Fig. 1
The determination of set datings on the basis of the direct information from the source.
Russian
Wladyslaw Polakowski wlad@df.ru
The theoretical base of the human history reconstruction on the base of the avaibable dated historical material
Epigraph
Wir denken, dass der
Zivilisationsprozess in seinem elementaren Kern bislang nicht ueberzeugend plausibilisiert werden
konnte, weil es Rezeptionsbruche
gab, auf die neue
Konzeptionen folgten, die starker an
Legitimitat und Identifikation
interessiert waren, denn an
historischer Wahrheit.
Ralph Davidson. Christoph Luhman.
Evidenz und Konstrukzion.
Materialen zur Kritik der
historischen Dogmatik. Utopia Blvd.
Dr.Landau. Hamburg 1998
(The approximately epigraph
translation into English:
We think that civilizatiom process in its elementary
core till now not could be Convincingly make similar to the true, because of
there are breaks of perception, Following from the new (modern) concept, which
were more interested in legality and Identification than in the historical
truth).
Introduction
1. Concept of the generalized historical fact
2. A couple of words
about ways of the time designation and determination in sources
3. Determination of
the set of datings of the probable original of the events described in the
source by the consideration of process of a reading of dates from this
source without consideration of the preliminary process of record
4. Theoretical bases
for the reconstruction of the separate events
5. Theoretical bases
for the reconstruction of the sequences of the mutual independent
events
6.
Theoretical bases for the reconstruction og the chronicles and for the global
reconstructions
7. Creation of the
one separate version of reconstruction of process and the set of versions
8. Principles
of optimal reduction of the obtained reconstruction versions.
9. Creation of the
reconstruction versions in the case of the suspicion of the separate historical
documents on unauthenticity (or, in other words, of the nigilistic
versions).
10. Generalization
of the theoretical bases of the reconstruction on a case of consideration of
records processes.
11. A technique of
comparison of the separate versions of the reconstruction by the rating a
principle.
The brief summary.
Introduction
Since those times when the
chronological concept of the mankind history mankind began to be considered as
convent there was undertaken not so few attempts of its
reconsideration. Such reconsideration was carried out first of all from a
chronological viewpoint. Sometimes attempts of reconsideration resulted to
construction of other concepts of development in such degree completed (Morosow
(1), Illig (2)) or uncompleted (Newton (3)).
The purpose of this work the author
sees in creation of the most general theoretical bases for human history
reconstruction.
1. Concept of the
generalized historical fact
As is known in the science of history which
according to many ancient authors is the teacher of life (Historia magistra
vita) it is possible, in general case, to describe everything. It is possible to
describe any moment, any episode from life of any person, any representative of
alive and lifeless nature, any process, and also anyone things situation. That
is theoretically can be described dynamics of any phenomenon (something
was held, something has changed), or statics of any a things situation (laws,
principles, morals, characteristic any of object). That is, let's say, can be
described the statics and dynamics of human life in all it
displays.
It's not necessary to tell what is
event it's quit understandable - that's when somewhere at one time with
the participation (and - or by the certificate) of someone or something has
taken place. The story WHAT had took place and was held (ones).
It is
even easier to tell what is a picture things situation: it's when certain
objects one some way have interdependence. The story, HOW it was (during some
long time interval).
It is possible to enter such generalizing concept
as the generalized fact - this is the association of the events and the picture
of a things situation, that is that association of a statics and dynamics in a
someone general.
The historical fact (in the widest sense of a word) is
described by chronology (C), localization (place) (L), essence (Е) and
personalies (participants which have certain names) (P).
Because of the
process of the past recognition is held on the basis of sources both the issue
of the knowledge source of the certain fact and issue of the ambiguity of
reading information are emerging in gengeral case (isn't so easy to to determine
exact chronology of event, its localization, essence and structure of the
participants), the fact can have the several intepretations. Therefore at study
of the source we shall speak not about the facts, but about
fact-interpretations. That is, shortly, fact taken from the source (in the
most general sense of a word) in the dependences on Chronology (C), Localisation
(L)) Essence (Е) and personals (quantity of involved (mentioned) persons and
their names) (P), source of origin (O) can have N of interpretations, written
down for brevity F (c, l, e, p, o).
F1 = Fn {(c, l, e, p, o)} (1)
To operate at once with such concept as fact-interpretation because of
the large capacity of this concept there will be a little difficult, therefore
at first author of article will operate with such more simple concept as event.
As the historical event is possible
to consider as the phenomenon short-term (fast change of certain parameters,
dynamics), and the picture of the thing situation as the phenomenon extended,
long-term, therefore at first there will be easier to consider everything on the
example of one-time events, and only soon to begin consideration of the
reconstruction issues on the basis of the generalized historical facts.
We will be interested with the dating of events, therefore at first we
will tell a couple of words about ways of the time designations in sources.
2. A litte about ways of the time designation and determination in sources
Identification of the time of the
described event or the pictures of a things situation are determining the
following:
- Type of the conventional system of record of numbers
- Type
of the conventional system of the time ordering and it's records.
As to
second of above cases, it is subdivided into two: calendar and noncalendar.
In the case of calendar system of the time record everyone event or
picture of a things situation is precise becomes described to the ordered system
of date records. In this system certain time intervals are allocated as a basis
for system of the account (years, months, days, hours, minute). Also in the
calendar systems as a rule issue of the beginnings of readout is decided (as a
rule but not always. For example the great problem is the problem of edict
scoring).
Thus, determination of the time of the event described in the
source in the elementary case when the process of reading is considered only is
made by the following plan:
I. Determination of the date record system
(noncalendar, or calendar, in the last case a type of calendar)
II.
Determinations of the time, serving as the beginning of the readout, i.e. from
which there is a readout of the time events.
III. Determinations of the
time, specified in source, concerning a beginning of readout of the time.
IV.
Determinations of the time, specified in source, in the absolute system of time
scoring.
It is possible still to consider more complex process which would
mention not only the process of reading, but the process of preliminary record
too. But it is a little further.
3. Determination of set datings of the probable originals of event described in the source by consideration of date reading process only without consideration of preliminary process of record.
One small preliminary remark. Further we shall show, that by consideration of records in sources it will be much more correct to consider not events but their probable originals. Even on that to the simple reason, that a phrase"the set datings of event"sounds not quite correctly (as if the event in the certain moment of the time was held, it was held just in this moment of the time). A phrase"set datings of the probable originals of event described in the source"much more correctly sounds as thus it is supposed, that because of ambiguity of the described event dating this event, described in source (or, more precisely, the image of event) can have not one probable original - WP).
In this chapter will be considered the elementary process of time specified in source in the elementary case, by consideration of reading process of the dates from this source only without consideration of the preliminary process of record.
We admit that we have identificated
in the source the certain sequence of graphic signs has the relation to the time
designation. Taht is there wasd succeded us to identificate words such as
year, era, epoch, month, edict etc. Then we are acting at a reading
of signs on to the circuit, represented in a fig. 1:
Fig. 1
The determination of set datings on the basis of the
direct information from the source.
First of all we take the table which contains the information on the beginnings of the eras years account (the topest block). We need this information as didactical. Simultaneoulsly we take directly from source the sequence of graphic signs having the relation to datings (the first block from the central row). Then after this identification process we take from the sequence of graphic signs such that have the direct relate to numerical signs (figures) and we identify each of them separately (the second from the left block). For exapmle, in the case of roman figures we identificate letter V as 5 and letter X as 10. We can also show many other interesting examples from the old-jewish, arabic, slavic and other traditions for the date designation.
Then on the base of the sense of
the each mark separatly we determine the probable range of the real numerical
meaning of this set of signs as a whole, with the account for example is this
record system positional (the value of sign depends of the figure position in
the number) or nonpositional (the value of sign not depends of the figure
position) and also whether could take place the certain conventional
simplifications in the record system (for example not to write the numbers of
centuries or numbers millenium). This is reflecting on the third from left
block.
Then
alreday knowing the set of the numerical meanings of the signs set in whole we
try to determine it's probable place on the chronological scale.
There are possible two cases: whether
is present the more detailed information on binding to the epochs and eras or
not. Such binding may be given as day of the certain saint, the number of year
in the Olimpiad, in lunar or solar cycles etc.
Accordingly in the case of the
indication of the concrete chronological era we draw the each date from the
available on that or other place on the absolute chronological axis (ideal
variant to score it in years of the common era or from our days) according to
the theoretically probable beginnings acount of years in that era. For example
if date is specified in years from creation of the world (annus mundi) it is
better to consider all probable variants of conventional in different
chronological schools recalculation of the years from creation of the world into
the common era (the transition from the third block from the left immediately to
the most right). In the case if such binding with epoch in the sourceis
not present anything another does not remain as to consider all theoretically of
probable era years account beginning from most popular and
conventional.
In other words at the reading of dates in any source it's necessary to allocate the record of numerical graphic signs (I blocks on fig.1), to identify the record of number (II blocks on fig. 1). Further on the basis of meaning of this written down number to determine probable real number which they could mean (in view of probable missing of figures binding with the centuries and millenium, therefore numerical signs, designating numbers of centuries and millenium could be omitted) (III blocks on fig.1) and give a set of the points on a timebase (IV blocks in a fig. 1).
4. Theoretical base for reconstruction of separate events
We allow that we have certain event
Е, mentioned in a rather early source in the certain chronological system.
Generally we know nothing about the dating of this event and ours task is this
dating to determine as correctly as possible. Let's repeat the record made in
the source it is possible to consider as the chronological image of this event.
Speaking in general case the chronological system in which this event is
written down has not one but (in general case) N ways of the recalculation on
the conventional chronological axis. We can compare the dated record about it
from the sourcewith the N theoretically probable original on a timebase.
(fig. 2). 
Fig. 2,
Where I1, I2, I3 are the beginning various
eras, located on the absolute timebase, E (I1), E (I2) and E (In) are the
probable originals of event, information on which time was read out from the
source. This information was recalculated in several ways (about which
historical science gives the information) on the absolute timebase. So N of
probable originals of event E have appeared.
Figure 2 we can easily redraw
as the more evident circuit represented in a fig. 3-1 
Fig. 3-1
Where E (im). is the image of event, and E1or,
E2or.... Enor. are it's probable originals.
Similarly we can draw figure on
a case of the several (M) events, each of them has N of the probable originals
(fig. 3-2)
Fig. 3-2. The circuit of
interdependence M of events reflected in sources, and N of their probable
originals
On fig 3. E1, E2... En are images of events in sources, E11,
E12... E1n, E21.... Emn are their probable originals
If now to put a
task the issue of reconstruction it is easy to see that for a
reconstruction of probable real event it is necessary simply give the list of
all its probable originals and give their places on the timebase. That is
finally the following circuit should be realized:
Fig. 3-3
The
chronological circuit of interdependence images and probable originals..
In a fig. 3-3 E1, E2... Em are images of events reflected in sources and
E11, E12, E1n, E21, E22.... Emn are their probable originals.
(Small
note in brackets. For convenience the author offers a simple chronological way
numberings of the probable originals: to the first versions we
appropriate number 1 (for example first in the chronological order of the
probable original of the events E1 has number E11), the next after it we
appropriating number 2 (the second probable original of the event Е1 has number
Е12) etc.)
On the basis of the data submitted in a fig. 3-3, we can
construct the set of the reconstruction versions of the separate mutual
independent events information about which we shall take obviously from
the different sources.
5. Theoretical bases for reconstruction of the sequences mutual independent of events.
We allow we have М of events fixed
in different sources or otherwise the sequence of the М events (for simplicity
let's name these events as mutual independent). Our task is to give most
complete picture of the theoretically probable final reconstruction versions of
all set of events from the chronological viewpoint.
For creation any of the
reconstruction versions we take the certain probable original E1i of the
first event E1, then probable original E2j of the second event E2, etc. up to
the probable original Emk of event Em. (fig.3-4). In the result there will be
the first version of reconstruction, which is possible conditionally to write
down with the formula as
E1iE2j.... Emk (2) 
Fig. 3-4. A principle of creation of the versions of the sequences of
events reconstruction of the on the basis of the probable originals
We
can absolute similarly construct the second version of reconstruction as it is
represented on Fig. 3-5 
Fig. 3-5
This version of
reconstruction we can easily describe by the formula
E1i2E2j2.... Emk2
(3)
Now we shall illuminate the issue of quantity of the reconstruction
versions constructed on this way.
If the first event can have N1 of the
probable originals, the second event has N2 etc. and the last, m-th on account -
Nm, then in whole in the assumption of mutual independence and at absence others
restrictions
we shall have
N1*N2* ...*Nm (4) reconsturtion
versions
and in that partial case when each of events fixed in the source
has N of the probable originals there can be N**M (read: N in M-that stage)
reconstruction versions.
6. Theoretical
bases for the reconstruction of the chronicles and also for global
reconstruction
We shall generalize stating above reasoning from the case
of separate events to the case of the connected sources. If two events are
taking from the one source such events any more will not be mutual independent
(certainly, if the source ss primary. It is possible certainly to generalize the
reasonings carried out in this chapter on the case if the source aren't primary,
but it will be reduced to already described in previous chapter case of the
mutual independent sources).
Such consideration has completely
precise scientific ground because of onetiming mutual independents event are
represented generally in the act sources, and the sequence of the events
generally in the narrativ, descriptive sources. Then we in figures 3-1 - 3-4
instead of symbols of separate events we shall draw the symbols of the
chronicles. Then we will obtain: 
Fig. 4-1. The image of the
connected sequence events and its probable originals
Where C (im). Is an
image of the chronicles, really available and C1or., C2or.... Cnor. - its
probable originals.
Similarly we represent a figure on the case of the M
chronicles (fig. 4-2) 
Fig. 4-2
Where С1.... Сm is
a set of the real chronicles, and С11, С12.... Сmn - Set of their probable
originals.
7. Creation of the one separate
version of reconstruction of process and the set of versions
At first for creation of the most complete picture
of reconstruction versions of a history on the certain long interval of a
history (in the ideal the Histories of all mankind) on the basis of the
connected sequences of events (chronicles) we are making reasonings similar of
them, which we have carried out in chapter 5 of this article where was
considered the case of reconstruction on the example of the mutual independent
events. We represent M mutual independent chronicles and we postpone on
chronological axis their probable originals. (fig. 4-3) (Note: we specially, not
to block up the figure draw the probable originals not on an axis but we
represente them as pieces parallel to the axes). 
Fig. 4-3
The circuit of reconstruction of a history on a case
of the М sequences of the mutual independent events (М chronicles).
In a fig. 4-3 С1... Сm are the
originals of the event sequences taken from the sources, and С11, С12... Сm is a
set of their probable originals. The author of article with the purpose of
nonblocking of the figure specially not become to draw Vertical dashed lines
from the ends of the pieces С11, С12... Сm, which would mean a beginning both
the end of the separate chronicles.
Let's try to construct at least one
of the reconstruction versions. With this purpose we shall:
a. Choose
the process we would like to reconstruct with the help of the information
contained in sources
b. Let's collect
the most complete set of the items of information about it as datings of events
in those or others Traditions. Among them we shall allocate the information
which is present as the onetimed events (act Material) and as the connected
chronicles.
c. Let's construct
one of the reconstruction versions.
Further are
possible two ways of creation of the reconstruction:
- If to build the
reconstruction versions from consecutive events (chronicles) and separating
facts simultaneously
- If to build the reconstruction versions at first from
consecutive events (chronicles) only and then to compare them with the
separating facts or with the fact interpretations.
First of two ways has that disadvantage that if to go on it according to the all laws of the combiantorics we shall face with very the large number of the reconstruction versions. This dsiadvantage will shown for the second case have the smaller influence when will be already created certain set of the reconstruction versions and each of fact-interpretations will be merely with the each of the reconstruction versions be compared. The results of this comparison will be fixed to a rating principle.
So we shall go on the second ways:
at first we build the set of the reconstruction versions and then we shall
compare to them various fact-interpretations.
c. Let's construct one of the reconstruction versions.
We can do it on the basis of a fig. 4-3, if we take a certain original
of the first chronicle, then the certain probable original of the second
chronicle, etc. up to last, m-th chronicle. For concretics let's represent one
of them in a fig. 4-4
Fig. 4-4. The example of one
of the reconstruction versions which can be briefly written down as С1iC2j...
Cmk
and let's appropriate to it the number С1iC2j... Cmk (5),
what
otherwise will mean: i-the probable original of the 1-st chronicle + j-th
probable original of the 2-nd chronicles +... + k-th the probable original of
m-th chronicle.
(Small note in brackets. If to go in the order the
separate reconstruction versions would be written as
I С11С21С31.... Сm1
(5.1)
II С11С21С31.... Сm2 (5.2)
III С11С21С31.... Сm3 (5.3) etc. down
to last which we have designated by the letter F (its precise number let's
illuminate a little soon)
F С1n1C2n2C3n3... Cmnm (5.f))
Generally
number of reconstruction is convenient describing by the formula
С1n1C2n2... Cmnm (6), where
С1n1 is the probable original of the
chronicle С1 with the number n1
С2n2 is the probable original of the
chronicle С2 with the number n2.... (7)
Сmnm is the probable original of the
chronicle Сm with the number nm.
On it a bracket of the note we can close).
Thus, in the elementary case (in a case of the considerations of process
of reading the information only, without consideration of process of it
preliminary record) we shall obtain the following picture: a set of M of the
chronicles each of them has N of the probable originals according to all laws of
the combinatorics will give
N**M (8) (N in m-th stage) reconstruction
versions.
Here there will be a logical issue: whether it is possible as
so threating large (as it supposes the combinatorics) quantity of the
obtained reconstruction versions to reduce? The author will try to answer, that
yes, such reduction is possible, and in the next chapter will state certain
principles on which basis the quantity of the reconstruction versions can be
reduced....
8. Principles of
optimal reduction of the obtained reconstruction versions.
It is
possible to keep the certain logic reasonings on theme of the character of the
separate civilization processes development (for example, development of arts,
science, architecture etc.) and to reach a certain conclusion on the issue of
character of these processes developmnet from the viewpoints of a continuity.
The conclusion would be formulated so: such processes were continuous or
breakable.
The author as the man of tolerant
sights can suppose that the various researchers can come both to the conclusions
of a continuity and to the conclusion about breakness of the civilization
processes (or they can be merely based on the different ground). He only will
formulate the viewpoint that he is supporter of the viewpoint of the continuity
of the civilization processes.
From here he formulates
1. A principle of a continuity,
Which
in application to the large number of the reconstruction versions would consist
in that in the next:
If at the certain version of reconstruction are present
the temporary intervals (lacuna), which are not described by the historical
documents, such version is improbable.
This principle can easily be
generalized on the geographical attribute, that would be important for
reconstruction of a history of separate territories:
If in the certain
version of reconstruction of certain territories (certain community of the
people) there are temporary intervals which not are described by the historical
documents such version is improbable.
2. Principle of originality
If
this principle to formulate briefly, it states that is improbable that the
temporary interval for one any territory was described two by the independent
chronicles with mentioning, for example, as the governors of absolute different
persons.
3. Principle antiantiquity (the principle of the forbidding the
presense of the probable original in later times then image)
As a rule issue
of the datings of the separate events in the global history was not deprived
political shade, and disputes on a theme who is more ancient are not so
seldom. Therefore very much frequently the separate events were described
obviously more by more early dates than they really took place.
As if to inverse processes that is
when the early events were dated by dates much later they practically not were
observed (the author of the work know about them nothing).
Therefore
author of article will venture to formulate principle antiantiquity:
Fewprobable are those versions of reconstruction, when as the result the
probable original of the connected sequence of events (chronicle) will be
situated chronologically earler then the image of this sequence of events
reflected in the avaible chronicle. (On the example of a fig. 4-4: the destiny
of the probable original of the chronicles С1, which lays before the chronicle,
is improbable).
9. Creation of the
reconstruction versions in case of the suspicion of separate historical
documents on unauthenticity (or otherwise of the nigilistic
versions)
Technique of the building of the reconstruction versions wokrs
especially effectively by way of knowledge historical reality for those periods
on which many documents which describe this period are suspicious from a
viewpoint of their reliability.
In this case technique of building
of the reconstruction versions essentially will not differ. We merely will take
a narrower set of the initial chronicles, thus the chronicle non considerinf by
this the chronicle suspected in unauthenticity.
If for example in
unauthenticity is suspected the chronicle С1 a set of the reconstruction
versions on this Time nigilistic, 5.1-5.f will be rewritten as
I
С21С31.... Сm1 (9.1)
II С21С31.... Сm2 (9.2)
III С21С31.... Сm3
(9.3)......
F C2n2C3n3... Cmnm (9.f)),
and in such unauthenticity are
suspected all chronicle except for a certain chronicle Сj the set of the
reconstruction versions will look as a set of the probable originals of this
chronicle Cj:
I Сj1 (10.1)
II Сj2 (10.2)
III Сj3 (10.3)......
F Cjn (10.f))
It is simple to count total quantity of general
reconstructions which will take place in this case. Set from M of the
chronicles, each of which has N of the probable originals, according to all laws
combinatorics will give
(N + 1)**M (11)
((N + 1) in m-th stage)
reconstruction versions (Attention! In comparison with the formula (8) here the
expression (N + 1) has appeared in the basis of a degree instead of N for the
account occurrence by one more, 'zero', version).
10.
Generalization of theoretical bases of the reconstruction on a case of
consideration of the processes of record.
So, we shall consider, that we
already have obtained a set reconstruction of the versions of a history of
mankind at consideration is of merely process of reading. Now we also shall
consider process of preliminary records.
In this case we shall consider
not only process readings of dates specified in the source, but also the process
of their record. Really it is less rich by variants, than case of a reading of
dates from source, because of the chronist, making the record as a rule knew
there are a lot of systems of the account of years, and only one-two.
Nevertheless, this process should be considered in the most general case, as is
represented on fig.5-1 
Fig. 5-1. Record of event in different eras
with the different beginnings of the years account.
Where I1... Im is a set
datings one Events E in different eras. (In a reality, for example, I1 can
correspond any of global systems of the account of years, and Im - any of local,
for example, years of government any of the governor).
Both the process of
record, and reading, is possible to represent on the circuit, similar
represented on fig.3-1, and at we shall obtain the generalization of this
circuit on case of the consideration of preliminary record. (fig.5-2)
Fig. 5-2. The schematic image of
process fixings of events in sources and their further reading
Similar reasonings we can do about the records not only of the separate events, but also about the connected sequences, reflected in the chronicles (or, simply speaking, in the chronicles) in general. If to consider an image by one sequences of events C and its probable reflection in the chronicles with the various beginnings of readout, we will have picture (fig. 5-3), similar to represented on a fig. 5-1.
Fig. 5-3
Where C is
conditional designation namely of the sequences of events (chronicle), and Ic
and Fc are accordingly beginning of the chronicle and it's end.
In this figure it is visible that in
the case of reflection real sequence of events in different sources with various
systems of a beginning years account as the beginning of a sequence of events,
(chronicles), and its end will obtaine in the various chronological versions
various Dating.
Now we shall generalize reasonings about theoretically
The probable reconstruction versions of the set of chronicles on a case of the
reading with preliminary record. Otherwise, we can generalize a fig. 4-2 on the
case not only process of simple reading, but also on the case of preliminary
record. General circuit is represented in a fig. 5-4 
Fig. 5-4. Reflection of the L sequences of the events in the
chronicles in case of their preliminary Reading.
(There would be
desirable to make one small remark: in the set of the probable originals,
represented on Fig. 5-4 in the right column, can be the absolute identical
versions with different numbers. They can be appear because of in proccess of
recalculation of figures from one era to another and inverse recaluclation in
the next step can add and substruct those figures which can led to the equal
results (for example, one monk in year 1100 AD reflected this date as 1100 AD.
The other monk reflected this date in Annus Mundi by bysantical tradition
AM=1100+5500=6600, next during rewriting the third monk will read this date as
6600-5500=1100 (the first way with this result). The other group of monks
analagously this operation with the double recalculation make with the figure
AM-AD=5200. The result is one, the ways are two).
From this figure is
visible the circuit that reconstruction represented on fig.4-3 and 4-4
essentionally doesn't changes.
So we have obtained a certain set of the
reconstruction versions of the events on the basis of the chronicles. Now let's
carrying out the promise given in chapter 7.b., and we pass a technique of
comparison of the separate versions to the rating principle.
11. Обобщение предыдущих выкладок на случай недатированного исторического материала и основные принципы рабты с ним.
Принципы работы с недатированным историческим материалом практически не отличаются от принципов работы с датированными хрониками. Только в этом случае ввиду отсутствия дат возрастает подозрение в недотсоверности материала и его легендарности. При этом, естественно, существенно может возрасти число вероятных оригиналов и конечных версий реконстуркции.
12. A technique of comparison of the separate reconstruction
versions on the rating principle.
So, we have the following picture:
there is a set of the reconstruction versions of the certain issue. We have the
task by the most objective criteria choose the best among them.
It would be desirable to remind that we have besides other the usual task of historical sciences: to give the most complete and detailed description of the occured events. As the ideal uninconsistent version we doubtly succeed to construct we should seek the certain scientific technique, which could apply on the maximal objectivity.
So showing a principle of maximal
objectivity and maximal tolerance (as we have obliged to take into account
everything) we represent to attention of the readers a technique of the rating
comparisons.
If is short the technique is to take all set of the facts
having the relation to the reconstructing events (including artefacts from the
natural sciences) and to compare them in with available set of the
reconstruction versions.
Each fact in generally has N of the versions
interpretations (look formula (1)) therefore more correctly is to speak not
about the facts but about the fact-interpretations.
Let's consider
one of the reconstruction versions. We will compare it with the different
fact-interpretations.
For this in the version we shall consider and fix
all fact-interpretations confirming (coincidence of the information with the
version), complementaring (neither confirming, neither contradicting) and
fact-interpretations contradicting. Thus we shall obtain the picture of mutual
relation of the version and various having the relation to this issue facts.
Now from reasons of statistics it is possible to calculate the quantity of fact-interpretations confirming (concurrence of the information with the version), complementary (neither confirming, neither contradicting) and fact-interpretations contradicting; and to determine and to describe their type.
Then we shall similarly act with the
second version (that is we fix again the version and again we fix set of the
facts (quantity and type), which it confirme, which have the neutral relations
and which to it contradict). After applying of this procedure all of
theoretically probable quantity times we shall precisely record the versions,
fact-interpretations, which confirme them and fact-interpretations which
contradict them (the neutral fact-interpretations are not interesting for
us).
On this way are created three fields: the field of the versions, the
field of the fact-interpretations on which this version is basing, and the field
of the fact-interpretation which are contradicting to this version. Let's
represent those fields on the figure 6.
|
| (FT+)1
(N1+)<=> Version-1 <=> (FT-)1(N1-)
| Field of
|
(FT+)2
(N2+)<=> Version-2 <=> (FT-)2(N2-)
|
the |
|
fact- |
=>
|interpretations |
|
| (FT+)m
(Nm+)<=> Version-m <=> (FT-)m(Nm-)
Figure 6
Where (FТ
+) is a set of fact-interpretations confirming the concrete version, (FТ -)
is a set of fact-interpretations, contradicting, with this version,
(N1 +) (N1 -) (N2 +) (N2 -).... are places for figures, in which should be
written quantitative results obtained as a result of calculation of the quantity
of the confirming and contradicting versions.
So we have obtained
a picture of the several reconstruction versions and the rating estimation of
each of them.
In conclusion of the chapter we shall add that the method
which has allowed us to consider all without exception theoretically probable
reconstruction versions is calling as a method of multialternativeness.
Brief summary.
The method of multialternativeness has as any other method the best perspectives of the research of the processes with disputable and uncertain issues of chronology, geography, personals, essence of events, which entirely take place at study events traditionally related to the antiquity and middle ages.
The picture, which has turned out in a result by most objective way will allow to reflect any historical issue, and also (what's most important) will allow to create historically most authentic concept of separate issues of a world history. Also there will be an opportunity to create the new tutorial of the history.The simplest application of this
theory is the author's article 'The chronologic concept of the Europian development for
the period from a beginning of common era up to late Middle ages following from
the sources in latin'
THE LITERATURE
1. N.A.Morozow. Christos.
Mpscpw, Kraft-Lean 1997-2001.
2. Heribert Illig ' Das erfundene Mittelalter.
Hat Karl der Grosse je gelebt? '. Econ Taschenbuch Verlag, 2000.
3. Isaac
Newton. The chronology of ancient Kingdoms amended.
February 1 2002