go

A.T.Fomenko,G.V.Nosovskij.Newchronologyandnewconceptoftheenglishhistory.Britishempireasadirectsuccessorofbyzantine-romanempire

---------------------------------------------------------------CopyrightA.T.Fomenko,G.V.Nosovskij---------------------------------------------------------------

(SHORTSCHEME)

ABSTRACT

ThisarticleisdevotedtotheinvestigationoftraditionalversionofEnglishchronologyandEnglishhistory.Itshouldbementionedthatthistraditionwasestablishedonlyin15-17thcc.(andespeciallybyScaligerandPetavius)asaresultofattemptstoconstructtheglobalchronologyofEuropeandAsiaatthattime.TheresultsofourinvestigationshowthatmodernversionofEnglishhistory(whichisinfactaslightlymodernizedversionof15-16thcc.),wasartificiallyprolongedbackwardandbecamemuchmorelongasitwasinreality.TherealhistoryofEngland,asitwasreflectedinwrittendocuments,wasmuchmoreshort.Thesameistrueforothercountries.Incorrectversion,ancientandmedievalEnglisheventsaretobetransferredtotheepochwhichbeginsfrom9-10thcc.Moreover,manyoftheseeventsprovetobethereflectionsofcertaineventsfromrealByzantine-Romanhistoryof9-15thcc.Consequently,theGreatBritainEmpireisadirectsuccessorofmedievalByzantineEmpire.ThiseffectforEnglishhistorycorrespondstothesimilar"shorteningeffects"fortraditionalhistoriesofothercountries(Italy,Greece,Egypt,Russiaetc.).Sucheffectswerediscoveredearlierbytheauthors(seeourpreviouspublications).Adiscussionofthewholeproblemofglobalchronologyandahistoryofthisproblemonecanfindin[1],[24].Englishhistoryisnotanexemptionfromthe"rule".Wedonotthinkthatallspeculationswhicharesuggestedherearefinalones.Surely,theyaresubjecttofurthercorrectionsandclarification.Nevertheless,thegeneralconceptisquiteclearandseemstobeafinalone.TheaimofpresentworkisonlytopresentmainpointsofournewversionofreconstructionoftherealEnglishhistory.

CONTENTS1.INTRODUCTION2.BRIEFREVIEWOFTRADITIONALENGLISHHISTORY

2.1.ThemostoldEnglishchronicles

2.1.1.TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle.2.1.2.Nennius'"HistoriaBrittonum"2.1.3.GalfridusMonemutensis'"HistoriaBrittonum"."HistoiresofthekingsofBritainbyGeoffreyofMonmouth"2.1.4.SomeotheroldEnglishchronicles

2.2.Whatwerethemedievalnamesformoderncities,nationsandcountriesaccordingtoancientEnglishchronicles?

2.3.AnoverviewoftraditionalconceptofEnglishhistory

2.3.1.ScotlandandEngland:twoparallel"dynasticstreams"2.3.2.Englishhistory.Epochfrom1stto445A.D.EnglandastheRomancolony2.3.3.Epochfrom445to830.Sixkingdomsandtheirunion2.3.4.Epochfrom830to1040.TheepochisfinishedbyDanishconquestandthenbydisintegrationofDutchkingdominEngland2.3.5.Epochfrom1040to1066.EpochoftheOldAnglo-Saxondynastyandit'sfall2.3.6.Epochfrom1066to1327.Normandynastyandafterit-Anjoudynasty.TwoEdwards2.3.7.Epochfrom1327to1602.

3.PARALLELSBETWEENENGLISHANDBYZANTINE-ROMANHISTORY.GREATBRITAINEMPIREASTHEDIRECTSUCCESSOROFMEDIEVALBYZANTINE-ROMANEMPIRE

3.1.RoughcomparisonofdynasticstreamsofEnglandandByzantine-Romanempire

3.2.DynastyparallelismbetweenancientandmedievalEnglandfromonesideandmedievalByzantineempirefromanotherside.GeneralconceptofcorrespondencebetweenEnglishandByzantinehistories

3.3.Somedetailsofdynasticparallelism("parallelismtable")

3.3.1.Englishhistoryof640-830A.D.andByzantinehistory378-553A.D.275-yearshift3.3.2.Englishhistoryof800-1040andByzantinehistoryof553-830.Rigid275-yearshift3.3.3.Englishhistoryof1040-1327andByzantinehistoryof1143-1453.Rigid120-yearshift

4.CORRECTENGLISHHISTORYISMORESHORTINTIMEBUTMUCHMOREDENSEINEVENTSTHANITISSUGGESTEDBYTEXTBOOKS

4.1.OurnewconceptofEnglishhistory

4.2.InwhichwaytheByzantinechronicleswereinsertedintothemedievalEnglishhistory(oftheislandAnglia)?

5.OLDENGLISHCHRONICLESASORIGINALDOCUMENTSWHICHSPEAKABOUTREALEVENTSOF10-13thCENTURIES

5.1.RomanconsulBrutus-thefirstwhoconqueredBritain(andthefirstkingofbritts)

5.2.ConsulBrutusofEnglishchronicles-washeacontemporaryofJuliusCaesar?

5.3.BiblicaleventsinEnglishchronicles

5.4.Doweinterpretancienttextsinaproperway?Problemofvowelsrestoration

5.5.Geographyandchronologyofbiblicalevents

5.5.1.Problemswithtraditionalgeographicallocalizations5.5.2.WhereancientTroywaslocated?5.5.3.WhereMosestraveledinreality?

5.6.WhyEnglishchroniclessuggestedthatbothRussiaandEnglandwerelocatedonislands?

5.7.WherewasthelandBritainwhichwasconqueredbyBrutuslocated?Inwhatdirectionhisfleetcruised?

5.8.WithwhomBrutusfightswhileconqueringofBritain=Albania?

5.9.WithwhomJuliusCaesarfightswhileconqueringofBritain=Albania?

5.10.WherewasLondonlocatedin10-11thcc.A.D.?

5.11.Whowerescotsin10-12thcc.A.D.andweredidtheylive?WherewasScotlandlocatedin10-12thcc.A.D.?

5.12.FiveoriginallanguagesofancientBritain.Whichnationsusedtheselanguagesandwheredidtheylivein10-12thcc.A.D.?

5.13.WherewerelocatedsixoriginalEnglishkingdomsBritain,Kent,Sussex,Wessex,EssexandMerciain10-12thcc.A.D.?

5.14.AshiftoforiginallyByzantinemaptothelandofmodernGreatBritainresultedinduplicatingofmanygeographicalterms

5.15.WilliamItheConquerorandHastingsbattlein1066A.D.Thefourthcrusadein1204A.D.

5.15.1.Twowell-knownwarsinEnglandandByzantineempirehavethesameorigin5.15.2.EnglishversionofWilliamtheConquerorstory5.15.3.ByzantineversionoftheConstantinople'sconqueror5.15.4.AlistofcorrespondencesbetweeneventsfromByzantineandEnglishchronicles

5.16.MedievalRussiafromthepointofviewofEnglishchronicles.WhendidapostlePaulwritehismessagetogalatsandwhotheywere?

REFERENCES

1.INTRODUCTION

Thisworkbelongstothescopeofinvestigationscarriedoutbyauthorsinordertogiveacriticalanalysisofancientandmedievalchronology,andalso-totryareconstructionofrealancientchronology.ThewholehistoryoftheproblemonecanfindinA.T.Fomenko'sbooks[1],[24].Inthesebookssomenewstatisticalmethodsofobtainingtruedatesforancienteventsrecordedinoldchroniclesweresuggested.Asaresult,anewchronologyofEurope,Asia,EgyptandNorthernAfricabasedonastatisticalinvestigationofancienttexts,wassuggestedin[1],[24].OnealsocanfindtherealistofallpublicationsbyA.T.Fomenkoandhiscolleaguesdevotedtochronologicalproblems.Thisnewconceptofglobalhistoryandchronologyconfirmssomeideaswhichwereexpressedbydifferentscientistsin16-20thcc.ThemostimportantwereideasoffamousRussianscientistN.A.Morozov(1854-1946)whohadanextremelywiderangeofscientificinterestsinmanydifferentbranchesofnaturalscienceandhistory.VeryinterestingworksdevotedtotheproblemsoftraditionalchronologywerewrittenbyIsaacNewton,J.Gardouin,R.Baldauf,E.Johnsonandothers.Asaresultofapplicationofstatisticalmethodstohistoricalscience,A.T.Fomenkodiscovereda"fiberstructure"ofourmodern"textbookinancientandmedievalhistory".Insuchawaywewillcallamodernchronologicaltraditioninhistorywhichisexpressedinallourtextbooks.Itwasprovedthatthis"textbook"consistoffourmoreshort"textbooks"whichspeakaboutthesameevents,thesamehistoricalepochs.Theseshort"textbooks"werethenshiftedonewithrespecttootheronthetimeaxisandthengluedtogetherpreservingtheseshifts.Theresultisourmodern"textbook"whichshowsthehistorymuchlongerthanitwasinreality.Tobemoreprecise,wespeakhereonlyabouta"written"history,i.e.,suchhistorywhichleftit'stracesinwrittendocumentswhichfinally,aftertheircertainevolution,wepossesstoday.Ofcoursebeforeit,therewasalong"pre-written"history,butinformationaboutitislost.Resumeisasfollows.Historywhichweinprinciplecouldlearnabouttoday,startsonlyin9-10thcc."A.D."(i.e.,1100-1200yearsago).Andtheveryname"A.D."attachedtotheerawhichweusenow,isnotcorrect.NewresultsconcerningtheproblemofreconstructionofrealancientchronologyonecanfindintwolastFomenko'sbooks[4,5]devotedtohistoryandchronology.Animportantsteptothereconstructionofrealancientchronologywasmadebypublicationofabook[3]writtenbyA.T.Fomenko,V.V.KalashnikovandG.V.Nosovskij.Inthisbookthetruedateofcompilationofafamousancientscientificmanuscript,thePtolemy's"Almagest",was(approximately)determinedasaresultofstatisticalanalysisofnumericalastronomicaldatainthe"Almagest".Traditionallyitisassumedthatthe"Almagest"wascompilednotlaterthanin2ndc.A.D.In[3]itisprovedthattherealdateofit'scompilationbelongstothetimeintervalfrom7thcenturyto13thcenturyA.D.Later,in1992-1993,A.T.FomenkoandG.V.NosovskijappliednewstatisticalmethodstoRussianhistory.InRussianhistorytherealsowerediscoveredchronologicalshiftsandduplicates.Itprovestobeverymuchdifferentfromwell-knownversionofRussianhistorywhichwassuggestedinepochofRomanovdynastyreigninRussia.Thebook"ChronologyandGeneralConceptofRussianHistory"byA.T.FomenkoandG.V.Nosovskijisbeing

printed(inRussian).In1992-1993authorsrecognizedthatthehistoryofdevelopmentofEnglishchronologyandEnglishhistoryitselfisaveryinterestingandimportantpointinthewholescopeofglobalchronologyreconstruction.InouranalysisofRussianolddocumentsitwasnecessarytousealsosomeEnglishdocuments.Andimmediatelywecameuponseveralsuchamazingfactsthat,itbecomequitecleartousthatEnglishhistory(whichisrather"spoiled"inmodern"textbook")givesnewandimportantinformationtothereconstructionofrealchronologyofEuropeandAsia.Wetriedourbesttomakethisworkindependentfromourpreviousworks.Nevertheless,suchdependenceexists.ThatiswhywerecommendtoanyonewhoreallywantstounderstandthewholeproblemofreconstructiontheEnglishhistoryasitasinreality,tolookthroughmentionedabovebooksandscientificpublicationsbyauthors.Webelievethatthisworkisgoodforthebeginninganditcouldserveasastartingpointtothereader.Wetriedtoavoidcitationfromotherourworkshere(asfarasitwaspossible).ItispleasureforustothankMrs.LauraAlexander(USA)forherexcellentassistanceinarrangingmaterialsconcerningEnglishhistory.HerenergyverymuchinspiredourworkonEnglishhistory.WethankT.N.FomenkoforseveralgoodideaswhichimprovedsomeofourresultsconcerningparallelsbetweenEnglishandByzantinehistoryandalsoforvaluableremarkswhichmadethistextbetter.

2.BRIEFREVIEWOFTRADITIONALCONCEPTOFENGLISHHISTORY

2.1.ThemostoldEnglishchronicles

2.1.1.TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle.

Tounderstandamaterialwearegoingtopresenthere,itwouldbebetterifareaderknowsmainthingsfromEnglish,RomanandByzantinehistory.AstoRomanandByzantinehistory,weassumethatitismoreorlessthecase.ButoldEnglishhistoryisnotsogenerallywell-known.Thatiswhywearegoingtopresenthereabriefreviewof"Englishhistorytextbook".Surely,wecouldsimplysuggestthatareaderlooksthroughoneofmodernbooksconcernedwithEnglishhistorybeforehereadsthispaper.Butallsuchbooksarenecessarilythesecondarytextswhich,infact,copyaninformationfrommoreoldtextsanddocumentsdevotedtoEnglishhistory.Theproblemisthatthiscopingprovestobenotsogood(partofinformationislost).Thatiswhyweprefertoanalysemedievalhistoricaltextsthemselvesratherthenmoderntextbooks,whicharebasedonthem.Animportantadvantageofthesemedievaltextsisthattheywerewrittenmoreclosetothetimeofcreationofnowtraditionalglobalchronologicalversion(itwasI.Scaliger'sone).Ourexperiencesaysthataninformationaboutoldhistorywasbeenlostwhilepublishingnewandnewtextbooksfromthattimeuptonow.Medievaltextsaremorevaluableforreconstructionofrealhistory.OuranalysiswasbasedmostlyonthreefamousmedievalEnglishchronicles:Anglo-SaxonChronicle[2],Nennius'"HistoriaBrittonum"[8]andGalfridusMonemutensis'"HistoriaBrittonum"[9].Infact,thesetextsformabasisformodernconceptofold

andmedievalEnglishhistory.Alsoweusedwell-known"ChronologicalTables"whichwerecompiledbyJ.Blair[6]in18thc.-beginningof19thc.Thesefundamentaltablescoverallhistoricalepochswhichseemedimportanttoexpertsintheendof19thcentury.Nowitisassumedthatso-called"legendary"EnglishhistorystartedfromthetimeofTrojanwar,i.e.,in12-13thcc.B.C.Neverthelessa1000-yearperiodfromTrojanwartotheepochofJuliusCaesar(1stc.B.C.)isconsideredusuallyasa"darktime".Fromthetimeofcreationandestablishmentofmodernchronologicalconcept(byI.ScaligerandD.Petaviusin16-17thcc.)itwasassumedthat"written"Englishhistorystartsfrom60B.C.whenJuliusCaesarconqueredtheBritishislands.ButitisknowntodaythatdocumentsspeakaboutEnglishhistoryonlyfromapproximately1A.D.,i.e.fromthereinofOctavianAugustus.Itwasthe1A.D.whenAnglo-SaxonChroniclebeganitsrecords([2],p.4).TheAnglo-SaxonChronicleconsistsofseveralseparatemanuscripts:

ManuscriptA:TheParkerChronicle(60B.C.-A.D.1070),ManuscriptB:TheAbigdonChronicleI(A.D.1-A.D.977),ManuscriptC:TheAbigdonChronicleII(60B.C.-A.D.1066),ManuscriptD:TheWorcesterChronicle(A.D.1-A.D.1079),(withtwelfth-centuryaddition1080-1130A.D.),ManuscriptE:TheLaud(Petersburg)Chronicle(A.D.1-A.D.1153),ManuscriptF:TheBilingualCanterburyEpitome(A.D.1-A.D.1058).

Itiswell-knownthatallthesemanuscriptsduplicateeachotherinthesensethattheyallspeakaboutthesameevents,butinmoreorlessdetails.Thatiswhyalltheyareplacedinthepublication[2]paralleltoeachotherinaveryconvenientmanner,whichmakesiteasytocomparedifferentrecordsconcerningthesameyear.Maybe,allthesemanuscriptshavethesamewrittenoriginalandinfactrepresentdifferentscriptsofoneoldchronicle.Anglo-SaxonChroniclecoversanepochfrom1A.D.to11thcentury(exceptmanuscriptEwhichstopsin1153).Itistraditionallyassumedthatallthesemanuscriptswerewrittenapproximatelyin11-12thcc.,justintheformwhichwehavetoday.ButitisonlyahypothesiswhichisstronglybasedontheScaliger'schronology.Anditsoundsnotverynatural.Forexample,manuscriptAexistsnowonlyintwo"copies"andbothofthemweremadeonlyin16thc.(see[2],p.xxxiii).Theoriginalversion(fromwhichthesetwocopiesweremade)waspracticallyburnedoutinafire.AstoothermanuscriptsofAnglo-SaxonChronicle,theirhistoryisnotclearfrom[2].Forexample,itisnotpointedoutwhatwerethemethodsofdeterminingofdateswhenexistingcopiesweremade.Onecouldhaveanideathatthedatingwasasfollows:iflastrecordsofthesemanuscriptsreferto11-12thcc.,thenthecopieswenowpossesarenecessarilywrittenjustinthatformin11-12thcc.Leavingasideotherobjections,wemustsaythatthisspeculationinfullybasedon

Scaliger'schronology.Ifrealdatesoflastmentionedeventschange,thensuchdatingofamanuscriptwouldalsochange.Difficultieswithreconstructionofatruestoryfororiginofthesemanuscriptsarewell-knownamongexperts.ForexampleDavidKnowleshadtoclaimthat:"Thequestionofprovenanceandinterdependenceofthevariousversions[oftheChronicle]aresocomplicatedthatanydiscussionsoonassumestheappearanceofanessayinhighermathematics"([2],p.xxxi).Moreover,G.N.GarmonswaysaysthatanymodernanalysisofAnglo-SaxonChronicleisbasedontheCharlesPlummer'srevision(1892-1899)ofit'soriginaleditionpublishedbyJohnEarlein1865.ItshouldbementionedthatmanuscriptsAandEareagain"associated"(G.N.Garmonsway'sexpression)withcertainpersonsfrom16thcentury-ArchbishopParker(1504-1575)andArchbishopLaud(1573-1645).Hereishistext:"AnyaccountoftheAnglo-SaxonChronicleisnecessarybasedonCharlesPlummer'srevisionoftheeditionofJohnEarle(1865)whichwaspublishedintwovolumesbytheOxfordUniversityPressin1892-9...Plummer'sedition...givesprominenceonoppositepagestomanuscriptsAandE,associatedrespectivelywiththenamesofArchbishopParker(1504-75)andArchbishopLaud(1573-1645);...TheothermanuscriptswereonceinthepossessionofSirRobertCotton(1571-1631),andaretobefoundintheCottoniancollectionofmanuscriptsintheBritishMuseum"([2],p.xxxi).ItseemsthatallthemanuscriptsofAnglo-SaxonChroniclewhichareavailabletodaywereactuallywritten(orrevised)notearlierthanin15-16thcenturies.However,theyareconsideredtobewritteninthisformin11-12thcc.ProbablytheonlyreasonforsuchpointofviewisthattraditionaldatesofthelasteventsfromAnglo-SaxonChroniclebelongtothisepoch:11-12thcc.Butsuchreasonisnotenough.Itispossiblethateventsfrom11-12thcc.weredescribedbysomebodyin15-16thcc.andweactuallypossesshissecondarytextwhichcouldbeveryfarfromanoriginalversion.Andalso,thedatesofeventsfromAnglo-SaxonChroniclestronglydependonausedchronologicalconcept.IfitchangesthenthedatingofAnglo-SaxonChroniclewouldchangeautomatically.ThereisastrongargumentwhichsuggeststhatmanuscriptsofAnglo-SaxonChronicleareactuallyofaratherlateorigin.Theproblemisthatallthesemanuscriptsusemodern"A.D."erawhichcameintoregularpracticaluseonlyin15thcentury.Itisaknownfactintraditionalhistory.LaterwewillalsopresentsomefactswhichsuggestthattheauthorsofAnglo-SaxonChroniclewerealreadyfamiliarwithJ.Scaliger'schronologicalconcept(16thc.),andbynomeans-withachronologicalconceptofMatthewVlastar(16thc.).ItmeansthatAnglo-SaxonChroniclewaswrittenmuchlaterthenitisusuallyaccepted.ThereasonforAnglo-SaxonChronicletobepaidsuchgreatattentioninourreconstructionofEnglishhistoryisverysimple.Itturnsoutthat"ThankstotheexampleofBede,theChronicleisthefirsthistorywritteninEnglishtousehismasteryinnovationofreckoningyearsasfromtheIncarnationofOurLord-"YearsofGrace"astheywerecalledinEngland."([2],p.xxiv).ConcerningthewayofpresentingdatesinAnglo-SaxonChronicleweshouldmakearemark.ItisacceptedthatinmedievalEnglandtheyusedfor"A.D."erathefollowingformula:"YearsfromtheIncarnationofOurLord".Itisacceptedtoday

thatthisformulawasequivalenttotheformula"YearsofGrace".Butthisequivalenceinnotsoevidentandrequiresaspecialinvestigation.(Wewillreturntothissubjectlateranddiscussitinmoredetails).Notethatthereisastrangesimilaritybetweentwowell-knownnames-termsGrace-Greece.Maybetheoriginal(andforgottentoday)meaningofaformula"YearsofGrace"differsfromonewhichisacceptedtoday.Maybeitwas"yearsinGreece","Greekyears"orsomethinglikethis.ItispossiblealsothatthereisarelationbetweentermsGrace,GreeceandChrist.WasthenameofChristassociatedinsomesensewithanameofcountry"Greece"?ForexampleChristreligion="Greecereligion"?ItmightbebecauseinmedievalepochGreecewasanameofByzantineempire,andanotherit'snamewasRomea,Rome.SoChristian,"Roman"religioncouldbecalledalsoas"Greekreligion";butifsothentheremightbeaconfusionbetween"A.D.","Christ"eraandold"Greek",Byzantineerawhichwasusedsometimes,aswellas"A.D.",withit'sthousandsomitted.Itcouldbenotobviouswhicherawasactuallyusedinanolddocumentswhichindicate"YearsofGrace".Ofcourse,suchkindofsimilaritybetweendifferenttermscouldnotbeconsideredasverystrongargumentssupportinganypointofview.Itplayaroleofpreliminaryspeculationsandshouldbeconsideredasaseriousargumentonlyinthecasewhenitappears(repeats)constantlyinalonghistoricalparallelism,whensimilarnamesarisesimultaneouslyforhundredsofyearsintwodifferentepochsafteroneofthemisshiftedintimeasawholeandthencomparedwithanotherone.Anglo-SaxonChroniclewaswritteninaverylaconicmanner,itwasdividedintochapters(fragments)eachofthemdevotedtoacertainyear.Manyyearsarenotdescribedatall(therearesomelacunasinthetext).ItisconsideredtodaythatAnglo-SaxonChroniclespeaksabouteventsfromthebeginningofA.D.to11-12thcenturies.SeeFig.1.ThetextofAnglo-SaxonChronicleseemtobereallyveryold.Absenceoflongand"beautifullydesigned"periodsinthetext(typicalforhistoricalliteratureof15-16thcc.)suggeststhatAnglo-SaxonChronicleisanimportanthistoricaldocumentwhichwasbasedonsomereallyancientrecords.Surely,itwaseditedin16-17thcc.andamainquestionis:whatcreditshouldwegivetochronologistsof15-17centurieswhoactuallydatedeventsinAnglo-SaxonChronicleaswehaveitnow?

2.1.2.Nennius'"HistoriaBrittonum".

Nennius'"HistoriaBrittonum"isarathershorttext,onlyabout24pagesin[8].Thereexistmorethen30manuscriptsofNennius'bookwhichareknowntoday(see[8])."Theearliestmanuscriptsaredatedtodayby9thor10thcenturies,andthelatest-by13thoreven14thcenturies.InsomeofthemanuscriptsareindicationsthattheauthorwasGildas.Nenniusiscalledastheauthorsufficientlyrare.Thus,thismanuscriptispossibly-compilation...Theoriginaltextwaslost,wedonothaveittoday.ButthereexistsitsIrishtranslationof11thcentury"([8],p.269).Translationwasmadefromthepublication:"Nenniusetl'Historiabrittonum",P.,1934.Somemanuscriptsareendedwithpagesfrom"AnnalsCambriae",whichisconsideredtobecompiledapproximatelyin954A.D.

Nennius'"HistoriaBrittonum"doesnothavenorchronologicalsubdivisionneitheranychronologicalnotesexceptthefollowingtwoones:1)Atabletitled"Aboutsixagesoftheworld"isplacedatthebeginningofthe"Historia".Itpresentstimedistancesinyearsbetweensomebiblicalevents-andalreadyaccordingtoScaliger'scalculations,whichwerecarriedoutonlyin16thc.2)ChapterXVIofthe"Historia"hasasectiontitled"Thegroundofthedating",whichspeaksabouttherelativedistances(inyears)betweenafeweventsfromEnglishhistory.Inbothcaseschronologicalnotesareverybrief.Resumeisthatitisunclear,whoandwhenactuallywrotethe"Historia".It'soriginaltextdoesnotexisttoday,atranslationwhichisconsideredtobecarriedoutin11thc.Thetextdoesnothaveit'sownchronologicalscale.Surely,allquestionswhicharisewithAnglo-SaxonChronicle,referto"Historia"also.Moreover,Nennius'textiswritteninafreeartisticmannerwithmanystylisticaccessories.Itsuggeststhatthismanuscriptisofratherlateorigin.Suchtextcouldbewrittenonlyinanatmosphereofadeepandwelldevelopedliterarytraditionwhenmanypeopleusewritingandreadingbooksandpaperisnotatreasure.ItisacceptedtodaythatNenniusdescribescertaineventsinatimeintervalfromtheepochofTrojanwarto10-11thcc.A.D.Infactitisaresultofonlyatraditionalchronologicalconcept(whichsuggeststhatshortNennius'textcoversanextremelylarge2000-yearhistoricalperiod)thatonecouldfindtodaygiantlacunasinchronologyof"Historia".Fig.1showsbyadottedlinetheepochwhichisconsideredtobecoveredby"Historia".AccordingtotraditionalchronologicalconceptNenniuseasilyomitswholecenturiesinhisstory,makesgiantchronologicaljumpswithoutanyexplanations.Heseemsnottonoticeitatallandcontinueshisstoryaftersuchjumpsasifnothingwasmissed.

2.1.3.GalfridusMonemutensis'"HistoriaBrittonum"."HistoriesofthekingsofBritainbyGeoffreyofMonmouth".

Itisgenerallyacceptedtodaythatthischroniclewaswrittenin30thor40thof12thcentury([8],p.196)byGalfridusMonemutensiswhobaseditonNennius'text,sometimesevencopyingNennius"errors"([8],p.231,commentstochap.17;seealso[8],p.244).GalfridusMonemutensis'bookisratherbigone-about130pagesin[8].InoppositiontoAnglo-SaxonChroniclehistexthasnochronologicalsubdivision(noindicationaboutyears).Hiswritingstylewasrathercomplicated,withmanyaccessories,moralities,philosophicalexcursionsetcetera.Galfridusisevenconsideredtobenotahistorianonlybutalsoapoet.Surely,thetraditionalpointofviewthatGalfriduswrotehisbookafterNennius,iscorrect.ItisknownalsothatGalfridusmadeanextensiveuseof"EcclesiasticHistoryoftheEnglishNation"(inLatin)byBedeVenerable([9],p.244).ItisassumedthatBede's"History"covers597-731A.D.Itisremarkablethatmoderncommentatorspointout"theextremelyclearandevidentGalfridus'orientationoftheantiquetradition"([9],p.207).Forexample,Galfridusnotonlyusedancientplots,butalsocopiedastylisticmannerofancientauthors([9],p.207).ItseemsthatGalfriduswriteshisbookbeingfullyinfluencedbytheatmosphereofantiquity.ItwaspointedoutthatGalfriduscopiessomeofhistopicsdirectly

fromancientauthors(forexample,fromStacius),butdoesnotgiveanyreferences([9],p.236).GalfridusMonemutensis'"HistoriaBrittonum"wasextremelypopularinmedievaltimes."Todaywehaveabouttwohundreds(!-Auth.)copiesofhis"History",...whichwerewrittenindifferentplacesstartingfrom12thcenturyanduntil15thcentury,i.e.,uptoappearanceofthefirstprintededition"([9],p.228).Atfirsttime"Historia"wasprintedinParisin1508.Fig.1showsahistoricalepochwhichisassumedtobecoveredbyGalfridus'text(accordingtotraditionalchronology).NoticethatitisapproximatelythesametimeintervalasforNennius'case:namely,fromTrojanwarupto8thcenturyA.D.Ofcourse,Galfridus'bookismuchbiggerthenNennius'one,butbeingreferredagaintothegiant2000-yeartimeinterval,itcouldnotcoveritallwithouthugelacunas.Andreally,traditionalchronologystatesthatGalfridus"omit"largehistoricalepochs.Butitisstrange,thatGalfridushimselfdoesnotminditatall.Hecalmlycontinueshisstorywithoutnotifyingareaderthathesometimesactuallymisseswholehistoricalepochsinhischronology.

2.1.4.SomeotheroldEnglishchronicles

InourworkweusealsosomeotherEnglishchroniclesof9-13thcenturies,particularlythoserepresentedinabookbyV.I.Matuzova"Englishmedievaldocuments"[10].HerewewouldliketopresentaveryinterestinglistwhichwascompiledbyV.I.Matuzovaasaresultofherinvestigationofthesechroniclesratherthentocharacterizethemindetails.Wewilldiscussthissubjectinthenextsection.

2.2.Whatwerethemedievalnamesformoderncities,nationsandcountriesaccordingtoancientEnglishchronicles?

Manypeopleusetothinkthatmedievalchroniclesrefertosuchwell-knownareas(regions)asEngland,London,Russia,Kievetc.withjustthesamenamesastoday,andsoingeneralthereisnoproblemtorecognizewhatplaceolddocumentsarespeakingabout.Sometimes,inmorenewdocuments,itisactuallythecase.Butinmoreold,originaldocumentssuchsituationseemstoberatheranexceptionthenarule.Oldchroniclesveryoftenuseabsolutelydifferentgeographicalnamesanditisanontrivialtasktounderstandwhatregions(areas,townsetcetera)theyarereallyspeakingabout.Itisalsoaproblemthatolddocumentsingeneralusemanydifferentnamesforeachcountry,land,nationetc.Veryoftenthesenameshavenothingtodowiththoseweusetoday.Thenamesofancientnations,countriesandcitieswhichareknowntoday,werefixedonlyin18-20thcenturies.Butbeforethattimetherewerevariousopinionsconcerningwhatnamestouse.Theseopinionswereoftenquitedifferentfromeachother.ItisaveryinterestingquestiontoanalysethenameswhichwereusedinmedievalEnglishdocumentsforcities,nationsandcountrieswhicharesowell-knowntodaywiththeirmodernnames.Itturnsoutaftersuchanalysis,thatmedievalauthorsseemtohavequitedifferentviewsonoldandancienthistory.Thatiswhymodernspecialistsinhistoryusuallyclaimthatalmostallmedievalpeoplewere"extremelywrong"inhistory,thattheyhad"fantasticconcepts"aboutit,"confusedandmixedhistorical

epochs","didnotdistinguishantiquityandmedievalepoch"andsoon.Inafollowinglistsomemedieval"synonyms"ofmodernacceptednamesandtermsarepresented.Eachentryofthelistshowsamoderntermandisfollowedbyit'smedievalsynonyms.

AZOVSEA=ALANIA=Meotedisclakes,Valana,Meotediscfen,Alania,Maeotidilacus,Valana,Maeotidipaludes,Valvy,palusMaeotis,Polovtzy?!-seebelow.paludesMaeotis,paludesMaeotidae,PaluzMeotidienes.

ALBANIANS=AMAZONSLAND=Liubene,Maegdaland,Albani.Maegdalonde,Amazonia.

BULGARIANS=BUGRIVER=Wlgari,Armilla.Bulgari,Bougreis.

VANDALS=HUNGARY=Wandali,Hungaria,Sea-costSlavs.Hunia,Ungaria,MinorUngaria.

BYZANTINEEMPIRE=VALACHIANS=Graecia,Coralli,Constantinopolis,Blachi,Ilac,Blac,Turks!(seebelow).

VALACHIA=VOLGARIVER=Balchia.Ethilia.

GALITZK-VOLYNSKRUSSIA=GERMANY=Galacia,Gothia,Gallacia.Mesia,Theutonia,Germania,Allemania,Jermaine.

HIBERNICOCEAN=HIBERNIA=TheEnglishChannelIreland(!)Hibernicumocceanum.

GOTHIA=GUNNS=Germany,Hunni,IslandGotland,Huni,Scandinavia,Hun.Tavrida(=oldnameofCrimea).

DACKS=DENMARK=Dani,Denemearc,Daneis.Dacia,Dania,Desemone.

DUTCH=DARDANELLES(thestrait)=Daci,St.Georgstrait=Dani,branchiumSanctiGeorgii.Norddene,Denen.

DERBENT(passage)=DNEPRRIVER=Alexandergates=Aper.Alexandresherga,PortaferreaAlexandri,claustraAlexandri.

DOGI=DONRIVER=Russians(seebelow).Danai,Thanais,Tanais.

MEDIEVALRUSSIA=DANUBERIVER=Susie,Danubius,Russie,Hister,Ruissie,Danuvius,Rusia,Damaius,Russia,Deinphirus,Ruthenia,Danube.Rutenia,Ruthia,Ruthena,Ruscia,Russcia,Russya,Rosie.

IRONGATES=IRELAND=see"Derbent".Hybernia.

ICELAND=CAUCASUS=Ysolandia.beorgTaurus,Caucasus.

CASPIANSEA=CASSARIA=Caspiagarsecge,Chasaria(!(seebelow)mareCaspium.

KIEV=CHINESE=Chyo(!),Cathaii.Cleva(!),Riona(!),

CORALLS=REDSEA=Wlaches(seeabove),mareRubrum.Turks(seeabove),

ENGLISHCHANNEL=MARBURG=Hibernicocean=Merseburg.

Hibernicumocceanum.

MESIA=MONGOLIANS=Moesia=Germany(seeabove),Moal,Tatars(seeabove),

NARVA=GERMANS=Armilla.Germanici=Germani,Teutonici,Theutonici,Allemanni.

NETHERLANDS=NORMANS=Frisia,Arise.Nordmenn.

OCEAN=PECHENEGS(medievalneighboursofRussians)=Garsecg,Getae.Oceano,Oceanus,Occeanus,Ocean.

POLOVTZY(medievalneighboursofRussians)=PRUSSIA=Planeti,Prutenia(!).Captac,(P-Rutenia=P-Russia).Cumani,PRUSSES=Comanii,Prateni,Alani,Pruteni,Values,Pructeni,Valani.Prusceni,(SeeComment1.)Praceni,Pruceni.

RIONA=RUGS=Kiev(seeabove)Russians,,Sea-costSlavs(seebelow)

RUSSIANS=RUTHENS=Russii,Russians(seeabove)Dogi(!),Rugi(!),Rutheni(!),Rusceni.

THEARCTICOCEAN=SITHIA=Scithocean=Sciffiagarsecg,Scithia(seeabove)OcceanusSeptentrionalis,mareScythicum.

SCANDINAVIANS=SCITHIA=Gothi.Sithia,SCYTHSBarbaria,Scithes,Scithia,Scythae,Scythia,Cit(!).Sice(!).

SEA-SIDESCLAVI=TAVR=Winedas,Caucasus(seeabove)Wandali,TAVRIDA(CRIMEA)=Roge.Gothia(!!!)

TANAIS=TATARS(MONGOLS)=Don(seeabove)Tartareori,gensTartarins,TYRRHENIANSEA=Tartari,mareTyrene.Tartariti,Tartarii,Tattari,Tatari,Tartarii,Thartarei.

TURKS=URALMOUNTAINS=Coralli,Riffengbeorgum,Thurki,Hyberboreimontes,Turci,montesRiph(a)eis,Blachi,Ilac,Blac(!!!).Hyperboreimontes.

FRANCE=FRISIA=Gallia,TheNetherlands(seeFrancia.above.)

CHASARIA=CHASARS=Cassaria,Chazari.Cessaria(!!!).

CHIO=BLACKSEA=Kiev(seeabove)Euxinus,Pontius,SCOTLAND=marePonticum,Scotia,mareMajus.Gutlonde.

CHINGIS-CHAN=JAROSLAVTHEWISECingis,(KievPrincepsMagnus)=Churchitan,Malesclodus,Zingiton,Malescoldus.Chircam,Juriscloth(=Jurius-CliyrcamGeorgius),Gurgatan,Juliusclodius(=Julius-Cecarcarus,Clodius).Ingischam,JuliusClaudius.Tharsis(!),DAVID(!),PRESBYTERIOHANNES(!!).

OneremarkaboutJaroslavtheWise.HewasknowninmedievalEnglandas"Malescoldus".AccordingtoM.N.Alexeev[12]therewerealsosomeothernameswhichwereappliedtoJaroslavtheWiseinWesternhistoricaltradition:Juriscloht(fromJurius-Georgius),Juliusclodius(!),(thelastformofJaroslav'snamewasusedbyNormanhistorianof12thcentury-Gijom),JuliusClaudius,(thisformusedbyOrdericVitali).

LetuspresentatypicalexampleofoldEnglishhistoricaltext:"HeescapedtothekingdomofDogs,whichweprefertocallRUSSIA.Whenthekingof[this]land-MALESCLODUS-learnedabouthim,hewasgivenagreathonor"([13],[14]).HereisaLatinoriginaltext:"AufugitadregnumDogorum,quodnosmeliusvocamusRussiam.QuemrexterraeMalescoldusnomine,utcognovitquisesset,honesteretinuit"[13].ImaginepleasereadingthisoldtextwithoutlookingatthemoderncommentswhichsuggestthatDogsKingdommeansthesameasRussia.Thetextwouldlooklikethis:"HeescapedtotheKingdomofDogs.Whenthekingofthatlandlearnedabouthim,hewasgivenagreathonor."MostprobablysuchtextwouldbeunderstoodasastorytreatingsomemedievaleventsinEnglandorScotland.Theword"Dogs"seemstodesignateapopulationinsomepartofEnglandorScotlandandthename"Malescoldus"verymuchlookslikeanameofmedievalEnglishorScottishking.Suchaninterpretationlooksrathernatural.OneknowsfromScottishhistory,forexample,thattherewereseveralkingswithaname"Malcolm",closeto"Malescoldus":MalcolmI(943-958),MalcolmII(1004-1034),MalcolmIII(1057-1093)etc.ButsuchinterpretationofthistextwoulddefinitelytransformsomeofancientRussianeventsintoEnglishones,i.e.,intooneswhicharethoughttohappenonthelandofmodernEngland.Thisexamplesuggeststhatevenadirectunderstanding,nottosayaboutaninterpretation,ofanoldhistoricaltextcouldberatherambiguous.DifferencesbetweenmedievalEnglishwriter'sopinionandmodernwayofunderstandingandinterpretationofmedievaltermsoccurfortextswrittenin9-15thcenturies(notsooldtexts,fromthepointofviewofmoderntradition).Itmeansthatthereexistseveralpossibilitiestointerpretmedievaldocuments.Thewayofsuchinterpretationwhichisingeneralusenow,provestobenotunique.Itisonlyoneofpossibleways,maybenotthebestone.Wearegoingtoshowherethatthisstandardwayisreallynotenoughsupportedbyoriginaldocuments.Theabovevocabularyofsynonyms(medievalterms-duplicates)isveryusefulforouranalysisofEnglishhistory.

2.3.AnoverviewoftraditionalconceptofEnglishhistory

2.3.1.ScotlandandEngland:twoparallel"dynasticstreams"

Fig.1showsaroughschemeoftheEnglishhistoryasitisconsideredtoday.ThebeginningofEnglishhistoryisplacedinthe1stcenturyB.C.(JuliusCaesar'sconquestofEngland).Startingatthismomentandgoingupto400A.D.,EnglishchroniclestalkinfactaboutRomanhistory.SometimestheyonlymentionthatcertainRomanemperorvisitEngland.AccordingtoEnglishchroniclestherewerenoindependentkingsinEnglandbefore400A.D.WewilltakeJ.Blair's"Chronologicaltables"asasourceofinformationaboutgeneralstructureofEnglishchronology.Thesetableswerecompiledintheendof18thc.,butthenewinformationwhichbecameavailableafterthattime,havenot

changedthewholepictureofEnglishhistoryandsothisinformationisnotveryimportantforusnow.In5thcenturyA.D.theRomanpowerinEnglandcametotheendandinthattimethefirstEnglishkingsappeared.ItwasamomentwhenEnglishhistorydividedinto:a)historyofEnglandandb)historyofScotland.Inotherwords,twodynasticstreamsbeganin5thc.:a)Englishstreamandb)Scottishstream.Thesetwodynasticstreamsdevelopinparallelupto1603whentheytransformedintoasingledynasticstreamoftheGreatBritain.In404A.D.thelongdynastyofScottishkingsbeganwiththekingFergusI.Itendsin1603whenaunitedkingdomofGreatBritainappearedwithit'sfirstkingJacobI(1603-1625).Scottishdynastylooks"verygoodorganized":itpracticallydoesnothavesimultaneousreignsofdifferentkings,itdoesnothavebreaksandepochsofanarchyalso.Beingrepresentedgraphicallyonatimeaxis,thisdynastycoversa1200-yeartimeintervalfrom404to1603A.D.inaverynice,extremely"regular"manner:reignsofScottishkingscoveronebyonewithoutintersectionsallthistimeinterval.Itisafineexampleof"carefullywrittenhistory".SeedottedlineintheFig.1.TheabsenceofsimultaneousreignssuggeststhatScotlandwasa"geographicallyhomogeneous"kingdom:itneverwasdividedintoseveralindependentparts.EnglishhistoryshowsastrongcontrasttoScottishoneinit'sstructure.

2.3.2.Englishhistory.Epochfrom1stto445A.D.EnglandastheRomancolony.

Timeperiodfrom60B.C.tothebeginningoftheeraA.D.isconsideredtodayasanepochofconquestofEnglandbyRomanarmyunderthecommandofJuliusCaesar.Periodfrom1stcenturyA.D.to445A.D.isconsideredtobeanepochofRomanoccupationofEngland.EnglandwasaRomancolonyatthatepoch,andtherewerenoEnglishkings,becauseEnglandwasruledformallybyRomanemperorsthemselves.ThedescriptionofthisperiodinAnglo-SaxonChronicleisinfactacompilationfromRomanhistoryof1st-5th(middle)centuriesA.D.asitappearsinScaliger'sversionofchronology.Itwas409A.D.when,accordingtotheAnglo-SaxonChronicle,RomansweredefeatedbyGoths,leaveEnglandandtheirpowerwasneverrestoredafterthatdate:"InthisyearthecityofRomanswastakenbyassaultbytheGoths,elevenhundredandtenyearsafteritwasbuilt.Afterwards,beyondthat,thekingsoftheRomansrulednolongerinBritain;inalltheyhadreignedtherefourhundredandseventyyearssinceJuliusCaesarfirstcametothecountry"([2],p.11).

2.3.3.Epochfrom445to830.Sixkingdomsandtheirunion.

From445A.D.weseesixkingdomsontheEnglishland.Eachofthesekingdomshasit'sowndynasticstreamofrulers.NamelytheyareBrittany=Britain,

Saxons=Kent,Sussex=SouthSaxons,Wessex=WestSaxons,Essex=EastSaxons,Mercia.

Thesesixkingdomsexistupto828A.D.whentheyallaredestroyedinawarandinsteadofthemonekingdomisestablished-thekingdomofEngland.ItisthetimeofEgbert,whobecomesthefirstkingofunitedEngland.Thetimeofabout830A.D.couldbecalled,following[6],[7],astheendofSixKingdoms."Itwas829A.D.,thetimeofWessexkingEgbert,whenallAnglo-Saxonkingdomsunitedintoonefeudalkingdom"[11,p.172].SeeCommentary2whichspeaksabouttheterm"Saxon".

2.3.4.Epochfrom830to1040.ThisepochisfinishedbyDanishconquestandthenbydisintegrationofDutchkingdominEngland.

Beginningfrom830A.D.Englishchroniclesspeakaboutonlyonedynasticstreamofkings(inunitedkingdomofEngland).Intheperiod1016-1040A.D.therewasacrucialpointinEnglishhistory.In1016DanishkingCnutDanishtheGreatoccupiedEngland.HebecomethekingofEngland,DenmarkandNorwaysimultaneously.Buthisstateprovedtobenotstableandafterhisdeathin1035itwasdivided.ArepresentativeofoldEnglishdynastyEdward"TheConfessor"(1042-1066)becameakinginEnglandafterthatdivision.Theyear1040isrepresentedintheFig.1asoneofthemostimportantbreakpointsinEnglishhistory.

2.3.5.Epochfrom1040to1066.EpochoftheOldAnglo-Saxondynastyandit'sfall

ThereignofEdward"TheConfessor"finishedin1066A.D.,whichisawell-knowndateinEnglishhistory.InthatyearEdwarddiedandafterthatEnglandwasoccupiedbyNormanswiththeirleaderWilliamIConquerortheBastard.In1066WilliamtheConquerordefeatedEnglish-SaxonkingHaroldinHastingsbattleandasaresultbecameanEnglishkinghimself.Periodofhisreignwas1066-1087.Thiswell-knowndate(1066A.D.)isalsorepresentedintheFig.1.

2.3.6.Epochfrom1066to1327.Normandynastyandafterit-Anjoudynasty.TwoEdwards.

ThisepochstartswiththebeginningofNormandynastywhichruledEnglandupto1153or1154([7],p.327).Justafteritthenext,AnjoudynastystartedinEngland.Itexistedfrom1154to1272([7],p.327).In1263-1267acivilwarbrokeoutinEngland([11],p.260).Afterthat,intheendof13thc.-beginningof14thc.,thenewmonarchywasestablishedinEngland.FirstkingsinthisnewdynastywereEdwardI(1272-1307)andEdwardII(1307-1327).IntheendoftheconsideredtimeperiodtherewasawarbetweenEnglandfromonesideandWells,ScotlandandIrelandfromanotherside.Englandtriedtooccupytheseregionsbutit'sattemptwasnotsuccessful.In1314Scotswon.

2.3.6.Epochfrom1327to1602.

ThisperiodisstartedwiththereignofEdwardIII(1327-1377)andisfinishedwiththeestablishmentofGreatBritainasaunionofEnglandandScotland.Thelastperiodfrom1600tothepresenttimeisawell-knownhistory,whichwedonotdoubtanddonotanalysehere.

Resume.WeseethatEnglishhistorycouldbedividedintoseveralperiodswhichareseparatedbywell-known"breakpoint"dates.Wearguethatthesedivisionisnotoccasionalone.ItreflectstheexistenceofduplicatesandchronologicalshiftsinEnglishhistory.

3.PARALLELSBETWEENENGLISHANDBYZANTINE-ROMANHISTORY.GREATBRITAINEMPIREASTHEDIRECTSUCCESSOROFMEDIEVALBYZANTINE-ROMANEMPIRE.

3.1.RoughcomparisonofdynasticstreamsofEnglandandByzantine-RomanEmpire.

WesawthatoldEnglishchroniclesclaimthatEnglandwasaRomancolonyforthefirst400yearsofit'shistory.Moreover,whentheyspeakaboutEnglandatthattimes,theyspeakmoreaboutRomeandByzantineempirethenaboutEnglanditself.ThatiswhyanideaofcomparisonofEnglishandRoman-Byzantinedynasticstreamsseemsquitenatural.ForthispurposeweusedtheGlobalChronologicalMap,whichwasalreadymadebyA.T.FomenkoincludingdynasticstreamsofRome,ByzantineempireandEngland.EvenfirstglanceonthismapshowsasurprisingstatisticalsimilarityofgeneralstructurefordensityofreignsinRoman-ByzantineempireandinEnglishdynasticstreams.Suchspecific"densitypicture"existsonlyforthesetwodynasticstreams-Roman-ByzantineandEnglishones.Nowwearegoingtodescribethispicture.Considerapartitionoftimeintervalfrom1stto1700A.D.bydecades.LetuscalculatethenumberofkingsinEnglandwhosereignsintersectwithacertaindecade.Forexampleifsomedecadeiscoveredbyareignofonlyonekingthenletusassignnumber1tothisdecade.Ifitiscoveredbytworeignsthenweassignnumber2toit,andsoon.Asaresultofthisprocedureweobtainagraphwhichshowsushowmanykingsruledinsideeachdecade.Wecallthisgraphas"densitygraph"foragivendynasticstream.BecauseofabsenceofkingsinEnglandbefore400A.D.thevaluesofdensitygraphinthattimeintervalarezero.Approximatelyin440A.D.therewereestablished6dynastiesinEngland(sixkingdoms,seeabove)whichexistedupto(approximately)830A.D.whenEnglishkingdomswereunited.AfterthatuniontherewasonlyoneEnglishdynastyuptopresenttime[2].SimilarprocedurewasappliedtothedynasticstreamofRoman-Byzantineempirefrom1stto1500A.D.InformationaboutallRomanandByzantineemperorsof1st-15thcenturieswasused.From1stc.to4thc.allRomanemperorsaresupposedtostayinItalianRome(andinit'scolonies),andafter330A.D.anotherRomandynastyinNewRome=Constantinopleappeared.So,upto6thc.thereweretwoparallelRomandynasticstreams(sometimes

theyhadintensiveintersections).In6thc.afteraknownGothicwarwesternRomelostit'sstatusasemperor'sresidence.FromthattimeonlyoneRomandynastystreaminConstantinople=NewRomewasexistingconstantlyupto1453.In1453aftersiegeofConstantinoplebyTurksthisstreamwasfinished.TheresultofourcalculationsisshownintheFig.2.TherearetwocurvesintheFig.2.AtthebottomonecanseeadensitygraphforRoman-Byzantineempire,andonthetop-forEngland.NotethatEnglishchronologyisshifteddownasthewholeblockbyapproximately275-yearshift.Bothgraphslookverysimilar.Bothofthemstartwithaperiodoflowdensityandthen,atthesamemomentthedensityincreasesverysharply.Periodsofsuchhighdensityhaveapproximatelythesamelengthandthesameamplitudeinbothcases.Thenthesharpfallofdensityoccurssimultaneouslyinthesegraphs.Afterthatbothofthemareapproximatelyconstant.Theirvaluechangesmostlyinarangeof1-2reignsperdecadeforremainingseveralhundredsyears.HighdensityzoneinEnglishchronologyislocatedapproximatelyin445-830A.D.,andforRoman-Byzantineempirethiszoneconstitutes170-550A.D.Thelengthisapproximately380yearsinbothcases.ThedurationofthehistoricalperiodsinEnglandandinRoman-Byzantineempirebeingcomparedconstitutesaboutoneandahalfthousandyears.Weshouldsayoncemorethatsuchspecificdensitygraphscouldnotbefindinotherdynasticstreams.ItisafeatureofEnglishandRoman-Byzantinehistoryonly.Fig.3comparesdensitygraphsforEnglandandRoman-Byzantineempireinaveryroughway:onlyhighdensityzonesarerepresentedfromthegraphs.Fig.3clearlyshowsthatthechronologicalshiftbetweenEnglishandRoman-Byzantinehistoryisequaltoapproximately275years.Ofcourse,abovemethodofcomparisonfortwodifferenthistoriesisveryroughandcouldnotbeconsideredasabasisforanystatements.Butsuchsimilarityfordensitygraphsisprobablyareflectionofthesameoriginofthesetwodynasticstreams(onalongtimeperiod).Itisalsopossiblethatoneofthemisareflectionofanotherone.Moreover,somewell-knownfactsfromoldEnglishhistorycouldsupportthispossibility.Forexample,itiswell-knownthattheoldnameofEnglandandEnglishpeoplewasnot"England"but"Anglia","Angles"(from"Angel"),maybe"Angeln"([2],p.12-13,289).Term"Angels"asanameofpopulationappearsinAnglo-SaxonChronicleatadate443A.D.Afterthatthistermisusedconstantly.Thefirstkingwhichwascalledas"kingofAnglia(England)"wasAthelstan(925-940)([7],p.340).Notethat"Angels"wasalsoafamousnoblefeudalfamilyinByzantinewhichincludesByzantineemperordynastyofAngels(1185-1204)([15],p.166).Thenaturalquestionarises:maybethename"England"-"Angels"-"Anglia"isthereflectionofthenameofByzantinedynastyAngelsof11-12thcc.?Itwasonlysomepreliminaryremarks.TheycouldonlytosuggestthatsomeconnectionbetweenEnglishandByzantineancienthistoryseemtoexist.Morecarefulanalysissaysthatthesehistoriesonalongtimeperiodarethesame.Remark.Whenwespeakabouta"dynastystream"wemeansimplyasequenceofkingsinacertainkingdomwhichisorderedintime.Wedonotcareaboutfamilyrelationsbetweenthesekings(whichisusuallyincludedinterm"dynasty").

3.2.DynastyparallelismbetweenancientandmedievalEnglandfromonesideandmedievalByzantineEmpirefromanotherside.GeneralconceptofcorrespondencebetweenEnglishandByzantinehistories.

WehavediscoveredthatthereexistsastrongparallelismbetweendurationsofreignsforEnglishhistoryof640-1327A.D.fromonesideandByzantinehistoryof378-830A.D.continuedbyByzantinehistoryof1143-1453A.D.fromanotherside.ThisparallelismisrepresentedinavisualformatthebottomofFig.1.Moreprecisely,wediscoveredthat:

1)DynasticstreamofEnglishkingsfrom640to1040A.D.(400-yearperiod)isaduplicate(reflection)ofByzantinedynasticstreamfrom378to830A.D.(452-yearperiod).Thesetwodynasticstreamscoincideafter210-yearchronologicalshift.Itmeansthatthereexistsasubsequence("dynasticstream")ofEnglishkingswhosereignscovertimeinterval640-1040andasubsequenceofByzantineemperorswhosereignscovertimeinterval378-830,suchthattheyduplicateeachother.Notethatnotallkingsoremperorsfromtheseepochsareincludedinthosedynasticstreams.Itispossiblebecauseoftentherewereseveralcorulers(i.e.,kingsoremperorswhichruledsimultaneously).

2)ThenextperiodofEnglishkingdomhistory:from1040to1327(287-yearperiod)duplicatesByzantinedynastyhistoryfrom1143to1453A.D.(310-yearperiod).Thesetwodynasticstreamscoincideafter120-yearchronologicalshift.

3)DynasticstreamofByzantineemperorsfrom830to1143alsoduplicatesthesameEnglishdynastichistoryof1040-1327.ItisquitenaturalbecauseByzantinehistoryhasit'sownduplicatesinsideit.Inparticular,Byzantinehistoryof830-1143duplicatesByzantinehistoryof1143-1453.Fordetailssee[1],[24].

4)TheendsoftimeintervalsfromEnglishhistoryduplicatingByzantinehistorycoincidewiththebreakpointsinEnglishhistorywhichwepointedoutearlier.

5)TheendsoftimeintervalsfromByzantinehistoryduplicatingEnglishhistoryalsoprovetobecertainnaturalbreakpointsinByzantinehistory.TheygenerateapartitionofthewholeByzantinehistoryinto4partswhichwewilldenotebyByzantineempire-0,Byzantineempire-1,Byzantineempire-2andByzantineempire-3.

3.3.Somedetailsofdynasticparallelism("parallelismtable")

3.3.1.Englishhistoryof640-830A.D.andByzantinehistoryof378-553A.D.275-yearshift.

WeusedJ.Blair'sTables[2]asthefirstmainsourceofchronologicalinformationandAnglo-SaxonChronicleasthesecondone.BelowweuseanabbreviationASCforAnglo-SaxonChronicle.Notethatsometimesdifferentchronologicaltablescontainaslightlydifferentdata,butthesedifferencesdonotinfluence

theparallelismwhichwearegoingtopresenthere._________________________________________________________________EnglishhistoryByzantinehistory_________________________________________________________________Englishhistoryof640-830.Byzantinehistoryof378-553.Wessexkings-oneofthesixByzantineemperorsdynastykingdomsinEnglandof400-830.startingfromthefoundationofThisdynasticstreamisapartNewRome=Constantinople.ofthedensesequenceofkingsThisdynasticstreamisapartwhosereignscoverthetimeofthedensesequenceofkingsaxiswithhighmultiplicity.whosereignscoverthetimeSeeFigs.2,3.axiswithhighmultiplicity.ThisperiodofByzantinehistoryisdenotedasByzantine-0onFig.1.SeeFigs.2,3.__________________________________________________________________Commentary.Durationsofreignsareshowninbrackets(roundedofftowholeyears).IntheleftcolumnthewholelistofEnglishkingsispresented.IntherightcolumnalmostallByzantineemperorsappear.Onlyabsentarenamesofsomeemperorswithveryshortreignandco-emperorsofthoseoneswhoarepresentedhere.NotethatallEnglishkings(withonlyfewexceptionsofveryshortreigns)areincludedinthisparallelism.__________________________________________________________________1.Cenwalch643-672kingof1.TheodosiusITheGreatWessexand643-647astheking378or379-395(16)ofSussex.Heruled29or25years,ifweconsideronlyhisruleinWessex(after647A.D.)------------------------------------------------------------------QueenSeaxburh672-674(2),?wifeofK.Cenwel.Shortrule------------------------------------------------------------------2.Cens674-686(12)according2.Arcadius395-408(13)toBlair.InAnglo-SaxonChronicleweseeheretwokings:Escwine+Centwine(9yearsintotal)------------------------------------------------------------------Caedwalla686-688(2).?Shortrule------------------------------------------------------------------3.Ine686-727(39)according3.TheodosiusII408-450(42)toBlairand(37)accordingtoAnglo-SaxonChronicle(=ASC)------------------------------------------------------------------4.Aethelheard727-740(13),4.LeoI457-474(17)and(14)accordingtoASC------------------------------------------------------------------5.Cuthread740-754(14)accor-5.Zeno474-491(17)dingtoBlairand(17)inASC(heruledtwotimes)------------------------------------------------------------------Sigeberht754(1).Shortrule?------------------------------------------------------------------6.Cynewulf754-784(30)accor-6.AnastasiusdingtoBlairand(31)inASC491-518(27)------------------------------------------------------------------7.Beorhtric784-800(16)7.JustinI518-527(9)------------------------------------------------------------------

8.Egbert800-838(38).In8288.JustinianITheGreat.InA.D.(i.e.,atthe28thyearof553A.D.(i.e.atthe26thyearhisrule)heconsolidatedallofhisrule)hedefeatedthesixkingdomsintoone-Anglia.Goths(thisiswell-knownGothicThelast10yearsheruledaswar)andbecameuniqueemperorthekingofAnglia.Heisconsi-inRoman-Byzantineempire.Hederedasdistinguishedkinginruledduringhislast12yearsEnglishhistorywithoutanycorulers.Well-knownemperorinByzantinehistory________________________________________________________________

3.3.2.Englishhistoryof830-1040andByzantinehistoryof553-830.Rigid275-yearshift.__________________________________________________________________Englishepochof830-1040.Byzantineepochof553-830.AngliaafterconsolidationintoIsdenotedas"Byzantineonekingdom(seeBlair[6]).empire-1"intheFig.1.__________________________________________________________________

9.Aethelberht860-866(6)9.JustinII565-578(13)-----------------------------------------------------------------10.Aethelbald10.TiberiusConstantinus857-860(3)578-582(4)------------------------------------------------------------------11.Aethelwulf838-857(19)11.Maurice582-602(20)------------------------------------------------------------------12.Aethelred866-872(6)12.Phocas602-610(8)------------------------------------------------------------------HeretheoldEnglishchroniclerstransposedtwokings,namely-thekingsAethelwulf(seeNo.11)andAethelberht(seeNo.9)wereplacedinanotherorder(theirByzantineoriginalsareJustinIIandMaurice).Thisconfusionhasasimpleexplanation:allfourEnglishkingsofthisperiodhaveverysimilarnamesbeginningfrom"Aethel".------------------------------------------------------------------13.AlfredTheGreat872-900(28)13.HeracliusaccordingtoBlairand871-901610-641(31)(30)accordingtoBemontandMonod([7],p.340)------------------------------------------------------------------14.EdwardtheElder14.ConstansII900-925(25)Pogonatus641-668(26)------------------------------------------------------------------15.Athelstan925-941(16).15.ConstantineIVItissupposedtodaythathewas668-685(17)thefirstwhotookthenamekingofAnglia([7],p.340)------------------------------------------------------------------16.Confusion:thewarwith16.Well-knownconfusioninNorthumbria.TheAnglo-SaxonByzantinehistoryintheendofChroniclementionsabout7thcentury-beginningof8ththreemainkingsofthisperiod:century.HerethereareseveralEdmundI941-948(7),emperorswithashortrules:Eadred948-955(7),LeontiusII695-698Eadwig955-959(4).Alltheseor694-697,TiberiusIII697-704kingsruledrelativelyshortor698-705,JustinianII705-711,periodPhilippicusBardanes711-713,AnastasiusII713-715or716,TheodosiusIII715or716-717------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus,bothconfusionepochs(EnglishandByzantine)arematchedundertherigidchronologicalshift.Wedidnotdiscussherethedetailsbecauseofmessstructureofthechroniclesofthistimeperiod------------------------------------------------------------------17.Edgar959-975(16)+Edward17.LeoIIIIsaurianor"TheMartyr"975-978(3),andtheSyrian717-741(24)totally(aftersummation)theygive19years.Theirnamesaresimilarandconsequentlytheirunionisnatural------------------------------------------------------------------18.AethelredII"TheUnready"18.ConstantineVCopronimus978-1013(35)741-775(34)------------------------------------------------------------------19.CnutTheGreatDanish19.ConstantineVIPorphyrogenitus1017-1036(19).Hisdeath780-797(17).LetusnotethatindicatesthedisintegrationnowweareintheendofhistoricalofDanishempire.Thus,thisepochwhichwasmarkedoutinepochisfinishedbythewell-[1]and[24]asByzantineempire-1knowneventinthehistoryof(527-840).Thus,inthiscolumnAnglia.LetusnotethatthisofourtablewecametosomefragmentofEnglishhistoryisimportantturning-pointinmatchedwithByzantineepochByzantinehistoryunder210(or275)-yearshift(approximately)_________________________________________________________________TheoldEnglishchroniclesplacedintheendofthisepoch(inhistoryofAnglia)two"short"kings:HaroldIDanish(1036-1039,ruled3years)andHarthacnut(1039-1041,ruled2years).WedidnotfindtheByzantineduplicate-originalforHarthacnut,buttheoriginal-duplicateforHaroldIwillbedemonstratedbelow__________________________________________________________________WecontinuethemotionalongEnglishhistoryintheleftcolumnofthetable.TheparallelwithByzantinehistorywillcontinue(intherightcolumn).Butthisparallelbecomesmoreclearandevidentifwetakethenextepoch"Byzantineempire-3"(1143-1453)insteadoftheepoch"Byzantineempire-2"(Fig.1).Asweexplainedbefore,thesetwoepochsofByzantinehistoryareparallel,i.e.theyareduplicates(ofcourse,notidentical).Consequently,wewilllistintherightcolumnofthetabletheemperorsfrom"Byzantineempire-3"andalsowillindicateheretheirduplicatesfrom"Byzantineempire-2".AndwewillseethattheparallelismbetweenEnglishandByzantinehistorywillcontinueuntilthefallofConstantinoplein1453.__________________________________________________________________

3.3.3.Englishhistoryof1040-1327andByzantinehistoryof1143-1453.Rigid120-yearshift.__________________________________________________________________Englishepochof1040-1327Byzantineepochof1143-1453.Ismarkedas"Byzantineempire-3"intheFig.1.Itistheoriginalfor"Byzantineempire-2"__________________________________________________________________20.Edward"TheConfessor"20.ManuelIComnenus1041-1066(25)1143-1180(37)------------------------------------------------------------------ThedeathofEdward"TheConfes-AfterthedeathofManuelIthe

sor"indicatesthebeginningofhardtimeforByzantineempireNormaninvasion.Itispossible,beganandtheturning-pointisthatEnglishchroniclesmeanthewell-knowncrusadeandthehereinreality"Romaninvasion"conquestofConstantinopleinbecausethereistheparallel1204.ItissupposedtodaythatbetweensomeperiodsofRomanItalianRomeorganizedthehistoryandNormanhistoryinvasioninByzantineempire(see[1],[24])------------------------------------------------------------------ThecommentarytothedynasticstreamofEnglishhistory.AfterthedeathofEdward"TheConfessor"anewkingHaroldII"Godwinson"tookthethrone.Heruledonly1yearandwaskilledin1066inthebattlenearHastings.Fromtheotherhanditisknown([7],p.343)thatinrealityhegotagreatpoliticalpowerin1054whenEdwardwasalive.ButtheEnglishchroniclesplacedjustbeforetheruleofEdward"TheConfessor"onemore"short"(i.e.withashortrule)Harold,namelyHaroldI"Harefoot"(1036-1039)whoruledonly3years.ItispossiblethatthisHaroldIissimplythereflectionofHaroldII------------------------------------------------------------------21."DoubledHarold",i.e.21.IsaacIIAngelus1185-1195,HaroldIDanish(1036-1039)andthenhelostthepowerandthenHaroldII(1066year).appearedonByzantinethroneHaroldIIruledonly9months.againin1203(secondtime).HeItisclearthatthis"doubledrulednomorethan1yearandHarold"isthereflectionoffinallylostthepowerin1204,Byzantine"doubledIsaacAngelus",aftertheconquestofConstanti-whoruledtwotimes.Hissecondnoplebycrusaders.Thus,hisrulewasshort:lessthan1yearsecondrulewasnomorethan1year------------------------------------------------------------------NormanconquestofAnglia.TheTheconquestofByzantineempirefamousbattlenearHastingsinbycrusaders.Famousfourth1066crusade1199-1204------------------------------------------------------------------Wewillspeaklaterandmoredetailedabouttheparallelbetweentheseevents------------------------------------------------------------------22.WilliamIofNormandy22.TheodoreILascaris(Bastard)TheConqueror1066-1204-1222(18).In1204anew-1087(21).HisrulestartstheNicaeanempirestartsonthenewNormandynastyinAngliaterritoryofByzantineempire.ThereflectionofTheodoreinByzantineempire-2isBasilItheMacedonian867-887(19)------------------------------------------------------------------23.WilliamII"Rufus"1087-110123.Possibly,thereissomemess(14).Thus,herewehave14inthechronicleswhentheydescribeyearsandintherightcolumntheNormandynastyandNicaeanwehave11or12years.Weseeempire.Thefirstconjecture:heresomeconfusioninthetheoriginalpreimageforWilliamIIchroniclesbecauseintherightislost.Secondconjecture:thisiscolumnIsaacIIAngelusruledagainIsaacIIAngelus.Butinthistwicecasethechronicletookthewholehisrule:1185-1195andthen1203--1204,i.e.totally11or12years.------------------------------------------------------------------24.HenryI1101-113524.JohnIIIVatatzes(34or35years)1222-1254or1256(32).HisreflectioninByzantineempire-2

isLeoVI"ThePhilosopher"886-912(26)------------------------------------------------------------------25.StephenofBlois1135-115425.MichaelVIII1259or1260(19).KingStephenfinishestheuntil1282or1283(23).HisNormandynastyinAnglia([7],p.reflectioninByzantineempire-2357).ThenextkingHenryIIisRomanusI919-945(26).startsanewAnjoudynastyinMichaelVIIIstartsanewAngliaPalaeologusdynastywhichlastsfrom1261until1453------------------------------------------------------------------ThustherigidchronologicalshiftmatchesEnglishNormandynastywithByzantinedynastyofAngelusandthenmatchesthenextAnjoudynastywithByzantinedynastyofPalaeologus------------------------------------------------------------------26.HenryIIPlantagenet26.AndronicusIIPalaeologus1154-1189(35).Notethatboth1282or1283-1328(46).IftermsPlantagenetandcalculatedfrom1283to1320-Porphyrogenetushavethesamethemomentwhenhisco-rulermeaning:"onewhowasborninAndronicusIIIbegantoreignashirt".Thistermhaswell-thendurationofAndronicusIIknownmeaning-seecommentaryreignis37years.HewasbelowreflectedasConstantineVII910or912-959(47),(49)inByzantineempire-2.---------------------------------------------------------------Commentary.Term(name)"Porphyrogenetus"="Porphyro"+"Genitus"couldbeinterpretedas"one,whowasborninporphyr".Itsaysaboutbirthina"royalattributes",maybe"royalclothes","royalshirt".Itsuggestsararecasefrommedicalpracticewhenababyisborn"inashirt",i.e.stillinplacenta(placentasoundssimilarto"planta"-partof"Plantagenet").Inoldtimessuchcaseswereconsideredasasignofoutstandingfutureforthebaby(goodorbadone).WeseeinEnglishversion(leftcolumn)anamePlantagenet,i.e.Planta+Genet.Itmeansexactly"birthinaplanta,inacover"-thesameas"birthinashirt"------------------------------------------------------------------27.HenryIIestablishedaknown27.MichaelVIII.HewasjustdynastyofPlantagenets(HousebeforeAndronicusII.HeofPlantagenet)inEnglishestablishedaknowndynastyofhistory.ThisdynastywasPalaeologusinthehistoryoffinishedin1329withRichardByzantine.ThisdynastycoversII.So,thisdynastycoverstimetimeinterval1261-1453(uptointerval1154-1399([27],p.346).thesiegeofConstantinople)([27],p.636).------------------------------------------------------------------So,thechronologicalshiftwhichwediscoveredputstogethertwodynasties:Palaeologus'andPlantagenets.DynastyofPalaeologus'isfinishedin1453andreflectingthemPlantagenetscontinueupto1399.------------------------------------------------------------------28.RichardICoeurdeLion28.AndronicusIIIPalaeologus1189-1199(10).Durationof1320-1328-1341.Formallyhishisreignis10yearswhichreignlasts21years(1320-1341),iscloseto13years-durationbuthisreignasuniqueemperorofreignofhisanalog(withoutcorulers)wasonlyfor(original)inByzantine13years(1328-1341).In1328empirefinishedthereignofhiscoruler

-emperorAndronicusII.------------------------------------------------------------------29.JohnSanter1199-1216(17)29.JohnVICantacuzenus1341or1347-1355(15)------------------------------------------------------------------30.HenryIII1216-1272(56).30.JohnVPalaeologus1341-1391HenryIIIwasthelastkingin(50).HishasareflectioninAnjoudynastyinEngland.Byzantineempire-2:BasilIIDynastyofPalaeologusinBulgaroktonos(975or976-Byzantineempire(rightcolumn)1025).BasilIIBulgaroktonos'isnotfinishedatthispointreignwasfor49or50years.butitisneartotheend------------------------------------------------------------------31.EdwardI1272-1307(35)31.ManuelIIPalaeologus1391-1425(33or34).------------------------------------------------------------------32.EdwardIICaervarven32.JohnVIIIPalaeologus1307-1327(20)1424-1448(23or24).------------------------------------------------------------------Endofparallelism.In1453ConstantinoplewasseizedbyTurksandByzantineEmpirechangedtoTurkey.___________________________________________________________________Fig.4illustratesthisparallelism.Itisimportantthatdurationsofreignfiteachothersowellinthecasewhenthesamechronologicalshiftwasappliedtoallreigns.Alldynastywasshiftedasawhole,it'sinternaltimewasunchanged.Fig.5showsthesameparallelisminadifferentformwhichisdesignedforvisualcomparisonofdurationsofreigninbothdynasties.Forquantitativecomparisonweusednumericalcharacteristicofadistancebetweentwoarbitrarydynasties,whichwasintroducedin[1],[24].Itappearsthatthis"distance"dropsintoarangeofvalueswhicharenormalonlyforstronglydependentdynasties(detailsaboutthisnumericalcharacteristiconecanfindin[1],[24]).Recallthattwodynastiesarecalledasdependentonesiftheybothreflectthesamerealdynasty.Dependenceofthesetwodynasties(wemeanstatisticaldependenceofreigndurations)isthemainresultofthispaper.Itisinfactaformalresultandwemightfinishonit.Butmanynotformalquestionsfollowafterthisresultisclaimed.Mainofthemis:whatrealeventslayunderbothofthesetwodynasties?Whatwastherealhistory?

4.CORRECTENGLISHHISTORYISMORESHORTINTIMEBUTMUCHMOREDENSEINEVENTSTHANITISSUGGESTEDBYTEXTBOOKS

4.1.OurnewconceptofEnglishhistory

TheanswerfollowsdefinitelyfromtheaboveparallelismandfromtheFig.1.Naturally,themorenewdynasty(onewhichwaslaterintime)istobesupposedasoriginalone.ThisisaByzantinedynasty1143-1453A.D.ItwasdenotedaboveasByzantineempire-3.In[1],[24]itwasdiscoveredthatByzantineempire-3isasourceofinformationforit'sreflectionsByzantineempire-0,Byzantineempire-1andByzantineempire-2.RoughlyspeakingthewholeByzantinehistoryisconstructedfromseveralblocks-duplicatesofthesameepoch:1143-1453A.D.Aswediscovered,EnglishhistorybeingstringedtotheEnglishkingsdynastyisaduplicateofByzantinehistoryupto1327A.D.

(inEnglishchronology)=1450A.D.(inByzantinechronology).Middleof15thcenturywasatimefromwhichwehaveenoughinformation,soByzantinedynastyofthattimewassurelyarealone.ItsuggeststhatByzantineisanoriginalinaboveparallelism,andEnglandbefore1327A.D.-areflection.ItcouldbeseenfromtheFig.1howEnglishhistorybefore1327A.D.wasconstructedfromseveralreflectionsofByzantineEmpireof1143-1453A.D.Asaresumewepresentthefollowshypothesis.

1)AccordingtoEnglishhistoryof1-400A.D.EnglandatthattimewasaRomanprovince.EnglishhistoryofthatperiodspeaksmoreabouteventsinRomeitselftheninEngland.Itwasprovedin[1],[24]thatRomanhistoryofthattimereflectsrealeventsfrom9-13thcc.A.D.

2)ThatchronicleswhicharesupposednowtospeakaboutEnglishhistoryof400-830A.D.appeartodescribeRomeandByzantineempire-0.Thereforethesechroniclesreflectsomerealeventsof9-15thcc.whichtookplaceinByzantineempire.

3)ThatchronicleswhicharesupposednowtospeakaboutEnglishhistoryof830-1040A.D.appeartodescribeByzantineempire-1.Thesechroniclesalsoreflectrealhistoryof9-15thcc.inByzantineempire.

4)ThatchronicleswhicharesupposednowtospeakaboutEnglishhistoryof1040-1327A.D.appeartodescribeByzantineempire-3andthereforetheyreflectrealhistoryof9-15thcc.inByzantineempire.Thename"Anglia"(England)camefromthenameofwell-knownByzantinedynastyofAngels(1185-1204A.D.)

5)Thus,inthishypothesiswesuggestthatthoseancientandmedievalEnglishchronicleswhicharenowavailableandwhicharethoughtbyhistorianstospeakaboutsomeeventsfromtheepochbeforethebeginningof14thcentury,areinfactdevotedtocertainperiodsofByzantinehistoryof9-15thcc.Roughlyspeaking,ancientEnglishchroniclesareinfactByzantinechronicleswhichweretakenfromByzantinetoEnglandandthenmodifiedinasuchwaythattheyseemtospeakabouteventsinEngland.

6)ThetimewhenwrittenhistoryoftheislandwhichistodaycalledasEnglandreallybeginsismostprobablytheepochof9-10thcenturies.NowwehaveonlyveryfewinformationaboutthatearlyperiodofEnglishhistoryontheisland.SothedescriptionofEnglishhistoryof9-13cc.isinfactratherfragmentary.Butthisinformationaboutrealislandeventswasthen"covered"bychroniclesbroughtfromByzantineempire.Theresultingsumoftwofibers:"islandfiber"and"Byzantinefiber"wecanseenowastheEnglishhistoryof9-13thcc.

7)Startingfrom14thcenturyEnglishhistoryspeaksaboutrealeventsinEnglandonly.Roughlyspeaking,traditionalversionofEnglishhistorybecomescorrectfrom14thc.

8)Onemightask:"Ifyouareright,howtoexplainthefactthatinancientEnglishchroniclestherearechronologicaldetailsabout,forexample,howmanyyearstherewerebetweentheFloodandacertaineventofEnglishhistory?Thesechronological

detailsoftenagreewithScaliger's(modern)chronologicalconcept."Theanswerisfollows.Atfirst,notethatchronologicalandastronomicaldatafromancientchroniclesinmanycasesstronglycontradictwithmodernhistoricalversion.See[1],[24].Inthesecond,evenifweseethatadirectchronologicalstatementfromancienttextagreeswellwithmoderntradition,itsaysreallynothing,becauseallancientchronicleswhichwehavetoday,werefinallyeditedonlyin15-17thcc.Anditwasexactlythetimewhenmodernchronologicalconceptwasworkedout(ingeneral).Suchdirectchronologicalstatementsaresimplythetracesofchronologicalcomputationsof15-17thcc.Atthattimehistorians"calculated"thedatesofancienteventsandthenplaced(forreader'sconvenience)theresultsoftheir(medieval!)calculationsinsideancienthistoricaltexts.Thefactthatchronologicalstatementsindifferentancienttextsoftenagreemeansthattodaywehavemostlytheresultsofworkofonlyonemedievalchronologicalschool.Itwasthechronologicalschoolwhichworkwassupervisedin15-17thcc.byRoman-Catholicchurch.Often,astronomicalcalculationswereusedforchronologicalpurposes.Inthiscasetherecouldbecertainastrologicalmotivationsinmedievalastronomicalcalculationsforchronology.Medievalscientists,andhistoriansamongthem,oftentrustedastrologyandcoulduseitintheirconsiderations.Maybemedievalastrologerstriedtosolveproblemslikethese:whatwastheplanetaryconfigurationatthemomentofcoronationofJustinianI(orwhenancientlunareclipsesoccurredetc.)?Resultsofsuchastronomicalcalculationsof15-16thcc.couldbeplacedinancienttextstomaketheirchronologymoreclear.Itwaslargeworkanditmightbeveryusefulifthecalculationswerecorrect.Unfortunately,medievalastronomersandhistoriansmadealotofmistakes.Thesemistakesarediscussedin[1],[24].Asaresultofsuchmistakes,ancientchroniclesgotanincorrectchronologicalskeleton.Thisincorrectchronologywasthensupportedbychurchauthoritiesandbymedievalscientificschools.Itwasthechronologywhichwehavenowinourtextbooks.Andtoday,ourcontemporaries-thehistoriansandchronologists-taketheancientchronicles(fromarchives)andwithpleasurediscoverinthemthe"astronomicalandchronologicalinformation".Then,basingonthemoderntheory,theydatethedescribedeclipses,horoscopes(i.e.,theconfigurationoftheplanetsalongthezodiacalconstellations).Afterthis,historiansdiscover(withgreatpleasure)thatsometimestheserecordsfrom"ancientchronicles"satisfytotheScaliger'schronology(and,consequently,arecorrect).Ofcourse,sometimestherearesomecontradictions.Andsometimes-veryserious.Therealexplanationisasfollows:themedievalmethodsforcalculationsweremoreroughthatmodernones.Thenineachsuchcasethemodernchronologists"correct"these"recordsofancientchronicler".Asaresult,theyformtheillusionofthecorrectnessoftraditionalScaliger'sversionofancientchronology.ButwhatthemodernhistoriansreallydowhentheresultsofmodernastronomicalcalculationssharplydisagreewithScaliger'schronology?Asweknowtoday(see,forexample,[1],[24])thelistofsuchcontradictionsisverylong.ThisfactshowsthatScaliger'schronologicalversioniswrong.Butinallsuchcasesthemodernhistoriansstarttospeak(withagreatirritationanddispleasure)about"ignoranceofancientobserversandchroniclers",about"impossibilitytoapplythemodern

scientificmethodstotheanalysisanancienttexts"etc.ThevisualpictureofourchronologicalconjectureyoucanseeintheFig.6.

4.2.InwhichwaytheByzantinechronicleswereinsertedintomedievalEnglishhistory(oftheislandAnglia)?

TheanswerwillbeextremelysimpleifwewillerasefromourmindsthepicturewhichisimposedbytraditionalScaliger'schronology.Startingfrom11thcentury,severalcrusadesstormtheByzantineempire.Severalfeudalcrusaders'stateswerefoundedontheterritoryofByzantineempirein11-14thcc.Inthesestatesmanynationsweremixed:localpopulation,thecrusadersfromEngland,France,Germany,Italyetc.Inthesecrusaders'regionsandinByzantineempirethenewculturewascreated,inparticular,werewrittenahistoricalchronicles.AmongByzantineinhabitantswerealotofpeoplefromEurope,inparticular,fromsomeisland,whichlaterwillbecalledEngland.In1453A.D.TurksconqueredConstantinople.Byzantineempirewasruinedandthecrowdsofitsinhabitantsleavedthecountry.ManyofthemreturnedintheEurope,intheiroldhomeland.Inparticular,-intheislandAnglia.ThesedescendantsofcrusaderstookwiththemtheirByzantinehistoricalchronicle,becausethesetextsdescribetheirownrealhistoryinByzantineempire(duringmanyyears-oneortwohundredsyears).Severaldecadespassed.OntheislandAngliastartsthewritingitshistory(i.e.,thehistoryofthepeoplelivingontheisland).In16-17thcenturiessomequalifiedhistoriansappearandstarttocreatethegeneralhistoryofthewholelandAnglia("fromthebeginning").Theysearchforancientdocuments.Suddenlytheyfindseveraloldtrunkswith"veryold"documents.Thedocumentsaredusty,thepaperisveryfragile,andtheoldbooksfalltopieces.ThesechroniclesweretransportedfromByzantineempire.Butnow(in16-17thcc.)nobodyknewthis.Unfortunately,theprehistoryofthesetrunksisforgotten.And,unfortunately,isforgottenthatthesechroniclesdescribethehistoryofANOTHERLAND.TheEnglishhistoriansof16-17thcenturiescarefullyanalysethesetextsasthehistory"ofislandEngland"andputthemintothebasisof"oldBritish-islandhistory,whichstartedmanycenturiesago".InsomestrongsensetheywererightbecausereallytheauthorsofthechronicleswerecloselyconnectedwithislandAnglia(but,letusrepeat,describedANOTHERLAND-Byzantineempire).Thisprocessisquitenaturalanddoesnotsuggestanyspecialfalsificationofthehistory.Suchnaturalerrorswereinevitableatthefirststepsofcreatingofthegeneralhistory.Asaresult,appearedsuchchroniclesasAnglo-SaxonChronicle,theNennius'chronicleetc.AftersometimethiswrongversionofanoldEnglishhistorystandstockstill,becomesa"monument".Furtherhistorianssimplymodify(onlyalittle)theinitialschemeofthehistory,addsomenewdocuments.Andonlytoday,usingsomestatisticalandothermethodswestarttodiscoversomestrangeregularitiesinsidethe"historytextbook"andstarttorealizethattherealhistorywaspossiblysufficientlyshorterandthattodayweneedtoremovefromthe"oldEnglishhistory"its"Byzantinepart"andreturnthispiecetoitsrightplace(intimeandinthegeographicalsense).Thisprocedureisverypainful.WerealizethisbecausewediscoveredthesameproblemintheoldRussianhistory,whenwe

alsofoundseveralchronologicalduplicates.Generalremark.Itispossible,thatthisprocessof"insertionofanoldByzantinechronicles"inthebeginningofa"localhistory"ispresentedforseveraldifferentregionswhichwerecloselyconnectedwithByzantineempire.Inparticular,itistrueforRussia,forEngland,forRome,forGreece.

5.OLDENGLISHCHRONICLESASORIGINALDOCUMENTSWHICHSPEAKABOUTREALEVENTSOF10-13thCENTURIES

5.1.RomanconsulBrutus-thefirstwhoconqueredBritain(andthefirstkingofBritts)

WehaveanalyzedabovethedurationsofrulesandsuggestedtheconjecturethatoldEnglishhistoryis"achronologicalreflection"ifoneperiodofrealByzantinehistory.Thefollowingquestionimmediatelyarises:whataboutoldEnglishchronicles-dotheyconfirmthisconjecture?-ortherearesomecontradictions?Letustakethesechroniclesandletusreadthemoncemoreby"freshsight",withoutapriori"school"hypothesisabout"greatantiquity"ofthesesources.Nowwerecalltothereaderwell-knownfactsfromtraditionalhistoryofEngland(Angliainoldtexts).Letustake,forexample"HistoriaBrittonum"ofNennius,"HistoriaBritonum"ofGalfridusMonemutensisandAnglo-SaxonChronicle.GalfriduscallsBrutusasFIRSTkingofBritts([9],p.5).Inbrief,thestoryofconquestofBritainisasfollows.AftertheendoftheTrojanWarandafterthefallofTroy,theTrojanheroAeneasarrivedontheshipinItaly.Aftertwoorthreegenerationhisgreat-grandsonBrutuswasborn([9],p.6-7).Bytheway,Nenniusthinksthat"timedistance"betweenAeneasandBrutusissufficientlymore([8],p.173).Hestatesthat"thedistance"betweenTrojanwarandBrutusisaboutseveralhundredsyears.However,thisdifferenceisnotsoimportantforus.ThenBrutusleavedItalyandarriveditGreece,wherebecomestheleaderofTrojanssurvivedafterwar.Brutuscollectsthelargefleetandthenhisarmy(onthefleet)leavesGreece.Aftersometimetheylandedonsome"island",beganthebattlewithlocalpeople,wonthewarandfoundedthenewkingdom.ThisisBritain.BrutusisthefirstintherowofrulersinancientBritain.Todaytheyareconsideredaslegendaryheroes,because,accordingtotraditionalchronology,theseeventswere"inadeeppast"(beforeJesusChrist).NenniustellstheanalogousstoryofBrutus(butmoreshort).NenniusdefinitelystatesthatBrutus"arrivedontheisland,whichwascalledbyHISNAME,i.e.,ontheislandBritain,thenpopulatedtheislandbyhisposterityandlivedthere.FromthisdayandbeforenowtheBritainispopulated"([8],p.173).Thus,theBritainwascalledbythenameofBrutus.ThenNenniusinformsusaboutopinionofsomeotherauthors,that"islandBritainwascalledbythenameofBritt,sonofIsicion,whowasthesonofAlan"([8],p.172).Butaccordingtothemostwidespreadandauthoritativeversion(whichisquotedbyNennius)Britainwascalled"bythenameofBrutus,whowasROMANCONSUL(!-Auth.)"([8],p.172).Thus,Brutus-thefirstkingofBritainwasRomanconsul.Thisstatementisextremelystrangeandimpossiblefromthe

pointofviewtraditionalScaliger'schronology,becauseRomewasfoundedonlyabout753B.C.andconsequentlyintheepochofthisBrutusthereareno"Romanconsuls"andevennoRome!Anglo-SaxonChroniclestatesthat:"ThefirstinhabitantsofthislandweretheBritons,whocamefromARMENIA(!-Authors)..."([2],p.3).ItisquiteclearthatherethenameArmeniapointsoutontheRomania,i.e.ontheRoman-Byzantineempire,whichwascalledRomai-Romania.Thus,aswesee,theEnglishchronicleagainconnectsBritainandRoman-Byzantineempire.Ofcourse,todaythisstatementofoldchronicleisdeclaredbyhistoriansaserroneous.Themoderncommentaryisasfollows:"insteadoferroneousnameArmeniaoneshouldreadArmorica=Brittany"([2],p.3).However,thereplacementofArmeniabyArmoricadoesnothelptotraditionalhistory:thenameArmoricaalsocanbeconnectedwiththenameofRoman-Byzantineempire.Ourconclusiondoesnotchange.Thus,oldEnglishchroniclesstatethatBritainwasatfirstconqueredbyRomanconsulBrutus,whoarrivedtherewithamilitaryfleetandfoundedtheBritishkingdom.HebecamethefirstkingofanislandBritain.

5.2.ConsulBrutusofEnglishchronicles-washeacontemporaryofJuliusCaesar?

Itseemsthattheanswerisquiteclear.Weneedonlytounderstand-whenlivedthisremarkableRomanconsul(accordingtotraditionalchronology)?Itisverysimple.Thequalifiedreaderalreadypromptstoustherightanswer:itwas1stcenturyB.C.Inthiscenturywesee(inmoderntextbookinancienthistory)thewell-knownRomanconsulBrutus-thefriendandbrother-in-armsofJuliusCaesar.BrutustookpartinmanycampaignsofJuliusCaesar.ThenBrutusbetrayedCaesar-hispatronandprotector.Werememberfromour"scholarchildhood"thebitterwordsofCaesar:"Andyou,Brutus",whichCaesarsaidwhenBrutusstruckhimbythesword.Aswealsoknown,thetraitorousmurderofCaesar-oneofthemostimportantepisodein"biography"ofancientRomanconsulBrutus.Itisremarkable,buttheoldEnglishchroniclesalsospeakaboutthisepisodebutinaslightlydifferentwords.TheystatethatBrutus(thefirstBritts'king)killedhisfarther.Thismurderisconsideredbychroniclesasaccidental,unintentional.Allegedly,Brutusshotanarrowandaccidentallykilled"hisfarther"([8],p.173).Inouropinion,thisisslightlydistortedRomanstoryaboutmurderofJuliusCaesarbyBrutus.Here"farther"isCaesar-formerfriendandprotectorofBrutus.Becauseofthisterriblemurder,thepeopleexpelBrutusfromhisnativeland.Itwasdoneinbothstories:inRomanandinEnglish.Brutusstartedonajourney.Oursimpleandnaturalconjectureisasfollows:intheoldEnglishstoryaboutconquestofBritainactsBrutus-thecontemporaryofJuliusCaesar.Aswesaw,thisconjectureissupportedbyancientdocuments,althoughtheydonotcalldirectlyBrutusasfriendorenemyofCaesar.Indeed,allchroniclesstatethatATFIRSTBritainwasconqueredbyJuliusCaesar.Someinterestingdetailsarereported.Namely,CaesararrivedinBritainwithRomanmilitaryfleetwhichconsistedofabout80ships([2],p.5).ButtheconquestofthelandbecameacomplicatedproblemandsoonCaesarreturnedinBritainwiththe

fleetconsistingof600(!)ships.AfterthebattlethelocalarmyofnativesweredefeatedandRomansfoundedthenewkingdom.Moreover,NenniusclaimsthatJuliusCaesarWASTHEFIRSTROMANwhoarrivedontheislandBritainandconqueredthekingdomandBritts([8],p.176).Thus,ifBrutusWASTHEFIRSTROMANarrivedinBritain,andifJuliusCaesaralsoWASTHEFIRSTROMANarrivedinBritain,thenBRUTUSandJULIUSCAESARaresimplyCONTEMPORARIESandbrothers-in-arms.ThisconclusionevidentlyfollowsfromoldEnglishchronicles.Letusresumethesecorollariesintheformofsometable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------Brutus-thefirstkingofBrittsJuliusCaesar-----------------------------------------------------------------1.ThefirstRomanarrivedon1.ThefirstRomanarrivedontheisland,conqueredthelandtheisland,conqueredtheandfoundedthekingdomcountryandalsofoundedthekingdom

2.ArrivedinBritainwithgreat2.Wastheheadofgreatmilitarymilitaryfleetfleetwhichinvadedintotheland

3."Accidentally"killedhis3.Hiscontemporary-RomanBrutus,fartherbyarrowCaesar'sfriend,traitorouslykilledCaesar(="hisfarther--protector")

4.ThemurderofBrutus'father4.Well-knownstory:themurderbyhissonwaspredictedinofJuliusCaesarwaspredictedadvancebyprophet(seeNennius,byRomanprophet(see,for[8],p.173)example,Plutarch

5.AfterwardsBrutuswasexpelled5.RomansexpelledBrutusasgreatfromhisnativeland(asthementraitor,becausehekilledJuliuswhocommittedthemurder)Caesar

6.RomanconsulBrutusstarts6.JuliusCaesarlived(accordingthehistoryofBritaintraditionalchronology)in1stc.B.C.-----------------------------------------------------------------Thus,fromthepositionofcommonsenseweimmediatelydatetheepochofthefirstBrutus'conquestofBritain(withhiscontemporaryJuliusCaesar)by1stcenturyA.D.Letusnote,thatthisourstatementisnotnewinreality.AllexpertsknowthatCaesarconqueredtheBritainin1stcenturyA.D.AllexpertsknowthatBrutuswasthefirstwhoconqueredBritain.Wesimplycombinethesetwofactsandformulatetheevidentconclusion:

"Ancient"RomanconsulBrutus-the"farther"ofallBritts,thefirstkingofBritain,the"startingperson"ofthewholeEnglishhistory-isacontemporaryonJuliusCaesar,i.e.,well-knowninclassicalRomanhistoryconsulBrutus.

Thereaderqualifiedinancienthistorycan,ofcourserecallherealsothesecondknownBrutusinRomanhistory,whoactedallegedlyabout6thc.B.C.inRome.HeexpeledtheRomankingsfromthecapitalandfoundedtheRomanrepublic.Butthishistoricalepochisinrealityanotherchronologicalduplicate(copy),reflectionoftheepochofJuliusCaesar.Itwas

discoveredin[1],[24].Consequently,theattempttoidentifytheBrutus=thefirstkingofBritts-with"anotherBrutus"-fails.WeagaincometotheepochofJuliusCaesar(1stcenturyA.D.accordingtotraditionalchronology).Letusrecallhere,thataccordingtochronologicalresults,obtainedin[1],[24],theepochofJuliusCaesarisinrealitytheduplicate(reflection)oftheepochof10-11thcc.A.D.Thereadercanaskus:whywediscussinsuchdetailssuchevidentquestion(theidentificationofBrutus-thefirstkingofBritts-withBrutusofCaesar'sepoch)?Ouranswerisasfollows.ThisourstatementismortallydangeroustothetraditionalchronologyofEngland(andnotonlyEngland).ThisistheexplanationwhythetraditionalhistorianstrytoavoidanyseriousdiscussionabouttheassertionofEnglishchronicles,thatBrutuswasRomanconsulandthatBrittsarethedescendantsofRomans.Inparticular,themoderncommentatorsofNenniusandGalfridus(A.S.BobovichandM.A.Bobovich)irritatedlywrite:"The(medieval-Auth.)ideatodeducetheoriginofBrittsfromRomansandTrojansisnotsooriginal:alreadyin6thcenturyA.D.theFrank'srulersdeducedtheiroriginfromTrojans(and,inouropinion,theywereright,seethediscussionaboutthissubjectin[1],[24]-Auth.)"([9],p.270).Andthencommentatorsaddcarefully:"ThereareseveralBrutusinRomanhistory".Theydonotcontinueanddonotdiscussthisremark,andnowwerealize-why.Ifyoustarttoanalysethe"Brutus'problem",you(aswedemonstratedabove)willmaketheinevitable(andcatastrophicfortraditionalchronology)conclusionthat"EnglishBrutus"wasthecontemporaryofJuliusCaesar.BUTWHYTHISCONCLUSIONUSSODANGEROUS?Atfirst,becauseinthiscasethesocalled"ancientlegendaryBritishhistory"isimmediatelymovedupwardsbyapproximately1000-yearshiftintheepochof1-13thA.D.andmoreover,in10-15thcc.A.D.Suchcorollary,ofcourse,iscompletelyunacceptable(andtotallyfantastic)toanymoderntraditionalhistorian.Buttherearesomeanother,sufficientlymoredangerouscorollaries.Aboutthis-ournextsection.

5.3.BiblicaleventsinEnglishchronicles

The"HistoriaBritonum"ofGalfridusMonemutensisisstrungonthepivotofbiblicalhistory.Thismeansthatsometimes,whenspeakingabouttheeventsofBritishhistory,Galfridusinsertsthephrasessimilartothis:InJudeatheprophetSamuelruledatthistime([9],p.20).Theserarephrasesarescatteredalongthechronicleandformtherough(andverybrief)skeletonofbiblicalhistoryofprophetsandbiblicalkings,whichiscloselyinterwovenwiththestreamofBritishhistory.But,bytheway,Galfridusdoesnotgiveanyabsolutedates.Hischronologyiscompletelyrelative,i.e.,hetellsonly-inthetimeofwhichbiblicalkings(orprophets)wereoccurredsomeofBritishevents.Thus,whenanalyzingtheEnglishchronologyinaunprejudicedway,wemeetthenecessitytostarttheanalysisofbiblicalchronologyalso.Letusdoitandwewillseewhatwewillobtain.Theevidentidentificationof"EnglishBrutus"withwell-knownBrutusfromtheepochofJuliusCaesar,isimpossiblefortraditionalhistorianbecauseinthiscasethewholebiblicalchronologyisautomaticallymovedfromitstraditionalplace(intime)upwardsbyaboutatleast1000-yearshift!Inrealitythis

shiftwillbesufficientlymore:about1800years!See[1],[24].Indeed,if"EnglishBrutus"(theforefatherofBritts)isplacedin1stcenturyB.C.,then,accordingtothe"HistoriaBritonum"ofGalfridusMonemutensis,ALLBASICEVENTSOFBIBLICALHISTORYshouldbedistributedontimeaxisfrom1stcenturyA.D.until13thcenturyA.D.Herewemean:thehistoryofallbiblicalprophets,thehistoryofthekingdomofJudahandthekingdomofIsraeletcetera.Onthefaceofit,suchconclusioniscompletelyimpossible!Traditionally,biblicalhistoryisdatedfrom11thcenturyB.C.until1stcenturyA.D.Butifwewillwaitalittleandwilltryneverthelesstoplaceancientbiblicalhistoryontheintervalfrom1stcenturyA.D.until13thcenturyA.D.-whatweobtain?Itturnsoutthatthisproceduredoesnotleadtothecontradictionwithancientevidencesofancienttexts.WesuggesttothereadertotakethebooksofFomenko[1],[24],whereyoucanfindthedetails.Herewedemonstrateonlyone,butremarkableexample.

5.4.Doweinterpretancienttextsinaproperway?Problemofvowelsrestoration.

Intheattempttoreadanddatethemostoftheancientmanuscripts(ancientEgyptian,ancientSlavonic,biblicaletcetera)certainbasicproblemsarefrequentlyencountered.AssoonasJ.SunderlandstartedinvestigatingtheoriginallanguageoftheOldTestament,he,inhiswords,"...facedthefactofenormousandevenstartlingimportance.ThethingisthattheJewishwrittenlanguageoriginallyhadneithervowelsnorsignsreplacingthem.ThebooksoftheOldTestamentwerewrittenonlywithconsonants"([16],p.155).Thisisalsotypicalforotherlanguages.Forexample,anancientSlavonictextwasachainofonlyconsonants,too;sometimesevenwithoutsignsreplacingthevowels,orwithoutdivisionintowords.OldEgyptiantextswerealsowritteninconsonantsonly.Accordingtowell-knownchronologistE.Bickerman,"...thenamesofEgyptiankingsaregivenincontemporaryliteratureschematically,inaquitearbitrary,so-calledscholasticmanneradoptedinschooltextbooks.Theseformsareoftengreatlydifferentfromeachother;itisimpossibletoorderthemsomehow,duetotheirarbitraryreading(!-Authors.)whichbecametraditional"([17],p.176).Probably,therarityandhighcostofwritingmaterialsinancienttimesmadethescribessavethem,andomitthevowels,therebyessentiallyshorteningthetext.J.Sunderlandcontinues:"However,ifwetaketheJewishBibleoramanuscripttoday,weshallfindinthemtheskeletonofvowelsfilledwithdotsandothersignsdenotingthemissingvowels.ThesesignsdidnotbelongtotheoldJewishBible.Thebookswerereadbyconsonants,andtheintervalswerefilledwithvowelsaccordingtoone'sskillandtheapparentrequirementsofthecontextandorallegends"([16],p.155).Imaginehowexactthemeaningofawordwritteninconsonantscanbeif,forexample,CLNcanmeanclean,clan,colon,andsoforth.AccordingtoT.Curtis,evenforthepriests,thecontentofmanuscriptsremainedextremelydoubtfulandcouldbeunderstood

onlybymeansoftheauthorityofthelegend([16],p.155).Itisassumedthatthisseriousshort-comingoftheJewishBiblehadbeeneliminatednotearlierthatthe7thor8thcenturyA.D.,whentheMassoretesrevisedtheBibleandaddedsignsreplacingthevowels;buttheyhadnomanuals,excepttheirownreason,andaveryimperfectlegendarytradition([16],p.156-157).Well-knownexpertS.Driveraddsthat,sincethetimesoftheMassoretesinthe7th-8thcenturyA.D.,theJewshavetakentokeepingtheirsacredbookswithextraordinarycare,butthenitwastoolatetorepairthedamagealreadydone.Theresultofsuchattentivenesswasjusttheimmortalizationofthedistortions,whichwerethenplacedonexactlythesamelevelofauthoritywiththeoriginaltext([16],p.157).J.Sunderland:"TheopinionreigningearlierwasthatthevowelshadbeenintroducedintotheJewishtextbyEzrainthe5thcenturyA.D.Butinthe16thand17thcentury,E.LevitaandJ.CapellusinFrancerefutedthisopinionandprovedthatthvowelshadbeenintroducedonlybytheMassoretes.ThediscoverycreatedasensationinthewholeofProtestantEurope.Manypeoplebelievedthatthenewtheorywouldleadtodisprovingthereligioncompletely.IfthevowelswerenotamatterofDivineRevelation,butonlyahumaninvention,besides,amuchlaterone,thenhowcouldwerelyonthetextoftheScripture?Thisdiscussionwasoneofthehottestinthehistoryofthenewbiblicalcriticismandproceededformorethanacentury,stoppingonlywhenthevalidityofthenewpointofviewwasacknowledgedbyeveryone"([16],p.157-158).

5.5.Geographyandchronologyofbiblicalevents.

5.5.1.Problemswithtraditionalgeographicallocalizations.

Evenifthevowelsofcommonwordsarenotthatimportant(youcaneasilyreconstructawell-knownwordfromthecontext),thesituationchangescompletelywhencombinationofconsonantsmeaningacity,country,thenameofaking,etc.,appearsinanancienttext.Tensandhundredsofdifferentvariantsofvowelsforoneterm(word)maybefound,statingthe"identifications"ofthebiblicalvowel-freenamesofcities,countries,andothers,madebytraditionalhistoriansproceedingfromthechronological(andgeographical)versionofJ.ScaligerandthelocalizationreferringthebiblicaleventstotheNearEast.AsthearchaeologistM.Burrowsnotes,thearchaeologicaljobgenerallyleadstotheundoubtedlystrongestcreedinthereliabilityofbiblicalinformation(cit.from[18],p.16).F.KenyonoftheBritishMuseuminsistsasmuchcategoricallyonarchaeologyrefutingthe"destructiveskepticismofthesecondhalfofthe19thcentury"[18].Buthereisunexpectedinformationreportedbythewell-knownarchaeologistG.Wright,who,bytheway,isastaunchpartisanofthecorrectnessoforthodoxlocalizationandoftraditionaldatingbiblicalevents.Hewrote,"Agreatmanyfindingsdonotproveordisproveanything;theyfillthebackgroundandonlyserveashistoricalartifacts.Unfortunately,thedesire"toprove"theBiblepermeatesmanyworksavailabletotheaveragereader.Historicalevidencesmaybeusedinanincorrectmanner,whereastheconclusionsdawnareoftenerroneousandonlyhalfcorrect"([18],p.17).

IfweattentivelyexaminethefundamentalfactsabouttheBiblediscoveredbyN.A.Morozov[19],thenweshallseethatnoneofthebooksoftheOldTestamentcontainanysolidarchaeologicalconfirmationoftheirtraditionalgeographicalandtimelocalization.AsI.A.Kryvelevnoted,thewhole"Mesopotamian"biblicaltheorywillbequestioned.ThetraditionallocalizationoftheeventsdescribedintheNewTestamentisnobetter.I.A.Kryvelevmanyyearsstudiedthebiblicalgeographyandchronology.Hewrote,"Thereaderinterestedinbiblicalarchaeologymaybebewilderedbythehundredsofpagesspeakingofexcavations,landscapes,orartifacts,historicalandbiblicalbackground.And,intheconclusion,whenitcomestotheresultsofthewholejob,thereareonlyanumberofindistinctandimprecisestatementsabouttheproblemnothavingbeencompletelysolved,butthatthereisstillhopeforthefuture,andsoforth.WemaybeabsolutelysurethatnoneofthestoriesoftheNewTestamentcontainsanysomewhatconvincingarchaeologicalconfirmation(intermsofthetraditionallocalizations-Authors).Thisisperfectlytrue,inparticular,ifappliedtothefigureandbiographyofJesusChrist.NotasinglespottraditionallyregardedasthearenaofaparticulareventoccurringintheNewTestamentcanbeindicatedwiththeslightestdegreeofconfidence"([18],p.200-201).Thenaturalquestionarises:wheretheeventsofOldandNewTestamentsweregeographicallylocatedinreality?

5.5.2.WhereancientTroywaslocated?

Inreality,considerabledifficultiesaccompanytheattemptsofgeographicallocalizationofmanyoftheancienteventsandcities(notonlyfromtheBible).Forexample,oneoftheacceptedtodaytraditionallocalizationsofthefamouscityofTroyisneartheHellespont(=theseaofHelen).ItisforthisparticularreasonthatSchliemannascribedthefamousnameofTroy(describedbyHomer)totherestsofasmallancientvillageheexcavatedneartheHellespont.Itiswellknownthattodaywehavenotanyproofsofthis"identification".Itisassumedtoday,thataccordingtotraditionalchronology,Troywascompletelydestroyedinthe12-13thcenturyB.C.andafterthiswasneverreconstructed[17].But,itturnsout,thatintheMiddleAges,ItaliancityTroy,whichstillexiststoday[1],[24],enjoyedwidespreadfame.Thisiscelebratedmedievalcitywhichplayedanimportantroleinmanymedievalwars;especially,inthewell-knownwarofthe13thcentury.ManyByzantinehistoriansalsospeakofHomer'sTroyasofanexistingmedievalcity,namely,ChoniatesNicetasandGregorasNicephoras([20],v.6,p.126).T.LivyindicatesthespotnamedTroyandtheTrojanregioninItaly(Book.1).CertainmedievalhistoriansidentifiedTroywithJerusalem(see,forexample,[21],p.88,235,162,207),whichembarrassesthemoderncommentators:"ThebookofHomersomewhatsuddenlyturned(inthemedievalchronicle,whiledescribingAlexander'sexpeditiontoTroy-Authors)...intothebookonthedestructionofJerusalem"([21],p.162).Letusrecallthatthesecond(well-known)nameofTroyisIlion,whereasthesecondnameofJerusalemisAelia

Capitolina([19],v.7).Itisabsolutelyclearthatinthenamesofthesecitiesthereisasimilarity:Aelia=Ilion.

Thebooks[1]and[2]containsthedataandargumentswhichallowtoassumethatHomer'sTroyistheConstantinople(=NewRome),andthattheTrojanWaristhereflectionofcrusadeswhichstartedfrom11thc.A.D.TheConstantinoplewascapturedduringcrusades.Besidesthis,somepartofthelegendonTrojanWaristhereflectionofarealmedievalwarfromthemiddleof13thc.A.D.inItaly.TheItaliancityTroywasinvolvedinthiswar(see[1]).TheidentificationoftheGreatTroywithConstantinoplefollowsalsofromthetextsofcrusadesepoch.ThechroniclerRoberdeClaritoldthattheGreatTroywaslocatedneartheentranceintothe"branchiumSanctiGeorgii"([25],p.210).ItissupposedtodaythatthisistheDardanelles.Fromtheotherhanditisalsoknownthatanotherfamouschroniclerofthe4thcrusade-Villehardouin-callsas"branchiumSanctiGeorgii"notonlytheDardanellesbutalsotheBosporus!M.A.Zaborov(modernhistorian)notes:"Villehardouinappliesthename"branchiumSanctiGeorgii"totheDardanellesandtotheBosporus"([25],p.238).Thus,theGreatTroycanlocatedalsoneartheentranceintotheBosporus.ButhereweseetheConstantinople!Consequently,itwascompletelyunnecessarytosearchthe"rests"oftheTroyonadeserthillsasSchliemanndone.Ourconjecture:theTrojanWaristhereflectionoftheoneorseveralcrusadesontheConstantinopleoronItalianTroy.Thewell-knownmedieval"NovelontheTroy"ofBenoitdeSainte-Maure("RomandeTroie")wasfinishedallegedlybetween1155and1160A.D."Thesourceofthisnovelisthe"HistoryofTroydestruction"writtenbysomeDares,whowasallegedlytheeyewitnessofTrojanWar(possibly,hewasoneofthecrusader