Introduction to the New Chronology: Part 2
Egyptian zodiacs and their real datings.
Dating of the Almagest.
Application of mathematical-statistical methods for the analysis of ancient chronicles.
Dependent and independent chronicles.
The modern history textbook – how was it written?
The lost millennium.
What the true human history was like – the hypothesis of the authors.
I'm showing some famous ancient zodiacs of ancient Egypt, which are considered very old today, long before the Common Era. Nevertheless, there are the so-called horoscopes of Tebe by Heinrich Brotsch, a well-known Egyptologist. There are three of these horoscopes, not just one. Unbiased dating revealed that their dates are not from before the Common Era, but rather from the years 1861, 1841, and 1853 AD. So, until the 19th century, people in Egypt were still buried according to old customs and the dates were recorded on their tombs using zodiacs. It turns out that this tradition survived until the 19th century. So, Egyptologists wrongly attribute the burials found by Brotsch to a time long before the Common Era. Now let's briefly go over other famous zodiacs of ancient Egypt. As I mentioned, this is the rectangular dendera zodiac. It consists of two strips, one on the ceiling of the temple and the other on the ceiling of the temple. It has many pictures, a very detailed zodiac. Here, both constellations and planets are depicted. Now, how is the dating done? The idea is very simple and very sound. The thing is, on the Egyptian zodiacs, constellations are depicted almost the same way as they were depicted in the Middle Ages, in the era of Duroar, before him, and after him. Namely, it's Cancer, Virgo, Leo, Scorpio, Libra, and so on. For example, let's take one of the star maps made by Duroar. It's a map from Ptolemy Almagest. Here we see the zodiac. The constellations on the zodiac are generally depicted in a familiar way. Here are Sagittarius, Scorpio, Leo, Virgo, and so on. Next, we take a zodiac of ancient Egypt. We see the same constellations depicted almost the same way, and we look for the planets. Unlike constellations, planets move. So, Egyptian astronomers depicted them as wayfarers with staffs, moving across the sky. This is another map by Duroar, showing the constellations of the Southern Hemisphere. For example, this is how planets and constellations were depicted in the Middle Ages. This is one of the zodiacs from the Middle Ages. Again, easily recognizable constellations, Gemini, Aries, Leo, Virgo, Sagittarius, and so on. And these are the planets. Mars, usually depicted with a sword, Venus, Jupiter. Here are the Moon and the Sun. They were considered planets back then. There were five planets and two more, a total of seven. Here's one of the medieval zodiacs. Mars is depicted as a warrior. There are other images of planets. They usually move. Here's Jupiter in a chariot. The planet glides across the celestial sphere, so planets were depicted as wayfarers with staffs or figures in chariots. Here, birds pull Jupiter's chariot. Here, serpents pull Saturn's chariot, who is malicious God, holding a scythe of death. This is Venus, as we've discussed before. Usually depicted as a beautiful woman. Now, for comparison. How are the Egyptian zodiacs deciphered? It's very simple. Here's the constellation of Libra. The various zodiacs in which we see Libra are shown. Here's the image of Libra on Durer's maps. Here, Libra is depicted on the Dendura Round zodiac, and on the rectangular zodiac, the zodiac from the Greater Temple of Esna, and so on. Here are various depictions of Libra. So, we see that Egyptian sculptors used the same symbolism, the same language as Europeans, for example, Durer. Another example, the constellation of Scorpio. Here's the familiar image in Durer's drawings. And here's the same Scorpio on various supposedly very ancient Egyptian zodiacs. Again, the Round Dendura zodiac, the rectangular Dendura zodiac, the zodiac from the Greater Temple of Esna, and so on. Scorpios everywhere. Of course, Scorpios are drawn differently, but there is no doubt that it is Scorpio. Sagittarius on Durer's map. Here's the depiction of Sagittarius on the zodiacs of Ancient Egypt. The Round Dendura, the rectangular Dendura, the Lesser Temple of Esna. Here's Sagittarius on the upper Athribus zodiac. There's no depiction of Sagittarius on the color zodiac of Thebes and the outer Pettaceros zodiacs. But the Brooks zodiac has it. Here, Sagittarius is depicted on the Brooks zodiac. To make it completely clear how dating is done, this is the same zodiac on which we ourselves colored the constellations. Here's Sagittarius, Capricorn, Scorpio, Libra, Aries, Pisces, Aquarius, and so on. The constellations are marked in red. They are depicted completely unambiguously. The planet's wayfarers are marked in yellow, usually with staffs in their hands. The secondary horoscopes which are also present here, are shown in a different color. In addition to the main horoscope, there are horoscopes indicating the positions of the planets on the days of the winter and summer solstices. There is a lot of such information, which allows for unambiguous dating. Here, let's say, Leo, Virgo, similar coloring on the second ceiling strip. Here's the constellation of Taurus. The moon is depicted in it. And this is the Dendura zodiac we've already discussed. For clarity, we marked the constellations in red. Virgo, Leo, Aries, Pisces, Libra, and so on. The planets are shown in yellow. And, as I said, seven yellow hands show the date on the red clock face. The date is calculated unambiguously. As we've mentioned, it's the 12th century of the Common Era, not ancient times. Here's the zodiac from the Greater Temple of Esna colored by us. It's the same principle, so I won't explain it in detail. Again, here's Leo, Scorpio, Cancer, Pisces, and so on. Red indicates constellations, yellow indicates planets, and green indicates additional figures representing secondary horoscopes, the positions of planets on the days of equinoxes and solstices, summer and winter. A similar picture is for the zodiac in Temple of Esna. It's the Lesser Esna zodiac. Here it is. It's also very large. There's a lot of information. Therefore, it's not surprising that the resulting dates are unambiguous. Astronomers who guided the sculptors understood that the enormous effort put into the depiction must be very precise. Therefore, the dating is unambiguous. There are no mistakes in the location of planets and constellations. Another zodiac of ancient Egypt, the Athribus zodiac. The scheme is slightly different, but the same constellations. Here's Sagittarius, Leo, Virgo, Aquarius pouring water from jugs. Here's Pisces, usually depicted as two fish. Over, there are Gemini, the same symbolism, the same planets. Here, they are depicted as birds flying along the zodiac. Another example of a zodiac. Again, supposedly very ancient, long before the Common Era. As it turns out, it's a very late depiction. Another zodiac. Brooksch zodiac, which we discussed. It's depicted on the lid of a coffin. In general, the idea is clear. A person was buried in a coffin. His mummy was covered with a wooden or stone lid. On the bottom of this lid, right in front of the mummy's eyes, the starry sky was painted. The starry sky is the goddess Newt, the Egyptian goddess of the sky. Here's the zodiac, with planets on it, that is, the date when the mummy was buried. A very understandable and simple idea. The mummy of a person lies in the coffin and sees the starry sky above him at the moment when he departed to the afterlife. Another very famous Egyptian zodiac. Another zodiac. I won't go into detail here, because you can see how many zodiacs there are in Egypt. There are many. And now, the final table, although it's incomplete. We ourselves have discovered more than 60 zodiacs in ancient Egypt and in Europe. Here are the datings. On the left are the datings of the zodiacs, supposedly ancient Egypt. According to modern chronology, Egyptologists attribute all this to the deepest antiquity of Egypt. In reality, as we have said, their dates fall in the range from around the year 1000 to 1900. Bruksh's last zodiac is from the mid-19th century. In Egypt, the ancient burial tradition still persisted in the 19th century. This is how the zodiacs we talked about, are distributed. From the Lesser Temple of Ezna, from the Greater, and so on. On the right are the zodiacs of Europe and Asia. There are also a lot of zodiacs here. Among them are also many zodiacs considered ancient. Upon independent dating, they all don't fall into deep antiquity, but into the range from approximately the 10th century AD to 1800. These are very well-known zodiacs. Mithraic from Apollon, the Golden Horn from Copenhagen, the Lion of Commagene, the Bayou Tapestry. Furthermore, we have discovered an absolutely remarkable zodiac depicted on Ivan the Terrible's throne. It is exhibited in the Kremlin Armory. The dating of the zodiac is the birthdate of Ivan the Terrible, 1526, not 1530, four years earlier than is commonly believed today. This is also a very interesting thing. Zodiacs from the Louvre, I repeat, many of these zodiacs are considered to be from deep antiquity. In reality, these are events in the range from the 10th to the 19th century. Here is a summary distribution. This is a histogram of the distribution of zodiacs, their quantity over time. This is the oldest date we have discovered. No earlier date was obtained. This is around the 10th century of the Common Era. Then there is a surge, a large number of zodiacs in Egypt. There are many of them here. Then a small gap in the 14th-15th centuries. And a surge in Europe in the interval from the 16th to the 18th centuries. This is what astronomy provides with careful, unbiased dating, unrestricted by any prior frameworks, such as the chronology of Scaliger. Another example of a zodiac is the astronomical dating of the Book of Revelation or Apocalypse, according to its hor . Everyone knows the Book of Revelation today. It's one of the famous books of the New Testament. It describes the coming of Christ and the events associated with it. It's a famous book. It turns out that its text contains a horoscope, which was first discovered by Morozov. But even before him, some scholars noted that the celestial sky was clearly described here. Morozov was the first to carefully study it. The horoscope, that is, the zodiac, is as follows. The text describes the position of Jupiter in Sagittarius, Mars in Gemini or Taurus, Saturn in Scorpio, Mercury in Lib , the Sun in Virgo, the Moon at the feet of Virgo, Venus in Leo. This is absolutely unambiguous information. I repeat, the planets are the hands on the dial of the zodiac belt. After calculation using a modern computer software, we obtained the solution. 15th century. This is the zodiac of 1486, which perfectly satisfies all the conditions stated in the Revelation. Everything listed there is satisfied. All the planets are shown where they are described in the text. Here is their corresponding position on the zodiacal belt. We took Dürer's map and marked the positions of the planets with bold dots. Mars, Venus, the Sun, Mercury, the Moon, Saturn, Jupiter. They are situated exactly as described in the Revelation. This is the end of the 15th century of the Common Era, not deep antiquity, where today this book of the New Testament is believed to belong. It is attributed to before the beginning of the Common Era. To determine the dates recorded on the zodiacs, we specifically developed the computer program Horus. We placed it on the Internet freely accessible. There's a link. Those interested can download the program and, using it, double-check the datings of the zodiacs we provide or those that they themselves may find in attempt to date based on the arbitrary arrangement of planets on the zodiac, given approximately. Our program calculates all possible dates when this could have happened. A spectrum of dates arises, and then we see what solution we have obtained. Another example. A little sideways. Let's not stray from astronomy just yet. We've talked about eclipses. We've talked about zodiacs. And now, let's recall the famous book Almagest by Claudius Ptolemy, which has long attracted the attention of astronomers and historians. It is believed to have been created in the 2nd century of the Common Era. It turns out, this is a mistake. Using methods of geometry and statistics, the authors, that is us, Fomenko and Nysovsky, dated the famous star catalogue of Almagest to the epic of the 7th-13th centuries AD. The final edition of the entire Almagest was apparently made only in the 16th-17th centuries AD. The method developed by the authors is applicable to any ancient star catalogues. It turned out that in all cases, except for the Almagest catalogue, the commonly accepted medieval datings of star catalogues such as Tycho Brahis, Ula Begs, and Hevelius, were confirmed. The method is the same. The medieval catalogues fit where they should, while the Almagest turned out to be shifted from the 2nd century of the Common Era to the 16th century. This is an image of Ptolemy. Here is another image that is very similar to a medieval depiction. This is how medieval people looked. This is Ptolemy's model of the world. In the center is the Earth, surrounded by planets and the starry sky, on which constellations are fixed. These are different variations of depicting world systems. Tycho Brahis' system. It is believed that it is not entirely Copernican. It is said that only Copernicus placed the sun at the center of the universe, around which planets, including Earth, rotate, and Tycho Brahis supposedly didn't fully understand this, and he is kind of an intermediate link between Ptole and Copernicus. This is untrue. Tycho Brahis' system is earlier than the Copernican system. This system is precisely Copernican, because although here the Earth is drawn in the center, all the planets revolve around the sun. It's a matter of where to place the origin of coordinates. We, as mathematicians understand that if you place the observer on the Earth, you will get a picture of the modern world system, precisely Tycho Brahis, and placing the observer on the sun, you will get Copernican system. Tycho Brahis' system is also Copernican, but that's a little off topic. These are the coordinates on the celestial sphere. The positions of the equator and the ecliptic, which were used in Ptolemy's Almagest. The ecliptic and the equator are linked by certain movements. There are precession and nutation. The Earth moves around the sun, so its axis precesses. And the second, weaker movement is called nutation. These are medieval instruments, with the help of which astronomers like Tycho Brahi and, apparently, Ptolemy, who lived shortly before him, somewhere in the 15th-16th centuries, measured the coordinates of stars on the celestial sphere. These are different quadrants, armillary spheres, very complex instruments. It was a very intricate science of the 14th-17th centuries. Clocks were needed to measure the longitudes and latitudes of planets, especially for longitudes. These are sand clocks. We understand, their accuracy is not very high. That is precisely why the accuracy of ancient catalogs is not very high. For Ptolemy, it's 10 minutes. This is the starry sky, the constellations described in Ptolemy Almagest. Not only the zodiacal constellations are described, but also those located in the northern hemisphere, and partially in the southern. This is a star map by Dürer, which was included in the 16th-century editions of the Almagest. For illustration, this is one of the pages of the Almagest from a medieval edition. This is another edition of the Almagest manuscript. This is for comparison the medieval star map by Stanislaw Lubyanecki, which marks the position of the starting point for longitude measurement. It is placed in the constellation of Aries. How did we date the Almagest? The idea behind the dating was very simple in essence, but very complex in implementation. Some stars move. They shift across the celestial sphere. These stars are known. Their velocities are known. By fixing the positions of these stars in our time and examining their positions in Ptolemy Almagest catalog, one can find the difference in their coordinates. We used latitudes because, as it turned out, longitudes are very dangerous to use. They are unstable and were recalculated. By comparing the positions of the stars today with the coordinates of the same stars in the time of Ptolemy Almagest, one can obtain a date. Here, for example, is the movement of the star Procyon in the real sky. And here is its position in the coordinates around the year 100 AD, around the 10th century of the Common Era, in our time. And here are the coordinates of this star in the Almagest. Since the star Procyon is moving, you can find the date when the distance of this star to the place shown in the Almagest will be minimal. This gives an approximate dating. This is what we did by processing all the bright stars with accurate coordinates, well described in the Almagest. Here is another image. Explanation of the dating method. This is the idea of dating. A star in the Almagest, a star that moves. We know its velocity and find the position when this star in its motion passes closest to the coordinates shown in the Almagest. The result is a date. This is how we calculated the coordinates. Next, we discovered a systematic error in the Almagest, which was compensated for. And in the end, we look at the result of our dating. A certain value is shown here, which measures the deviation of the coordinates of the stars in the Almagest from their positions in the sky today. You see, the minimum is reached in the interval from the 7th century to the 15th century. It is precisely in this epoch that the Almagest catalog was created. It is by no means the 2nd century of the Common Era, where modern chronology and modern tables place it today. These are some auxiliary graphs that show how this deviation behaves. This is Ula Beg's catalog, which we mentioned. Here too, the coordinates of the stars are recorded. Dating by our method gives the known date of Ula Beg's catalog. These are the Middle Ages. No problems arose here. Now we will move away from astronomy and transition to an important topic. What exactly we have achieved in this area, aside from dating many zodiacs and eclipses using astronomy. I've talked about the parameter D'. We've realized that without mathematical methods based on reasonable models and modern statistics, it's impossible to make sense of the chronological problem. This is complex material that needs to be processed using modern methods. There's a lot of data, and we need to learn how to extract patterns from them. Let me briefly describe a few methods that I have developed, implemented, and used for dating events described in ancient texts. In short, one of these ideas is as follows. On the time axis, let's consider the years from A to B in a certain epoch. Let's take two chronicles describing events of this epoch, Chronicle X and Chronicle Y. Usually, the chronicles are divided by years and chapters. Each chapter describes the events of one year. Let's calculate the volume of each chapter. We'll get a number. This is the volume of per annum chronicle. Two graphs emerge. How can we use them for dating? Here's the reasonable idea. Let's consider the A-B epoch and look at a graph showing the volume of information about the events of that year recorded by its contemporaries. This will be some graph. Then the texts disappear, the texts perish, and the graph decreases. The model is as follows. From the years about which contemporaries wrote a lot, more will remain. That is, the graph of the original primary fund will peak approximately at the same instances as the local maxima of the information fund that we calculate for some period M. Let M be some late epoch following the A-B epoch. The idea is that the text volumes peak in roughly the same points on the time axis as the volume graph for the original information fund. Such a model is quite natural and reasonable. Hence, we see that the graphs of the remaining information funds peak roughly around the same periods of time as the graph of the primary fund. Let's take two chronicles, X and Y, written in later years M and N, than the epoch of interest A-B. From the previous hypothetical model, which is a certain theoretical model, it follows that the volume graphs for chronicles X and Y make splashes approximately at the same points as the volume graphs of the information that remained until their time. Here are two graphs plotted for the chronicle created in epoch M and in epoch N. What does this lead to? Here's what? The consequence. The volume graphs of dependent chronicles, that is, those describing approximately the same epoch, peak practically simultaneously. However, the magnitudes of the peaks can be significantly different. And the volume graphs of independent chronicles X and Y, that is, those describing significantly different epochs, peak at different points after aligning the time segment A-B for X and C-D for Y. Let's look at the graphs. If these epochs are different, then their peaks have no knowledge of each other. This graph peaks here, while this graph peaks in a completely different place. Although over time, the height of the graph C of T, which is the primary fund decreases, nevertheless, from the years in which especially many texts were written by their contemporaries, more will remain. The splash points of the residual fund graph should peak approximately in the same years in the time interval A-B as the original graph of the primary information fund. And now, an important model, the maxima correlation principle. If two chronicles, texts, X and Y, are a priori dependent, or describe the same flow of events of historical period A-B, of the same state gamma, then local maxima, splashes, on volume graphs of the chronicles X and Y must occur simultaneously on the time interval A-B. Here's the graph when the texts are dependent. In other words, the years described in detail in chronicle X and the years described in detail in chronicle Y, must be close or coincident. On the contrary, if chronicles X and Y are a priori independent, i.e., describe either different historical periods A-B and C-D, or different flows of events in different states, then the volume graphs for chronicles X and Y reach their local maxima in different points. In other words, the peaks of the graphs should not correlate. Here is shown how it looks when different epics are described. Two examples. A priori dependent Russian chronicles, covering the same epoch from the 9th century to the 13th century. Looking at their per annum volume graphs, we see a very strong correlation, which is not surprising. This confirms the model that dependent texts make splashes in approximately the same years. The amplitudes may vary, but the peak points occur virtually simultaneously. The model has been confirmed and validated on many dozens of processed, a priori dependent chronicles. Another example of dependent chronicles. The Russian Suprasil Chronicle, the Russian Nikiforov Chronicle, and the famous Tale of Bygone Years, also a Russian chronicle. Although the Tale of Bygone Years is richer, with greater amplitude, the spikes occur approximately in the same years as the spikes in the two chronicles above, the Suprasil and Nikiforov Chronicles. Another example of dependent texts. The Davina Chronicle and its brief edition. Again, it is evident that the graphs correlate well, confirming the model that dependent texts peak virtually simultaneously. Now, the consequence of this application. We can compare not only a priori dependent texts but also different texts. Here's what was discovered through processing and comparing ancient texts with medieval texts. The top graph, which will now continue on the next slides, represents the famous text "History of Rome" by Titus Livy. It's a multi-volume edition written by the ancient classic, long before the Common Era. The work begins with the foundation of Rome and covers several centuries. Here's the volume graph, and you can see the spikes. At the bottom is the medieval text by Gregorovius. He's a 19th century author who wrote the history of medieval Rome from the 4th century AD to the 18th century. His work is more detailed. Naturally, the amplitudes here are higher. However, when processing these graphs using a standard package, it turns out that the spikes indeed occur around the same epochs after aligning the two time intervals. Let's conditionally consider the start of Livy's narrative as year 0, which in modern textbooks is roughly the 8th century BC. Let's align it with the beginning of the text that describes the history of medieval Rome, around the year 300, and observe how the spikes align. Through processing, it's evident that the spikes occur roughly in the same years. These are long graphs that stretch over several hundred years. And here, we reach the 9th century AD. This is where Titus Livy ends. The spikes occur in much the same way as they do for a priori dependent texts. This leads to the hypothesis that the ancient description by Titus Livy and Gregorovius's account of medieval Rome are narratives about roughly the same events, with Titus Livy's account shifted forward by several hundred years. Second example. Again, Titus Livy and another medieval text, the famous text by Baronius, describing the history of Rome also with a shift of several hundred years. Here's the shift. For Titus Livy, the starting point is the middle of the 8th century BC, while for Baronius, it's after the beginning of the Common Era. After processing these graphs, massive spikes emerge. The shaded areas indicate the correlation of these spike points when comparing the ancient text and the medieval text. At the top, Baronius's text and medieval Rome, at the bottom, Titus Livy's text, the ancient Rome. Baronius's description extends to the year 400 AD, while Titus Livy's also extends to 400 years from the foundation of Rome. This is one methodology. With its help, numerous texts have been discovered that describe the same epochs, as inferred from this model, verified on reliable material. But today, some texts are classified as ancient, while others are classified as medieval. As it turns out, they speak of the same events, but the difference in dating is quite significant, several hundred years. The second mathematical model was also devised and used for dating events. It is based on a completely different principle. The frequency damping principle, describing a chronologically correct order of generation chapters and texts. What is a generation chapter? Let's take a chronicle. It's divided into fragments where events related to people of one generation are described. Grandfathers, fathers, sons, grandsons. With the correct numeration of generation chapters in place, a chronicle or passing from descriptions of one generation to the next, changes characters as well. This is a kind of theoretical model. In other words, when he describes the generations preceding generation Q, he says nothing about the characters of this generation, since they have not been born yet. Then, in his description of generation Q, the chronicler mostly speaks about the characters of this generation, since the events described are directly connected to them. Finally, passing to the description of subsequent generations, the chronicler mentions the previous characters in decreasing frequency, since he describes new events, the characters of which replaced the ones departed. In short, the model is formulated as follows. Each generation gives birth to new historical figures. With the change of generations, these figures are replaced. The model has been tested on reliable texts. Here's its formalization. Here's the graph. Horizontally, the chronology is plotted. Here are the generation numbers, from the first to the end's generation. Vertically, the frequencies are plotted. The number of mentions of characters who emerged in generation Q, it's some number. Initially, they are not mentioned, then their mentions more or less monotonically decrease on average, and with time, new characters emerge. Here's a theoretical model. If we now take the entire text, then for each line, the damping model of mentions of people who emerged in this epoch is visible. The further we go, the less frequently they are mentioned. This matrix describes the chronologically correct order of generation chapters in the text. But what if there is a duplicate in the text, if there is a repetition? If two fragments, two chapters, talk about the same events. Suppose events in epochs Q and R. It's a repeat, a duplicate of the text, then the picture will be completely different . Here's the distribution of frequencies of characters who were born in epoch Q. Before Q is zero, there's a spike in epoch Q, then a decline, and in epoch R again a spike. Supposedly these characters resurface here with a new damping. And if we plot a graph for this epoch, it will be zero because all the characters who were born in epoch R are already mentioned in epoch Q. This picture shows that there is a repeat, a duplicate in the text. One might suspect a chronological error. What should we see in the language of matrices? Zeroes below the diagonal, and along the diagonal, there are two bold lines. Here are the peaks, and here the peaks resurface. This means the presence of a duplicate, that the text is stitched together from two duplicates. The model was tested on reliable texts where duplicates are known to exist. It was confirmed and applied to texts that are considered to be without duplicates. Here's a very important example, the Bible. In the Bible, 170 fragments, generation chapters were defined. Here's the constructed matrix. A lot of work has been done on the Bible. The entire Bible has been processed. All references, all mentions of all characters have been counted. All frequencies, all histograms. A very strange picture emerges, which is absolutely unlike what we would expect to see if there were no duplicates or repetitions in the Bible. Here's a well-known duplicate, the Books of Chronicles and the Books of Kings. Here we found duplicates that biblical studies already knew about. The Books of Kings repeat the Books of Chronicles. This is the second narrative. So naturally, our methodology revealed these two parallel bold diagonals, indicating a well-known duplicate. But if that were all, then we wouldn't have said anything new. But it turns out that there are other duplicates in the Bible that have never been mentioned before. There are many of them, and their distribution is quite complex. Here they are shown in the table. They are very massive. These are duplicates of events, characters that arise here, then resurface here, here, here, here, and here. Here's a similar picture. These are massive repetitions. We're not talking about just one or two names. We're talking about dozens, hundreds of names. Here's a more detailed picture. This matrix is constructed for the Bible. It's more clearly visible here where the duplicates are located. The biblical books are labeled, and below are the duplicates, their place in the Bible. In particular, it turns out that there are massive repetitions in the Old Testament. Fragments marked with the same letters are repeated later. Here's K, then K again, K again. Here's N, N again. There are many repetitions of T, marked with triangles. These are fragments of texts where names, supposedly originating long before this epoch, unexpectedly reappear with the same frequency. Here's R, duplicate R, R, R. It's a rather complex picture. At first glance, it's not clear how it arose. Another example. The biblical book of Revelation. We have seen that from the perspective of astronomy, the Revelation receives a completely different date than what is written in textbooks today. It dates from the late 15th century AD, but today it is attributed to the beginning of the Common Era or long before that. We apply the method of the frequency damping for the mentioned names. So, let's look at the frequency graph of name mentions for the Revelation. It's striking. Look at the bottom. This is the numbering of generation chapters in the Old Testament of the Bible. This is how the picture should have looked if the traditional dating of the Revelation were correct. A splash and then damping. This is how the frequency graph in the Revelation should have appeared. But it's different. Look above. Here's number 0, 218. Here's where it spikes. Not at all where it should be. It's off by several hundred years back. This picture shows that the current location of the Revelation is incorrect, that it should be shifted from this position to the end of the text, and placed at the end of the Old Testament. Another methodology that also needs to be discussed is the method of processing dynasties described in ancient texts. Chroniclers described many royal dynasties. This is valuable information and, in fact, the backbone of chronicles. Chroniclers talk about the kings, about the wars in their era, what they did, how they succeeded each other, about unrests, and so on. Let's consider two dynasties described in the chronicles. Let's think about how, from a statistical point of view, information about the reign durations of the kings described in old texts could be processed. Let's formulate a model, a hypothesis, which we will conditionally call the small distortions principle. It sounds like this. If two dynasties reflected in annals A and B are slightly different, the annals in question refer to the same actual dynasty. That is, they are two versions of its description in different chronicles. In this case, we call such dynasties of annals dependent. On the contrary, if the two dynasties from annals A and B identify as the two actual dynasties, they differ considerably. We call them independent. The remaining pairs of dynasties shall be referred to as neutral. What lies at the foundation of this theoretical model? The next consideration is that different chroniclers did not distort the same actual dynasty much in their chronicles. This hypothesis requires experimental verification. In case of its validity, an important and far from obvious quality will be revealed, one that characterizes the activity of ancient chroniclers. Specifically, the dynasties of annals that appeared in the description of the same actual dynasty differ from one another, and from their prototype less than veritably different actual dynasties. Next, we found a numerical coefficient that measures the distance between two dynasties. The discovery of this coefficient is also not obvious. Here is a certain hypothetical mathematical model. These are real dynasties, represented as vectors. Their coordinates are the rain durations of the kings. It results in a vector in k-dimensional space. k is the number of kings. Each chronicle dynasty is represented by a point, a vector in this space. Chroniclers multiply it. In describing it, they make mistakes in counting how many years each king ruled. Therefore, it results in a cloud. Each bold point is multiplied and generates close points. These are virtual dynasties. This can be further processed. We found a coefficient that helps compare these dynasties. Here is a visual representation. This is dynasty A. These are the ordinal numbers of kings. The first, the second, and so on up to the k. And these are their rain durations. The first king, the second king, the third king. This is the second dynasty. Two graphs appear. These graphs can be compared. If the dynasties are independent, of course, we will not find anything similar. Different rulers, different eras, different rains. No correlations. Neither mathematically nor visually will be found. Furthermore, we developed a method that allows comparing these dynasties. These are some illustrations showing how this coefficient is calculated. I will skip these details. It turned out that this coefficient, which we discovered when applied to the processing of a priori dependent and a priori independent pairs of dynasties, showed that indeed, the coefficient distinguishes dependent pairs well, that is, pairs from the same era. Here the coefficient turned out to be small. Here is its value. And when we compare up priori independent, different dynasties, the coefficient turned out to be very large, 10 to the power of minus 3. This allows for the creation of a method for recognizing dependent and independent dynasties in assembly of texts. Further diagrams show the results of a very large numerical experiment processing hundreds of texts and dozens of pairs of dynasties, which were compared using this mathematical statistical method. Completely unexpected pairs of dynasties were identified, which are considered absolutely different, dissimilar, and belong to different eras today. However, from the perspective of comparing the graphs of rain durations, they are remarkably similar. It's not just about visual correlation, but about the fact that a certain coefficient introduced by us here is anomal small. It is as small as for pairs of up priori dependent dynasties. For example, here on the left is the Roman Empire, which today is dated from the 1st century BC to the 3rd century AD. And this is the next Roman Empire, from the 3rd century AD to the 6th century AD. On the right and left are the names of rulers. We align these two dynasties with a time shift, and you see a very strange, very good overlap, confirmed by a very small coefficient. Here is Tiberius, there Constantius, here is Caligula, there Julian, Pesenius Niger, Romulus Augustulus. This is something that according to Scallagier's chronology, cannot be. It is absurd, because these are completely different eras, supposedly different rulers, different kings, different dynasties. Nevertheless, from the perspective of mathematical methods, this is approximately the same era. And so on. Here's the arrangement of these two dynasties on the timeline. Here's another principle. The numbers show who overlaps with whom. One on one, two on two, seven on seven. This is one dynasty. This is the Roman Empire from the 3rd to the 6th century. And below is what we were talking about. The second Roman Empire from the 1st century BC to the 3rd century. The real location on the timeline is shown. It can be seen that the interval is slightly stretched here. And here it is slightly narrowed. But nevertheless, the correlation is very vivid and confirmed by formal calculations. And so on. This is the parallelism between the second Roman Empire, from the 1st century BC to the 3rd century, and then again from the 3rd to the 6th century. With a rigid shift, a very bright and unexpected correlation is visible. This is an analysis of the Bible. Here are the biblical kingdoms, the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah. Their overlap is shown when shifted. They are considered different, supposedly completely different dynasties, different epics, even geographically different, different capitals. Nevertheless, a vivid overlap of one set of kings with another. They have very close reign durations. And as seen from this picture, when placed on the timeline, they correlate strongly. Next, the Kingdom of Israel, described in the Bible. On the right is the dynastic stream from the Roman Empire from the 4th to the 5th centuries. Not all rulers on the right, but some. Again, a striking, unexpected correlation that completely contradicts Scaliger's chronology. Moving on. The Kingdom of Judah is also described in the Bible, with its capital in Jerusalem. The Eastern Roman Empire from the 4th to the 8th centuries AD, with its capital in New Rome. Again, on the right and left, a very bright, unexpected correlation. These are the reign durations. On the right, the reigns of the emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire. On the left, the reigns of the kings of Judah described in the Bible. Next, the overlap of two periods in the history of the Roman episcopate, from the 2nd century to the beginning of the 4th century, and the following period from the beginning of the 4th century to the middle of the 6th century. A very bright, unexpected correlation with a very small proximity coefficient. Next, the Carolingian Empire and the 3rd Roman Empire, today considered supposedly completely different epics, different kings, but there is a bright correlation. This same correlation is shown on the timeline. There are some distortions on the timeline, but they are not significant. There is a slight distortion here, but overall, one dynasty overlaps with another with striking correlation and a small coefficient. The next example, the Roman Empire from the 10th century to the 13th century. The medieval Roman Empire of the German nation. And this is the Roman Empire from the 4th to the 6th century, a completely different era. This is the same overlap on the timeline. Of course, there are some distortions in the center, but nevertheless, the reign durations correlate perfectly. This is one of the main parallels. This is the Holy Roman Empire from the 10th to the 13th century, and this is the ancient empire from the 3rd century to the middle of the 6th century. On the left, the same Holy Roman Empire of the 10th-13th centuries, on the right, the Habsburg Empire. This is an even later empire, from the 13th century to the 17th century. Also, a bright and unexpected correlation. This same correlation is shown on the timeline. The shift in dates is visible at the beginning. Here is the year 900, here is the 13th century. A shift of 362 years. And so on. I won't go into so much detail anymore. Many of these dynasties have been discovered. Absolutely all of them contradict Scallagier's chronology and at first glance, are perceived very unexpectedly. Nevertheless, formal processing pulls out these pairs from a huge reservoir of dynasties. And this needs to be somehow dealt with. This effect needs to be explained. The effect is very massive. These are not isolated examples. This is a kind of mass phenomenon. Here we go with these examples. Another vivid example. The Russian Horde Empire from the 13th century to the beginning of the 17th century. The Habsburg Empire without shifts, from the beginning of the 13th century to the beginning of the 17th century. The same overlap on the timeline. There are slight distortions in the dates, but the rain durations correlate perfectly, as seen on the graph. And so on. There are many of them. This is the overlap of two periods in Russian history. Specifically, the overlap of the period from the mid-10th century to the year 1100 and the following period from the mid-14th century to the beginning of the 16th century. Here is Vassily I, Vladimir the Great, Ivan the Great. Here is Svetlana, Yaroslav the Wise, and so on. Here is the same overlap in Russian history with a shift of several hundred years. Here is Dmitry Donskoy, and in an earlier era, his phantom reflection, Svetislav, Vassily I, Vladimir the Great, Vass III, Vladimir Monomakh, phantom reflections of later rulers. This is also a remarkable scheme. It is the duplication of information from the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, and the second duplicate is the Judean Israelite kingdom described in the Bible. Details are described here. It is clear that there is a lot of information. Each of these blocks is well known and discussed in works. These are famous events in the Middle Ages and in antiquity. Moving on. You are now seeing the overlap and duplication in English history. It starts in ancient times. One period in English history, another period in English history. One of them is a duplicate of the other. And the overlap with the history of Byzantium, England on the left, Byzantium on the right. Again, the overlap of English history with Byzantine history, with a shift. Very lengthy parallelism. Many rulers. The overlap of the Byzantine era of the Palaiologos, from the 13th to the 15th centuries, and at the top, the Plantagenet dynasty from the 12th to the 14th centuries. The same overlap on the timeline. Another overlap. Another example from ancient Greek history. The overlap of the history of monarchical Athens with a stream of Byzantine emperors from the 13th to the 15th centuries. The shifts are very significant, spanning hundreds of years. Overlaying the era of ancient Greece. The kings of Lacedaemon. The Euripentids. And on the right, the medieval despots of mistress. This is the 14th century and so forth. I'll skip these examples. How can we make sense of all this? What could it all mean? Here's the important result that summarizes everything. This was a very brief overview of a vast amount of material, which is detailed in several books, the references to which were provided at the beginning of our discussion. Now, how can we understand all of this? The general layout of duplicates in the textbook of Scaliger Petavius. The discovery of the three basic chronological shifts. Phantom sine wave. The main result I came up with in 1977 to 1979. Is that the Scaligerian textbook of ancient and medieval history is a collation of four virtually identical shorter chronicles. Shifted by approximately 333. 1050. And 1800 years against their medieval original. This is a certain formal result. Here is a diagram showing what happened. There is an original text that describes events roughly from the 10th century AD to the beginning of the 17th century. Then it was duplicated. By duplicating the information, some texts were shifted into the past, resulting in a longer chronicle. It is indicated by these letters and see one in the picture. Then this chronicle was duplicated once, twice, three, four times. And shifted back in time. Ideally, these different chronicles should have been glued together, overlaying them without any time shift. A mistake was made. The original of this chronicle was first shifted back by approximately 300 years, then further back by 1050 years. And the deepest shift by 1800 years. After that, these chronicles were glued together, resulting in a long chronicle that covers a very long time interval, supposedly from ancient times to the beginning of the 17th century. But, in this chronicle repetitions appeared. The statement is absolutely unexpected and very nontrivial. This is indeed Scaliger's textbook, which we have been talking about from the very beginning. This is a long textbook, a long chronicle, but it contains repetitions. There are passages that talk about the same events. In fact, these are phantom reflections of events located in the interval from the 10th century to the beginning of the 17th century. That is, the entire textbook was created by repeatedly duplicating these blocks of events by shifting them far into the past by different time intervals. Above is another remarkable graph. It's the Bible. This is the overlap of the Bible. It turned out that the Bible is also a chronicle, covering events from the supposedly distant past to the beginning of the 17th century in Scaliger's chronology. It also contains duplicates. This is part of Scaliger's textbook, a smaller part of it, a subset. The originals are located in the interval from the 10th century AD to the 17th century. Then, by duplicating this information, a longer chronicle with repetitions was obtained. This is a summary that shows how a very short original chronicle became a very long one. But it contains repetitions. This is a more detailed graph showing how the information is duplicated, which epics repeat each other. Identical letters indicate identical duplicates. For example, this letter T and that letter T are duplicates in this very long chronicle. I won't go into detail about names and epics here. It is evident that there is a lot of information. It is confusing and not straightforward. But I repeat, the structure is very simple. One short chronicle is glued four times to itself with shifts, resulting in a long chronicle. This is another example showing the overlap of the Bible on European history. This overlap is based on volume functions. I won't go into detail about it anymore. And here's another image. This is a chronological map that details all the duplicates, marking all the rulers and the years of their reign. Now I'll scroll through it all, so you can see how much information was processed. A system of shifts was extracted from it. Look at these dates, the names of the rulers, the shifts in time, the different epics. This is how it was all compiled, then encoded and processed using a computer. Here are the detected duplicates. These are the shifts. Here's one epic, another epic. Here are two duplicates. Here's another duplicate. Here's another pair of duplicates. And so on. All of this is located on the timeline. This is a visual representation of how Scallager's textbook is structured. It contains repetitions, and they all come from the era from the 10th century to the beginning of the 17th century. Now let's take a little break from statistics. There's been a lot of information. Now let's ask the question. How are dates recorded in antiquity? This observation becomes clear and natural from the perspective of the previous discussion. And it explains a lot. The letter "X" had formerly denoted the name of Christ, but was eventually declared to stand for the figure of 10. The letter "I" or "J", examples will be shown later, formerly denoted the name Jesus, but was eventually declared to stand for 1000. One of the main chronological shifts has the value of 1050 or 1150 years, or roughly a millennium. It could have resulted from the collision of two different date recording systems used by later chronologists. The first method employed the abbreviated form of recording. For instance, the 3rd century since Christ could be recorded as X.3, where "X" being the first letter of the Greek word "Horistus" - Christ. The letter "X" is one of the prevalent medieval anagrams for the name of Christ. Thus, the phrase "Christ's 1st century" when abbreviated, could read as "X.1". "Christ's 2nd century" as "X.2" and so on. These abbreviations may have affected the contemporary designation of centuries. However, at some point, medieval chronologists suggested that the letter "X" in the beginning of a date should be interpreted as the figure of "10". This interpretation automatically adds a thousand years to the initial date. Hence the erroneous dating, a thousand years more ancient than the real one. This hypothesis concurs well with the known fact that medieval Italians designated centuries by hundreds. Trecento, or the 300s, the 14th century, quattrocento, or the 400s, the 15th century, cinquecento, or the 500s, the 16th century. However, these names of centuries point directly at the 11th century AD, making it the initial point of chronological reference, since they ignore the consensual addition of the extra millennium. Apparently, medieval Italians knew nothing of this millennium. As we are beginning to realize, the reason was very simple, this extra millennium never existed. Furthermore, the Latin letter "I", the first letter of the word "Isus", which is the Greek spelling of the name "Jesus", could have been the abbreviation of this name initially. Thus, the year 1300 for instance, might have originally been transcribed as "I.300", that is, year 300 since Jesus, written the Greek way. This recording method conforms with the previous, because I.300, that is year 300 of Jesus is year 300 from the beginning of the 11th century AD, or the 12th century, which is more correct. In this respect, we believe the next important fact to be worthy of special attention. In medieval documents, especially those of the 14th-17th century, with dates written in letters, the initial symbol believed to symbolize millennia today was separated from the rest of the symbols used for tens or hundreds, by documents. Here are some examples. Please take a look. This is a date, and now we'll see it, but it's upside down, supposedly 1595. And we see "I", followed by a dot, then 595. From Jesus, the year 595, not a thousand. Apparently, this is how a shift of a thousand years could have occurred. Another well-known medieval print. Here's the date, and now we'll zoom in, supposedly 1706, which is the 18th century. "I", dot, 706. From Jesus, the year 706, not 1706. Another example is from Dürer's drawing. Here's the date, it's Albrecht Dürer, his monogram. Today historians read it as 1524. Unlikely. We zoom in and see "I", D, 524, from Jesus, the year 524. This places the birth of Christ somewhere in the 11th-12th centuries, not in the 1st century AD. A shift of a thousand years. Another print, there are many of them. This is just one example. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of such prints. At the top is the date. It's believed to be the inventor of gunpowder, Schwartz. Zoom in on the date and see "I". There's no dot here, but still, there's "I", 380, the year 380 from Jesus. More examples from modern Western museums. If you stroll through contemporary museums in Europe, you'll see dates. Here it says "J, 670". For Jesus, there were two initial letters, "I" and "J", Jesus in English, for example. This isn't a number, it's the letter "J". Previously, it wasn't a numeral, it was a name. Here's an enlargement of "J, 670". Jesus, 670 AD. Another example. This is Germany. Also, "J" instead of the figure of one. Later, it was declared to stand for the figure of one. Initially, it was the letter "J, 603". In a museum in France, there are old chests. Today, this date is read as 1788. Again, it's the letter "J" for Jesus. And so on. Again, instead of the figure of one, the letter "J" for Jesus. Another date. Again, the letter "J". These aren't isolated examples, it's a mass phenomenon. There are dozens and hundreds of such examples. The first letter is "J". Here's the letter "I", then comes the figure of five. The letter "I", then 77. Today it's considered 1577. Unlikely. This is the letter for Jesus. From Jesus, 577. The initial point of reference was the 11th or 12th century. Here's the enlargement. This is a kind of interim summary. Take a look at this diagram. Here, dates are plotted along the timeline. From minus the 5th century to the beginning of the 17th century. These are shifts in dating according to the new chronology. Let's go through this table. I've talked about some things, and some I haven't. Let's start from the bottom. The zodiacs of Athribus, ancient Egypt. Here's their dating, as it's written in textbooks today. Here's what astronomy gives us. A shift, at least, of a thousand years forward. The zodiacs of Dendera, we've talked about them. Minus the first century and the first century, according to the chronology of modern historians. A shift forward of approximately a thousand years. This is the 12th century. Almagest, which I mentioned. Today we're told that it's supposedly the 2nd century AD. Not true. This is a shift forward to the era from the 7th to the 14th centuries. And apparently, this is the era when its star catalog was created. The eclipse, according to Titus Livy. I didn't mention this, but here's an example. Today in the textbook, it's the 2nd century BC. With unbiased, formal, careful dating, a shift forward, and for Titus Livy's eclipse, you get the 10th or the beginning of the 11th century. The famous Thucydides triad I spoke of. With some strain, it's dated to the 5th century BC. Everywhere strained interpretations were made. And with Titus Livy, astronomers made strains to forcibly fit this description here. The stars were made with Thucydides. With accurate, precise dating without strains and without errors, we get two dates. The most reliable is the 12th century AD. A shift forward, an error in the chronology of ancient Greece, of at least 1500 years. Our explosion from the 2nd century also shifts to the 13th century. Jesus Christ from the 1st century AD shifts forward to the years 1152 to 1185. That's the second half of the 12th century. This is where the beginning of the Common Era was, where the birth of Christ occurred. A shift of a thousand years. That's why we see the letter "X" dot, the letter "J" dot. That's the shift, the error of a thousand years in dating texts. We talked about the Revelation. Today we're told that it's supposedly from the 1st or 2nd centuries AD. In reality, it the end of the 15th century, the crucifixion of Christ. Today we're told it's supposedly the year 33. According to the New Chronology, it's the year 1185. The star of Bethlehem, supposedly around the year 0, the birth of Christ. With the shift according to the New Chron , it's a supernova explosion in the year 1152 AD. These are some examples. After such a variety of facts, let's provide a summary to make it clear and put it all in order a bit. Conclusions. Hypothesis. History, as described in Surviving Chronicles, only begins around the 10th century AD. We know nothing of the events that took place before the 10th century AD. Let us summarize. The disintegration of the Global Chronological Map, or the Skaligerian textbook of ancient history, that we have discovered, leads to a very important assertion. Namely, almost every event from the Skaligerian textbook dating from epochs preceding roughly 1000 AD, consists of phantom duplicates. Their medieval originals are located on the time interval of 1000 to 1650 AD. In particular, every event dated to earlier epochs in Skaligerian textbook is a sum of several, mostly, two, three or four, medieval events. In other words, Skaligerian textbook is a stratified chronicle, pasting together four, virtually identical pieces shifted in relation to one another. Here I'll skip, and conclude. In general, the outline of the Global Chronology was created in the 16-17th century and described in the works of Skal and Petavius. It is precisely here that the last period ends, after having traveled backwards in time due to chronological errors and spanning the phantom ancient duplicates. This is very important. The application of our empiricostatistical methods to the period of 1600 to 1900 AD has detected no phantom duplicates, which proves the chronological outline of 1600 to 1900 to be reliable as a whole. The Skaligerian textbook originated from the shorter chronicle as a result of chronological errors that we have talked about, as well as intentional distortions of medieval history. About the reasons for this, I refer you to our books, The Empire, Biblical Russia, and Western European Myth. The discovered disintegration of the Skaligerian textbook into a sum of four short chronicles is not accidental at all. Quite the opposite, we have come across traces of a fairly deliberate creation of artificially elongated history, which the chronologists of the 16-17th century were actively involved in. We also obtain a preliminary answer to the two following fundamental questions. 1. What was the actual history like? And 2. How and why did it give birth to the Skaligerian textbook? Apparently, actual history, or the history described in written sources that have reached to our time, begins from the 10-11th century AD and on. Likely, this is our hypothesis, only in the 10th century did writing emerge. The period from the 11th to the 17th centuries is described both in medieval chronicles and in ancient sources, which now should be placed back to their original period. The 11th to the 17th centuries. As a result, the medieval history known to us will become richer and more illuminated. We will learn much new about it. Biblical history fits into the interval between the 10th century and 16th century AD. At the end of this section, I will reiterate this idea once again in other words, so that it is understood by the listeners and viewers. This narrative is not simple, so I will repeat this thought again, but slightly differently. Apparently, authentic history only begins in the 17th century AD. History of the 11th-16th centuries is largely distorted. Many dates of the 11th-16th centuries require correction. The chronological outline, which was shown earlier, leads to the need for shifting certain events of the 10th-13th centuries forwards by approximately 330 or 360 years, since they might date from the Habsburg epoch of the 14th-17th centuries. Furthermore, the same map proves that Skaligerian datings can be relied upon starting from the beginning of the 17th century AD only. History of the 14th-16th centuries is largely distorted. The alteration of dates might not be as grave as it is in case of earlier epochs. However, the Skaligerian school introduced major distortions into the interpretation of many important events of the 14th-17th centuries. The actual count of years of the new era starting from the birth of Christ in 1152 AD, or, according to the erroneous medieval tradition reconstructed by us, from 1053 AD, might add at least 50 to 150 years to the datings of books considered published in the 15th-16th centuries. The same applies to the lifetimes of kings, military commanders, writers, poets, painters and sculptors who lived in the 14th-16th centuries. Many of them may have lived 50 or 150 years closer to our time. Here's a summary. And now, in conclusion. We have talked about the results described in our seven-volume series. But after these results were obtained, we were compelled to continue our research. Many asked us, "Suppose you, as mathematicians, statisticians, are correct. Suppose there are major errors in chronology. Suppose that indeed Isaac Newton, Morozov, Hardwin, Robert Baldauf, and you have noticed the need for a radical change in chronology, a change in dates. Then what was the real history?" At first, we thought that we, as mathematicians, proposed methods, we created a new chronology. In this chronology, the datings of zodiacs are absolute dates. These are very important milestones, driven into the timeline on which hangs the history of Egypt, all events of Europe , the Middle East, events described in the Bible. We provided a certain scheme, gave a certain framework. We provided a new backbone of dates, which have been astronomically, mathematically, statistically verified. And anyone, as we emphasize, can take all these materials and, after spending some time, recheck them. All necessary materials are posted on our websites and in books, methods are described, all tables are posted. Anyone interested can verify our datings. The Horus Zodiac dating program is provided. We also provided the decoding data. Anyone interested can use this program to verify that the Round Dendera Zodiac is the end of the 12th century of the Common Era, not the beginning of the Common Era, as ancient history lecturers explain to students nowadays. We assumed that after this, historians would analyze the new chronology and attempt, at least in the form of a hypothesis, to construct some new version, to reconstruct events that should have followed the milestones of reliable absolute dates we established, for example, with the help of astronomy. However, unfortunately, this did not happen. Historians have many other things to do. The material is not easy. To understand it, one needs to have a certain basis, a foundation of knowledge in calendar theory, statistics, astronomy, and mathematics. These are the lectures that would be given to history students at the history department today. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We hope it will be. But we were constantly asked, "What is the true history?", at least in the form of your hypothesis. We were forced to do the work that, as we expected, historians should do. We wrote several books that outlined our version. This is a hypothesis. Unlike the previous material, it is not a theorem, it is a hypothesis, and we do not insist on it. We offer our vision of history, chronology, based on the ancient texts known to us today, but with new dates, which are reliably established and can be rechecked. We wrote several books. I will now list these books. They come after the seven volumes set, and they contain new results, new astronomy, and statistics, but they present hypotheses of what the genuine history was like. In the book titled "Ancient Zodiacs of Egypt and Europe", previously known and newly discovered by us, zodiacs are compiled. To date, we have found more than 80 zodiacs. We have dated them. I repeat, these are 80 reliable dates that are plotted on the timeline, and all these dates fall within the interval from the 10th century to the beginning of the 17th century. In this book, some of these zodiacs are described in detail and dated. Next, the book "New Chronology of Egypt", about which we briefly spoke earlier. Zodiacs and information from the history of Egypt are analyzed, and at the end, a large table is provided showing the arrangement of Egypt's dynasties, famous pharaohs in the interval from the 10th to the 17th century. Another book on this topic is "Egyptian, Russian, and Italian Zodiacs". I mentioned an example of the Russian zodiac. The zodiac is remarkable, and for some reason, historians had not noticed it before. You can visit the Armory Chamber in the Moscow Kremlin and look at Ivan the Terrible's famous throne. Right in front on the throne and on its sides are images that unequivocally reproduce the zodiac for the date of Ivan the Terrible's birth. This book talks about it in detail. Next is the book "Zar of the Slavs", which studies the history of Jesus Christ, dating his birth to the mid-12th century and the crucifixion in 1185. It details the dating of his biography based on ancient texts like the "Palea" and with the help of astronomy. It's a very detailed book. Next is the "Foundation of Rome, the beginning of the Russia Horde, after Christ, the Trojan War". Comment. The famous Trojan War did not occur in the 13th century BC, but at the beginning of the 13th century AD. The minus sign should be replaced with a plus sign, resulting in a shift in dating, compared to modern history textbooks of at least 2500 years. The Trojan War was a retaliation for the crucifixion of Christ. Baptism of Russia Paganism and Christianity, the baptism of the Empire, Constantine the Great, Dmitry Donskoye. The Battle of Kulikovo is described in the Bible. Sergius of Radonezh is the inventor of firearms, dating of the Bayou Tapestry. This is a famous medieval tapestry. It turns out, its dating also shifts forward by several hundred years. The next work, "The Imperial Rome in the Interfluve of the Akha and Volga Rivers". The next book, "Cossacks Aryans, from Russia to India". The next book, "Forgotten Jerusalem". Istanbul, in the light of the new chronology. Next, "Christ in Russia". The next book, "The Conquest of America by Yermak Kortez and the Reformation Rebellion through the Eyes of Ancient Greeks". The next book, "Lost Gospels, new information about Andronikos Christ". Next is the book, "Fall of the Empire, from the Ivan the Terrible Nero to Mikhail Romanov Demission". The next book is, "Christ was born in Crimea, where the Virgin Mary also passed away". Next is, "Heracles, a Greek myth of the 16th century". The following book is, "The Prophet Conqueror, a unique biography of Muhammad". The tablets of Moses, the Yaroslavl meteorite of 1421, the invention of Damascus steel, Phaeothan. Next book is, "Old Maps of the Great Russian Empire, Ptolemy and Ortelius, in the light of the new chronology". The following book is, "Shahnameh, Iranian Chronicle of the Great Empire from the 12th to the 17th centuries". The next book is, "What Shakespeare really wrote about. From Hamlet Christ to King Lear, Ivan the Terrible". I will read the annotation to clarify what this book is about. All the results presented in the book, were recently obtained, they are new. The new chronology sheds a new and unexpected light on Shakespeare's remarkable works. It turns out that such famous plays as Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, Tymon of Athens, Henry VIII, and Titus Andronicus are based on real events from the 12th to the 16th centuries that unfolded in the great empire. Prince Hamlet turns out to be a reflection of Andronicus Christ, Andrei Bogolubsky, and John the Baptist. King Lear is a reflection of Khan Ivan the Terrible. King Macbeth is the biblical King Herod. Tymon of Athens is Judas Iscariot. King Henry VIII is again Ivan the Terrible. Queen Anne Boleyn is Elena of Wallachia, also known as Esther in the Bible. Let's move on. We wrote a brief textbook titled "How it actually happened - a reconstruction of true history". Our hypothesis of how everything really happened is presented here, as reflected in the title. Next is "The Vatican". Zodiac of Astronomy, Istanbul and the Vatican, Chinese horoscopes. How it actually happened. This is a new series. "The Wonder of the World in Russia near Kazan". Turns out, the first Kaaba was in Balar near Kazan in Russia. Moses struck water from the rock here. The famous ancient Delphi with an oracle was located in Crimea on Cape Fiolent, where Christ was born. The next book is "Dr. Faust. Christ through the eyes of the Antichrist". Why was the story of Faust created? The destructive purpose of François Rabelais' novel. The ship Vasa is the last ship of antiquity. Next is a book "Don Quixote or Ivan the Terrible", also from the series "How it actually happened". The following book from this series is "God of War". Next is "The Last Journey of the Holy Family". Then, Buddha and Krishna are reflections of Christ. Every story wants to be told. Jüland Speigel and Gulliver. Anti-gospels of the 16th-18th centuries. The names Jüland Speigel and Gulliver are well known. Today, Jüland Speigel is considered a jester, a vagabond, a rogue, a prankster, a fighter against the Spanish yoke in the Netherlands. Gulliver is known as a traveler who became a giant in the land of Lilliputians, and then a Lilliputian in the land of giants. Films, theatrical performances, musical plays, and children's books are dedicated to these characters. This is our hypothesis. Jüland Speigel and Gulliver are two mocking parodies of Jesus Christ. That is, they are anti-gospels created in the 16th-18th centuries. Earlier, authors had already discovered similar propaganda works. In particular, in the book "Dr. Faust. Christ Through the Eyes of the Antichrist", it is shown that the famous story of Faust is an anti-gospel, a mocking distortion of the history of Jesus aimed at splitting the Church and society during the Western European Re era. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the book "Don Quixote or Ivan the Terrible", Cervantes' famous novel was also created as a malicious mockery of the Tsar Khan Ivan IV the Terrible, who ruled the Great Horde Empire in the 16th century. Alongside these works is the story of Jüland Speigel and Jonathan Swift's novel "Gulliver's Travels". The next book is "Utopias and Socialism as Struggles Against Russia Horde". And finally, we come to an end. A recently released book is "The Incas Came to America from Russia Horde". And the last book is "The Mount of Christ and the Virgin Mary". Tristan and Azolda, just released from the series, how it actually happened. Let's conclude this introductory lecture here. Those interested can turn to our books and find a lot of new, interesting information there. You don't need to read all the books. I recommend reading a couple. The first book of the seven-volume set is "Introduction". It discusses the issue of chronology, our datings, and our methods, which we created based on mathematics, statistics. It will give a general understanding of how the new chronology works, and what the true history was, which is our hypothesis. That's all. Thank you.
Introduction to the New Chronology: Part 2
Introduction to the New Chronology: Part 2 – Library of Rickandria