According to Anatoly Fomenko’s New Chronology, history as we know Ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt as we know them didn’t exist at all. History: Fiction or Science?: Astronomical Methods as Applied to Chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. the Egyptian Zodiacs. Dr Anatoly T. Anatoly o, Gleb kiy “History: Fiction or Science”. The Chronology Issue. How Europe escaped from Eurasia. 5 volumes of books on the New.
|Published (Last):||2 February 2016|
|PDF File Size:||1.48 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.35 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Similar authors to follow
The New Chronology is a pseudohistorical theory which argues that the conventional chronology of Middle Eastern and European history is fundamentally flawed, and that events attributed to the civilizations of the Roman EmpireAncient Greece and Ancient Egypt actually occurred during the Middle Agesmore than a thousand years later. The central concepts of the New Chronology are derived from the ideas of Russian scholar Nikolai Morozov — although work by French scholar Jean Hardouin — can be viewed as an earlier predecessor.
The concept is most fully explained in History: The New Chronology also contains a reconstructionan alternative chronology, radically shorter than the standard historical timeline, because all ancient history is “folded” onto the Middle Ages. According to Fomenko’s claims, the written history of humankind goes only as far back as ADthere is almost no information about events between AD —, and most known historical events took place in AD — The New Chronology is rejected by mainstream historians and is inconsistent with absolute and relative dating techniques used in the wider scholarly community.
New Chronology (Fomenko) – Wikipedia
The majority of scientific commentators consider The New Chronology to be pseudoscientific. The theory emerged alongside other alternate histories and conspiracy literature in the period of increased freedom of speech that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union. Nosovskiy and Bulgarian mathematician Iordan Tabov who expanded the theory in regards to the Balkans, the theory anwtoly mostly discussed in reference to Fomenko’s writings.
The idea of chronologies that differ from the conventional chronology can be traced back to at least the early 17th century. Jean Hardouin then suggested that many ancient historical documents were much younger than commonly believed to be. In he published a version of Pliny the Elder ‘s Natural Fomneko in which he claimed that most Greek foomenko Roman texts had been forged by Benedictine monks.
When later questioned on these results, Hardouin stated that he would reveal the monks’ reasons in a letter to be revealed only after his death.
The executors of his estate were unable to find such a document among his posthumous papers. In fomwnko, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely invented or corrupted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In Otto Rank made note of duplications in literary history of a variety of cultures:.
Especially the history of their birth and of their early years is furnished with phantastic traits; the amazing similarity, nay literal identity, of those tales, even if they refer to different, completely independent peoples, sometimes geographically far removed from one another, is well known and has struck many an investigator.
Fomenko became interested in Morozov’s theories in Intogether with a few colleagues from the mathematics department of Moscow State Universityhe published several articles on “new mathematical methods in history” in peer-reviewed journals.
By the early s, Fomenko shifted his focus from trying to convince the scientific community via peer-reviewed publications to publishing books. Beam writes that Fomenko and his colleagues were discovered by the Soviet scientific press in the early s, leading to “a brief period of renown”; a contemporary review from the Soviet journal Questions of History complained, “Their constructions have nothing in common with Marxist historical science.
Central to Fomenko’s New Chronology is his claim of the existence of a vast Slav-Turk empire, which he called the “Russian Horde”, which he says played the dominant role in Eurasian history before the 17th century.
The various peoples identified in ancient and medieval history, from the ScythiansHunsGoths and Bulgarsthrough the PolyaneDulebyDrevlianePechenegsto in more recent times, the CossacksUkrainiansand Belarusiansare nothing but elements of the single Russian Horde. For the New Chronologists, peoples such as the Ukrainians, Belarusians, Mongolsand others who assert their national independence from Russia, are suffering from a historical delusion.
Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos allegedly AD tothe emperor of Byzantium, known for his failed reforms, his traits and deeds reflected in ‘biographies’ of many real and imaginary persons. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and time-frame of the authors of said accounts and biographies.
He claims that the historical Jesus may have been born in and was crucified around AD on the Joshua’s Hilloverlooking the Bosphorus.
Fomenko claims the Hagia Sophia is actually the biblical Temple of Solomon. He identifies Solomon as sultan Suleiman the Magnificent — On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word “Rome” is a placeholder and can signify any one of several different cities and kingdoms. The second and most famous “New Rome” is Constantinople. The third “Rome” is constituted by three different cities: Constantinople againRome in Italy, and Moscow.
In volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 of History: One might wonder why we should want to revise the chronology of ancient history today and base our revision on new empirical-statistical methods. The vocabulary of Egyptian astronomical symbols once applied to horoscopes from temples allows for extraction of unique dates of eclipses. Astronomical data therein contained is sufficient for unique dating. There are symbols allowing for astronomical interpretation and the symbols do not change from one temple horoscope to another.
The horoscopes from temples contain data about eclipses visible in Egypt allowing their exact pinpointing on the time axis. As we have already noted, the inability of the latter day commentators to comprehend the astronomical symbolism of the Apocalypse is directly resulting from the loss of knowledge about the correct chronology and the distortions introduced by historians of the XVI—XVIII century.
Another possibility is that there was an unspoken general taboo on what concerned a subject quite as dangerous, which resulted in the misdating of the Apocalypse. One way or another, the understanding of the astronomical descriptions that the Apocalypse contains got lost at some point.
The Apocalypse had lost its distinctive astronomical hue in the eyes of the readers. However, its “astronomical component” is not simply exceptionally important — it alone suffices for the dating of the book itself. The vocabulary of Babylonian astronomical symbols once applied to clay tablets don’t allow for extraction of unique dates of eclipses. Astronomical data therein contained is not sufficient for unique dating. Either there not enough symbols allowing for astronomical interpretation or the symbols change from one clay tablet to another.
The clay tablets contain data about eclipses visible in Babylon that could have taken place every 30—40 years, therefore don’t allow there exact pinpointing on the time axis. Chinese eclipse observations can neither confirm nor refute any chronology of China at all, be it veracious or erroneous.
One of Fomenko’s simplest methods is statistical correlation of texts. His basic assumption is that a text which describes a sequence of events will devote more space to more important events for example, a period of war or an unrest will have much more space devoted to than a period of peacefulnon-eventful yearsand that this irregularity will remain visible in other descriptions of the period.
For each analysed text, a function is devised which maps each year mentioned in the text with the number of pages lines, letters devoted in the text to its description which could be zero. The function of the two texts are then compared. For example, Fomenko compares the contemporary history of Rome written by Titus Livius with a modern history of Rome written by Russian historian V.
Sergeevcalculating that the two have high correlationand thus that they describe the same period of history, which is undisputed. In a somewhat similar manner, Fomenko compares two dynasties of rulers using statistical methods. First, he creates a database of rulers, containing relevant information on each of them.
Then, he creates “survey codes” for each pair of the rulers, which contain a number which describes degree of the match of each considered property of two rulers. For example, one of the properties is the way of death: An important property is the length of the rule. Fomenko lists a number of pairs of unrelated dynasties — for example, dynasties of kings of Israel and emperors of late Western Roman Empire AD — and claims that this method demonstrates correlations between their reigns.
Graphs which show just the length of the rule in the two dynasties are the most widely known; however, Fomenko’s conclusions are also based on other parameters, as described above. He also claims that the regnal history from the 17th to 20th centuries never shows correlation of “dynastic flows” with each other, therefore Fomenko insists history was multiplied and outstretched into imaginary antiquity to justify this or other “royal” pretensions.
Fomenko uses for the demonstration of correlation between the reigns exclusively the data from the Chronological Tables of J. Fomenko examines astronomical events described in ancient texts and claims that the chronology is actually medieval.
Archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts are both non-exact and contradictory, therefore there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or anatooly that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century. Dendrochronology is rejected with a claim that, for dating of objects much older than the oldest still living trees, it isn’t an absolute, but a relative dating method, and thus dependent on traditional chronology.
Fomenko specifically points to a break of dendrochronological scales around AD Fomenko also cites a number of cases where carbon dating of a series of objects of known age gave significantly different dates. He also alleges undue cooperation between physicists and archaeologists in obtaining the dates, since most radiocarbon dating labs only accept samples with an age estimate suggested by historians or archaeologists.
Fomenko also claims that carbon dating over the range of AD 1 to is fonenko because it has too many sources of error that are either guessed at or completely ignored, and that calibration is done with a statistically meaningless number of samples. Fomenko rejects numismatic dating as circular, being based on the traditional chronology, and points to cases of similar coins being minted in distant periods, unexplained long periods with no coins minted and cases of mismatch of numismatic dating with historical accounts.
Fomenko’s historical ideas have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who brand them as pseudoscience but were popularized by former world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Kasparov also felt it illogical that the Romans and the Greeks living under the banner of Byzantium could fail to use the mounds of scientific knowledge left them by Ancient Greece and Rome, especially when it was fkmenko urgent military use. However, Kasparov does not support the reconstruction part of the New Chronology.
In at the Moscow International Book Fair, Anatoly Fomenko with his coauthor Gleb Nosovsky were awarded for their books on “New Chronology” the anti-prize called “Abzatz” literally ‘paragraph’, a Russian slang word meaning ‘disaster’ or ‘fiasco’ in the category “Pochotnaya bezgramota” the term is a pun upon “Pochotnaya gramota” Certificate of Honor and may be translated either “Certificate of Dishonor” or literally, “Respectable Illiteracy” for the worst book published in Russia.
Critics have accused Anstoly of altering the data to improve the fit with his ideas and have noted that he violates a key rule of statistics fomemko selecting matches from the historical record which support his fomehko, while ignoring znatoly which do not, creating artificial, better-than-chance correlations, and that these practices undermine Fomenko’s statistical arguments. James Billingtonformerly professor of Russian history at Harvard and Princeton and the Librarian of Congress from placed Fomenko’s work within the context of the political movement of Eurasianismwhich sought to tie Russian history closely to that of its Asian neighbors.
Billington describes Fomenko as ascribing the belief in past hostility between Russia and the Mongols to the influence of Western historians.
Thus, by Fomenko’s chronology, “Russia and Turkey are parts of a previously single empire. It is surprising, to say the least, that a well-known Dutch publisher could produce an expensive book of such doubtful intellectual value, of which the only good word that can be said is that it contains an enormous amount of factual historical material, untidily ordered, true; badly written, yes; mixed-up with conjectural nonsense, sure; but still, much useful stuff.
For the rest of the book is absolutely worthless. It reminds one of the early Soviet attempts to produce tendentious science Lysenko! While Fomenko rejects commonly accepted dating methods, archaeologists, conservators and other scientists make extensive use of such techniques which have been rigorously examined and refined during decades of use. In the specific case of dendrochronologyFomenko claims that this fails as an absolute dating method because of gaps in the record.
However, independent dendrochronological sequences beginning with living trees from various parts of North America   and Europe   extend back 12, years into the past. Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages. In fact, archaeologists have developed a fully anchored dendrochronology series going back past 10, BCE.
Critics of Fomenko’s theory claim that his use of historical sources is highly selective and ignores the basic principles of sound historical scholarship.
They also note that his method of statistically correlating of texts is very rough, because it does not take into account the many possible sources of variation in length outside of “importance”. They maintain that differences in language, style, and scope, as well as the frequently differing views and focuses of historians, which are manifested in a different notion of “important events”, make quantifying historical writings a dubious proposition at best.
What’s more, Fomenko’s critics allege that the parallelisms he reports are often derived by alleged forcing by Fomenko of the data — rearranging, merging, and removing monarchs as needed to fit the pattern. For example, on the one hand Fomenko asserts that the vast majority of ancient sources are either irreparably distorted duplicate accounts of the same events or later forgeries.
In his identification of Jesus with Pope Gregory VII  he ignores the otherwise vast dissimilarities between their reported lives and focuses on the similarity of their appointment to religious office by baptism. The evangelical Jesus is traditionally believed to have lived for 33 years, and he was an adult at the time of his encounter with John the Baptist.
In contrast, according to the available primary sources, Pope Gregory VII lived for at least 60 years and was born 8 years after the death of Fomenko’s John-the-Baptist equivalent John Crescentius.
Critics allege that many of the supposed correlations of regnal durations are the product of the selective parsing and blending of the dates, events, and individuals mentioned in the original text. Critics point out that Fomenko’s discussion of astronomical phenomena tends to be selective, choosing isolated examples that support the New Chronology and ignoring the large bodies of data that provide statistically supported evidence for the conventional dating.
For his dating of the Almagest star catalog, Fomenko arbitrarily selected eight stars from the more than stars in the catalog, one of which Arcturus has a large systematic error.