A chronological revolution made by historical analytics
By Eugen Gabowitsch (Potsdam, Germany)
Knowledge of our history timeline is important, and not only for historians. If indeed the dates of antiquity are incorrect, there could be profound implications for our beliefs about the past, and also for science. Historical knowledge is important to better understand our present situation and the changes that take place around us. Important issues such as global warming and environmental changes depend on available historical data. Astronomical records could have a completely different meaning if the described events took place at times other than those provided by traditional chronology. I trust that the younger generation will have no fear of “untouchable” historical dogma and will use contemporary knowledge to challenge questionable theories. For sure, it is an exciting opportunity to reverse the subordinate role science plays to history, and to create completely new areas of scientific research.
Kasparov, Garry, Mathematics of the Past, Website New Tradition.
Different authors are last time speaking about a chronological revolution. Let me mention only the book Centuries of Darkness. A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology by Peter James et. al. about which Joan Gartland, Detroit P.L., Detroit, Mich. wrote in the “Library Journal”: “The authors of this text, originally published in England in 1991, are young scholars who present no less than a “chronological revolution.” After tracing the development of Old World chronology, James and his colleagues review archaeological evidence and the lack of it from the Dark Age, the centuries-long period at the end of the Late Bronze Age c.1200 B.C. They include a wide geographical area–as far east as Iran and south to Nubia. Challenging the accepted Egyptian chronology, they argue for lower dates, which would instead put the end of the Late Bronze Age around 950 B.C., thus essentially eliminating the so-called Dark Age. The authors have done a masterful job of drawing together an enormous range of evidence; their conclusion is persuasive. Their challenge to Egyptian chronology cannot be ignored, and Egyptologists will have to address the flaws that they demonstrate.”
The chronological revolution I am speaking about is braking the conventional tradition of dating of historical events in all parts of the world and is shortening the chronology of the full human history in a very radical way demonstrating that the historical period of the past is not much longer than 1000 years. There are historical analyst which are even more radical (no reliable history before 1700!) or which try to rescue some parts of the orthodox history outside of the last 100 years, but this is a quite normal spread of estimations which is aloud even in a critical community.
In two my English papers some short survey have been given about the Russian and the German ways to a critical chronological revolution of the world history. The first paper was titled AD Ages in Chaos: A Russian Point of View and was published 2003 in the Proceedings of the SIS Conference Ages still in Chaos. Progress in revising ancient history since 1952 and possible ways forward which was held in September 2002 in London. This paper in some revised version is building the first part of the present publication. The conference mentioned shall be cited below as London conference (2002).
The second was some kind of preface for the second volume of the book of Anatoly T. Fomenko History: Fiction of Science?, Delamere Publishing, Paris-London-New York, 2005, and had a similar title Ages in Chaos. This paper in something changed version can be found below in the third part of this paper.
Additionally a part was written about the contemporary historical analytics in the Western countries. This is the Part 2 of this paper.
The list of publications is also divided into three parts. It have been strongly up-dated.
Part 1. Ages in Chaos: A Russian Point of View
Russian chronological revolution.
It is impossible to give a full survey of Russian historical and critical research done over the last hundred years in a short paper. For English readers I would like to name for this item the paper Investigation of the Correctness of the Historical Dating written by Wieslaw Z. Krawcewicz, Gleb V. Nosovskij and Petr P. Zabreiko, which demonstrates some of most important methods used by such research. Here I shall just give some general ideas of this Russian way of thinking and about some events in the history of the chronological revolution.
The most prominent names in this connection are of Nicolas Morosov, Anatoly T. Fomenko and his main co-author Gleb V. Nosovski. Some additional names of Russian book authors shall be shortly presented in this paper: Mikhail M. Postnikov, Yaroslav Kesler and some other. The most prominent Russian author living outside of Russia is the Bulgarian mathematician Jordan Tabov. An Abstract of a sensational critical book on Bulgarian history written by Jordan Tabov can be found in https://www.jesus1053.com/en/index.html in the line dated by 08.06.2000.
Historically analytic books of Morosov and Fomenko have been published mainly in Russian. 10 most important such books of Morosov have been republished during the last 10 years and are now available for Russian readers. With these books Morosov started the chronological revolution I am speaking about. He demonstrated that in the past some chronological schemes have been reproduced for countries and historical epochs for which no chronological information existed. And he understood that the classical Antiquity was created in the Renaissance time as a virtual projection of the early Renaissance time in the very old past. No real Antiquity existed upon a time.
Morosov also named a much later time as traditional history for the begin of the Christianity, but in this question he was nor so radical as his scientific grandson Anatoly Fomenko later. In between was the known Russian mathematician Mikhail M. Postnikov who teached the ideas of Morosov to the next generation of young Moscow mathematicians. Later he published a short presentation of Morosov’s ideas in “only” three volumes(2000). This very important book titled Critical Investigation of the Ancient World Chronology contains volumes Antiquity, Bible and Orient & Middle Age and gives a comparison of the Morosov’s investigations with the 50 years more late status of the science. For no critical assertion of Morosov he found any reliable scientific argument against the chronological revolution.
The most valuable contribution to chronological revolution made Anatoly T. Fomenko who continued the critical analysis of Morosov and deepened it essentially. More than 25 different books written by Fomenko and in the last 15 years by Nosovsky and Fomenko exist. Unfortunately most of them only in Russian. All English books of these two authors I know can be found in the bibliography below.
The book I am going to speak additionally here about is analysing the history of human civilisation (Igor Davidenco, Yaroslav Kesler, Book of civilisation, Moscow, 2001, with a preface of Garry Kasparov). This was the first time since the first books of Fomenko were translated into English that anybody was able to read in English something about the historically critical research in Russia which is not completely in the tradition of Morosov and Fomenko.
First of all I would like to ask here the question: what is history? And to explain, why the history starts today. History creation is all-important in the past and even today. I shall talk about how history was created in Sakha in the 19th and in Europe in the 16th century, about the role of Gary Kasparov in our movement and about the Book of Civilization. At the end, I would like to speak about Fomenko 1 and Fomenko 2 and about Velikovsky, Morosov and Russian historical criticism.
Do we know what is history?
First of all, a general statement: the traditional model of the past as presented in thousands and thousands of historical books is wrong. The question is: how wrong it is and when the main phase of the creation of history stopped (if it ever stopped)?
The next my questions, ‘What is history?’ is new in the critical historic discussion and is a result of some discussions during many meeting and conferences. Even in the critical comunity some people cannot distinguish between ‘history’ and ‘past’. It is important to understand that we are speaking about and giving critical analysis not of the past but of history, the written records of the past. Many people think that if they speak about history, they are speaking about a real past. This is not correct: they speak only about what they can read in books, not about the real past of mankind.
If you do not separate these two positions or questions, in many cases you forget what you are exactly saying. Are you speaking about some virtual world in which many pharaohs and kings are living, or are we speaking about a past in which we have no real information about much of this. Let us remember at any time: the history is only our model of the (mostly unknown) past. It is not the past itself. The past was real but we have only very limited true information about it. The history is well known, it is described in thousand and millions of books and papers, but is not real, it is only a mental construct, it is a human model of some virtual past.
Speaking about historical analytics we are thinking on an analysis of the history, not of the past. In the best case we can demonstrate that the history is an incorrect model of the past and to try to understand how different they are: the past and the historical model of it. But in many cases we can demonstrate the low level of modelling quality through the history just by a logical analysis of the historical model itself.
The very important point in which we differ from historians is that, discussing any historical epoch, we first ask the question: ‘are we speaking of a real past, real persons, or possibly a virtual past, historical romance, myths, legends, etc.?’. This is a question I have never heard a speaker coming from history really presenting and analysing, though it is very important.
History starts today
A very important point of the Russian way of thinking is proclaimed by the slogan ‘History starts today’. If you open a historical book, you first read that in let me say 7000 years BC it was such a situation, 5000 years BC was the following situation, 2800 BC was the beginning of Sumerian civilisation. No explanation is given why it should be 2800 BC, just some numbers are given and proclaimed to be historical dates, and after you have seen some five to ten numbers, there come some more exact numbers, 6 at the end, or something else, and you think, ‘oh, it’s very correct dating now!’. In reality, it is also a fantastical date, as all named dates with a lot of zeros. This is the traditional and totally false point of view about the begin of history in a very very early past …
Therefore, we are trying not to begin our historical description somewhere BC; we are trying to start today and move back slowly and explain each step of dating. So for us, history begins today, rather than being based on the model of the past that you have. Remember: It is not a real past – it is only a model. We are forgetting that, so our imagination of the past in a lot of cases is not quite adequate.
For us, any old history begins today. At any time is history a today view of the past, a today interpretation of our “knowledge” about the gown times. The human history begins today also in the sense that we are only beginning to apply the interdisciplinary way of thinking for our modelling of the past. And additionally history begins now from the point of view that only in the newest time the critical analysis of the chronology started on a broad scale.
Even the nomenclature of people who are working in this field of the history analysis demonstrate that it is a very interdisciplinary community: we have mathematicians and computer science experts, history and sociology professors, chemists and geologists, and a lot of people from natural science and from technology, etc.. An art critic Alexander Jabinski wrote a very interesting book, Another History of the Arts. This mixture of people of different professions is very good for critical research of the past.
The next point in which we differ from historians is that looking from today, discussing any historical epoch, we first ask the question: ‘are we speaking of a real past, real persons, or possibly a virtual past, historical romance, myths, legends, etc.?’. This is a question I have never heard a speaker coming from history really presenting and analysing, though it is very important.
The next point in which we differ from historians is that asking the question “Is history a marble, a fiction, a poem?” we are looking from today in the direction of the past. Additionally by discussing any old time, we first ask the question: ‘are we really describing the past, the really existing persons, the real events and real social organisation or possibly a our own fantasies on long ago times which are projections of a modern historical thinking on virtual past?’.
As reported Alexey Tolochko in his book about the forgery of Russian chronics by a prominent Russian historian Vasily Tatishchev (“Russian History” of Vasily Tatishchev: sources and historical information, Moscow/Kiev, 2005) for some contemporary historians the idea that a historian projects his own mind in the past if describing this past is totally not acceptable. For us is this point of view a very important background for any critical analysis of history.
I have got in Russian translation a sentence of Johan Huizinga, who wrote that in the Middle Age school system there was no place for history at all. Even at university, historical science was represented in a very limited way. It is difficult or impossible to name one important historical writing from a university of that period, i.e. before its beginning in the 19th century. My comment is, as it was clear to Theodor Mommsen in the beginning of the 20th century, that history is not science: it is a part of literature, part of philology. Just therefore we can see such estimations, e.g., that the great Russian scientist and historian Lomonosov wrote his historical works as a writer and patriot.
When we say that history begins today and you can think on nothing in this context, consider the following situation: let us imagine that aliens are coming to the earth and, after asking us about our philology, our way of reproduction and some other important things, they ask us about our history and dating this history. What can we today explain in the connection with such questions?
We have to develop a presentation which is understandable to somebody who has come from Mars and was never in our schools or universities and does not know our model of the past, so every step must be logically presented. For us is the traditional model of the past a mass religion which we learned to believe in kindergarten, at school, during all our life. Try to be in your discussions with the green men from Mars not a missionary with a historical faith but a logically thinking person who is trying to understand how our historical religion was created.
The next point is that history creation is continuing. Initial history was created at the beginning of the human civilization, possibly at the Renaissance time. The creation of old history continued during the all new history at a very intensive scale. Some years ago, Clark Whelton presented in an SIS meeting a very radical time-leap for the history creation process: the Gregorian Calendar Reform in 1582. His opinion was that after that term, the history is in some sense reliable. Today we can partly agree with this statement but in many cases the reliable history begins even much later.
Speaking about history, I would like to present a part of the Book of Civilisation. Let us first consider the floor mosaic in a villa near Piazza Armeria (Sizilia) presented on the page 148. There are three young ladies at a ball and gymnastics. This mosaic has a traditional interpretation as an ancient imagination (the 4th century AD) – but never more in the ‘ancient‘ period and for more than a thousand years after it one can find pictures of young ladies in slip and bra. This is a typical Renaissance work of art. And a typical chronological mistake.
Very late genesis of the most important ‘historical‘ conceptions is demonstrating the following table from the Book of Civilization (p. 50):
Almagest 14th century – History 14th century
Antique 1530 century – Iberian 1601
Arabic 14th century – Indian 14th century
Arithmetic 15th century – Iron Age 1879
Astrology 14th century – Koran 1615
Astronomy 13th century – Mogul 1588
August 1664 Mongol 1698
Bible 14th century – Muslim 1615
Byzantine 1794 – Orthodox 15th century
Caesar 1567 – Philosophy 14th century
Cathedra 14th century – Platonic 1533
Catholic 14th century – Pyramid 1549
Celtic 1590 – Renaissance 1845
Chinese 1606 – Roman 14th century
Crusaders 1732 – Roman law 1660
Dutch 14th century – Russian 1538
Education 1531 – Spanish 15th century
Etruscan 1706 – Swedish 1605
Gallic 1672 – Tartar 14th century
German 14th century – Trojan 14thcentury
Golden age 1555 – Turkish 1545
Gothic 1591 – Zodiac 14th century
Here you can see when, according to Webster‘s Oxford Dictionary, many important notions from history, religion and science were for the first time used in written English. One can clearly see that ‘the whole antique cycle appears in the English language in the middle of the 16 century as well as the concept of antiquity. We can see some terms about science – ‘almagest’, ‘astronomy’, ‘astrology’, etc. begin in the 14th or 15th century. If we look for antiquity, ‘Etruscan’ was named in 1706 for the first time, ‘Golden Age’ in 1505, so think about what this means.
For each word connected with past the time is indicated when it was used for the first time in English literature. I have divided them into groups – Religion, Antiquity, Science, Middle Age – and we can see that in all of these groups the most important words were used for the first time at quite a late time: 14th, 15th century and even much, much later.
Sometimes all these terms, for example connected with Islam, begin at the end of the 16th century. We think they have been a long, long time in use and the orthodox model of the past says that Islam began in the 7th century. It is wrong: Islam begins much, much later, possibly in the 16th century or even in the 17th century. In 1603, a Turkish sultan declared Islam as the state religion for the first time in history. Therefore it is understandable why related to Islam notions appeared in the 17th century‘.
The opinion of Whelton was that after 1582 history is in some sense reliable. Some years ago in our internet magazine History and Chronology we claimed the initial time for history to be reconstructed was about the year 1648 or 1650. Our opinion was that everything before must be checked. Intensive contacts with the Russian community of historical analysis have helped me to revise my own optimistic evaluations. Today I would like to say that the process of history creation has never stopped and today is possibly even more intensive than in early times. Some examples you can find follow.
India is still trying to develop a new, grander, model of the Indian past which excludes all conflicts, wars, violence in general and other acts of “non-Indian”, “non-Gandhian” events. It was the official program of the nationalistic Indian government that history must be taught to children in schools of India in this new, politically and ideologically correct way. Other examples are connected with China and other countries.
Glorious Chinese history is a fake
Clark Whelton in a short paper titled Creating Ancient History in Modern China (https://www.jesus1053.com/en/index.html, line 01.06.01) wrote lapidary
ah, the political urge to create a longer chronology,
and presented a paper from THE NEW YORK TIMES written in BEIJING at November 9, 2000 by Erik Eckholm. The author tells about a governmental Chinese research program for prolonging the Chinese history for additional many hundreds of years:
Tonight the report was featured in television news and newspapers, which ran headlines like “Chinese History Pushed Back 1,229 Years.” But the project has been questioned by other scholars, here and abroad, who say its authors, driven by a political urge to document Chinese culture‘s primacy and uniqueness, have tried to leapfrog the slow, disorderly march of science. Project researchers resolutely deny anyone told them what to find, but critics say they have forced an illusion of consensus in some cases.
“There‘s a chauvinistic desire to push the historical record back into the third millennium B.C., putting China on a par with Egypt,” said Edward L. Shaughnessy, a historian at the University of Chicago. “It‘s much more a political and nationalistic urge than a scholarly one.”
The Great Wall of China was in reality a pure European myth for many centuries and was built only after 1950. I know the reaction of readers of this my statement – I published a paper about this and there is a book by a professional historian who says the same; but of course nobody reads such papers and books – everybody is reading newspapers and looking at cinemas and they have a wrong model in mind that this Chinese Wall has existed for more than 2000 years. But in reality even for 100 years nobody in China had any imagination or information about it. All the European visitors had books and stories about the Great Wall of China but it was impossible to find in China a picture or an old Chinese drawing demonstrating the wall.
After my article was published, of course many people tried to find old pictures and photographs of the Great Chinese Wall.
I am not saying that no fortification was built previously in China. I am saying that the idea of the Great Chinese Wall was produced in Europe and the construction of the long, long, long wall, which links all these fortifications, was started in the time of Mao Tse Tung and Deng Tsiao Ping. Of course, in the time of the last dynasty in China, there were very strong fortifications to the north of Peking and some other places but it was never the idea to build a long, long wall to protect China from the Mongols – it’s a crazy idea.
At the end of the 19th century in Europe there was a discussion if the Great Chinese Wall exists. Some French writers wrote books saying it did not exist. Some Russian travellers tried to find this wall and it was impossible. Even earlier, a European painter had been in China and came back with a picture of the Great Chinese Wall. He has seen one fortification of some or possibly even 10 km long and he prolonged it by a factor of 50 ij his mind. Of course something was there but it was not the Great Chinese Wall.
It was not reported by Marco Polo, but he didn’t mention the Great Wall as he was never in China, and we don’t know if his writing is a fiction or not – it is possibly a fiction written by another person who travelled in Eastern Russia. There is a book in German, Marco Polo war nie in China, Fomenko has written about the geographical limits of the Polo’s trip and some other Russian critics have independently proved that he never was in China.
Now of course, the situation with the Great Wall of China is quite different – over the last 50 and more years the Chinese Communists constructed this wall and now they proclaim that it is even older than the oldest of early estimates. Clark Whelton reported in our magazine about this new development in the modern Chinese history creating.
How long is the Great Wall of China really?
Nobody in the world can answer even that simple question. All possible numbers between 1500 and 50000 km have been mentioned in different sources. China‘s State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) and State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping (SBSM) will now conduct a massive geographical survey to determine the exact length. All of 2007 will be spent with scientists taking meter sticks and walking the length of the Wall and keeping a record. In 2008 the exact length will be announced. After some 2500 years of Wall’s construction! Steve Mitchell gave after my talk in London the following statement: the Chinese language as we know it from the ancient bronze inscriptions has been destroyed by the early 17th [and 18th?] century Jesuit German scholars. In the new language the new Chinese history was written. But not only German, also Portugal, Italian, Belgian etc. Jesuit scholars created the Chinese history.
Steve Mitchell also said: “the truth is that there is no bridge that says what particular glyph means on the early bronzes. And so we have the question about the Chinese writing system.” I can only report in this connection that Morosov said the idea was that the Chinese writing was a product of European thinking. When the European people came to China, in each village people spoke a different language, it was impossible to develop one writing system for the languages in which phonetically there were four tones, in another seven, eleven or thirteen – they spoke quite different languages, so the only possibility was to use pictures.
This idea was probably developed and completely realised by Jesuits, but I think it is also possible it was made at the a little bit earlier time when the Buddhist religion moved from India to China, and then to Japan, Korea, Vietnam etc. At any case I am sure that such complex writing system was impossible to develop and implement without using an other language with a phonetic alphabet.
Another example: as the time of the German invention of book printing traditionally the 15th century is named, 1440 is the earliest estimation. This invention works perfectly in Europe as we have a phonetic way of writing, so all our languages use phonetic alphabet. Now the official point of view is that 300 years before, in the 11th century, someone in China invented metal forms for printing one book – so they produced millions of symbols, metallic forms for letters, printed a book and then forgot it – just to have a place in history. In reality I think somebody translated in, say, the 17th century into Chinese some possibly Dutch book about the technology of printing in Germany. Later this Chinese book was rewritten, corrected and published another time. Today it is a part of Chinese history.
As another example, were logarithms invented in China 500 years before they were invented in the Netherlands? Somebody checked the two publications and it was possible to see that each printing mistake made in Napier (Nepers)’s tables of natural logarithms (they have been first time published 1620) had been repeated in the Chinese book which was –as the historians said – 500 years older! Is this an usual way of doing history?
The Spanish Armada of 300 big ships is today an important part of the Chinese history of the early 15th century. You can read in each Chinese history book that in 1405 they sent a big Armada of 300 very big ships, some of them even 150 m long, something that it is impossible to construct from wood, and they sent this Armada to India, to Arabic countries and so on, without any clear aim, and they repeated these expeditions six or seven times. It is a tale which was of course made after reading a book about the Spanish Armada in some late time.
[/B]History creation continues today[/B]
From a Russian source I would like to bring an example about the history of Sakha – does anybody know what Sakha is? The Turkish folk of Sakha or Yakuts had been moving from Mongolia to today’s homeland around the Lena River for 400 years, officially from 1000 AD until about 1500 AD. In the 19th century, Sakha nationalism appeared which was strongly against the Russians. Only in the 19th century did any scientists start to collect Sakhan folklore and Sakha literature started to develop.
Sakha was part of Russia from the year 1630. Today the Sakhan autonomous republic covers about one fifth of the full Russian territory, the biggest republic in the Russian federation. The Sakhan population of Russia was about 400,000 at the end of the Soviet era; today it may be about half a million.
Now, one name: Tiganda Khan is a legendary figure in Sakhan folklore. This mythical nobleman of the Tangalas tribe, one of many Sakhan tribes living in the Yakutsk area – Yakutsk is today the capital of the Sakhan republic – plays a very important role in hundreds of legends and tales. Sakhan nationalism created out of this legendary character a historical feature, a king of Old Sakha and so on. In reality, there was never a kingdom of Sakha – in the old time there was only a set of single tribes. Historians have demonstrated that non-historical sources referred to Tiganda Khan but modern Sakhan historiography continues the creation of a new eastern Charlemagne, a king of Sakha.
This is only one example of such modern history creators; my son was the editor of a Russian magazine for politics and culture in Moscow and he sent me this paper. I am quite sure that if I try to do a search, I can find a lot of such examples from the history of Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenia, Ukraine. I know that in Ukraine people are writing a long new history of the Ukrainian past. In my homeland, Estonia, we have today possibly the longest history in the world – yes, any Estonian history book begins at 5000 years BC, when Estonian tribes lived on this territory. Of course it is a tale, of course it is impossible to check, but it is a tendency which is today working in all countries of Asia, Africa, and Europe: every even very small country must have a long and reach history. That is the way of historian thinking in the 20th century.
Now I want to say something about history creation in the 19th centuries. You know Burma, or Myanmar, an Asian country in which –historians say – in the 19th century a chronicle was completed, a “Mirror Palace Chronicle”, about a very, very long Burman history. This Palace Chronicle must have based on some earlier, but nobody have seen the latest. For me it is quite clear that before the European idea of long history reached Burma in some 19th century, it was impossible to produce such a long history. Nobody knows if the coming of the early time which is reported in this chronicle really existed. But one Russian historian started to analyse this chronicle and quite quickly he found out that many dynasties are just duplicated – they repeat themselves, the same as Fomenko found for world history. But Fomenko was doing a very exact analysis with computers and comparing a lot of different events during each reign. This man was working in the usual manner of historians, just comparing names and numbers: this is like this, this is a copy of this dynasty. After such analysis, he shortened the Burmese history by almost thousand years. And when one analyses this short Burmese history, it comes out that the average reign of each ruler was 32 years, which is at least two times too much, so this short Burman history must be shortened by another 50%, and possibly even much more, and even after that, a big part of this history is quite, quite legendary.
So this is one example of doing history in the 19th century.
The most important time of creating history was the 18th century. At this time was created the Russian history, the German, the Chinese; we have an especially clear picture about the creation of Chinese history. It was created using historical books translated from all different European languages into Chinese. All these – now Chinese – books have been incorporated into Chinese history as a genuine part of it. The Chinese writing is not phonetic, so after a translation, you can never say from which language it was translated and it can be proclaimed as an original Chinese book.
In this virtual “Chinese history” we can find parts of the Roman, Russian, German, Spanish etc. history, almost all European inventories … The real Chinese history begins possibly after the 14th century AD – quite, quite late from the traditional point of view. Before that, China had even no idea of history in the European sense.
The idea of history in China was quite different – it was moral history: what we can say about the past which is very useful for the world as we see it today.
In India, there was no historical idea until the European conquest, so real Indian history begins in the 16th century. As one Japanese scientist has said, today Indian history is like a phone book, a lot of names collected from different poems without any historical events or any correct dating.
History of technology against the traditional model of the past.
As I am short of time, I cannot speak about Isaac Newton who is very popular in the Russian history analysis: he demonstrated in his chronological studies that different chronologies are results of analysing of different historical sources (therefore no single correct chronology is possible). But let me handle the newest Russian book which is existing in a – nor very good – but understandable English translation. The authors of this Book of Civilisation are two Russian professors, one a very famous man from Moscow University, Kessler, who is a chemistry professor, and the other Davidenko who is a retired geology professor. The introduction to this book was written by Gary Kasparov, who is today playing a very important role in the organisation of this movement: he writes critical papers, publish them in mass magazines and he organises discussions in TV. And he is trying to organise an international checking of all historical artefacts in all museums of the world based on the modern scientific methods of chemical, physical etc. analysis.
The main idea of Kessler and Davidenco is that with the history of technology we can demonstrate that the normal history writing is not correct, as many artefacts – e.g. some granite statues – was impossible to produce without steel implements; a lot of coins were made with alloys which never existed in these times. It’s steel which is needed in most cases – but steel was produced only in the last 1000 years, even less.
Let us turn our attention to barbers as less known part of the virtual ‘ancient‘ history. Well cared-for beard and hair of a ‘Roman‘ emperor, well shaved Caesar: how have they been served by their barbers in a time without any steel tools? Did all these ‘Roman‘ rulers in reality live in the first four-five centuries of the second Christian millennium?
Another example concerning the technology history: A marble serpentine of the famous Laocoon sculpture group which -as some people say – was produced 139 BC in Pergamon and transported (possibly in a container ship) to Rome. It was in reality produced by Michelangelo who used stucco technology. As Fomenko and Nossovsky mentioned, by a modern restoration, 1960, all three raising arms of the sculptural group have been broken: for imitation of the ‘antique‘ origin? But more important for us is the following: It was never possible to produce the long serpent of the python from a marble block without modern electric cutting tools. However it was possible to make the giant snail from a plastic mixture with organic agents which after being polished imitates the marble. This technology was in use in the time of Michelangelo, not 139 BC in Pergamon.
Another example is the Nefertiti head. Not anybody can see on a picture of it how this sculpture was made. It was put together from two parts, so each part was made separately from concrete but by a casting technology and put together, and one of the technological ideas of the critical writers is that many important sculptures and even pyramids were made using this technology.
For example, let us consider a typical Egypt obelisk with deep engravings. No instrument was known at the time for doing such deep and such nice holes [incisions] in this form, only if this was pressed in not jet hard concrete, special concrete, geopolymer (the terminology of the French chemist Joseph Davidovits from his book The Pyramids. An Enigma Solved, Saint-Quentin, 2001), as it is called, only then can we imagine how such pretty holes have been produced.
Not only the history of technology produce arguments against the orthodox history and its chronology. The Russian book Another History of Art by Alexander Jabinski demonstrates that the full history of art is not longer than 1000 years and all other periods of the history of art (old Greek, old Roman, old Egyptian) are projections of the art of later times to these imaginary virtual times. In his book hundreds of examples are presented which demonstrate how the real art of the last millennium was distributed through the whole old history. They all have been, in reality, produced in the last millennium. In Jabinski‘s book (p. 157) two pictures are presenting almost the same man. Are that really two portraits of the same person? Or of two close relatives? In the history of art this two works of the same art style are dated with 14 centuries in between: a Roman portrait of AD 60 and a Renaissance portrait from the year 1474.
Analyzing hundreds of examples from the named book one can understand that a big part of Renaissance and new historic time art was set in ancient times by wrong dating traditions.
Another Russian book written by a known historian of the music Eugene Gertsman Mysteries of the History of the Ancient Music (Nota Publishing, Saint-Petersburg, 2004) demonstrates that at least 12 centuries of the history of the Ancient music must be cancelled. Important is that the author never before wrote some critical issues on chronology and was itself surprised by his results.
Morosov and Fomenko, their relation to Velikovsky
To the initiator of the Russian critical analysis of the history and chronology Nicolas Morosov and Velikovsky: all are interested in the Russian roots of Velikovsky. For me it is also a very open and interesting question whether Velikovsky read the books of Morosov. The first book of Morosov, a very strong critique of chronology, was published in Russia 1907 when Velikovsky was 8 but it was republished many times and it was translated in 1912 into German, so it is possible that he had a possibility to read this book after his emigration to Germany. In 1914, as Velikovsky started to study at Moscow University, the second book of Morosov was published and discussed. Therefore it is possible that he heard about some ideas from Morosov.
In the later times, during emigration, his life in Palestine and later in the US possibly, he was not so interested in obtaining Russian books and reading them as he had first completely other fields of interest. And it was not simple to obtain in Palestine new books published in the soviet Russia. Another question is if he was in some contact with books of Morosov or people who discussed his ideas during his long stay in the USA. At any case some ideas of Velikovsky are quite close to the general ideas of Morosov, who started the Russian historical critical research, so it is a very interesting question. Possibly members of the family can help to clear up this point of whether really he was acquainted with Morosov.
At any case, Velikovsky never mentioned Morosov and no notes have been found in his archive demonstrating any relation to books and ideas of Morosov. Therefore my opinion is rather that he was not acquainted with any book of Morosov. From other side A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky in a newest book published 2006 mean that some results of Velikovsky are so close to almost the same of Morosov that they can demonstrate the opposite opinion.
To finish my short and not complete enough consideration of the Russian chronological revolution, let me say some words about Fomenko-1 and Fomenko-2 (this is my division into periods of the activity of this most productive and prominent Russian writer in the field of historical analytics) below. To each of them one must devote a separate large volume_ so only a very short introduction can be given below-
Morosov wrote 10 or more volumes of his Christos but published during his life only 7 volumes of his Russian book. No his historical books have been published after 1932. Till the end of his life 1946 he wrote some additional volumes of Christos which have been published first time only for some years. The book was not officially prohibited, but not wanted by Soviet ruler and so almost forgotten. It is known now that Stalin was reading Christos by probably he was afraid of the chronological revolution as a possible result of the wide spreading of Morosov ideas.
In the years 1975-76 the known Russian mathematician Mikhail V. Postnikov which I mentioned above presented the work of Morosov in a course of lectures for young mathematicians of the Moscow university (Fomenko, Mishchenko etc.). This was the begin of Fomenko-1, a critical author with an interdisciplinary habit of research, who completely destroyed the old model of the past. During some 20 years he published papers and books, in which the statistical and natural-scientific analysis of the history started by Morosov was continued and widened. In English some of his books are available (s. bibliography below).
Under Fomenko-2 I am understanding the very active pair of co-authors Fomenko-Nosovsky, which in last 10-15 years published a lot of very interesting book, in which they try to demonstrate, how a new historical model of the past can bee developed. This model describes the whole history of the mankind as only circa 1000 years long and changes many accents in the history. Unfortunately only few of these books have been translated into English and no one into German or some other language.
Summary of Trevor Palmer
Instead of conclusion for this part 1 let me bring here the short review given by professor Trevor Palmer in London on page 108, Proceedings of the SIS Conference: ‘Ages Still in Chaos‘:
Eugen Gabowitsch “tried to argue that we need to try to form a view of history starting today and working back, and if we actually looked at what we could be sure about, when words were first used, that actually take us back many centuries, and if there was not a lot of detailed evidence, we could come up with rather a different picture. Although there were references in European literature to a Great Wall of China, in fact, it would appear that all that existed up until the 1950s were a few isolated fortifications and the wall as such was only built at that time. He referred to evidence in The Book of Civilisation about the history of technology and how the standard view of technology was incompatible with a lot of the data, for example coins supposedly being produced out of alloys that were not available at the time. He also mentioned the interesting point that Velikovsky may have taken some of his ideas from a Russian called Morosov.”