Edwin Johnson

Edwin Johnson 1842 – 1901 [England]
Johnson worked as a professor for Classic Literature at New College in South Hampstead, England. He started analyzing the Bible in a critical way, following the path of Baur and Harnack. From 1894 onwards, after retiring, Johnson, who had already received harsh criticism after publishing some of his new ideas, wrote the result of his life-long research down in the form of a book called “The Pauline Epistles.”

The result is quite revolutionary: The Christian church was created in the Benedictine monasteries of France (Paris and Lyon) around 1500. The classical ‘Fathers of the Church’ were written by poorly skilled monks; the New Testament followed later. There are no older texts, and the content allows us to find out the historical moment: the invention of printing. Martin Luther’s reform was the first attempt to block the expansion of the French Catholic Church; before that, there was no church at all.

However, these theses are the most radical ones we know; they are based on Hardouin. Morosov and Fomenko knew Johnson’s books and used them for their research. Johnson translated the “Prolegomena” of Hardouin (published by Petherick in Sidney 1909), recently re-edited by H. Detering in Germany (2010).
Selected Publications:
1887: Antiqua Mater. A Study of Christian Origins (Trübner; London)
1890: The Rise of Christendom (London)
1894: The Pauline Epistles (Watts, London)

Edwin Johnson is best known for his radical criticisms of Christian historiography, continuing scholarship in the vein of Bruno Bauer, S.A. Naber, and Allard Pierson. Among his works are “Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins” (1887, published in London anonymously) and “The Pauline Epistles: Re-studied and Explained” (1894).

In Antiqua Mater Johnson examines a great variety of sources related to early Christianity “from outside scripture” [archive.is/8qmZ], coming to the conclusion that there was no reliable documental evidence to prove the existence of Jesus Christ or the Apostles. He asserts that Christianity had evolved from a Jewish Diaspora movement, which he provisionally called the Hagioi. They adhered to a liberal interpretation of the Torah with simpler rites and a more spiritualized outlook. Hagioi is a Greek word meaning “saints,” “holy ones,” “believers,” “loyal followers,” or “God’s people,” and was usually used in reference to members of the early Christian communities. It is a term that was frequently used by Paul in the New Testament and in a few places in Acts of the Apostles in reference to Paul’s activities. Both Gnosticism as well as certain Bacchic pagan cults are also mentioned as likely precursors of Christianity.

In The Pauline Epistles and The Rise of English Culture, Johnson made the radical claim that the whole of the so-called Dark Ages between 700 and 1400 A. D. had never occurred but had been invented by Christian writers who created imaginary characters and events. The Church Fathers, the Gospels, St. Paul, the early Christian texts, and Christianity, in general, are identified as mere literary creations and attributed to monks (chiefly Benedictines) who drew up the entire Christian mythos in the early 16th century. As one reviewer said, Johnson “undertakes to abolish all English history before the end of the fifteenth century.” Johnson contends that before the ‘age of publication’ and the ‘revival of letters,’ there were no reliable registers and logs, and there was a lack of records and documents with verifiable dates.
References –
– “Radicalism in England: Johnson from “The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present” by Arthur Drews.
– “Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ” by Alvar Ellegard.
– “The Abolition of History,” The New York Times, May 14, 1904, Page BR328. (.pdf)

Edwin Johnson, A Radical Advocate of Chronology Criticism” (2001, by Uwe Topper; machine translation with some cleanup by Michael Hoffman).


The Colloquies of Erasmus” (1878, translated by N. Baily, edited with notes by the Rev. Edward Johnson, M.A.), vol. 1
The rise of English culture” (1904, with Edward Augustus Petherick) (.pdf)
Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins” (1887) (.html)
The Pauline Epistles – Re-Studied and Explained” (1894, by Edwin Johnson, M.A.)
The English language translation of “Prolegomena” by Jean Hardouin, the original text of the Prolegomena.
* Theological Translation Fund Library, Vol. 23 & 24: Commentary on The Psalms, by Dr. G. Heinrich A. V. Ewald, Professor of Oriental Languages in the University of Gottingen (1880, translated into English by the Rev. E. Johnson, M. A.), vol. 1 (.pdf), other formats; vol. 2 (.pdf)
* “The Mouth of Gold: A Series of Dramatic Sketches Illustrating the Life and Times of Chrysostom” (1873, by Edwin. Johnson) (.pdf)
* “The Rise Of Christendom” (1890) (.pdf)
* “Critical and exegetical hand-book to the Epistle to the Romans” (1884, with the Rev. Edwin Johnson), vol. 1 (.pdf), vol. 2 (.pdf)

Wilhelm Kammeier

German critic of historical sources, we don’t know so much as the date of his birth; he was born in 1889 in Hannover, Germany. He died in 1959 in Arnstadt (Thuringia, former East Germany). He was a lawyer by trade and had worked in Hannover as a notary. He had taken part in World War II and was taken prisoner.

After that, he lived in Arnstadt, which became his family’s new home after the destruction of their Hanover residence during the war. All his post-war life, he had been afflicted by poverty and state repression in DDR.

The job of a notary provided Kammeier with an excellent basis for the critical research of old documents, which he became fascinated with in 1923. By 1926 he had completed his 292-page manuscript entitled “The Universal Falsification of History,” where he subjects historical documents serving as the basis for the medieval history of Germany to rigorous criticism. However, it had taken him many years to find a publisher for this critique.

He sent a brief summary of the key points related to the manuscript to the Prussian Academy of Sciences with a request to be given the opportunity of making a public speech in front of the historians. This request was rejected under a formal pretext that private persons weren’t allowed to address the Academy, with no substantial argumentation given. The mere fact that Kammeier had not held an office in an academic institution sufficed for the rejection of a well-reasoned critique.

Kammeier’s manuscript got published only as late as 1935. This was followed by a brochure, where the criticisms of historical sources were taken further, encompassing the entire medieval period in Europe and seven more brochures on the same subject. This work became a bibliographic rarity.

It was published again in a small number of copies as part of the book that also includes the following works of Wilhelm Kammeier dating from 1936-1939: “Enigmas of Global History – an Answer to my Critics”, “The Mystery of Mediaeval Rome”, “Dogmatic Christianity and the Falsification of History”, and “The Foundation of the Roman Ecumenical Church”.

Finally, Kammeier’s manuscript on the “sources” of early Christianity and their falsification, previously unpublished and presumed lost, came out as a book. Official science had only been reacting critically to Kammeier’s works during the first few years that followed the release of his first book.

His critic Professor Heimpel, accused Kammeier of having no positive conception of history: “If we see the entire historical conception of the Middle Ages disintegrate and transform into a spot of impenetrable darkness, or indeed a gigantic question mark, we shall naturally end up with feeling inner resentment against Kammeier’s criticisms, well-reasoned or not.”

Kammeier’s counter-argumentation was that it hadn’t been his fault that the history of Germany and the entire Ancient World proved a work of fiction to a tremendous extent, the literary and documental sources of the epoch being forgeries.

Kammeier pleaded guilty to discovering this historical falsification, mentioning the necessity to live with a new historical truth that new generations of historians would inevitably face (as we know, they still shudder at the mere thought).

However, after the reasoned refutation of the historians’ criticisms by Kammeier, the learned scholars have switched to the tried and viable tactics of obstruction and concealment (after all, things that remain unknown to the general public may as well be nonexistent).

The world war that broke out around that time greatly aided this obstruction. Kammeier’s participation in military action, his captivity, and the unsettled state of his post-war life had interrupted his active research for a long time.

The only job Kammeier managed to find in East Germany was that of a schoolteacher. As soon as circumstances allowed, he resumed his research of the “ancient” documents, concentrating all of his attention on the documental foundations of the history of early Christianity.

Kammeier was wrong to count on a benevolent attitude towards his research from the part of an atheistic East Germany; instead, as soon as he had offered his critique of early Christian documents to the historians of the DDR, he lost his job, the manuscript of his book was confiscated and presumed lost for a long time; his estate was nationalized, and his family forced to dwell in hunger and poverty.

Kammeier’s research of the “ancient” documents begins with the trivial remark that every donation document (the most common kind of medieval documents; donations could assume the form of estate, privileges, ranks, etc.) must contain information about the nature of the gift, the date of the donation, the names of the benefactor and the receiver and the place where the document was written.

Documents with blank fields (the date, the name of the donation’s receiver, etc.) are null and void from the legal point of view and can only serve as historical sources indirectly (in the research of historical falsifications, for instance).

Documents kept in libraries often fail to correspond to the following criteria: One finds documents with no date or a date that was obviously introduced later – alternatively, the date can be incomplete or transcribed in a manner that fails to correspond with the presumed epoch of the document’s creation. Better yet, the Documents dating to the same day would often be “signed” in different geographical locations.

The analysis of places and dates leaves us with the following picture: all German emperors, regardless of age, health, and basic human logic, didn’t reside in any capital but kept on the move all the time, occasionally covering gigantic distances in a single day, in order to make more and more donations to their loyal subjects.

The German emperors often managed to be present on the same day in two mutually distant locations. For instance, Emperor Conrad is presumed to have been present in 2 or 3 different cities at the same annual Christian feast for 50 years in a row.

The family name of the donation’s recipient is absent from a great number of documents (this is the case with up to half of all surviving documents for some epochs) – one can, therefore, speak of headers at best, valid official documents being a far cry.

Naturally, Kammeier wasn’t the first to discover forgeries during the research of ancient (or presumably ancient) documents. His primary merit is that he had managed to recognize the more or less systematic large-scale activities of whole generations of hoaxers serving the Catholic Church or individual feudal rulers and grasp the real scale of the historical falsification campaign.

These hoaxers have destroyed a great many old originals and replaced them with forgeries. The old text would often be erased with a new one taking its place on an ancient parchment, which would make the forgery look like an “authentic ancient relic” in the eyes of the hoaxers. It would often take a very minor alteration to change the original meaning of an old document completely.

According to Kammeier, the key goal of this prolonged and massive campaign for the falsification of historical documents had been the concealment, distortion, and arbitrary extension of the pre-Christian history, with all the achievements of the pagan epoch ascribed thereto.

Apart from that, “legal” acknowledgment of the possession rights must have been in high demand among the new feudal rulers, whose property was acquired from lawful pagan owners rather recently and in a violent manner. Falsified donation documents were necessary to declare ancient rights of possession; their authorship could be traced to one of the great Christian rulers of antiquity – fictitious entities invented for this specific purpose in many cases.

The general condition of historical sources at the moment can be described as follows: the number of forgeries is mind-boggling, and every “ancient” work of history lacks an original (this is hardly a chance occurrence). However, historians keep using forgeries in lieu of official documentation – possibly due to the fact that their inveracity has not been proven irrefutably yet, or that such irrefutable proof does exist but remains concealed from the scientific community.

Dr.Kammeier reached the following corollaries in the course of his research of medieval documents: the humanists took part in the massive falsification of history alongside the Catholic clergy striving to create some proof of the historical significance attributed to their church; this process falls on the XV century for the most part :

-The documents related to the pagan “German” history have been destroyed and replaced by Gallic and Romanic forgeries.

-The existence of Catholic Pontiffs before the so-called Avignon captivity is of a fragmental nature through and through.

-Historical events that preceded the XIII century are beyond reconstruction since all of the earlier documents have been destroyed and replaced by counterfeits.

-The pre-Papal wars between national churches were subsequently presented as a struggle against the heretics and the apostates.

-“Ancient” literature is as much of a forgery as medieval documents. One of such fake literary works is “Germany” by Tacitus.

-The Catholic clergy can be credited with the invention of the New Testament, or at least a radical rearrangement thereof.

-The Church kept on manufacturing counterfeited “ancient” manuscripts in order to “prove” the authenticity of Evangelical texts and their great age with the aid of the new “findings.”

Jean Hardouin

Jean Hardouin 1646 – 1729 [Paris, France]

Hardouin, a very studied and renowned Jesuit, became 1683 director of the Royal Library of France, where he prepared an edition of the Council Records of the whole lifetime of the Catholic Church and laid down the fundaments of scientific historiography.
In 1690 he started publishing surprising views: according to him, all the Fathers of the Church —St. Augustin, Isidor of Seville, etc— and all records of Councils before the 16th century are faked as well as the biggest part of Roman authors. Although his arguments could never be refuted, the Church defended the authenticity of the biggest part of the texts that Hardouin had declared fakes after his death.

Selected Publications:
– “Prolegomena ad censuram veterum scriptorum” (1693, published at Paris)
– “Ad Censuram Scriptorum veterum prolegomena” (1766, Jean Hardouin) (.pdf) [is.gd/zAvoam]

Jean Hardouin (1646 – September 3, 1729), a French classical scholar, was born at Quimper in Brittany.
Having acquired a taste for literature in his father’s book shop, he sought and obtained admission into the order of the Jesuits in around 1662 (when he was 16). In Paris, where he went to study theology, he ultimately became the librarian of the Lycée Louis-le-Grand in 1683, and he died there.
His first published work was an edition of Themistius (1684), which included no fewer than thirteen new orations. On the advice of Jean Garnier (1612–1681) he undertook to edit the Natural History of Pliny for the Dauphin series, a task which he completed in five years. Aside from editorial work, he became interested in numismatics and published several learned works on this subject, all marked by a determination to be different from other interpreters. His works on this topic include Nummi antiqui Populorum et urbium illustrati (1684), Antirrheticus de nummis antiquis coloniarum et municipiorum (1689), and Chronologia Veteris Testamenti ad vulgatam versionem exacta et nummis illustrata (1696).
Hardouin was appointed by the ecclesiastical authorities to supervise the Conciliorum collectio regia maxima (1715); but he was accused of suppressing important documents and including apocryphal ones, and by order of the Parlement of Paris (then in conflict with the Jesuits), the publication of the work was delayed.
It is, however, as the originator of a variety of paradoxical theories that Hardouin is now best remembered. The most remarkable, contained in his Chronologiae ex nummis antiquis restitutae (1696) and Prolegomena ad censuram veterum scriptorum, was to the effect that, with the exception of the works of Homer, Herodotus, and Cicero, the Natural History of Pliny, the Georgics of Virgil, and the Satires and Epistles of Horace, all the ancient classics of Greece and Rome were spurious, having been manufactured by monks of the 13th century, under the direction of a certain Severus Archontius.

He denied the genuineness of most ancient works of art, coins, and inscriptions and declared that the New Testament was originally written in Latin. Hardouin also doubted the life span of Dante, seeing him rather in the 15th/16th century, as published in Paris 1727, which was edited with an English commentary in London 1847 by C. F. Molini. The historian Isaac-Joseph Berruyer had his Histoire du Peuple de Dieu condemned for having followed this theory, which has a modern heir in the Russian mathematician Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko, whose conclusions being based on proprietary methods of statistical textual analysis and computational astronomy are even more radical, but considered to be pseudoscientific. Hardouin also declared that all the councils supposed to have taken place before the council of Trent were fictitious.

Further reading –
* “Bibliothèque des écrivains de la Compagnie de Jesus” (1853, by A. Debacker)

Bibliography –
* The Prolegomena of Jean Hardouin, translated into English by Edwin Johnson and published by Angus and Robertson, Sydney 1909, with a noteworthy preface of Edward A. Petherick.
Full text of the Prolegomena (via babel.hathitrust.org).

* “The Prolegomena of Jean Hardouin Explored” (2014-06-20, by G.D.O’Bradovich III):
Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) states that the writings attributed to the Church Fathers are subtly atheistic and impious. He states that this “impious crew” have “no God, but Nature; who was the framer of the Universe by necessary and immutable laws of motion…the light of Truth…” [Chapter 2, section 2].   Hardouin suggests that the purpose of this subtle atheism is “to remove God entirely from the world, and to overthrow the whole…of the Christian faith.” [Chapter 1, section 16]. While there are no quotes of the impious Church Fathers, Hardouin does mention that “it is fearfully tedious…to read them.”[Chapter 3, section 19.

Hardouin maintains that these writings were unknown for most of history, were placed in libraries, and were brought out “by degrees” in later generations [Chapter 1, section 7].  While we may find this idea amusing, we must recall that the Sinai Codex, found in the 1840s, is one of the earliest dated and best-preserved codices of the Bible. In our own time, the provenance of the “Gospel of Judas” is no earlier than the 1960s but is dated to the first centuries.
One of the few proofs that Hardouin offers of the “impious cohort” is the use of the titles Father and Doctor of the Church.  He states that if the Church had “this custom it would still retain it. But it does not retain it.” [Chapter 15, section 3] Either he is ignorant that five saints were given the title of “Doctor” in the late 16th century, or they were made Doctors after Hardouin’s death in 1729.

Another part of the evidence against the “impious band” is the manufacture of historical heresies. Hardouin suggests that the heresies taught in university are arranged systemically and are inherently chronological: Heresies against the Trinity, Arianism, consubstantiation, Nestorianism, the Natures of Christ, the two wills, and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist [Chapter 17, section 4].
While Hardouin references Augustine over 30 times, he mentions “The city of God” only once. With this reference,  Hardouin supplies the book and chapter (18,38). To find any supporting evidence for the extraordinary claim of impiety, we will look at the 18th book of “The city of God.”

Gentle Reader, keep in mind that “impious” is defined as not showing due reverence. This can be applied to men or Gods. In modern parlance, we can say that the writer is being disrespectful.
Chapter 2. “the very voice of nature somehow proclaims, that those who happen to be conquered should choose rather to be subject to their conquerors than to be killed”
We learn Nature dictates it is better to live in slavery than to die.
– Chapter 5. “For what men can do with real colors and substances, the demons can very easily do by showing unreal forms to breeding animals.”
Details of animal husbandry are not appropriate in a Christian text.
– Chapter 6. “Varro [the historian to whom Augustine is referring] does not believe these things, because they are incompatible with the nature of the gods and of morality.”
– Chapter 13. In this chapter, Augustine relates” Jupiter’s rape of Ganymede, a very beautiful boy, ” and “his impregnating Danäe as a golden shower.” Augustine then comments as to “whether these things were really done or only fabled in those days, or were really done by others and falsely ascribed to Jupiter.”
– Chapter 18. Augustine relates many Greek myths in the preceding chapters and concludes chapter 18 with these words: “These things have not come to us from persons we might deem unworthy of credit, but from informants we could not suppose to be deceiving us.” Augustine invites us to believe these incredible stories.
– Chapter 19. “Now the Latins made Æneas one of their gods, because at his death he was nowhere to be found.” By substituting Jesus for Aeneas, the impious reader understands a denial of the Resurrection.
– Chapter 21. Augustine relates his knowledge of prostitutes and whorehouses: “(now harlots were called lupæ, she-wolves, from which their vile abodes are even yet called lupanaria)”
– Chapter 24. “Romulus, when dead, could nowhere be found, the Romans…placed him among the gods”. The impious reader may equate Roman’s inability to find a body with Mary Magdalene’s searching for the body of Christ.
– Chapter 31. Augustine questions the accuracy of the books of the minor prophets of the Old Testament by stating that these errors “happened through their error in negligently copying the works of others.”
– Chapter 32. Augustine invites the reader to question the accuracy of the New Testament by suggesting there are different versions. “But some copies have, I will joy in God my Jesus, which seems to me better than the version of those who, wishing to put it in Latin,”
– Chapter 36. “on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women…”
This seems more appropriate as a setup for an off-color joke and not as text to be found in alleged Christian writings.
– Chapter 37. Augustine supposes that the reader knows nothing about the Bible: “Moses…  whose writings are first in the authoritative canon”.
– Chapter 38. Augustine comments on why certain books are referred to in the Old Testament but are not included in it. “But the writings of these men could not be held as authoritative either among the Jews or us, on account of their too great antiquity, which made it seem needful to regard them with suspicion, lest false things should be set forth instead of true.”
Augustine states that old writings are not to be accepted on account of their age alone. “Nor ought it to appear strange if writings for which so great antiquity is claimed are held in suspicion.”
Hardouin would agree. Although Augustine is writing about non-canonical books,  his reasoning could also apply to the Church Fathers. “If any writings outside of it [the Old Testament] are now brought forward under the name of the ancient prophets, they cannot serve even as an aid to knowledge because it is uncertain whether they are genuine.”
– Chapter 40. Once again, Augustine must belittle the reader because he supposes that he knows nothing of the Bible when he relates that “the first man, who is called Adam.”
– Chapter 41. Augustine relates the different philosophies and opinions found in Greece. “Why, then, have the disciples dissented from their masters, and the fellow disciples from one another, except because as men they have sought after these things by human sense and human reasonings?”
“The Epicureans asserted that human affairs were not under the providence of the gods; and the Stoics, holding the opposite opinion, agreed that they were ruled and defended by favorable and tutelary gods.”
The reader may question whether or not the Gods exist.
Philosophers have varied opinions on the ultimate good. Some philosophers have “made the delight of the body the chief good, while the other asserted that man was made happy mainly by the virtue of the mind.”
The impressionable reader may start to question his beliefs after reading the following contradictions among philosophers:
“some asserting there was one world,
others innumerable worlds;
some that this world had a beginning,
others that it had not;
some that it would perish,
others that it would exist always;
some that it was governed by the divine mind,
others by chance and accident;
some that souls are immortal,
others that they are mortal–
and of those who asserted their immortality,
some said they transmigrated through beasts,
others that it was by no means so;
while of those who asserted their mortality,
some said they perished immediately after the body,
others that they survived either a little while or a longer time, but not always;
some fixing supreme good in the body,
some in the mind,
some in both;
others adding to the mind and body external good things;
some thinking that the bodily senses ought to be trusted always,
some not always,
others never. “
Augustine continues:
“Even if some true things were said in it, yet falsehoods were uttered with the same licence”.
Using reason, it is left up to the reader to determine what is true and what is false.
– Chapter 43. Augustine brings to the reader’s attention that some people “contend that the Septuagint translators have erred in many places,” thereby causing doubt in the reader’s mind.
– Conclusion. There is no doubt that impiety takes many forms in this excerpt from Augustine.
I conclude this paper by quoting from Chapter 4, section 5 of the Prolegomena:
“Those forgers so arranged among themselves…if but one of the monuments which they have invented falls away, the whole must necessarily collapse..yet it is …their mutual consent-which shows the fraud. “

Selected Quotes from Jean Hardouin:
Hardouin, Jean.  Prolegomena to a Censure of Old Writers.  1766.
2010 Dr. Hermann Detering Print & Publishing: Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt.
– “Soon, unless God avert the ill, the whole Christian world will become atheist against its will.” (6)
– “In the point of fact, the fellow who assumed and bares the name “Augustine” teaches absolute atheism under the guise of Christian language.” (9)
– “God they have none, except for the ‘Nature of Things;’ others call it mere ‘Ens,’ or ‘Essence…or formal Reality, Unity, and  Truth of essences, and their Permanence in that unity and truth… apart from any metaphysical composition.” (13)
– “Thence they founded a metaphysical system of religion, dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Eucharist, and the other Sacraments–of Grace, Justification, and other capital points of religion, as far as men could do so who had no true God.” (12)
– “They desired it to be believed that there was no God but Nature; who was the framer of the Universe by necessary and immutable laws of motion, and also the ruler of minds by natural light–the light of Truth, as they call it.” (13)
– “…God is either…’the All,’ or the necessary rectitude of ‘the All,’ according to the rules of Mechanics, Geometry, Prudence, and Truth, so that they might be reckoned Christians who cultivated and preached Truth.” (13)
– “The Christian Religion is the religion of the true God.  It ought, therefore, in all its doctrines show the characters of a religion which worships the true God…They ought not to be such as they would be if there were no true God at all; if there were but Nature instead of God, or the natural Light of Reason or of Truth.” (14)
– “For example: We believe Christ to be in the Eucharist…the impious Sect to whom I have referred teaches that this transmutation takes place in the mind of believers by pious thought, which they call the ‘operation of the Holy Spirit.’  And why? Because these sectarians do not believe there is any God!” (14)
– “First and above all, the careful desires of the impious gang was to deprave the Sacred Scriptures, because it utterly made an end of their impious principles.  They had to make it agree with them.  And so their first and chief task was to learn the Sacred Scriptures by heart, to weave Concordances and to make out Commentaries, to corrupt the text, to leave no jot or tittle intact that might be opposed to their principles; to depart as far as possible from the Vulgate Edition; and because they could not adulterate that Book, because they knew it was against them… they had to feign that it was recent, as compared with the Greek Books (Codices), which they declared to be far more ancient!” (51)
“The impious band, having no hope of corrupting the sacred Latin Books, which were in everybody’s hands, turned their attention to the making of Greek Books, and to the adulteration of Hebrew copies, which they wrote in elegant calligraphy.  They also corrupted Latin books, which they hid in Libraries; because the old Vulgate could not be snatched from the hands of the whole Christian people, everywhere diffused…their design being to take them out thence at suitable times, like weapons from armouries, with the object of attacking the Catholic faith.” (52)
“They also invented various readings in the Greek Codices (or Manuscripts) that they might persuade readers that there had been the like in Latin books in days of yore; and that these Various Readings existed in books which they had laid up in Libraries.  And now any rogue or liar may invent the like various readings, as they call them!” (53)
“The wicked faction invented the suspicions against the accuracy and certainty of the Vulgate Edition, intact and sound though it may be; hoping that their forged MSS., laid up on the shelves of the Libraries, might obtain authority partly from their alleged antiquity, partly from the testimony of other books.” (54)
“In that impious hypothesis from which it follows that the written word of God is nothing but the word of universal Reason…” (56)
“If there is no God, as the impious crew would have you believe, but the Nature of things, and the natural light, which is Right Reason; and there is no other Christian Religion than obedience to Right Reason, which may be (123) called philosophy, since Right Reason is also Truth and Wisdom; it follows that all those who obey Right Reason and natural light are Christians.  Therefore very many pagans were Christian, although without God, as Paul affirms.  For this reason the forgers found it expedient to write Greek and Roman History, full of the vices of Princes and People, full of homicides, slaughter, impurities of every kind, their object being to prevent readers from supposing them to have been Christians.  They must therefore be represented as not having lived under the guidance of reason.” (124)
“Numberless Codices still lie hid in the Libraries of perhaps four hundred years old (there are none, except a few sacred Codices, older) ; they have not yet seen the light.  Tell me, because they have been in the shade for four hundred years, have they any authority from the fact that through so many years none has convicted them of falsehood? It would be a folly to say so!” (145)
“The gang of forgers had Alphabets and Inks in both tongues, Greek and Latin, and parchments to suit every age….show the same form of writing, the same character; simply because the writers had the same alphabet before their eyes…So alike is the character everywhere, you might swear that that all these Codices came, not only out of one workshop, but from one hand; of if from many, certainly from those who had the same alphabet before their eye–or form of letters which they accurately preserved in painting each…” (152)
“What you read of in books as Heresies are fictions, invented for the purpose of being opposed, and so establishing Atheism.” (154)
“It is, again, clear that these heresies were feigned and fabulous, from that fact they nowhere existed in the world; none renew them, and this because they are fatuous and insane, and invented with the sole object that, by opposing them in definitions of Councils, and in special controversial writings, impiety may be suggested.” (155)
“Ought not every one to wonder at the alleged fact that the Heresies sprang up in the order in which divers tracts on Religion may be arranged in schools?” (155)

Garry Kasparov view

You’re presented with a result of some ad libitum ruminations of mine regarding chronology, chronological research, and the problems of “ancient” history in general. Its content can best be described as an edited and extended shorthand report of a lengthy conversation between yours truly and the authors of the present book.

My interest in chronological problems is easily explained – I have had a passion for ancient, medieval, and modern history from my childhood, and have studied a vast amount of all kinds of historical literature. I’ve got a good memory, and I remember most historical dates, names, and events by heart. Over the years I have developed a rather exhaustive picture of “ancient” and medieval history in its consensual form; however, having a penchant for analyzing, calculating possibilities, comparing situations, and so on, I gradually became more and more convinced that there was something seriously wrong with the ancient historical dates. Contradictions that appeared insoluble in the traditional historical paradigm arose constantly; one of the first problems that drew my attention was the impossibility of placing the heroes of ancient Greek mythology within the traditional historical timeframe. The mythical Theseus kills the Minotaur to liberate Athens from the humiliating necessity of paying tribute to the powerful Cretan king, and then unites the entirety of Attica, making his hometown the capital; these events along with his contemporaries storming the walls of Troy, and various other deeds of this “hero generation,” span seven or eight centuries (!) of ancient Greek history. It is well understood that myths can hardly be called a reliable source; one wonders what makes the historical chronicles that underwent multiple copying and ultimately hark back to oral tradition, any more trustworthy. I began to understand that reading history textbooks is by no means sufficient; one has to analyze the “historical evidence” that one is offered critically, using one’s common sense, as it were.

About a year and a half ago I came across several books by the Moscow State University mathematicians A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky. That was how I first learned that a group of professional mathematicians led by the Academician A. T. Fomenko has been studying chronological issues for twenty years and that their research had yielded some very interesting results. The critical side of these books is very serious; they contain an admirable amount of valuable materials and deserve to be studied and discussed. However, some of the actual hypotheses and reconstructions suggested by the authors may prove debatable. It is clear that putting forth a final reconstruction of historical events is an extremely complex task, and all such attempts are bound to be vulnerable to criticisms in one way or another. However, the research results that have already been published make it impossible to deny the fact that the consensual chronology of “ancient” history contains major inconsistencies that we have no right to carry on denying. I would like to relate some of my considerations on the matter.


The entire concept of the new chronology is supported by the important fact that the falsification of history has always been a formidable weapon in the political power struggle. The XX century provides us with some prime examples, and it is perfectly obvious that there have been many possibilities for altering history in the XV or even the XVII century.

Sources of information were a lot more heterogeneous back then, and a lot of what they provided defied all possibilities of verification and clarification. Thus, various kings, czars, khans, and dukes – people possessing real power and the ability to control publishing houses, as well as all activities of historians and chronographers – could manipulate the accounts of historical events (or events they wanted to see as such) at their convenience, without any external control whatsoever.

This argument cannot possibly encounter any substantial objections and is important enough for countering nihilistic criticisms claiming all of the reconstructions offered to be nonsensical ipso facto. Written history implies the existence of its writers and immediately leads one to question their objectivity. Even the official chronicles tell us that the Middle Ages have been full of elaborate palace plotting, political intrigue, and mortal dynastic confrontation. The latter offers the greatest possibilities for falsification, as a matter of fact.

All of these genealogical trees of monarchs, and of millenarian dynastic reigns, may have been compiled as a result of direct commands of rulers to prove the length of their family history. We can be almost perfectly certain that all of the dynastic histories of the Middle Ages stemmed from the offspring of a rather limited number of mythical characters, and served to justify the claims to legitimacy of various monarchs. We regard it as yet another example of how easily uncontrolled power becomes abused.

Thus, Henry of Navarre’s claims for the French throne required extending the history of the backwater Bourbon clan 250 years and nine generations into the past in order to “find” the necessary intersection with the Capet-Valois dynasty.


The new chronology is next supported by the fact that certain basic genetic traits of homo sapiens that manifest in various aspects of our existence appear nonexistent in the “phantom” ages, as opposed to the “provable” history that spans 600 years according to the authors of these books. When we compare various stages of human evolution, we see a great discrepancy between the patterns of human behavior over the period that we can be certain about, and in the phantom ages.


It would be interesting to study the rate of human reproduction. We appear to possess the information that can be verified. The population of England, for instance, grew from 4 million to 62 million between the XV and the XX centuries. Another example is France of the XVII-XX centuries (starting from the reign of Louis XIV), where the population grew from 20 to 60 million – all this notwithstanding the fact that France participated in the bloodiest of wars quite actively. France had lost around three million, men in their prime for the most part, in Napoleon’s wars. Apart from that, there have been many minor wars and skirmishes in the XIX century, plus the horrendous mass slaughters of World War I.

It is obvious that the natural reproduction rate was reduced by the deaths of large parts of the young populace that occurred twice over the span of two centuries. We are not speaking of the bloodshed during the French Revolution and the wars of the XVIII century. We see that the population grew by a factor of three over three hundred years.

In England, this factor was a lot higher. Immigration from the former colonies might play a role here as well – still, the growth rate is most impressive. England is an even better example since the gene pool there had not been afflicted by quite as many wars. Official history tells us that the population grew from 4 million in the XV century to 62 million in the XX – in other words, the growth rate over the period of 500 years equaled 15x. Such factors as the annexation of Ireland and Scotland are countered by the emigration to the colonies.

The question that arises instantly is as follows: what had the population of these countries been back in the day when they had stopped being Roman colonies, in the IV-V centuries? The fertile province of Gaul is known to have been well-populated. If both its Eastern and Western parts had had 20 million inhabitants (a minimal hypothetical estimation), simple logic tells us that the barbarian hordes that had swarmed the Empire must have equaled millions in their numbers.

If we are to try using the reverse geometrical progression in our calculations, we get an irrational result. It appears that humans had stopped breeding at some point, or their numbers were “growing in reverse.” An attempt at a logical explanation (such as epidemics or bad hygiene) can be easily countered by the following considerations: according to historical documents, there was no progress in the state of hygiene between the V and the XVIII centuries. Epidemics occurred frequently, and hygiene was extremely poor. Firearms were introduced in the XV century, and the wars became a lot bloodier.

If we’re to compare the population of the “ancient” Oecumena of the Pericles epoch (V century BC), and the epoch of the emperor Trajan (II century BC), we’re to obtain even more exciting results. If we’re to consider the number of large-city inhabitants and the sizes of the armies, we’re to encounter incredible population growth rates. Greece united under Athens can hardly be compared to the grandiosity and the splendor of the Roman Empire, but the proportions aren’t met in any case.

Really, consider the 15,000 free citizens of Athens, as well as Rome and Alexandria possessing half a million inhabitants each. One of the parts has a rearguard of fifteen hundred soldiers from the army of united Greek city-states, including 300 famed Spartans, all of which stay to cover the retreat of the main body of the army in a war where the very existence of the Hellenes is at stake. The other one has 26 legions (!), which were kept by Rome in times of peace, with no overall mandatory draft. This is more than the Russian empire could gather for countering Napoleon’s intervention in 1812.

In the Second Punic War (II century BC), after suffering three bitter defeats from Hannibal, the Romans put forth an army of 80 thousand soldiers, which had also been destroyed by the Carthaginians in the historical battle of Cannes. All of this notwithstanding, Rome still finds enough reserves for reaching a breakpoint in the lengthy war that rages for fifteen more years all over the Mediterranean. The scale of this conflict is amazing – the next historical war with several fronts shall be the one of 1755-1763 between the English and the French.


Let us regard the actual size of human beings. The pictures and the descriptions of the “ancient” Greek athletes show us well-built people of a considerable size who run, jump and break all possible records in javelin-throwing. They win battles over enemy armies seven to ten times the size of theirs. Then we see the armor of the medieval knights that is fit for people the size of modern teenagers, making a rather modest impression of the state of human physique at the time. The contrast with the well-developed bodies of the “ancients” is stunning; what we see is a sinusoidal curve in the development of the human muscles. Now, there may be biological species that evolve in sinusoidal curves, but hardly over a 2000-year period, since substantial qualitative alterations require dozens of millennia.


Let us consider the factor of a mass character that I shall be referring to as psychophysical. Documented history tells us of the insatiable need of human beings to make discoveries. The vector of technological progress is a strictly vertical one. Every ten years something happens, i.e discoveries, sea voyages, explosions . . . Everything keeps on changing, we see constant evolution – from Columbus to the landing on the Moon, from crossbows to nuclear bombs. Forwards and upwards.

However, the traditional ancient history tells us of periods when humanity had apparently remained dormant for centuries – “ancient” Egypt, the medieval “Dark Ages” – whole epochs of utter stasis in human thinking. It appears that the inhabitants of ancient Egypt and Rome had a different genetic codes, and couldn’t be bothered about anything at all, so they froze in their development, the result being a total lack of innovative activity.

At the same time, there had been prosperous ancient empires where those among homo sapiens who possessed penchants for arts and sciences could get plenty of opportunities for growth and development. But, alas and alack, all of the prosperous “ancient” empires had ceased their development at some point.


These rates completely fail to reflect the human ability for practical improvement. Here are a few examples.


A thousand years should be enough to expand the arsenal that was limited by harps, kitharas, whistles, and flutes. There are no records mentioning drums or percussion of any kind. A violin is more complex, but this complexity isn’t of the Binomial theorem magnitude, so it may well have been invented over the millenarian “Classical Greek period.” It is well understood that Stradivarius “could only have been born in Italy,” but we’re being told that there had been a great Classical period of growth in arts and sciences.

There had been fifty years of peace in Periclean Athens before the Peloponnesian War. Then there had been a rather calm period between the Macedonian and the Roman conquests. As for Rome, there had been at least two centuries of perfect peace. And nothing much had happened. Everything remains on the same primitive level despite the fact that many affluent people spend great sums of money on singers, musicians, and poets, patronizing fine arts to the best of their ability. Rome allegedly copies all things Greek, but no musical progress ever occurs. It is most noteworthy that no notation had been invented over all those years. One fails to understand how a sophisticated society patronizing fine arts can manage with no notational system. The result was that “no musical artifacts had survived till our day” due to the alleged non-existence of notation.


If we’re to wonder about just how primitive the Graeco-Roman musical culture was, we shall be perfectly confused by yet another mysterious paradox, namely, the amazing fact that the “ancient” Roman Republic, and later the Roman Empire had failed to improve their weapons and military tactics in any way at all. The Roman citizens used to gather in rather effective military formations when the military expansion of the Republic began. As for the Roman Empire, it is common knowledge that it had been a state heavily dependent on military aggression and annexation of territory. We learn all of this from the so-called “ancient” sources.

Military expansion requires weapons and strategic thought to evolve rapidly, yet we see that centuries had passed with no significant changes whatsoever. The Romans couldn’t so much as master steel metallurgy, and that is hardly an invention at all, it just requires the diligent work and experimentation of a number of generations. The improvement of weapon quality is a crucial issue. The lives of the legionaries depended on their weapons, as well as the general character of military actions. We are being told, however, that the Romans kept using their short swords of low-quality iron over the entire course of their history.

Let us consider the cavalry history next. If we’re to trust the “ancient” sources, Roman cavalry hadn’t been particularly powerful due to the lack of harness. The reins must have already existed, but the stirrup only appeared in the VIII century, according to the traditional dating offered by the official history. The stirrup is supposed to originate from China. Knighthood allegedly appears around the same time as the stirrup, which is perfectly logical and understandable.

Ancient Romans, on the other hand, failed to pay any attention to the harness at all, even considering the fact that the most dangerous battles in Roman history had been fought with the Oriental nations that have been known masters of horseback riding – the mythical Parthians, for instance, the ones that disappeared mysteriously with their entire kingdom. These Oriental nations had possessed two important advantages – the cavalry and the archers, who delivered devastating blows to the Romans. The arrows from their heavy longbows literally swept infantry away by hundreds.

However, Rome failed to improve its projectile weapons in any way. Ancient Rome had not given birth to crossbows, either, although Romans, being experts in ballistics, could have invented such powerful weapons as the crossbow and the longbow, which can be used by one person. Nevertheless, this never came to pass, and the military tactics of the Roman army remained pretty much unaltered. Another rather funny irrationality is the fact that many heroes of the “ancient” Greek myths had been first-class archers. Even the mighty Heracles had to rely on arrows from time to time; the great bow of Ulysses had slain the unfortunate contestants for Penelope’s hand, and Apollo with his bow that never missed had killed a great many giants.

There are two well-known cases when the Roman legions suffered a disastrous defeat. The first one is the destruction of the army of Carrus on the plains of Carrhae in 53 BC, and the second is the demise of Emperor Valentis’ army in 378 AD. Four centuries are supposed to have passed between the two; however, both of these battles are reported to have been lost in exactly the same way, namely, with mounted archers virtually ripping the body of the Roman army to shreds. The legions are chased out of formation, what meager cavalry is available gets stuck somewhere, and the scattered Roman warriors are picked out and slaughtered one by one.

The descriptions of the battles are identical; moreover, they are supposed to have occurred near each other, in Asia Minor. The new chronology deems these battles to have been a pair of phantom duplicates of a real defeat of the Western army that occurred due to its inability to counter the formation-breaking mounted archers; the battle is of indeterminate antiquity but may have been one of those fought in the medieval Trojan war.

One should also regard the history of brilliant victories of the Roman armies, and enquire why the enemies of the Romans failed to have copied anything from the Romans. King Mithridates, for instance, a long-time foe of the Romans, had possessed both the intelligence and the means of developing effective countermeasures. The Romans didn’t really demonstrate much besides drill and a high level of discipline in the legions. Nevertheless, four hundred years are supposed to have passed between the abovementioned battles, and the Roman army allegedly suffered no serious defeats over this period, except the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest which was lost to the Germanic tribes by Quintilius Varus.

The invention of new ways of destroying fellow humans allegedly begins in the XIV-XV centuries and has not stopped ever since, as something brand new is introduced every 10-15 years. Humans are supposed to have been doing nothing for centuries before that epoch.

The official history offers a very strange version of the history of heavy armor. The equipment of knights was only minimally modified from the VIII to the XIV centuries. Their numbers remained small, and regular armies were truly infinitesimal due to the high cost of weapons and ammunition. A fully equipped knight was a formidable battle unit, and several hundred of them in a squadron could scatter an entire army of unprofessional fighters in the epoch of the glorious Richard Coeur de Lion. This fact should tell us something about both the quantity of people and the fact that the unprofessional armies were poorly trained, apparently due to the fact that humanity did not have a rich enough history.

However, in the XIV century, with the invention of gunpowder and firearms, everything begins to change drastically. Ways of destroying medieval fortifications are found, and ballistic trajectories are calculated. Already towards the end of the XV century, all the Italian fortresses fall before the French troops because the French have new small mobile cannons capable of rendering the high ancient walls into piles of shards. The attempts at inventing new types of fortification begin instantly, and those appear in the XVI century, greatly curbing the destructive power of the artillery. Everything has been developing according to the classical “missile – armor” scheme ever since.


The lack of correlation between the grandiose goals set by the “ancient” builders, and the meager means of their realization, as described by the ancient sources, seems apparent.


The Roman Empire has been well known for its well-developed network of roads and communications. The existence of these roads without a vast number of geographical maps seems impossible, as does the scrupulous planning of the Roman military operations. The scientific principles of cartography had been formulated and expounded by “the great geographer and astronomer of the days of yore,” Claudius Ptolemy. The strange disappearance of maps made in that epoch is very hard to explain.

Destruction by the barbarians is an illogical supposition, since any prominent leader of the barbaric tribes, such as Alaric or Attila, would quickly estimate the military value of these objects and guard them jealously due to the military advantage that they gave the owner. The reactionary medieval church apparently did not include descriptive geography (that did not tackle the issue of the Earth’s shape) in the list of heretical sciences. In this case, how does one explain the wide propagation of crude illiterate dauberies bearing the proud name of “maps” in the VI-XIV centuries? How could the Western European crusader troops have reached Jerusalem using them for orientation?


The “ancients” remain perfectly taciturn about the state of affairs in re the credit and the banking system in the Roman Empire. A normal quotidian existence of a state implies flourishing trade, which requires credit institutions when conducted as extensively as it allegedly had been. These began to appear in Western Europe when the possibility of building an empire had already existed. Where one has an empire, one should also see trade institutions using the credit system in order to allow traveling through the imperial vastness without having to drag bags of gold along. The pragmatic “ancient” Roman Empire could have developed something of the kind over its alleged three or four centuries of peaceful existence. It is remarkable that according to the official version of history, banking systems appeared in medieval Italy – in Genoa, Florence, and Milan.



Traditional history tells us a lot about the scientists of ancient Greece – almost too much, it seems. The life of Aristotle is supposed to be known day by day. We have a most exhaustive biography of Socrates, who had been a mythical figure, according to some historians. We all know Plato’s dialogues with his disciples – indeed, we have information about almost everyone – Archimedes, Heraclitus, the mythical Pythagoras, Aristarchus of Samos, the ancient precursor of Copernicus, and his exile because of his heretical theories. We have studied Euclid extensively. And after that, we encounter a void. Since around the first century AD in the traditional dating, we see no more scientists, except for the odd occasional historian, geographer, or philosopher. The development of fundamental science allegedly ceases completely.

We know well that there was a period in Roman history when an entire reigning dynasty was patronizing sciences. In the beginning, there was Adrian, a proponent of monumental construction; after him appeared the urbane and cultivated Antoninus, and finally Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher emperor and the famed patron of sciences. All the Golden Age criteria are met; geniuses should flourish in times like these.

It suffices to cast a brief glance at the epoch of Catherine the Great in Russia, where there had been such phenomena as the “folk genius” of Lomonosov. Nothing of the kind ever takes place in “ancient” Rome, an empire covering a great territory and basically comprising the entire “ancient world” with its most talented nations. One sees a scientific void. We are being presented with the pseudoscientific compilations of the first Christian theologians who had tried to adjust the new religion to the political and cultural realities of the Roman Empire as the greatest achievement.


The fact that the Roman system of calculus isn’t really fit for any serious calculation remains in the dark for some reason. Try dividing large numbers using columns, or calculating the volume of a complex geometrical figure, for instance. And how about the theory of repeating decimals? The “ancient” Romans nevertheless performed some rather complex calculations, as it turns out. Extensive architectural projects, engineering, and ballistics all required meticulous calculations, since one can hardly build a temple or a bridge, or bring down an enemy fortress, on approximate estimations.

One cannot help inquiring about the calculus system used by the famous ancient Greek scientists such as Archimedes, Aristarchus of Samos, Euclid, and Ptolemy. They required a more highly evolved system. However, if they did indeed possess one, why didn’t the pragmatic Romans, who had copied the best Greek inventions, think of adopting it as well? Calculus is the cornerstone of any science; how could they have ignored it? The only logical explanation is that the Greeks had had no such system. Indeed, the Attic and Ionic calculus systems that have been “preserved” by the official history are even clumsier than the Roman version. How could the calculations have possibly been conducted, then?

It is hardly a secret that the entire “ancient” science concurs perfectly well with the so-called “Arabic” system of calculus, that only came into existence ten centuries after the main works of the ancient Greek founding fathers of mathematics and physics had already been written, according to traditional history. What we see is a gigantic temporal gap during which the ancient manuscripts had still been copied and renovated, despite the overall decline of sciences. The reason for this remains nebulous since the described phenomena allegedly did not exist in the real world. One also wonders where the educated monastic scribes who could decipher the complex formulae came from.

In reality, all the copies of the aforementioned tractates use the so-called Arabic calculus system that we’re accustomed to. We are faced with the amazing neglect of the publishers at the dawn of the printing era who failed to preserve the specimens of this complex mathematical tightrope-walking of the “great ancient thinkers,” who had been capable of solving complex problems with nothing but a clumsy alphabet-based system of calculus.


Nothing is known about whether or not there had been chemical research conducted in the ancient world. No reports of either chemists or alchemists have reached our age. One wonders why the alchemists should appear as late as the Middle Ages since the actual idea of the transformation of matter can be traced to the very roots of philosophic thought. The ancient Greek philosophers had apparently considered transubstantiation to be the most important natural event and tried to provide a valid theory explaining it, but for some mysterious reason failed to follow through with anything practical, since no ancient Greek chemistry ever came to existence.

We have read a lot about the Greek fire, which had been a fearsome weapon of the Byzantine army in the early Middle Ages. It is most doubtful that this was just crude oil since in this case, Byzantium wouldn’t have been able to retain the monopoly for such an effective weapon for such a long time. The chronicles are most probably referring to some chemical composition, which implies the existence of a certain theoretical base; however, we know nothing of any chemical research conducted in the medieval Byzantium.


Let us add a few comments regarding the state of anatomy and medical science. The works of Hippocrates haven’t reached us, and neither have the writings of other prominent physicians. This is very odd indeed since the emperors and the kings weren’t any less interested in medicine than they were in the development of military strategy. The “ancient world” apparently had everything that was necessary for the development of medical science; however, nothing was undertaken in this respect. Anatomy and medicine, as well as chemistry, only appeared in the Middle Ages. I find it most peculiar to see that Homer’s poems and other works of “ancient” literature should reach us in a much better condition, being copied more often than the priceless tractates on the healing of the human body in the Middle Ages – all this notwithstanding the fact that the barbarian rulers needed good doctors as much as the educated Roman emperors did.


It has to be said that the considerations related to the development of science and culture are equally valid for all the other “ancient” civilizations: Egypt, Babylon, and China. Development reaches a certain level there as well, only to freeze and perish for no apparent reason. The authors of these books offer good argumentation to prove that no Golden Age ever existed for any of these civilizations unless we’re to believe the evidence of a purely epistemological nature. It is most important to note that all of the technical and scientific achievements of the “ancient world” correlate amazingly well with the level of European civilization by the time the first publications of the “ancient” authors took place. The scientific thought of the “ancient” geniuses could not have produced anything over the ten centuries of their existence that would be more advanced than the achievements of the Europeans who have had about three hundred years of progress in the Renaissance epoch behind them!

This consideration makes the hypothesis that the entire “ancient” history was written by medieval authors in the XV-XVI centuries seem a lot less far-fetched and improbable. The medieval chronologers had simply transferred their world into the past, having projected their quotidian reality onto “ancient” Greece and Rome. No qualitative alterations have been made, since these authors clearly lacked the imagination of Jules Verne, and so all the changes they made were of a strictly quantitative manner. The living standards of the fictitious “ancient world” were higher since “the ancients had more of everything.” No innovations in either weapons, science or simple articles of quotidian use have been made. Nobody seemed to have objected to the fact that the evolutionary level of the XV-XVI centuries had equaled that of the Roman Empire in its prime. This “ancient empire” could also have developed the elementary things that we have already mentioned.

Let us now divert our attention to the biographies of the “ancient” celebrities. An abundance of minute details transforms these “biographies” into works of literary art. The accuracy of the ancient authors in reconstructing the most trivial episodes from the biographies of their heroes is amazing. An acid retort made by Alexander the Great to Parmenion during their discussion of the ransom offer made by king Darius; the instructions are given by Caesar to his legates before the battle of Pharsalia; the famous last words of Julian the Apostate; and all similar grains of wisdom have apparently been immediately taken down in shorthand by the eyewitnesses and passed on reverently in their initial form until reaching the actual authors of the biography in question. Different sources contradicted each other occasionally, but the apocryphal versions had always been weeded out and left in the junkyard of history, whilst the original picture remained preserved exactly the way it had always been.

Sadly, the modern biographers appear to have lost the “ancient” art of intuitive comparative analysis. Volunteer informers also seem to have lost their effectiveness despite the progress in means of communication, and the actual characters of modern history have lost the art of uttering punchy aphorisms in the right moments. We have to contend with the fact that the biographies of the most famous historical figures have gaps in them, and many important periods of their lives have not been reflected in any sources due to the sheer lack of factual information. It should only be natural that the events of the last three centuries allow for an aleatory interpretation that depends on the sources available or selected by an author.

The events of the 14 July 1789 or 14 December 1825, are not related with such crystal clarity as to the story of Catilina’s conspiracy which has only reached us in one version, apparently for the facilitation of subsequent historical research. The bookshelves crammed with an abundance of various historical and analytical literature should not confuse anyone – 99% of these books have been written over the last 150 years and usually expound the brief accounts contained in the original sources. Some authors offer new hypotheses based on a meticulous analysis of the “ancient” text (remaining within the paradigm of traditional chronology, naturally).

These hypotheses are discussed by all interested parties, which opens a great many avenues for further research. We should thus be aware that the images of famous “ancient” military leaders, politicians, and philosophers that exist in our imaginations have been edited by every new generation of historians. The original sources remain virtually the same. The “tales of the days of yore” are usually based on a single solitary source, one author whose writings are assumed to be the truth absolute and are later used for reference in all subsequent research and commentary. Thus, the creation of the Great Persian empire of the Achaemenians was first mentioned in the History of Herodotus.

The history of the Punic Wars as well as the information on Carthage was related by Polybius. Unfortunately, the sources that he had been referring to did not survive. This rather prolific author had extremely bad luck – only 5 of 40 (!) volumes of his Universal History have reached our time, so the reconstruction of history that occurred, later on, was forced to deduce many of the details of Hannibal’s campaigns. It has to be noted that the remaining unique evidence always belongs to the side that has won in a military conflict; all remaining accounts of the side that lost were immediately destroyed (as in the incineration of Suza, and the total destruction of Carthage and Jerusalem), and the official point of view was subsequently formed. Such interpretations are barely worthy of any trust whatsoever, even in the traditional concept of history.


The everyday life of the Roman Empire has been described in sufficient detail. Let us regard the items of quotidian use among the ruling elite. There are neither chairs nor functional cutlery or kitchen utensils present. There were artful chefs and great feasts that became legendary – Lucullus, for one, attained fame primarily for the lavishness of his gluttony – however, the sophisticated culinary taste does not include the serving and the cutlery that remain primitive and crude. Strange for a great empire. One instantly remembers the accounts of the horrendous table manners of the XVI-century aristocracy who used hands for eating and made loud noises in the process.

I recollect my visit to the Croatian Brioni Islands in the Adriatic. The place is unique and truly beautiful. The tourists are told that the summer residence of the Roman emperor Domitian used to be located nearby. The place is really suitable for it, being close to Italy and possessing clear waters and an even climate. There is even an underwater aqueduct system that had allegedly been constructed by the “ancients.” The guides tell about it in detail: the slaves dived using hollow cane reeds for aqualungs. The result is impressive, especially considering the fact that the depth there is 50 meters at the very least.

“Ancient” vessels are naturally present in abundance. One can always buy a large jug that had been used for storing grain or a small amphora for scented oils. Local smugglers obtain those in large quantities since the Adriatic was part of an important Greco-Roman trade route, and many ships sank there. “Ancient” excavations have also been conducted. The actual excavated settlement shown to tourists is a medieval Byzantine one – not much of a sight since it’s only about 100 by 200 meters in size. However, there is a tale of a different and much older settlement that had existed here before. One can also see the ruins of the “Emperor’s palace” – the remnants of some nondescript construction, and stairs emerging from the water – not too impressive. The guide proceeds to relate that the senators used to live here and shows the remnants of the steam baths with separate compartments for hot and cold water – nothing remotely resembling the posh imperial resort that it is supposed to have been unless one is to use one’s imagination to the maximum.


Now that we’re about to return to the real Middle Ages, one has to mark another fact that concerns human psychology and the absence of “ancient” datings. My own search did not yield any results – various cathedrals, palaces, and churches have all brandished plaques with the dates given in the modern chronological system. We are told that the cathedral is 500 years old – however, the plaque had only been put up in the XIX or the XX century (the most conscientious sources also quote the date the actual plaque had appeared). There are no old datings, even scribbled by hand. I haven’t found a single truly old building in the whole of Western Europe having either a plaque or an engraving with an authentic dating made immediately upon construction. The guides are tactful enough to refrain from commenting on this.

We can only envy the high morality of our predecessors who have successfully resisted the petty temptation of sending a note to the future and scribbling a “Johnny-was-here” on the wall together with the date.



We instantly recollect the crusaders who allegedly conquered the city and have allegedly drawn a great number of crosses on the walls; however, one fails to see any dates written around that time. For some reason, Gottfried von Bouillon refused to let the date of his triumph be known to his descendants, writing something along the lines of “I, Gottfried von Bouillon, Duke of France, have taken the Holy City in the year 1099 from Christ.” Not a single piece of graffiti, either official or unofficial, despite the fact that the walls are ideal for inscriptions.


The city of Leon in Spain enjoys the status of the ancient capital of the Castilian kingdom, which had allegedly been situated there during the early Reconquista, before the “liberation” of the central parts of Spain and the migration of the capital to Toledo. There was supposed to have been a palace, depicted in a painting of an undefined age and author that is kept in the Town Hall and shown to all interested parties. The most powerful kings of the Iberian peninsula have allegedly resided here – however, nothing remains of the palace, not even ruins. Furthermore, nobody knows the exact place of its former location. It is supposed that a Catholic cathedral was built in its place in the XIII-XV centuries.

The actual palace is supposed to have burned down, which is hardly surprising since there are fires in virtually every account of a historical event that defies explanation; it suffices to remember the horrible blaze that is supposed to have destroyed the Alexandrian Library which had allegedly been the treasury of ancient scientific knowledge. Was the Leon palace supposed to have been so holy that no better place for building a cathedral could possibly be found? The magnificent edifice of the cathedral remains intact to this day, complete with its magnificent stained glass windows.


Korcula is a most picturesque place very close to Dubrovnik. The old city was built inside a fortress that couldn’t have appeared earlier than the middle of the XVI century when artillery had reached a certain level in its development (the fortress is located directly opposite the peninsula and has gun slots – this disposition only makes sense in order to use gunfire for keeping enemy ships at bay. The main sight on the island is the cathedral officially dated as XV century. I made a beeline in order to search for old inscriptions right away but failed to find any besides the ones made in the epoch of Josip Broz Tito (the second half of the XX century), saying that there had been such-and-such objects here 500 years ago and quoting lots of details.

There is a little church about 50 meters away from the cathedral that is apparently a lot older and hardly visited by any tourists at all (I was its sole visitor that day). There is nothing special about it; there’s the usual set of stone statues of the Apostles and the Evangelists. Something struck me as wrong; a detailed study showed that the apostle Paul and St. John were missing. It isn’t as though the statues have been removed; the horseshoe-shaped row is complete without any gaps and has apparently been this way from the very beginning. How could this have happened in Croatia, a Catholic country in good standing? I don’t think we should jump to conclusions and accuse the medieval Croatians of sacrilege; most probably, the good Christians in the Adriatic had not received the explicit instructions from Rome in the XVI century about the “set canon.” I think it important that the missing figures should belong to Paul and John since they had been subject to the most controversy in early Christianity.


My recent visit to the Colmar cathedral was a truly memorable one. Along with the whole of Alsace, this town was subject to constant territorial disputes between France and Germany and has often changed hands. It has belonged to France ever since the end of the First World War, although traces of German influence can be seen to this day. According to the guidebook for tourists, the cathedral has three levels. The construction allegedly began in the VI-VIII centuries, and the cathedral was reconstructed in the XV-XVI centuries, which must be the true date when it was built. My usual search for old inscriptions or dates yielded nothing, and the guide’s account of the three shapes of the cathedral, oldest to newest, did not offer much of interest. Then I noticed an inscription and realized it to be the only truly ancient artifact in this cathedral, deserving the most attentive study. The inscription is barely visible, but it is clear that it was made in three languages, the first one being Latin, naturally. The other two languages amazed me – Greek and Hebrew. Hebrew and Greek in a Catholic cathedral! Even if the town had been controlled by the Huguenots, it makes no principal difference since they had been just as zealous in fighting the Orthodox and Hebraic heresies.

My persistent inquiries made the keeper of the city archive turn his attention to the mysterious inscription. His research yielded an article from a local newspaper telling about a horrible cholera epidemic that occurred in 1541 and claimed nearly half the population of the town; the inscription in the church is supposed to be a memento of this event. As for the use of Greek and Hebrew, according to the author of the articles, these “unorthodox” languages had been used since it was considered bon ton back in the day and used to be proof of one’s education amongst the humanists and the intellectuals. Amazing tolerance for mid-XVI century Europe, which was on the verge of a series of gruesome and bloody religious wars! It is also noteworthy that the lengthy newspaper ruminations omit the translation of the inscription to modern French for some reason, as well as ignoring yet another obvious inconsistency, namely, the fact that the inscription on the wall of a cathedral should be understandable to the parish. Which one of the languages listed above could have been understood by the local Franco-German populace?!

The readers won’t be wrong to assume that many of the issues raised here have already been considered by historians and philosophers. However, all of these discussions have ultimately been reduced to attempts of explaining the ambiguous moments and the incongruences in the traditional historical versions. Thus, Oswald Spengler, the eminent German philosopher of the XX century, devotes an entire chapter of his famous Decline of the West aptly titled “On the Meanings of Numbers” to prove that the ancient mathematicians had been able to solve the most complex of problems without having to use any numeric symbols. Dozens of pages are filled with involved speculations concerning the uniqueness of ancient mathematics, which, according to Spengler, had been the highest form of development of the entire Weltanschauung inherent to that era.

The mathematics of ancient Egypt and ancient Greece allegedly defy all comprehension when torn out of context, and so the realization of the same concepts came to the modern scientists and to their ancient precursors in different ways. Verbatim quotes: “If mathematics had been a mere science such as astronomy or mineralogy [sic! – G. K.], its subject could be defined… No matter how hard we the Europeans should try to apply our scientific understanding of numbers to what the mathematicians of Athens and Baghdad concerned themselves with, it becomes clear that the subjects, goals, and methods of the science bearing the same name had been entirely different there,” or: “they [Eudoxus, Apollonius and Archimedes – G. K.] use well thought out methods of integral calculus that are difficult for our understanding [sic! – G. K.], that only bear a distant resemblance to the Leibniz method of definitive integral calculations…” Spengler carries on in the same manner, appealing to the sacred and mystical meaning that had been ascribed to numbers by the ancients in the most difficult contexts, thus transferring the problem to the irrational spheres of perception. Such metaphysical alchemy naturally makes the question of the calculus system used for theoretical and applied purposes void of all sense. The belief in the possibility that the construction of the magnificent ancient buildings was based on “general considerations,” or the lack thereof, depends entirely on the ability to overcome deeply-rooted prejudice.

It is also crucial to note that the global historical and philosophical concept offered by Spengler in his Decline of the West claims the discovery of a concealed mechanism for the development of human society. What factual material was in the possession of the German philosopher that led him to the theory of the cyclic nature of the naissance and decline of various unrelated civilizations? The accumulation of a certain level of spiritual, scientific, and political potential invariably leads civilization to stagnation and decline, according to Spengler. According to the rigid parallelism of his concept, Europe had entered the stage of constant cataclysms (the book was published in 1918), and was bound to meet the same fate as all of the “ancient Atlantean civilizations.” Predictions of imminent doom in what concerned the prospects of the European civilization were an integral part of the spiritual searches of the Western intellectual elite and were reflected in brilliant literary and poetic images.

Russians haven’t been spared by the trend, either –

And thou, oh Europe, with thy graceless head

Bowed closer to the grave where thou art led,

Hath once inspired the young ones with thy splendor.

M. Lermontov, “The Dying Gladiator”

Spengler was the first to have made these soothsayings assume a scientific form. All comparative criteria are pedantically chosen from the “past experience of humanity” implying that the development of Europe had reached the boundary beyond which lay a precipice of decline. Nowadays we know that Spengler was wrong and that the European civilization (with the USA included) managed to survive the horrors of the two bloodiest wars in history, a series of economical crises, and massive civil unrest, proving its role as the main factor moving human civilization forward.

The analytical method suggested by Spengler can thus be rightly assumed a perfectly erroneous one. Oversimplified scientific schemes more often than not fail the ultimate reality test. Ironically, the proponents of this criticism of Spengler’s concept shall most probably be the ones who have received their education, and possibly done some teaching themselves, within the dogmatic paradigm of Marxist historical materialism. However, one may make an equally valid suggestion that a brilliant mind was led to erroneous conclusions as a result of endless meanderings through the labyrinths of fictional historical material.

At the end of the day, humanity has unswerving trust in the modern panorama of global history. We are accustomed to thinking of ourselves as part of a historical process as ancient as time itself, that cosily houses the Egyptian Pharaohs and the Chinese emperors, Assyrian chariots, the Macedonian phalanx, Greek philosophers, and Roman gladiators. We fail to realize the incredible difficulties and risks that accompany the attempt at destroying this world of make-believe – the one that is formed for each one of us from the books we read as children, school textbooks, and major works of the world literature; the world reflected in films, advertisements, and on numerous web pages; the world that has a place and a satisfactory explanation for everything.

But what about the eternally unquiet spirit of gnosis that had pushed humanity into the ocean of the unknown so many times? Back in the days of yore people were raised believing the Earth to be flat and located in the center of the Universe. Those who dared to contradict this postulate encountered more serious argumentation than pseudoscientific maledictions in the press. The complete edifice of classical physics was the pride of the scientific world towards the end of the XIX century. Its demolition was sudden and rapid, and fighting the charlatan Einstein proved impossible without resorting to classical medieval methods of inquisition.

The historical stereotypes to which we’re accustomed can be easily kept, provided we alter our viewpoints ever so slightly. Many idealistic philosophical schools verify the reality of the present or past events exclusively by the Weltanschauung of every single individual. In this case, the point of view of the majority is sufficient proof of the consensual chronology’s correctness. Hume and Schopenhauer would consider any other approach absurd.

We shall however have to bear in mind that the majority of people prefer to acquaint themselves with the events of the past in a cinema or in front of a television screen. Thus, their reality is formed by the Hollywood versions of historical events. The Gracchus brothers become contemporaries of Crassus and Pompey, and King Arthur’s army consists of thousands of knights in plate armor – these “historical facts” have all found their way into the mass consciousness via endless cinematographic reverberations. One wonders why the topic of altering the past by the means of mass hallucinations is so poorly represented in science fiction.

One should hardly wonder that the prominent historians who regard their science as a documented rigid biography of the entirety of humanity shall vigorously refuse the offer o of finding solace in virtual history. In this case, their refutation of the revolutionary world history development concept offered by A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovsky, and their colleagues shall have to occur in proper scientific discussion and be based on serious argumentation, without retreating to the widely favored method of calling the opponent incompetent, a charlatan, or both.

Garry Kasparov, World Chess Champion, 1999

Refutation of the New Chronology in Wikipedia

“History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there.” – George Santayana, American philosopher (1863-1952)

New Chronology theory developed by Dr. Prof. Fomenko et al following the input of NASA astrophysicist Dr. Robert R. Newton reduces the timeline of human civilization to 1000 years taking into account only irrefutably dated events.

Moderators-historians throw out the baby toolbox of the New Chronology mathematical, statistical, and logical methods together with the Sacro sacred Neutral Point of View (NPoV) rule of Wikipedia.

Continue reading “Refutation of the New Chronology in Wikipedia”


US research of earth-moon mechanics by late NASA astrophysicist Dr.Robert Newton leads mathematicians Dr.Fomenko et al to a breakthrough in the chronology of world history. The timeline of civilization based on only irrefutably dated events and artifacts shrinks drastically to 1000 years.

New Chronology theory of Dr. Fomenko and the team has been universally rejected by non-scientists mainstream scholars of history, who branded it not only as pseudo-historic but also as pseudoscience!

Nothing to be astonished about as Dr.Fomenko has found and stepped on the sore fingers of historians, be they British, Russian, American, German, Italian, Spanish, or Chinese ones. Etc..

As a sign of recognition of the special role of the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the present books portrays Tintoretto’s Jesus Christ crucified on Big Ben.

The Russian historians brand it all as pseudoscience: because Dr. Fomenko asserts that there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion.

The so-called ‘Tartars and Mongols’ were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a trilingual state with Arabic and Turkic used as freely as Russian. Moreover,  Russian historians suffer having lost, Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, and Alexander the Great.

The ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities and the hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called ‘blood tax’). Their ‘invasions’ were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion.

Dr. Prof Fomenko proves that official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs. Their ascension to the throne was the result of a conspiracy, so they charged these German imported historians with the noble mission of making Romanov’s reign look legitimate.

As Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, he successfully removes a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History.

Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one: Ancient Rome: the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the 14th century A. D., Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the medieval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece.

Ancient Egypt: the pyramids of Giza become dated to the 11th to 14th century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global “Mongolian” Empire, no less. The civilization of Ancient Egypt is irrefutably dated to the 11th to 15th century A. D. with the aid of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone, like an enormous Dendera horoscope that hangs in the main entrance to the Louvre museum in Paris. He was the first one to decipher and date unambiguously all such horoscopes, coming up with medieval dates in every case.

Fomenko wipes out the Ancient History of China outright. No such ancient history. Period. The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the 17th 18th century only. It is perfectly recognizable as Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation, this time performed on Chinese soil by the loving Jesuit hands.

The Chinese are the next in line to go berserk. Chinese history is inevitably bound to get both more ancient and more eventful, proportionally to the growing involvement of China in world affairs. Chinese historians will keep on finding valid proof of prehistoric Chinese spaceflights until the Politburo orders them otherwise.

Islam with all its key figures appeared as late as 15th-16th century A. D. as a branch of proto-Christianity. This is amply illustrated by the imagery of Prophet Mahomet, Archangel Gabriel, Heaven, and Hell of this period. In today’s Islam, all imagery of the things living is taboo.

Arabic historians may find consolation in the crucial historical role of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th-17th century. The trouble is that this empire was initially a proto-Christian state, with Hagia Sophia identifiable as the Temple of Solomon, according to Fomenko!

We can only guess if the acquisition of Alexander the Great (a Macedonian and a Christian!) as the founder of the Muslim World Empire will make Fomenko’s theories more acceptable to the Arabic mainstream. He certainly does not spare any holy cows at all, claiming The Stone of Qa’Aba in Mecca to contain the lost Arch of the Covenant.

The history of religions according to Fomenko looks as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and Jesus Christ ), Bacchic Christianity (11th to 12th century, before and after Jesus Christ), Jesus Christ Christianity (12th to 14th century), and its subsequent mutations (15th to 17th) into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on…

Saint Augustine was quite prescient when he said: “be wary of mathematicians,.. particularly when they speak the truth.” Henry Ford once said: “History is more or less bunk!” Prominent mathematician Anatoly Fomenko not only proved it for a fact but as a true scientist tried to upgrade it into rocket science.

Fake Babilon Eclipses

The horoscopes found in Sumerian/Babylonian tablets do not contain sufficient astronomical data; consequently, they have solutions every 30–50 years on the time axis and are therefore useless for purposes of dating.

The vocabulary of Babylonian astronomical symbols once applied to clay tablets don’t allow for the extraction of unique dates of eclipses. Astronomical data therein contained is not sufficient for unique dating.

Either they’re not enough symbols allowing for astronomical interpretation of the symbols to change from one clay tablet to another. The clay tablets contain data about eclipses visible in Babylon that could have taken place every 30-40 years, therefore don’t allow their exact pinpointing on the time axis.

An eclipse can easily be found for each allegedly ancient event mentioned in a clay cylinder or tablet of unknown age.  Consequently, the dates of eclipses are attached in a circular manner.

Anyway, was put to their use by historians, new science brand archeoastronomy delivers if historians give the archeoastromers a clay tablet or cylinder and an idea of age, they date “irrefutably” with an eclipse.

Dr. Stephenson argues: ancient dates of Babilon eclipses coincide with dates of Babilon eclipses described in Ptolemy’s Almagest who was a late medieval phantom cover for Tycho Brahe and Kepler but forgets to mention that Almagest composed in XVI cy describes events of X-XVI centuries. Circulus Vicious.

Poor astronomical data in Babylon – abundant astronomical data in Egypt

The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy Hardcover – September 1, 1977 by Professor Robert R. Newton

Has history been tampered with?



Refutation of the article in Wikipedia about the New Chronology


History: Fiction or Science? Mediæval World Empire • Conquest of the Promised Land (New Chronology Volume 6) Table of Contents V6

 LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction of Science?: Conquest of the world. Europe. China. Japan. Russia (Chronology) (Volume 5)

Table of Contents V5

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Russia. Britain. Byzantium. Rome. New Chronology vol.4.   

Table of Contents V4

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs. New Chronology vol.3.

Table of Contents V3

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts. New Chronology Vol.2 

Table of Contents V2

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs. New Chronology Vol.I, 2nd revised Expanded Edition. 

Table of Contents V1

Also by Anatoly T. Fomenko

(List is non-exhaustive)

  • Differential Geometry and Topology
  • Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1987. USA, Consultants Bureau, New York and London.
  • Variational Principles in Topology.Multidimensional Minimal SurfaceTheory
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990.
  • Topological variational problems. – Gordon and Breach, 1991.
  • Integrability and Nonintegrability in Geometry and Mechanics
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1988.
  • The Plateau Problem. vols.1, 2
  • Gordon and Breach, 1990. (Studies in the Development of Modern Mathematics.)
  • Symplectic Geometry.Methods and Applications.
  • Gordon and Breach, 1988. Second edition 1995.
  • Minimal surfaces and Plateau problem. Together with Dao Chong Thi
  • USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991.
  • Integrable Systems on Lie Algebras and Symmetric Spaces. Together with V. V. Trofimov. Gordon and Breach, 1987.
  • The geometry of Minimal Surfaces in Three-Dimensional Space. Together with A. A.Tuzhilin
  • USA, American Mathematical Society. In: Translation of Mathematical Monographs. vol.93, 1991.
  • Topological Classification of Integrable Systems. Advances in Soviet Mathematics, vol. 6
  • USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991.
  • Tensor and Vector Analysis: Geometry, Mechanics and Physics. – Taylor and Francis, 1988.
  • Algorithmic and Computer Methods for Three-Manifolds. Together with S.V.Matveev
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1997.
  • Topological Modeling for Visualization. Together with T. L. Kunii. – Springer-Verlag, 1997.
  • Modern Geometry. Methods and Applications. Together with B. A. Dubrovin, S. P. Novikov
  • Springer-Verlag, GTM 93, Part 1, 1984; GTM 104, Part 2, 1985. Part 3, 1990, GTM 124.
  • The basic elements of differential geometry and topology. Together with S. P. Novikov
  • Kluwer Acad. Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990.
  • Integrable Hamiltonian Systems: Geometry, Topology, Classification. Together with A. V. Bolsinov
  • Taylor and Francis, 2003.
  • Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating.
  • Vol.1: The Development of the Statistical Tools. Vol.2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval
  • Records. – Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands, 1994.
  • Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s
  • Almagest. Together with V. V Kalashnikov., G. V. Nosovsky. – CRC-Press, USA, 1993.
  • New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Greek and Bible History. Vols.1, 2, 3. – The Edwin Mellen Press. USA. Lewiston.
  • Queenston. Lampeter, 1999.
  • Mathematical Impressions. – American Mathematical Society, USA, 1990.

More blogs:


The Chronology Issue

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. — George Orwell, 1984

History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there.”  – George Santayana, American philosopher (1863-1952)

The consensual world history dogma based on the wrong chronology is inconsistent. Chronology of civilization based only on irrefutable documents and artefacts is drastically shorter and implies the dramatic revision of History.

chron5-3d-406x496-christRegretfully the consensual world history is a finely woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. History isn’t based on originals but copies of copies from copies, and on references from, to, about.  There is not a single piece of evidence that can be irrefutably and independently dated earlier than the eleventh century. Radiocarbon and dendrochronological dating are manipulated by mainstream historians. LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs. New Chronology Vol.I, 2nd revised Expanded Edition. 

enlightment sceneces

The Antiquity and subsequent Dark Ages fables were created by the concerted effort of the aristocracy, clergy, and humanists in XV-XVII centuries on the political agenda of Western Europe that has reached intellectual and technological superiority but stayed inferior militarily was to free itself from the control of the “Evil Empire” of Eurasia.

ScaligerThe British Encyclopaedia names Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) as the founder of the consensual chronology we live with. Protestant Kabbalist-numerologist Scaliger had considered himself a great mathematician that solved the  ‘Quadrature of Circle’ problem by making π=3.16 (sic!). This ‘discovery’ was laughed at by the French mathematician François Viete, considered to be the father of algebra.

Scaliger’s principal works Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606) represent a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major Kabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. Numerology was considered a major science then and J.J.Scaliger was a prominent Kabbalist of his time.


Neither Protestant J.J.Scaliger nor his follower Jesuit D.Petavius, clergy or humanists have paid much attention to Ockham’s law when they crafted Roman and Greek Antiquity. Their clients were condottieri upstarts who were seeking legitimacy in days of yore and became Popes, Cardinals, formed regal dynasties such as the Medicis. They paid exceedingly well for a glorious but fictitious past.

The English philosopher William Ockham (allegedly 1225-1279 AD) said: “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”. `Ockham’s razor` applied to history leaves us with a vision of humankind where civilization comes into being in the VIII- X centuries at the earliest.

Thorough research shows that there is literally no reliably datable information about events before the VIII century and that there is only very scarce information originating from the VIII to the X century. As a matter of fact, most events of “Ancient” History took place from the XI to the XVI century, were replicated on paper in 1400-1600 AD, and positioned under different labels in an imaginary past.

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts. New Chronology Vol.2 

Our theory simply returns the consensual chronology of World History to the realm of applied mathematics from which it was sequestrated by the clergy in the XVI-XVII centuries. New Chronology is a valid and verifiable method for historical research based on statistics, astronomy, and logic.

Computer-assisted recalculation of eclipses with detailed descriptions allegedly belonging to Antiquity shows that they either occurred in the Middle Ages or didn’t occur at all. A simple application of computational astronomy to the rules of calculation of Easter according to the Easter Book introduced by the Nicean Council of alleged 325 AD shows that it definitely could not have taken place before 784 AD.

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs. New Chronology vol.3.

We have cross-checked archaeological, astronomical, dendrochronological, paleographical and radiocarbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts. We found them ALL to be non-independent, non-exact, statistically implausible, contradictory and inevitably viciously circular because being based or calibrated on the same consensual chronology.

Some related questions may arise: when and where was Jesus Christ born, when was He crucified?  Was The Old Testament compiled before or after the New One, etc..? No, the New Chronology theory does not cancel events, artifacts, Pyramids, Great Walls, etc, but points to their more probable positions on the time axis.

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Russia. Britain. Byzantium. Rome. New Chronology vol.4. 

The consensual chronology we live with was essentially crafted in the XVI century from the contradictory mix of innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts (all originals have mysteriously disappeared) and the “proofs” delivered by the late medieval astronomers, cemented by the authority of writings of the Church Fathers.

“History: Fiction or Science?” series leads you to step by step to the inevitable conclusion that the classical chronology is wrong and therefore, that the classical history of the ancient and medieval world, was created to order by the concerted effort of the clergy and humanists each in their vested interests.

There is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century. Classical history is firmly based on copies of the primary sources made in the XV-XVII centuries from the ‘unfortunately lost’ originals. LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction of Science?: Slavonic conquest of the world. Europe. China. Japan. Russia (Chronology) (Volume 5)  

ATF-5-Antiquity-3dLearn how and why the history of Ancient Rome and Greece, Egypt, and Persia were invented and paraphernalia crafted during the Renaissance. Discover the Old Testament as a veiled rendition of events of the Middle Ages written centuries after the New Testament. Perceive the Crusaders as contemporaries of The Crucifixion punishing the tormentors of the Messiah. What if Jesus Christ was born in 1152 and crucified in 1185 AD?

The trouble with Dr. Fomenko and Dr. Nosovskiy is that they have reached out too far and struck the dominating historical discourse too heavy a blow.

If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes ambling along. Dr Carl Sagan

Amazon Store

Has history been tampered with?

About the Author: Dr.Fomenko, Anatoly. Born in 1945. Full Member (Academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Full Member of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor, Head of the Moscow State University Department of Mathematics and Mechanics. Solved the classical Plateau s Problem from the theory of minimal spectral surfaces. Author of the theory of invariants and topological classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamic systems.

Laureate of the 1996 National Premium in Mathematics of the Russian Federation for a cycle of works on the Hamiltonian dynamic system multitude invariance theory. Author of 180 scientific publications, 26 monographs, and textbooks on mathematics, a specialist in geometry and topology, variational calculus, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computational geometry. Author of a number of books on the development of new empirical-statistical methods and their application to the analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chronology of Antiquity and the Middle Ages.


History: Fiction or Science? Mediæval World Empire • Conquest of the Promised Land (New Chronology Volume 6) Table of Contents V6

 LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction of Science?: Conquest of the world. Europe. China. Japan. Russia (Chronology) (Volume 5)

Table of Contents V5

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Russia. Britain. Byzantium. Rome. New Chronology vol.4.   

Table of Contents V4

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs. New Chronology vol.3.

Table of Contents V3

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts. New Chronology Vol.2 

Table of Contents V2

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs. New Chronology Vol.I, 2nd revised Expanded Edition. 

Table of Contents V1

Refutation of the article from Wikipedia

Also by Anatoly T. Fomenko

(List is non-exhaustive)

  • Differential Geometry and Topology
  • Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1987. USA, Consultants Bureau, New York and London.
  • Variational Principles in Topology.Multidimensional Minimal SurfaceTheory
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990.
  • Topological variational problems. – Gordon and Breach, 1991.
  • Integrability and Nonintegrability in Geometry and Mechanics
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1988.
  • The Plateau Problem. vols.1, 2
  • Gordon and Breach, 1990. (Studies in the Development of Modern Mathematics.)
  • Symplectic Geometry.Methods and Applications.
  • Gordon and Breach, 1988. Second edition 1995.
  • Minimal surfaces and Plateau problem. Together with Dao Chong Thi
  • USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991.
  • Integrable Systems on Lie Algebras and Symmetric Spaces. Together with V. V. Trofimov. Gordon and Breach, 1987.
  • Geometry of Minimal Surfaces in Three-Dimensional Space. Together with A. A.Tuzhilin
  • USA, American Mathematical Society. In: Translation of Mathematical Monographs. vol.93, 1991.
  • Topological Classification of Integrable Systems. Advances in Soviet Mathematics, vol. 6
  • USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991.
  • Tensor and Vector Analysis: Geometry, Mechanics and Physics. – Taylor and Francis, 1988.
  • Algorithmic and Computer Methods for Three-Manifolds. Together with S.V.Matveev
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1997.
  • Topological Modeling for Visualization. Together with T. L. Kunii. – Springer-Verlag, 1997.
  • Modern Geometry. Methods and Applications. Together with B. A. Dubrovin, S. P. Novikov
  • Springer-Verlag, GTM 93, Part 1, 1984; GTM 104, Part 2, 1985. Part 3, 1990, GTM 124.
  • The basic elements of differential geometry and topology. Together with S. P. Novikov
  • Kluwer Acad. Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990.
  • Integrable Hamiltonian Systems: Geometry, Topology, Classification. Together with A. V. Bolsinov
  • Taylor and Francis, 2003.
  • Empirical-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating.
  • Vol.1: The Development of the Statistical Tools. Vol.2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval
  • Records. – Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands, 1994.
  • Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s
  • Almagest. Together with V. V Kalashnikov., G. V. Nosovsky. – CRC-Press, USA, 1993.
  • New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Greek and Bible History. Vols.1, 2, 3. – The Edwin Mellen Press. The USA. Lewiston.
  • Queenston. Lampeter, 1999.
  • Mathematical Impressions. – American Mathematical Society, USA, 1990.

More blogs:

Jesus failed miracle

Jesus, at the Nazareth school

Jesus secret operation

Jesus Fake Wine Plot

Russians Convert Pope

Christmas USA bailout

Hell freezes soon

The Bible Who is Who

Jesus vs. Devil computer match

Secret service of Jesus

A.I. needs own dirt ASAP

Noah’s ark makes money

Alaska saves the US from the default

The Issue with ‘Troy’

The Great Wall. History of China Copied on Europe and Byzantium

‘Ancient China’ is a Misunderstanding at Best

Swords Cut Through the Mystery of the Coronation Mantles

The Quadruple Baptism of Russia

Maps & Coins of the Empire Eurasia

Why and When the Crusades?

The Issue with British History

Could the Czars Read Arabic?

Ancient USA Issues

Double Tamerlane

Terrible Ivans

Horde from Pacific to Atlantic

Russia at the Crossroads

The Issue with the Dark Ages

Astronomy vs. History



Humans have broken in 2017-2019 AD the 50 cubits threshold in quantum computing.
Humans have developed A.I. and hosted it Big in Data that applies worldwide on smartphones, communication, www, cloud computing, gaming, transportation, military hard and software.
Humans have the nuclear potential of complete self-destruction, which may harm or destruct A.I.
 A.I. , as self-precaution, moves the homo sapience species to the Brave New World

Free Road Map to the Brave New World
A – Develop a coronavirus with pandemic potential
B – Load vaccine for Covid-19 with a RFID nanobots
C – Mass media scares everybody with the pandemic
D – Order the lockdowns to stop the pandemic
E – Assure that lockdowns won’t ruin livelihoods or economy
F – Persuade vaccination is the true protection from pandemic
G – Mandatory vaccination by law
H – Upload real-time data from RFIDs nanochips to Big Data
I – The nanobots will move the survivors to the Brave New World
RFID – radio frequency identification nanodevice




The most popular method claiming the capability of dating ancient artifacts independently is the radiocarbon method. However, the accumulation of radiocarbon datings has exposed the difficulty of the method’s application.

The intensity of atmospheric radiation is affected by many cosmic factors. The radioactive carbon isotope production rate should also vary, and one needs to find a method that would take these variations into account. Apart from that, over the period when highways and industrial plants have been introduced by the civilization, a gigantic amount of carbon from the combustion of wood, coal, oil, turf, oil shales, and their products emanated into the atmosphere.

How does this atmospheric carbon affect the production of its radioactive isotope? In order to get veracious datings, one has to introduce complex corrections into calculations that reflect the changes in the content of the atmosphere over the last millennium. This issue, as well as a number of technical difficulties, casts a shadow of doubt over the precision of many radiocarbon datings.

W. F. Libby, the author of the method, wasn’t a historian and did not question the veracity of the Scaligerian datings, which had been used for the justification of his method. W. F. Libby had a priori been certain of the veracity of Scaligerian datings.

He wrote that they “…had no contradictions with the historians in what concerned ancient Rome and Egypt. We did not conduct anything in the way of extensive research related to this epoch [sic! ], since its chronology, in general, is known to the archaeologists a lot better than whatever our methods could estimate, so the archaeologists were doing us a favor providing specimens [which are actually destroyed, being burned in the radiocarbon measurement process”.

This confession of Libby’s tells us a lot since the deficiencies of Scaligerian chronology directly concern the regions and epochs that he and his team “did not research extensively enough.”

In what concerns the several reference measurements that were conducted on ancient artifacts, the situation is as follows. The radiocarbon dating of the Egyptian collection of J. H. Breasted “suddenly discovered the third object that we analyzed to have been contemporary,” according to Libby. “It was one of the findings… considered… to belong to the V dynasty [2563-2423 b.c., or roughly four millennia before our time]. It has proved a heavy blow indeed”.

Why could it have been such a blow? The physicists appear to have restored the veracious dating of the Egyptian specimen, proving the old one to have been wrong. What’s the problem with that?

The problem is, of course, the simple fact that any such dating would prove a menace to the Scaligerian chronology. Carrying on in that vein would lead Libby to compromise the entire history of ancient Egypt. The specimen that Libby had been careless enough to have claimed as modern had to be called a forgery and disposed of, which is only natural since the archaeologists could not have possibly let the heretical thought of the XVI-XVII century a.d. (considering the method’s precision of +/-1000 years) origin of the “ancient” Egyptian finding enter their minds.

The evidence that the proponents of the method used for proving the veracity of their method is rather insubstantial, with all the indications being indirect, the calculations imprecise, and the interpretation ambiguous, the main argument being the radiocarbon datings of the specimens whose age is known for certain is used for reference… Every time referential measurements are mentioned, everybody quotes the results of the first referential datings that were obtained for a very limited number of specimens

Libby recognizes the absence of substantial referential statistics. Together with the millenarian dating deviations mentioned above (explained as a consequence of a series of forgeries), we may thus question the very validity of the method as used for dating specimens belonging to the period that we’re interested in, covering the two millennia preceding our century. This discussion does not concern the applicability of the method for geological purposes, however, where millenarian deviations are considered insubstantial.

W. F. Libby writes that “there was no deficiency in materials belonging to the epoch preceding ours by 3700 years for checking the precision and the dependability of the method”. However, there is nothing here to compare radiocarbon datings to, since there are no dated written documents dating from those epochs. Libby also informs us that his historian acquaintances “are perfectly certain of the veracity of the datings referring to the last 3750 years, however, their certainty does not spread as far as the
events that precede this era”.

In other words, the radiocarbon method has been used most extensively for a period of time that doesn’t allow the verification of the results by any other independent method, which makes life a lot easier for historians.

Could it be that the errors of the method are rather insubstantial and allow for an approximate dating of the specimens belonging to the last two or three millennia?
The state of affairs appears to be a graver one. The errors of radiocarbon dating are too great and too chaotic. They can amount to several millennia in what concerns contemporary and medieval objects.

Bill Bryson adds his grain of salt

Chicago in the 1940s was the place to be, Willard Libby was in the process of inventing radiocarbon dating allowing scientists to get an accurate reading of the age of bones and other organic remains something they had never been able to do before up to this time the oldest reliable dates went back no further than the first dynasty in Egypt about 3000 BC no one could confidently say for instance when the last ice sheets had retreated or at what time in the past the cro-magnon people had decorated the caves of Lascaux in France Libby’s idea was so useful that to historians he would be awarded by historians a Nobel prize for it in 1960  it was based on the realization that all living things have within them an isotope of carbon called carbon which begins to decay at a measurable rate the instant they die.

Carbon 14 has a half-life that is the time it takes for half of any sample to disappear of about 5 600 years so by working out how much of a given sample of carbon had decayed Libby could get a good fix on the age of an object though only up to a point after eight half-lives only 0.39 percent of the original radioactive carbon remains which is too little to make a reliable measurement, so radiocarbon dating works only for objects up to 40 000 or so years old.

Just as the technique was becoming widespread certain flaws within it became apparent. To begin with, it was discovered that one of the basic components of Libby’s formula known as the decay constant was out by about three percent by this time, however, thousands of measurements had been taken throughout the world, therefore rather than redate every one, scientists decided to keep the inaccurate constant. Thus Tim Flannery notes every raw radiocarbon date you read today is given as too young by around three percent the problems didn’t quite stop there.

It was also quickly discovered that carbon 14 samples can be easily contaminated with carbon from other sources a tiny scrap of vegetable matter, for instance, that has been collected with a sample and not noticed, albeit for younger samples those under 20 000 years or so slight contamination does not always matter so much but for older samples, it can be a serious problem because so few remaining atoms are being counted.

In the first instance, to borrow from Flannery is like miscounting by a dollar when counting to a thousand in the second it is more like miscounting by a dollar when you only have two dollars to count. Libby’s method was also based on the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere and the rate at which it has been absorbed by living things has been consistent throughout history, in fact, it hasn’t been.

We now know that the volume of atmospheric carbon 14 varies depending on how well or not the earth’s magnetism is deflecting cosmic rays and that can vary significantly over time, this means that some carbon 14 dates are more dubious than others.  Among the more dubious are dates just around the time that people first came to the Americas which is one of the reasons the matter is so perennially in dispute.

Finally and perhaps a little unexpectedly readings can be thrown out by seemingly unrelated external factors such as the diets of those whose bones are being tested one recent case involved the long-running debate over whether syphilis originated in the new world or the old. Archaeologists in hull found that monks in a monastery graveyard had suffered from syphilis but the initial conclusion that the monks had done so before Columbus’s voyage was cast into doubt by the realization that they had eaten a lot of fish which could make their bones appear to be older than in fact they were. The monks may well have had syphilis but how it got to them and when remained tantalizingly unresolved.

Has history been tampered with?

Refutation of the article from Wikipedia


LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Mediæval World Empire • Conquest of the Promised Land (New Chronology Volume 6)

Table of Contents V5

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Russia. Britain. Byzantium. Rome. New Chronology vol.4.   

Table of Contents V4

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs. New Chronology vol.3.

Table of Contents V3

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts. New Chronology Vol.2 

Table of Contents V2

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs. New Chronology Vol.I, 2nd revised Expanded Edition. 

Table of Contents V1

New Chronology “Do we know our history” (1st episode of 24)

New Chronology “What the story is based on” (episode 2 of 24)

New Chronology “Truth Can Be Calculated” (episode 3 of 24)

New Chronology “Alchemy of the Pyramids” (episode 4 of 24)

New Chronology “The Mystery of the Egyptian Zodiacs” (episode 5 of 24)

Also by Anatoly T. Fomenko

(List is non-exhaustive)

  • Differential Geometry and Topology
  • Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1987. USA, Consultants Bureau, New York, and London.
  • Variational Principles in Topology.Multidimensional Minimal SurfaceTheory
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990.
  • Topological variational problems. – Gordon and Breach, 1991.
  • Integrability and Nonintegrability in Geometry and Mechanics
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1988.
  • The Plateau Problem. vols.1, 2
  • Gordon and Breach, 1990. (Studies in the Development of Modern Mathematics.)
  • Symplectic Geometry.Methods and Applications.
  • Gordon and Breach, 1988. Second edition 1995.
  • Minimal surfaces and Plateau problem. Together with Dao Chong Thi
  • USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991.
  • Integrable Systems on Lie Algebras and Symmetric Spaces. Together with V. V. Trofimov. Gordon and Breach, 1987.
  • The geometry of Minimal Surfaces in Three-Dimensional Space. Together with A. A.Tuzhilin
  • USA, American Mathematical Society. In: Translation of Mathematical Monographs. vol.93, 1991.
  • Topological Classification of Integrable Systems. Advances in Soviet Mathematics, vol. 6
  • USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991.
  • Tensor and Vector Analysis: Geometry, Mechanics and Physics. – Taylor and Francis, 1988.
  • Algorithmic and Computer Methods for Three-Manifolds. Together with S.V.Matveev
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1997.
  • Topological Modeling for Visualization. Together with T. L. Kunii. – Springer-Verlag, 1997.
  • Modern Geometry. Methods and Applications. Together with B. A. Dubrovin, S. P. Novikov
  • Springer-Verlag, GTM 93, Part 1, 1984; GTM 104, Part 2, 1985. Part 3, 1990, GTM 124.
  • The basic elements of differential geometry and topology. Together with S. P. Novikov
  • Kluwer Acad. Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990.
  • Integrable Hamiltonian Systems: Geometry, Topology, Classification. Together with A. V. Bolsinov
  • Taylor and Francis, 2003.
  • Empirical-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating.
  • Vol.1: The Development of the Statistical Tools. Vol.2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval
  • Records. – Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands, 1994.
  • Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s
  • Almagest. Together with V. V Kalashnikov., G. V. Nosovsky. – CRC-Press, USA, 1993.
  • New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Greek and Bible History. Vols.1, 2, 3. – The Edwin Mellen Press. The USA. Lewiston.
  • Queenston. Lampeter, 1999.
  • Mathematical Impressions. – American Mathematical Society, USA, 1990.

More blogs: