This is the final installment of a three-part essay advocating a radical revisionism of the first millennium AD. In Part 1 and Part 2, I examined a series of fundamental problems in our standard history of the greater part of the first millennium AD. Here I present what I believe is the best solution to these problems.

这是一篇由三部分组成的文章的最后一部分，本篇文章提出公元第一个千年的激进修正主义。在第1部分和第2部分中，我考察了公元第一个千年大部分时间的标准历史中的一系列基本问题。本篇，我将提出我认为是这些问题的最佳解决方案。

We are so used to rely on a universally accepted global chronology covering all of human history that we take this chronology as a given, a simple representation of time itself, as self-evident as the air we breathe. In reality, this chronology, which allows us to place with relative precision on a single time scale all major events in the histories of all peoples, is a sophisticated cultural construct that was not achieved before the late sixteenth century. Jesuits played a prominent role in that computation, but the main architect of the chronology we are now familiar with was a French Huguenot named Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609), who set out to harmonize all available chronicles and calendars (Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian). His main works on chronology, written in Latin, are De emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurus temporum (1606). The Jesuit Denys Pétau (1583-1652) built on Scaliger’s foundation to publish his Tabulae chronologicae, from 1628 to 1657.

我们如此习惯于依赖一个被普遍接受的涵盖所有人类历史的全球年表，以至于我们把这个年表当成是给定的，是时间本身的简单代表，就像我们呼吸的空气一样不言而喻。事实上，这个年表，使我们能够相对精确地将所有民族历史上的所有重大事件放在一个单一的时间尺度上，这是一个复杂的文化结构，在16世纪后期之前都没有实现。
耶稣会士在这一统计中发挥了重要作用，但我们现在所熟悉的年表的主要贡献者是一个名叫约瑟夫·斯卡利格(1540-1609)的法国胡格诺派教徒，他着手协调所有可用的编年史和历法(希伯来语、希腊语、罗马语、波斯语、巴比伦语、埃及语)。他在年表方面的主要著作是用拉丁文写成的《时间补遗》(1583)和《时间同义词典》(1606)。耶稣会士丹尼斯·帕姆塔(1583-1652)在斯卡利格的基础上出版了1628年至1657年的《年表》(tabae chronologicae)。

So our global chronology, the backbone of textbook history, is a scientific construct of modern Europe. Like other European norms, it was accepted by the rest of the world during the period of European cultural domination. The Chinese, for example, had already compiled, during the Song dynasty (960-1279), a long historical narrative, but it was Jesuit missionaries who reshaped it to fit in their BC-AD calendar, resulting in the thirteen volumes of the Histoire Générale de la Chine by Joseph-Anne-Marie de Moyriac de Mailla, published between 1777 and 1785.[1] Once Chinese history was securely riveted to Scaligerian chronology, the rest followed. But some peoples had to wait until the 19th century to find their place in that frxwork; the Indians had very ancient records, but no consistent chronology until the British gave them one.

因此，我们的全球年代学，教科书历史的支柱，是现代欧洲的科学建构。像其他欧洲规范一样，在欧洲文化统治时期，它被世界其他地区所接受。例如，中国人在宋朝(960-1279)就已经编纂了一部长篇历史叙事，但是耶稣会传教士将其改写，以适应他们公元前-公元的日历，从而产生了由约瑟夫-安妮-玛丽·德·莫伊里亚克·德·迈拉撰写的13卷本的《中国史》，于1777年至1785年间出版。
一旦中国历史被牢牢地钉在了斯卡利格里亚的年表上，其他的历史就会随之而来。但有些民族要等到19世纪才在这个框架中找到自己的位置。印第安人有非常古老的记录，但没有一致的年表，直到英国人给了他们一份。

Truth be told, the chronology of ancient empires was never completely settled. In The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) had suggested to reduce drastically the by-then-accepted antiquity of Greece, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and Persia. Today, ancient chronology is still open to debate in the academic community (read for instance about David Rohl’s “new chronology”). But as we approach the Common Era, the chronology is considered untouchable, except for minor adjustments, because of the abundance of written sources. However, until the ninth century AD, no primary source provides absolute dates.

说实话，古代帝国的年表从来没有完全确定过。
在《古代王国年表修正》中，艾萨克·牛顿(1642-1727)建议大幅减少当时公认的希腊、埃及、亚述、巴比伦和波斯的古代。今天，古代年表在学术界仍然存在争议(比如大卫·罗尔的“新年表”)。但是当我们接近共同纪元时，年表被认为是不可触及的，除了轻微的调整，因为有大量的书面资料。然而，直到公元9世纪，都没有原始资料提供精准的日期。

Events are dated relatively to some other event of local importance, such as the foundation of a town or the accession of a ruler. Dating recent events in anno domini (AD) only became common in the eleventh century. So the general timeline of the first millennium still relies on a great deal of interpretation, not to mention trust in the sources. Like for earlier eras, it was fixed centuries before the beginning of scientific excavations (19th, mainly 20th century), and, as we shall see, its authority is such that archeologists surrender to it even when their stratigraphic data contradicts it. Dendrochronology (tree-rings dating) and radiocarbon dating (for organic materials) are of little help, and are unreliable anyway because they are relative, interdependent, and calibrated on the standard timeline one way or another.

事件的日期以当地重要的其他事件为核心，如城镇的建立或统治者的登基。在公元11世纪才开始普遍地确定最近发生的事件。因此，第一个千年的总体时间表仍然依赖于大量的解释，更不用说对来源的信任了。
就像早期的时代一样，它在科学发掘开始(19世纪，主要是20世纪)之前几个世纪就已经确定了，而且，正如我们将看到的，它的权威如此之大，以至于考古学家们即使在地层资料与它相矛盾时也会屈服于它。
树木年代学(树木年轮测年法)和放射性碳测年法(有机材料测年法)帮助不大，而且不可靠，因为它们是相对的、相互依赖的，并且以某种方式根据标准时间线进行校准。
由于第1部分、第2部分和下文所揭示的原因，一些研究人员认为，现在是时候对第一个千年年表进行范式转变了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


Anatoly Fomenko and the two Romes
The best-known of these revisionists is the Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko (born 1945). With his associate Gleb Nosovsky, he has produced tens of thousands of pages in support of his “New Chronology” (check their Amazon page). In my view, Fomenko and Nosovsky have signaled a great number of major problems in conventional chronology, and provided plausible solutions to many of them, but their global reconstruction is extravagantly Russo-centric. Their confidence in their statistical method (a good presentation in this video) is also exaggerated. Nevertheless, Fomenko and Nosovsky must be credited for having provided stimulus and direction for many others. For a first approach to their work, I recommend volume 1 of their series History: Fiction or Science (here on archive.org), especially chapter 7, “‘Dark Ages’ in Media History”, pp. 373-415.

阿纳托利·福门科和两个罗马
这些修正主义者中最著名的是俄罗斯数学家阿纳托利·福门科(生于1945年)。他和他的同事格列布·诺索夫斯基已经出版了数万页支持他的“新年表”(可以上亚马逊查询)。
在我看来，福门科和诺索夫斯基指出了传统年代学中的许多主要问题，并为其中许多问题提供了合理的解决方案，但他们对全球的重建过于以俄罗斯为中心。他们对统计方法的信心也被夸大了(在这个视频中有一个很好的展示)。尽管如此，福门科和诺索夫斯基还是为其他许多人提供了激励和指导。
要了解他们的作品，我推荐他们的系列丛书《历史:小说还是科学》第一卷，尤其是第七章，“中世纪历史中的黑暗时代”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


One major discovery of Fomenko and Nosovsky is that our conventional history is full of doublets, produced by the arbitrary end-to-end alignment of chronicles that tell the same events, but are “written by different people, from different viewpoints, in different languages, with the same characters under different names and nicknames.” Whole periods have been thus duplicated. For example, drawing from the previous work of Russian Nikolai Mozorov (1854-1946), Fomenko and Nosovsky show a striking parallel betweenthe sequences Pompey/Caesar/Octavian and Diocletian/Constantius/Constantine, leading to the conclusion that the Western Roman Empire is, to some extent, a phantom duplicate of the Eastern Roman Empire. According to Fomenko and Nosovsky, the capital of the one and only Roman Empire was founded on the Bosporus some 330 years before the foundation of its colony in the Latium.

福门科和诺索夫斯基的一个主要发现是，我们的传统历史充满了双重性，这些双重性是由编年史的任意端到端排列产生的，这些编年史讲述了相同的事件，但“由不同的人、从不同的角度、用不同的语言、用不同的名字和昵称写的相同的人物”。 整个时期就这样被重复描述。
例如，福门科和诺索夫斯基借鉴了俄罗斯人尼古拉· 莫罗佐夫(1854-1946)之前的作品，展示了庞培/凯撒/屋大维和戴克里先/君士坦提乌斯/君士坦丁的序列之间惊人的相似之处，从而得出结论，西罗马帝国在某种程度上是东罗马帝国的幻影复制品。
根据Fomenko和Nosovsky的说法，唯一的罗马帝国的首都是在博斯普鲁斯海峡建立的，比它在拉丁姆（译注：意大利中西部一代）的殖民地建立要早330年。

Starting from the age of the crusades, Roman clerics, followed by Italian humanists, produced an inverted chronological sequence, using the real history of Constantinople as the model for their fake earlier history of Italian Rome. A great confusion ensued, as “many media documents confuse the two Romes: in Italy and on the Bosporus,” both being commonly called Rome or “the City”. A likely scenario is that the prototype for Titus Livy’s History was about Constantinople, the original capital of the “Romans”. The original Livy, Fomenko conjectures, was writing around the tenth century about Constantinople, so he was not far off the mark when he placed the foundation of the City (urbs condita) some seven centuries before his time. But as it was rewritten by Petrarch and reinterpreted by later humanists (read “How fake is Roman Antiquity?”), a chronological chasm of roughly one thousand year was introduced between the foundation of the two “Romes” (from 753 BC to 330 AD).

从十字军时代开始，罗马神职人员，接着是意大利人文主义者，用君士坦丁堡的真实历史作为他们伪造的早期意大利罗马历史的模型，制作了一个颠倒的时间顺序。随之而来的是巨大的混乱，因为“许多中世纪文献混淆了两个罗马:在意大利和在博斯普鲁斯海峡”，两者通常都被称为罗马或“城市（the City）”。
一种可能的情况是，Titus Livy的《历史》的原型是关于君士坦丁堡的，“罗马人”的原始首都。福门科推测，李维的原作者是在10世纪左右写君士坦丁堡的，所以当他把君士坦丁堡的基础(urbs condiita)放在他的时代之前大约7个世纪时，他并没有错得太远。但是，随着彼特拉克的重写和后来的人文主义者的重新解释(阅读《罗马古代有多假? 》)，两个“罗马”(从公元前753年到公元330年)的建立之间出现了大约一千年的时间鸿沟。

However, even the dates for Constantinople are wrong, according to Fomenko and Nosovky, and the whole sequence happened much more recently: Constantinople was founded around the tenth or eleventh century AD, and Rome, 330 or 360 years later, i.e. around the fifteenth or sixteenth century AD. Here, as often, Fomenko and Nosovsky may be spoiling their best insights by exaggeration.

然而，根据福门科和诺索夫斯基的说法，即使君士坦丁堡的日期也是错误的，而且整个序列发生的时间要晚得多:君士坦丁堡建于公元10世纪或11世纪左右，而罗马建于公元330或360年之后，即公元15或16世纪左右。在这里，和往常一样，福门科和诺索夫斯基可能因为夸张而破坏了他们最好的见解。

The German Zeitenspringers
In the mid-1990s, independently from the Russian school, German scholars Heribert Illig, Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, Uwe Topper, Manfred Zeller and others also became convinced that something is wrong with the accepted chronology of the Middle Ages. Calling themselves the “Zeitenspringer” (time jumpers), they suggested that approximately 300 years — from 600 to 900 AD — never existed. English summaries of their approach have been produced by Niemitz (“Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?” 2000), and in Illig (“Anomalous Eras – Best Evidence: Best Theory” 2005).

德国的“时间跳跃者”
在20世纪90年代中期，独立于俄罗斯学派之外，德国学者伊利希、尼米兹、托佩尔、泽勒等人也开始确信，公认的中世纪年表出了问题。
称它们为"时间跳跃者"（Zeitenspringer），他们认为大约300年——从公元600年到900年——从未存在过。泽勒对他们的研究方法做了英文总结(《中世纪早期真的存在吗?》，2000出版)和伊利希 (《反常时代——最佳证据:最佳理论》，2005年)。

The German discussion originally focused on Charlemagne (Illig’s book). Sources on Charlemagne are often contradictory and unreliable. His main biography, Eginhard’s Vita Karoli, supposedly written “for the benefit of posterity rather than to allow the shades of oblivion to blot out the life of this King, the noblest and greatest of his age, and his famous deeds, which the men of later times will scarcely be able to imitate” (from Eginhard’s foreword), is recognizably modeled on Suetonius’ life of the first Roman emperor Augustus.

德国的讨论最初集中在查理曼大帝(伊利希的书)。关于查理曼大帝的资料常常是相互矛盾和不可靠的。他的（传统）主要传记——埃金哈德的《维塔·卡罗利》，据说是“为了后代的利益而写的，而不是让遗忘的阴影抹去这位国王的一生，这位国王是他那个时代最高贵、最伟大的人，他的著名事迹是后世的人几乎无法模仿的”(从埃金哈德的前言中可以看出)，显然是模仿了苏托尼乌斯的第一个罗马皇帝奥古斯都的一生。

Charlemagne’s “empire” itself, lasting only 45 years, from 800 to its dislocation in three kingdoms, defies reason. Ferdinand Gregorovius, in his History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages in 8 volumes (1872), writes: “The figure of the Great Charles can be compared to a flash of lightning who came out of the night, illuminated the earth for a while, and then left night behind him” (quoted by Illig). Is this shooting star just an illusion, and the legends about him virtually devoid of relation to history?

查理曼大帝的主要问题在于建筑。他在亚琛的帕拉廷教堂展示了200年来的技术进步，比如11世纪之前从未见过的拱形过道。相反，查理曼大帝在殷格翰的住所是按照2世纪的罗马风格建造的，材料据说是从2世纪回收的。
伊利希和尼米兹对这种荒谬的说法提出了质疑，并得出结论: 查理曼大帝是奥斯曼帝国皇帝为了使他们的帝国主张合法化而虚构出来的一个前身。所有加洛林王朝的第八和第九王朝以及他们的战争都是虚构的，大约公元600-900年的时间跨度，是一个虚幻的时代。

Gunnar Heinsohn obxts to this theory on numismatic ground: about 15,000 coins have been found bearing the name Karlus (alternatively Karolus or Carlus) Magnus.

海因索恩从钱币的角度反对这个理论:大约有15,000枚硬币被发现刻有Karlus(或者Karolus或carus) Magnus的名字。

Gunnar Heinsohn’s breakthrough
Gunnar Heinsohn, from the University of Bremen, is in my view the most interesting and convincing scholar in the field of chronological revisionism. His recent articles in English are posted on this website, and his 2016 conference in Toronto makes a good introduction. Heinsohn focuses on hard archeological evidence, and insists that stratigraphy is the most important criterion for dating archeological finds. He shows that, time and again, stratigraphy contradicts history, and that archeologists should have logically forced historians into a paradigm shift. Unfortunately, “In order to be consistent with a pre-fabricated chronology, archaeologists unknowingly betray their own craft.” When they dig up the same artifacts or building structures in different parts of the world, they assign them to different periods in order to satisfy historians.

在我看来，不来梅大学的贡纳尔·海因索恩是时间修正主义领域最有趣、最令人信服的学者。他最近的英文文章张贴在这个网站上，他2016年在多伦多召开的会议是一个很好的介绍。海因索恩专注于确凿的考古证据，并坚持认为地层学是确定考古发现年代的最重要标准。
他一次又一次地表明，地层学与历史相矛盾，从逻辑上讲，考古学家应该迫使历史学家进行范式转变。不幸的是，“为了与预先编制的年表保持一致，考古学家在不知不觉中背叛了自己的手艺。” 当他们在世界不同的地方挖掘出同样的文物或建筑结构时，他们会把它们分配到不同的时期，以满足历史学家的要求。

when they find, in the same place and layer, mixtures of artifacts that they have already attributed to different periods, they explain it away with the ludicrous “heirloom theory,” or call them “art collections.” “Archaeologists are particularly confident of correctly dating finds from 1st-millennium excavation sites when they find coins associated with them. A coin-dated layer is considered to be of utmost scientific precision. But how do scholars know the dates of the coins? From coin catalogues! How do the authors of these catalogues know how to date the coins? Not according to archaeological strata, but from the lists of Roman emperors. But how are the emperors dated and then sorted into these lists? Nobody knows for sure.”

当他们在同一地点和同一层发现不同时期的混合文物时，他们会用可笑的“传家宝理论”来解释，或者称之为“艺术收藏品”。
“考古学家尤其有信心在一千年前的挖掘地点找到与之相关的硬币，从而确定它们的准确年代。硬币年代层被认为具有最高的科学精度。但是学者们是如何知道这些硬币的年代的呢?硬币目录！这些目录的作者是如何知道这些硬币的年代的?不是根据考古地层，而是根据罗马皇帝的名单。但是皇帝的年代是如何确定的，然后又如何被分类到这些名单中呢?没有人确切知道。”

Quite often, archeologists unearth coins of supposedly widely different dates in the same settlement strata or the same tombs. One example is the famous leather purse of Childeric, a Frankish prince reigning from 458-481 AD. For Heinsohn, these coins are not a “coin collection” but “indicate the simultaneity of Roman Emperors artificially dispersed over two epochs — Imperial Antiquity and Late Antiquity.”

考古学家经常在同一聚落地层或同一墓葬中发掘出据称年代大不相同的硬币。其中一个例子是公元458-481年在位的法兰克王子柴尔德里克著名的皮钱包。对于海因索恩来说，这些硬币不是“硬币收藏”，而是“表明罗马皇帝同时被人为地分散在两个时代——帝国古代和晚期古代。”
（译注：帝国古代、古代，中文常表述为“欧洲古典时代”，是对希腊-罗马世界（以地中海为中心，包括古希腊和古罗马等一系列文明）的长期文化史的一个广义称谓。通常认为古典时代起始于公元前8-7世纪，终于公元4-7世纪。
而“晚期古代”即为“欧洲古典时代晚期”）
（未完待续）