How True Is Our History
Lately I have been digging deeper and deeper into the idea that our history is terribly fabricated. I will be covering it a little more as I have the time but if you are interested, you should start looking into the works by the mathematician Anatoly Fomenko. Created in the XVI century A.D. and the accepted chronology and history of the ancient and medieval world, evidently contains big mistakes. Many outstanding scientists understood it and discussed it for a long period of time. But it appeared to be a difficult task to build a new, non-contradictory concept of chronology.
Starting from 1975 a group of mathematicians, mainly from the Moscow State University, research results were received and published both in scientific periodical print and in separate monographs. The methods of humanities, one of which is history, are not enough for solving chronological issues. New chronology imposes another psychological picture of perception of the antiquity. Now the word “antiquity” should be connected with XV-XVII centuries A.D. that is with the events, distant from us on 300-400 years. Our analyses of the chronology and history opened a striking circumstance. Based on the applied mathematical methods, it was proved, that the Scaligerian chronology, and therefore also the Scaligerian history of the “antiquity” and the Middle Ages, is totally wrong. Moreover, it appeared that our history right up to the end of the XVI century was consciously falsified at the epoch of the XVII-XVIII centuries.
Can you recall your middle-school social studies lessons? How, at some willowy point in your 11th or 12th year, you learned that recorded history begins with the appearance of writing? There were the Mesopotamians with their cuneiform scripts; the Egyptians’ hieroglyphs and demotic scrawls; and later, the Greeks and Romans, whose societies form the backbone, for better or worse, of our own—if only because they kept such meticulous records. We have all sought and found these connections to our past—in museums, in books, in the ground. This is our inheritance. And it is ingrained in us so early, so matter-of-factly, that it permeates most of our existences without demanding critical reflection.
What if it’s all bullshit?
Anatoly Timofeyevich Fomenko would like to blow your mind now, please. Since 1980, Fomenko, mathematician at Moscow State University and full member of Russia’s prestigious Academy of Sciences, has been the leading proponent of a radical revision of human history—”an improved version of the global chronology of the Ancient Time,” as he and collaborator Gleb Nosovsky put it—based on statistical and astronomical analyses. Fomenko believes there is no reliable written record of human events before the 11th century. Most of our knowledge of earlier cultures is based on texts or copies of texts that date from after that era. From that point on, chroniclers—primarily learned religious scholars—used supposition and arbitrary consensus to fix the dates of key events in history. In doing so, they grafted recent occurrences onto earlier dates—sometimes unwittingly, sometimes perniciously—thus creating numerous “historical duplicates.” History appears to repeat itself, Fomenko suggests, because it is thoroughly plagiarized. In his chronology, the events of the New Testament precede those of the Old Testament—and in any case, most of the stories are concocted to reflect later incidents. Joan of Arc was a model for the biblical character Deborah. Jesus Christ was crucified in Constantinople in 1086. Ancient Egypt, Rome, and Greece were fashioned by Renaissance writers and artists (the time of the Pharoahs, Fomenko suggests, may have lasted into the 1700s). Aristotle instructed Alexander the Great, who was a tsar, in Moscow in the 1400s. Early English history—from the accepted names and dates to the apocryphal legends of a post-Roman King Arthur—is actually a carbon copy of Fourth Century Byzantium, which is itself a fiction based on late Medieval events. Speaking of carbon, don’t bother relying on carbon dating or other “scientific” chronological methods, Fomenko says: They are premised on the “old” dating system, and hence thoroughly corrupted.
Small wonder, then, that the advent of the scientific method and telescopic astronomy—along with advances in mathematics—spurred some of the earliest serious attempts to make sense of history on an all-encompassing timeline that wasn’t based on religious dogma. Sir Isaac Newton seemed singularly qualified for this task, having applied his talent for mathematical reasoning to celestial physics. Newton’s contribution, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms, first appeared in print after his death, in 1728. It argued—sometimes haughtily—that the currently accepted timeline of ancient history was wildly inaccurate in places:
“Chronologers have sometimes doubled the persons of men,” Newton argued, “and by such corruptions they have exceedingly perplexed Ancient History.” The Greeks mixed goddess Io with the Egyptian goddess Isis; the Romans lost most of their chronicles to fires set by the Gauls; the Persian timeline of rulers made no sense; and how could the great Egyptian city of Memphis have existed before Homer’s day, if Homer never mentioned it? As a result, Newton’s own countrymen were adrift, uncertain of their own location in human history: “The Europeans, had no Chronology before the times of the Persian Empire: and whatsoever Chronology they now have of ancienter times, hath been framed since, by reasoning and conjecture.”
Newton’s chronology moved the English a little closer to antiquity. Events in ancient Greece, he argued, were about 300 years newer than the conventional wisdom held. Egypt’s empire was moved forward in time as much as 1,800 years. And so on for most of the ancient civilizations. “And whilst all these nations have magnified their Antiquities so exceedingly,” the great mathematician concluded, “we need not wonder that the Greeks and Latines have made their first Kings a little older than the truth.”
The son of a bookseller, Hardouin became a Jesuit teacher and librarian who grew interested in dating the classical texts he collected and translated. Hardouin’s conclusion—what one later critic called a “literary hallucination”—was that, except for a few works of Cicero, Virgil and some others, all the Greek and Roman texts of “antiquity” were spurious fabrications cooked up by “certain monks of the thirteenth century.” Even the Greek translation of the Bible itself was suspect to Hardouin—an assertion scandalous enough that his Jesuit superiors forced him to publicly recant his research in 1708. But he posthumously published several more texts expanding on his theory that Medieval Benedictine monks had basically created classical Rome and Greece and even fabricated all ancient coins: St. Paul, the early church fathers, and even the gospels themselves were all concocted in the 1500s by Benedictine monks. Christ and the apostles were wholesale fictions, as was “all English history before the end of the fifteenth century.” And, as one of his chapter titles put it, “An Imaginary Period Has Been Created and Called the ‘Middle Ages'”: The whole era from 700 to about 1400 never actually happened. I always asked myself, “how could the ancient Romans accomplish so much without good maps? If humans were growing in stature over time, how were ancient soldiers so much stronger and larger than those of Gibbon’s day? And how could they have achieved such advances in math and architecture using only Roman numerals? Something is definitely wrong with our history and maybe I won’t be able to find much, but it is worth the look.