Any science is divided into applied and theoretical. There is no barrier between them, and there cannot be. Real life is always presenting one problem or another, the resolution of which is not within the purview of applied science, and it calls upon its theoretical "sister" for help. Theorists advance an ordinary hypothesis - an instrument for experts, which allows the resolution of the problems or, in any event, a search for a way to resolve it, guided by new scientific notions.
History as a science is no exception. Nonetheless, the opinion is widespread that if we all have the same past and it has been lived by us, then what is there to surmise here? What can the hypotheses and theories be regarding the facts that are known nearly to everyone? For example, the Second World War. Participants and witnesses of the recent military battles are still alive. Ask them - and you will receive the most truthful picture of what happened.
This is a popular mistake. As regards witnesses, investigators and lawyers have a paradoxical, at first glance, saying: "He lies like a witness." But if one is to be distracted from the details and look a bit deeper, then it isn't difficult to understand that history is in no way simpler than nuclear physics, and we, studying it, only approximate the truth. As too in any other science.
So what then does applied history constitute?
As is well known, in the modern world, every man strives to determine to which group of people he belongs. Such a group can be as small or great as one wishes. Therefore, in some cases it is called a family, kin, a clan, a tribe; in others - a nationality, a people, a nation. Or for self-identification most of all the notions of a national complexion are used.
The notions of religion also are widely used. That is, it defines which religion or branch of religion a man professes. For such self-determination, the slightest differences in rites, dress, even in color of caps or robes often are important, even in the patterns embroidered by women on their own clothes, while it may be a question of one or another very same religion. The differences serve as an infallible signal for one's associates: this is ours, and this is not ours.
Such self-identification has arisen in a non-random fashion. Owing to inexorable historic processes several centuries ago, the first nation-states were formed, and the question arose before each person, from the answer to which depended his life: Who is he? "Ours" or "not ours"? Will he be a citizen in this state or a foreigner, deprived of rights? If "ours," then he is guaranteed relative safety, aid and support in the resolution of any problems. For his part, he should obey the established rules and laws, emphasize his national and state membership here, there and everywhere and take pride in it and, if needed, give up his life for the glory and well-being of his native state without hesitation. Otherwise, he is a traitor, a corrupt mercenary, a Judas, a cosmopolitan with no kin, and so forth.
Such are the rules of the game even at the present time.
It is clear, for the fact that people aspired to be members in particular of this, and not of any other state, necessary weighty ideological and morale arguments are needed. One must prove, therefore, to each generation with new vigor and persuasiveness that his nation-state possesses irrefutable advantages over all the rest. And the most forcible argument is the antiquity of the nation and the religion to which he adheres. Its essence: our ancestors cultivated this land when other peoples were only beginning to think about whether to climb down from the trees. A second variant: our religion arose almost simultaneously with the creation of the world. Nothing is more ancient than it and there cannot be. And the more ancient, the wiser. We are God's chosen ones. No one knows who the rest are.
But it is necessary to prove one's antiquity again, you see. How? To re-write all of the history that has gone before. To create "monuments of antiquity." To organize a chain of folklore and written works which stretch "to the depths of the centuries." "To find" manuscripts that are somehow thousands of years old, in fact concocted not more than two - three generations ago.
This even happened several centuries ago. Some "revisionists" of those times, being especially nimble, contrived by themselves to write treatises and simple compositions on old parchment and then to sell it as evidence of a deep-seated antiquity. The authentic history practically was destroyed. Therefore, modern historian revisionists also say that we almost don't know anything, how our forebears lived 10 centuries ago and what they did, and the even more remote centuries are altogether veiled in darkness.
There are a few who will ask the question: but why did the forgeries enjoy huge success? And who bought them? It is doubtful they were illiterate peasants. It is known for certain that even the aristocracy didn't differ in literacy. To study some pieces of beech and scratch with a pen like insignificant market scribes was considered a monstrous insult for the gentry.
So who then? People whom today we have called the ideologists of the state system. Then they had various church titles, being religious figures. The most literate, solid and disciplined part of society. They understood that without ideas which united the people, there was no nation-state. It scattered in the dust with the very first serious tests.
Consequently, the alteration of history was the keenest political necessity.
According to the latest research, for the needs of the political moment in the so-called middle ages, they rewrote the history that existed then of Byzantium. There simply was no other relevant material at hand.
They changed the names, the dates, and the centuries, they did what they wanted; however, the events nonetheless stayed one and the same: it was very difficult to contrive them. Here, fortunately they had invented printing, and a new version allegedly of the ancient history of the nation-states created was promulgated in scales impossible to conceive previously. For centuries.
Thus were the main ideological problems before the European state of that time resolved. But if everything had been limited by this!..
Since then, mankind has broken into hundreds of nation-states and is torn apart by international antagonisms, which steadily lead to bloody clashes. From time-to-time the clashes develop into carnages called wars. The appearance on the map of new nation-states is the result of the wars and clashes, which inevitably leads to new mountains of corpses and rivers of blood.
Everyone has examples right before their eyes. A score of Arab states which never existed before, with the exception of Egypt, and which from time-to-time bleed each other. Chechnya, which is bleeding to death in an attempt to call itself independent Ichkeria. Kurdistan with its guerilla groups is demanding independence. The Spanish Basques, blowing up whomever they please for the sake of building an independent Basque. The "Tamil Tigers", who already have destroyed nearly 100,000 people in the name of the creation of their own state in northern Sri Lanka. In Africa, some peoples diligently are slicing up the representatives of other peoples. In Rwanda alone, more than a million people already have perished. Of the same origin, of the same skin color, but calling themselves differently.
Independent Georgia, aspiring for the formation of a mononational state, has driven out hundreds of thousands of Meskhetian Turks who have lived in the country for many centuries. Independent Abkhazia has force out nearly 200,000 Georgians, striving for that very same goal. Happy, satisfied Belgium, who for ages didn't know serious internal conflicts, is in shock: it has turned out that there are nearly half a million Moslem citizens and they are demanding cultural autonomy. For the time being, only cultural.
The chain of international and interfaith clashes is endless. Because applied history even now is working duly on the needs of national or religious identification and the rallying of society around one or the other national or religious idea. The media, yielding to the interests of the old breed ruling elite, today alsoy mould a mass awareness by that very same point of view: "ours" and "not ours."
Meanwhile, new times have ensued. Not because someone had wanted it like that. All those very laws of the development of mankind dictate other rules of existence.
The international division of labor and the rapid development of communications have created a political force which present-day history doesn't suit, that history, which explains why nations live apart and why this is okay. Developed countries need a different science, that which demonstrates why we should live together.
For modern applied history it is a serious problem. The experts cannot do anything without a new scientific apparatus, without fresh ideas. That is, without revolutionary hypotheses advanced by theorists.
Only here's a question: whether there are such hypotheses. Is there generally a theoretical history? There is. Scientists have been working constantly who have been revising the basis of science themselves. Having been armed with mathematics, the most precise of the sciences, they have shown convincingly that, for example, the whole chronology on which modern history is based is mistaken. They have been finding irrefutable proof of the fact that some and the very same events have been written under various names and dispatched into various epochs of "ancient" history. They have caught the forgers red-handed and exposed them before the whole world.
In vain. No one has been noticing them, although among them there even have been such geniuses as Isaac Newton. Society didn't want them. And only nowadays historical revisionism, to all appearances, finally is called for: it has begun to answer the interests of a new grandiose phenomenon - the globalization of the worldwide economy.
Today they are heeding the opinion of the revisionists, today their theories have become necessary.
True, in a number of instances these theories are dressed up in old clothes. There is nothing surprising in that. The usual pattern is developing: awareness is falling behind the realities of the truth. It operates by means of obsolete notions, it is more suitable for it, and it is more comfortable to deal with customary categories, to follow logical constructions which have appeared, as they say, in flesh and blood. This gives rise to dangerously explosive antagonisms in minds not only in the remote areas of the world, but also within the most developed,societies. In particular therefore, the development and introduction of a historically substantiated ideology of unity is an urgent problem, important and immediate.
On our web site we have presented a modern Eastern European school of historical revisionism which includes dozens of talented scientists and is associated today to a large extent with the names of the prominent Russian mathematician A.T. Fomenko and World chess champion Gary Kasparov. Despite the obvious close connection, these two researchers have clear ideological differences which one needs to see and consider.
The span of A. Fomenko's work is colossal. Published in various languages, the vast volumes of his essays include mathematical dating theories, astronomical work and historically popularized works. Many of their pages are paradoxical to the utmost and literally turn the most complex proposals about the past on their head.
Nonetheless, Fomenko's revisionism is of the old tradition and oriented at the support and propaganda of the Slavic political idea. Figuratively speaking, dressed in an ancient Russian caftan and armed with a lance, which for some reason is considered a typically Slavic weapon.
Let's cite a typical example. Analyzing drawings on Egyptian monuments, the author discovers a Christian cross which has a shape indistinguishable from those accepted today in the Orthodox Church. Further, the scientist constantly calls these crosses Orthodox, although he himself even contends that the matter concerns times when Orthodoxy had not been adopted as a canon, had not been formed as a separate branch of Christianity.
The export to the past of today's political and religious term "Orthodoxy" is a serious error and a typical weapon of historians whose consciousness still has not been freed from the stock phrases of the past. As before, the sacred question troubles them - who is more ancient. Meanwhile, it is obvious that it would be more correct to call the crosses "ancient Mizraim crosses." Such a name would remove the nationalistic hue of the term, serve interests common to all mankind and declare a commonality of backgrounds.
Gary Kasparov doesn't have a stock of vast volumes of research. He has written all of several articles devoted to a new chronology of world history, but in them he has been able to take an absolutely precise, extra-national tone and in particular is extremely valued for it. His concept "the myths that are killing today" for the first time has painted the Eastern European school of history revision politically correctly and, therefore, may play an elemental role in the formation of a supranational world view.
In conclusion, it remains only to add that in the future we will fill our site with materials from any sources, guided by not geographic, but a value principle for the resolution of our problems.
Robert Grishin 2002. Toronto.