Questions and doubts regarding the correctness of the presently accepted chronology aren't just a recent phenomenon. They were raised as soon as it was first published. In fact, there were also other competing hypothesis indicating a "young age" of the "written history."
Let us cite from the Morozov's book 6:
"Professor de Arcilla of Salamanca University published two of his works Programma Historiae Universalis and Divinae Florae Historicae in the 16th century, where he stated that the whole of ancient history had been forged in the Middle Ages; the same conclusions were reached by the Jesuit historian and archaeologist J. Hardouin (1646-1729), who regarded the classical literature as written by the monks of the preening, 16th century A.D. (see his books Consiliorum Collectio regia maxima, Chronolo-giae ex nummis antiquis prolusio de mummis Herodiadum, Prolegomena ad censuram vertum scriptorum). The German Privatdozent Robart Baldauf wrote his book Historie und Kritik in 1902-1903, where he asserted on the basis of purely philological argument that not only ancient, but even medieval history was a falsification of the Renaissance and subsequent centuries7."
The famous English mathematician, astronomer, physicist and scientist, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) holds a special place among the critics of the Scaliger-Petavius chronology. He is considered to be the culminating figure of the scientific revolution of the 17th century, who discovered a composition of white light, laid foundation of physical optics, established principles of mechanics, formulated the law of universal gravity, and discovered (independently of G. Leibnitz) differential and integral calculus. What is less known about Newton that he was also an author of serious works devoted to chronology problem, which led him to a conclusion that several main sections of the Scaliger version of chronology are erroneous. His main contributions to this area were A Short Chronicle from the First Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great and The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. By applying scientific approach, I. Newton radically rearranged the ancient chronology. In general, the Newton's chronology was significantly shorter than the Scaliger version, which is commonly accepted today. For example, Newton shifted most of the historical events preceding the epoch of Alexander of Macedonia closer to our times. Nevertheless his revisions of the chronology were much less radical than the changes proposed by Nikolai A. Morozov, for whom Scaliger's chronology was sufficiently reliable only from the 6th century A.D. Let us point out that Newton's chronological research was not at all dealing with the Christian era. Basically, he analyzed Egyptian and ancient Greek chronology and probably didn't have enough time to investigate the later epochs.
Unfortunately, the enormous work performed by Newton was taken skeptically by his contemporaries. Newton's chronological research is not getting a better treatment from the present-day historians. By comparing his work with Scaliger's chronology they are convinced that Newton was mistaken. They claim that without knowledge of the hieroglyphic or cuneiform writing, or the immense archaeological data (which clearly were not yet available at that time), Newton made large errors in his dating, ranging up to a thousand years.
Let us indicate briefly what were those Newton's "mistakes." For example, according to the presently accepted Egyptian chronology, the coronation of Pharaoh Menes took place in the year 3000 B.C., while Newton estimated that this event happened in the year 946 B.C. — a discrepancy of about 2000 years.
According to Scaliger the famous Trojan war took place in the year 1225 B.C., but Newton's dating of this event was the year 904 B.C — a difference of about 330 years. There are many more similar examples. In resume, Newton claimed that the dates related to the events of Greek history should be shifted forwards by 300 years in average, while the 1000 years period of the Egyptian history, which according to Scaliger, began around the year 3000 B.C., should be squeezed between the year 946 B.C and 617 B.C — an epoch of only 330 years. Some of the ancient Egyptian dates he shifted forward by 1800 years, but his revisions stopped at the year 200 B.C. However, a closer look at Newton's work reveals that he did not completely realized a global nature of the errors in the Scaliger version of chronology. His apparently chaotic observations referred to shifting forward in time of several small historical blocks, but they could not be arranged in a systematic chronological system. In fact, Newton was aware that his chronological work was far from being complete. The first edition of his book The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended appeared in 1725 under the title Abrege de Chronologie de M. Le Chevalier Newton (translated to French by M. Feret), but the publication was carried on without
Newton's consent. Newton announced that he was preparing a more detailed book on the ancient chronology, but his death in 1727 interrupted his work on that project. One year after his death, the manuscript of Short Chronicle, which still remained unfinished, and his book The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended were published in one volume by J. Tonson.
English scientist Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) presented very interesting critical analysis of the ancient and medieval history, which was published in his books. His main conclusion can be stated as: we are much closer in time to the epoch of the ancient Greeks and Romans than it is written in the chronological tables (see ). He also called for a total revision of the whole antique and medieval chronology.
Nikolai A. Morozov (1854-1946) was a famous Russian scientist, encyclopedist and revolutionary. His investigation of the chronology was based on solid scientific methods, some of them were completely new and innovative. Practically, he restored the scientific character of the chronological research. It is not possible to ignore his arguments against Scaliger's chronology.
Morozov's father - Peter Alekseevich Shepochkin — was a reach Russian noble belonging to an old aristocratic family whose relatives were the descendants of Peter the Great. His mother — Anna Vasilevna Morozova — was a simple peasant. They were married before the civil authority but not in the Church, so their children carried the mother's name instead of the father's. At the age of twenty, N.A. Morozov joined the revolutionary movement, what in 1881 led to his imprisonment in the infamous Schlisselburg fortress.He spent 25 years in prison. He spent 25 years in prison. During his incarceration he studied chemistry, physics, astronomy, mathematics and history. In 1905 he finally regained his freedom. After his release, he devoted himself to scientific research and educational activities.
During the years following the Russian Revolution, he became the director of the PF. Lesgaft Institute for Natural Sciences, where he accomplished the most important part of his scientific research on the chronology. His results were first presented to a small group of enthusiastic workers in the Lesgaft Institute. In 1922, he was awarded with the membership of the Russian Academy of Science, and in 1925 he received the highest Soviet His first publication related to the chronology problem was his book Revelations in Storm and Thunders, where he analyzed the dating of the Book of Apocalypse from the New Testament.
His conclusions contradicted Scaliger's chronology. In 1914 appeared his book Prophets, in which he used the astronomical methods to revise the Scaliger dating of the biblical prophecies. Between the years 1924 and 1932, N.A. Morozov published his fundamental seven volume works entitled Christ: the History of Human Culture from the Standpoint of the Natural S'ciences8 — an elaborated and detailed presentation of his critical analysis of Scaliger's chronology. He arrived to the conclusion that the conceptual framework of Scaliger's chronology is completely groundless.
After analyzing an immense amount of historical material, Morozov formulated his primary hypothesis that Scaliger's ancient chronology was artificially expanded in time and made much longer than it was in reality. This claim was made based on the discovered by him "repetitions," i.e. the historical texts, which most probably describe the same sequences of events, but are dated differently and are considered to be unrelated. The publication of Morozov's works created vivid discussion in press, repercussions of which are still noticeable in the contempo
rary literature. There were some reasonable responses to Morozov's arguments, but they were not sufficient to dismiss the entire critical content of his books.
It looks as if N.A. Morozov was completely unaware of the chronological research published by I. Newton and E. Jonhson, which at that time were practically forgotten. Surprisingly, many of the obtained by Morozov's conclusions coincide with the claims made by Newton and Jonhson. However, his investigation the chronology problem was definitely on the larger scale and more profound that those of Newton. He extended his analysis over the period of history up to the 6th century A.D. and included in it the redating of all the cornerstone historical events. Despite the extensive nature of his work, N.A. Morozov, likewise Newton, was not able to establish any kind of systematic method for the seemingly chaotic redating process. However, his work was done on much higher level than Newton's research. He also clearly understood the need for radical revision not only of the "ancient" but also medieval history. Nevertheless, in his research, Morozov did not move further than the 6th century A.D., believing that the presently accepted chronology of the period from the 6th to 13th centuries is more or less true. Later, we will explain that this was his big mistake.
The chronology issues appear unwilling to go away, returning persistently and repeatedly, each time with a stronger critical proclamation that there is indeed a problem. The fact that the independent research of such scientists as I. Newton, E. Jonhson and N.A. Morozov had strong similarities in their conclusions, indicates that this could be the right direction to look for a solution to the chronology problem.
After the publication of the works by A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskiy, dealing with the chronology problem, in 1996 in Germany there appeared several books written by German scientists; Uwe Topper, Heribert Illig, Christian Bloss, and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz. Their authors critically analyzed Scaliger's chronology. For example, the Heribert Illig's book questions the real existence of Charles the Great and presents proofs of an ultimate historical forgery. He claims that the medieval history should be shorten by 300 years by "removing" from it the Charles the Great epoch. Let us point out that the revisions suggested by Illig are of local character Figure L8: First Edition of the Morozov's hook only, which could be done within the frames "Christ: the History of Human Culture from the of Scaliger's chronology. In another book by Standpoint of the Natural Sciences." Gunnar Heinsohn and Heribert Illig When the
Pharaohs lived? (see ) the authors question the correctness of Scaliger's chronology of the ancient Egypt. Apparently, the authors are not aware of the Morozov's research (see ) on the Egyptian chronology, in which he indicated several "glued up" dynastical sequences of Egyptian kings. The Morozov's arguments, which were published in years 1924-1932, supporting drastical shortening of the Egyptian chronology, were never translated to English or German (except for the book Revelations in Storm and Thunders).
We would like to point out a very interesting book by Christian Bloss and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz with an intriguing title C14-Crash, in which the authors present numerous testimonies putting in
doubt the very possibility of using the carbon-14 method for dating of historical objects. This method, which was discovered by Willard Libby, is based on the measurement of the radiocarbon level in organic samples. The authors also questioned the effectiveness of the method of dendrochronology for the purpose of historical dating (see ).
Was this article helpful?