History of the “New Chronology” (Fomenko)

The term “new chronology” was first used by the historian N. M. Nikolsky in a critical review of the first volume of Nikolai Morozov 's work “Christ” (1924) ^[3] .

A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky first used the term in 1995 in the title of their book “A New Chronology and the Concept of the Ancient History of Russia, England and Rome” (Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1995) ^[4] to denote a modified version of world chronology, built on the basis of the widespread use of supposedly modern science methods. Later it began to be applied to the works of earlier authors, whom Fomenko and Nosovsky attribute to their predecessors: Newton , Morozov, etc.

In English literature, the term “ New Chronology” is more often applied to the work of the British Egyptologist David M. Rohl , who in his well-known book “Time Test” ( English “A Test of” Time ” ) ^[5] , published in 1995, used it in relation to his proposed changes in the chronology of Ancient Egypt . In his articles, he used this name since 1990 ^{[6] [7]} .

The authors themselves consider the attempt to apply the term in relation to the concepts of other authors as one of the methods of combating the “New Chronology” and suggest calling their theory “The New Fomenko – Nosovsky Chronology” ^[8] .

The basic information about the early attempts to revise the chronology of HX is borrowed from the works of N. A. Morozov, who, in turn, drew much of the German newspaper article ^[9] . At the same time, many facts reported in this article, for example, about the Salamanca professor de Arsilla and the Leaning physician of Gragani, do not find confirmation.

Jesuit scholar Jean Guardouin ( 1646 - 1729 ), a major philologist of his time, who had long and successfully dealt with philological criticism of texts, in 1690 came to the conclusion that a number of late antique works were actually written in the Middle Ages . Then he stated that almost all of ancient literature was composed by medieval monks, including the Greek translation of the New Testament, while the latter was written in Latin - in his opinion, the native language of Christ and the apostles . He considered fake the whole patristic tradition , and all the documents of the cathedrals, as well as all the antique coins. After death, in his records they found the statement that the whole church history is "the fruit of a secret conspiracy against the true faith." According to the modern French historian Henri-Irenaeus Marro, these ideas of Garduin arose in the struggle with the Jansenists , who relied on the writings of St. Augustine , which forced Garduin to revise the entire heritage of the Church Fathers ^[10] .

An attempt to revise the chronology was made by Isaac Newton , who spent several decades on a mathematical analysis of ancient history. His ideas were summarized in the book The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended , which was born in 1725 in French, and in 1728, after his death, in English ^{[ 11]} .

The physicist , who at the end of his life devoted himself mainly to theology, became preoccupied with the discrepancy between the "sacred" and the "secular" chronology: the date to which the tradition prevailing at that time after Manethon attributed the accession of the first Egyptian pharaoh Menes (4242 BC), not only older than the flood date according to biblical data (2348 BC according to Asher ), but also to the creation of the world ( 4004 BC according to Asher). To resolve this contradiction, Newton, who did not doubt the absolute reliability of the biblical data, stated that the history of all peoples was consciously stewed by them. In part, Newton's skepticism was confirmed by modern science, which considers the Manethon’s chronology to be extended for at least 1000 extra years (see chronology ). With all sorts of combinations, Newton greatly reduced the list of reigns, declaring 904 BC to the year of the reign of Menes . e. ; and since this, in turn, was contrary to the chronology of Greek history, Newton also revised the latter in its early, mythical and semi-mythical part: for example, he dated the argonauts campaign using astronomical combinations in 936 BC. e. . One of the cardinal, although due to the state of knowledge of that era, errors of Newton was that he took as a basis the list of Egyptian reigns, given by the earliest Greek author - Herodotus (as it turned out later, according to a very rough presentation of his Egyptian interlocutors), and rejected the information later authors, which nevertheless were based on the records of Egyptian priests (via the Manetho ) ^[12] . Moreover, his revision concerns mainly the early history, which at that time was deprived of reliable sources, and therefore still does not coincide with the data of modern science; but the Jewish chronology from the time of the creation of the kingdom of Israel and the Greek chronology from the First Olympics at Newton as a whole does not contradict both the science of the 18th century and the present. Therefore, the attempts of the “new chronologists” to portray him as their immediate predecessor are an obvious stretch ^{[13] [14] [15]} . Newton cited his version of the chronology in his works A Brief Chronicle of Historical Events, from the First in Europe to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great, and The Corrected Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms. The contemporaries' responses were negative - his constructions were declared “delusions of an honorable amateur”. Subsequently, Cesare Lombroso called these works the results of "death thirst for genius." Nevertheless, in our time there are other estimates: the famous specialist in ancient history S. Ya. Lurie believed that Newton was impeccable methodologically and to the right of his opponents; his trouble is that he proceeded from false premises and initial data, however, objectively determined by the state of knowledge in his era ^[12] .

In the 19th century, the historian disputed the existing chronology, arguing, in particular, that the Bible was written at the beginning of the 16th century; Privat-docent of the University of Basel, Robert Baldauf, found that the monuments of ancient literature (including Caesar 's Notes ) contain German rhyming and were therefore composed by medieval German monks ^[16] .

The predecessor of the modern developers of the “New Chronology” was the Russian scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov . Finding himself in the Peter and Paul Fortress for terrorist activities and having no literature other than the Bible, Morozov began to read the Apocalypse and, by his own admission:

... from the very first chapter, I suddenly began to recognize in the apocalyptic animals half allegorical, and half literally accurate and, moreover, extremely artistic depiction of thunderstorm paintings I have long known, and besides them there is also a wonderful description of the constellations of the ancient sky and planets in these constellations. After a few pages, there was no longer any doubt for me that the true source of this ancient prophecy was one of those earthquakes that are not uncommon even now in the Greek Archipelago, and the thunderstorm and ominous astrological arrangement of the planets in the constellations that accompanied it, these ancient signs of God's anger, accepted the author, under the influence of religious enthusiasm, for a sign specially sent by God in response to his ardent supplications to indicate to him at least some hint when, finally, Jesus will come to earth ^[17] .

Based on this idea as an obvious fact that does not need proof, Morozov tried to calculate the date of the event using the supposed astronomical instructions in the text and came to the conclusion that the text was written in 395 AD. e. , that is, 300 years later than its historical dating. For Morozov, however, this served as a sign of the fallacy not of his hypothesis, but of the existing chronology of historical events. Morozov, upon leaving the conclusion, set out in the book "Revelation in a Thunderstorm and Storm" ( 1907 ) ^[17] . Critics have pointed out that such dating contradicts the undoubted quotes and references to the Apocalypse in earlier Christian texts. Morozov objected to this, since the dating of the Apocalypse was proved astronomically, in this case we are dealing with forgeries or incorrect dating of conflicting texts that could not have been written before the 5th century. At the same time, he firmly believed that his dating was based on accurate astronomical data; Critics' instructions that these "astronomical data" represent an arbitrary interpretation of a metaphorical text were ignored by him.

In further works ^[18] Morozov carried out an audit of the dating of ancient astronomical events (mainly solar and lunar eclipses ) described in the annals, as well as several horoscopes, the images of which were found in archaeological sites. He came to the conclusion that a significant part of the dating is simply unreasonable, since it is based on extremely meager descriptions of eclipses (without specifying the date, time, exact place, even without specifying the type of eclipse). Morozov transmitted other ancient astronomical events, resulting in much later dates. Analyzing the history of Chinese astronomy, Morozov concluded that the ancient Chinese astronomical records are unreliable - the lists of the appearance of comets have obvious signs of rewriting from each other and from European sources, the lists of eclipses are unrealistic (there are more records of eclipses than they could have been observed in principle).

Ultimately, Morozov proposed the following concept of history: history began in the 1st century AD. n e. (Stone Age), II century was the era of bronze, III - the era of iron; then the era of the unified “ Latin - Hellenic - Syrian - Egyptian empire” begins, the rulers of which (starting from Aurelian ) “were crowned with four crowns in four countries” and “received a special official nickname in the language of that country” at each coronation, and in our multilingual sources according to Morozov, we have four stories of the same empire, where the same kings appear under different names. The resulting confusion also gave us what is considered the history of the ancient world. In general, the whole written history fits into 1700 years, those events that we consider to be different at the same time took place in parallel, and ancient literature was created in the Renaissance , which in fact was the "era of fantasizing and apocryphal ." By 368, Morozov attributes the crucifixion (“poaching”) of Christ, whom he identifies with one of the church fathers, Basil the Great . As for cultures located outside the Mediterranean , their history is much shorter than is commonly believed, for example, India “in reality has no chronology of its own before the sixteenth century. n e. "

Morozov's works were not taken seriously and received sharply negative reviews. After the revolution, however, criticism was tempered by respect for Morozov’s revolutionary merits. The term “New Chronology” itself was first used precisely in a critical review of Morozov’s book by historian N. M. Nikolsky ^[3] . The merits of Morozov in the field of natural sciences, along with his revolutionary past, led to his election in 1932 as an honorary academician of the USSR as "an outstanding chemist, astronomer, cultural historian, writer and activist of the Russian revolutionary movement."

Interest in Morozov’s works quickly faded, although in the West the psychoanalyst Immanuel Velikovsky used Morozov’s ideas to build his own version of the “new chronology”, which was based on the theory of “ catastrophism ”.

M. M. Postnikov and the revival of Morozov’s ideas

In the mid -1960s, the mathematician, professor at Moscow State University Mikhail Postnikov tried to revive and develop Morozov’s ideas ^[19] after Nikita Moiseev , professor at MVTU and an employee of the Central Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences (later an academician), pointed to him the multi-volume Morozov “Christ”. Postnikov tried to organize a joint discussion of chronological problems with mathematicians and professional historians, but did not achieve success in this enterprise. Nonconformist historians, whom M. M. Postnikov addressed, did not perceive mathematical methods as a means that could benefit historical science. For example, Lev Gumilyov told M. Postnikov after his lecture: “We, historians, do not meddle in mathematics and ask you mathematicians not to meddle in history!” ^[20] . The latter does not at all mean that historians deny mathematical methods (they are extremely widely used in history, see cliometry ). However, historians believe that mathematics is by its nature capable of investigating not phenomena, but only models of phenomena, and the success of the study depends on how correctly the model is composed (therefore, on the mathematical processing of the material). Therefore, they believe, a scientifically significant result in the field of history can be obtained only if the premathematical (qualitative) analysis of the material and the statement of the problem are carried out by a specialist historian, based on the methods of his own science. Otherwise, on the part of the mathematician, arbitrariness in the formalization of the material and the statement of the problem is inevitable, and its further calculations, even impeccable, have no scientific value ^[21] .

Fomenko Group Work

In 1974, Postnikov taught a 50-hour course on Morozov's theory at the Mechanics and Mathematics Department of Moscow State University ^[19] . The course was taught at the initiative of the mathematician and topologist Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko , who had already heard Postnikov’s lecture on Morozov’s theory seven years before and “persistently sought to know the details” ^[22] . As a result, a “Morozovskiy” seminar was formed around Postnikov — a circle mainly from youth from the Mechmath of Moscow State University , whose most active members were A. S. Mishchenko and Fomenko ^[22] . According to the version of Fomenko himself, in 1973, in connection with professional interests, his attention was attracted by an article by the American physicist Robert Newton , in which he talked about calculating the acceleration of the apparent motion of the moon, the so-called parameter D. " Based on an analysis of the indications of ancient and medieval sources about solar and lunar eclipses, R. Newton discovered a jump in this parameter around the 10th century CE; as the reason for the jump, he suggested non-gravitational forces in the Earth-Moon system, the main of which is tidal friction (however, Newton’s conclusion about the “jump” was not only not confirmed by other scientists, but was soon discarded by Newton himself.) ^[23] As it later turned out, fluctuations of accelerations in the Earth – Moon system do exist, but they are caused by e by the Moon, and the heterogeneity of the rotation of the Earth itself associated with geophysical processes. Fomenko, according to him, compared the early works of Robert Newton with Morozov's ideas he knew firsthand and put forward the hypothesis that the reason for the incomprehensible results is the erroneous dating of ancient eclipses, and all the contradictions disappear, assuming that the eclipses described by the ancient authors occurred much later than is commonly believed, after which he began insistently inviting Postnikov to give a course of lectures in the mehmat. At the same time, Fomenko claimed that the result was unexpected for himself, since earlier he was skeptical of Morozov’s works ^[24] . Ни в одной работе Фоменко не приводятся примеры заявляемых расчётов, а на основании разбираемых примеров возможных передатировок древних затмений ( Фукидид , Ливий ) такие расчёты сделаны быть не могут. Главное «новшество» Фоменко по сравнению с Р. Ньютоном состоит в том, что, взяв построенный Ньютоном график, он убрал из него все данные до 500 г. н. э., а данные в интервале 500—1000 гг. объявил недостоверными. То есть результат «расчётов» был заранее «подогнан» под морозовскую теорию ^[23] . Комментарии А. Т. Фоменко к работам Р. Р. Ньютона свидетельствуют о непонимании автором «Новой хронологии» методов и результатов американского физика. Кроме того, все астрономические расчёты, сделанные Фоменко при рассмотрении других вопросов, по мнению специалистов, «содержат громадные ошибки», а в некоторых случаях за собственные вычисления выдаются данные, заимствованные из таблиц в книгах Морозова ^[25] . Кроме того, вопреки утверждениям Фоменко ни в 1973 году, ни позже он вопросами небесной механики профессионально не занимался, и научных работ на эту тему у него нет ^[26] .

Фоменко активно подключился к работам сформировавшейся вокруг Постникова группы, долженствующим подтвердить морозовскую теорию, и вскоре возглавил эту группу ^[22] .

К неудовольствию Постникова, Фоменко и Мищенко подвергли серьёзному пересмотру идеи Морозова. Фоменко согласился с Морозовым в том, что существующая хронология неверна, но разошёлся с ним в оценке того, какая хронология правильна. Постников же, в свою очередь, считал невозможным реконструкцию истории без помощи профессиональных историков.

К началу 1980-х около А. Т. Фоменко уже образовался «новохронологический кружок», куда вошли В. В. Калашников , Г. В. Носовский и некоторые другие математики, историки, физики, которым идеи Постникова—Фоменко показались интересными, хотя они и не во всём с ними соглашались. Первоначально речь шла о новых методах датирования исторических событий и усовершенствовании методов Морозова, а не о «новой революционной исторической теории». Был разработан ряд статистических методов, позволявших, по мнению группы Фоменко, восстановить правильную хронологию на основе формального анализа письменных источников. За 1980-е годы Фоменко с коллегами опубликовали около двадцати статей в научных академических журналах, в том числе и исторических. Фоменко выступал на конференциях и семинарах. Таким образом, результаты Фоменко и его соавторов стали достаточно известны среди специалистов.

Взаимоотношения с научным сообществом

Профессиональные историки отнеслись к «Новой хронологии» либо как к курьёзу, либо резко негативно, причислив её к жанру фолк-хистори . Сам А. Т. Фоменко считает первым отрицательным отзывом статью специалиста по истории Франции А. З. Манфреда , опубликованную в 1977 году в журнале « Коммунист » ^[27] , хотя в ней под неназванными молодыми учёными скорее всего подразумеваются представители школы И. Д. Ковальченко — основателя советской клиометрии . Разгромные рецензии в научных изданиях последовали заметно позже, прежде всего со стороны известного антиковеда Е. С. Голубцовой . В № 1 « Вестника древней истории » за 1982 год Голубцова и В. М. Смирин опубликовали статью «К попытке применения „новых методов статистического анализа“ к материалу древней истории» ^[21] , где на примере книги Фоменко предостерегали историков от некритического увлечения математическими методами, указывая на абсурдные выводы, которые получаются при отсутствии корректной доматематической обработки материала. В этой статье Голубцова «поймала Фоменко на прямых передержках» (по выражению Ю. М. Лотмана ^[28] ). Впоследствии Голубцова с разными соавторами опубликовала ещё ряд статей на ту же тему, а Фоменко неоднократно критиковал её исследования в своих монографиях ^[27] . Профессиональные астрономы, в лице, например, Ю. Н. Ефремова , также не приняли гипотез Фоменко; без упоминания имени Фоменко критика высказывалась в то время и в научно-популярной периодике ^[29] . Против первых публикаций А. Т. Фоменко неоднократно высказались сотрудники Астрономического института им. Штернберга . Критика со стороны астрономов продолжалась и позже. Так, в 1987 году Ю. Н. Ефремов и Е. Д. Павловская опубликовали в « Докладах АН СССР » статью, опровергающую выводы Фоменко по датировке «Альмагеста» ^[30] . В ответ Калашников, Носовский и Фоменко опубликовали в 1989 году в этом же журнале работу, в которой утверждали, что методика Ефремова и Павловской нуждалась в исправлении, а после исправления результаты якобы свидетельствовали уже против существующей датировки «Альмагеста». Ю. Н. Ефремов (ныне член бюро Научного совета РАН по астрономии) и далее продолжал активно полемизировать с теорией Фоменко ^[31] . В 2001 году вышел сборник статей разных авторов «Астрономия против „новой хронологии“» ^[32] .

Отношения с партийным руководством

Летом 1982 г. в журнале «Техника и наука» (№ 7) появилась статья Постникова «Величайшая мистификация в истории?», в которой он довольно откровенно изложил выводы исследований группы ^[33] . Тотчас последовала негативная реакция в Отделении истории АН СССР, и особенно в Отделе науки ЦК КПСС ^[34] . Академики-историки с большим партийно-идеологическим весом в ЦК, среди которых Борис Рыбаков и Юлиан Бромлей , написали резкое письмо в ЦК, призывая закрыть морозовщину коммунистическими методами, а Фоменко и Постникову запретить преподавание. По свидетельству академика С. П. Новикова , Фоменко ходил объясняться в ЦК ^[35]. It is known that Fomenko published in the same journal (No. 11) an article “On the issue of fraud,” in which he declared his disagreement with Postnikov:

M. M. Postnikov completely ignored the scientific facts established in these publications, and attributed to me the "merit" of the final proof of the absurd thesis about the absolute falsification of all ancient history up to the 4th century. n e., executed, allegedly on his initiative, M. M. Postnikov. <...> Apparently, M. Postnikov considers delving into all these “subtleties” as unnecessary, since the main thing for him is to immediately formulate a sensational “consequence”: the history of the Roman Empire II is false. At the same time, for some reason he is silent about the fact that the author of this work not only does not draw such a conclusion, but specifically emphasizes that he strongly disagrees with the assumption of N.A. Morozov, according to which most of the works of antiquity are forgeries or apocrypha of the Renaissance. In other words, this assumption would mean that the ancient history we know today is the result of deliberate falsification. This thesis <...> aroused fair criticism of opponents. The position of the author of this work is different ^[36] .

According to the testimony of Yu. M. Lotman , Fomenko sent him a “hysterical” letter ^[28] , where he requested, in connection with the dissatisfaction of the Central Committee, to immediately remove him and Postnikov’s article in the forthcoming collection (Lotman himself characterized this article as follows: “Bullshit. But to print will be "). Fomenko assured that “he completely reconsidered his views on the historical process” ^[28] . These events, as well as the condemnation of the “New Chronology” at the plenum of the Central Committee in October 1983, according to the historian S. O. Schmidt , forced Fomenko to move away from historical-chronological studies for some time ^[34] .

Soon, however, Fomenko and his group resumed publishing articles on their theories. After the appearance in the “Questions of History” (No. 12, 1983) of a new devastating article written by Golubtsova in collaboration with the physicist Yu. A. Zavenyagin ^[37] , Fomenko, in turn, complains to the Central Committee, attaching an article refuting the astronomical conclusions of the authors ^{[ 38] [39]} . The result was a discussion with Zavenyagin in one of the Central Committee’s offices, where Fomenko put forward his patriotic intentions as the last argument: “I am Soviet, I am Russian! I want the history of my country to be as ancient as Ancient Rome! ” ^{[34] [40]}

Perestroika freed supporters of the New Chronology from the problems of censorship. But the theme of ancient history in that era was irrelevant among the masses, and Fomenko continued to publish publications. Later, in 1990 and 1993, at the expense of the author, the first monographs on the New Chronology were published at the Moscow State University Publishing House: “Methods of statistical analysis of narrative texts and applications to chronology (recognition and dating of dependent texts, statistical ancient chronology, statistics of ancient astronomical observations) "And" Global chronology. A study on the history of the ancient world and the Middle Ages. " In the appendix to the second Nosovsky, a new dating of Orthodox Easter and the Nicene Council is given . In 1993-94, three books were published by US and Dutch publishers outlining Fomenko's theory, with a total volume of about 1,000 pages.

1995 was a turning point in the history of the New Chronology. This year the first book is published, written by A. T. Fomenko in collaboration with G. V. Nosovsky, it is the first book devoted to questions of dating of the Almagest and Roman dynasties, which are of little interest to the general reader, but to a complete revision of Russian history: “New chronology of Russia, England and Rome . " In 1996, a new book of co-authors followed, already presenting a detailed version of Russian history: “Empire. Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, Egypt. A new mathematical chronology of antiquity. " From this moment on, several books on the New Chronology are published annually in commercial runs and receive widespread advertising. It was in the second half of the 90s that the “New Chronology” became in line with such phenomena of mass culture as astrology, a fascination with magic and esoterics, so that by the end of the decade, the academic environment, which had previously ignored HX with hostility, was forced to join in the fight against it.

On April 22, 1998, the situation surrounding Fomenko's theory was discussed at an extended meeting of the Bureau of the History Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences ^[1] . The "new chronology" was described as pseudoscience, as "conscious grandiose historical falsification in the form of a historical composition", its massive propaganda - as "the destruction of public consciousness"; Nevertheless, it was decided not to attract too much attention to it by public discussion, but instead it is better to promote historical knowledge ^[1] . However, the discussion quickly erupted, and special “anti-Fomenkovsky” collections began to appear. The first of them came out in the same 1998, there Fomenko was still commenting in a row with E. Radzinsky and M. Aji ( D. Volodikhin et al. “History of Russia in small peas” (inaccessible link from 11-05-2013 [2274 days]) ). On December 21, 1999, the Moscow State University hosted the conference “Myths of a New Chronology” . The conference, at which Fomenko's works were qualified as part of the phenomenon of folk history , was attended by a large number of specialists: historians, archaeologists, philologists, mathematicians, physicists, astronomers. Fomenko was invited to this conference (which he initially denied), but failed to appear ^[41] . A number of conference materials were subsequently repeatedly published in periodicals (including in Vestnik RAN ^{[42] [43]} ) and various collections ^[44] , and also appeared as a separate publication ^[45] .

In discussions that went to press and on the Internet, supporters and opponents of the New Chronology repeatedly accused each other of forgery, stretch, distortion of facts, personal revenge and political motives; in addition, professionals accused Fomenko and Nosovsky of amateurism and incompetence. Later, the intensity of discussions decreased, since the authors of the New Chronology retreated from direct discussions in the scientific press by contacting the general public in commercial publications. To date, the total number of books by A. T. Fomenko and his group is about 90. Reports and individual articles by critics of The New Chronology are collected in 7 collections of Antifomenko by Russian Panorama Publishing House ^[46] and other collections ^[47] .

In 2004, Anatoly Fomenko, co-authored with Gleb Nosovsky for books from the New Chronology series, was awarded the Paragraph Antipremy in the nomination Honorary Illiteracy for especially cynical crimes against Russian literature .

• Criticism of the “New Chronology” on the website “Chronology and Chronography”
• List of published works of A. T. Fomenko on the website of the Department of Differential Geometry and Applications of Moscow State University
• Bibliography of publications for and against the New Chronology
• Collections of critical works against the New Chronology
• Works by N. A. Morozov

• Fomenko A. T. As it was in reality: every story wants to be told. - M .: AST , 2017 .-- 768 p. - ISBN 978-5-17-096292-1