(chapter updated Feb 2021)

Famous scientist and revolutioneer, a member of The Executive Committee of «The Peoples' Will» party, honorary academician Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) published several volumes of his research «The Christ» during 1924-1932 (initially titled «History of The Mankind In A Light Of The Natural Science»), radically revising traditional ideas of the ancient history of the mankind.

Morozov's provisions were completely rejected by historical scientists, without any analysis essentially, and the reason is clear. Impressions, ideas, and opinions that a person gets at some time in early childhood - a so-called «imprinting» - are assimilated very firmly, and are very difficult to change. For example, this is the case with ideas of religion. The same thing happens during the education of students in a university. In the first year, certain facts are given and placed in very deep parts of memory, so a student uses these without any reflecting whether they are justified. During the first year, one has perceived and accepted them without any criticism. It was reported by the professor and so the student just has to pass the exam, not criticize. He never returns to it later on.

Anything placed into memory with imprinting is very difficult to uproot. We know this in the example of religion: if a person has received basic principles of belief at some time in early childhood, he remains a believer even as an adult. He doesn't rationally think it over anymore though, he doesn't perceive any atheistic criticism, and more so, if he begins to think about it for some reason, he usually loses his belief. This, too, explain the rage shown in fighting an otherwise-minded. They are burnt in fires or killed in religious wars. These are demonstrations of the same psychological mechanism. We're just afraid to change imprinted ideas and struggle to fight against this as much as we can. It can also explain how science is so conservative. Obtained ideas and results are very difficult to change. Science does not tolerate new ideas, fighting them instead. New ideas are approved only if they are spoken out or supported by an authoritative scientist, and the more radical idea is, the greater his authority should be. New ideas require very strong effort and a long time to win and become widely accepted.

I found out about Morozov's book in about 1965, but my attempts at discussing it with professional historians led nowhere. Every time it was over with more or less obscene swearing combined with statements like «it cannot be because it can never be!». L.N. Gumilev reacted most politely, stating: «We historians don't meddle with mathematics so we would like to ask you, mathematicians, not to meddle with history!». Basically, he is right - science should be developed by professionals and professionals only. But at the same time professionals are supposed to answer perplexed questions of ignoramus concretely and convincingly, explaining what did they got wrong. This is exactly what I couldn't get from professional historians.

I had to sort out the problem on my own and little by little I've concluded that Morozov is right in many ways and who's wrong is not Morozov but historical science that took the wrong turn around the 16th century as a result of the work of Scaliger and Petavius (that's not what book actually says-trans).

Reading historical literature revealed an astonishing phenomenon for me: basically, in any indent of any composition on the history of The Antiquity, discriminatory «Morozov-minded» look reveal adjustments and logical leaps, absolutely unnoticeable for an «orthodox» reader (for example unit 1, §8 and unit 2, §6). This was the thing that convinced me about the justice of Morozov's viewpoint more than anything else.

Meanwhile, A.T. Fomenko heard of Morozov and approached me with a request to express Morozov's theory systematically. For long I didn't succumb to his persuasions but ultimately surrendered and read a cycle of lectures in which I expressed Morozov's theory in my interpretation. Later, at The Department of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, Fomenko and Mischenko organized a seminary dedicated to Morozov. Using my lectures and this seminary's data as a basis, Fomenko and Mischenko composed a certain text that I disliked strongly and hence exposed it to cardinal rework, mostly intending to highlight Morozov's initial ideas in greater detail (even ones I don't really agree with). But Fomenko and Mischenko didn't approve my corrections, so I performed concluding rework on my own. I significantly expanded this text later by adding another, third volume.

This manuscript was multiplied in INION (Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences) in 1977 (20 copies total were made) to discuss it in the historical department of the Academy of Sciences. But this discussion turned out, as one would expect, to be a dialogue of two deaf people and ended in basically nothing.

In the next 20 years, I didn't return to it all. Personally, I understood everything I wanted, considering (till this day) further development of this matter to be the duty of professional historians, that undoubtedly will come to a necessity to stop purely negative treatment of this matter sooner or later and research all of it meaningfully.

Fomenko took an absolutely different position, starting energetic activity and recently publishing an entire series of books in which, in his revision of The Ancient History and The Middle Ages History, he went significantly further than even Morozov himself. Among other things, it revitalized interest in Morozov's initial ideas again so Kraft Publishing House approached me with an offer to publish my manuscript from 1977. Preparing it for publishing, I haven't added anything new (even if I could) and just removed units containing Fomenko and Mischenko's considerations. An influence of Fomenko's initial manuscript remains mostly in a way of picking citations that confirm Morozov's viewpoint.

Even if I consider this composition to contain an exposition of all Morozov's major ideas, it doesn't mean I agree with them all, at least because I can't competently judge some of his considerations in the sense whether they are correct. They are given here anyway so the reader can form its own opinion. Nevertheless, I performed a certain selection of course so Morozov himself would quite possibly accuse me of misrepresentation. So I completely bear all the responsibility for this text anyway.

Recent years are remarkable with a great number of compositions dedicated to so-called «para-science». On the historical part these are «Atlanticism», an idea of the existence of extremely cultural civilizations in the distant past (barely not the Tertiary period), a conviction about The Earth being visited by space incomers, etc. Not discussing these questions here on point I still can't avoid but notice how adepts of para-science stand out with their impossible credulity shown in their references to unverifiable testimony of «witnesses» usually characterized very indeterminately («one pilot», «one tourist» etc.). Verification of their references for «material evidence» (say, the notorious «Zalzbourg's parallelepiped») reveals how these pieces of evidence either just don't exist or they were either «destroyed» or «disappeared» in unclear and unclarifyable circumstance. In this sense it becomes especially interesting for us, how the so-called «The Antiquity History» (unlike, say, The New History) reveals all the characteristic features of modern para-science. Detection of this remarkable fact (in different terms of course) appears one of Morozov's main merits indeed. The first part of this book is dedicated to a detailed discussion of this matter, main principles and methods of the research are, too, described in the epilogue.

In literature, there are many totally wrong opinions on the study of Morozov. For example, it is stated how the core of his theory allegedly consists in the "astral" interpretation of biblical myths. But in reality, this astral interpretation is of such little importance that it turned out possible to delay its review in this book till the last unit of the second volume and even that unit appears to be a mere commentary on previous volumes.

But there's more, and even if research of The Bible (absolutely not in astral interpretation) does play quite a vital role for Morozov, his main statements can still be discussed and substantiated without any mention of biblical motifs. The most simple way to see this is how The Bible is never mentioned in the first volume of this composition.

Another very common opinion being that astronomy was Morozov's main instrument (people write how he committed «an astronomical revolution in The Historical Science»). This is also not entirely true: Morozov's astronomical considerations play an important but still supplemental role in his study.

In recent years - in connection with Fomenko's publications especially - people began talking about «mathematical revolution in The Historical Science». This is not justified as well: even if Morozov's mathematically-statistical observations, developed further and deeper by Fomenko, are striking frequently, they do not possess an independent probative value because any application of mathematics is always, even if implicitly, based on a preliminary meaningful interpretation. Also, statistical effects that Fomenko - not Morozov! - based his work on, can also be refuted from a purely mathematical position as far as I can judge from the opinions of my colleagues (I'm not a specialist in Statistics myself).

Frankly, no considerations of natural science (astronomical, mathematically-statistical, geological considerations) can play a vital role in historical research. They should always be interpreted within some basic paradigm and can't stand on solid ground without it.

Conviction in Morozov's theory comes from its synthetic nature, its general theoretical, mathematical, astronomical, linguistic, geological, and other considerations combined (in ways often bizarre and almost always unexpected). Unlike the adepts of the parascience, Morozov in his main critical statements usually relies on the most fundamental historical facts found in any monographs, textbooks, and popular scientifical literature. To emphasize this fact, elementary textbooks and popular books are cited in this text abundantly. And because basically, any book was fit for this, cited compositions were not chosen intentionally but the first to stumble upon were taken. The randomness of their selection, even if it could possibly make us use not the best and the most authoritative sources, had a purpose to emphasize the universality of information that Morozov is using, once more.

To help the reader navigate the book, every unit is closed with «Results» and every paragraph is closed with «Conclusion» briefly summarising the contents of this unit (or a paragraph). Summary of these «Results» and «Conclusions» form a kind of a short abstract of this book.

All the highlights in citations (with cursive typically) belong to me.

M.M. Postnikov

P.S. In recent years A.T. Fomenko with his colleagues released an entire series of books, continuing and developing Morozov's ideas. He's reconstructing The Middle Ages History in an absolutely different way. The very possibility of that emphasizes once more how unsteady and uncertain our knowledge of the past is.

Fomenko's reconstruction caused a lively discussion but his opponents - it looks like they are right in many regards - usually just in passing discuss an initial matter of reliability of widely accepted opinions about the past.

Fomenko's reconstruction can quite possibly be wrong in many details but this also doesn't refute the falsity of traditional historical views.

It looks like a reliable reconstruction of the distant past even in its crudest features is impossible because for several more or less obvious reasons. This is an issue for professional historians, not amateurs, even if they are mathematicians and academicians. That's too bad how historians clearly aren't ready to solve it yet.

«History of the Medes is dark and unclear»

Possibly Ilovaisky

Cumulative list of sources for all three volumes:

1. Морозов Н.А. Христос. Т.1. — М- Л.:ГИЗ, 1924.

2. Морозов Н.А. Христос. Т.2. — М- Л.:ГИЗ, 1926.

3. Морозов Н.А. Христос. Т.3. — М- Л.:ГИЗ, 1927.

4. Морозов Н.А. Христос. Т.4. — М- Л.:ГИЗ, 1928.

5. Морозов Н.А. Христос. Т.5. — М- Л.:ГИЗ, 1929.

6. Морозов Н.А. Христос. Т.6. — М- Л.:ГИЗ, 1930.

7. Морозов Н.А. Христос. Т.7. — М- Л.:ГИЗ, 1932.

8. Амфитеатров А.В. Собрание сочинений. Т.6. Зверь из бездны. Кн.2 .- Спб.:3олотое пятилетие, 1911.

9. Фукидид. История Пелопоннесской войны. -М.: Т.1,1887. Т.2,1888.

10. Ginzel F.K. Handbuch der Mathematischen und Technischen Chronologie, Leipzig, Bd. 1, 1906; Вd.2, 1911; Dd 3, 1914.

12. Бикерман Э. Хронология древнего мира. -М.: Наука, 1975.

13. Романова В.Л. Рукописная книга и готическое письмо во Франции в ХIII-XIV вв. -М.: Наука, 1975.

14. Чистякова Н.А., Вулих Н.В. История античной литературы. -М.: Высшая школа, 1972.

15. Авдиев В.И. и др. (ред.). История Древней Греции,. -М.: Высшая школа, 1972.

16. Ginzel F.K. 8 Specieller Canon der Sonnen — und Mondfinsternisse, Berlin, 1889.

17. Люблинская А.Д. Латинская палеография,. -М.: Высш. шк., М.,1969.

18. Грегоровиус Ф. История города Афин в средние века. -Спб.:, 1990.

19. Блер Ж. Таблицы хронологические. -М.: Т.1,1808, т.2,1809.

20. Блер Ж. Таблицы хронологические. (Видимо, повтор? или Т.2. - VVU.)

21. Идельсон Н.И. История календаря. -Л.:, 1925.

22. Бемон Ш., Моно Г. История Европы в средние века. -Пттр.:, 1915.

23. Нейгебауер О. Точные науки в древности. -М.: Наука, 1968.

24. Михайлов А.А. Теория затмений. -М.: ГТТИ, 1954.

25. Бокщанин А.Г. и др. (ред.). История древнего Рима. -М.: Высш. шк., 1971.

26. Сергеев В.С. Очерки по истории Древнего Рима. Ч. 1-2. -М.: 1938.

27. Фрезер Г.Дж. Фольклор в Ветхом Завете —М. -Л.:Соцэкгиз, 1924.

28. Парандовский Я. Петрарка. Иностранная литература,,№ 6.

29. Низе Б. Очерк римской истории и источниковедения. -Спб.:, 1908.

30. Диль Ш. История Византийской империи. -М ИЛ., 1948.

31. Казаманова А.Н. Введение в античную нумизматику. -М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1969.

32. Тураев Б.А. История Древнего Востока, Т. 1-2. -М.: ОГИЗ, 1936.

33. Хлодовский Р.И. Франческо Петрарка. -М. Наука, 1974.

34. Радциг Н. Начало римской летописи. -М.:, 1903.

35. Мартынов Г. О начале римской летописи. -М.:, 1903.

36. Древс А.. Миф о Христе. Т.2. -М.:, 1924.

37. Керам К.. Боги, гробницы, ученые. -М.: ИЛ., 1960.

38. Трельс-Лунд. Небо и мировоззрение в круговороте времен. -Одесса.: 1921..

39. Удальцов АД. и др. (ред.). История средних веков. -М. ОГИЗ, 1941.

40. Крывелев И.А. Раскопки в библейских странах. -М. Советская Россия, 1965.

41. Леманн. История суеверии и волшебства. -М.: 1900.

42. Беленький М.С. Иудаизм. -М.: Госполитиздат, 1966.

43. Крывелев И.А. Книга о Библии. -М.: Соцэкгиз, 1958.

44. Геродот. История. -М.: Наука, 1972.

45. Цицерон. О старости. -М. Наука, 1975.

46. Цицерон. Три трактата об ораторском искусстве. -М.: Наука, 1972.

47. Россовская В.А. Календарная даль веков. -М. -Л.: ОНТИ, 1936.

48. Тацит. Сочинения, т.т. 1-2. -Л.: Наука, 1969.

49. Петрушевский Д.М. Очерки из истории средневекового общества и государства. М: 1913.

50. Ланн Е. Литературная мистификация. -М.:, 1930.

51. Сендерленд И.Т. Священные книги в свете науки -Гомель.: 1924.

52. Никольский Н.М. Астрономический переворот в исторической науке /Новый мир, 1925, № 1, стр. 157-175.

53. Лозинский Р.Г. История папства. -М.: изд. СВБезб. 1934.

54. Челлини Б. Жизнь Бенвенуто. -М. — Л.:, 1958.

55. Монгайт А.Л. Надпись на камне. -М.: Знание, 1969.

56. Кубланов М.М. Новый Завет, поиски и находки. -М.: Наука, 1968.

57. Морозов Н.А. Откровение в грозе и буре. -М.: изд. З-е.,1910.

58. Морозов Н.А. Пророки. -М.:, 1914.

59. Светоний. Жизнь двенадцати цезарей. -М.: Наука, 1966.

60. Диофант. Арифметика. -М.: Наука, 1974.

61. Клейн Л.С. Археология спорит с физикой/ Природа, 1966, № 2, стр. 51-62.

62. То же (окончание) / Природа, 1966, № 3, стр. 94-107.

63. Археология и естественные науки. -М.: Наука, 1965.

64. Проблемы абсолютного датирования в археологии. -М.: Наука, 1972.

65. Эйткин М. Дж. Физика и археология. -М.: ИЛ, 1963.

66. Либби У.Ф. Радиоуглерод — атомные часы / Наука и человечество, М.: 1962, стр. 190-200.

67. Либби У.Ф. Углерод 14, ядерный хронометр археологии / Курьер ЮНЕСКО, июль-авг.,1968, стр. 22-25 и 28-30.

68. Архимед. Сочинения, Физматгизд.. -М.:, 1962.

69. Радциг Р.И. Введение в классическую филологию. -М.: изд. МГУ, 1965.

70. Выгодский М.Я. Начала Евклида / Историко-математические исследования. -М. -Л.: ГИТТЛ, 1948, выл. 1, стр. 217-295.

71. Масанов Ю. В мире псевдонимов, анонимов и литературных подделок. -М.: Всесоюз. кн. палаты, 1963.

72. Зелинский Ф. Из жизни идей. Т.1. -Спб., 1908.

73. Зелинский Ф. Из жизни идей. Т.3. -Спб., 1908.

74. Каждан А.П. Социальный состав господствующего класса Византии XI-XII вв. М.:, 1974.

75. Сулейменов О. Аз и Я. -Алма-ата: Жазуши, 1975.

76. Никифоровский В.А., Фрейман Л.С. Рождение новой математики. — М.: Наука, 1976.

77. Либман М., Островский Г. Поддельные шедевры. -М.: Советский художник, 1966.

78. Ленцман Я.А. Происхождение христианства. -М.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1958.

79. Ксенофонт. Греческая история. -Л.: Соцэкгиз. 1935.

80. Классовский В. Помпея и открытые в ней древности. -М.: 1856.

81. Цицерон. Диалоги. -М.: Наука, 1966.

82. Румянцев Н.В. Православные праздники. -М.: ОГИЗ, 1936.

83. Newton R.R. Two uses of ancient astronomi, phil /Fr. L. A., 1976, №276, стр. 99-115.

84. Идельсон Н.И. Этюды по истории небесной механики. -М.: Наука, 1975.

85. Шантени де ля Соссей Д. Иллюстрированная история религии, Т1-2. -М.: 1899.

86. Тройский И.М. История античной литературы .-Л.: Учпедгиз, 1947.

87. Боргош Ю. Фома Аквинский. -М.: Мысль, 1975.

88. Фойгт Г. Возрождение классической древности, т.2. -М.:, 1885.

89. Бузескул В. Лекции по истории Греции, т.1. -Петроград.:, 1915.

90. Аристофан. Комедии, т. 1. -М.: ГИХЛ, 1954.

91. Амальрик А.С., Монгайт А.Л. Что такое археология. -М.: Просвещение, 1966.

92. Дирингер Д. Алфавит. -М.: ИЛ., 1963.

93. Никонов В.А. Имя и общество. -М. :Наука, 1974.

94. Крывелев И.А. Как критиковали Библию в старину. -М.: Наука, 1966.

95. (No author). Архиепископ Ушер/ Курьер ЮНЕСКО, авг.-сент. 1972, стр. 58.

96. Дильс Г. Античная техника. -М. -Л.: ОНТИ-ГТТИ, 1934.

97. Румянцев Н.Э. Смерть и воскресение спасителя. Т.1. -М.: Атеист, 1925.

98. Паннекук А., История астрономии. -М.: Наука, 1966.

99. Берри А. Краткая история астрономии. -М.: ГТТИ, 1946.

100. Рукописная и печатная книга. -М.: Наука, 1975.

101. Фирсов Л. В. Этюды радиоуглеродной хронологии Херсонеса Таврического.-Н-сб, 1976.

102. Перельман Я.И. Занимательная арифметика, изд.9-ое. — М.: Физматгиз, 1959.

103. Крывелев И.А. О так называемых «священных книгах», Сб. «Наука и религия», ВОРП и НЗ, М., 1957.

104. Ренан Э. Антихрист. — Спб.:, 1907.

105. Вебер Г. Всеобщая история. Т. 4. — М.:, 1892.

106. Гольбах П. Галерея святых. — М.: Госполитиздат, 1962.

107. Мец А. Мусульманский Ренессанс. — М.: Наука, 1966.

108. Ярославский Ем. Библия для верующих и неверующих. — М.: Госполитиздат, 1959.

109. Крывелев И.А. История религий. Т.1. — М.: Мысль, 1975.

110. (Крывелев Иосиф Аронович История религий. Т.2. — М.: Мысль, 1975. - VVU.)

111. Лившиц Г.М. Очерки историографии Библии и раннего христианства. Минск: ВШ, 1970.

112. Федорова Е.В. Латинские надписи. — М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1976.

113. Тексты Кумрана. Вып.1. — М.: Наука, 1971.

114. Немоевский А. Бог Иисус. — Петербург.: Госиздат, 1920.

115. Лауэр Х.Ф. Загадки египетских пирамид. — М.:Наука, 1966.

116. Удальцова З.В. Идейно-политическая борьба в ранней Византии. — М.: Наука, 1974.

117. Зелинский Ф. Религия эллинизма — Птгр.: Академия, 1922.

118. Кацнельсон И.С. Тутанхамон и сокровища его гробницы. — М.: Наука, 1976.

119. Перепелкин Ю.Я. Тайна золотого гроба,. — М.: Наука, 1968.

120. Фразер И.Г. Аттис. — М.: Нов. Москва, 1924.

121. Дюшен Л. История древней церкви. Т.1. — М,:, 1912.

122. Ditto. Т.2. 1914.

123. Лоукотка Ч. Развитие письма. — М.: ИЛ, 1950.

124. Селешников СТР. И. История календаря и хронология. -М.: Наука, 1970.

125. Старцев П.А. Очерки истории астрономии в Китае. — М.:Физматгиз, 1961.

126. Боги, брахманы, люди. — М,: Наука, 1969.

127. Гринцер П.А. Древнеиндийский эпос. — М.:Наука, 1974.

128. История Древнего мира.Т.1. Древний Восток. — М.: Соцэкиз, 1937.

129. Tокарев СТР.А. Религия в истории наростов мира — М.:Политиздат, 1965.

130. Кочетов А.Н. Ламаизм. — М.:Наука, 1973.

131. Неру Д. Открытие Индии. — М.: ИЛ, 1955.

132. Зеймаль Е.В. Кушанская хронология. — М.: Наука, 1968 .

133. Замаровский В. Тайны хеттов. — М.: Наука, 1968.

134. Чикобава А.С. Введение в языкознание. Ч.1. — М.:Учпедгиз, 1952.

135. Ярхо В.Н. и Лобода В.И. (ред.) Учебник латинского языка. — М.: Просвещение, 1969.

136. Сергиевский М.В. Введение в романское языюзнание. — М.:Ин.яз., 1952.

137. Шпажников Г.А. Религии стран Западной Азии. — М.: Наука, 1976.

138. Мавлютов P.P. Ислам. — М.: Политиздат, М, 1969.

139. Уотт М. Влияние ислама на средневековую Европу. — М.: Наука, 1976.

140. Розенфельд Б.А. и др. Абу-Райхман ал-Бируви. — М.: Наука, 1973.

141. Розенфельд Б.А. Юшкевич А.П. Омар Хайям. — М.: Наука, 1965.

142. Коран. — М.: Изд-во восточной лит-ры, 1963.

143. Дмитриев В.Г. Скрывшие свое имя. — М.: Наука, 1977.

144. Омар Хайам. Руб-ай-ат. — М.: Наука, 1972.

145. Снегирев И.Л. Древний Восток. — Л.:, Атлас по древней истории. Соцэкгиз, 1937.

146. Омар Хайям. Трактаты. — М.: Изд-во восточной лит-ры, 1961.

147. Нарайан P.К. Боги, демоны и другие. — М.: Наука, 1975.

148. Шейнман М.М. Давство. — М.: изд-во АН СССР, 1959.

149. Вагнер P. Вибелунги. — М.:, 1913.

150. Никольский Н.М. История русской церкви. — М. — Л.:, 1931.

151. Кон И. Психология предрассудка / Новый Мир, 1966, №9, стр.187 — 205.

152. Брашинский И. До Архимеда / Знание-сила, 1977,№6, стр. 37-38.

153. Бончковский И Царство от мира сего. — М.: Молодая Гвардия, 1976.

154. Донини А. Люди, идолы и боги, Госполитиздат. — М.:, 1962.

155. Никифоров В.Н. Восток и всемирная история, 2-е изд. -М.: Наука, 1977.

156. Мештерхази Л. Загадка Прометея / Иност. лит-ра, № 4,1976, стр. 10- 109, № 5, стр. 6-88.

157. Ланглуа, Сеньобос. Введение в изучение истории. -СПБ.:, 1899.

158. Блок М. Апология истории. -М. Наука, 1973.

159. Киселева Л.И. О чем рассказывают средневековые рукописи. -Л.: Наука, 1978.

160. Беленький М.С. О миифологии и философии библии. — М.: Наука, 1977.

161. Гуминский В. (сост.). Взгляд сквозь столетия. — М.: Молодая Гвардия, 1977.

162. Еврейская энциклопедия. Т. 1-16. -Спб.:, (б.г.).

163. Иванов В.В. Топоров В.Н. Санскрит. — М.: Изд-во восточной л-ры,1960.

Bible cited from 1916 synodal edition