>>16976934I attached the wrong pic. Sue me; but debonk me!? Not a chance! There is simply too much evidence which your side has never even attempted to address. I get it, though. I worshiped Tacitus, fell in love with "Ancient Rome," etc. This revisited Chronology was one of the hardest redpills to swallow. But it's not all critique. Heinsohn focuses on hard archeological evidence, and insists that stratigraphy is the most important criterion for dating archeological finds. He shows that, time and again, stratigraphy contradicts history, and that archeologists should have logically forced historians into a paradigm shift.
>"The strength or Heinsohn’s approach, as compared to Illig and Niemtiz’s, is that he doesn’t really delete history: “If one removes the span of time that has been artificially created by mistakenly placing parallel periods in sequence, only emptiness is lost, not history. By reuniting texts and artifacts that have now been chopped up and scattered over seven centuries, meaningful historiography becomes possible for the first time.” In fact, “a much richer image of Roman history emerges."If you can't be bothered to read all that I've posted, please do yourself a favor and just read this one article (and if you can commit to just a bit more reading, see the two previous articles of the series linked in the opening, to boot):
>How Long Was the First Millennium? Gunnar Heinsohn’s Stratigraphy-based Chronology by First Millennium Revisionist • September 19, 2020 • 11,700 Wordshttps://unz.com/article/how-long-was-the-first-millenium 