网帖翻译

Ravenna
Ravenna is a special case, because it stands between Rome and Constantinople: it was long under Byzantine control, yet was the “capital of the Occident in Late Antiquity” (Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann). Ravenna has been called a “palimpsest” for the reason explained by historian Deborah Mauskoppf Deliyannis (Ravenna in Late Antiquity, Cambridge UP, 2014), quoted by Heinsohn:

拉文纳（意大利东北部港市）
拉文纳是一个特例，因为它位于罗马和君士坦丁堡之间:它长期处于拜占庭的控制之下，但却是“古代晚期西方的首都”(出自戴希曼)。拉文纳被称为“山寨品”的原因由历史学家Deliyannis解释(拉文纳在古代晚期，剑桥大学，2014年)，引用海因索恩的话:

“Ravenna’s walls and churches were usually built of reused brick. Scholars disagree over whether the use of these spolia was symbolic (triumph over Roman paganism, for example) or whether their use simply had to do with the availability and expense of materials. In other words, was their use meaningful, or practical, or both? Did it demonstrate the power of the emperors to control construction of preexisting buildings, or the power of the church to demolish them? Or, by the time Ravenna’s buildings were constructed, were Roman spolia simply considered de rigueur for impressive public buildings. / One striking feature to all these [5th century; GH] buildings is that, like the city walls they were made of bricks that had been reused from earlier [2nd/3rd century; GH] Roman structures. […] It was expected that a noble church would be built of spolia.”

“拉文纳的墙壁和教堂通常是用重复使用的砖建造的。学者们对这些回收再利用的材料的使用是否具有象征意义(例如，对罗马异教的胜利)，或者它们的使用是否仅仅与材料的可用性和成本有关持不同意见。换句话说，它们的使用是有意义的，还是实用的，还是两者兼而有之? 它是展示了皇帝控制原有建筑建设的权力，还是教会拆除它们的权力?或者，当拉文纳的建筑建成的时候，罗马这些回收再利用的材料只是被认为是令人印象深刻的公共建筑的必要条件。
所有这些建筑的一个显著特征[5世纪]的特点是，像城墙一样，它们是由砖制成的，这些砖是从更早的[2-3世纪]罗马建筑上拆下来的。人们期望用这些材料建造一座高贵的教堂。”

One senses here a desperate effort to force into the accepted chronological frxwork a situation that doesn’t fit in it. Heinsohn’s revisionism solves this problem: the buildings and their materials are, of course, contemporary, rather than separated by 300 years.

人们在这里感觉到一种不顾一切的努力，试图将一个不适合它的情况强行纳入公认的时间框架。海因索恩的修正主义解决了这个问题：显然，这些建筑及其材料都是同一时代的，而不是相隔了300年。

There is also a problem with Ravenna’s civil and military port, which could harbor 240 ships according to Jordanes, with its lighthouse praised by Pliny the Elder as rivaling with the Pharos of Alexandria. “However, what is considered strange is that after all port activities ceased around 300 AD it is still being celebrated by mosaics supposedly created in the 5th/6th century. Even Agnellus in the 9th century knows the lighthouse, although the city had supposedly fallen into ruins in the late 6th century.”

拉文纳的民用和军用港口也存在问题，据约尔丹称，该港口可容纳240艘船只，其灯塔被老普林尼称赞为可与亚历山大的法老相媲美。
“然而，奇怪的是，在所有港口活动在公元300年左右停止后，人们仍然用据说是在5-6世纪创造的马赛克（镶嵌图案）来庆祝它。哪怕是9世纪的人物Agnellus也知道灯塔，尽管这座城市在6世纪晚期被认为已是废墟。”

Andrea Agnellus (ca. 800-850) was a cleric from Ravenna who wrote the history of Ravenna from the beginning of the Empire to his time. After Vespasian (69-79 AD), the emperor of the martyrdom of Peter, Agnellus doesn’t report anything before events dated 500 years later. He writes about saint Apollinaris being sent to Ravenna by saint Peter to found the church of Ravenna, then about the construction of Ravenna’s first church (Sant’Apollinare dated 549 AD), without apparently being aware that half a millennium separated the two. Again, we see here how historians do violence to their sources by inserting phantom times into their chronicles. According to Heinsohn, only approximately 130 years passed between Vespasian and Agnellus.

Andrea Agnellus(约800-850)是来自拉文纳的牧师，他记录了从帝国开始到他那个时代的拉文纳历史。然而，在维斯帕先(公元69-79年)，彼得皇帝殉难之后，Agnellus没有记录任何500年后的事件。
他记录了圣徒阿波利纳里斯，被圣彼得派到拉文纳去建立拉文纳教堂，然后有了拉文纳第一座教堂的建造(公元549年)，显然没有意识到这两个人（注：彼得皇帝和阿波利纳里斯）之间相隔了500年。再一次，我们在这里看到历史学家是如何通过在他们的编年史中插入虚假的时间来暴力对待他们的资料来源的。根据海因索恩的说法，维斯帕先和Agnellus之间只隔了大约130年。

Charlemagne and the European Dark Ages
In the footsteps of Illig and Niemitz, Heinsohn notes that Charlemagne’s residence at Ingelheim is built like a Roman villa dating from the 2nd and not from the 9th c. CE. As noticed in a website dedicated to the building, it “was not fortified. Nor was it built on a naturally protected site, which was usually necessary and customary when building castles” (Fortifications 2009). Heinsohn comments: “It was as if Charlemagne did not understand the vagaries of his own period, and was behaving like a senator still living in the Roman Empire. He insisted on Roman rooftiles but forgot the defenses. Was he not just great but also insane?” No medi fortification has been found that could be attributed to Charlemagne or any of the Carolingians.

查理曼大帝与欧洲黑暗时代
在伊利格和尼米兹的足迹中，海因索恩注意到，查理曼在殷格翰的住所建造得像公元2世纪而不是公元9世纪的罗马别墅。正如一个专门介绍该建筑的网站所注意到的那样，它“没有设防。它也不是建在一个自然保护的地方，而这些通常是建造城堡时的必要和惯例。”
海因索恩评论说:“查理曼大帝似乎不了解他所处时代的变幻莫测，他的行为就像一位仍然生活在罗马帝国的参议员。”他坚持用罗马屋顶，却忘记了防御工事。他不仅伟大，而且疯狂?没有发现可以归于查理曼大帝或任何加洛林王朝的中世纪防御工事。

Archeologists excavating Ingelheim were “staggered by a building complex that — down to the water supply, and up to the roofing — was ‘based on antique designs’ (Research 2009), and, therefore, appears to be a reincarnation of 700-year-older Roman outlines from the 1st to 3rd c. CE.” The same is true of his Aachen residence (chapel excluded): “Excavators are realizing that Aachen’s Imperial Antiquity and Aachen’s Early Middle Ages cannot have followed each other at a distance of 700 years, but must have existed simultaneously. This seems incredible, but the material findings, down to the floor tiles, speak with unmistakable clarity: Aachen’s Roman sewer system is so well intact that the early medi Aacheners ‘tied themselves to the Roman sewer system.’ The same applies to transport routes: ‘A continuous use from Roman times also applies to large parts of the inner city road and path network. […] The Roman road, which has already been documented in the Dome-Quadrum [Palatinate ensemble] in northeast-southwest orientation, was used until the late Middle Ages’.”

挖掘殷格翰的考古学家们“被一个建筑群震惊了，从供水系统到屋顶，都是‘基于古老的设计’(2009年的研究)，因此，它似乎是公元1世纪到3世纪700年前罗马轮廓的转世。”链接略。
他在亚琛的住所(教堂除外)也是如此:“挖掘者意识到，亚琛的帝国古代和亚琛的早期中世纪不可能相隔700年，而一定是同时存在的。这似乎令人难以置信，但根据建筑材料包括地砖，都清楚无误地说明:亚琛的罗马下水道系统是如此完好无损，以至于中世纪早期的亚琛人将自己与罗马下水道系统联系在一起。这同样适用于交通路线:“罗马时代的持续使用也适用于市中心的大部分道路和路径网络。罗马道路，在东北-西南方向的Dome-Quadrum[王权贵族建筑群]中已经有记载，一直使用到中世纪晚期。”链接略。

As mentioned earlier, Heinsohn obxts to Illig and Niemitz’s conclusion of the non-existence of Karlus Magnus, on the ground of the great number of coins bearing his name. However, he adds, “These coins are sometimes surprising because they may be found lumped together with Roman coins that are 700 years older.” Deleting 700 years solves this problem, and at the same time matches Charlemagne’s palaces with 2nd/3rd century Roman architecture. The Carolingian era that precedes immediately the Tenth Century Collapse is the era of the Roman Empire. “Today’s researchers see Charlemagne as the promoter of a restoration of the Roman Empire (restitutio imperii). They see his time as an ingenious and conscious renaissance of a perished civilization. Charlemagne himself, however, knows nothing about such notions. […] Nowhere does he proclaim that he lives many centuries after the glories of imperial Rome.”

如前所述，海因索恩反对伊利格和尼米兹关于“卡尔卢斯·马格努斯不存在”的结论，理由是有大量的硬币上刻有他的名字。然而，他补充说:“这些硬币有时令人惊讶，因为它们可能与700年前的罗马硬币混在一起。”链接略。
删除700年就解决了这个问题，同时查理曼的宫殿与2-3世纪的罗马建筑相匹配。在十世纪崩溃之前的加洛林王朝时代是罗马帝国的时代。今天的研究人员将查理曼大帝视为罗马帝国复辟(restitutio imperii)的推动者。
他们认为他的时代是一个灭亡文明的巧妙和有意识的复兴。然而，查理曼本人对这些概念一无所知。他在任何地方都没有宣称他生活在罗马帝国辉煌之后的多个世纪。”链接略

Just like “Carolingian architects erected buildings and water pipes in the early Middle Ages that were similar in form and technology to those of Imperial Antiquity,” so “Carolingian authors wrote in the early Middle Ages in the Latin style of Imperial Antiquity.” Thus, Alcuin of York (Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus, 735-804 AD) brought back to life at the court of Charlemagne the classical Latin of Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century) after many dark centuries.[43] Alcuin also wrote Propositiones ad acuendos iuvenes, which is seen as the earliest general survey of mathematical problems in Latin. “We do not understand how Alcuin could learn mathematics and write it down in Ciceronian Latin after the crises of the 3rd and 6th century, when there were no more teachers from Athens, Constantinople and Rome to instruct him.”

就像“加洛林王朝的建筑师在中世纪早期建造的建筑和水管在形式和技术上与帝国古代的建筑和水管相似”一样，“中世纪早期加洛林王朝的作家用帝国古代的拉丁风格写作”。因此，在经历了许多黑暗的世纪之后，约克的Alcuinus (Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus，公元735-804年)在查理曼的宫廷中重新使用了帝国古代(1 -3世纪)的古典拉丁语。链接略。
Alcuinus还写了《命题与尖锐问题》，这被认为是最早的拉丁文数学问题概览。“我们不明白，在3世纪和6世纪的危机之后，没有来自雅典、君士坦丁堡和罗马的教师来指导Alcuinus，他是如何学习数学并用西塞罗式拉丁语写下来的。”链接略。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Heinsohn shows that Charles the Great, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, and Charles the Simple appear to have the same signature and may be one and the same, although Heinsohn “has not come to a final view on how many Carolinginan Carolus rulers have to be retained.”[45] It must be noted that Karlus is the Latin form of Karl, a Slavic noun meaning “king”, hardly a personal name. Heinsohn remarks: “There have been, we are told, two Frankish lords by the name of Pepin in the territory of Civitas Tungrorum (roughly the diocese of Liège). Each had a son named Charles. One was Charles Martel, the other Charlemagne. Each Charles waged one war against the Saracens on the French-Spanish border, and ten wars against the Saxons. […] This author sees both Pepins, as well as both Charles’, as alter egos.”[46] Moreover, Heinsohn recently suggested that: “Stratigraphically […], Charlemagne and Louis [the Pious] do not belong to the 8th/9th century, but to the 9th/10th century. They live through the turmoil of the plague of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus of the late 2nd century.”

海因索恩表明，查理大帝、秃头查理、肥胖查理和“简单”查理似乎有相同的签名，可能是同一个人，尽管海因索恩“关于卡洛林加洛斯王朝的统治者有多少必须保留，还没有最终的观点。”
必须指出的是，Karlus是Karl的拉丁形式，是一个斯拉夫名词，意思是“国王”，很难说是个人的名字。海因索恩评论道:“据我们所知，在Civitas Tungrorum的领土上，有两个名叫佩平（Pepin）的法兰克领主。他们各有一个儿子，名叫查理。一个是查理·马特尔，另一个是查理曼。每个查理都在法国西班牙边境对撒拉森人发动过一次战争，对撒克逊人发动过十次战争。这位作者认为两个佩平，包括两个查理，都是同一个人。”
此外，海因索恩最近提出:“从地表学上来看，查理曼大帝和虔诚者路易（注：即路易一世，查理曼大帝之子）不属于8-9世纪，而是9-10世纪。他们经历了2世纪末马可·奥勒留和康茂德瘟疫的动荡。”链接略。

That Karlus is called Imperator Augustus does not preclude him being contemporary with others claiming the same title in Italy. Heinsohn mentions that gold coins found in Ingelheim “caused surprise by the imperial diadem worn by Charles making him look like a junior partner of Rome.”

Karlus被称为奥古斯都皇帝，但这并不排除他与意大利其他拥有同样头衔的人是同时代的。海因索恩提到，在殷格翰发现的金币“让人惊讶的是，查尔斯戴的帝国王冠使他看起来像罗马的下属。”链接略。

Saxon England
Saxons are supposed to start taking over England in 410 AD, yet archeologists cannot find any trace of them in that period. Saxon houses and sacral buildings are missing, there is no trace of their agriculture, and not even of their pottery.[49] Heinsohn solves this problem by suggesting that the earliest Anglo-Saxons of the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th century) were contemporaries of Roman Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century); “that would mean that Romans and Anglo-Saxons had fought simultaneously and in competition with each other for control of Celtic Britain.”

撒克逊英格兰
撒克逊人应该是在公元410年开始占领英格兰，但考古学家在那个时期找不到他们的任何痕迹。撒克逊人的房屋和宗教建筑都没了，他们的农业没有任何痕迹，甚至他们的陶器都没有。链接略。
海因索恩提出，中世纪早期(8 -10世纪)最早的盎格鲁-撒克逊人与古罗马帝国时期(1 -3世纪)是同时代的，以此来解决这个问题。
“这就意味着罗马人和盎格鲁-撒克逊人为了控制凯尔特人的不列颠而同时战斗，相互竞争。”

In Winchester, the city of Alfred the Great (871-899 AD), no archeology remains whatsoever has been found that match his reign. “Nobody knows where the Anglo-Saxon king was able to hold court. Although some scholars try to resort to the idea of a mobile court with no fixed capital anywhere on the British Isles in the 8th to early 10th c. period, the sources give no hint of such homeless rulers. They describe Venta Belgarum/Winchester as the unchallenged capital of Wessex. Since there are no building strata in 9th c. Venta Belgarum/Winchester, the mobile court theory would have to be expanded to a mobile nation theory because Afred’s bureaucrats as well as his subjects are without fixed homesteads, too. Yet, is it possible that entire nations have always been on the move without leaving traces?”

在温彻斯特，阿尔弗雷德大帝(公元871-899年)的城市，没有发现任何与他统治时期相匹配的考古遗迹。“没有人知道盎格鲁-撒克逊国王在哪里开庭议事。尽管一些学者试图诉诸于公元8世纪至10世纪初不列颠群岛上没有固定首都的流动朝廷的想法，但资料并未显示出这种无家可归的统治者的迹象。
他们把温彻斯特称为威塞克斯无可争议的首都。由于公元9世纪温彻斯特没有建筑地层，流动宫廷理论必须扩展为流动国家理论，因为阿弗雷德的官僚和他的臣民也没有固定的家园。然而，整个国家有可能一直在移动而一点痕迹都不会留下吗?”链接略。

Archeologists do find an abundance of buildings in Winchester, but they are in typical 2nd-century Roman style, and, unlike in Charlemagne’s case, archeologists see them as genuine 2nd century rather than imitation of 2nd century. “Yet, the Roman period 2nd/3rd c. building stratum with Roman town houses (domus), temples, and public buildings on a forum with Jupiter column […] is contingent with Winchester’s 10th/11th c. building stratum.” “There are no strata anywhere between the 3rd and the 11th c. to accommodate the king’s 9th c. palace. Yet, there is a 2nd/3rd c. Roman period palace in Winchester for which no one claims ownership.”[52] Therefore, according to Heinsohn, the 2nd/3rd c. building stratum belongs to the period of Alfred. This is also consistent with the Roman style of Alfred’s coins (as is the case with Charlemagne’s).

考古学家确实在温彻斯特发现了大量的建筑，但它们是典型的2世纪罗马风格，而且，与查理曼大帝的情况不同，考古学家认为它们是真正的2世纪建筑，而不是模仿2世纪的建筑。
“然而，罗马时期的公元2-3世纪的建筑阶层，罗马的城镇住宅，寺庙和公共建筑在一个有朱庇特柱的广场上……与温彻斯特的公元10-11世纪的建筑阶层同源。”
“在公元3世纪到11世纪之间，国王的公元9世纪的宫殿没有任何遗迹。然而，在温彻斯特有一座公元2-3世纪罗马时期的宫殿，没有人声称它的归属。”
因此，根据海因索恩的说法，公元2-3世纪的建筑地层属于阿尔弗雷德时期。这也与阿尔弗雷德硬币的罗马风格相一致(就像查理曼的硬币一样)。”

Heinsohn’s theory of the contemporaneity of the Early Middle Ages and Roman Antiquity solves the riddle of the legendary King Arthur: “The Celtic ruler Arthur of Camelot, active in a time when Saxons and Romans are simultaneously and competitively at war to conquer England, finds his alter ego in Aththe-Domaros of Camulodunum, the finest Celtic military leader in the period of Emperor Augustus, whose archaeological evidence moves to a stratigraphy-based date of c. 670s-710s AD.” “Camelot, Chrétien de Troyes’ [c. 1140-1190 AD] name for Arthur’s Court, is derived directly from Camelod-unum, the name of Roman Colchester.”[53] Thus both Arthur of Camelot and Aththe of Camulodunum, by reuniting, come out of obscurity. This is a good illustration of the way Heinsohn, rather than extinguishing parts of history, brings them into the light of history.

海因索恩的“中世纪早期和古罗马时代的同代人”理论，解决了传说中的亚瑟王之谜:
“凯尔特统治者卡梅洛特（英国传说中亚瑟王的宫殿所在之地）的亚瑟，活跃于撒克逊人和罗马人同时为征服英格兰而进行的激烈战争中，他在卡穆卢杜努姆的Aththe-Domaros身上找到了自己的另一个自我，他是奥古斯都皇帝时期最优秀的凯尔特军事领袖，他的考古证据可以追溯到公元670 -710年。”
“卡梅洛特，克拉西丁·德·特鲁瓦”[公元1140-1190年]，亚瑟王宫廷的名字，直接来源于罗马科尔切斯特的名字——Camelod-unum。链接略。因此，卡梅洛特的亚瑟王和卡莫洛杜姆的亚瑟王通过重聚，从默默无闻中走了出来。这是一个很好的例子，说明海因索恩不是把历史的一部分抹去，而是把它们带到历史的光芒中。

The Vikings of the 8th century were contemporary with the Franks and Saxon invaders: “1st-3rd as well as 4th-6th c. Scandinavians were the same people we call Vikings today. The evidence that stratigraphically belongs only to their 8th-10th c. period has been spread over the entire 1st millennium to fill a 1,000 year time span whose construction is neither understood nor challenged.”[54] “Viking 9th c. longboats with square sails are in actual fact found at the same stratigraphic depth as Roman longboats with square sails. The latter are wrongly dated 700 years too early to the 2nd c. CE. Therefore, the Scandinavians’ supposed 700 year delay in all major fields of development, like towns, ports, breakwaters, kingship, coinage, monotheism, and sailing ships, is derived from chronological ideas that make the Roman period some 700 years older than stratigraphy allows.”

（传统认为的）8世纪的维京人与法兰克人和撒克逊的入侵者是同时代的:
“公元1 -3世纪以及4 -6世纪的斯堪的纳维亚人就是我们今天所说的维京人。”地层学上的证据只属于公元8 -10世纪，已经扩散至整个第一个千年，填补了1000年的时间跨度，其结构既不为人所知，也没有受到挑战。”
“事实上，公元9世纪维京人的方帆小艇与罗马人的方帆小艇在相同的地层深度被发现。后者被错误地定为早了700年，至公元2世纪。因此，斯堪的纳维亚人在所有主要发展领域，如城镇、港口、防波堤、王权、铸币、一神论和帆船等，都被认为延迟了700年。这是从年代上的观点得出的，这使得罗马时期（错误地）比地层学所允许的要早700年。”

Similar problems are found throughout the lands of Franks, Saxons and Slavs — that is, in the regions where archeological finds are generally dated to the Early Middle Ages. Thus, the cities of Pliska and Preslav in Bulgaria, supposedly built in the 9th century, are entirely consistent with 1st-3rd century Roman architecture and technology. “The eternal controversies between different Bulgarian schools of archaeology about whether Pliska and Preslav belong to Antiquity, Late Antiquity or the Early Middle Ages could never come to a conclusion because all of them are right.”

在法兰克人、撒克逊人和斯拉夫人的土地上也发现了类似的问题，也就是说，在考古发现通常可追溯到中世纪早期的地区。因此，保加利亚的普利斯卡(Pliska)和普雷斯拉夫(Preslav)这两座据说建于9世纪的城市，与1 -3世纪的罗马建筑和技术完全一致。
“关于普利斯卡和普雷斯拉夫是属于古代、晚期还是中世纪早期，保加利亚不同考古学派之间一直存在争议，但永远无法得出结论，因为他们都是对的。”
（未完待续）