mysteries of egyptian zodiacs - HiddenMysteries Information Central

6 1 The Problems of Historical Chronology
the conclusion that the conceptual framework of Scaliger’s
chronology is completely groudless.
Figure 1.7: Morozov’s
monument.
After analyzing a immense
amount of historical material,
Morozov formulated his primary
hypothesis that Scaliger’s ancient
chronology was artificially
expanded in time and made
much longer than it was in reality.
This claim was made based
on discovered by him “repetitions,”
i.e. the historical texts,
which most probably describe
the same sequences of events,
but are dated differently and are
considered to be unrelated. The
publication of Morozov’s works
created vivid discussion in press,
repercussions of which are still
noticable in the contemporary
literature. There were some reasonable
responses to Morozov’s
arguments, but they were not sufficient to dismiss the entire
critical content of his books.
Figure 1.8: Morozov’s parents
It looks as if N.A. Morozov was completely unaware of
the chronological research published by I. Newton and E.
Jonhson, which at that time were practically forgoten. Surprisingly,
many of the obtained by Morozov’s conclusions coincide
with the claims made by Newton and Jonhson. However,
his investigations the problem of chronology were definitely
on the larger scale and more profound that those of
Newton. He extended his analyzis over the period of history
up to the 6th century A.D. and included in it the redating
of all the cornerstone historical events. Dispite the extensive
nature of his work, N.A. Morozov, likewise Newton, was not
able to establish any kind of systematic method for the seemingly
chotic redating process. However, his work was done
on much higher level than Newton’s research. He also clearly
understood the need for radical revision not only of the “an-
cient” but also medieval history. Nevertheless, in his research,
Morozov did not move further than the 6th century A.D., believing
that the presently accepted chronology of the period
from the 6th to 13tyh centuries is more or less true. Later, we
will explain that this was a big mistake.
Figure 1.9: First Edition of the Morozov’s book “Christ: the
History of Human Culture from the Standpoint of the Natural
Sciences.”
The chronology issues appear unwilling to go away, returning
persistently and repeatidly, each time with a stronger
critical proclamation that there is indeed a problem. The fact
that the independent research of such scientists as I. Newton,
E. Jonhson and N.A. Morozov had strong similarities in their
conclusions indicate that this could be the right direction to
look for a solution to the chronology problem.
After the publication of the works by A.T. Fomenko and
G.V. Nosovski, dealing with the chronology problem, in 1996
in Germany there appeared several books written by German
scientists; Uwe Topper, Heribert Illig, Christian Blöss,
and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz. Their authors critically analyzed
Scaliger’s chronology. For example, the Heribert Illig’s book
questions the real existence of Charles the Great and presents
proofs of an ultimate historical forgery. He claims that the medieval
history should be shorten by 300 years by “removing”
from it the Charles the Great epoch. Let us point out that the
revisions suggested by Illig are of local character only, which
could be done within the frames of Scaliger’s chronology. In
another book by Gunnar Heinsohn in Heribert Illig When
the Pharaohs lived? (see [176]) the authors question the correctness
of Scaliger’s chronology of the ancient Egypt. Apparently,
the authors are not aware of the Morozov’s research (see
[4]) on the Egyptian chronology, in which he indicated several
“glued up” dynastical sequences of Egyptian kings. The Morozov’s
arguments, which were published in years 1924–1932,
supporting drastical shortening of the Egyptian chronology,
were never translated to English or German (except for the
book Revelations in Storm and Thunders).