From NC :
# We warn the reader that the ancient and medieval history known to us today, including the Russian one, is far from self-evident, very confusing and unstable. In general, the history of the pre-press era earlier than the 15th-16th centuries is by no means a story based on genuine ancient documents and unambiguously following from them. On the contrary, the version of history before the 16th-17th centuries was the result of the special work of several generations of historians and chronologists who tried to reconstruct the picture of the past. However, the resulting picture is by no means indisputable. At the same time, most of us, brought up in the school history course, are convinced that the restoration of past events is, in principle, a simple matter. It is enough, they say, to take the chronicle, read it and retell it in modern language. And difficulties can arise supposedly only when specifying small details. Alas, this is not the case.
# The story we know today is a WRITTEN story, that is, based mainly on written documents. All of them have gone through a long series of edits, alterations, compilations. Of course, something is written on the stones, but these grains acquire meaning ONLY AFTER THE MAIN HISTORY BUILDING IS ALREADY BUILT ON THE BASIS OF THE CHRONICLES.
When we say that Brutus killed Caesar with a blow of the sword, it only means that it is written in some written source that has come down to us. Nothing more! The question of how accurately the document reflected real events is very complicated and needs special research. It refers, rather, to the philosophy of history, and not to written history as such.
The reader usually thinks that today we have a chronicle written by the contemporaries of Genghis Khan and eyewitnesses of the events. This is not true. Today, most often we have only a very late version, created several hundred years after the events.
Certainly, the written documents were based on some kind of reality. But one and the same event could be reflected in many written documents. And in significantly different ways. Sometimes it is so different that at first glance it is impossible to believe that we are faced with two different descriptions of the same event. Therefore, when the reader sees in our book a phrase like: “such and such a historical figure is a duplicate or a reflection of another character”, this does not mean at all that one REAL person in the past was a reflection = a duplicate of another REAL person. This would, of course, be nonsense.
It is about something else. Namely, that in our “history textbook” one and the same real person, for example Genghis Khan, can be represented SEVERAL TIMES. Under different names and even referred to different eras! However, his real personality “multiplied” only on paper, and not in reality. The question of when and where he actually lived is rather difficult. No less difficult is the question – “what was his real name”. In ancient times, people often had many nicknames. In addition, getting on the pages of the chronicles, they sometimes acquired new “names”, nicknames, by which their contemporaries never knew. This could be the result of errors, confusion, translations of texts from language to language. In our work, we do not set the task of finding out the “true names” this or that hero. That is, as his contemporaries called him.
# Studying written history, you need to constantly remember that WORDS, NAMES, GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES COULD CHANGE THEIR MEANING WITH TIME. One and the same word could mean completely different things in different eras. A striking example of this is the word “Mongolia”, which we will talk about a lot below. In addition, MANY GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES ARE MOVED ON THE MAP over the centuries. Geographical maps and names on them froze, basically, only with the beginning of printing, when it became possible to print and distribute many identical copies of the same map for practical purposes of navigation, education, etc. Before that, each card was unique. A motley discord reigned in them.
Characters, which today are usually called “antique”, are often present on medieval maps and paintings as medieval heroes. Historians themselves note this striking circumstance: “ANTIQUE characters appear on the cards in the clothes of MEDIEVAL burghers and knights” , p.21.
In ancient texts, names and names were often used without vowels, that is, WITHOUT VOICES – only in the form of a skeleton of consonants. In the past, vowels were sometimes added from memory when reading a text. This is especially evident in the Arabic languages, where almost all vowels were added from memory and to some extent arbitrarily. But since in the Middle Ages, Arabic writing was used not only for Arabic, but also for some other languages, then in them the vowels in writing were forgotten. Even if in this spoken language itself they were stable. To the greatest extent, this, of course, applied to proper names.
Naturally, over time, the vowels got confused, forgotten, replaced by others. The consonants written down on paper were more stable. For example, many older texts speak of the Greek Faith. But it is possible that the word Greece is just a slightly distorted pronunciation of the name Horus or Horus, that is, CHRIST. In this case, GREEK FAITH is simply CHRISTIAN FAITH.
Of course, Russian history is closely intertwined with world history. Any shifts in chronology, movements in geography related to Russian history, inevitably lead to similar problems in the history of other countries. The reader will have to abandon the opinion that the old history of other states rests on an unshakable foundation. It turns out that chronological and geographical problems in the history of Rome, Byzantium, Italy, Egypt, etc. do exist. They are even much more serious than in Russian history. See the first three books of the seven-volume Chronology.
# Of particular interest to us, naturally, is the history of ancient Russia, the Russian Empire and neighboring states. The history of our country is one of the basic foundations in the foundation of world civilization, therefore, the key moments of our history should be carefully checked. Today we know very well how often historical facts have been distorted and distorted for the sake of one or another momentary trend. In the first three books of the seven-volume “Chronology” we have demonstrated how often such distortions congealed in the form of irrefutable truths, which then passed from textbook to textbook. And it takes a lot of work to “knock down the later plaster” and reveal the true picture of events.
Distortions are unacceptable in the history of any state. But distortions of Russian history acquire a special resonance for us. Therefore, here the investigation must be absolutely clear and impartial. No authority here can be authority. Why are we saying all this now?
It turns out that the chronology of Russian history adopted today is not free from serious contradictions. They were first pointed out by Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov . However, as our analysis showed, even he did not fully realize the scale of the problem.
Many historians today consider Russian history to be among the so-called “young” ones. They mean comparison with “old cultures” – with Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc. However, as we have shown in the first three books of the seven-volume “Chronology”, all these “old chronologies” need to be substantially shortened. “Ancient” cultures need to be moved to the era of the XI-XVII centuries AD. The history of the 11th-13th centuries known to us today is the result of the overlap, “summation” of the true events of this era – very dimly lit by the surviving documents – and reflections of events from the more intense era of the 13th-17th centuries. Of course, we do not mean here the saturation with events in general, but the saturation with those events about which some information has come down to our time.
It is believed that the main Russian written history begins in the 9th-10th centuries A.D. From the experience we have already accumulated, one should expect that a chronological shift may be detected in it and that some of the events will have to be moved upward, postponed for several hundred years, to the era of the XIV-XVII centuries. And this expectation is justified. We have indeed found such a shift of 400 years. First, it was discovered by AT Fomenko in the statistical analysis of the functions of volumes of Russian chronicles, see “Changing the dates – everything changes”, Ch. 3: 1. We later found the same shift in an independent way in the study of dynastic parallelisms, see below.
# Sometimes we note linguistic parallels and unexpected consonances of ancient names and names found in the annals. Let us emphasize that such parallels are by no means proof of anything. We present them only to demonstrate the possibility of significantly different readings of uncoordinated old texts. However, in many cases they are well explained by our reconstruction.
Now we will briefly outline the main problems and propose our new concept of Russian chronology, radically different from the Millerian-Romanov version, as well as from the idea of N.A. Morozov .