Anatoly T. Fomenko History: Fiction or Science?Jesus Christ was born in 1053 a.p. and crucified in 1086 a.p. The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486 A.p. Not quite what you have learned in school? This ver- sion of events is more substantiated by hard facts and logic — validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources — than every- thing you have read and heard about history before. The so-called consensual history is a finely woven Pneeted Clove Cemey Merl eu Cem Heel KOE M CeCe bnT the XVI century. There is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that could be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the XI century. The archeological, dendrochronological, paleograph- ical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts are both non-exact and contradictory. The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the XVI century from a rather contradictory jumble of sources, such as innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manu- scripts whose originals have vanished in the Dark Ages and the allegedly irrefutable proof delivered by the late mediaeval astronomers, all cemented by the SON ame Maen Tmoee aac UML U Cy aL eCoomN Cccbo har eran CY components are blatantly untrue! This is History in the Making ISBN 2-913b21-05-8 | | | | ill Delamere Publishing | | | 9 "782913"621053 PARIS - LONDON - NEW YORKWho controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. GEORGE ORWELLii | HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? A. T. Fomenko Chronology 1 Introducing the problem. A criticism of the Scaligerian chronology. Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs. A. T. Fomenko Chronology 2 The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts. A. T. Fomenko, V. V. Kalashnikov, G. V. Nosovskiy Chronology 3 Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs. A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy Chronology 4 Russia. Britain. Byzantium. Rome. A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy Chronology 5 Russia = Horde. Ottomans = Atamans. Europe. China. Japan. The Etruscans. Egypt. Scandinavia. A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy Chronology 6 The Horde-Ataman Empire. The Bible. The Reformation. America. Passover and the calendar. A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy Chronology 7 A reconstruction of global history. The Khans of Novgorod = The Habsburgs. Miscellaneous information. The legacy of the Great Empire in the history and culture of Eurasia and America. This seven volume edition is based on a number of our books that came out over the last couple of years and were concerned with the subject in ques- tion. All this gigantic body of material was revised and categorized; finally, its current form does not contain any of the repetitions that are inevitable in the publication of separate books. All of this re- sulted in the inclusion of a great number of addi- tional material in the current edition — including previously unpublished data. The reader shall find a systematic rendition of detailed criticisms of the consensual (Scaligerian) chronology, the descrip- tions of the methods offered by mathematical sta- tistics and natural sciences that the authors have discovered and researched, as well as the new hypothetical reconstruction of global history up until the XVIII century. Our previous books on the subject of chronology were created in the period of naissance and rather turbulent infancy of the new paradigm, full of complications and involved is- sues, which often resulted in the formulation of multi-optional hypotheses. The present edition pi- oneers in formulating a consecutive unified con- cept of the reconstruction of ancient history — one that apparently is supported by a truly immense body of evidence. Nevertheless, it is understandable that its elements may occasionally be in need of re- vision or elaboration.iii History: Fiction or Science? Fomenko, Anatoly Timofeevich. Born in 1945. Full Member (Academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Full Member of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor, Head of the Moscow State University Section of Mathematics of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics. Solved Plateau’s Problem from the theory of minimal spectral surfaces. Author of the theory of invariants and topological classification of integrable Hamil- tonian dynamic systems. Laureate of the 1996 Na- tional Premium of the Russian Federation (in Mathe- matics) for a cycle of works on the Hamiltonian dynamical systems and manifolds’ invariants theory. Author of 180 scientific publications, 26 monographs and textbooks on mathematics, a specialist in geom- etry and topology, calculus of variations, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry. Author of a number of books on the development of new empirico-statistical methods and their applica- tion to the analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chronology of antiquity and the Middle Ages.iv | HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? Also by Anatoly T. Fomenko (List is non-exhaustive) Differential Geometry and Topology Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1987. USA, Consultants Bureau, New York and London. Variational Principles in Topology. Multidimensional Minimal SurfaceTheory Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990. Topological variational problems. — Gordon and Breach, 1991. Integrability and Nonintegrability in Geometry and Mechanics Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1988. The Plateau Problem. vols.1, 2 Gordon and Breach, 1990. (Studies in the Development of Modern Mathematics.) Symplectic Geometry. Methods and Applications. Gordon and Breach, 1988. Second edition 1995. Minimal surfaces and Plateau problem. Together with Dao Chong Thi USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991. Integrable Systems on Lie Algebras and Symmetric Spaces. Together with V. V. Trofimov Gordon and Breach, 1987. Geometry of Minimal Surfaces in Three-Dimensional Space. Together with A. A.Tuzhilin USA, American Mathematical Society. In: Translation of Mathematical Monographs. vol.93, 1991. Topological Classification of Integrable Systems. Advances in Soviet Mathematics, vol. 6 USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991. Tensor and Vector Analysis: Geometry, Mechanics and Physics. — Taylor and Francis, 1988. Algorithmic and Computer Methods for Three-Manifolds. Together with S.V. Matveev Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1997. Topological Modeling for Visualization. Together with T. L. Kunii. — Springer-Verlag, 1997. Modern Geometry. Methods and Applications. Together with B. A. Dubrovin, S. P. Novikov Springer-Verlag, GTM 93, Part 1, 1984; GTM 104, Part 2, 1985. Part 3, 1990, GTM 124. The basic elements of differential geometry and topology. Together with S. P. Novikov Kluwer Acad. Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990. Integrable Hamiltonian Systems: Geometry, Topology, Classification. Together with A. V. Bolsinov ‘Taylor and Francis, 2003. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating. Vol.1: The Development of the Statistical Tools. Vol.2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records. — Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands, 1994. Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy's Almagest. Together with V. V Kalashnikov., G. V. Nosovsky. - CRC-Press, USA, 1993. New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Greek and Bible History. Vols.1, 2, 3.- The Edwin Mellen Press. USA. Lewiston. Queenston, Lampeter, 1999. Mathematical Impressions, - American Mathematical Society, USA, 1990.Anatoly T. Fomenko History: Fiction or Science? Cc H R ON O LO G Y¥ 1 Delamere Publishing PARIS + LONDON + NEW YORKPublished by Delamere Resources Ltd 2003 19 Peel Road Douglas Isle of Man IM1 4LS United Kingdom http://history.mithec.com Copyright © Delamere Resources Ltd 2003 ISBN 2-913621-05-8 Anatoly T. Fomenko asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work Translated from Russian by Michael Jagger Cover by Diane Deolen Project management by Franck Tamdhu All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the publisher. Critics are welcome, of course, to quote brief passages by way of criticism and review.Chapter 1 Contents Overview of the seven volumes nt About the Author m Also by Analoly T. Fomenko wv A Global Falsification of History. Foreword by Alexander Zinoviev x Foreword by A. Shiryaev xvin Publisher’s Note xx Preface by A. T. Fomenko xo History of the New Chronology. By A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy xxx Publisher’s Advice xxv The problems of historical chronology 1. Roman chronology as the foundation of European chronology 1 2. Scaliger, Petavius, and other clerical chronologers. The creation of contemporary chronology of the ancient times in the XVI-XVII century a.p. 1 3. The veracity of the Scaliger-Petavius chronology was questioned as early as the XVI century 10 3.1. Who criticized Scaliger’s chronology and where 10 3.1.1. De Arcilla, Robert Baldauf, Jean Hardouin, Edwin Johnson, Wilhelm Kammeyer 10 3.1.2. Sir Isaac Newton, lu 3.1.3. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov 13 3.1.4. Recent publications of German scientists containing criticisms of Scaliger’s chronology 18 3.2. The questionnable veracity of the Roman chronology and history. The hypercritical school of the XIX century 19 4. The problems in establishing a correct chronology of “ancient” Egypt 23 5. The problem in dating the “ancient” sources. Tacitus and Poggio. Cicero and Barzizza. Vitruvius and Alberti 25 6. Timekeeping in the Middle Ages. Historians discuss the “chaos reigning in the mediaeval datings.” Peculiar mediaeval anachronisms 31 7. The chronology and the dating of Biblical texts 32viii | HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE’ 8. Difficulties and contradictions arismg from the reading of old texts 8.1. How does one read a text written in consonants exclusively? The vocalization problem 8.2. The sounds “R” and “L” were often confused in the Middle Ages 9. Problems in the Scaligerian geography of Biblical events 9.1. Archaeology and the Old Testament 9.2. Archaeology and the New Testament 10. Ancient historical events: geographic localization issues 10.1. The locations of Troy and Babylon 10.2. The geography of Herodotus is at odds with the Scaligerian version 10.3. The inverted maps of the Middle Ages 11, A modern analysis of Biblical geography 12. The mysterious Renaissance epoch as a product of the Scaligerian chronology 13. The foundations of archaeological methods have been based on the Scaligerian chronology from the very beginning 13.1, The ambiguity of archaeological datings and their dependence on the existing chronology 13.2. The excavations of Pompeii. The dating of this town’s destruction 13.3. The alleged acceleration of the destruction of the “ancient” monuments 13.4. When did the construction of the Cologne Cathedral really begin? 13.5. Archaeological methods are most often based on Scaliger’s datings 13.6. One of the numerous problems of the Scaligerian history - the problem of bronze manufacture before the discovery of tin 14. The problems and deficiencies of dendrochronology and several other dating methods 14.1. The consequent scale of dendrochronological datings does not extend further back in time than the X century A.D. 14.2. Sedimentary layer datings. The methods of radium-uranium and radium-actinium analysis 15. Are radiocarbon datings to be trusted? 15.1. The radiocarbon datings of ancient, mediaeval, and modern specimens are scattered chaotically 15.1.1. Libby's initial idea. The first failures 15.1.2. A criticism of the application of the radiocarbon method to historical specimens 15.2. The dating of the Shroud of Turin 15.3 Modern radiocarbon analysis of Egyptian artefacts demonstrates serious contradictions 16. Critical analysis of the hypotheses on which the radiocarbon method is based 16.1. W. F. Libby’s intial idea 16.2. Physical basics of the radiocarbon method 16.3. The hypotheses that the radiocarbon method is based upon 16.4. The moment of the obyect’s departure from the exchange reservoir 16.5. Radiocarbon content variations in the exchange reservoir 16.6, Variations in radiocarbon content of living bodies 17. Summary 18. Numismatic dating 34 34 35 37 37 40 42 42 44 49 49 53 59 59 61 65 65 68 70 7 71 73 74 74 74 75 77 80 80 81 83 83 87 87 90CHRON Chapter 2 Chapter 3 cONTENTS | ix Astronomical datings 1. The strange leap of parameter D" in the Theory of Lunar Motion 93 2. Are the “ancient” and mediaeval eclipses dated correctly? 95 2.1. Some astronomical data 95 2.2. The discovery of an interesting effect: an unprejudiced astronomical dating shifts the dates of the “ancient” eclipses to the Middle Ages 96 2.3. Three eclipses described by the “ancient” Thucydides 97 2.4. The eclipses described by the “ancient” Titus Livy 105 3. Transferring the dates of the “ancient” eclipses forward in time into the Middle Ages eliminates the emgmatic behaviour of the parameter D" 105 4, Astronomy moves the “ancient” horoscopes into the Middle Ages 106 4.1. The mediaeval astronomy 106 4.2. The method of unprejudiced astronomical dating 109 4.3. Many “ancient astronomical observations” may have been theoretically calculated by late mediaeval astronomers and then included into the “ancient” chronicles as “real observations” 110 4.4. Which astronomical “observations of the ancients” could have been a result of late mediaeval theoretic calculations? lll 5. A brief account of several examples of Egyptian Zodiacs 112 5.1. Some general observations 112 5.2. The Dendera Zodiacs 113 5.3. The horoscopes of Brugsch and Flinders Petrie 124 5.4. Finite datings of the Egyptian Zodiacs based on their complete deciphering, as obtained by A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskay in 2001 127 5.5. On the errors of E. S. Goloubtsova and Y. A. Zavenyagin 128 6. Astronomy 1n the New Testament 133 The new dating of the astronomical horoscope as described in the Apocalypse By A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskty 1. The proposed research method 134 2. General information about the Apocalypse and the time of its creation 135 3. Ursa Major and the throne 139 4. The events took place on the Isle of Patmos 141 5, The constellations of Cassiopeia and the throne were drawn as Christ sitting on his throne in the Middle Ages 141 6. The Milky Way 142 7. Twenty-four sidereal hours and the constellation of the Northern Crown 146 8. Leo, Taurus, Sagittarius, Pegasus 146 9. The daily rotation of the Northern Crown 148 10. Equine planetary images in mediaeval astronomy 148 11. Jupiter 1s in Sagittarius 150 12. Mars is beneath Perseus in either Gemini or Taurus 152 13. Mercury 1s in Libra 155 14, Saturn is in Scorpio 157 15. The Sun is in Virgo with the Moon underneath the feet of the latter 157X | HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? Chapter 4 Chapter 5 16. Venus is in Leo 17. The astronomical dating of the Apocalypse by the horoscope it contains 18, Our reconstruction of the initial content of the Apocalypse Astronomy in the Old Testament 1. Mediaeval astronomy in the Old Testament Book of Ezekiel 1.1. The title of the book 1.2. The description of the Milky Way and the Ophiuchus constellation 1.3. The Biblical description of the astronomical sectors, or “wings,” on the celestial sphere 1.4. The constellations of Leo, Taurus and Aquila 1.5. The Biblical description of the mediaeval “wheels,” or planetary orbits 1.6. Parallels with the astronomical symbolism of the Apocalypse 1.7. Biblical cherubim, chariots, and mediaeval planetary orbital wheels 1.8. The Biblical description of mediaeval cosmology as a celestial temple 2. The Biblical prophecy of Zechariah and the date of its creation 3. The Biblical prophecy of Jeremiah and the date of its creation 4. The Biblical prophecy of Isaiah and the date of its creation 5. The Biblical prophecy of Daniel and the date of its creation The methods of dating the ancient events offered by mathematical statistics 1, The local maxima method 1.1. The historical text volume function 1.2. The maxima correlation principle 1.3. Statistical model 1.4. Experimental test of the maxima correlation principle. Examples of dependent and independent historical texts 1.5. Method of dating the historical events 2. Volume functions of historical texts and the amplitude correlation principle 2.1. Dependent and independent chronicles. Volume function maxima correlation 2.2, Rich and poor chronicles and chronicle zones 2.3. Significant and insignificant zeroes of volume functions 2.4. The information respect principle 2.5. The amplitude correlation principle of volume graphs in the poor zones of chronicles 2.6, Description of statistical model and formalization 2.7. The hypothesis about the increase of the “form” parameter of a chronicle in the course of time 2.8. The list and characteristics of the Russian chronicles we investigated 2.9. The final table of the numeric experiment 2.10. Interesting consequences of the numeric experiment. The confirmation of the statistical model 2.11. Comparison of a priori dependent Russian chronicles 157 157 161 167 167 168 169 169 170 174 175 176 177 181 183 183 187 187 188 190 194 198 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 205 205 206 207 207CHRONI Chapter 6 CONTENTS | xi 2.12, Comparison of a priori independent Russian chronicles 2.13. Growth of form parameter in the course of time for the Russian chronicles after the XIII century 2.14. Growth of the average form parameter over the course of time for groups of Russian chronicles of the XIII-XVI century 2.15. Growth of the average parameter of form over the course of time for the groups of Russian chronicles of the alleged [X-XIII century 2.16. Chronological shift by 300 or 400 years in Russian history 2.17. Conclusions 3. The maxima correlation principle on the material of the sources pertinent to the epoch of Strife in the History of Russia (1584-1619) 4, The method for the recognition and dating of the dynasties of rulers. The small dynastic distortions principle 4.1. The formulation of the small dynastic distortions principle 4.2. The statistical model 4.3. Refinement of the model and the computation experiment 4.4, Result of the experiment: coefficient c(a, b) positively distinguishes between the dependent and independent dynasties of kings 4.5. The method of dating the royal dynasties and the method detecting the phantom dynastic duplicates 5. The frequency damping principle. The method of ordering of historical texts in time 6. Application of the method to some concrete historical texts 7. Method of dating of the events 8. The frequencies duplication principle. The duplicate detection method 9, Statistical analysis of the Bible 9.1. Partition of the Bible into 218 “generation chapters” 9.2. Detection of the previously known duplicates in the Bible with the aid of the frequency damping principle 9.3. New, previously unknown duplicates we discovered in the Bible. General scheme of their distribution within the Bible 9.4. A representative example: the new statistical dating of the Apocalypse, which moves from the New Testament into the Old Testament 10. The method of form-codes. The comparison of two long currents of regal biographies 11. Correct chronological ordering method and dating of ancient geographical maps The construction of a global chronological map and the results of applying mathematical procedures of dating to the Scaligerian version of the ancient history 1. Textbook of ancient and mediaeval history in the consensual Scaliger-Petavius datings 2. Mysterious duplicate chronicles inside the “Scaliger-Petavius textbook” 3. Mysterious duplicate regal dynasties inside the “textbook by Scaliger-Petavius” 4. Brief tables of some astonishing dynastic parallelisms 208 209 209 210 210 211 211 215 215 217 221 222 222 223 225 226 228 228 229 232 233 234 238 256 256 263 294xii | HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? 5. Conformity of results obtained by different methods 5.1, General assertion 5.2. The agreement of the different methods on the example of the identification of the Biblical Judaic reign with the Holy Roman Empire of allegedly X-XIII century a.p. 6. The general layout of duplicates in “the textbook by Scaliger-Petavius”. The discovery of the three basic chronological shifts 7. The Scaligerian textbook of the ancient history glued together four duplicates of the short original chronicle 8. The list of phantom “ancient” events which are phantom duplicates, or reflections of the mediaeval originals 9. Identification of the “ancient” Biblical history with the mediaeval European history 10. Our hypothesis: history as described in surviving chronicles only begins in ca, the X century a.p. We know nothing of the events that took place before the X century a.D. 11. Authentic history only begins in XVII century a.p. The history of the XI-XVI century is largely distorted. Many dates of the XI-XVI century require correction 12. The radical distinction of our chronological concept from the version of N. A. Morozov 13. The hypothesis about the cause of the fallacious chronological shifts in the creation of the history of antiquity 13.1. Chronological shift of a thousand years as the consequence of the fallacious dating of Jesus Christ’s life 13.2. The letter “X” formerly denoted the name of Christ, but was later proclaimed to stand for the figure of ten. The letter “I” formerly denoted the name of Jesus, but was later proclaimed to be the indication of one thousand 13.3. Until the XVIII century, the Latin letters “I” or “J” - i.e. the first letters of the name of Jesus — were still used in several European regions to denote “one” in recording of dates 13.4. How the chronological shift by 330 or 360 years could have occured 33.5. What latin letters “M”, “D”, “C” in Roman dates meant originally, in the Middle Ages 13.5.1. General idea 13.5.2. Example: the date on the tomb of Empress Gisela 13.5.3. Another example: the date on the headstone of Emperor Rudolf Habsburg 13.5.4. Recording of mediaeval dates was not unified everywhere even in the XVIII century 13.5.5. Some datings of printed books and manuscripts dating from the XV-XVII century will apparently have to be moved forwards in time by at least fifty more years 13.6. The foundation date of Rome of Italy 13,7. A later confusion of foundation dates of the two Romes, on the Bosporus and in Italy 318 318 318 320 323 328 333 334 334 336 336 336 343 351 351 351 352 352 354 355 356 356CHRONI CONTENTS | xiii 13.8. Scaliger and the Council of Trent. Creation of the Scaligerian chronology of antiquity in the XVI-XVH century 358 13.9. Two phantom “ancient” reflections of Dionysius Petavius, a mediaeval chronologist of the XVII century 359 14. A stratified structure of the Scaligerian textbook of ancient history 360 15. The coordination of a new astronomical dating with a dynastic parallel 365 16. A strange lapse in the Scaligerian chronology near “the beginning of the new era” 367 Chapter? “Dark Ages” in mediaeval history 1. The mysterious Renaissance of the “Classical Age” in mediaeval Rome 373 1. The lugubrious “Dark Ages” in Europe that presumably succeeded the beauteous “Classical Age” 373 1.2. Parallels between “antiquity” and the Middle Ages that are known to historians, but misinterpreted by them 375 1.3. Mediaeval Roman legislators convene in the presumably destroyed “ancient” Capitol 377 1.4. The real date when the famous “ancient” statue of Marcus Aurelius was manufactured 379 1.5. Could the “ancient” Emperor Vitellrus have posed for the mediaeval artist Tintoretto? 381 1.6. The amount of time required for the manufacture of one sheet of parchment 383 1.7. The “ancient” Roman Emperor Augustus had been Christian, since he wore a mediaeval crown with a Christian cross 383 2. The “ancient” historian Tacitus and the well-known Renaissance writer Poggio Bracciohini 386 3, The mediaeval Western European Christian cult and the “ancient” pagan Bacchic celebrations 394 4, Petrarch (= Plutarch?) and the “Renaissance of antiquity” 410 4.1. How Petrarch created the legend of the glory of Italian Rome out of nothing 410 4.2. Petrarch’s private correspondence with people considered “ancient characters” nowadays 413 5. “Ancient” Greece and mediaeval Greece of the XIII-XVI century 415 5.1. The history of the mediaeval Athens 1s supposed to be obscured by darkness up until the XVI century 415 5.2. Greece and the Crusades 422 5.3. The history of Greek and Athenian archaeology is relatively short 425 5.4. The tendentious distortion of the image of mediaeval Athens in the “restoration works” of the XIX-XX century 427 6. Strange parallels in the Scaligerian history of religions 436 6.1. Mediaeval Christianity and its reflection in the Scaligerian “pagan antiquity” 436 6.2. Mediaeval Christianity and “ancient” Mithraism 441 6.3. References to Jesus Christ contained in “ancient” Egyptian artefacts 444 6.4. Researchers of the ancient religions commenting on the strange similarities between the cults of “antiquity” and those of the Middle Ages 453xiv | HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? Annexes 6.5. Moses, Aaron and their sister Virgin Mary on the pages of the Koran 6.6. The XI century as the apparent epoch of St. Mark’s lifetime. The history of St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice 7. The “ancient” Egypt and the Middle Ages 7A. The odd graph of demotic text datings 7.2. The enigmatic “revival periods” in the history of “ancient” Egypt 73. The ancient Hittites and the mediaeval Goths 8. Problems inherent in the Scaligerian chronology of India 9. Was the artificial elongation of ancient history deliberate? 2.1. (TO CHAPTER 2) Grammatical analysis of an eclipse description in History by Thucydides 5.1. (TO CHAPTER 5) Per annum volume distribution in some Russian chronicles 5.2. (FO CHAPTER 5) Frequency matrix of names and parallels in the Bible By V. P. Fomenko and T. G, Fomenko 6.1. (TO CHAPTER 6) Per annum volume distribution in The History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages by F. Gregorovius 6.2. (TO CHAPTER 6) Per annum volume distribution in The Roman History from the Foundation of the City by Titus Livy 6.3. (TO CHAPTER 6) Per annum volume distribution in the book by Baronius describing mediaeval Rome 6.4. (TO CHAPTER 6) The “double entry” of the Biblical royal reigns of Israel and Judah 6.5. (TO CHAPTER 6) Armenian history. Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century a.p., a.k.a. the Kings of Judah, a.k.a. the mediaeval Armenian Catholicoses 1, Three phantom reflections of the same mediaeval dynasty 2. The parallelism between the mediaeval Armenian history and the phantom Roman Empire according to Scaliger 6.6. (TO CHAPTER 6) The identification of the “ancient” Kingdom of Judah with the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century a.p. The correlation between reign durations and biographical volumes The complete bibliography to the seven volumes 458 459 462 462 463 465 465 467 471 AT4 480 492 497 504 511 517 517 522 532 536A Global Falsification of History Foreword by Alexander Zinoviev I familiarized myself with the works of A. T. Fo- menko comparatively recently, and they impressed me greatly. What part of them struck me as the most stunning? First and foremost, it was the intellectual ca- pacity observable behind them. The authors reveal a way of cogitating that manages to fuse austere logic with dialectic flexibility; this is truly a rare occurrence in the field of social studies. Reading the ceuvres of A. T. Fomenko and his co-author G. V Nosovskiy — oc- casionally several times over — was a veritable intel- lectual delight for yours truly. They flabbergasted me with their sheer disquisitive might as well as the re- search results which, in my opinion, can by rights be called the greatest discovery in contemporary histor- ical science — what A. T, Fomenko and his colleagues had learnt over the course of their research was the fact that the entire history of humanity up until the XVII century is a forgery of global proportions (“old history” in their terminology) — a falsification as deliberate as it is universal. I shall be referring to this falsification as the first one. My sociological research of the great evolutionary breakpoint demonstrated that a new, blatant, global and premeditated falsification was al- ready in full swing. Prior to becoming familiar with the writings of Fomenko, I had already known that the falsification of the past was a rather common phe- nomenon inherent in human existence. However, I was neither aware of the scale of this fraud as de- scribed by Fomenko and his fellow scholars, nor of its social type. My assumption had been that the blatant falsification of history on a planetary scale that I dis- covered was the first one in what concerned the pro- portions and the ulterior motivation, as well as its his- torical role. Let us call it the second falsification of the same variety. It differs from the first in terms of per- taining to a different epoch. Its main subject is mod- ern history and whatever historical period can be claimed as relevant to, and seen as fitting for, the pur- poses of this falsification. The second falsification also differs from the first one in its primary means and methods, which shall be described below. One has to differentiate between the two kinds of falsification, the first one being the involuntary rou- tine falsification of minor details that results from the mechanisms of gnosis and those of the actual de- scription of historical events, or the entropy inherent in the framework of humanity's historical memory. The second is the extraordinary, premeditated and complex falsification that has distinct social causes. Let us consider the former kind first. We shall dis- regard the period preceding the epoch of literacy and symbolic systems. The mnemonic means available back then were less than meagre, which automati- cally diminished the arsenal of the hypothetical fal- sifiers. We shall turn to the era of literacy instead. It is common knowledge that historical events become immanetized in human language — and a statement uttered is a lie, as the old saying goes. We cannot fathom the unfathomable. What we end up doing is raking the vastness of history for tiny morsels of in-xvi | HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? formation and adding some of our own narrative in order to produce wholesome and coherent textual material. The modern information technology does not af- fect the principles that the status quo relies upon. Let us introduce the concept of historical “atoms”, or par- ticles that aren’t subject to further division. One may well calculate that the verbal description of a single year of real history the way it really happened, in- cluding all manner of events, no matter how minute, would require the processing power of all the com- puters on the planet, with all people made computer operators. De facto, this technology serves as a pow- erful instrument of historical falsification. It allows for the possibility of drowning a scientific approach to his- torical events in an ocean of meaningless facts. Furthermore, the description of actual historical events is done by humans, and not perfect divine en- tities. People are brought up and educated in a cer- tain way and have a certain social standing, as well as egotistical goals and aims of their very own. All of this affects the way the information is processed. Over the course of time, the overwhelming majority of events are wiped away into oblivion without leaving the mer- est trace. They are frequently not even realized as events. The people’s attitude to the past begins to alter as past events gradually drift into an altogether dif- ferent observational and interpretational context. Evolutionary process discerns between two kinds of events — preliminal and superliminal. The former kind does not affect the general character of evolu- tion; the latter one does. However, humans, includ- ing specialists, fail to recognize the difference be- tween the two. Everyone knows perfectly well how much attention is poured over rather insignificant individuals, such as kings and presidents, whereas the really important events often don’t even get so much as a passing reference. This affects the relations be- tween historical events so much that all sense of measure is often lost. Even if we are to suppose that all those who partake in the creation of historical records see veracity as their mission, the result of their collective efforts is often the rendition of their own subjective views on history as opposed to what happened in reality. As centuries pass by, the stream of disinformation is fed by various sources and trib- utaries, which, in their multitude, produce the effect of impartial falsification of historical events. This stream also feeds on murky rivulets of countless liars and swindlers. The false model of history serves its function for a certain while. However, humanity eventually enters a period when this distorted representation loses ef- ficacy and stops serving its ends. This is where peo- ple are supposed to start searching for explanations and set out on their quest for a “truth”. However, there is the abstract scientific kind of truth, and the actual historical variety — that is to say, something that peo- ple regard, or will at some point start regarding as truth, The very word “truth” is confusing here. We shall be on safer ground if we are to consider the ad- equacy of having certain concepts of the past for the new needs that have manifested as a result of the his- torical process. These concepts stop being valid for satisfying these needs. One becomes aware of the ne- cessity to update our view of the past in accordance with whatever the present stipulates. This awareness is the kind of craving that can only be satisfied by a “bona fide rectification” of history, which has to occur as a grandiose paradigm shift — moreover, it has to be a large-scale organized operation; one that shall result in an epochal falsification of the entire history of hu- mankind. The issue at hand is by no means the falsi- fication of individual observations of historical events, but rather the revision of the entirety of historical records describing the events which cannot be ob- served as a principle since they belong to the past. What we are talking about is not a mere change in the perception and interpretation of the same old exis- tential phenomena ~ it is the adaptation of the char- actery, which naturally used to refer to certain com- monplace realities at some point, to the exigencies of people who have to live in an altogether different en- vironment. Trained specialists are a sine qua non for this — people whose activity shall have to be organ- ized in such a manner that their collective output will result in the creation of a coordinated historical Gestalt. What they really have to do is create exactly the kind of past that is needed for the present, mak- ing use of whatever available material presents itself. The first global falsification of history as discov- ered and brilliantly related by Fomenko was based on an erroneous temporal and spatial coordinate sys- tem of chronological events (the chronological sys-tem and the localizations of events wedded thereto). The more recent and ongoing second global falsifi- cation of history is based on a system of erroneous pseudoscientific sociological concepts stemming from ideology and aided greatly by the modern informa- tion manipulation technology. This is why I call the second falsification conceptual and informational, or merely “conceptual” for brevity’s sake. Fomenko’s works describe the technology of building a false model of human history which uses the art of ma- nipulating the temporal and spatial coordinates of events. Many thousands of specialists in false histor- ical models are already working on this second falsi- fication — their forte is the ability to misrepresent his- torical events while giving correct temporal and spa- tial coordinates and representing individual facts veraciously and in full detail. The actual falsification is achieved via the selection of facts, their combina- tion and interpretation, as well as the context of ide- ological conceptions, propagandist texts that they are immersed into, etc. In order to describe the technol- ogy behind the second falsification with any degree of clarity at all, exhaustively and convincingly, one needs a well-developed scientific system of logistics and methodology, as well as sociological theory. I call such a system logical sociology; however, it is a thing of the future, which means that the second falsifica- tion of history shall continue in its present manner, with as much ease and impunity as the first. Tens and hundreds of years hence, a number of solitary re- searchers shall “excavate” the so-called “modern his- tory” in very much the same manner as Fomenko (and his predecessors, including N. A. Morozov) have treated “old history”. I would like to conclude with an observation con- cerning the exceptional scientific scrupulousness of the works of A. Fomenko and G. Nosovskiy. I have ex- amined them from exactly this position many a time, and I have neither found a single ipse dixit statement, A GLOBAL FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY | xvii nor any categorical pontificating of any kind. The general narrative scheme they employ is as follows: the authors relate the consensual (school textbook) historical concepts and then cite historical facts which either fail to concur to said concepts, or contradict them explicitly. Other authors who have noticed these inconsistencies are quoted. Then Fomenko and No- sovskiy put forth hypotheses which allow to find log- ically correct solutions for the problems under study. They keep on emphasizing and reiterating that the issue at hand is all about hypotheses and not cate- gorical statements presented as the truth absolute. The readers are invited to take part in the solution of problems that arise as a consequence of the consen- sual chronological concept of history. I am amazed by the horrendous injustice of the numerous critics of Fomenko and Nosovskiy, who obviously distort their ideas, either failing to understand them com- pletely or being altogether unfamiliar with their con- tent. It is also quite astounding that whenever a pub- lication occurs that voices ideas that bear semblance to those of Fomenko and Nosovskiy, but are a lot more tame and local, providing a lot less factual in- formation, this publication is usually accepted with a great deal more benevolence. I understand the psy- chological groundwork beneath this - Fomenko and Nosovskiy have performed a great scientific feat of epochal significance, one that affects the sentiments and interests of too many people. Acknowledging this feat as such, or at the very least the mere fact of its creative relevance, obligates one to actions that are ap- parently beyond these people due to their incapabil- ity and immaturity, The trouble with Fomenko and Nosovskiy is that they have reached out too far and dealt the dominating historical discourse too heavy a blow. Alexander Zinoviev. 10 October 1999, 19 April 2001. Alexander Zinoviev, Professor of the Moscow State University, logician, sociologist, writer, member of the Finnish, Bavarian and Italian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Academy of Polite Letters and several others. Laureate of the 1982 Alexis Tocqueville prize for soci- ology and the “Best Sociology Essay of 1979” prize, as well as a large number of European and international prizes for literature. Honorary citizen of several French and Italian towns and cities. The works of A. A. Zinoviev are published in more than 20 languages and considered international bestsellers. He reads lectures on sociology in many European and American universities.Foreword by A. Shiryaev (1990) to the first edition of A. T. Fomenko's Methods of statistical analysis of narrative texts and their applications to chronology, 1990. Based on research materials of 1973-1988 The methods of applied statistics affect a wide range of scientific paradigms today, including the re- search of a great variety of texts. We use the word “text” to refer to sequences of diverse signals here, such as the lengthy codes one finds in genetics, graph- ical representations of this kind or the other that can be encoded and represented in a textual form, as well as actual narrative texts, such as historical chronicles, original sources, documents etc. One of the key objectives we encounter here is learning to identify dependent texts, by which we mean texts possessing some degree of affinity be- tween them — similarities in their nature or history, for instance. We may regard the recognition problem as an example, where one is confronted with the task of finding the visual representation that bears the greatest resemblance to the given prototype. The sub- ject of long signal sequence research emphasizes the ability to find uniform subsequences and their join- ing points. All of the above bears equal relevance to solving the classical change-point problem, for in- stance, which is of vital importance to mathematical statistics and the statistics of stochastic processes. In application to narrative text studies and their needs, the problem of differentiating between de- pendent and independent texts (such as chronicles) can be formulated as that of tracing out the texts that hail back to a common original source (the ones that can logically be referred to as “dependent”, or those of non-correlating origins (the ones we can logically refer to as “independent”). It is well understood that problems of this kind are exceptionally complex, and thus new empirico-statistical identification methods deserve full recognition for their ability to comple- ment classical approaches to actual research (in source studies, for instance). The present book by A. T. Fomenko, Professor of Pure Mathematics, is primarily oriented at the devel- opment of said methods as applied to identifying and dating dependent and independent texts (in relation to the texts that possess veritable datings a priori). The author of the book suggests a new approach to the recognition of dependent and independent narrative (historical) texts based on a number of models he had constructed and trends discovered with the aid of empirico-statistical methods and as a result of extensive statistical experimentation with varying quantitative characteristics of actual texts such as chronicles, original sources etc. The verifica- tion of these models (statistical hypotheses) by sub- sistent chronicle material confirmed their efficacy and allowed us to suggest new methods of dating texts, or, rather, the events they describe. The approach suggested by A. T. Fomenko is rather unorthodox and requires the reader to possess a cer- tain degree of attentiveness and diligence in order to become accustomed with his innovative logical con- structions which may be perceived as uncanny; how-ever, one has to note that the author’s principal ideas are perfectly rational from the point of view of con- temporary mathematical statistics and fit into the cognitive paradigm of experts in applied statistics with the utmost ease. The scientific results obtained by the author are most remarkable indeed, and what we witness today can already be referred to as the rather sudden evolve- ment of a whole new scientific division in applied sta- tistics that is definitely of interest to us. All of the re- sults in question were educed from a tremendous body of work performed by the author with the assistance of his fellow academicians, most of them specializing in mathematical statistics and its applications. Seeing as how the book relates to problems that concern several scientific disciplines, one is con- fronted with the necessity of finding points of con- tact between experts working in different areas. A wide number of terms and definitions common for scholars of one discipline may need to be explicitly translated for scientists of a different specialization and orientation. This is to be borne in mind by the representatives of both natural sciences and human- ities among the readers of this book. However, said miscommunications are common and are easily over- come by any mixed collective of scientists collabo- rating on solving a particular problem. One may hope that the potential readers may prove this very collec- tive that will carry on with the research commenced by an eminent professional mathematician. In addition to the development of new empirico- statistical methods as applied to dating events, the present book contains a number of applications to the problem of validating the chronology of historical | xix events. One has to differ clearly here between the pri- mary statistical result achieved by the book, namely, defining the layer structure of the global chronolog- ical map and its representation as a “sum” of four layers, and the plethora of available interpretations. Interpreting the results and building hypotheses is well beyond the scope of precise mathematical knowl- edge, so the author urges us to be extremely careful with the conclusions relating to a potential revision of the “static chronology of ancient history”. The au- thor repeatedly insists on the necessity of critical analysis and separating verified facts from their in- terpretations and various hypotheses. The concept offered by A. T. Fomenko is novel and somewhat startling, and by all means deserves a meticulous study. The book is written in conformance to the most demanding scientific standards and is an unprece- dented phenomenon in the area of international sci- entific literature on applied mathematical statistics, so no reader shall be left indifferent. It also offers us a glimpse of the rather charming personality of its au- thor, a mathematician and a history scholar. One hopes that the reader studies the book in its entirety with undiminished attention after the pe- tusal of the first couple of pages and, at the very least, becomes familiar with a fascinating scientific prob- lem, or maybe even joins the research in this new and promising field of science. A.N. Shiryaev, President of the International Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability Theory in 1989-1991. AN. Shiryaev, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Head of the Probability Theory Studies Department of the Moscow State University Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, Head of the Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics Department of the V. A. Steklov Mathematics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.xx | HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? Publisher’s Note History: Fiction or Science? is the most explosive trac- tate on history ever written — however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by solid scientific data. The book is well-illustrated, contains over 500 graphs, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts at- testing to the falsity of the chronology used nowa- days, which never cease to amaze the reader. Eminent mathematician proves that: Jesus Christ was born in 1053 a.p. and crucified in 1086 A.p. The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486. Does this sound uncanny? This version of events is substantiated by hard facts and logic — validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources — to a greater extent than everything you may have read and heard about history before. The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the XVI century from a rather contradictory jumble of sources such as in- numerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manu- scripts whose originals had vanished in the Dark Ages and the allegedly irrefutable proof offered by late me- diaeval astronomers, resting upon the power of ec- clesial authorities. Nearly all of its components are blatantly untrue! For some of us, it shall possibly be quite disturbing to see the magnificent edifice of classical history to turn into an ominous simulacrum brooding over the snake pit of mediaeval politics. Twice so, in fact: the first seeing the legendary millenarian dust on the an- cient marble turn into a mere layer of dirt — one that meticulous unprejudiced research can eventually re- move. The second, and greater, attack of unease comes with the awareness of just how many areas of human knowledge still trust the three elephants of the con- sensual chronology to support them. Nothing can remedy that except for an individual chronological revolution happening in the minds of a large enough number of people.Preface by Anatoly T. Fomenko The materials contained in this book correspond to the research that was started in 1973, One might wonder why we should want to revise the chronology of ancient history today and base our revision on new empirico-statistical methods. It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI- XVII century chronology was considered to be a subdi- vision of mathematics, prior to having gradually trans- formed into a field of historical studies considered complete in general, and only requiring minor even- tual clarifications leaving the actual edifice of chronol- ogy intact. And yet we discover that the contemporary official version of the chronology of ancient history is full of prodigious contradictions and inconsistencies which deserve an attempt of partial clarification and rectification based on the methods of modern statis- tics at the very least. One often hears the question about what could pos- sibly motivate a mathematician into wanting to study a seemingly historical problem. The answer is as fol- lows. My primary interests are those of a professional mathematician; they are thus rather distant from his- torical and chronological issues. However, in the early 70’s, namely, in 1972-1973, I had to deal with the dates of ancient eclipses during my studies of one of the key problems in celestial mechanics (see CHRoNi, Chapter 2 for more details). It had to do with computing the so-called coefficient D" in the Theory of Lunar Motion. The parameter characterizes acceleration and is com- puted as a time function on a large historical interval. The computations were performed by Robert Newton, a contemporary American astronomer and astro- physicist. Upon their completion, he had made the un- expected discovery of parameter D" behaving in the most peculiar manner, namely, performing an inex- plicable leap on the interval of VIII-X century .p. This leap cannot be explained by conventional gravitational theory, and is improbable to the extent of making Robert Newton invent mysterious “extra-gravitational forces” in the Earth-Moon system that suspiciously re- fuse to manifest in any other way. This inexplicable effect attracted the professional in- terest of the mathematician in me. The verification of R. Newton’s work showed that his computations con- formed to the highest scientific standards and con- tained no errors. This made the gap in the diagram even more enigmatic. A prolonged pondering of this topic led me to the idea of checking the exactitude of datings of the ancient eclipses that the D" parameter computations were based upon since they implicitly af- fected the result. This idea turned out to have been unprecedented for the scientists that had dealt with the problem previously. Robert Newton himself, an eminent expert in the field of astronavigation and the- oretical dynamics of natural and artificial celestial bod- ies, trusted the ancient historical dates completely and attempted to explain the leap in the behaviour of pa- rameter D" from within his professional paradigm. That is to say, without the merest hint of the very idea of questioning ancient chronology. I was more fortu- nate in that respect: I found out that N. A. Morozov, a renowned Russian scientist and encyclopedist, had analyzed the datings of ancient eclipses and claimed most of them to be in need of revision. This happened as early as the beginning of the XX century. He offered new datings for a large number of eclipses that were considerably more recent. Having obtained his tables, Thave repeated Newton’s calculations using Morozov’s dates in lieu of the consensual ones as input data. I was amazed to discover that the D" graph altered instantlyxxii | HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? and drastically, having transformed into a rather even horizontal line that concurred with the conventional gravitational theory perfectly. The enigmatic leap dis- appeared along with the necessity to invent fictitious “extra-gravitational forces”. The satisfaction from having finished a body of sci- entific work successfully was accompanied by a sud- den awareness of a very knotty point arising in this re- spect, one of great peculiarity and paramount impor- tance. Namely, that of whether the consensual chronology of ancient history was to be trusted at all. It was true that the new datings of many ancient eclipses offered by N. A. Morozov led to the equaliza- tion of the D" function diagram, the elimination of a strange contradiction from celestial mechanics, and to the discovery of the conformance of an important pa- rameter in the theory of lunar motion to perfectly nor- mal patterns of behaviour. It was equally true, however, that fitting something like the idea that the three ancient eclipses described in the History of the prominent ancient author Thu- cydides took place in the XI or even the XII century A.D. and not in the V B.c. as it is believed today into one’s perception proved quite impossible. The issue here is that the dating of the “triad of Thucydides” can only correspond to these two astronomically precise so- lutions (see Cxrom1, Chapter 2). The inevitable ques- tion that arose in this respect was that of which disci- pline had been correct in this case, astronomy or con- temporary chronology. I had to address several distinguished historians with this quandary, including the ones from our very own Moscow State University. Their initial reaction was that of polite restraint. According to them, there was no point whatsoever in questioning the consen- sual chronology of ancient history since all the dates in question can easily be verified by any textbook on the subject and have been proved veracious a long time ago. The fact that the diagram of some parameter D” started to look natural after revised calculations based on some flimsy new chronology was hardly of any rel- evance. Moreover, it would perhaps be better for the mathematicians to occupy themselves with mathe- matics and leave history to historians. The same sen- timent was expressed to me by L. N. Gumilyov. I re- frained from arguing with him. The reply offered by the historians failed to satisfy me. Firstly due to the fact that chronology, being a problem of calculating dates, bears immediate rele- vance to applied mathematics. This includes astro- nomical calculations, the verification of their preci- sion, calendarian problems, the interpretation of old writings based on their frequency characteristics etc, and may present an extensive number of complex is- sues. Secondly, becoming familiar with the contem- porary chronological tables soon proved that the an- cient dates were quoted rather arbitrarily, with hardly any references at all given. At best, the first chrono- logical tables get a quote — however, those were com- piled relatively recently, in the XVI-XVII century. Delving deeper into the problem showed me that the version of chronology that we agree upon today was- n't the only one available historically. I found out that eminent scientists in various countries expressed the idea that ancient datings required a radical revision. I realized that the answer was the furthest thing from simple, and that shedding some light on the issue would require plenty of time and effort. This is how 1973 saw me commencing work in this direction, aided by colleagues — most of them professional mathe- maticians and physicists. The research progressed rapidly. Over the years that passed since 1973 many points have been clarified and a great volume of interesting information obtained. A lot of it was published by myself and my colleagues in a number of books and scientific articles quoted in the literature list. The first related publication saw light in 1980. It has to be noted that over the course of time our opinions on certain chronological problems have changed. Said alterations never concerned the general picture, but occasionally led to significant shifts in our perception of details. Today we feel that the empirico- statistical methods that our chronological research was based upon need to be formulated and coordinated again. This is how the books Curoni and Curon2 came to existence. Curont1 is based on the first book I wrote on the subject — Methods of Statistical Analysis of Narrative Texts and their Application to Chronology (Identifying and Dating Dependent Texts, The Statistical Chronol- ogy of Ancient History, The Statistics of Ancient Reports of Astronomical Events). It was published by the Moscow State University in 1990; a further revised and extended edition appeared in 1996 under the title