south (hence the ferocity against Romans). And then, of course, there's the whole issue of "Ættla" and "Atal-land", the latter being the homeland of the Fries in the Oera Linda book... Thanks for the links, they were both a great read.
 

CyborgNinja

Well-known member
Messages
240
Reactions
1,009
Ireland (i.e. the paternal lines) almost all stem from what would eventually be known as Scythia, around the northern shores of the Black Sea
The main stream narrative has scandanvians in the form of vikings invading north of England. Then at some point they decide they need farming land and then up end their boats and make houses out of them. They go from invaders seeking loot to farmers at some vague point in time.

Wouldn't it make more sense that these were refugees arriving up on the shores of England. Fleeing persecution from continental Europe?
 
OP
welkyn

welkyn

Active member
Messages
37
Reactions
131
The main stream narrative has scandanvians in the form of vikings invading north of England. Then at some point they decide they need farming land and then up end their boats and make houses out of them. They go from invaders seeking loot to farmers at some vague point in time.

Wouldn't it make more sense that these were refugees arriving up on the shores of England. Fleeing persecution from continental Europe?
One of the things often overlooked about the "Anglo-Saxon Invasion" is that the chronicles of the Angles maintain that they were forced out of their land by incoming Danes (Angeln being in south-east Denmark/north Germany). So that's definitely part of the mainstream narrative, albeit an almost totally overlooked part. Another aspect of the Anglian "invasion" of Northumbria is that they were clearly invited in by the locals - who were, at the time, being raided by Picts, Saxons, and Irish Scots.

Archaeologically speaking, the richest homes and burials of the early Anglo-Saxon period belong to indigenous Britons, while the lower castes tend to be made up of Scandinavians, Frisians, and Germans. At some point there's supposedly a "switcheroo" and the Germanics come out on top - how is this supposed to happen? The narrative is totally skewed on so many fronts, the archaeologists are bitching at the historians that their accounts don't match up with the material record at all. Ground penetrating radar shows continuous settlement in "invaded" parts of Britain over thousands (hundreds?) of years - certainly the entirety of the "post-Roman period". No signs of conflict, destruction of property, desertion of homes. This "invasion" was clearly very peaceful... I think the refugee idea might make a lot more sense than the invasion idea. Tallies with the material record, at least.

(Edit: to make it clear, these settlements - in the areas "hardest hit" by both Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, Danes etc. - show no signs of destruction or warfare at all. Period. So even the Vikings weren't as bloodthirsty as the chronicles make them out to be...)
Post automatically merged:

Ok, so for some reason I can't edit the first post any more - maybe there's a time limit on it. I was going to add some pictures to show how opulent and developed the "Scythian horizon" was - including Scandinavia and Britain (and Gaul, if I wanted to!).

Here's the pics:

Anglo Saxon Gold 1.jpgAnglo-Saxon Gold 2.pngAnglo-Saxon Gold 3.jpgAnglo-Saxon Gold 4.jpgAnglo-Saxon Gold 5.jpg
Examples of Anglo-Saxon goldwork, pre-Norman - pre-Roman? Includes both "Christian" and "Pagan" items...

Celtic Warriors.jpgHallstatt Chieftains.jpg
Depictions of Celtic chieftains, based on archaeological finds


Pictish Stone 1.jpgPictish Stone 2.jpgPictish Stone 3.jpgPictish Stone 4.jpg
Pictish picture stones - high level of skill with carving, comparable to Greco-Roman artistry

Scythian Goldwork 1.jpgScythian Goldwork 2.jpgScythian Goldwork 3.jpgScythian Goldwork 4.jpgScythian Goldwork 5.jpgScythian Goldwork 6.jpgScythian Goldwork 7.jpg
Scythian goldwork - not the work of "barbarians", here...

Scythian Goldwork - Mass Produced Specimens.jpgScythian Goldwork - Mass Produced Specimens 2.jpg
These mass-produced studs would have been worn on robes - clearly a highly developed culture
 
Last edited:

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
494
Reactions
1,337
What is interesting is that the foreigner within the shores of this island doesn't get a mention in whatever chronology is looked into. the foreigner being the City of London.
We get told it is the financial centre of the united kingdom (a kingdom without a king note) but the reality is it is a sovereign state in the same way the vatican is sovereign. its beginnings are made to appear obscure to the point they cannot be determined using chronological investigation of what are universally copies of originals as 'sources' of information at least i have never been able to do this.

The united kingdom monarch can only enter the state of the city of london devoid of any objects of office ergo dressed as a commoner and they must walk across the invisible boundary between these two states.

Number one son and i are now going through copies (again the originals are beyond reach) of two books written in the 1700's according to their frontispiece (therefore post scaliger) and it is immediately crystal that the stuff spewed out by the official sources of today are simply an agreed set of lies that are at odds with works such as this and the 'solid stuff' in whatever form it manifests.
The author is a jesuit priest who 'studied' for most of his life in europe (bit vague) so he is educated in the scaliger version of events prior to his own existence but oddly this jesuit has no connection whatsoever with the geographical area he writes about until he returned from europe in his retirement and decided/was sent to live in what is known today as the english lake district.

The reason for reading these books and bringing it up here is many of the buildings he describes often in detail are within easyish walking distance to visit touch and look at so it gets easier to see just where the mainstream chronological history quite literally falls apart.
Wether this leads to a comprehension of what was more likely is not yet known.
The anglo saxon/viking/norman/roman/tribal state of affairs on this island runs through the bits of the books we have got through but only from a position which makes it clear he has been told about these things. The evidence on the ground for them is missing as is the written/inscribed historical records, not even copies of them.

Thomas west was his name and he apparently died at a baronets stately pile in 1779.

After finding this site, very recently, a feeling has been banging away at me that when jesus was born there were no countries in existence. No invisible boundaries to confine the dulled of thinking within and it would be no problem to move freely anywhere across land or sea as they were all kin connected in a way we have been made to forget. The island on britain as it is named today wouldn't be isolated from anywhere else. Geographically a long way from some places but not isolated.
Sorry to keep saying 'feeling' s much but it is the way things come to me.
 

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
166
Reactions
371
I am going to re-read the following with new eyes to see if there are any Tartarian clues probably with connections to Armenia (also looking at dating) however it fits this post, and thought some may not have seen it:
After The Flood By Bill Cooper

Here is the Table of Contents:

Introduction: In the Beginning
Chapter 1 The Knowledge of God amongst the early Pagans
Chapter 2 Where to Begin
Chapter 3 Nennius and the Table of European Nations
Chapter 4 The Chronicles of the early Britons
Chapter 5 The History of the early British Kings
Chapter 6 The Descent of the Anglo-Saxon Kings
Chapter 7 The Descent of the Danish and Norwegian Kings
Chapter 8 The Descent of the Irish Celtic Kings
Chapter 9 Ancient Chronologies and the Age of the Earth
Chapter 10 Dinosaurs from Anglo-Saxon and other Records
Chapter 11 Beowulf and the Creatures of Denmark
Chapter 12 Conclusion
Chapter 13 What the CSM is all about

Appendices
Appendix I The Nations of Shem
Appendix 2 The Nations of Ham
Appendix 3 The Nations of Japheth
Appendix 4 Surviving MSS of the early Welsh Chronicles
Appendix 5 The Latin Text of Nennius 17 and 18
Appendix 6 The Molmutine Laws and Pagan Britain
Appendix 7 The Genealogy of the early British Kings
Appendix 8 The Descent of the East Saxon Kings
Appendix 9 The Historical Characters of Beowulf
Appendix 10 Zoologically applied terms in the Beowulf
Appendix 11 Epic From Japheth to Brutus
Appendix 12 The Descent from Japheth of the Miautso
Appendix 13 Britain's First Christian
Appendix 14 The Irish Chronicles and the end of the Ice Age
Bibliography

Also: Chronicle of the Early Britons - this document, translated by Bill Cooper from the Welsh copy (Jesus College MS LXI), gives the history of the Britons from the fall of Troy and the arrival of Brutus in Britain, to the time when they were defeated by the Saxons and driven into Wales.
 

Similar threads


Top