The Ancient history is a phantom from the
We learn the ancient history in junior classes of school, don't we? Kids love lessons of history - it is like a fairy tale. Teachers tell us breathtaking stories; very soon we learn by heart names and deeds of brave warriors, wise philosophers, fabulous pharaohs, clever high priests and greedy scribes, gigantic pyramids and sinister castles, kings and queens, dukes and barons, powerful heroes and beautiful ladies, severe saints and low traitors. Cruel wars, iron roman legions, noble knights, night serenades, crusades and contests, sea travel and discoveries, passions and adventures.. etc..etc. Fantastic, isn't?
We grow up, and love of history grows stronger too, we see fabulous Hollywood productions, read historical fiction, buy expensive books about mysteries, admire archeological finds, go to museums. Yes-yes, we understand now much better the Universal History of Humanity, the Rise and Fall of Civilizations. Long, very long history of humanity. Per ternia ad astra! (through the thickles to the stars!)
Fantasy it sure is. That is the problem! The ancient history of Antiquity and Middle Ages is an enormous edifice of unspeakable perfection and beauty… hanging in the air. It simply has no proven and reliably dated documentary foundation.
You will rightfully object, that there are zillions of historical documents, manuscripts, ancient papyri, parchments, old and no so old books, buzzing with references to, from and about, etc.. There is sure historical material enough to reconstruct the glorious past!
Yes, there is more than enough to blind you forever, enough to lead you astray from the path of grown up sound reason and logic. Yes, there is enough material for further 10.000 Hollywood dazzling blockbusters, like Gladiator with very convincing Russell Crowe, enough ideas for further 1.000.000 books. But, we repeat again there is ZERO of reliably dated documentary sources!
Everybody presumes that the reconstruction of the past is simple. One takes an ancient chronicle, translates it into contemporary language, and that's it.
This is not so.
The ancient history is written history based on sources: documents, manuscripts, printed books, paintings. When the school textbook tells us that Gengis Kahn in a year X conquered half of the world, it means only that it is so said in some written sources. However, a simple question, when these sources were written, in how far they reflect the real events - is a complex question that requires a special research.
It is further presumed that there are some precious medieval chronicles available, written down by Gengis Kahn's contemporaries and eyewitnesses to the fantastic conquest, which are kept today in the National Library of Mongolia (joke), or in the Library of Congress USA (joke), or in private collection of Microsoft (joke).
This is not so.
Available are only fairly recent sources written hundreds even thousands of years after events, in most cases in XVI-XVIII centuries or later. As a rule, these sources underwent considerable manipulation and distortion by editing.
Naturally, real events were the source for the most of the written documents. However, the same real event could have been described in chronicles by authors speaking different languages and having contradictory points of view. Very often such descriptions found in the sources reliably dated before invention of printing are plainly unrecognizable as the same event.
The names of persons and geographical locations often changed their meaning and place in the course of centuries. One and the same word could take on entirely different meaning in the different historical epochs.
Geographical names settled down on the maps definitely only with the advent of printing, which made possible the circulation of many identical copies of the same map for military, navigation, education, governance, etc .. purposes. Before invention of printed maps each map was a unique work of art, both non exact and contradictory.
In ancient texts the names of persons and places were written down as "skeletons" of consonants for the simple reason of economy of precious parchment, papyri. The vowels were added "from memory". The names of persons and locations suffered most becoming non recognizable; with passage of time they were confused, forgotten and/or substituted.
You can easily imagine, how ambiguous an ancient text written down only by consonants could become. For example, the combination SMN could mean either OSMANI or SIMON or ISMEN, etc. The picture got even more confusing, when the skeleton (combination) of consonants, indicating the name of the foreign city, country, river, name of a tsar, of a ruler appeared to the interpreter in the ancient text. Here the vowel fill could have been arbitrary, changing radically the initial meaning of text.
The clear rules of orthography are dating back to the beginning of XIX century; in old times in languages of Latin alphabet consonants were freely converted into each other. For example, "F" was converted into "T" or "V" and vice versa, "P" was confused with "B", "M" turned into "N", "C" into "K" etc. Finally, different languages had opposite direction of reading - from left to right (in the European languages) or from right to left (in Arabic and Hebrew).
Furthermore, when placed on the pages of chronicles, real people often got new "names", unknown to their contemporaries. In most cases it was an inevitable consequence of confusion, translation errors, foreign alphabets, misinterpretations, contradictory points of view, etc..
Historians say: "... everybody knows that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C! Do You really doubt it?!" Yes, we really do. For us this statement is only a point of view that is totally and utterly DOMINANT today. OK. But it is one of many possible points of view untill proved without shadow of a doubt.
In turn, we ask a historian some simple questions "Where do You know it from? From the textbook? Not good enough. Who was the first to say that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C.? What book, document, and manuscript can you quote as a primary source? Who is the author of this source? When was this primary source written down?...
We do not accept "the textbook says so" type of answer as proof. As soon as you will have to dig for proof slightly deeper than the school textbook, the grounds for the totally and utterly DOMINANT point of view suddenly disappears.
As a matter of fact, not only you, but the whole world community of professional historians will not come with up irrefutable documentary proof of Julius Caesar ever existed.
Cambridge historians say STOP! Look, here, here is the chronicle written in the twelfth century A.D., which clearly says "Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C." The answer is: What proves that this chronicle is written in the XII century and not in the XVII century?
The fact that bronze panel made in the XXI century with the lettering: "Temple of Jupiter built in I century B.C. by the personal command of Ceasar the Emperor of Rome" is hanging on the ancient looking edifice is not an irrefutable proof of when, why or what for it was built, even when the building is in Rome.
Indeed, the dating of chronicle by the twelfth century has to be proven. That is where the buck stops. The historians are UNABLE to prove the date of the writing of their "old" written sources. They are successfully selling you an ancient looking coins minted yesterday with tails inscription "coined in 2000 B.C." and head with portrait of Jesus Christ.
Better than that - most rare sources that can be reliably dated by the X-XIV centuries do not show the textbook picture of classical history. Learned historians say that such sources are primitive and full of errors, wrong names and locations, chronologically impossible situations, etc..etc, so these sources are unfortunate concoctions of half illiterate monks, hermits, travelers - therefore they cannot be accepted to sacred temple of the universal classical history.
The existing methods of dating of old and ancient sources and artifacts are both non exact and contradictory. It is unfortunately true for archeological, dendrochronological and carbon dating. Judge for yourself:
Archeological dating: archeologist finds in a dig attributed to XVII-XIX (1500 years B.C) dynasty in Egypt a pot from Greece attributed to Mykene culture. It is inferred that they are from the same age. OK.
Another archeologist finds in a dig attributed to Mykene culture byside a similar pot a "peculiar" button, it inferred that they are from the same age. OK. Other archeologists find byside similar "peculiar" buttons other objects in digs in Germany, so it is also inferred that all objects found in that dig are from the same age (1500 years B.C).
Archeologists find more similar "peculiar" buttons in a dig of the fairly recent dolmen of King Biorn (born 953 A.C.. Archeologist cannot possibly say the King Biorn's dolmen is 2500 years old. OK. So they call such case a mystery - under the carpet it goes.
Psychologically, archelogists "turn away" from such facts, as from something inconvenient and disturbing. In most instances, only the classical chronology stopped the historians from drawing the same conclusions that we make today.
Strange thing, but ALL proofs relative to ALL historically important names and events of ancient history first have appeared in sources (documents, books, manuscripts) that can be reliably dated by XVI-XVIII century only. These books and manuscripts are full of references to, from and about the older books, documents and manuscripts, which have all mysteriously disappeared. The trouble is that there is not a single reliably dated original contemporary source. Sic!
Why is this so?
The "sources" are the part of classical chronology (manipulation). They were manufactured in XVI-XVIII centuries by the way of distortion and manipulation of the old originals. As a rule the originals were destroyed. Most Greek, Roman, medieval chronicles and memoirs were mass produced in XVII-XVIII centuries.
In fact, for the last 300 years, the whole class of historians researches a world of phantom universal history and classical civilization artfully constructed by their predecessors in course of XVI-XVIII centuries at the command of powers of that time.
The ancient history you were taught at school is not the truth in final instance, but a currently dominant and universally accepted version of history. Only one of possible versions, untill the irrefutable proof to the contrary. This version is based on the "chronological hypothesis", formulated for first time by chronologists and historians Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609 and Dionysus Petavius (1583-1652). Their chronology is not irrefutable.
You will find in our e-books sufficient proof to reach step by step for yourself the inevitable conclusion that classical Scaliger-Petavius chronology is false and therefore, the history of ancient and medieval world universally accepted today, is also false.
After reading our e-books You will have fresh and very suspicious look on everything said or printed about ancient Roman, Greek, Egyptian, medieval and all other lost and found civilizations.
Under the powerful headlights of new statistical and astronomical methods of dating the mirage of a beautiful edifice of universal classical history turns to ugly shambles of medieval politics.
Was there really a Dark Age?
It is common knowledge that the Classical Age was followed by many centuries of utter stagnation and decline with virtually nothing happening but wars and famine and the destruction of the priceless ancient monuments. Then, during the Renaissance, the Classical authors re-appear from oblivion, Latin and Greek become resurrected as the intelligentsia Esperanto of the Middle Ages, numerous manuscripts re-appear from oblivion to be copied, enter wide circulation, and vanish again, never to be found.
How preposterous would it be to suggest that there were no Dark Ages to separate the antiquity from the Renaissance - that the "Re-naissance" was in fact the naissance of the Western European culture as we know it? It does contradict everything that we may ever have learnt about history. However, new methods offered by empirical statistics and developed by Anatoly Fomenko, the Russian mathematician, and his colleagues, provide plenty of evidence to support the theory that the Dark Ages are a phantom.
We find lots of spicy morsels in the cauldron of history, and some of them are impossible to digest without soothing explanations that all the contradictions we encounter are to be blamed on the ignorance of the scribes or some such phenomena inherent in the murky past - fancy the statue of Marcus Aurelius lost for several centuries and then found "by accident" on one of the Roman streets, or Senators congregating amongst the ruins of the Capitol due to their being "nostalgic about the great imperial past of the Empire", or the pagan temples turning Christian at the wink of an eye, with the name of the saint coinciding with the name of the pagan deities that these very temples were consecrated to in the mysterious "days of yore"?