INTRODUCTION
1. The accepted today version of the global history was made relatively recently, only in the XVII century. Probably, this version is not correct.
The present book is issued in a new edition, made by A.T.FOMENKO. It considerably differs from the previous ones. You see the first book of the 7th volume of the seven-volume book "Chronology".
Volume 1. FIGURES AGAINST LIE. - A.T.Fomenko.
Volume 2. ANTIQUITY IS MIDDLE AGES (in two books). - A.T.Fomenko.
Volume 3. Book 1: STARS TESTIFY. V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Book 2. CELESTIAL CALENDAR OF THE ANCIENTS - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko, T.N.Fomenko.
Volume 4. THE MIRACLE OF RUSSIAN HISTORY (in two books). - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko
Volume 5. EMPIRE (in two books). - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko.
Volume 6. BIBLICAL RUSSIA (in three books). - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko.
Volume 7. Book 1. WESTERN MYTH. - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Book 2. RUSSIAN ROOTS OF THE "ANCIENT" LATIN. - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko, T.N.Fomenko
In the present book we rest upon new chronology, established based on the mathematical methods and empirical-statistical results, stated in the first three books of the seven-volume book "Chronology" and also in the book "Seven wonders of the world", ch.2. The main chronological shifts, discovered by A.�.Fomenko in the "ancient" and medieval history, are given on a global chronological map - GKhM, created by A.�.Fomenko in1975-1979.
This volume is aimed for the readers, who already know the problem of grounding of the chronology of "the Ancient Times" and the modern natural-scientific approach to this issue. It is supposed, that the reader is familiar with the book of A.T.FOMENKO "Figures against Lie".
In the present book we, as a rule, don't prove our point of view. It would actually lead to repeat of everything, what was already told before. Here we only state our reconstruction in the form of a short "textbook". WE ADDRESS TO OUR PREVIOUS BOOKS FOR EVIDENCES. Many told in this book things are yet suppositions.
During short description of reconstruction we sometimes refer to the primary sources. Full references could be found in the previous books of the seven-volume book "Chronology". We would specify, that we don't claim for high accuracy of the proposed datings. Much more work is required in order to specify new short chronology and some our suppositions. That's why we reconstruct the history yet only "by centuries", indicating the century of one or another event, but not indicating a date within the century.
We call the history earlier the XVII century - "old", and the history of the XVII-XX centuries - "new". Such separation corresponds to the core of the issue. We show that today there is no any reliable reasoning of the Scaligerian chronology. Such reasoning, - as we state with full responsibility, - didn't and doesn't exist. Therefore, it will be necessary to write the ancient history once again.
Before turning to the reconstruction, considerably differing from the usual today version of Scaliger-Petavius [1387], [1337], there is a sense to repeat clearly – what is the Scaligerian history and chronology and how they appeared. It is worth saying that a general picture of those circumstances, in which the historical-chronological version of Scaliger-Petavius was created and implemented, became finally clear only during our studies on new chronology. A clear understanding of the picture puts many things on their places.
Most likely, the available today historical primary sources, - published, presented in books storages with open access etc., - ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SCALIGERIAN VERSION AND WERE MADE TOGETHER WITH IT. By the way, with distortion and intentional edition of really old documents. The old texts, which correctly described the history, were cruelly destroyed. All this happened in the XVII-XVIII centuries during an international European program on rewriting of the ancient and medieval history. What for and who needed this, see. "Acquisition of America by Russia-Horde", ch.1. The program had a strong governmental support both in the European countries and in Romanovs' Russia. Next, in the XVIII-XIX centuries, the Scaligerian version of history was implemented in Asia and China. Based on it, the Asian and Chinese "ancient" chronologies were built.
At the epoch of the XVII-XVIII centuries for support of the implemented Scaligerian version, nearly all the published today editions of the works of "antique" Greek and Roman authors, medieval chronicles, memories were intentionally created.
The sources, which occasionally didn't pass censorship of creators of the Scaligerian version, during nearly two hundred years were thoroughly searched and destroyed. At least, were taken out of circulation. Such activity continued yet in the XIX century. A bright example – an intentional devastation of the library of Sulakadzeva, see. "The miracle of Russian history", ch.2:9. In the XIX century, and moreover today, such old, remained authentic texts were taken as something curious, not deserving serious study. They are at once suspected in a rough falsification or, in best case, - in full ignorance of the author of the text.
Such documents, as a rule, are not published, not studied by historical-academic society. Although from time to time they still appear even today. Each of them gives just a small piece of already forgotten history, that's why unable to change anything in our minds. Itself, out of the whole picture, it is just incomprehensible. And nobody from the certified historians is engaged in comparison and study of such "curiosities".
It is important to understand, that today during publication of the primary sources – intentionally or not – a hard censorship of their correspondence with the Scaligerian version is done. "Worth attention" are accepted only those primary sources, fitting in the usual Scaligerian picture. As a result, only texts, which passed an intentional editing in the XVII-XVIII centuries, were put into circulation.
We have to judge about the antiquity and the Middle Ages only by the sources, proposed to us by the Scaligerian historical school. Exactly they are multiplied by a printing machine. That's why a wrong impression appears, that only such sources existed.
IT APPEARED THAT THERE IS A CLEAR BORDER IN THE HISTORY – FIRST HALF OF HE XVII CENTURY. What happened after it, that is closer to us, we know rather well. In any case, starting from the end of the XVIII century. And what happened before it, we know badly. This border – the first half of the XVII century – appeared artificially. It is not a result of natural forgetting of information. Its trace in the Scaligerian version – it is a border between the "dark Middle Ages" and the "New Time". It separates the correct history from the wrong one.
The historians of the Scaligerian school, - there is simply no other school of the history of the antiquity and Middle Ages today, - are, as a rule, specialists in the fake Scaligerian version and only in it. Today it is taken as axiom that the Scaligerian version and real history – it is the same. As we now understand, this is wrong. Historians, thinking that they study the "ancient" and medieval history, actually analyze not reality (through remained until our time from the antiquity documents), but an artificial world, a fabulous phantom-illusion, created by historians and editors of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Today historians use the distorted and edited in the XVII-XVIII centuries texts, by mistake considering them to be "authentic ancient primary sources". Historians are fully sunk in the artificial world; spend all their professional life in it. They don't suspect that a "virtual reality" was created by their recent predecessors, the Scaligerian historians, in the XVII-XVIII centuries. Modern historians are specialists, but in a fabulous, imagined world.
An artificial world of the Scaligerian version finally became rather difficult, ramified and at first glance provides an impression of something rather solid, reliable and non-contradictory. This is not so. An impartial outside look, resting on objective methods of dating, rather quickly discovers in the fabulous edifice all the attributes of a sand castle. Further analysis leads to destruction of this edifice.
Why today historians work finally only with those texts and their derivatives, which were edited in the XVII-XVIII centuries, at the creation of the Scaligerian version? This is a pressure of a specific school, of long-standing in historical-academic society notions. In their time they were implemented by force, and today they have a character of the "generally accepted evidence". It is considered, that there is a set of "reliable", "correct" primary sources. And these are Scaligerian editions of the ancient texts. Only they, allegedly, deserve serious attention. All the other sources are announced "ignorant", "fabulous", "invented by somebody" texts. A serious scientist shouldn't study them.
Of course, it was impossible to destroy all the before- Scaligerian documents. Some of them should yet exist today. But could you imagine, that a modern historian, a specialist in the "Scaligerian illusion", got an authentic ancient document, describing, let's say, the epoch of the XV-XVI centuries. As we now understand, a difference between the authentic history of this epoch and its Scaligerian picture is so huge, that it even would be difficult to match the document with a usual Scaligerian picture. Or, at least, to understand, what the issue is about. Not to speak of the fact, that it is really an original of the XV-XVI centuries, then it most likely will be written with unusual letters, "incomprehensible signs". Well, usual for a specialist in the Scaligerian version "ancient handwritings" – these are actually handwritings of falsificators-editors of the XVII century. And, as a rule, a researcher didn't come across the real handwritings and scripts of the XV-XVI centuries – not speaking about earlier epochs.
That's why occasionally met old authentic texts, most likely, will be announced "unreadable" by historians. And this happens. If somebody manages to read it – then it is announced "strange", "fabulous", "a fruit of medieval ignorance".
Our studies convinced us that historians don't do and don't want to do serious decoding of many "unreadable" old texts.
We would say the following about printed editions of the XV-XVI centuries. The books, on which years of publication of the XV-XVI centuries are olaced, often turn out to be fakes of the XVII-XVIII centuries with hindsight dates of issue, allegedly "earlier". A mass publication of such books allegedly of the XV-XVI centuries in the XVII-XVIII centuries was an important part of the activity on "grounding" of the Scaligerian history. But authentic books of the XV-XVI centuries were persecuted and destroyed together with handwritten documents. That's why printed books don't differ from manuscripts in their reliability, when we want to derive an authentic history of the XV-XVI centuries from them. Among printed books there are also many fakes of the XVII-XVIII centuries.
Many authentic official documents of the Western Europe of the XVI century, coming from the imperator's Horde office, were written, as we now understand, in Slavonic language. Many books, printed at that time in the Western Europe, also were Slavonic, see the book "Biblical Russia", ch.2. Well, the fact of wide printing of Slavonic books in the Western Europe of the XVI century is known to specialists. A language of international communication in the Western Europe at that time was Slavonic. Then based on it an "ancient" Latin was created.
A transmission from Slavonic to Latin, as a language of international communication in the Western Europe, happened only after the fall of the Great Empire, that is at the end of the XVI - XVII century. Most likely, Latin in its developed "antique" form appeared only in the XVI-XVII centuries. That's why all the "antique" Latin texts – these are, in best case, translations, made at the epoch of the XVI-XVII centuries, into appointed as "antique" language Latin. The Scaligerian chronology was immediately put into such translations.
The same could be told about "ancient"-Greek language. It was also created together with the whole "ancient"-Greek literature at the epoch of the XVI-XVII centuries. Immediately the "antique Greek primary sources" were written, translated and edited in it. A real ancient language is probably Minor-Greek, Byzantine. Not in vain it absolutely doesn't remind the modern Greek language, compared to the "ancient"-Greek, which is close to modern Greek. All the "antique Greek" literature – these are also seriously edited in the XVI-XVII centuries translations of the old texts into recently invented "antique" language.
Creation of the Scaligerian version of history was a consequence of the biggest political rebuilding of the world at the end of XVI – beginning of XVII century. After fall of the "Mongol" Empire, on its ruins appeared new, independent, small states. The former imperial governors became independent lords. First they were afraid of return of the old "Mongol" order. That's why they tried to create in historical past "old solid roots" of their power. The main purpose of new historical version of Scaliger was to distort in the necessary direction the history of the immediate past of that epoch. That is the history of the XIV-XVI centuries. It was intentionally distorted. As for the earlier epochs, their phantom filling in the Scaligerian version is a result of chronological mistakes.
By the way, name or last name SCALIGER, most likely is not a name in a modern sense. It is a nickname, meaning SCALE, that is sorting in time. A person, who created the SCALE of chronology and the SCALE of history, was called SCALIGER. A real name is probably forgotten. And the word SCALE, probably, derives from the Russian word �������. That is "how many years". The word SCALIGER meant HOW MUCH.
Only now we start to understand the scale of the global program of the XVII century on creation of fake history of the past. One shouldn't be surprised with the concurrence of actions on falsification of the history in different countries. Until the end of the XVI century nearly all European and Asian countries were included into the united Empire. That's why all the vicegerents were of the same circle of the Empire civil servant. The links between the former provinces of the Empire first time after its split were still strong.
With this only the beginning of "historical reform" is dated with the end of the XVI century. The main work on falsification of history, including creation of the corps of the "ancient sources", was done in the XVII-XVIII centuries, when the Empire already finally split. That is after the Time of Troubles in Russia and the victory of Romanovs under Stepan Razin. Much was done in this direction also in the XVIII century, especially after the victory of Romanovs under Emelyan "Pugachev" in the war of 1773-1775. ONLY FROM THE XIX CENTURY THE SCALIGERIAN VERSION OF HISTORY GOT ITS FINAL MODERN FORM.
Let's turn to the reconstruction. We will move upside on the scale of time, listing the main events of the universal history by centuries.
First of all, we will explain, what count of years we use, speaking about the dates of events. We use the accepted today count of years "by new era". But let's underline, that it should be taken just as a PURELY CONVENTIONAL SCALE. One of many possible. As it appears, at "the beginning of new era", that is around 2000 years ago, there was no any noticeable event, information about which would have reached us. Moreover, from that far epoch, probably, no information reached us. In particular, it is wrong to call era as era from Christmas, as it is done today. As Christmas, according to our results, happened around one thousand years later. That is, in the XII century according to conventional "new era".
2. PSYCHOLOGICAL NOTES.
In the opinion of modern people the word "ancientry" is usually associated with the events of, for example, earlier the fifth century A.D. or events before Christ. "Deep ancientry" – this is, let's say, earlier the tens century before Christ. "Deepest ancientry" – this is already out of the borders of the second millennium before Christ. A widespread today habit to exactly such time scales is one of the serious psychological obstructions on the way of perception of new short chronology. But such, usual today, psychological sense of the word "ancientry" for many hundreds or even thousands of years, appeared not on its own. And not long ago. This is a result of artificial implementation into our minds during the last 300 years of the Scaligerian, very much spread chronology. Probably, the idea of "very long written history" lie down on the prepared basis of natural human respect to the memory of the generation, to own family tree. One can understand the feelings of a person, trying to look into far past of his ancestry. As far he sees, so higher is the level of his personal self-respect.
The new chronology imposes a different psychological picture of perception of the ancientry. Now the word "ancientry" should be connected with the XV-XVII centuries, that is with the events, standing 300-400 far from us. An expression "deep ancientry" now should be related to the XIII-XIV centuries. And the words "deepest ancientry" – it is already the XI-XII centuries. EARLIER THE X-XI CENTURIES COMES AN EPOCH OF SILENCE OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS. Probably, no any written evidences – on paper, parchment, papyrus, stones reached us from those times. So, the words "ancientry", deep ancientry" and "deepest ancientry" remain in our lexicon. But they are filled with a different content. These epochs move considerably closer to us, and the time scale seriously shortens. One should come to terms with the fact that based on the written sources, we can look not so far into the past, as we thought yesterday. But everything we saw yesterday is seen also today. But closer.
An analysis of the chronology and history opened a surprising circumstance. Based on the proposed by us mathematical and astronomical methods, it is shown that the Scaligerian chronology, and therefore the Scaligerian history of the "ancientry" and the Middle Ages, is totally wrong. Moreover, it appeared that the history right until the end of the XVI century was intentionally falsified at the epoch of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Falsification of the history in the XVII-XVIII centuries was accompanied with search and destruction of the documents, telling the truth about the past. First of all, this touched the recent XV-XVI centuries, a memory about which was destroyed especially thoroughly. Such activity continued with a relentless force for nearly two hundred years. This is a considerable period for destruction of all the huge texts, which could tell the truth. That's why today we can't hope that any detailed chronicle, written by an eyewitness of the events of the XVI century will come into our hands. And truly telling, what and how happened in reality. So, special attention gets those "minutiaes", those not cleared remains of the truth, which occasionally remained. It appears that there are a lot of such minutiaes. And all together they let to restore the truth. A study of the Scaligerian history could be compared with the work of an investigator, condemning a criminal, who invented a believable legend, cared about his alibi. That's why an authentic picture should be first searched in minutiaes, escaped from the attention of the criminal, covering up the traces. As creating a false version, it is difficult to take into account all the minutiaes. And an experienced investigator "digs them out". Catching the evidences, he gradually "unwinds" all the circumstances of the crime.
A.T.FOMENKO, G.V.Nosovskiy
Moscow, Lomonosov Moscow State Univer
