я это поправил не надо удалять
M. M. Postnikov, August 1997
Critical Study on The Chronology of The Ancient World
Volume I, The Antiquity
Famous scientist and revolutioneer, a member of «The Executive Committee of The Peoples' Will» party, honorary academician Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov 1854-1946, during 1924-1932 has published his multi-volume research titled «The Christ» (initially titled «History of The mankind in the light of the natural science») that was radically revising traditional ideas of the ancient history of the mankind.
Morozov's provisions were completely rejected by historical scientists, without any analysis essentially, and it is clear why. Impressions, ideas and opinions that person is getting at some time in the early childhood - this is so-called «imprinting» - are assimilated very firmly, and they are very difficult to change. For example, this is the case with religious ideas. The same thing is happening during university students' education. In the first year certain facts are reported and these facts are placed in very deep parts of memory, so student uses them without absolutely any musing if they are justified or not. He has percepted and accepted them during first year without any criticism. It was reported by the professor, so student has to pass the exam and not criticize. He never returns to it later on.
Anything placed into memory by imprinting is very difficult to root up. We know this in the example of religion, if at some time in the early childhood a person had basic principles of belief reported to him, after that he remains a believer even as an adult too, he doesn't rationally think it over any more though, he doesn't perceive atheistic criticism, and more so, if he's beginning to think about it for some reason, he loses his belief usually. This also explains rage shown in fighting the otherwise-minded. They are burnt in fires or killed in religious wars. These are demonstrations of the same psychological mechanism. We're simply afraid to change imprinted ideas and struggle to fight against this as much as we can. This also explains how science is so conservative. Obtained ideas and results are very difficult to change. Science doesn't tolerate new ideas, fighting them instead. New ideas are approved only if they are spoken out or supported by an authoritative scientist, and the more radical idea is, the bigger his authority should be. New ideas require very strong effort and long time to win and become widely accepted.
I found out about Morozov's books in about 1965, but my attempts to discuss his ideas with professional historians led nowhere. Every time it was over with more or less obscene swearing combined with statements like «this can't be because this can never be!» L.N. Gumilev reacted the most polite way, claiming: «We historians don't go into mathematics so we ask you mathematicians not to go into history!» He's right, basically - science should be developed by professionals and professionals only, but at the same time professionals should answer perplexed questions of ignoramus in concrete and convincing way, explaining to them what did they got wrong. That's exactly what I couldn't get from professional historians.
I had to sort out the problem myself and little by little I've come to conclusion that Morozov is right in many ways and who's wrong here is not Morozov but historical science that took the wrong turn around XVI century as a result of work of Scaliger and Petavius.
My reading of historical literature revealed an astonishing phenomenon - in every indent of any composition on The Antiquity History, basically, «Morozov-fashioned» discriminatory look reveals adjustments and logical leaps which are absolutely unnoticeable for an «orthodox» reader (for example see paragraph 8, unit 1 and paragraph 6 unit 2). This was the thing that convinced me about justice of Morozov's viewpoint more than anything else.
Meanwhile A.T. Fomenko heard about Morozov and approached me with a request to express Morozov's theory systematically. For long I didn't succumb to his persuasions but in the very end I surrendered and read a cycle of lectures in which I expressed Morozov's theory in my interpretation. Later at mechmath department of Moscow State University, Fomenko and Mischenko have organised a seminary dedicated to Morozov. Fomenko and Mischenko used my lectures and this seminary's data as a basis and composed a certain text that I strongly disliked and which I hence exposed to cardinal rework, mainly with a purpose to highlight Morozov's initial ideas in greater detail (even the ones I don't really agree with). But Fomenko and Mischenko haven't approved my corrections, so I performed final rework on my own. I significantly expanded my text later by adding another, third volume.
This manuscript was multiplied in I.N.I.O.N. in 1977 (20 copies total were made) to discuss it in historical department of Academy of Sciences. But this discussion turned out, as one would expect, to be a dialogue of two deaf people and ended up in basically nothing.
During next 20 years I didn't go back to it all, I understood everything I needed for myself, considering (till this day) further development of this topic to be business of professional historians who sooner or later will undoubtedly be forced to stop purely negative treatment of the topic and research all of it meaningfully.
A.T. Fomenko has come into absolutely different position by starting energetic activity and publishing an entire series of books recently in which during his revision of The Ancient History and The Middle Ages History he went significantly further than even Morozov. Among other things, this have revitalized an interest in Morozov's initial ideas again so Kraft Publishing House offered me to publish my manuscript from 1977. Preparing it for publishing, I haven't added anything new (even if I could), just removing units that contained Fomenko and Mischenko's considerations. An influence of initial Fomenko's manuscript remained mainly in a way of picking citations that confirm Morozov's viewpoint.
Even if I consider this composition to contain exposition of all the main ideas of Morozov, this doesn't mean that I agree with all of them, even if because I can't competently judge some of his considerations in the sense of if they are correct or not. They are given here anyway for reader to form his own opinion. I still performed a certain selection of course, so quite possibly Morozov himself would accuse me of misrepresentation. This way I bear entirely all the responsibility for this text, after all.
Recent years are marked with big number of compositions dedicated to so-called «para-science». On historical part these are «atlanticism», an idea of existence of extremely cultural civilizations in the distant past (barely not in the very The Tertiary Period), conviction of The Earth being visited by space incomers etc. Not discussing these questions here on point I still can't avoid noticing how para-science adepts stand out with their impossible credulity shown in referring to unverifiable testimony of «witnesses» who are usually characterized very indeterminately («one pilot», «one tourist» etc.) Checking of their references to «material evidences» (say, the notorious «Salzburg parallelepiped») reveals how these evidences either just doesn't exist or they «were destroyed» or they «have disappeared» in unclear and unclarifyable circumstance. In connection to this, it becomes especially curious for us how so-called «The Antiquity History» (unlike, say The New History) reveal all the characteristic features of modern para-science. And detection of this remarkable fact (in different terms of course) appear to be exactly one of Morozov's main merits. First part of this book is dedicated to detailed discussion of this topic, also in epilogue main principles and methods of the research are described too.
There are many absolutely wrong opinions about Morozov's study in literature. For example, it is stated that the core of his theory allegedly consist of «astral» interpretation of biblical myths. But in reality this astral interpretation is of such a little importance that it turned out to be possible to delay it's review in this book till the last unit of the second volume and that unit still appear to be just a kind of a commentary for previous volumes.
But there's more, and even if The Bible's research (absolutely not in an astral interpretation) plays quite a vital role for Morozov, his main statements can still be discussed and substantiated without any mention of biblical motives. The simplest way to see this is to look how The Bible is never mentioned in the first volume of this composition.
Another very common opinion being that astronomy was Morozov's main instrument (people write how he has committed «astronomical revolution in The Historical Science»). This is also not entirely true: Morozov's astronomical considerations play important but still additional role in his study.
In recent years - in connection to Fomenko's publications especially - people have begun talking about «mathematical revolution in The Historical Science». This is not justified too: even if Morozov's mathematically-statistical observations that Fomenko has developed further and deeper are striking frequently, they have no independent probative value because any application of the mathematics is always, even if not clearly, based on preliminary meaningful interpretation. Also, statistical effects that Fomenko - not Morozov! - is basing his work on, can also be refuted from the purely mathematical position as far as I can judge basing on opinions of my colleagues (I'm not a specialist on statistics part myself).
Actually no natural science considerations (astronomical, mathematically-statistical, and geological) can play vital role in historical research. They always have to be interpreted within the basis paradigm and can't stand on a solid ground without it.
Conviction in Morozov's theory comes along with it's synthetical nature, it's generally-theoretical, mathematical, astronomical, linguistic, geological and other considerations combined (frequently in bizarre and almost always unexpected way). Unlike para-science adepts, Morozov in his main critical statements usuallly relies on the most fundamental historical facts that can be found in any monographies, textbooks and popular science literature. To emphasize this fact, elementary textbooks and popular books are cited in this text abundantly. And because practically any book was fitting for this, cited compositions were not chosen intentionally but the first to stumble upon were taken. Even if it could possibly lead to usage of sources that aren't the best and the most authoritative, randomness of their selection had a purpose to once more emphasize universality of information that Morozov is using.
To help reader navigate the book, every unit is closed with «Results» and every paragraph is closed with «Conclusion» which shortly sums up unit (or paragraph) contents. In total these «Results» and «Conclusions» form a kind of a short abstract of this book.
All the highlights in citations (as a rule with cursive) belong to me.
P.S. A.T. Fomenko with his colleagues released and entire series of books in recent years, continuing and developing Morozov's ideas. He's reconstructing The Middle Ages History in absolutely different way. The very possibility of this emphasizes once more how unsteady and uncertain our knowledge of the past is.
Fomenko's reconstruction caused a lively discussion but his opponents - it looks like they are right in many ways - usually just in passing discuss the main question of reliability of widely accepted opinions about the past.
Fomenko's reconstruction is quite possibly wrong in many of its details, but this also doesn't refute the falsity of standard historical views.
It looks like reliable reconstruction of even the crudest features of the distant past is impossible because of several more or less obvious reasons. This is a task for professional historians and not for amateurs even if they are mathematicians and academicians. Sadly, historians obviously aren't ready to perform it yet.
«History of Medes is dark and unclear.»