Anatoly Fomenko
Anatoly Fomenko: Ni-INTp (Creative subtype) [ILI-ILE]
- from History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology 1) by Anatoly T. Fomenko; p. i:
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
GEORGE ORWELL
Scaliger seduced me; chronological studies, as I see, terrify me.
IOHANNES KEPLER
Be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth.
ST. AUGUSTINE
- pp. xxi-xxii (Preface by Anatoly T. Fomenko): My primary interests are those of a professional mathematician; they are thus rather distant from historical 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 . . . It had to do with computing the so-called coefficient D” in the the Theory of Lunar Motion. The parameter characterizes acceleration and is computed as a time function on a large historical interval. The computations were performed by Robert Newton, a contemporary American astronomer and astrophysicist. Upon their completion, he had made the unexpected discovery of parameter D” behaving in the most peculiar manner, namely, performing an inexplicable leap on the interval of VIII-X century A.D. 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 refuse to manifest in any other way.
This inexplicable effect attracted the professional interest of the mathematician in me. The verification of R. Newton’s work showed that his computations conformed to the highest scientific standards and contained 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 affected 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 theoretical dynamics of natural and artificial celestial bodies, trusted the ancient historical dates completely and attempted to explain the leap in the behavior of parameter 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 fortunate in that respect: I found out that N. A. Morozov, a renowned Russian scientist and encyclopaedist, 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, I 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 and drastically, transforming into a rather even horizontal line that had concurred with the conventional gravitational theory perfectly. The enigmatic leap disappeared along with the necessity to invent fictitious “extra-gravitational forces”.
The satisfaction from having finished a body of scientific work successfully was accompanied by a sudden awareness of a very knotty point arising in this respect, one of great peculiarity and paramount importance. 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 equalization of the D” function diagram, the elimination of a strange contradiction from celestial mechanics, and to the discovery of the conformance of an important parameter in the theory of lunar motion to perfectly normal 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 Thucydides 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.
- p. 7 (CHAPTER 1: The problems of historical chronology): It is very significant that Scaligerian chronology was initially created within the paradigm of the Western European Catholic Church, which had remained in its firm control for a great amount of time. A. Oleinikov wrote, “The mediaeval theologians often tried to calculate the age of the Earth interpreting assorted data contained in the Holy Writ.” On having studied the text of the Bible, Archbishop Hieronymus came to the conclusion that the world was created 3,941 years before the beginning of modern chronology. His colleague Theophilus, the Bishop of Antiochia, had extended this period to 5,515 years. St. Augustine had added another thirty-six years; whilst the Irish Archbishop James Usher, who had obviously nurtured a fondness for precise numbers, had made the assumption that the world was created in the early morning hours on 23 October 4004 B.C. ([Oleynikov, A. The Geological Clock. Leningrad, Nedra, 1975.], page 8). Many eminent Western European chronologists of the XVI-XVII century were clergymen. I. Scaliger (1540-1609), for instance, was a theologian; Tischendorf (1815-1874), the founding father of paleography, was a Doctor of Divinity; Dionisius Petavius (1583-1652) – a Jesuit and an author of several theological works . . .
Their absolute trust in the infallibility of what the ecclesial chronology was telling them determined their entire Weltanschauung. Therefore, their attitude to the data offered by other disciplines was determined by whether or not it could serve the advocacy of this a priori assumption or the other, invariably based on the mediaeval ecclesial chronology that was later baptised “scientific”.
The fact that the clerical chronologists of the Occidental church had deified the endeavours of their predecessors of the XV-XVI century, excluded the very possibility of criticizing the foundations of chronology in any way at all, even minutely.
. . . Scaliger, for instance, could not even conceive of such heresy as running a check on the chronological materials of the holy fathers (Eusebius and others): “Scaliger calls this work by Eusebius (the Evangelical Preparation – A. F.), divine” . . . Trusting the authority of their predecessors unconditionally, the chronologists reacted at external criticisms very bitterly. The same I. Scaliger makes a perfect demonstration of his attitude toward objective scientific criticisms in the following episode: “The eminent philologist Joseph de Scaliger, the author of the chronology that has received such high scientific acclaim, turned into a keen quadraturist” ([Cimpan, F. The History of the Pi Number. Moscow, Nauka, 1971 (1984). Romanian original: Cipman, F. Istoria Numarului pi. Bucharest, Tineret Press, 1965.], page 130). Let us remind that a “quadraturist” was someone who tried to build a square equalling a given circle (disc) in area, using nothing but a pair of compasses and a ruler. This mathematical problem is insoluble as a principle, which is proven by geometry. However, I. Scaliger had published a book where he claims to have proved the “true quadrature” – which solved the problem, “The best mathematicians of the epoch – Viete, Clavius... have tried their hardest to prove to him that... his reasoning was incorrect – all in vain” ( . . . page 130). The point here is that Scaliger’s erroneous “proof” made the easy corollary about the perimeter of an equilateral polygon with 196 angles being greater than that of the circle circumscribing it, which is, naturally, quite absurd. Nevertheless, “Scaliger and his supporters, who had a habit of defending their opinions vehemently, didn’t want to acknowledge anything... replying... with maledictions and scornful epithets, and finally calling all the geometricians complete ignoramuses in what concerned geometry” ( . . . page 130).
One might imagine how these people reacted towards attempts of analyzing their version of chronology critically.
Few are aware that Scaliger and Petavius brought chronology to “perfection” and “absolutely precise datings” quoting the year, day, month, and sometimes even the time of day for all the principal events in history of humankind. For whatever reasons, modern monographies and textbooks usually only quote the years of events according to Scaliger-Petavius, coyly omitting the month, day, and hour.
- pp. 2-5 (CHAPTER 1: The problems of historical chronology): Gerhard Friedrich Miller (1705-1783) “revised” the Russian history and chronology in the XVIII century in accordance with Scaliger’s scheme . . .
Let us mention the works of factual chronological data . . . They are of great value to us since they provide a snapshot of the state of chronology during the epoch of a greater proximity to Scaliger and Petavius. This material is thus of a more primordial nature, not “painted over” by latter cosmetic layers. It must also be noted that this series remains incomplete as well as several other similar chronological works. To quote the prominent contemporary chronologist E. Bickerman: “There has been no chronological research ever conducted that could be called exhaustive and conforming to modern standards” ([Chronology of the Ancient World], page 90, comment 1).
Hence it would be correct to call the modern consensual chronology of the Classical period and the Middle Ages the Scaliger-Petavius version. We shall simply refer to it as “Scaligerian Chronology”. As it will be pointed out, this version wasn’t the only one existing in the XVII-XVIII century. Its veracity has been questioned by eminent scientists.
The groundlaying works of Scaliger and Petavius of the XVI-XVII century present the ancient chronology as a table of dates given without any reasons whatsoever. It is declared to have be[en based] on ecclesiastical tradition. This is hardly surprising, since “history has remained predominantly ecclesial for centuries, and for the most part, was written by the clergy” ([Gourevich, A. Y. The Mediaeval Cultural Catagories. Moscow, Kultura, 1972.], page 105).
Today it is believed that the foundations of chronology were laid by Eusebius Pamphilus and Saint Hieronymus, allegedly in the IV century A.D. On fig. 1.6 we have a mediaeval painting of Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea dated 1455 ([Vlasov, Sergei. The Deeds of Constantine the Great. First Experimental Typography of the State Committee of Russian Federation, Eleemosynary Institution “The Order of Constantine the Great”, 1999.], page 80). It is worth noting that Eusebius of Caesarea is painted wearing typically mediaeval attire of the Renaissance epoch. Most probably because he had lived in that period of time and not any earlier.
Despite the fact that Scaligerian history ascribes Eusebius to the IV century A.D., during the years 260-340 . . . it is interesting to note that his famous work titled The History of Time from the Genesis to the Nicaean Council, the so-called Chronicle, as well as the tractate by St. Hieronymus (Jerome) weren’t discovered until very late in the Middle Ages. Apart from that, historians say that “the Greek original (of Eusebius – A. F.) is only available in fragmentary form nowadays, and is complemented by the ad libitum translation made by St. Hieronymus” . . . Mark the fact that Nicephorus Callistus attempted to write the new history of the first three centuries in the XIV century, or “revise” the History of Eusebius, but “he could not do more than repeat that which was written by Eusebius” ([Eusebius Pamphilus. Ecclesial History. St. Petersburg, 1848. English edition: Eusebius Pamphilus. History of the Church. London, 1890.], page XI). However, since the work of Eusebius was only published in 1544 . . . that is, much later than the writing of Nicephorus, one has reason to wonder: Could the “ancient” Eusebius have based his work on the mediaeval tractate by Nicephorus Callistus?
On fig. 1.7 we can see a painting by Cesare Nebbia and Giovanni Guerra that was allegedly created in 1585-1590. According to historians, it depicts a scene “of St. Jerome and his pet lion visiting the library of Eusebius (whose Chronicle was translated by Jerome) in Caesarea” ([Grafton, Anthony, ed. Rome Reborn. The Vatican Library and Renaissance Culture. Washington: Library of Congress; New Haven, London: Yale University Press; Vatican City: Bibliotech Apostolica Vaticana, 1993.], page 45). What we see here, however, is a typically mediaeval scene of the Renaissance epoch, or maybe even the epoch of the XVI-XVII century. The library shelves are filled with books that look basically the same as those of the XVIII-XIX century, in hard covers with wide fastening straps. The artists of the XVI-XVII century have most probably painted recent mediaeval events and characters cast into the “dark ages” by later XVII-XVIII century chronologists of the Scaligerian tradition.
It is assumed that Scaligerian chronology was based on the interpretations of assorted numeric data collected from the Bible. Certain “basis dates” that were used as reference points originated as results of scholastic exercises with numbers. For instance, according to the eminent chronologist J. Usher (Usserius), the world was created on Sunday, 23 October 4004 B.C., in the small hours of the morning . . . Mind-boggling precision. One is to bear in mind that the “secular” chronology of the present days is largely based on the scholastic biblical chronology of the Middle Ages. E. Bickerman, a contemporary historian, is perfectly right to note that “the Christian historians have made secular chronography serve ecclesial history . . . The compilation made by Hieronymus is the foundation of the entire edifice of occidental chronological knowledge.” ([Bickerman, E. Chronology of the Ancient World. Moscow, Nauka, 1975. Translated from the English edition published in London by Thames & Hudson, 1968-1969.], page 82).
Although “I. Scaliger, the founding father of modern chronology as a science, had attempted to reconstruct the entire tractate of Eusebius”, as E. Bickerman tells us, “the datings of Eusebius, that often got transcribed erroneously in manuscripts (! – A. F.), are hardly of any use to us nowadays ( . . . page 82).
Due to the controversy and the dubiety of all these mediaeval computations, the “Genesis dating”, for instance, varies greatly from document to document. Let us quote the main examples:
5969 B.C. – the Antiochian dating according to Theophilus, see other version below;
5508 B.C. – the Byzantine dating, also known as “The Constantinople version”;
5493 B.C. – Alexandrian, the Annian era, also 5472 B.C. or 5624 B.C.;
4004 B.C. – according to Usher, a Hebraic dating
5872 B.C. – the so-called “dating of the seventy interpreters”;
4700 B.C. – Samarian;
3761 B.C. – Judaic;
3491 B.C. – according to Hieronymus;
5199 B.C. – according to Eusebius of Caesarea;
5500 B.C. – according to Hippolytus and Sextus Julius Africanus;
5515 B.C., also 5507 B.C. – according to Theophilus;
5551 B.C. – according to Augustine . . .
As we can see, this temporal reference point, considered fundamental for the ancient chronology, fluctuates within the span of 2,100 years. We have only quoted the most famous examples here. It is expedient to know that there are about two hundred various versions of the “Genesis date” in existence . . .
The “correct Genesis dating” issue was far from scholastic, and received plenty of attention in the XVII-XVIII century for good reason. The matter here is that many ancient documents date events in years passed “since Adam” or “since the Genesis”. This is why the existing millenarian discrepancies between the possible choices of this reference point substantially affect the datings of many ancient documents.
- p. xxiv (THE SECOND TOPIC): . . . Bearing the reader’s convenience in mind, we have collected various materials here that can be found scattered across all kinds of scientific literature and are known to specialists of various profiles, but often remain beyond the awareness of the general public. These materials illustrate serious difficulties that are presently inherent in the problem of scientific dating of historical events preceding the XIV century A.D.
We shall inform the reader of the fundamental research conducted by the prominent Russian scientist and encyclopedist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov (1854-1946), honorary member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, who was the first to have formulated the problem of confirming the ancient and mediaeval chronology with the means offered by natural sciences in its entirety in addition to having collected a great volume of critical materials and suggested a number of innovative hypotheses.
We shall also report the chronological research conducted by Sir Isaac Newton, who questioned many datings of historical events, and several other representatives of the critical current in history and chronology. We quote from eminent authorities in the fields of archaeology, source studies, and numismatics, and a variety of other well-known scientists, and extensively compare different points of view so that the readers could develop their own opinions of the problems in question.
The primary application of novel empirico-statistical methods is the analysis of dates of historical occurrences. This is why we were forced to analyze as many dating versions of events in question as we could find in this day and age. The issue here is that various ancient and mediaeval chronicles frequently demonstrate significant discrepancies in their datings of certain important events.
- pp. xxx-xxxi [History of the New Chronology (By A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy)]:
THE FOURTH STAGE – which was the period of 1973-1980, commenced in 1973, when A. T. Fomenko, faculty member of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics of the Moscow State University, was researching several problems related to celestial mechanics. He had noticed the 1972 article of the American astrophysicist Robert Newton . . . where the latter described a strange leap in lunar acceleration, and the so-called parameter D”. The leap occurred around the X century A.D. Using the Scaligerian datings of the writings that make reference to lunar and solar eclipses, R. Newton computed lunar acceleration as a time function on the interval of the I-XX century A.D. The leap in question comprises an entire mathematical order (!), and cannot be explained by the gravitational theory in any way. It was the issue of the discussion organized by the Royal Society of London and the British Academy of Sciences in 1972, and one that had spawned major controversy . . . The discussion had failed to elucidate the situation in any way, and so R. Newton suggested to attribute the leap to certain mysterious extra-gravitational forces in the Earth-Moon system.
A.T. Fomenko noted that all the attempts of explaining the gap in the behaviour of D” failed to raise the issue of the veracity of the eclipse datings that were the actual basis for R. Newton’s calculations. However, despite the fact that A. T. Fomenko was well outside the paradigm of historical research back in the day, he had heard that N. A. Morozov offered some new datings of the “ancient” eclipses in his work entitled Christ, published in 1924-1932. It has to be said that A. T. Fomenko’s initial attitude towards N. A. Morozov’s works was rather sceptical and based on whatever random information he had received on the subjects during informal discussions with fellow faculty members. Nevertheless, having overcome his scepticism, A. T. Fomenko unearthed an astronomical table by N. A. Morozov that contained the new datings and performed a new calculation of the parameter D” using the same algorithm offered by R. Newton. He was amazed to discover the disappearance of the mysterious leap and the transformation of the D” diagram into an even, practically horizontal line. A. T. Fomenko’s work on the topic was published in 1980 . . .
However, the elimination of the enigma from celestial mechanics led to another question of paramount importance: what was one supposed to do with the chronology of the ancient times in this case? The eclipse dates were supposed to be evidentially linked to a vast array of historical materials. Since N. A. Morozov’s works helped to solve a complex celestial mechanics problem, A. T. Fomenko decided to study them in more detail . . .
. . .It became obvious that the complexity of this issue demanded the development of new independent methods of dating. Hence the main focus in 1973-1980 was on developing methods of analyzing historical texts that were based on mathematical statistics, a number of which was proposed and formulated by A. T. Fomenko in 1975-1979. They allowed for the elucidation of the global picture of chronological misdatings in Scaliger’s version and elimination. More specifically, A. T. Fomenko had discovered three important chronological shifts, of roughly 333 years, 1053, and 1800 years respectively. These shifts are only inherent in the erroneous chronology of Scaliger-Petavius, and have nothing to do with the correct one. It turned out that “the Scaligerian textbook” was compiled from four copies of one and the same brief chronicle.
- pp. xix-xxx [History of the New Chronology (By A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy)]:
THE FIRST STAGE—the XVI-XX century, when various researchers periodically discovered major inconsistencies in the edifice of the Scaligerian chronology. We shall quote the names of some familiar scientists that dissented with the chronology of Scaliger-Petavius and reckoned that the real ancient and mediaeval chronology differed significantly.
De Arcilla—the XVI century, Professor of the Salamanca University . . . The information on his chronological research is of a rather volatile nature, and it was only by accident that N. A. Morozov managed to learn of it. It is known merely that De Arcilla claimed “ancient” history to have been forged in the Middle Ages. However, we regrettably failed to have found any of his works. The Salamanca University could not give us any information about them, either.
Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727)—the great English scientist, physicist, and mathematician devoted a large part of his life to chronology and published a large volume entitled The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Ammended. To which is Prefix’d, A Short Chronicle from the First Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great . . .
Jean Hardouin (1646-1729)—eminent French scientist and author of a large number of works on philology, theology, history, archaeology, and numismatics. He was also Director of the French Royal Library, and wrote a few chronological works with sharp criticisms of the entire Scaligerian chronology. He was of the opinion that most of the so-called “ancient artefacts” were either counterfeit, or belonged to a much more recent age . . .
Peter Nikiforovich Krekshin (1684-1763)—the personal secretary of Peter the Great wrote a book criticizing the contemporary version of Roman history. It was “still fresh” in his day and age, and wasn’t taken for granted the way it is today . . .
Robert Baldauf—the German philologist of the late XIX – early XX century. Assistant professor at the Basel University and author of the four volumes entitled History and Criticisms . . . He came to the conclusion that the “ancient” literary works had been a lot more recent than one was accustomed to think, guided by philological considerations. Baldauf proved that those works were all mediaeval in their origins . . .
Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) – English historian of the XIX century, criticized the Scaligerian chronology severely in his works . . . claiming that they needed to be truncated drastically . . .
Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) – a prominent Russian scientist and encyclopedist, made a breakthrough in chronological studies. He criticized the Scaligerian version of chronology and history extensively. He offered the concepts of several new natural scientific methods of analyzing chronology and introduced scientific approaches to chronology making the latter a science de facto . . .
Wilhelm Kammeyer (late XIX century – 1959) – a German scientist and lawyer, developed a method of verifying the authenticity of ancient documents. He discovered nearly all of the ancient and early mediaeval Western European documents to have been either copied or forged in a more recent age. He came to the conclusion that both ancient and mediaeval history were falsified, and wrote several books on the topic.
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) – a prominent psychoanalyst of Russian origin lived and worked in Russia, the UK, Palestine, Germany, and the USA. He wrote a number of books on ancient history that concerned several contradictions and peculiarities of ancient history. He also made an attempt of explaining them in relation to the Catastrophism Theory. He is considered to be the founder of the “critical school” in chronology, but what he really did can be regarded as an attempt to protect the Scaligerian chronology from drastic changes, so his inclusion on the list of the founding fathers of the new chronology is rather arbitrary. Velikovsky’s works are much better known than the earlier and more detailed ones by N. A. Morozov; this must have inhibited the development of the new chronology in the Western Europe of the XX century considerably . . .
- pp. xvi-xvii [A Global Falsification of History (Foreword by Alexander Zinoviev)]: The modern information technology does not affect the principles that the status quo relies upon. Let us introduce the concept of historical “atoms”, or particles 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, including all manner of events, no matter how minute, would require the processing power of all the computers on the planet, with all people made computer operators. De facto, this technology serves as a powerful instrument of historical falsification. It allows for the possibility of drowning a scientific approach to historical events in an ocean of meaningless facts.
Furthermore, the description of actual historical events is done by humans, and not perfect divine entities. People are brought up and educated in a certain 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 merest 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 different 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 evolution; the latter one does. However, humans, including specialists, fail to recognize the difference between 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 between 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 tributaries, 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 efficacy and stops serving its ends. This is where people 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 people 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 adequacy of having certain concepts of the past for the new needs that have manifested as a result of the historical process. These concepts stop being valid for satisfying these needs. One becomes aware of the necessity 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 humankind. The issue at hand is by no means the falsification of individual observations of historical events, but rather the revision of the entirety of historical records describing the events which cannot be observed 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 existential phenomena—it is the adaptation of the charactery, which naturally used to refer to certain commonplace realities at some point, to the exigencies of people who have to live in an altogether different environment. Trained specialists are a sine qua non for this—people whose activity shall have to be organized 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, making use of whatever available material presents itself.
The first global falsification of history as discovered and brilliantly related by Fomenko was based on an erroneous temporal and spatial coordinate system of chronological events (the chronological system and the localizations of events wedded thereto). The more recent and ongoing second global falsification of history is based on a system of erroneous pseudoscientific sociological concepts based upon ideology and aided greatly by the modern information manipulation technology.
Reply With Quote
- 
(as per tcaudilllg)
Originally Posted by agape
--> perhaps Normalizing 