Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited sold better than it should have, not least for its flirting with Illig's hypothesis that the Dark Age was fake and gay. Unz has been hosting a "first millennium revisionist" who, likewise, would crush more centuries together.
The 1MR lately self-outed as ... Guyénot. Anyway he's anti-Illig too.
Dendrochronology with the recent marking of carbon-spikes at (especially!) AD 775 make post-Islamic chronologies a done-deal. (Literature being a separate issue.) So Illig (like Edwin Johnson) was wrong and "Emmet Scott" was an embarrassment.
Where Guyénot has a point is that chronology gets more-and-more difficult the further back you go. We can nail down AD 775 but I've noticed a good deal of fuzziness around AD 635.
I do have to note, however, the direction our findings are heading toward. Illig lost ground to the point Illig lost his war, even in revisionists' eyes. Now Guyénot is fighting on ground a few centuries earlier. I don't think he is keeping that ground. Which is why only Unz will have him. Vox Day awaits, I fear.
No comments:
Post a Comment