Wladyslaw Polakowski 

The theoretical base of the human history reconstruction on the base of the avaibable dated historical material

Attention! This article is the base chapter of author's book with the title "Tatar-Mongols. Eurasia. Multialternativeness" what appeared in October 2002 in russian.


     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).

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 Creation of the reconstruction versions in the case of the suspicion of the separate historical documents on unauthenticity (or, in other words, of the nigilistic versions).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.

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:

01ru.gif (6819 bytes)
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).
02.gif (1980 bytes)
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
03.gif (2239 bytes)

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)

03-2.gif (2453 bytes)

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:

03-3.gif (2644 bytes)

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)

03-4.gif (2180 bytes)
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

03-5.gif (2257 bytes)
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:
04-1.gif (2278 bytes)

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)

04-2.gif (2417 bytes)
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).
04-3.gif (2696 bytes)

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

04-4.gif (2197 bytes)

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
05-1.jpg (7327 bytes)
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)

05-2.gif (3389 bytes)

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.

05-3.gif (2013 bytes)

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

05-4.gif (5294 bytes)
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'

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

Сайт управляется системой uCoz