Heinsohn’s work is not easy to summarize, because it is a work in progress, because it covers virtually all regions of the globe, and because it is abundantly illustrated and referenced with historical and archeological studies. Nothing can replace a painstaking study of his articles, completed with personal research. All I can do here is try to reflect the scope and the depth of his research and the significance of his conclusions. Rather than paraphrase him, I will quote extensively from his articles. From now on, only quotations from other authors will be indented. All illustrations, except the next one and the last one, are borrowed or adapted from his articles.

海因索恩的工作不容易總結(jié)，因為它是一項正在進(jìn)行的工作，因為它幾乎涵蓋了全球所有地區(qū)，因為它有大量的插圖，并與歷史和考古研究相佐證。沒有什么能代替對他的文章的潛心研究，并輔以個人研究。
我在這里所能做的就是盡量反映出他的研究的廣度和深度，以及他的結(jié)論的重要性。我將廣泛地引用他的文章，而不是轉(zhuǎn)述他的話。從現(xiàn)在起，只有來自其他作者的引文才會單獨分段。所有的插圖，除了下一個和最后一個，都是借用或改編自他的文章。

The best starting point is his own summary (“Heinsohn in a nutshell”): “According to mainstream chronology, major European cities should exhibit — separated by traces of crisis and destruction — distinct building strata groups for the three urban periods of some 230 years that are unquestionably built in Roman styles with Roman materials and technologies (Antiquity/A>Late Antiquity/LA>Early Middle Ages/EMA). None of the ca. 2,500 Roman cities known so far has the expected three strata groups super-imposed on each other. … Any city (covering, at least, the periods from Antiquity to the High Middle Ages [HMA; 10th/11th c.]) has just one (A or LA or EMA) distinct building strata group in Roman format (with, of course, internal evolution, repairs etc.).

最好的起點是他自己的總結(jié)(“海因索恩的概括”):
“根據(jù)主流年表，歐洲主要城市應(yīng)該在230年左右的三個城市時期中（古代-古代晚期-中世紀(jì)早期），展示出不同的建筑地層群，這些建筑無疑是用羅馬風(fēng)格、羅馬材料和技術(shù)建造的。到目前為止，已知的大約2500座羅馬城市中，沒有一座是預(yù)期的三個時期相互疊加的。
任何一座城市（至少從古代到中世紀(jì)中期（10-11世紀(jì)）），都只有一種羅馬范式的獨特的建筑地層群（毫無疑問，包括內(nèi)部演進(jìn)、修復(fù)等）。

Therefore, all three urban realms labeled as A or LA or EMA existed simultaneously, side by side in the Imperium Romanum. None can be dexed. All three realms (if their cities continue at all) enter HMA in tandem, i.e. all belong to the 700-930s period that ended in a global catastrophe. This parallelity not only explains the mind-boggling absence of technological and archaeological evolution over 700 years but also solves the enigma of Latin’s linguistic petrification between the 1st/2nd and 8th/9th c. CE. Both text groups are contemporary.”

因此，這三個被標(biāo)記為“古代”或“古代晚期”或“中世紀(jì)早期”的城市領(lǐng)域同時存在，并排存在于羅馬帝國中。都不能無視。這三個時期(如果它們的城市繼續(xù)存在的話)同時進(jìn)入“中世紀(jì)中期”，也就是說，它們都屬于以全球災(zāi)難告終的700-930年代。
這種相似性不僅解釋了700多年來令人難以置信的技術(shù)和考古進(jìn)化的缺失，而且還解決了公元1-2至8-9世紀(jì)拉丁語語言僵化的謎團。
（換句話說，）這兩樣?xùn)|西都是當(dāng)代的?！?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


In other words, from other articles: “The High Middle Ages, beginning after the 930s A.D., are not only found –– as would be expected –– contingent with, i.e., immediately above the Early Middle Ages (ending in the 930s). They are also found –– which is chronologically perplexing –– directly above Imperial Antiquity or Late Antiquity in locations where settlements continued after the 930s cataclysm.”[9] “There is — in any individual site — only one period of some 230 years (all of them with Roman characteristics, such as imperial coins, fibulae, millefiori glass beads, villae rusticae etc.) that is terminated by a catastrophic conflagration.

換句話說，從其他文章中可以看出:“公元930年代以后開始的中世紀(jì)中期，不僅如人們所預(yù)料的那樣，與早期中世紀(jì)(結(jié)束于930年代)緊密相連。它們也被發(fā)現(xiàn)這在年代上是令人困惑的，因為就在帝國古代或晚期古代的正上方，在930年代大災(zāi)難之后，定居點仍在繼續(xù)。”
“在任何單獨的遺址中，只有一個大約230年的時期(所有這些時期都具有羅馬的特征，如帝國硬幣、fibulae、千花玻璃珠、鄉(xiāng)村等)被一場災(zāi)難性的大火所終結(jié)?！?/b>

Since the cataclysm dated to the 230s shares the same stratigraphic depth as the cataclysms dated to the 530s or the 930s, some 700 years of 1st millennium history are phantom years.” The first millennium, in other words, lasted only about 300 years. “Following stratigraphy, all earlier dates have to come about 700 years closer to the present, too. Thus, the last century of Late Latène (100 to 1 BCE), moves to around 600 to 700 CE.”

由于230年代的大災(zāi)難與530年代或930年代的大災(zāi)難具有相同的地層深度，因此第一個千年的700年左右的歷史是虛幻的歲月?！?換句話說，第一個千年只持續(xù)了大約300年。“根據(jù)地層學(xué)，所有早期的日期相比現(xiàn)在也必須縮短了700年。因此，最后一個世紀(jì)的晚期拉坦諾文化(公元前100年至公元前1年，歐洲鐵器時代)，移動到公元600年至700年左右。

All over the Mediterranean world “three blocks of time have left — in any individual site — just one block of strata covering some 230 years.” Wherever they are found, the strata for Imperial Antiquity and Late Antiquity lie just underneath the tenth century and therefore really belong to the Early Middle Age, that is, 700-930 AD. The distinction between Antiquity, Late Antiquity and Early Middle Age is a cultural representation that has no basis in reality. Heinsohn proposes contemporaneity of the three periods, because they “are all found at the same stratigraphic depth, and must, therefore, end simultaneously in the 230s CE (being also the 520s and 930s).” “Thus, the three parallel time-blocks now found in our history books in a chronological sequence must be brought back to their stratigraphical position.” In this way, “the early medi period (approx. 700-930s AD) becomes the epoch for which history can finally be written because it contains Imperial Antiquity and Late Antiquity, too.”

在整個地中海世界，“在任何一個單獨的地點，只留下了三個時間地塊，一個地層塊覆蓋了大約230年。”無論在哪里發(fā)現(xiàn)，帝國古代和晚期古代的地層就在10世紀(jì)的下面，因此其真正斷代為中世紀(jì)早期，也就是公元700-930年。
古代、晚期和中世紀(jì)早期的區(qū)別是一種沒有現(xiàn)實基礎(chǔ)的文化表征。海因索恩認(rèn)為這三個時期是同時代的，因為它們“都是在同一地層深度發(fā)現(xiàn)的，因此也必須同時結(jié)束于公元230年代(同時也是520年代-930年代)?！?br /> “因此，我們現(xiàn)在在歷史書中發(fā)現(xiàn)的按時間順序排列的三個平行時間塊必須回到它們的地層位置?！?通過這種方式，“中世紀(jì)早期”(大約公元700-930年)成為歷史最終可以被書寫的時代，期間也包含了（傳統(tǒng)認(rèn)為屬于）帝國古代和晚期古代的時代?！?/b>

As a result of stretching 230 years into 930 years, history is now distributed unevenly, each time-block having most of its recorded events localized in one of three geographical zones: Roman South-West, Byzantine South-East, and Germanic-Slavic North. If we look at written sources, “we have [for the 1st-3rd century] a spotlight on Rome, but know little about the 1st-3rd century in Constantinople or Aachen. Then we have a spotlight on Ravenna and Constantinople, but know little about the 4th-7th century in Rome or Aachen. Finally, we have a spotlight on Aachen in the 8th-10th century, but hardly know any details from Rome or Constantinople. I turn on all the lights at the same time and, thus, can see connections that were previously considered dark or completely unrecognizable.”

由于從230年延伸到930年，歷史現(xiàn)在分布不均勻，每個時間段的大部分記錄事件都集中在三個地理區(qū)域之一:羅馬西南部、拜占庭東南部和日耳曼-斯拉夫北部。如果我們看書面資料，“我們(在1 -3世紀(jì))對羅馬有關(guān)注，但對君士坦丁堡或亞琛的1 -3世紀(jì)知之甚少。然后我們關(guān)注拉文納和君士坦丁堡，但對4 -7世紀(jì)的羅馬和亞琛知之甚少。最后，我們關(guān)注的是8 -10世紀(jì)的亞琛，但幾乎不知道羅馬或君士坦丁堡的細(xì)節(jié)。我同時打開所有的燈，因此可以看到以前被認(rèn)為是黑暗或完全無法識別的歷史事件之前的關(guān)聯(lián)。”

Each period ends with a demographic, architectural, technical, and cultural collapse, caused by a cosmic catastrophe and accompanied by plague. Historians “have identified major mega-catastrophes shaking the earth in three regions of Europe (South-West [230s]; South-East [530s], and Slavic North [940s]) within the 1st millennium.” “The catastrophic ends of (1) Imperial Antiquity, (2) Late Antiquity, and (3) the Early Middles Ages sit in the same stratigraphic plane immediately before the High Middle Ages (beginning around 930s AD).” Therefore these three devastating collapses of civilization are one and the same, which Heinsohn refers to as “the Tenth Century Collapse.”

每個時期都以人口、建筑、技術(shù)和文化的崩潰結(jié)束，這是由大范圍災(zāi)難和瘟疫引起的。歷史學(xué)家“已經(jīng)確定了在歐洲三個地區(qū)(西南[230年代];東南[530年代]和斯拉夫北部[940年代])在第一個千年內(nèi)?！?br /> “(1)帝國古代，(2)古代晚期，(3)中世紀(jì)早期的災(zāi)難性結(jié)束，位于中世紀(jì)中期(大約始于公元930年)之前的同一個地層平面上。因此，這三次毀滅性的文明崩潰是同一事件，海因索恩稱之為“十世紀(jì)崩潰”。

Heinsohn’s identification of three time-blocks that should be synchronized is not to be taken as an exact parallelism: “This assumption does not claim a pure 1:1 parallelism in which events reported for the year 100 AD could simply be supplemented with information for the year 800 AD.”[18] Stratigraphic identity only means that all real events that are dated to Imperial Antiquity or Late Antiquity happened in fact during the Early Middle Ages (from the stratigraphic viewpoint).

海因索恩對三個應(yīng)該同步的時間段的識別并不能被視為完全的并行:“這個假設(shè)并沒有聲稱一個純1:1的并行性。在這種平行性中，公元100年的事件報告可以簡單地補充公元800年的信息?！?br /> 地層學(xué)的同一性只意味著所有可以追溯到帝國古代或上古晚期的真實事件實際上都發(fā)生在中世紀(jì)早期(從地層學(xué)的角度來看)。

Moreover, all three time-blocks do not have the same length. That is because Late Antiquity (from the beginning of Diocletian’s reign in 284 to the death of Heraclius in 641) is some 120 years too long, according to Heinsohn. The Byzantine segment from the rise of Justinian (527) to the death of Heraclius (641) was in reality shorter and overlapped with the period of Anastasius (491-518). In other words, not only the first millennium as a whole, but Late Antiquity itself has to be shortened. Duplicates account for its phantom years. Thus the Persian emperor Khosrow I (531-579) fought by Justinian is identical to the Khosrow II (591-628) fought by his immediate successors — regardless of the fact that archeologists decided to ascribe the silver drachmas to Khosrow I and the gold dinars to Khosrow II.

此外，這三個時間段的長度也不盡相同。根據(jù)海因索恩的說法，這是因為古代晚期(從284年戴克里先統(tǒng)治開始到641年希拉克略去世)大約長了120年。從查士丁尼(527年)崛起到希拉克略(641年)去世的拜占庭時期實際上更短，與阿納斯塔修斯(491-518年)時期重疊。
換句話說，不僅是第一個千年作為一個整體，就連古代晚期本身都必須縮短。重復(fù)說明了它年代的虛幻。因此，查士丁尼與波斯皇帝科斯羅一世(531-579)的戰(zhàn)爭，與其直接繼任者與科斯羅二世(591-628)的戰(zhàn)爭是一回事——盡管考古學(xué)家決定將銀幣德拉克馬歸科斯羅一世所有，將金幣第納爾歸科斯羅二世所有。

Other duplicates within Late Antiquity include the Roman emperor Flavius Theodosius (379-395) being identical to the Gothic ruler of Ravenna and Italy Flavius Theodoric (471-526), who bears the same name, only with the additional suffix riks, meaning king. “At some point in the half millennium with manipulations of the original texts that can no longer be counted or reconstructed, two names of one person have become two persons with different names placed one behind the other.” The Gothic wars have also been duplicated: with the war fought by Odoacer and his son Thela in the 470, and the one fought by ToTila in the 540s, “we are not dealing with two different Italian wars, but with two different narratives about the same war, which were connected chronologically one after the other.”

在古代晚期，其他重復(fù)的人包括羅馬皇帝弗拉維烏斯·狄奧多西(379-395)，他與拉文納和意大利的哥特式統(tǒng)治者弗拉維烏斯·狄奧多里克(471-526)是一個人，他們的名字相同，只是多了一個后綴riks，意思是國王?！霸诎雮€世紀(jì)的某個時刻，由于對原始文本的操縱，無法再計數(shù)或重建，一個人的兩個名字變成了有兩個名字的不同的人，并且一個放在另一個后面?！?br /> 哥特戰(zhàn)爭也被復(fù)制了——奧多亞克和他的兒子西拉在公元470年發(fā)動的戰(zhàn)爭，以及托蒂拉在公元540年發(fā)動的戰(zhàn)爭，“我們面對的不是兩場不同的意大利戰(zhàn)爭，而是對同一場戰(zhàn)爭的兩種不同的敘述，它們按時間順序一個接一個地聯(lián)系在一起?！?/b>



圖：作者同時描繪了230年的三個時間段

The strength or Heinsohn’s approach, as compared to Illig and Niemtiz’s, is that he doesn’t really dexe 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. The numerous actors from Iceland (with Roman coins; Heinsohn 2013d) to Baghdad (whose 9th c. coins are found in the same stratum as 2nd c. Roman coins; Heinsohn 2013b) can eventually be drawn together to weave the rich and colourful fabric of that vast space with 2.500 cities, and 85.000 km of roads.”

與伊利格和尼姆蒂斯的方法相比，海因索恩方法的優(yōu)勢在于，他并沒有真正刪除歷史:“如果一個人刪除了通過錯誤地將平行時期按順序排列而人為創(chuàng)造的時間范圍，那么失去的只是虛幻，而不是歷史。通過重新整合七個世紀(jì)以來被切碎和分散的文本和文物，第一次有意義的歷史編纂成為可能?！?br /> 事實上，“一幅更為豐富的羅馬歷史圖景浮現(xiàn)了出來。來自冰島的眾多“演員”(羅馬硬幣)到巴格達(dá)(其公元9世紀(jì)的硬幣與公元2世紀(jì)的羅馬硬幣在同一地層中被發(fā)現(xiàn))最終可以與2500座城市和85000公里的道路結(jié)合在一起，編織出豐富多彩的廣闊空間?！?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


Rome
Applied to Rome, Heinsohn’s theory solves a conundrum that has always puzzled historians: the absence of any vestige datable from the late third century to the tenth century (mentioned in Part 1): “Rome of the first millennium CE builds residential quarters, latrines, water pipes, sewage systems, streets, ports, bakeries etc. only during Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd c.) but not in Late Antiquity (4th-6th c.) and in the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th c.). Since the ruins of the 3rd century lie directly under the primitive new buildings of the 10th century, Imperial Antiquity belongs stratigraphically to the period from ca. 700 to 930 CE.”

羅馬
應(yīng)用于羅馬，海因索恩的理論解決了一個一直困擾歷史學(xué)家的難題:沒有任何可以追溯到三世紀(jì)晚期到十世紀(jì)的遺跡(在第一部分中提到):“公元第一個千年的羅馬只在帝國古代(公元1 -3世紀(jì))建造了住宅區(qū)、廁所、水管、污水系統(tǒng)、街道、港口、面包店等，但在古代晚期(公元4 -6世紀(jì))和中世紀(jì)早期(公元8 -10世紀(jì))沒有。由于3世紀(jì)的遺跡直接位于10世紀(jì)的原始新建筑之下，從地層學(xué)上講，帝國古代屬于公元700年至930年的時期?！?br /> 從公元3世紀(jì)到10世紀(jì)的7個世紀(jì)里，羅馬帝國的中心沒有任何新的建筑。公元3世紀(jì)的城市材料與公元10世紀(jì)初的城市材料在地層學(xué)上是一樣的?！?br /> 在下面的插圖中，圖拉真廣場(公元2 /3世紀(jì)的Piano Antico)的地板直接被羅馬文明的大災(zāi)難所形成的黑泥(fango)層所覆蓋。


In order to fill up their artificially stretched millennium, modern historians often have to do violence to their primary sources. As Fomenko already pointed out, the Getae and the Goths were considered the same people by Jordanes — himself a Goth — in his Getica written in the middle of the 6th century. Other historians before and after him, such as Claudian, Isidore of Seville and Procopius of Caesarea also used the name Getae to designate the Goths. But Theodor Mommsen has rejected the identification: “The Getae were Thracians, the Goths Germans, and apart from the coincidental similarity in their names they had nothing whatever in common.”

為了填滿他們?nèi)藶槔L的千年，現(xiàn)代歷史學(xué)家經(jīng)常不得不對他們的原始資料進(jìn)行暴力處理。正如福門科已經(jīng)指出的，在6世紀(jì)中期的《Getica》中，約旦人(他自己也是哥特人)認(rèn)為蓋塔（Getae）人和哥特（Goths）人是同一種人。
在他之前和之后的其他歷史學(xué)家，如克勞狄、塞維利亞的伊西多爾和凱撒利亞的普羅科匹厄斯也用蓋塔（Getae）這個名字來稱呼哥特人。但是莫姆森否認(rèn)了這一說法:
“蓋塔人是色雷斯人，哥特人是日耳曼人，除了名字巧合相似之外，他們沒有任何共同之處?！?/b>

Yet archeologists are puzzled by the fact that the Getae and the Goths inhabit the same area at 300 years distance, and there is no explanation for how the Getae disappeared before the Goth appeared, and for the lack of demography during the 300-year interval. Besides, there is evidence, contrary to what Mommsen claims, of great resemblance between their culture, including in clothing, as Gunnar Heinsohn points out: Goths in the 3rd/4th c. “made great efforts to dress, from head to toe, like their mysteriously missing predecessors” (the 1st/3rd-c. Getae), and continued “to manufacture 300 year older ceramics, rolling back technological evolution to pre-Christian La Tène earthenware.”

然而，考古學(xué)家對蓋塔人和哥特人相隔300年居住在同一地區(qū)的事實感到困惑，而且沒有解釋蓋塔人如何在哥特人出現(xiàn)之前消失，以及在300年的間隔中缺乏人口統(tǒng)計。
此外，有證據(jù)表明，與莫姆森的說法相反，他們的文化非常相似，包括在服裝上，正如海因索恩指出的那樣:
“哥特人生活在3-4世紀(jì)，他們花了很大的努力，從頭到腳打扮得像他們神秘失蹤的前輩蓋塔人一樣”(公元1 -3世紀(jì))，并繼續(xù)“制造300年前的陶瓷，其技術(shù)進(jìn)化可以回溯到基督教之前的拉坦諾文化的陶器?！?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


According to Heinsohn, “The identity of Getae and Goths can help to solve some of the most stubborn enigmas of Gothic history,” such as strong parallel between Rome’s Getic-Dacian wars in the first century AD and Rome’s Gothic wars some 300 years later. The Dacian leader Decebalus (meaning “The Powerful”) may be identical to the Goth Alaric (meaning “King of all”). By such processes, “different sources dealing with the same events have been split (and altered) in such a way that the same event is described twice, albeit from different angles, thereby creating a chronology that is twice as long as the actual course of history that can be substantiated by archaeology.”

根據(jù)海因索恩的說法，“蓋塔人和哥特人的身份可以幫助解決哥特歷史上一些最頑固的謎題”，比如公元1世紀(jì)羅馬的蓋塔-達(dá)契亞戰(zhàn)爭與大約300年后羅馬的哥特戰(zhàn)爭之間的強烈相似性。
達(dá)契亞領(lǐng)袖德塞巴羅斯(意為“強大的”)可能與哥特人阿拉里克(意為“所有人的國王”)是一個人。通過這樣的過程，“處理同一事件的不同來源被分撥縷析(和改變)，以這樣一種方式，同一事件被描述了兩次，盡管是從不同的角度，從而創(chuàng)造了一個比考古學(xué)可以證實的實際歷史進(jìn)程長兩倍的年表?！?/b>



圖：蓋塔囚犯和哥特戰(zhàn)士，都穿著同樣的衣服，包括弗里吉亞的帽子

Constantinople
“While no new residential areas with latrines, water systems and streets were built in Rome during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, they are missing in Constantinople during Imperial Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. […] Both cities have these basic components of urbanity in only one of the three epochs of the first millennium. Although in Rome they are dated to Imperial Antiquity, whilst in Constantinople they are dated to Late Antiquity, from the point of view of architecture and building technology they are nearly indistinguishable.” That is because, in reality, they “share the same stratigraphical horizon.”

君士坦丁堡
“雖然在古代晚期和中世紀(jì)早期，羅馬沒有建造帶有廁所、供水系統(tǒng)和街道的新住宅區(qū)，但他們無視了在帝國古代和中世紀(jì)早期的君士坦丁堡。……這兩個城市在第一個千年的三個時期中只有一個時期具有城市化的這些基本組成部分。雖然在羅馬，它們可以追溯到帝國時期而在君士坦丁堡它們可以追溯到古代晚期，但從建筑和建筑技術(shù)的角度來看，它們幾乎沒有什么區(qū)別。這是因為，在現(xiàn)實中，它們“共享相同的地層面?！?/b>

There are, however, non-residential constructions in Byzantium dated from Imperial Antiquity. The most important is its first recorded aqueduct, built under Hadrian (117-138 AD). “This is considered a mystery because Byzantium’s actual founder, Constantine the Great (305-337 AD), did not expand the city until 200 years later.” In reality, “Hadrian’s aqueduct carries water to a flourishing city 100 years after Constantine, and not to a supposed wasteland centuries earlier. The mystery disappears. When Justinian renovates the great Basilica Cistern, which gathers water from Hadrian’s aqueduct, he does so not 400 years, but less than 100 years after it was built.”

然而，拜占庭的非住宅建筑可以追溯到帝國古代。最重要的是有記載的第一條渡槽，建于哈德良(公元117-138年)時期?！斑@被認(rèn)為是一個謎，因為拜占庭的真正創(chuàng)始人君士坦丁大帝(公元305-337年)直到200年后才擴建這座城市?！?br /> 在現(xiàn)實中，“哈德良的水渠將水輸送到君士坦丁之后100年的繁榮城市，而不是幾個世紀(jì)前的一片荒原?！鄙衩叵Я?。當(dāng)查士丁尼修復(fù)從哈德良的渡槽中收集水的大殿蓄水池時，不是400年后，而是建成后不到100年?！?/b>

The Early Middle Ages are known as Byzantium’s Dark Ages, beginning in 641 after the reign of Heraclius, and ending with the Macedonian Renaissance under Basil II (976-1022 AD). In the words of historian John O’Neill, “About forty years after the death of Justinian the Great, from the first quarter of the seventh century, [for] three centuries, cities were abandoned and urban life came to an end. There is no sign of revival until the middle of the tenth century.” For Heinsohn, this period, like most other “dark ages”, is a phantom age. The Justinian dynasty starting with Justin I (AD 518-527) is identical to the Macedonian dynasty, which we can count from Constantine VII (913-959), initiator of the Macedonian Renaissance. The 400-year period between Justinian (527-565 AD) and Basil II lasted in reality only 70 years, corresponding to the Tenth Century Collapse.

中世紀(jì)早期被稱為拜占庭的黑暗時代，開始于赫拉克利烏斯統(tǒng)治后的641年，結(jié)束于巴茲爾二世統(tǒng)治下的馬其頓文藝復(fù)興時期(公元976-1022年)。用歷史學(xué)家約翰·奧尼爾的話來說，“查士丁尼大帝死后大約四十年，也就是從七世紀(jì)上半葉開始的三個世紀(jì)里，城市被遺棄了，城市生活走到了盡頭。直到十世紀(jì)中葉才出現(xiàn)復(fù)興的跡象。對海因索恩來說，這一時期和其他大多數(shù)“黑暗時代”一樣，是一個虛幻時代。
查士丁尼王朝始于猶斯丁一世(公元518-527年)，與馬其頓王朝相同，我們可以從君士坦丁七世(公元913-959年)算起，他是馬其頓文藝復(fù)興的發(fā)起者。查士丁尼(公元527-565年)和巴茲爾二世之間的400年，實際上只持續(xù)了70年，相當(dāng)于10世紀(jì)大崩潰。

Besides archeology, there are also “anachronisms and puzzles in the development of the laws of Justinian (527-535 CE),” written in 2nd-c. Latin. “Not a single jurist from the 300 years between the Severan early 3rd century and Justinian’s 6th century textbook date is included in the Digestae. Moreover, no post-550s jurist put his hand to the Digestae.” So that “There are, from the Severans to the end of the Early Middle Ages, some 700 years without comments by Roman jurists.” In addition: “It is a mystery why Justinian’s Greek subjects had to wait 370 years [until the 900s CE], only to receive a version of the laws in Koine Greek of the 2nd c. out of use since 700 years.” It all “l(fā)ooks bizarre only as long as the stratigraphic simultaneity of Imperial Antiquity, Late Antiquity, and the Early Middle Ages is denied.” That the Severan and the Justinian dynasties are contemporaries explain that both fought a Persian emperor named Khosrow.

除了考古學(xué)，還有《學(xué)說匯纂》——寫于公元2世紀(jì)的“查士丁尼(公元527-535年)法律發(fā)展中的時代錯誤和困惑”。寫于拉丁語?！皬?世紀(jì)早期的塞維蘭到6世紀(jì)查士丁尼的教科書日期之間的300年間，沒有一個法學(xué)家被包括在《學(xué)說匯纂》中。而且，沒有一個550 年后的法學(xué)家把手放在《學(xué)說匯纂》上?！?br /> 因此，“從塞維蘭王朝到中世紀(jì)早期，大約有700年沒有羅馬法學(xué)家的評論?！贝送猓安槭慷∧岬南ＥD臣民為什么要等370年(直到公元900年)，才得到公元2世紀(jì)的希臘共同語版本的法律，這是一個謎，從700年開始就沒有使用過?！?br /> 這一切“只有在否認(rèn)帝國古代、古代晚期和中世紀(jì)早期的地層同一性時，才會顯得奇怪”。塞維蘭王朝和查士丁尼王朝是同時代的，順帶這也解釋了他們都與波斯皇帝科斯羅作戰(zhàn)。

According to Heinsohn, the foundation of Imperial Rome and Imperial Constantinople are roughly contemporary. It is “a geographical sequence from west to east [that] was turned into a chronological sequence from earlier to later.” “Diocletian did not reside in ruins, but lived at the same time as Augustus. His capital was not Rome. He had residences in Antioch, Nicomedia, and Sirmium. From there he worked tirelessly for the protection of Augustus’ empire.” Heinsohn’s hypothesis of the contemporaneity of Diocletian in the East and Octavian Augustus in the West (ruling in concert) distinguishes him from Fomenko, who believes that Augustus is a fictitious duplicate of the Roman Emperor residing in Constantinople. Heinsohn also differs from Fomenko in the way he sees the relationship between the two Roman capitals: he accepts Rome’s precedence and assumes that Diocletian was a subordinate of Octavian Augustus. Fomenko, on the other hand, considers that Constantinople was the original center of the empire. This is consistent with Diocletian’s position as the superior of his Western counterpart Maximian. Diocletian was an Eastern Emperor from the beginning. He was born in today’s Croatia, where he built his palace (Split), and hardly ever set foot in Rome. Maximian, sent to rule in Rome, was himself from the Balkans.

根據(jù)海因索恩的說法，羅馬帝國和君士坦丁堡帝國的建立大致是在同一時期。它從“一個原本從西到東的地理序列，變成了一個從早到晚的時間序列。
“戴克里先并沒有居住在廢墟中，而是和奧古斯都生活在同一時代。他的首都不是羅馬。他在安提阿、尼科米底亞和錫爾米烏姆都有住處。在那里，他不知疲倦地為保護奧古斯都的帝國而工作?！?br /> 海因索恩的假設(shè)是東方的戴克里先和西方的屋大維奧古斯都在同一時期，這使他與福門科區(qū)別開來，后者認(rèn)為奧古斯都是居住在君士坦丁堡的羅馬皇帝的虛構(gòu)復(fù)制品。海因索恩對兩個羅馬首都之間關(guān)系的看法也與福門科不同，他接受羅馬的優(yōu)先地位，并認(rèn)為戴克里先是屋大維的下屬。而福門科則認(rèn)為君士坦丁堡是帝國最初的中心。
這與戴克里先的地位是一致的，他是西方同行馬克西米安的上級。戴克里先從一開始就是東方皇帝。他出生在今天的克羅地亞，并在那里建造了自己的宮殿(斯普利特)，幾乎從未踏足羅馬。被派到羅馬統(tǒng)治的馬克西米安本人則來自巴爾干半島。
（未完待續(xù)）