Fig. 6.102. The version of the global chronology of "ancient" kingdoms as given by J. Blair's Chronological Tables (). The strange chronological gap is plainly observable. Second part of the graph.
Restored by Iphitus and Lycurgus allegedly in 884
However, it suddenly becomes clear that the use of the Games for the count of time started only in the alleged year 776 b.c. By the way, certain other Games - e.g., Isthmian, Nemean, Pythian - were likewise forgotten and restored several times in the Scaligerian chronology. In accordance with the Tables by Blair, the count of years by Olympiads stopped around 1 a.d. (!), therefore, it had lasted for about 776 years: allegedly since 776 b.c. till 0 a.d., and was forgotten thereafter. In general, the disagreement between chro-nologists regarding the year that the Olympiads were first used for count of time (see below) amounted to almost five hundred years.
A few examples of demonstrating this chronological chaos. According to Blair (), the count by Olympiads and the count from the foundation of the City began approximately at the same time. Rome in
Italy is considered today to have been meant as "The City", which is probably incorrect (see Chron5). Hence the count of time by Olympiads has allegedly begun in the middle of the VIII century b.c., according to Blair. Our contemporary historian S. Lourier claims that "at the epoch of Xenophon (i.e. allegedly in the V-IV centuries b.c. - A. F.) count by Olympiads hasnt existed yet, Timaeus, a Sicilian historian, introduced it for the first time around 264 b.c." (, p. 224). According to Lourier, the "ancient" Timaeus first introduced the count of time by Olympiads 512 years after the first Olympiad, allegedly dated back to 776 b.c. The resulting disagreement between historians amounts to five hundred years, give or take a little.
Thus, whenever an old document quotes the count of time by Olympiads, one should make it clear what particular absolute date is used by the chronologist for reference. Depending on the choice, dates can fluctuate by five hundred years!
By the way, N. A. Morozov came up with an idea in  that the count by Olympiads, or four-year periods, simply coincides with a very familiar Julian way of counting years in which four-year periods are marked by the system of bissextiles, that is, the Julian calendar considers every fourth year to be a leap one. This hypothesis indicates that the count by Olympiads had not existed before Julius Caesar, who had introduced the Julian calendar. Hence even in the Scaligerian chronology, the Olympiad/Julian count of years appeared not earlier than the I century a.d., and by no means in the monstrously ancient epoch of Hercules, the "ancient" hero. In accordance with our reconstruction, by which Julius Caesar does not appear before the XI century a.d., the count by Olympiads could not have been introduced before the XI century a.d. and, most probably, coincides with the Christian count of years from the Nativity of Jesus Christ, which, in our reconstruction, began at around 1000 a.d. or 1053 a.d., or the year of the Nativity of Jesus Christ in the XI century.
Thus, the reasons of disagreement between different historians regarding the starting point of count of years by Olympiads become clear. The count by Olympiads must have originated with the Nativity of Jesus Christ in the XI century and continued for several hundred years, without any of the numerous "oblivions and revivals". It was a consequence of "making copies of the chronicles" in the Scaligerian history that the same actual event - the beginning of Olympiads - was "made copies of" (on paper!) and "moved" deep into the past. As a result, the later historians, looking at the duplicate reiterations in the Scaligerian textbook, forgetting the reasons for its appearance, and assuming the air of extreme significance, started debating the "oblivions" and "renewals" of Olympiads, look for reasons, and propose involved theories. Hercules or the Dactyls. Or, Iphitus and Lycurgus. In general, a huge new "sphere of activity" that they have discovered.
2) The "ancient" count of years from the foundation of the City. This chronology allegedly originated around 753 b.c. (, table 5). But then we are told that this date was established by Varro, a Roman, only in the I century, which is allegedly 700 years (!) after the foundation of Rome in Italy, according to the Scaligerian chronology. The count of years "from the foundation of the City" ends in the alleged III century a.d., -namely, in the decade of 250-260 a.d. (), the time of civil wars in Rome of the alleged middle of the III century a.d. Blair reports, "Most of the chronicles start [at that time - A. F.] counting years from the foundation of Rome" (, table 15). We recall that the Scaligerian identification of the "City" as the Italian Rome founded allegedly in 753 b.c. is only a hypothesis. In Chron5 we justify the idea that it was the New Rome on the Bosporus, i.e. Constantinople, that was called the City. Constantinople is widely thought to have been founded around 300 a.d. and consecrated in 330 a.d. Thus, even in the Scaligerian chronology, substitution of Rome on the Bosporus for the Italian Rome leads to a millenarian shift of dates counted "from the foundation of the City" in some chronicles. The famous History by Titus Livy is an example thereof.
It is noteworthy that the count of years "from the foundation of the City" in the Scaligerian chronology comes to an end just at the junction of two duplicate empires, - namely, the Second Roman Empire and the Third Roman Empire. See  and figs. 6.101,6.102.
3) The count of years from the Nativity of Jesus Christ. In the Scaligerian chronology, this count was allegedly used/or the first time in 747 a.d., i.e. seven hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ in the I century according to Scaliger (), and two hundred years after the calculations of Dyonisius the Little, who lived in the alleged VI century a.d. and who was the first to calculate the date of Jesus Christ's Crucifixion. Then we encounter the familiar "oblivions and revivals" of eras. We are told that, after the first mention of the era from the Nativity of Jesus Christ "in an official document of 742 a.d., this era goes out of use again and begins to be mentioned every now and then only in the X century a.d., and only since 1431 (i.e. the fifteenth century! -A. F.) is it regularly recorded in Papal epistles, with a parallel count of years from 'the creation of the world' " (, p. 52). It is fairly notable that secular chronicles acquired the era from the Nativity of Jesus Christ even later than that. Historians report it to have been fixed in Germany as well as in France only in the XVI century, in Russia - only in 1700, in England, even later - in 1752 (, p. 52). Thus, even after the introduction of the Scaligerian chronology, a more or less regular use of the era from the Nativity of Jesus Christ can be spoken of only as of the XV century.
Previous, rather infrequent "mentions" of that era in the documents allegedly earlier than the X-XI century a.d. are, most likely, the results of the Scaligerian duplication of chronicles and shifting them deep into the past. As a result, the actual mediaeval mentions of that era in the documents of the XI-XVII century "appeared as phantoms" allegedly in the VI century and in the VIII century. Looking at those phantoms, the late historians began to build theories - for example, about Dionysius the Little of the alleged VI century a.d. We will answer in the following way. As mentioned above, "Dionysius the Little from the VI century" is actually nothing but a phantom reflection of the actual mediaeval Dionysius Petavius (i.e. actually Little = petit) from the XVI-XVII century a.d. Hence, Dionysius Petavius = Dionysius the Little turns out to have apparently been the first to have correctly calculated the date of Jesus Christ's Crucifixion approximately six hundred years before his own time.
As we understand now, he was absolutely right, since by counting six hundred years back from the XVI-XVII century we obtain exactly the XI century a.d. when, in accordance with our reconstruction, Jesus Christ actually lived and was crucified.
So, returning to fig. 6.101 and fig. 6.102, we can see that in the Scaligerian history, two basic "antique" counts of years - by Olympiads and from the foundation of the City - went out of use at least 500 years before the first and the only official mention of the era from the Nativity of Jesus Christ in the document allegedly of the year 742, the dating of which, as we have said, is rather dubious.
4) The "ancient" count of years from the Genesis. This era is thought to be closely connected with the Bible, therefore entirely depending on the dates of the Biblical events. Since these dates are transferred forwards into the Middle Ages, as a result of the new em-pirico-statistical dating methods, therefore, this count of years is most probably of a mediaeval or even late mediaeval origin and began, according to our reconstruction, not earlier than the X-XI centuryA.D. For the dating of Biblical events, see Chron6.
5) The count of years in the era of Hejira. This Arabic chronology is believed to have started in 622 a.d. (, table 19), and closely linked to the dating of the Koran and described therein. Therefore, it is most likely of a later origin too, begun in the X-XI century or even later.
The following important fact is obvious on the fig. 6.101 and fig. 6.102. In the Scaligerian chronology, all kingdoms except two are split into two classes - those which existed entirely before the beginning of the new era, and those which existed entirely after the beginning of the new era. Only two kingdoms -the Roman Empire and Parthian Kingdom - cross the range from 0 to 260 a.d. The beginning of the new era turns out to have had strangely destructive properties - out of many "ancient" kingdoms, only two have safely crossed that "perilous interval" from 0 to 260 a.d.
However, there is no continuous information on Parthian dynasties (). Hence, that kingdom cannot possibly serve as a chronological link and the "collation" of various eras.
As for the other kingdom - the Roman Empire -we can say the following. It is the Second Roman Empire that fits into the range between 0 and 260 a.d. perfectly. Its end, namely 260-270 a.d., perfectly coincides with the end of that "perilous interval" 0-260 a.d. that we have just discovered. Moreover, it is very obvious from the fig. 6.101 and fig. 6.102 that the decade of 260-270 a.d., or the very collation point of the Second and the Third Roman Empires, is not covered by any Olympic count of years, neither the one from the foundation of the City, nor the count of years from the Nativity of Jesus Christ, which, as historians say, "has not existed" yet. According to the Scaligerian chronology, the count of years from the foundation of the City comes to an end, the count by Olympiads ended allegedly 250 years before that. The Christian method of counting years has not begun yet, not even been invented - there're a few several hundred years left to go.
Then, in accordance with the results of statistic methods, the Second Roman Empire is the duplicate of the Third Roman Empire. In this relation, both of them are, in their turn, nothing but phantom reflections of the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century and the Empire of the Habsburgs (Nov-Gorod?) of the XIV-XVI century; fig. 6.11, fig. 6.12, fig. 6.12a, fig. 6.19, fig. 6.20, fig. 6.21, fig. 6.22, fig. 6.23, fig. 6.24. Hence, Roman history of the alleged I-III century a.d. is not original, but rather a "phantom". It must be lifted and identified with at least the Third Roman Empire, but actually with later kingdoms of the X-XIII century, and of the XIV-XVI century.
Furthermore, the Roman episcopacy pardy falls into that "perilous interval" of 0-260 a.d. But Papal history of 68-141 a.d. is considered to be an absolute legend of the Scaligerian history (, p. 312). Blair writes, "Until expiration of this century [i.e. the beginning of the II century a.d. - A. F.]... this column [i.e. the list of Roman Popes - A. F.] is completely obscure" (, table 13). The next Papal period of 68-141 a.d. is not independent, but only a phantom reflection of the Papal period of the alleged years 314-536 a.d., fig. 6.16; moreover, both of them are reflections of a much later Papal history. Thus, the first period of the Roman episcopacy, when moved forwards, is identified with its second period. Consequently, we discover that the epoch of 300 years from 30 b.c. to 270 a.d. in the Scaligerian chronology is an area of complete chronological silence of the documents. In that period, according to the Scaligerian chronology, there is not a single kingdom with its own independent dynastic current.
The epoch from 30 b.c. to 270 a.d. in the Scaligerian chronology ends with a gap. We recall that the two main "ancient counts of years" of that period - the era from the foundation of the City and the Diocletian era allegedly begun in 284 a.d. - do not agree ( [ 76] ). Between them there is a chronological lapse, a gap of at least 20 years. We repeat that no count of years from the Nativity of Jesus Christ is in question yet.
Conclusion. The place of the collation of several duplicate chronicles is obvious in the Scaligerian chronology - the epoch of the alleged years 0-260 a.d. In the XVI-XVII century, someone allocated several phantom duplicate chronicles along the axis of time and pasted them together in one "textbook", quite roughly at that. They didn't even bother to cover up the place of sewing with any era, having probably decided it would work well as it was. As the result, the false "beginning of a new era" in the alleged year zero split up the Scaligerian history "in two", fig. 6.101 and fig. 6.102. Enter many "antique" kingdoms before the beginning of the new era, as well as many mediaeval kingdoms after the beginning of the new era, while around the beginning of that very new era there appeared a strange lapse that we discover today with our new methods, analysing the whole structure of the Scaligerian chronology.
Was this article helpful?