Talk:New chronology (Fomenko)/Archive 1

Pseudoscience?
http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/PTOLFOM.htm: "Therefore it is sure that Fomenko is right in his statement that the Almagest, as we know it, is not older than 800 AD. In contrast to Fomenko, I do not consider this as a proof that mysterious Claudius Ptolemy lived after 800." (B. Lukács, President of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_16.htm: "One of the most popular arguments in support of the conventional chronology is that the carbon-14 dating method supports it. ... There are other arguments, of different type, claiming that there is nothing abnormal in coincidence of dynasty functions for different dynasties. ... Critics of the New Chronology often mention that biographies of certain rulers, like Napoleon and Hitler (both dictators) are quite similar, so by applying the method of Morozov and Fomenko we should consider them to be the same person and ultimately make a senseless statement that the first 20 years of the 19th century are simply the years thirties and forties of the 20th century." (Wieslaw Z. Krawcewicz, Gleb V. Nosovskij and Petr P. Zabreiko; Nosovskij is Fomenko's associate)


 * There is nothing at these links that proves Fomenko's New Chronology isn't pseudoscience. From the first glance it appears that two researchers think that some specific claims of Fomenko may make sense or be interesting. I didn't get the impression that these researchers endorse the New Chronology.
 * A much more relevant link would be something like this: http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/protocol.htm This is the minutes of a session by History Department of Russian Academy of Sciences dedicated to Fomenko's works. The title of the session was "Myths and reality in history". The conclusions (translation mine, sorry for the errors):
 * Fomenko's ideas contradict data from documentary sources and constitute a picture of history that has nothing in common with reality and is created entirely by Fomenko's imagination and pseudoscientific calculations.
 * According to authoritative specialists in mathematics, astronomy, physics and chemistry, the data from these sciences that Fomenko uses should be ignored, because it bears no relation to science, but is rather a speculative interpretation. In particular, radiocarbon and dendrochronologic methods, developed together by archeologists and natural scientists completely refute Fomenko's conclusions.
 * Fomenko's atempts to present a perverted picture of Russian and world history are dangerous and harmful, because they create distemper and undermine the systems of historical science and education.
 * A direct discussion with Fomenko is pointless, because there is nothing to discuss. Additionally, the public sometimes may perceive critique of his chronology as attacks on "advanced ideas". Too much ballyhoo just gives extra publicity to these works by amateur historians. The main goal of historians confronting such pesudoscience should be creating new textbooks for schools and universities, publicaiton of well written books on Russian and world history that lack dogmatism, strained schemes.
 * Ergo, Fomenko's works are pseudoscience. Paranoid 08:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The general narrative scheme Fomenko & team employs is as follows: the authors relate the consensual (textbook) historical concepts and then cite historical facts which either fail to concur to said concepts, or contradict them explicitly. Other authors who have noticed these inconsistencies are quoted. Then Fomenko and Nosovskiy put forth hypotheses which allow to find logically correct solutions for the problems under study. They keep on emphasizing and reiterating that the issue at hand is all about hypotheses and not categorical statements presented as the truth absolute. The readers are invited to take part in the solution of problems that arise as a consequence of the consensual chronological concept of history. :Ergo, Fomenko's works are science.

Disambiguation needed
The term New Chronology is also used to describe revisionist chronologies of Egyptologists such as David Rohl and Peter James. This will cause a great deal of confusion if the various "New Chronologies" are not treated individually. Indeed, I was led to this page via the Rohl link. —Nefertum17 09:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Refutations/criticisms?
The article is heavy on claims supporting the theory, and blank on anything refuting the theory. The only thing that comes close is a weak criticism of Fomenko as having no strong academic background in history, which is barely relevant. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 18:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this argument doesn't essentially refute itself. That said, the article itself is essentially a travesty. A problem is it's hard to find a neutral summary of this garbage - almost all of it is heavy praise by ignorant people. Which makes it hard to say what, precisely, is wrong with it without going into original research. I did remove all the garbage at the beginning about how uncertain traditional historical chronology is. john k 00:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"all the garbage at the beginning" was there principally to show why Fomenko can make claims that traditional chronology is wrong and how he explains that it happened. I tried to keep it as NPOV as possible. To the best of my knowledge, nothing there was outright wrong.

The article is not heavy on claims "supporting the theory", it's just heavy on claims, period. The article is rather weak on direct evidence both for and against the theory. The problem with finding refuting evidence is that the theory is consistent on the surface. You have to dig really deep and do a lot of work to disprove every single claim. For example, how do you prove that Pope Gregory VII is NOT Jesus? You have to go to the oldest known documents that reference Pope Gregory VII ( which are probably written in Latin and lie somewhere in Vatican library archives ), analyze them, find contradictions between them and what little we know with confidence about Jesus. It's even harder to prove that Jesus is not Elisha ( we only know about him from the Book of Kings, he could well be a mythical character ).

All in all, there are two ways this theory can be proved wrong:

1) refute sufficient number of individual claims. It seems very difficult and it takes a lot more time and space to disprove each individual claim than to make it. There are many articles in the Internet that disprove some claims, and again there are articles that disprove those "disproofs".

2) demonstrate how to build the conventional chronology beyond 10th century AD, using only the original historical documents of undisputed authenticity. To the best of my knowledge, it has never been done.

--8.4.80.163 19:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the contradictions between the documents about Gregory VII and Jesus are pretty obvious - for instance, Gregory VII referencing Jesus. The fact that Gregory VII lived in Italy and Germany, and had interactions with Emperor Henry IV, a German, while Jesus lived in Judea. The fact that Gregory VII spoke Italian, German, and Latin, and Jesus spoke Aramaic. What about the life of Gregory VII is even comprehensible without an already existing Christian religion? The idea that this is even vaguely plausible is completely absurd. Furthermore, the stuff about chronology being devised in the sixteenth century by Scaliger is nonsense - there were chronographers throughout the middle ages. I was just reading today about a fifteenth century Italian who wrote a history of Italy from the end of the western Roman Empire until his own day. As far as your supposed "only ways the theory can be proven wrong," it is pretty clear that both have been done. I challenge you to find a single one of the individual claims that makes any sense at all. As far as the conventional chronology, going back at least to 500 BC, there is nothing at all controversial about any of it, and there are numerous chronologies, chronicles and histories that document sufficiently long periods, and refer to material in other chronicles, as to leave no holes that need to be filled. It seems to me that, in order for the entire history of humanity before 1500 to be held to be complete bunk, there needs to be some evidence that there is anything in particular wrong with the standard account. To give this theory any kind of credibility, when it simply doesn't make any sense on the face of it, is ridiculous. And to present Fomenko's absurd supposed recounting of how the conventional chronology was devised as though it was fact is unacceptable. john k 04:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supporter of Fomenko would say that these "facts" about Gregory VII are not facts, but rather hypotheses based on conventional chronology. Do we have any authentic documents written by Gregory VII where he mentions Jesus? Do we know anything at all about Gregory VII that is not based on works of people who lived several centuries after him? Do we have any physical proof that Jesus spoke Aramaic? Etc. Every single of these facts you mentioned is disputed by Fomenko. That's what I mean when I'm saying that the theory is consistent. I'm not trying to defend this theory, rather I'm saying that it can't be defeated by such trivial arguments.


 * If Gregory VII was not a Tuscan who went to study in Rome, went to Germany with the deposed Pope Gregory VI, returned to Rome where he became a major papal diplomat to Leo IX and his successors, was elected pope upon the death of Alexander II, got into a dispute with Henry IV with regard to investitures of bishops in Germany, excommunicated him, got visited by a penitent emperor at Canossa in Tuscany, then ended up supporting rebels against the emperor in Germany and excommunicating Henry again, was driven from Rome by Henry's troops, called upon Robert Guiscard of Apulia to save him, and suffered the indignity of Rome being sacked by his own allies' troops, and died in exile in Salerno, who the hell was he? I am not a medieval historian, so I am not overly familiar with the sources for the reign of Gregory VII, but my basic understanding of the status of sources from the Middle Ages is that there are, in a fact, a relatively large number of them.  For instance, for the First Crusade, which I am more familiar with, which occurred a few years after Gregory's death, we have three or four separate western chroniclers of the crusade, plus Anna Comnena's Alexiad, plus various Arabic sources, all of which provide a basically compatible picture of what happened.  Occam's Razor must come into play at a certain point. Fomenko expects us to believe that the ancient and medieval histories we have correctly preserve the dates of rulers, but do not accurate represent anything about their lives.  So, despite the fact that we know a great deal about the life of Gregory VII, or, really, aboutmost of history between 550 BC or so and the present.  That we really know far too much about this period, in far too many sources, and with far too much detail for it to all be fraudulent, we are expected to believe that the only accurate thing derived out of this is some dates for rulers.  Furthermore, the whole dates of rulers thing itself is nonsense.  As an example, the chart comparing Kingso f Judah with Holy Roman Emperors is particularly silly.  To get a short reign after Henry the Fowler, to match Abijam, Fomenko puts in Lothar, a ruler of Italy who certainly did not reign in between Henry I and Otto I, and was not related to them.  Otto III is forced to stand in for Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah, which makes little sense, and Otto II is given 13 etra years of reign for no particular reason except to match Jehosaphat.  Henry II and Conrad II are comgined into one.  Henry V is skipped.  So, more absurdly, is Frederick Barbarossa.  Also skipped is Otto IV (and Philip of Swabia, although he may not count).  Then, Charles of Anjou is counted as reigning from 1254, which he certainly did not do, and he was not Holy Roman Emperor.  Then we skip Rudolf I, and go to Adolf (also for some reason giving his alleged analogue Jehoiachin 11 years of reign, when the bible gives him 3 months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9).  The whole exercise proves about as much evidence as just assertion would. john k 14:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * To quote Fomenko:
 * "Comparing history of 11th century Italy with Gospels, we shouldn't assume that Roman history is the "original", whereas Gospels are the reflections, describing the event in a highly distorted form. Can we trust Italian historical documents from that epoch more than we can trust church documents? It's a difficult question. The thing is, all existing sources of European history prior to 14th century are essentially historical belletristics (fiction), written in 15-17th centuries. Although they are based on real events, their descriptions can be very distorted. We can't even trace the evolution of biography of Pope Gregory VII between 14h and 17th century ( i.e. who edited it, when they did it and what they did ). Gospel canon appears to be more reliable because it's known since 14th century in a large number of identical manuscripts. Besides, tradition of reading Gospels aloud in the church made it impossible to edit them. Thus, modern canons of books, used in the sermons, completely read aloud in front of worshippers, can be considered to have stayed intact since 14th century, and canons of all other books - intact since late 16th - early 17th century ( with some rare exceptions of printed books from early 16th century, but not earlier ). It is not impossible that the information from Gospels could be much more accurate than the information from "secular" sources, speaking of the same events ( which were finally edited in 17th century )."
 * Don't ask me to comment on that, it's the literal translation.
 * As far as I can understand what Fomenko is saying, all this is is begging the question - he is already assuming that Gregory vII and Jesus are identical. "All existing sources of European history prior to 14th century are essentially historical belletristics," Fomenko says.  Oh, really?  The basic fact is that Fomenko simply says that anything which doesn't accord with his theories is "fiction," and ignores it.  So that there is no possible way to actually coherently argue against his views - he'll just say that any particular piece of evidence is forged and move on to the next argument. In this particular case, I remain utterly mystified - what about the "semi-mythical" accounts of Gregory VII's life is such as to make Fomenko think it is a garbled version of the Jesus story?  How did late medieval historians become so confused as to confuse the Son of God with an ultra-montanist Bishop of Rome who got into a dispute with a German emperor?  john k 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess we wouldn't be having this discussion if we had extant documents from pre-14th century epoch ( I don't know if these documents exist, Fomenko implies that they don't. ) He is just being equally critical to all sources where history is described by people who lived long after the events based on the documents which were subsequently lost. This also applies to Byzanthine historians who manage somehow to trace the chronology from their day to Adam. Is Adam historical, or did they start fantasizing and/or using utterly unreliable source at some point?
 * We do have extant documents from before the 14th century. Many extant documents.  Fragments of papyrus dating from at least the Roman period have been found in Egypt.  Most classical texts survive from Byzantine manuscripts. There are many medieval manuscripts from prior to the 14th century, as well.  For god's sake, given that there are numerous printed books from the 15th century, don't you think the claim that there are no written documents at all from a period only a couple of centuries before is nonsensical?  There are manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle dating from at least the 11th century.  Furthermore, there are inscriptions on monuments, and numismatic evidence.  Fomenko just pretends that these sources are all forged, or misdated.  As to Byzantine chronographers, I would imagine that the chronology from Adam until at least the 8th century BC (when Claudius Ptolemy's chronology begins) is based upon the Bible.  From the 8th century BC on, the Bible can be coordinated with Ptolemy's stuff.  From the 6th century or so, you begin to have fairly reliable Greek historical sources.  So, yes, the chronology used by the Byzantines before the 8th century BC or so is presumably highly fanciful.  No more fanciful than Fomenko's ideas, though.  At any rate, we are not arguing about dates before the 8th century BC.  That stuff, while it is itself, I think, fairly secure, at least in its broad outlines, is on an entirely different level of certainty than the history of the classical world and the medieval period, which Fomenko is disputing - classical and medieval history is, very simply, attested in a completely consistent way by so many different sources as to make it unassailable. john k 18:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually the claim that there are old written documents has to be based on evidence, not just bald assertions that the document is obviously old. We don't have written records recording the history of classical works. The works are simply discovered in a monastery. We don't have good catalogs of the holdings of monastic libraries at different times, nor do we have old references to works. Now let's look at modern author - say Voltaire. We have lots of mentions of voltaire in lots of records. Government records, libraries, publishing houses, journals and diaries, etc. So we can show there are third party witnesses to his existence at an exact time. It can be proven in court. Most of the evidence offered for the authenticity of classical and early christian works are hearsay and internal evidence, not third party witnesses.
 * How did medieval historians confuse the Son of God with Bishop of Rome? Presumably, the same way Roman historians managed to almost completely miss the appearance of the Son of God altogether. --Itinerant1 17:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A rather different thing - the Romans didn't consider Jesus to be the Son of God. Renaissance chroniclers certainly did. john k 18:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If you believe that you understand how the conventional chronology was devised, why don't you describe it briefly in the article and show why Fomenko is wrong in his interpretation. You can use this as a reference. --Itinerant1 21:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my knowledge of chronology is relatively limited. I am fairly sure, though, that Fomenko has created a false portrait of it.  I would think that a renaissance or medieval historian would be able to tear most of his argument to shreds.  Among other things, the idea that anybody needed to "devise" a convention chronology of the period since Eusebius is highly dubious - there are many and multiple Chronicles from many and multiple places and times that all agree on the same basic questions.  As I noted before, sources in Arabic, Greek, and Latin all agree about the time of the First Crusade, for instance.  Whatever work Scaliger did in reconstructing Eusebius would clearly only have relevance to the period before Eusebius, and particularly to the period before the establishment of the Roman Empire. john k 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're asking me to find a claim that makes sense. How about this. ( The information comes from Fomenko's book, so you may want to double-check the information ) The methods we use to calculate the date of Easter were established by Alexandrian mathematicians in the 3rd century and chosen at Nicaean council in 325. One of the objectives those mathematicians had was to devise a scheme that guarantees that the Easter always takes place after Jewish Passover ( they are never on the same date ). In Julian calendar and in the assumption of correctness of Metonic cycle, dates of Easter and Passover repeat every 532 years, so it is only necessary to calculate dates for 532 years to make sure they never coincide. The problem is that if we use this algorithm to calculate dates of Easter and Passover for 4th century, we discover that they coincide several times ( e.g. in 316, 319 and 343 ). The last time they coincided was in 784 AD. Therefore, per Fomenko, the earliest the Paschal cycle could have been established was in 9th century.

You can use this link: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/easter/easter_text2a.htm

It claims: "The Julian Easter algorithm should not be used before c. 530 AD as it differs slightly from the computations of the Christians of Alexandria and from the 532-year cycle of Victorius of Aquitaine that was used in the western parts of Europe up to the 8th century AD" It's sufficient to refute this claim if you can find proof that our modern algorithm is different from that of Alexandrian Christians and their algorithm does not have this problem. I couldn't.

--Itinerant1 08:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not an astronomer or a mathematician, so I can't vouch for much of anything. I do find this a wholly dubious pretext for throwing out hundreds of years of internally consistent and detailed historical chronology. But, according to this site, this argument is simply wrong - "The council unanimously ruled that the Easter festival should be celebrated throughout the Christian world on the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox; and that if the full moon should occur on a Sunday and thereby coincide with the Passover festival, Easter should be commemorated on the Sunday following. Coincidence of the feasts of Easter and Passover was thus avoided." So coincidence was avoided not by careful astronomical calculations, but simply by the expedient of delaying easter for a week if they happened to coincide.


 * I'll settle for that ( although the reference to the exact text of Nicaean Council decision would be more convincing ).


 * True, although our wikipedia article Easter suggests that the council itself simply referred the matter to the astronomers of Alexandria, who determined themselves the specific rules. Or some such. john k 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be a dubious pretext to throw away hundreds of years if we had this single claim. But it's not the case. Fomenko gives several methods of independent dating of historical events. We have Paschal cycle, Almagest, solar and lunar eclipses described by Thucydides, Dendera Zodiacs, etc. etc. To disprove the theory, you'd have to disprove all or most of them. Which demonstrates an important point:
 * It is easy enough to make dozens of similarly dubious claims and thus create the appearance of a broad tapestry of support. Occam's Razor, which asks "why on earth would everybody in the sixteenth century believe in a completely and utterly fraudulent version of even recent history," would suggest that just about every piece of evidence that supposedly demands that thousands of years of history be radically changed is probably going to turn out to either be entirely tendentious or to be a misuse of evidence. john k 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is that the accepted cronology is based on lots of dubious claims. Occam's razor doesn't support Fomenko's chronology, but it does support the idea that the so called history is totally unreliable. People had very good reasons to believe in a fraudulent history. It is well accepted that forgery was a common practice used to promote one's theological political goals. No one seriously disputes this. (The question is the extent of the forgery.) It is known that catholic teaching depended not upon the bible but upon tradition. However protestantism and the renaissance tried to make a new basis for religion and politics. Protestant depended on the written word of god in the bible and to some extent the church fathers for authority, while the renaissance depend on classical works forge their new society. The rise of the state system where the king and ministers siezed power from the church and nobles depended on the classical and early christian works. The existence of these classical and early christian works are highly documented, but only in modern times, when they actually had the most influence.


 * 1) Each individual claim makes sense as long you don't consider historical evidence ( other than the facts commonly known to non-historians );
 * 2) It often takes a lot of work to disprove the claim;
 * 3) In many cases you can't disprove it without using documents, pronounced by Fomenko as "falsified" by Scaligerian chronologers;
 * 4) Once you've disproved it, it does not really get you anywhere because there are many more claims to come. --Itinerant1 21:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Fomenko doesn't have the right to proclaim documents as "falsified" simply because they don't fit with his theory. The basic points you've outlined simply show that Fomenko (like most similar quacks) is relatively clever in his ability to keep people confused and off-balance when they try to dispute his arguments, because he creates a huge number of tendentious arguments. john k 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is you can't simply proclaim the document are valid either.

At any rate, to get back to my basic point, presenting a picture of our modern understanding of ancient and medieval chronology was devised wholesale in the 16th century is simply absurd, and wikipedia can't just repeat Fomenko's lies as though they are truth. There are several Byzantine universal chronicles - George Syncellus, Theophanes, and Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote ones in the 9th and 10th centuries that, between them, cover all of history from Adam to their own time. I would imagine that there are surviving texts of these documents from that time period. I suppose it might be claimed that these are later forgeries, but simply claiming things are forgeries without any evidence is not an argument. john k 14:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Simply claiming they're real isn't an argument either. One would have to document the history of the documents, and one might discover copies just appeared in a monastery in western europe.

I can't find any direct references to Theophanes or George Syncellus in Fomenko's books. However, "Chronography" by Syncellus/Theophanes is based on "The Chronicle" of Eusebius of Caesarea, "rediscovered" and first published in 1544. Fomenko claims that it was based on "Historia Ecclesiastica" by Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos. If this were the case, neither "Chronicle", nor "Chronography" could be dated earlier than 14th century. If we move this trio 400 years into the future, all of the chronology induced by their work goes as well.


 * Referring to Eusebius as being based on Xanthopoulos seems backwards - NCX's work is normally seen as based on Eusebius and other earlier Byzantine ecclesiastical historians. As to Eusebius being "rediscovered," this seems to be dubious as well.  Scaliger, and so forth, reconstructed Eusebius's chronicle from the work of Syncellus, et al, not vice versa. john k 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * But there's no evidence either way is there?

Fomenko has a lot to say about Constantine:

"3.24-a BIBLE, Ceremonial visit of Queen of Sheba to the palace of Solomon in Jerusalem: "And king Solomon gave unto the queen of Sheba all her desire, whatsoever she asked, beside that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty. So she turned and went to her own country, she and her servants" ( 1 kings 10:13 )

"3.24-b PHANTOM MIDDLE-AGES. Relations with Rus' during the time of individual rule of Constantine Porphyrogenitus had peaceful and even friendly character. In 957 Princess Olga, already being Christian, visited Constantinople, and Constantine left detailed description of her ceremonial visit.

"The discovered parallelism ... is indirectly supported by medieval texts. They frequently compare Olga with biblical Queen of Sheba. As we said before, these comparisons are often traces of latter Scaliger-Romanov "editing" of old texts. (...)

"Let's take the Primary Chronicle and read: "In the year 6463 Olga went to the Grecian land ... Just like when the Ethiopian queen came to Solomon to hear his wisdom, ... so did Olga"

"From there on, the chronicler starts quoting the Bible and Solomon's dialogues with Ethopian Queen of Sheba. We've already mentioned in our book "The Empire" that during the Middle Ages, Scythia-Rus' was sometimes called Ethiopia.

"individiual weight of this parallelism may be small, but the fact that it fits well into the global parallelism, lasting several hundred years, makes it significant."

He also claims that Constantine VII is a reflection of Henry II Plantagenet, on the basis that the word "Porphyrogenitus" means the same thing as "Plantagenet". I'm pretty sure this is wrong ( Wiki gives different etymology for the word "Plantagenet" ). --Itinerant1 21:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Broomflower" generally is the etymology used. It should be noted that contemporary sources never refer to Henry himself as Plantagenet, only to his father (who was not only not the son of a king, but never himself became king).  It may be noted that there isn't all that much resemblence between the conventional narratives of their reigns, either, and that Constantine reigned for 46 years and Henry for only 35.  At any rate, the fact that Constantine Porphyrogenitus is clearly taken to be a figure who lived before "Eusebius" was written is problematic.  How could he be continuing the chronicle of Theophanes if Theophanes was continuing the chronicle of Syncellus, which was largely based on Eusebius, whose work had not yet been fabricated?  Presumably, then, to maintain the theory, Constantine's work, also, must be pseudepigraphical, and only attributed to him later.  And yet, there is no evidence for any of this forgery save Fomenko's assertion and his dubious astronomical theorizing. It seems as though we are moving away from debating what should be in this article, though, and towards simply arguing about Fomenko's theories as such. john k 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, this site seems to suggest that even without Ptolemy, chronology back to at least 364 AD is secure. john k 23:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: The fellow responsible for this site seems to be a Lamarckian and possibly a Velikovskian, so his views, even when seemingly sensible, ought to be taken with a teaspoon of salt. john k 07:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, Fomenko's logic has IMO a gaping flaw on first glance. He says (as someone quoted above) that the written history of Europe prior to 15C are embellished historical fiction, and should not be trusted. Yet, he is using historic accounts of celestial bodies to argue his invented-dark-ages theory. Who's to say those historic accounts aren't also tremendously embellished -- especially considering the lucrative currency of special astronomic phenomena in biblical and apocalyptic literature? - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 05:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Just one gaping flaw? john k 07:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No profanation of Wikipedia's principles is allowed
Dear Mr.Jacobi, I have noticed that You deleted the latest balance update I did for Mr. Fomenko's theory, You said the update was "irrelevant".

If the update was irrelevant, then the whole article is irrelevant. Especially ridiculous is the mention that not having formal historic education means something for ability to substantiate a historic theory -- yet this nonsense included in the article. Scaliger, creator of the classical chronology, had no formal historic education whatsoever (there was no such thing in Paris or Bordo where he graduated in 1500s). Even more, in the Moscow University, where Fomenko educated, history even on mathematics faculty is taught quite strictly, and he always had only A+/5 marks for the discipline.

Also, it is complete profanation of Wikipedia's principles to have article about some theory, where manipulative selectivity rules in representing theory's core essence: 1) For example, the article "conveniently" omits the fact that the whole Fomenko's theory is divided into two parts. First part questions Scaliger's classic chronology validity, while the second part is called "reconstruction", on which Fomenko himself does not vouch for, but only offers it as the least conflicting rebuild of the history, given the classical chronology being proven invalid, as he sees it. The article mixes this all together in an attempt to discredit the whole theory by attacking mostly "reconstruction". 2) With this, it is parody on balance when such simple fact as that the most important method of dating of subjects, radiocarbon, was strictly proven to have error valued in an order of thousand years was "omitted". The research was done back in 1950s, what makes it obviously independent, unbiased and having nothing to do with any historic theories. And the same results were received later by many other physics and institutions, and only historians/archaeologists of classical chronology conveniently prefer to ignore those findings. Physicians, who researched this problem, do not, none of them with the rarest exception. (Well, this is actual science, so there only very little possibility to manipulate exists, comparing to, say, history.) 3) Astronomic evidence, provided by Fomenko, failed to be contested by defenders of classic chronology. Star of Bethlehem's characteristic and time of "bursting" is even independent on Ptolemy's work. Yet the article made it sound as if with any possible Ptolemy's mistake Fomenko's Christ birth dating would turn immediately incorrect. 4) The most important thing that was "omitted", and which, by the way, was Fomenko's professional interest from the very beginning, is statistic similarities in historic rulers' timelines with each other for the time before XVII century. Those findings were never actually disputed (no wonder, because among historians there are no or little people who could ever get in actual exact science). One of Fomenko's deciding arguments was that documented and genuine history of rulers of XVII-XX centuries never shows anyhow close correlation with each other -- comparing to history of prior centuries, for which Fomenko insists history was multiplied and thus outstretched with additional centuries. Indeed, the probability that those similarities from the middle and ancient ages were a mere coincidence is just single digit percentage (and there is no way how any classic chronology historian could explain it). Real-time documented history of XXII-XX centuries shows that there are very little similarities, startling contrast to the prior centuries. 5) Article mentions that Fomenko manipulates with dynasties' members and their lifetimes. However, there are no actually works that would show those "omissions" in Fomenko's researches. Thus that wishful thinking is only further humiliates the idea of Wikipedia. 6) Independently on believability of Fomenko's "reconstruction" part of his works, all those above mentioned facts keep the question of validity of Scaliger's classic chronology very firmly. In essence, this part of Fomenko's work is his greatest scientific achievement. With this, Fomenko's chronology currently looks no to be no more theory than Scaliger's one. This all, however, does not mean that Fomenko's theory is actually true or not -- neither for "Scaliger's chronology challenge", nor for "reconstruction". And it is no goal of Wikipedia's articles to put verdicts about such matters, the goal is simply to put core facts of the theory correctly, without slant and manipulation. In the current state, the article is deceiving.

Sincerely, DenisRS.


 * If the article doesn't represent Fomenko theory well, please just change that part, giving sources and trying not to insert POV.
 * IMHO Scaliger is a misleading target of attack, not only in Fomenko's chronology, but also by other disputers of mainstream chronology. Historical science (as in academic science) will surely claim, that there chronology is nowadays independent of Scaliger and corrected quite some details of Scaligers theory.
 * On the topic of alleged manipulations by Fomenko, there were some examples discussed on the german article. I can try to translate the essentials of that discussion.
 * Pjacobi July 4, 2005 14:52 (UTC)

Sigh...I don't think mainstream chronology has ever been especially based on Scaliger. As I pointed out to another pro-Fomenko interlocutor, Between Eusebius and a series of Byzantine chroniclers the entire period up to the 11th century or so is pretty well-trodden. john k 4 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

4) The most important thing that was "omitted", and which, by the way, was Fomenko's professional interest from the very beginning, is statistic similarities in historic rulers' timelines with each other for the time before XVII century. Those findings were never actually disputed (no wonder, because among historians there are no or little people who could ever get in actual exact science).


 * Are you serious? I was able to tear apart the one about Holy Roman Emperors and Kings of Judah, and I'm not even a medieval historian.  The supposed similarities only come about because Fomenko is willing to completely distort his lists in order to make them fit.  john k 4 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)


 * It is intersting, please post a link where it can be read. Because as far as I saw lifetime spans of kings do not differ in Fomenko and "officious" version. Also, just read Britannica article about Scaliger to see that he is exacly considered to be "official" chronology creator. Anyway, whoever could be considered as it's creator, it does not change mathematics correlations calculations that Fomenko did.


 * If you bothered to read this talk page, I discussed this above. Fomenko combined multiple kings into one for the comparison, ignores important emperors like Frederick Barbarossa, and includes one 10th century king of Italy (but not any other 10th century kings of Italy) in his list to get a short reign.  It's nonsense.  As to Scaliger, that is not what Britannica says at all.  It says he was an important contributor to modern chronology, and that he reconstructed Eusebeius's chronicle.  But his important contributions were in ancient and classical history (as you'd guess from someone whose principal contribution was to reconstruct a chronology written by a fourth century historian).  Medieval history didn't need to have a chronology constructed - it was well known.  And, again, there were numerous Byzantine chronographers who covered the whole period from the purported creation of the world up until the end of the 11th century, at least.  That they were not mostly known by western Europeans prior to Scaliger does not mean that Scaliger created the standard chronology. john k 5 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

Russian nationalism
I wonder if some attention should be paid to the way that Fomenko's ideas play to Russian nationalism. His basic idea of how history actually happened, as I understand it, has to do with a world-spanning Russian Empire, and similar business. I know that criticisms of his work have sometimes focused on these issues. john k 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert, but IMHO it's rather a eurocentric view, as all historical accounts of China, India, Mesoamerica etc are disregarded as pure fantasy. --Pjacobi July 4, 2005 20:15 (UTC)

I would imagine that since Mesoamerica doesn't intersect Europe until the 16th century, the archaeological and historical record there can be interpreted unproblematically. I'm not sure what the situation is with China and India. China would prove a particular problem, what with the 3000 years of continuous recorded history. But he has no problem rejecting all historical accounts of the middle ages as (almost) pure fantasy, or as forgeries, so I doubt he'd have any problem with the rest of the world - it's perhaps Eurocentric, but it's hardly more respectful of European historical accounts than it is of non-European ones. john k 4 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)


 * Fomenko wrote separate books about China, there was nothing disregarded as fantasy (by DenisRS).

Also, Gary_Kasparov has nothing to do with being Russian in his nationality, and he also has nothing to do with "imperialism", because he belongs to Putin's liberal, anti-Kremlin opposition.

Dendera Zodiacs
I don't know where you got the 1168 AD and 1185 AD dates for Dendera zodiacs. Fomenko's books state quite clearly:

Long horoscope - May 6, 540; Round horoscope - March 15, 568 ( Morozov's solution )

or

Long horoscope - May 14, 1394; Round horoscope - March 22, 1422 ( Fomenko's solution )

Fomenko's interpretation: Saturn in Virgo; Jupiter in Cancer; Mars in Capricornus; Venus in Aries; Mercury between Aquarius and Pisces. Conventional interpretation: Saturn in Libra; Jupiter in Cancer; Mars in Capricornus; Venus in Pisces; Mercury in Virgo. --Itinerant1 17:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment in article space
I moved this comment in article space here. --Pjacobi 23:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Reduce hearsay, add valid facts - respect NPOV


 * Salutations Gentlemen Wikipedians,


 * Anti-Fomenko “Damage Control” WiKiPedia page is openly biased; valid pro-Fomenko arguments are not admitted. Suggest the strict respect of NPOV.


 * NB:


 * Frederick Barbarossa allegedly missed by Fomenko in “dynastic parallelism” fig.r6.5.1. is explicitly mentioned in the descriptive part of Annex 6.5. on p.534 of “History..”, ISBN 2913621058..


 * The Lecture 2002 of H.Jeffreys vividly shows that in order to suite “ancient” datings of eclipses Moon-Earth system parameters have to be artificially twisted (fig.6). Tidal friction parameter stays strict linear constant, if Fomenko’s datings used. Astronomical software calculates exact date to a minite, eclipse path to a meter and phase of solar eclipses up to 16800 years backwards or forwards. These exact calculations do not fit the any of the datings provided by allegedly “ancient”, in fact mediaeval astronomers. To suite “ancient” datings they stage a convoluted astronomical circus with unknown forces at play. There was NO TOTAL ECLIPSE in Babylon on 15.04.136 BC, look at fig.4 qv. Therefore the whole chronology attached to it is not valid..


 * The Lecture 2002 of H.Jeffreys also mentions the same source as Fomenko, i.e. translations of Babilonian datable texts by A.J.Sachs. Any astronomer will confirm that the number of astronomical units, i.e. planets and constellations quoted in these texts is not sufficient for a unique dating of such horoscopes.


 * “Moscow as III Rome is a formula”, recognized by official history of Russia. Was in use under Ivan III, alleged reign 1452-1505, introduced by Filofei (Philoteus), Russian monk.

It was inserted by User:Franck Ver Stut. --Pjacobi 23:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Barbarossa, I have not read Fomenko's books, so I have no idea what he does to explain his absurd list of Holy Roman Emperors that he compares to the Judaean King List. The fact that he can come up with a specious explanation for why he has to completely mess around with the list in order to get it to fit with the Judaean list is immaterial. The basic fact is that his synchronisms are artificially created - he must manipulate them to get them to fit properly. This is a serious problem, given that the supposed "coincidence" of the synchronisms is one of the principle justifications for his entire theory. These are a whole lot less coincidental when Fomenko has to seriously mess around with the actual lists to get them to fit right. john k 15:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This lists seem dubious. What is a serious charge to be refuted is that eclipse appearances can't be calculated without resort to fudge factors.

Read before reviewing Fomenko
J.Kelly avows, firstly, having not read Fomenko books, secondly, accuses Mr Fomenko of malignant data manipulation! As a matter of fact, data based research is based on data processing alias data manipulation, i.e. re-arranging the data, attributing weights for statistical calculations, etc..Fomenko’s research is anything but malignant for where his proprietary statistical methods are concerned; in rare cases when he merges reigns or makes substitutions he properly warns the reader. As a matter of fact the contrary is true; that is, in most instances the differences in reigns, names and durations originate from Fomenko’s source i.e. “Chronological Tables Spanning the entire Global History; Containing Every Year since the Genesis and until XIX century.” Published in English by G.Blair, a member of the Royal Society, 1808-1809., London, vol.1,2. (p.541, “History: Fiction Or Science?”, ISBN 2913621058) Fomenko presumes the closer in time is the researcher’s source to the event researched, the more original information and not subsequent interpretations can one extract. He thinks that later editions of chronological tables were over-edited (massage) by the historians of the 19-20th cy.


 * How hard is it to correctly spell the name of someone whose name is easily accessible simply by looking at the text that pops up by holding your cursor over the link to my user page? Beyond this, I have a difficult time understanding your point.  Why aren't any of Fomenko's supporters able to speak English competently? john kenney 00:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with you that Fomenko's lack of education in history is not particularly convincing as an argument against him. Fomenko's theories are absurd because they are absurd, not because he is not a historian. Plenty of trained historians have also believed absurd things, although few have believed things as absurd as those believed by Fomenko. john k 00:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with Fomenko's statistical analysis but i don't agree with John Kenney non scientific method making uneducated opinions on the matter. if Mr. john Kenney likes to follow common sense, then he would have to explain how it is possible that the sciences advanced so slow since the sumerians to the 15th century AD, and how all of the sudden boom! here we are in just 500 years. Mr. john Kenney also needs to read Scaliger's 7 volume work before even starting to think of posting such harsh criticisms. Every idea should be welcomed and every inquisitor should be kicked out of this boards.


 * I'm sorry, but your argument regarding the different rate of scientific progress from the sumerians to the 15th century AD as compared to beyond is a very poor one. If you really want a reason for the explosion of scientific knowledge during the period known as the Renaissance, a good bet would be to look at the invention of the printing press. That allowed science to grow in ways previously unimagined. It allowed science to become truly organized on a large scale for the first time in history. I'm no historian, but my understanding is that this would have had a huge impact on on the establishment of a scientific community. The impact would have been even greater than that of the Internet in the 20th century. It is likely that this event acted as a catalyst which set into motion the exponential increase in knowledge that you refer to (all of a sudden boom!.. as you so eloquently put it). That is a perfectly plausible explanation for why such advances were not made on such a scale prior to that time. That is not to say of course that advances weren't made, or that dark ages encompassed the entire world. In fact, the "dark ages" specifically apply to Europe in that sense. Art and culture flourished in other parts of the world during this time. My point is this, whatever your disagreements with traditional chronology, this particular argument is a very poor one. -May 14,2007

i just saw this response to my comment on the evolution of science. first of all, the printing press is an invention too, not a landmark. your argument is the very poor one. movable type has been observed since the Phaistos disks in 1800 BC, it was also used to do imprints in Egyptian clothes. the Chinese used woodblock printing since the 8 AD at least. the idea of printing was already around since thousands of years before Gutemberg. the argument is that if the Phaistos disk would really date to 1800 BC, the printing press would have come much earlier than 1440 AD (it actual did a century earlier in Korea). the truth is that the printing press is an invention, a very important one, but still an invention. if complex civilizations have existed since 3000 BC at least, then the printing press should have been invented much before and revolutionized the world much before. i pass the ball to you. a reminder so you don't waste time, before citing paper as crucial to the printing press, you should study how paper is done, compare it to papyrus, and then argue that the gap between the invention of paper and the invention of papyrus is a logical one. not even Lucio Russo and his lame excuses for the gap since the Greeks till the renaissance include the simple excuse of the printing press. at least he combines it with logarithmic tables and increased trade. as to the advances in the dark ages in other parts of the world, buy a book that covers the entire world, draw tables, and you'll find huge gaps in the technological lines of every part of the world. if you have read about the contributions of the Arabs to Greek science you would realize that most of them are horizontal not vertical contributions (read more of the same which is not an advance at all). now that has been proved that commerce and trade still existed during the middle ages and that pamphlets were traveled and were translated continuously you will also have to explain how the Arab science (in case it discovered new important stuff as i know you will argue) does not appear to have affected European science till much later (11-12 AD). before deciding whose argument is a very poor one, you need to read. so long. AG

"People believe in the truth of all that seems strongly believed in." F. Nietzsche.

read the book first, it is written in very competent english
j.kenny, kindly read the book first (http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/01098.htm). eventual discrepancies in reign durations in fomenko's charts are due to use of the chronological tables of G.Blair 1808-1809 edition (!). methinks, history will become a science inspite of anti-fomenko incantations. NPOV. FVS


 * From the link you gave:
 * "Of course, some real events were the source of most written documents, even those that were later falsified and manipulated. However, the same real event could have been described in chronicles by authors writing in different languages and having contradictory points of view. There are many cases where such descriptions - found in sources reliably dated before the invention of printing - are plainly unrecognizable as the same event."
 * From the WP article:


 * That archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous or non-exact;
 * That there is not a single document that could be reliably dated earlier than the 11th century;
 * raylu 00:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you can't spell my name either, and it's actually written on this page. Very well done. As to Mr. Blair's book, I doubt Mr. Blair combines multiple Holy Roman Emperors into one, or deletes Frederick Barbarossa. I also doubt that he says that King Lothar of Italy was a King of Germany at the same time as Otto the Great. As to the competent English, is it more competent than that on the various Fomenko websites linked from this page? Because that is not what I would call competent English. john k 16:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As to whether history is a science, I would suggest that it is not a science, nor is it meant to be one. Fomenko's choice of "History: Science or Fiction" is a false one, if by "science" one means the narrow modern sense of the term (as opposed to the much broader sense of "organized system of knowledge") And whether or not history is to become more "scientific," I think the fate of the historical discipline will have very little to do with Mr. Fomenko's ideas, which are a complete fraud. john k 16:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually History can be a science in the broad sense in that it rests on proper principles and is internally consistent and produces verifiable results. Just as facts from natural science can be proven by experiment, historical facts need to be proven by a paper trail anyone can follow. History is also of course an art as many people read history for it's literary value and without concern for proving every detail. If history is a science it therefore needs to be proven that any particular history needs to be taken seriously as fact, and this can't be done if the trail of corroborating sources isn't available. Unfortunately the wikipedia article on Fomenko refuses to recognize that this is the case and that Fomenko's question is valid even if his answer is dubious.


 * This assumption fail to acknowledge that there are two forms of Science: physical (hard) and social (soft). It wasn't until Mach and the development of Quantum Physics that the physical sciences dealt with something the social sciences had to contend with from the get go--uncertainly and probability.  History like all social sciences depends on a variation of Occam's razor and Fomenko's question requires ignoring key principals of Occam's razor and is not worth any more consideration than Flat Earth theory is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuff moved from main page
I'm moving anon's "Problem of Sources" material here, since it is not appropriate to the main page. I will briefly respond as to why I do not feel this material is appropriate below. john k 21:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The Problem of Sources
Few people are aware of how problematic ancient history is. Modern History depends for its reliability of the masses of documents that are constantly produced by printing presses and by hand, and now by typewriters, xeroxes, printers, etc. We know that documents are real in part because each document has its own history. If you get a book that is claimed to be written in 1900 you can verify that by looking at records of publishers, mentions of the book in literary reviews, purchase records of libraries, etc.

There are two problems with using the works of classical authors as a source of history.

1. How do you know the contents are true? Most people are aware that we can't assume that Thucydides and Ceasar are necessarily telling the truth, and we don't have many sources to verify their facts as truth or errors. There are a surprising small number of works from that period. However at the time of the printing press and the increase of literacy on we have massive archives full of documents produced by people of that era. The physical volume dwarfs that of the classical and early christian world.


 * This is all true, although it obscures the very large number of medieval documents and manuscripts which are indeed available. But even excusing the (certainly purposeful) misleadingness of it, what is the relevance? john k 21:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Part of Fomenko's point is that the medeival documents are seen as unreliable and ignorant. The relevance is that Fomenko is questioning part of our history, and people need to be aware in the article that there are good reasons to question history. Serious history relies on valid sources.

2. How do you know when it was really written? Most people aren't even aware this is a problem. But ask yourself, are there publishing or other records from the time showing that Plato wrote his dialogues? No, not that we know of. All ancient works are copies of copies produced by monks. Therefore Plato's Dialogues have their own history! They appear at a certain point in time in the historical record, and this point in time is comparatively recent.


 * This is simply untrue. We have papyri of various classical works from around the time of Christ, usually found in Egypt. Obviously, this is not our source for most ancient documents, but what we have found does not contradict the monkly manuscripts.  As to "comparatively recent," that's quite a vague term. john k 21:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting table at . Our perspective on history of ancient Greece and Rome is defined by a small number of documents ( works by Livy, Tacitus, etc ), yet for none these documents do we have any manuscripts that we can date less than 1000 years after the deaths of their authors. How can we be confident of their accuracy?
 * As for the relevance to the topic at hand: for example, Fomenko claims that Tacitus' "Histories" was fabricated in early 15th century by Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini. If it is true that we can't trace the history of the existing manuscripts beyond 15th century, and we don't have any independent sources that confirm "Histories", we have to question a large chunk of ancient history.--Itinerant1 23:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How do we know they're from the time of christ? The key point is whether we have independent sources telling us the dates of documents and verifying their contents as factual. I was actually told years ago by a classics professor that his colleague in the history department believed that classical history was an inappropriate term, because you can't have real history with such sources. (We also know that lots of works are accepted to be forgeries.)

Especially because of point 2. we have the problem that all of the history of classical works and the church fathers have to be critically examined to determine when these works appeared. We may not be able to find any mention of some of these works in the middle ages, and they suddenly appear in the renaissance where they had a huge influence. We may not be able to reliably attribute those works to the ancient world, instead these works tell us a lot about the rennaisance and the religious conflicts and the creation of the state system. They were in fact essential to the creation of the throne and altar system of protestant and catholic states. It is actually surprisingly difficult to find works detailing the history of certain works and how we know that such and such was written when, and when the work entered the historical record. Perhaps someone can tell us here of some works which do explain histories of documents.


 * This seems to be an odd way to put it. Also very-west-centric.  Many ancient texts that were unknown in the west were very clearly known to the Byzantines, and some were also known to the Arabs.  We shouldn't pretend that Latin Christendom is the only thing in the world. john k 21:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How do we know they were known to the Byzantines and Arabs? Which ones, and at which dates did they appear in the historical record?

It is quite possible that there can be know real history, because we can't know if work are forgeries or if the authors are reliable. The works are valuable as literature, not as a historical record.


 * I suppose this is theoretically possible, except that there's a whole class of scholars whose job is to look at all the evidence and try to reconstruct ancient history. I see no reason to simply claim a priori that all their work is useless, just because it is a more tricky task than reconstructing more recent history. john k 21:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no claim that their work is useless. However it is hard to find a work that documents how we know that old sources are authentic. I would love to see one that does. It appears that many scholars take works on face value. The best defense is that it's hard to imagine who was capable of writing classical literature if not the aristocratic greeks and romans. This may be prejudice, but it's hard to imagine the monks doing so. On the other hand, it is possible these works appeared at a time when education for an elite few was sufficient to produce great writers.

This also applies to statuary, coins, art work, etc.


 * ??? This goes rather seriously off the rails. At any rate, if, as is in fact the case, coins, archaeological evidence, scientific dating methods, and written sources all basically agree with each other on chronology (as they do), why do we need to discard the whole structure just because it isn't perfect? john k 21:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Lots of things can be internally consistent, but that doesn't mean they're true. Old coins and statuary have a long history of forgery. The point is that people aren't aware after reading the article that Fomenko is making valid inquiries into the foundation of our history. He may likely be wrong about the problems of the foundation, and his new chronology is more likely wrong, but his attempt is a valid endeavor and not crackpot on the face of it. In fact accepting unverifiable sources as history is the definition of crackpot history.


 * Perhaps people aren't aware of this because Fomenko is not making valid inquiries into the foundation of our history? As to "unverifiable sources," the problem is that you are demanding a standard of verifiability which is impossible to achieve. john k 01:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

While Fomenko's theories about the true chronology probably tell us more about Fomenko and modern Russia than about what happened long ago, criticisms of the validity of our knowledge of the past as no more than fiction do need to be taken seriously.


 * No they don't, because they don't take seriously the vast amount of work which historians, who are certainly completely aware of the valid concerns about sources you have raised, have done to reconstruct the history of the past. At any rate, this material is pretty clearly presenting a (vaguely pro-Fomenko) POV, and shouldn't be in the article. john k 21:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Show me a history explaining how we know classic documents are valid and how we recieved them? Critical works regularly admit that the works simply appear in a monastery, which begs the question of why they should say anything about the time period before they showed up in the monastery.


 * They don't "simply appear in a monastery." You don't know what you're talking about.  Even beyond the fact that you are vastly simplifying the sources of ancient documents (Hint: Most don't come from western Europe at all, but from Byzantium)As I noted before, many classical papyri have been found in archaeological expeditions in Egypt.  There is also ample numismatic and monumental evidence to confirm the essential accuracy of the accepted timeline. john k 01:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And, as I also noted before, Fomenko does not confine his attentions to the classical past. He also claims that the whole Medieval period was also essentially forged.  And our knowledge of the medieval past, in terms of number of contemporary manuscripts, is whole orders of magnitude greater than our knowledge of the ancient past. john k 01:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

John Kenney - Fomenko Damage Control Manager
Life as a Contrarian (Fomenko) is tough, and it may prove helpful to remember that "To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence."

Sun Tzu (alias Thomas Moore or Erasmus or alias some other euro-humanist - according to Fomenko Chinese history was written by jesuit missionaries to China; he suspects it to be no more than FIVE HUNDRED years long, sic!

Classical History is : A Collection of Writings of Unknown Date and Authorship Rendered into English, French, German, etc.. From Supposed Copies of Supposed Originals Unfortunately Lost.

Franck Ver Stut


 * Er...the "collection of writings of unknown date and authorship" (some of which are dated, and most of which do have recorded authors), can certainly be found in untranslated form. There are both Greek and Latin manuscripts of classical works.  So the translation issue is a canard.  As to Chinese history...well, I don't even see how I can argue with you.  The whole project is so obviously absurd that anyone who is willing to believe it is obviously completely hopeless.  (But, uh, More and Erasmus were both around before the Jesuits.)  There's also the issue of archaeology, which Fomenko and his disciples seem scrupulously determined to avoid.  At the monument of Behistun, Darius I of Persia in the three ancient languages of Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian, describes how he came to power.  His story is astoundingly similar to that told by Herodotus, in Ancient Greek, in his Histories.  Did the monks who forged Herodotus have access to the Behistun inscriptions?  Also, Fomenko's theories completely ignore the evidence of linguistics, of which they make a complete hash.  john k 01:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Crucifixion Eclipse
The term "Crucifixion Eclipse" is capitalised as if this were established fact. I very much doubt it could have been (see reasons below). But not sure how to change it, since it's Fomenko's theory we're talking about, even if that theory includes non-existent phenomena.


 * Eclipses last around 5 minutes, but the sky went dark for three hours. Sky darkening is characteristically associated with earthquakes, and we are told in the Bible the earth opened up, so an earthquake is clearly the explanation for the sky darkening.
 * Jesus had to be put to death immediately after his trial, to avoid them offending the Passover, which is always held close to the Full Moon. An eclipse of the Sun can only occur when the moon is a New Moon, 14 days apart in the monthly cycle.
 * There is no astronomical evidence for any solar eclipse occurring in Jerusalem around that time. In fact, we can be certain there was not one, unless the moon took an uncharacteristic side swipe through the heavens - which would have caused a lot of damage all over the world - and then returned to its normal orbit as if nothing had happened. That's even more fanciful than Fomenko himself.   JackofOz 07:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your first two points are pretty solid. Your last point is begging the question, though - the Fomenkoites believe the crucifixion happened during some eclipse in the 11th century "AD", so they have you beat there.  At any rate, I agree that this should be qualified more.  It may be added that most non-religious people probably doubt an earthquake, too - feel that the Gospel description of the crucifixion takes some liberties with what actually happened. john k 15:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The exact quote (Matthew 27):
 * "From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour ... the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
 * Luke 23 clarifies that "the sun stopped shining", Mark repeats after Matthew, and John makes no mention of any wondrous events. Everyone mentions that Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for Jesus' body before sunset.
 * So, what are most likely possibilities?
 * There was a solar eclipse; 3 hour period refers to full duration of the eclipse, not to the totality period; either Passover could coincide with New Moon back then, or Evangelists were mistaken when they were writing about Crucifixion occurring just before Passover.
 * There was a lunar, not a solar eclipse. Lunar eclipses do last several hours and take place at Full Moon. But then Jesus couldn't have died before sunset.
 * In either case, there would have been an earthquake just after the eclipse. ( By the way, I live in the region where earthquakes are quite common, and I can assure you that there is no darkening of the sky associated with earthquakes - certainly not 3 hours _before_ the event. )
 * Maybe Gospels describe something entirely different, e.g. a major volcanic eruption in the vicinity of Israel.
 * Maybe the entire sequence of events is fictional and was invented for dramatism. --Itinerant1 19:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the last possibility is the most likely one. john k 19:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The crucifixion eclipse and the star of Betlehem should be mentioned because it is well known, but it obviously could be represented in multiple ways so is not the best example. Better examples of Fomenko's work might be eclipse triad from Peloponese wars which has mostly undisputed interpretation. Nikola 04:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How can we believe stories from documents and scrolls dating back centuries ago which refer to events that happened even more centuries before them, and for whose validity we have no idea? And how can we decide which parts of the same document forms historical fact and which is "myth"? For example do you believe that Jesus and some of his disciples crossed the lake in a boat? If yes, do you also believe that they had the power to destroy a whole town with fire from the sky? Do you also believe that a woman touched Jesus from behind and stole some of his energy, for which he scolded his disciples? What is myth and what is "history"? Think of the ancient Greeks. In every situation we make huge assumptions to suit our view of our history, but it does not need to be so.

Let's be more open minded and not stuck in our views, which were infused into us from child hood. A good start is to start reading texts from scratch, not translations, and if we need to resort to translations then try to read the oldest ones which probably suffer less from political correctness restrictions. Reading Genesis and Luke can be a great eye opener for a start.

Uh, you're comparing blatantly mythical stories from the bible to mainstream history.

You don't see anything inane about that?

Supposition: if indeed Gregory VII was Christ, and the first Crusade happened (or does he claim it did not), then it would require us to believe one of three things: either Christianity spread like wildfire (fairly improbable, even if I did believe in the Christian faith; a lone messenger on horseback is fairly unlikely to influence anything), enough so that the majority of the British population was Christian only 10 years after Gregory's death: Baha'i doesn't have this many followers after nearly two centuries. Either Christianity was already there without the Gospels (Christianity's existence doesn't preclude Christ's character from being either a mythical rendition or altogether fictional, but without the Gospels, this is very doubtful). Either, Western Europe went into crusading mode (also known as the let God sort them mode) at a time when Christianity would not even have caught on enough for them to be firmly established.


 * If I understand Fomenko clearly, he claims that de facto Christianity existed before Christ, only not under that name. Nikola 12:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What more, for the Middle Ages, the kingdom of England probably holds the record for paper trail (British historians tend to like this particular red tape); we still have edicts, bills, ordnances, assize texts dating from the Middle Ages, they probably have tenfold what France has to offer, with four times the population. Now, in addition to the fact that it would take too many people to falsify the damn thing, why in hell would they go and falsify such a mass of triviality.

Snapdragonfly 69.159.106.238 20:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - the Medieval period is far too well-documented for this kind of nonsense to hold even apparent plausibility. Even the vaguest familiarity with the actual sources of medieval European history ought to be enough to convince one that this stuff is total nonsense. john k 02:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, an article by Fomenko which treats Britain specifically is available online at so you may see for yourself :) Nikola 12:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And that kind of thing actually built him a circle of followers. It's beyond repair. Britanny was not on English Lands, he misses 2 states of the Heptarchy and most of the Welsh principalities (mentioning only Britanny, which was only united in the 10th century and had only 3 kings afterwards), he can't even explain the existence of the Brithonic and Gaelic with his theory, the text calls the Danish the Dutch. Now I have one question, for this kind of head on analysis, while graduate level studies in history might not be necessary, something else is: does Fomenko have any knowledge of Latin, Ancient Greek and/or Classical Arabic? Any of the Byzantine system, which was hardly feudal? His table is nonsensical; for a mathematician, he doesn't seem to need much to be satisfied. He also doesn't seem to know the franch expression An de Grace, of which Year of Grace is a literal translation (Norman-French influences in Anglosaxon are actually older then the Norman conquest). Assumes that Caesar conquered (which is wrong) and happily forgets the existence of enough trivial documentation to bury him and his fans under. He shows a total lack of even the most basic knowledge of linguistics, repeatedly. Snapdragonfly 18:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with Fomenko is that he is oftenly interpreted the other way around than he should (including this article). He is a mathematician. He built statistical models with which he found correlations, in this case between Byzantine and English rulers. He is not a historian or linguist, and his interpretation of these correlations can be very dubious at best. But it is the correlations that need to be examined.


 * Regarding your specific questions, I don't see why any of this doesn't explain the existence of the Brithonic and Gaelic. I think that Fomenko doesn't have knowledge of Latin, Ancient Greek or Classical Arabic, but his associates do. About An de Grace, he offers alternative explanation, this doesn't mean that he doesn't know the usual explenation (this is not very important anyway). Nikola 07:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Reality?
I'm an historian, and I have some questions:
 * 1) Did this guy really exist? (lack of biographical evidences).
 * Yes. Here are details http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/fomenko.htm


 * 1) Was he one of famous soviet scientist who rewrite everything coming from West? (science, history, religion).
 * Question is incorrect. No.


 * 1) Why must we trust him in his historical theories if he has no formal historic education? In historic education there are methods, and with methods come neutrality (at least something near it). Fomenko has no methods, only refutations of something established.
 * Incorrect. His theory is not in the area of history but applied mathematics. Why should we trust Pythagorean theorem?


 * 1) What about scientific dating of objects? Not only carbon-14, there are I think 3 or 4 others scientific dating methods. Is he trying to rewrite nuclear physics also?
 * Unfortunately there are a lot of proofs of very essential mistakes of 'carbon-14' methods up to +/- 2000 years. All other methods where also criticised by Fomenko and many others.

Souris2005 13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
Added by user 81.48.250.16: "We do not claim that Karakorum was located in Northern Russia! This is a substantial distortion of our text. We haven’t made any such claim, nor have we studied any text entitled “Tartar Relations”, which remains unknown to us. All the above ruminations of the commentator bear a very distant relation to our claims and hypotheses."

But you do. See the book "New Chronology of Russia, England and Rome" (2000), chapter 13, part 12 ( here in Russian: http://www.chronologia.org/rusangl/13-7.doc ) You don't refer to the text specifically as "Tartar Relations", but it is clearly the text being discussed.

"User 81" comments: Read "We" as Fomenoko+Nosovsky(F&A)

F&A used 1997 edition of russian translation of Carpini's: "Historia Mongalorum quos nos Tartaros appellamus, and Liber Tartarorum, or Tatarorum" which did not specify “Tartar Relations”. Correct, it is the practically same source. Article 12.3 "Carpini's geography of Mongolia" in the link you supplied asserts that Karakorum is not situated in consensual Mongolia, but in Russia, i.e. Karakorum=Great Novgorod=Yaroslavl=capital of Horde=capital of Russia. Look at the map to see where Yaroslavl is, it is Central, not Northern Russia. Matter of taste, that. The point of F&A is that Mongolia=Megalion=Russia=Horde.

Why do you refer to Fomenko as "we"? --Itinerant1 21:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, could be Fomenko himself, or one of his associates! How very exciting. john k 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it, it would appear that it is Fomenko...wonderful! john k 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 81.48.250.16 is a French IP. Unless Fomenko has decided to retire to Rennes, France, it's unlikely to be him. --Itinerant1 01:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to go over these comments and either integrate them in the article or remove them. I'll do what I can, as time permits.

For now, comment about Karakorum is removed, "Northern Russia" is changed to "Central Russia". Whether it's Northern or Central is mostly a matter of definition. According to conventional history, there were relatively few Russian cities to the north of Yaroslavl in 1245, so Yaroslavl can be considered "northern". Hardly a matter to argue about.

Comment about "popular" books is removed, text is revised. The original content is still quite good, though. Looking through the lists of references in several Fomenko's books, I see large numbers of journal publications in 1982-1990; only one journal publication since 1991 ( The dating of Ptolemy's Almagest based on the coverings of the stars and on lunar eclipses. - Acta Applicandae Mathematicae. 1992. vol.29, pp.281-298. ). Several books with scientific sounding names published in 1990-1995, starting with "Methods of Statistical Analysis of Narrative Texts and Applications to Chronology" ( MSU publishing house, 1990 ). First volume of "The Empire" - clearly a popular book - is published in 1995. --Itinerant1 21:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding crafting/inventing chronology ( I have to admit, distinction between meanings of these two words in this context is lost on me ).

We have a statement that "majority of extant ancient documents is based on old authentic documents, but almost all such documents were edited in XVI-XVII centuries... but some deformations of medieval history were intentional, bordering on falsification" ("What century is it now?" (2003), chapter 7, part 7).

"Reconstruction of Global History" (1999) says that "while creating the history of Europe, Western chronologers move unpleasant events into the past" (chapter 9, part 4). And then in chapter 12 we have much stronger statements: "To support Scaliger-Petavius version [of chronology], a 'scientific historical school' was created in Western Europe; all documents that came to attention of this school were adapted to fit this version... majority of contradicting documents were destroyed or edited ... Most documents that serve as a foundation for modern version of history are western-european in origin; as we've discovered, all such documents were edited in XVII century".

And even "the fact of war with Mongolian 'horde' (army) in America was thoroughly erased from American history textbooks." (same book, chapter 9) I think this fact should be highlighted in the article, many people will find it interesting. Presence of Russian hunters/fur trappers in America as far south as San Francisco and as late as early 19th century is an established fact, but an entire army? --Itinerant1 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What's this about a scientific school? I've never heard of this. Ever. I sincerely doubt people would be able to edit so much in the 1600's. Formenko seems to forget people were far more literate in the 1600's than in previous centuries. (Oh but Formeno would say those centuries didn't exist!) There were bound to have been thousands of eyewitness recordings, so how does he explain that?

Second of all, how could a SINGLE school rewrite ALL of history? What would be the purpose of this? How could it be kept secret? This is just completely insane. There are so many problems with the possibility of such a school even existing it's hilarious. I'm guessing the idea of this school was taken completely out of context by Formenko's followers.

Actually History has continuously been re-written. All our ancient texts are copies. There are not originals with histories we can document. What is interesting is the discovery of classical texts on old parchments that were scraped off to make new texts of prayer books and such. Still however the history of the parchments themselves must be verified - they are certainly not from classical times.

Fomenko's comments
Just asking because I'm sort of new to this whole editing thing: since the last time I came to this article, a number of comments have been added, purportedly by Fomenko himself (and, indeed, apparently so). Whilst these are certainly interesting, do they not violate Wikipedia's policies regarding POV and original research? Lordrosemount 18:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally, people are not outright forbidden from editing preexisting articles about their theories, although they are on a shaky ground - see Autobiography and No original research. The biggest concern is accidental introduction of original research, i.e. previously unpublished information. But, as I said earlier, poster's IP makes it rather doubtful that he is connected to Fomenko in any way, making it a moot point. --Itinerant1 20:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That certainly does not make this a moot point. This is entirely unacceptable and unencyclopedic to "comment" on one's own theory (or to impersonate the theorists.) This article has tremendous original research problems and I will tag it as such. Grand  master  ka  02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because we don't have a reference for every statement does not mean that all of the material is "original research." It is acceptable for a theorist to comment on his own theory within certain limits. To quote Autobiography: "... Wikipedia should not contain any "new" information or theories (see Wikipedia:No original research) and all information should have checkable third-party references. Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable."


 * I don't see any outright unverifiable statements in this article. and  contain full texts of most Fomenko's books. If you can read Russian, you can probably find references for every single statement, including the ones allegedly added by Fomenko. --Itinerant1 20:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I kind of see what you're saying. But the "comments" have to go. They could be reincorporated into the article somehow, or deleted entirely, but the article looks extremely amateurish the way it is now. Grand  master  ka  01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the purported Fomenko/Nosovsky comments, as I should've done ages ago. john k 01:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing that struck me as strange was that I've never seen a Wikipedia article in it with comments written in the first person before, irrespective of whether or not the person who added them was the subject of discussion. I mean, if Madonna decided to write her own Wikipedia entry, would it make sense for her to write it in the first person, just because the facts she was presenting were verifiable and previously published? I wouldn't have thought so. Anyway, they're gone now, so that's fair enough (thanks to John K.). Lordrosemount 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It might make sense to the author, but it still wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. The point of a Wikipedia article (as opposed to a publication in some other source) is that it can freely be edited by (almost) anyone. It would pretty obviously be impossible (or at least terribly misleading) for multiple people to edit an article that's written in the first person. Kickaha Ota 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated work that also questions established chronology
http://www.radikalkritik.de/pauline_epistles.htm

How do I join the conversation here?

Anyways, regarding the poster named "Paranoid" saying we should compare Napolean with Hitler if we used Fomenkos methods.Well he simply doesn't understand the method.It is based on CUMULATIVE logical documentation.Fomenko WOULD NOT in the end say Napolean was Hitler since the evidence is very lacking duh.I find the overall wiki entry on Fomenko fine but I hope the scribe of the article read the translated books and also I believe an English translated third is due out shortly.

NPOV
I'm going to remove the original research tag (If I remember correctly, I added it in response to the "Fomenko's comments", which are gone now.) What do people think about the POV tag? I think that should be removed as well. Opinions? Thoughts? Concerns? Grand master  ka  18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone? RemovetheNPOVtagyesno? I'll remove it myself on Monday if no-one objects... Grand  master  ka  13:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I object. The article is chock-full of PoV, assigning motive to Fomenko instead of simply stating the facts. The FACTS are that Fomenko claims to believes X, for specific reasons Y, while historians disagree because of reasons Z. Not that Fomenko is twisting Z with nonsense that sounds akin to Y in order to fool people into believing X. That may be...perhaps is probably...what is actually occurring, but it's still supposition and PoV.


 * If the case against Fomenko is as clear as it surely seems to most people, then it should sell itself. We shouldn't be corrupting Wikipedia with PoV "insurance" against anyone accidentally not seeing things the way we do. Biasing an article with PoV is actually more like a confession that someone doesn't fully believe in the version he's trying to ensure everyone else will accept. --Kaz 13:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there Kaz. Here is the part you added:


 * It would seem that New Chronology would face several problems with the real world, including historical records and scientific facts, and the question of why real history is different, as well as its own internal consistency. These are addressed by Fomenko in several ways, including the following: (My emphasis added)


 * The people who believe in this think this is what's true in "the real world". I fail to see how this is improving NPOV. And I am not "proving my bigotry" by removing it. (I like your other changes, by the way.) Determining what's "real world" and what's not isn't NPOV. Grand  master  ka  13:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've now changed that part (based off your revision) to something I think is more NPOV. See what you think. Grand  master  ka  13:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hey, what does NPOV mean please?

gf

Please see WP:NPOV which should explain it. By the way you can sign your comments by putting for tildes in a row - ~ JoshuaZ 23:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add posts that have nothing to do with the article here.
Any particular reason why you have deleted approx. 3 or 4 posts after this ?? 24.36.92.155 23:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)gf


 * PLEASE keep discussion relevant to the article itself. DO NOT keep adding your opinion on whether New Chronology is/isn't correct. Any discussion that is not aimed at improving the article may be removed at any time. This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. Grand  master  ka  03:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BRAVO! Solid NPOV gold, but the article exudes biased non-NPOV contributions and opinions of mainstream historians, therefore they should go. It would be right though to inform WIKI readers in the very beginning that mainstream doesn't like this rusiian fella, moreover it will be only just to reiterate mainstream position in Criticism chapter. Following your clear rule I'll clean up a bit. 86.199.91.137 12:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Poggio

Grand Master Ka! Above you say; "DO NOT keep adding your opinion on whether New Chronology is/isn't correct. Any discussion that is not aimed at improving the article may be removed at any time. This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. [[User:Grandmasterka

And yet the title page of this site is: "Talk:New Chronology (Fomenko)"! So what in the hell is this page about? Does it exist to "Talk" about "New Chronology" or to oppress it? You and I have even had some off topic discussion about this same thing but all of my words have been obliterated!

Since the words or works of Fomenko, ETAL, touch upon so many different topics, it is very easy for any opponent to pick and chose one specific point to make a good case against its relevance! Hell, any good believer in his viewpoint could do the same thing! But it is within the mass of his accusations that reliable construxts may be established. And, if it was within the pervue of this list to do so, I could list hundreds of correlations that he has asserted that could not so easily be dismissed.

You and I even discussed (in off site discussions) the obvious anti-Fomenko attitudes ingrained within this site that ridicule and make shamefull accusations against the Fomenko assertations. J. Kenney has a number of those available to read in the posts you have left to be read. But you still tend to segregate those of us in support of the ideas from those who oppose them! I ask you mano a mano is this fair? Is this NOPV?

As long as you act as the judge, jury and excutioner of this "Talk" page, then your readers will still be left out of any reasonable reason to consider the arguments presented by those of us who see some relevance in Fomenko's assertations! Just because the idea of the Wikipedia is to be a "encyclopedia" does not mean you should shun all imformation from those who have access to some "verifiable" information that could prove some of his (Fomenko's) asertations as correct!

Please do not tell me my comments have "nothing to do with the article!"

Regards,

Ron Hughes (

hell, at least I do not have to worry about my copyright's!) LOL

History as a science - twisted perception of reality
So what do we have as a result? The article in question is absolutely biased and does not offer any other conclusion different from “pseudoscience”. Rka 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The facts cannot be said to be biased, except by ideologues.

Wiki Dictates What To Believe
Is it possible to have a description of the theory in 'New Chronology (Fomenko)' about the New Chronology of Fomenko and why he believes he is right. Frankly I dont care a bit whether the regular 'scientists' believe his theory or not, or why. I am perfectly able to make up for myself whether someone has a point or not, this should not only be valid for me, but also for anyone else, so can wiki please stop claiming controversial points of view as pseudoscience. All science is merely religion as it is based on common believes which we then call facts in our religion of science. Whether one believes an artifact is 1000 years old because the scientific method of carbon dating says so, doesnt make the artifact 1000 years old. When it is realised that carbon dating is highly flawed and adjusted, accordingly the age of the artifact will change with it. But the truthful age of the artifact will not, whether is was or was not 1000 years old, the real age will still be what is really was. So start giving us a New Chronology of Fomenko page which describes the theories of Fomenko and his proof of the facts he claims to be true. So anyone can make up his own mind about the matter of the myth of history.


 * You can't pick and choose facts like that. The fact that the New Chronology is disputed is of equal importance than the actual theory. To exclude mention of criticism in the way you advocate would be to turn Wikipedia into a vehicle for spreading the "truth according to Fomenko", instead of an impartial entity.


 * Also. Science is not religion precisely because it is willing to accept change. If it is proven that Carbon 14 dating is untrustworthy, or that quantum mechanics are a fallacy, the scientific community will recant its previous statements to the contrary and start exploring the universe from a new starting point. Religion is full of things that nobody can "prove", things you merely have to "believe".


 * Pause and reflect. --Agamemnon2 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be so fast to claim that Science is willing to accept change, scientists have entire careers staked on certain points of views. We are human too, this will cause our views to be biased towards it regardless of if we like it or not. As for the two examples you gave... well, they are both good examples indeed for the points I'm making. People were initially very resistant to Quantum mechanics. For instance Albert Einstein who is undoubtedly widely respected expressed reservations over it. Mathmo Talk 12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammar
"The list of his supporters includes such famous figures as Chess World champion Garry Kasparov."

Should this be "such a famous figure"? 70.66.9.162 13:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Heavily Biased Article? Really need sources here...
Does any one have actual sources to papers where they show his mathematical approaches are correct/incorrect?

There are no published documents that show errors in his works that I can find. It should be mentioned that the 'main stream' simply does not agree with his dates, rather than reject them, because none of them have been formely rejected.

Some parts of the article are very biased against Fomenko because it focusses on specific details (such as different date for Jesus' birth etc). If you actually read his work it clearly shows a difference between the parts that he proves most mathematically likly, and the parts where it says its possible, yet this article represents Fomenko insisting on all of these dates as 100% definitive. It is obvious the authors of this article thus far, have not read any of his actual published papers, and do not understand the mathematical probabilities he claims.

The consistency section (and most of the other sections) are completely baseless (they provide no sources at all). It isn't enough to tag these but they should be removed completely because they are defamatory.

Don't get me wrong, some of his works appears questionable (with reguards to manipulating data for the dynasties), but other data is irrefutable. For example dating of the Egpytian Zodics is extremely solid, the Zodiacs actually have enough information in them that not only can a date be extracted, but the date can be verified because the zodiacs contain redudant information (about equinoxes etc.).

A Few Questions
How the hell does Formenko adress modern DNA testing and gene sciences in accordance with his new chronology? For instance, many parts of Europe show heavy admixture from asian populations that all date back to the times of the Huns and Mongols. I could name numerous DNA tests that directly contradict Fermenko's theories.

Second, does Fermenko have ANY real evidence of a vast conspiracy that covered up world history? -Anonymous

Wait, in fact I'm amazed nobody has even mentioned genetic and DNA testing and all that, not even the people who try to refute Fermanko. All sorts of sciences on DNA and drift, along with the movements of populations, when certain haplogroups appeared and so much more.... All go in correlation with mainstream history. Like I said, the asian admixtures in central European populations and when they popped up go in direct accordance with the Hunnish and Mongol invasions of Europe. From the small black slave populations in Portugal and Spain that can be dated back to the 1,400's (which is confirmed by Encyclopedia Britannica)..... I could go on and on about how the DNA testing refutes Fermenko's ideas. They're a crushing blow against all that he has to say. The only refutation I can think of this is that something else brought the asian admixture in. Uh yeah, so why does DNA dating correlate with the mainstream history ideas?

-Anonymous


 * Furthering on the above comments (which were not posted by me), it seems that Fomenko has problems with scientific dating in general. The assertion in the brief summary of Fomanko's claims "That archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional chronology" is simply left unsupported in the article. Given that these and other similar methods of dating artifacts are accepted as both relevant and sufficently exact (if somewhat imprecise) by the overwhemling majority of experts in the various fields in question, they cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. Even putting asside the issue of whether or not Fomenko is "right," which is not, as I understand it, the main focus of this article, some explaination of why he discounts the vast aray of available scientific dating methods is necessary in the article for the sake of completeness and comprehensibility. While it is certainly possible that Fomenko presents arguments which convincingly disqualify all mainstream dating methods, the non-appearance of said arguments in this article renders his hypothesis unconvincing from the start to those with a more traditional grounding in the discipline. Its like asking someone to fight you with one hand behind their back, just because you say so, and then bragging about how great you are when you win. Further the criticism section should be expanded/revised. As it stands now two of the three sentences are about Fomenko's popular success and famous supporters, which doesn't quite seem appropriate somehow. --Dunraven 15:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's anonymous again. Formenko also ignores the possibility of eyewitness, personal accounts of history being so drastically different. Far more people were literate during the times Formenko believes history was altered, and its plain ludicrous to say nobody had any eyewitness accounts. Of course, Formenko could say that all eyewitness accounts were destroyed, or the fact that since we don't know what really, happened, we don't know how literate people were.... Or something, I honestly don't know. They all sound half-assed, like he can't come up with a decent way to defend his positions. I remember one person in an amazon.com review pointing to white wine being found in an Egyptian tomb being in support of Formenko's theories. Uh, yeah, and it's not like white wine, small amounts of it, could have been present in Egypt during ancient times right?


 * I explained Fomenko's rejection of dendrochronology and carbon dating. The bulk of his work was made before DNA testing was widespread, but I wouldn't be surprised if it too would be dependent on traditional chronology in some way. Nikola 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Slight Revision
I made a number of changes to the article, largely for clarity and flow. I condensed the criticisms of Fomenko's ideas, which are previously been dispersed throughout the article, into the criticism section. The article benefits from the separation as both the original ideas and the counterarguments aginst them are more clear when the two are kept apart. While I tried to retain the original wording of critques, some rewriting was necessary for flow. I also added some information on scientific dating and a couple of citations. It is difficult to find 3rd party sources that criticise Fomenko because his ideas are so far outside of the mainstream that few even deal with him, so if anyone has more and/or better sources please do add them! I have not delt with the problem of Fomenko's reasoning w/regard to scientific dating, because I am not familiar with the precise arguments. I have not inserted any information about the use of DNA drift rates in dating for similar reasons. I may come back to these after some time. --Dunraven 16:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a question, but would it be ok if I were to add the criticisms involving genetic and DNA testing that I mentioned earlier? I'm not sure if it would count as original research, since few people have mentioned it when it comes to debating Fomenko, but it is an extremely valid criticism against Fomenko's work.


 * If you can find a source for that criticism yes. You may want to read WP:V and WP:OR. JoshuaZ 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Which conspiracy?
People talking about NC conspiracy theory of Acad.Prof.Dr.Fomenko without having read his works are kindly invited to to go to amazon.com, type ISBNB 2913621058, use the feature 'Search Inside' 'conspiracy' as keyword. The noun "conspiracy" is not used at all. CONSPIRACY IS NOT A PART OF FOMENKO'S VOCABULARY!


 * Dunno about the word "conspiracy" as such, but phrases like "knowingly falsified", "manipulated", "covered up" are certainly used by Fomenko all the time. And they amount to the same thing, basically. So "copnspiracy theory" is an apt description. Trapolator 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fomenko's theory complies with the most rigid scientific standards as a whole:
 * -It gives a coherent explanation of what we already know;
 * -It is consistent: independent lines of inquiry all lead to the same conclusion;
 * -The predictions it makes are confirmed empirically and stratistically;

Fomenko goes by the following axioms:
 * -Chronology is the basis of history;
 * -Human evolution has always been linear, gradual and irreversible;


 * -The accumulation of geographical knowledge as reflected in cartography is a gradual and irreversible process;
 * - The chronological distance between a given manuscript and the events described therein is proportional to the amount of distortions it contains;
 * - There is no "useless" information in authentic ancient sources.

Fomenko concludes: -The "cyclic" nature of human civilization is a myth, likewise all the gaps, duplicates, "dark ages" and "renaissances" that we know from consensual history;

Once Acad.Prof.Dr.Fomenko proves that consensual chronology is wrong, and finds undelible statistical traces of falsification and manipulation of history; he proceeds to writing alternative version of history mostly void of factual support. Congratulations!
 * That's interesting. The article says "According to Fomenko, world history prior to 1600 was deliberately falsified for political reasons". However, this is unsourced. Is your assertion that Fomenko says no such thing? Notinasnaid 11:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's one source for that, easily verifiable: the official web site of New Chronology, in Russian, has a statement on the front page, signed by Fomenko and Nosovsky: "Более того, оказалось, что наша история вплоть до конца XVI века была сознательно фальсифицирована в эпоху XVII-XVIII веков.", translation: "Moreover, it turned out that our history until the late 16th century was knowingly faked during 17-18th centuries." Trapolator 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If Fomenko does indeed formulate his theories in accorance with the axioms advanced above, they should definitely be clearly stated in the article itself. Taken together they represent a bold and likely-to-be-disputed set of assumptions that would necessarily guide his conclusions. For example, assuming before the fact that human "civilization" never suffers serious reverses or set backs is not only groundless and directly contradicted by evidence, it would also seem to artificially pre-determine the kinds of conclusions Fomenko could possibly make. --Dunraven 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-article is anti-NC biased, as concocted by history undergraduates who did not bother to read and dissect fairly hairy oevre of Acad.Prof.Dr.Fomenko. Re: that's not the human civilization, but human evolution which is 'linear, gradual and irreversible'. Anyway, I stand corrected: Fomenko's denial cyclic or spiral or some other convoluted character of human civilization can't be referred to as axiom, it is clearly a conclusion. He, actually, is foreign to the very notion of all englobing civilization of the humankind; in his book this or other civilization can go bust, come alive, disappear, etc..for reasons of climate or culture, or whatever was in store for it. When he dissects consensual chronology Fomenko draws his conclusions from clean statistical analysis of available data with his proprietary methods and dating of eclipses described in "ancient" chronicles and egyptian temple horoscopes, and not on some 'presumptions'. His "reconstruction" of history is smth else again.

Evolution?
Hi. I'd just like to point out that Fomenko's axiom that "Human evolution has always been linear, gradual and irreversible" is completelly irrelevant to his argument. If we are talking about evolution in the biological sense, it should be pointed out that evolution is not liked to the development or downfall of a civilization and the possible subsequent existance of 'dark ages'. Evolution deals with genetic traits that confer some kind of advantage in terms of survival and the ability to reach sexual maturity and reproduce. Further, these traits have to be heritable, that is they must be passed on genetically. That is what evolution is, and it bears no relation to the course a civilization takes. While it may have played a role in initiating some early human behaviour by favouring those who were drawn to living in groups and working cooperativelly, I fail to see how it has any bearing on Fomenko's argument. What's more, the idea that evolution is a linear and irreversible process is incorrect as well. That statement implies a staircase analogy, where organisms evolve in steps from less sophisticated to highly sophisticated, moving forward and reaching 'higher levels of evolution'. This is not the case at all. Evolution favours those that are best adapted. Sometimes this implies simplicity, other times complexity, other times both. Evolution is not a ladder, it is a dynamic process. Ask any biologist or evolutionist out there, they will tell you the same thing. An Evolution professor of mine frequently used an argument to illustrate this point: it is a common notion that humans are superior to bacteria in terms of evolution. This is not true, bacteria are as well adapted to their environment as humans are, if not better, else they would not be here. Anyway, I felt like I should point that out, since I think that evolution is not relevant to Fomenko's argument. If anyone thinks otherwise, please enlighten me. - 26, September, 2006.

Fomenko and Illig
Has anyone looked into Heribert Illig's theory of "phantom time"? I was wondering if one of these two guys influenced the other, or if they developed their stuff independently. Hi There 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I've seen them both discussed at once by various people.  I'd assume that they were both influenced by similar sources, but not directly aware of each other.  Which one started publishing first? There's not too much information in English about Illig, so I'm not really too clear on his precise arguments - He claims that three centuries in the Middle Ages didn't happen, or something similar, no? john k 17:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

...

A Major Conspiracy Theory ?
'A major conspiracy theory is argued'

Who in wiki wiseheads has decided that it was a major conspiracy ?

One hundred years ago criticism on the church would get people extradited from their societies, few hundreds of years ago europe was ruled by brutal dictators ( a bit like those in wiki, except that they are sissies ) and any critic on the king would get your head separated from your body. War was a common way to increase ones wealth and power. The vast majority of people couldnt even read and write, books were kept in centralized places called libraries, certainly not with public access, as they contained knowledge. Thats why the rumours of 'magic books' started, for it was noticed that those who could read, could change their minds after reading a book or were able to make 'devices'

Anyway it did not take a MAJOR conspiracy as in those days. if there was a conspiracy then it was between rulers, kings and the pope, but probably is was 'modern' in those days to falsify history, a hype if you wish, to increase the importance of those who were considered important. Nothing strange about it and the books that were holding the thruth were centrally stored in known places and simply rounded up and burned. Dont make such a big deal out of history, with your conspariacies, conspiracies are nowadays common, but wiki largely fails to notice them anyway. Books were there to glorify the dictators and they decided what went into the books or not.

So wiki smartasses, before even talking about history, one should act as if one was in history, though i know this is asking too much of your pre-programmed brains.

by the way wiki, you state that :

'If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.'

Isnt that considered vandalism in wiki ? Or is it safe to conclude that wiki is measuring with double standards ...

83.117.111.61 09:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)thank you for not posting my ip

Poster: I agree that conspiracy is no the right term to use unless fomenko explicitly used it himself in his books to describe the supposed falsifications of th 16th and 17th centuries. danedouard00

NOTE: People talking about NC conspiracy theory of Acad.Prof.Dr.Fomenko without having read his works are kindly invited to to go to amazon.com, type ISBNB 2913621058, use the feature 'Search Inside' 'conspiracy' as keyword. The noun "conspiracy" is not used at all. CONSPIRACY IS NOT A PART OF FOMENKO'S VOCABULARY!

Criticisms section
joshuaZ, you're actually repeating some parts now. I did not blow away your inputs but simply rearranged them, look at the first paragraph under subsection dating. youll find that i talked about convergence of uncertainty and the different dating methods you included. danedouard00

Yo Wiki Conspirators
yo, i made some mods to the article :

Magnitude and consistency of Fomenko's theory

According to Fomenko, world history prior to 1600 was deliberately falsified for political reasons. The consequences of this theory are twofold. Documents that conflict with NC are said to have been edited or fabricated by mostly Western European historians and humanists of late 16th to 17th centuries. The lack of documents directly supporting NC and conflicting traditional history is said to be thanks to the majority of such documents being destroyed by the same people.

Consequently, there are many documents that are considered authentic in traditional history, but not in NC. Fomenko often uses "falsified" documents, which he in other contexts dismisses, to prove a point. For example, he analyzes the Tartar Relation and arrives at the conclusion that Mongolian capital of Karakorum was located in Central Russia (equated with present-day Yaroslavl.) However, the Tartar Relation makes several statements that are at odds with NC (such as that Batu Khan and Russian duke Ieroslaus are two distinct persons). Those are said by Fomenko to have been introduced into the original text by later editors.

but the wiki pseudo-historians reversed it as it seems they want to call the falsifiction a major conspiracy

can some wiki fascist explain this ? before we might start believing wiki is conspiring againt common sense

thanks for not posting my ip


 * poster, there was a major restructuring of a section that needed to be wikified. criticisms were grouped together to make the article more neutral POV. that text did not support the criticisms. at the same time did not seem to add more value to the other sections. if you feel you need to introduce the text again think about putting it under "fomenko's methods" and show how one of fomenko's methods produced that conclusion. danedouard00

I am amazed by the horrendous injustice of the numerous critics of Fomenko and Nosovskiy, who obviously distort their ideas, either failing to understand them completely or being altogether unfamiliar with their content.

It is also quite astounding that whenever a publication occurs that voices ideas that bear semblance to those of Fomenko and Nosovskiy, but are a lot more tame and local, providing a lot less factual information, this publication is usually accepted with a great deal more benevolence.

I understand the psychological groundwork beneath this – Fomenko and Nosovskiy have performed a great scientific feat of epochal significance, one that affects the sentiments and interests of too many people.

Acknowledging this feat as such, or at the very least the mere fact of its creative relevance, obligates one to actions that are apparently beyond these people due to their incapacity and immaturity. The trouble with Fomenko and Nosovskiy is that they have reached out too far and dealt the dominating historical discourse too heavy a blow.

P.Bracciolini

A simple question
Hi everybody, I'm an it.wiki user, I've read all this page, it took me 4 hours at least; now I just feel I want to say MHO about this (taking it to roots):

It is a fact that here there are two visions of so-called Chronology: a Standard and a "New" one. It is a fact that the Standard Chronology is accepted worldwide, has the support of all of the existing dating methods, such as C14 and DNA in populations; it is coherent between texts written at noticeable distances, for example Chinese an Occidental historical traditions. The New Chronology instead being invented by Russian mathematician named Anatoly Fomenko, which states that our history is condensed in a thousand years, stating also that the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian civilties were invented by Romantics in XVIII century.

In order to state this, Fomenko uses an incredible quantity of logical fallacies, such as stating that his theory is proven by the fact that we aren't 100% sure of Standard Chronology (like we could be sure of anithing, in a scientific vision of reality). Other examples of this are the continuous referring to religious books like they were historical truth (of course is difficult for an Atheist or a Buddhist for example to accept that the whole course of history is being changed because of some coincidence between the life of a Pope and the (for them fictitious) life of Jesus Christ); the NC states that there's been a total and capillar distruction or falsification of all the "true" historical books, and this with the intent of a "political control over the masses" (read about this the definition of conspiracy theory, to judge if this is or is not it); not to talk about the incredible "auto da fé" requested by the reader who accept the truth of this theory, who is asked to '''ignore history, biology, archeology, geology, linguistics, genetics, philology ecc. ecc.''' and blindly follow Dr. Fomenko and his quasi-secure theory. That says also falsities, like the one that we don't have the primieval sources of what we read; indeed, of significative many cases we have sheets and papyrs that have been datated near the time of first writing of the opera - the only way out is to discredit datation itself; better to build a solid theory on obscure calculi of Egiptian horoscopes and star observation that make all this story seem like something out of Graham Hancock.

The question is: what should we put in the wikipedia entry? That a former mathematician voted to history revising has invented a totally unsustainable theory and has found people that believe in what he says? And what if tomorrow I begin stating that pigs can fly and find some follower? You're going to make a Wiki page also for me, and for the other 10,000 maniacs asking for some attention from the cold world? Definitely I believe that this page should be deleted, or rewritten as a page about a strange curiosity (or maybe a religion?) without giving to all this stuff the "scientifical status" it asks, as a sign of respect to all those serious scientists that spend their lives in divulgating the scientific method. --TedO 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please stop referring to Wiki admins as "Wiki fascists" or "dictators"; wikipedia is actually the most different thing from a dictatorship, and if you can't understand its spirit, I'm sorry for you.

Like it or not you are behaving like a dictator.

A very simple answer
Dear Ted, I have a net impression that your acquaintance with NC theory is limited to re-reading the biased wiki-article and subsequent pro- and anti- NC discussion. Be consequent and demolish one by one all or at least some points advanced by Acad.Dr.Prof Fomenko. Dr Fomenko has vaporized a good number of cornerstones of consensual chronology and the community of historians pretends they are still there. For the starters, kindly prove that Almagest of Ptolemy was compiled in 2 cy a.d., prove that bronze could have been made before discovery of metallic tin in early xivth cy, prove that c14 dating has precision of +/- 50 years or better, prove that statiscally impossible repetition of dynastic flows is somehow possible..do catch Acad.Dr.Prof Fomenko in any of presumably infinite acts of lying, manipulation, distortion, well, there should be an ample opportunity on 1202 pages of vol.1 and vol.2 of History:Fiction or Science?.

P.Bracciolini


 * The traditional dating of Almagest has been conclusively proven, and Fomenko's "dating" has been shown, more than once, to be based on selective data extraction, erroneous assumptions, faulty logic, and just plain calculation errors (see for example, , ). Same with "dynastic parallelisms" - they simply don't exist if you look at them closely. Lots of highly credible academicians have done exactly this, again and again: demonstrated Fomenko's "acts of lying, manipulation, distortion". There are many VERY detailed books and articles on that, just read up if you're really interested. You foreigners are coming to this with the zeal of new converts, but in Russia, Fomenko is already very much passe. The war was in full swing a few years ago, but by now it's almost over. Fomenko's speculations have decisively failed to gain any credibility at all in science. I guess that's why he started his expansion to the West - in the hope of reaping more fools? Trapolator 12:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Efforts to Digest the Discussion are Hindered by Considerable Polemic
Unfortunately, some of the discussion here strikes me as highly emotional, with loaded words (sometimes in the nature of name-calling) seeming to take the place of dialogue. The defenders of Fomenko probably feel a deep commitment to remaining tenacious in the face of what they no doubt feel are unfair or bigoted attacks, but it does not promote understanding, simply to assert that Fomenko has "absolutely refuted" the prevailing chronology. On the other hand, it does not advance the discussion, to label A. Fomenko's work "pseudoscience," without explanation. Such a characterization ("Fomenko's New Chronology is pseudoscience") is a conclusion; it expresses an opinion, but the word "pseudoscience" alone doesn't offer any evidentiary support for the truth of that opinion. For all I know, Professor Fomenko may be totally wrong (or largely wrong), and perhaps he is a deluded crackpot or a deliberate hoaxster, etc., but I would genuinely appreciate it if the discussion of his views could focus more on accurately stating his claims and the historical issues he raises, and then considering any specific countervailing evidence to rebut his claims and resolve those issues.

As I understand him (and my understanding is very limited---I merely spent a few hours skimming his two-volume set in English), A. Fomenko is interested in the timeline of historical dating of events---that is, chronology. Apart from his mathematical analyses of statistical patterns (which I have not yet tried to follow carefully), he has claimed that most (perhaps all?) of the TEXTS that reflect supposedly ancient writings are not themselves as ancient as is posited by the more established chronology (which he tends to call "Scaligerian chronology"---not a term I was familiar with before looking at the Fomenko books). One of his points seems to be that these physical documents are not as old as the "Scaligerian chronology" posits they should be if those documents were actually contemporary "original" documents. Likewise, he claims that many supposedly ancient architectural structures are also of more recent origin than has been supposed. To my mind, these are interesting and not implausible claims and I would like to know what evidence supports them, and what evidence undermines them. Going a step further, which methods of dating objects (and events) are relatively more reliable, and which methods are less reliable?

I think the discussion will be more interesting if it is not quite so ideological.

160.253.229.64 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately - but understandably - most of the analysis of Fomenko is only available in Russian. But there's a lot of it, just see the links for the Russian wikipedia article (which itself is a good summary). Fomenko's crown achievement is undoubtedly his "dating" of Almagest; that comes from the early days of his historic endeavors (80s or 90s I think) and indeed, at first sight, makes an impression of something worthwhile. It required several astronomers to write several papers to fully expose the extent of Fomenko's manipulations in that work. Basically, of the thousands of stars in the catalog, he selected, on hardly justifiable grounds, just a dozen - simply because those star's position errors make them support Fomenko's dating. A complete analysis of all Almagest stars of course supports the traditional dating (see ). Fomenko's other astronomic evidence (redating of eclipses, mostly) is much easier to refute - I did it myself just for fun using a desktop planetarium. Next come "dynastic parallelisms," for which you don't need any special knowledge whatsoever: just use Wikipedia to verify Fomenko's lists of kings/rulers and you'll see at once how he drops some, adds others, splits them in pieces, alters their dates freely - all this to make his lists seem to "match". It's outrageous. Finally, at the rock bottom of respectability, are Fomenko's linguistic arguments - they are the most numerous (especially in his recent works where he stopped bothering with anything more plausible, because his current target audience will not appreciate that anyway) and certainly the most laughable. Really, I would be interested to see how they translated all that into English, because a lot of Fomenko's "similarities" do not make any sense except to a Russian-speaking person. For example Fomenko identifies John_Crescentius with John the Baptist because the names "sound alike", apparently blissfully unaware that it's only in Russian that "krestitel" (=baptist) has any similarity to "Crescentius". I could go on and on: open his book on any page and you'll get a good laugh, guaranteed. Trapolator 12:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The main problem with Formenko is the Almagest. Everyone uses it against his because he seemed to have made some mistakes with dating it. The Almagest dating was the reason he went the way of chronological review, so once people refute it they stop at his work altogether. It is easy to point out one mistake but it is not easy to fix it and produce a correct date. The concensus about the ALmagest seems to be that it must have been edited (if not written) after 800 AD because the of the star ordering. That it possibly had offets put on certain values at this time because people at that period believed the original (or at least there copy, remember it must have been scibed over and over many times to last hundreds or years) to have errors in it because they did not fully understand the precession, and because of these changes there is simply no way to accurately date it.--155.144.251.120 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having read the first 2 volumes in english and struggling through other work in russian, there seems to be very few 'hard' facts. The astronomical dating is largly open to interpretation. The only solid astronomical dating seems to be that of the Egyptian zodiacs. If someone wants to refute his theory they should start here. The triple eclipse will forever be doupted as to if or not the eclsipses were full/partial etc. etc. The revlations zodiac is even more open to interpretation (though its seems obvious that it describes a zoadic, the only question is does it have medieval origins in its description, there is serious doupt about revlations to begin with).--155.144.251.120 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also some of formenkos work actually is rather good. Specifically he points out many error sources that do not appear to be adjusted for in carbon dating. Furthermore he is true that the C14 levels in many things today mean that they would be dated to both the future and the distant past, this means that atomic bombs cannot be only explained away as to why some plants don't have enough C14 and others have to much. Also he is correct about carbon dating of the tree rings, if you only have 1 tree from that period how can you be sure that it is carbon level for that year? He points out that tree rings matching the same date often have greatly different C14 levels, yet most dates only have 1 tree carbon reading, meaning that the bias that is put on to adjust it, still has extreme error that cannot be fixed until we get many tree samples for the same date. In the least the C14 exchange system is alot more unstable than made out to be, and these unknown errors have never been taken into account to give +/- errors when a date is determined, formenko claims that the +/- on almost any date would be 1,000 years if you take into account these errors.... but his examination is hardly in depth.--155.144.251.120 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Eager for a good laugh
Poster Transpolator is invited to google> to `more`> to `book search`>type keyword `fomenko`, read TOC or the History:Fiction or Science?, vol.1, ISBN 2913621074 and vol.2,2913621066 free of charge. We will appreciate highly if Transpolator tells us which pages therein guarantee a good laugh. BTW, vol.3 that deals with Almagest and egyptian Zodiacs contains detailed refutations of refutations of Russian astronomers, etc..

P.Bracciolini


 * Oh, so you are looking for a laugh? Good for you! How about this: having dismissed innumerable historical documents as "fakes", here Fomenko declares genuine, of all things, the Book of Mormon! And his arguments? Why, "because it fits our reconstruction!" Isn't that hilarious? Trapolator 17:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I don't believe in his work, you have totally missed the point. There are many documents considered fake ONLY because they don't fit traditional chronology, yet when formenko doesn't reject them because they do fit his chronology you have a problem with it?--155.144.251.120 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of a hard-boiled atheist Dr.Prof Fomenko as LDS adept is hilarious. BTW the Mormon Bible is 'genuine' as its authors, co-authors and part of the sources are known. For Dr Fomenko who asserts that Old Testament was compiled after the New one and the events therein described took place in 1053-1086 or even in 1153-1186 a.d. the Bible version 'discovered' 1823 and sourced couple of centuries earlier is a true godsend because it contains elements supporting his theory. We would greatly appreciate if You point to inconsistencies in the History: Fiction or Science?, vol.1, ISBN 2913621074 and vol.2,2913621066.

P.Bracciolini


 * Don't expect anyone to acutally read it! I am almost half way though and if anything, it goes proves how much of a joke history current is. You can select almost any random ancient work and find that accepted chronology literrally that acceps only the peices that suit it. Look at Herodotus' Histories and all the 'mistakes' that he must have 'made' for normal chronology to be true! You can't reason with these people, these are the ones that believe there were was actually plato 3 times over in history etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

What about the fact that the philosophy of Plato and Plotino were different? and btw "these people" are the entire rest of human population but you few... so I think YOU have to bring prooves. TedO

Well, not so different. The evolution of mediaeval philosophy faithfully mirrors even the minute details of the development of its predecessor.

The Middle Ages 1. Realism, 2. Nominalism ,3. Pleton – the initiator of the revival of Platonism , 4. Scholarius – the initiator, of the revival of Aristotelism, 5. Confrontation between the two schools, 6. Confrontation between Pleton and Scholarius, 7. The naissance of Scepticism , 8..Mysticism evolves after the three schools, 9. A total of four principal mediaeval schools of thought

The Classical Age 1. Idealism, 2. Empiricism, 3. Plato – the founder of Platonism, 4. Aristotle – the founder of Aristotelism, 5. Confrontation between the two schools, 6. Confrontation between the Platonists and the Aristotelists, 7. The naissance of scepticism, 8.Mysticism evolves after the three schools, 9. A total of four principal Classical schools of thought.

Your Poggio

83.114.27.150 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortuently no one seems to even read his work. While most of it is just his guess work and trying to explain how an overlap could have happened, there are many many examples that he gives of inconsistancies in tradional chronology that are enough to bring it into question. The most suprising part of accepted history is that it is essentially just one stream. You never find two versions of the same story written from different points of view in different languages. The truth may well be the two versions where so different and translated so differently that they become to be accepted as descriping two different events, infact we should accept that this has a very high chance of having occured, but we can never know for sure. What is very clear is that all parts of known history have a technological relationship to the middle ages and history before 1500 AD is to be taken with a grain of salt.


 * "You never find two versions of the same story written from different points of view in different languages. " - where did you get that idea from? Fomenko himself I guess? It's so completely untrue that it's not even funny. Read ANY serious historic text. Heck, read even any well-sourced Wikipedia article! You will see at once that most events - wars, persons, discoveries, eclipses, dynastic changes - are described by more than one source, often by different languages from different countries and different points of view. That's the norm. Things that have only a single source are considered suspect and conjectural, and they are definitely not what the established history is built upon. 24.137.84.198 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is not funny at all. It is just absolutely true in a world of only 500 years ago, which was lit by fire and ruled by steel; populated by mostly illiterate population, half literate scribes, monks, scarce education if any, absense of dictionaries, schools and textbooks, total dominance of religion, printing and timekeeping make their first steps, very poor cummunicaions, those my learned friend of xxi cy are middle ages with no WIKI, etc.. Would you kindly explain to historically ingorant mathematician Dr Prof Fomenko how people in these days of yore could synchronize their information.

Poggio 81.250.133.167 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On Dynastic Parallelisms
I thought that according to Fomenko, there are no dynastic parallelisms to be found after the 16th or 17th century (forgive me I forget which one exactly). However, according to this skeptic article (http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudohistory/fomenko.htm) you can easily see just such a parellelism between two sequences of danish rulers. (actually the article constructs three such sequences, but I'm specifically pointing out the bottom half of the final one, whereby a sequence of danish kings from 1588-1947 is equated to a sequence of danish kings from 1340-1588. The reason I'm only pointing to this in particular is so that Fomenko supporters don't start crying foul on me.) Well? The article as a whole is pretty amusing, and the author is a bit of a smartass about the whole thing, but nevertheless it shows that it's not really all that hard to pull these parallelisms out of the air. I don't belive this piece of criticism is referenced at all in the article, but perhaps it should be. Any thoughts?


 * Note however that Fomenko doesn't compare only lengths of rule but other rulers' properties as well, and graphs are just representations of the matches. Refer to New Chronology %28Fomenko%29. Nikola 11:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On Very Foul Bearded Queens and Dynastic Pseudo Parallelisms
Data manipulation, crude at that. For the first, kindly compare the comparable, i.e. dynastic flows of the same length. Point? The Danish author of the article compares flows of different length (total duration). One cannot equate sequences of 1340-1588=248 yrs and 1588-1947=359 yrs (44% difference of base) or as Danish 'scholar' trumps up 1250-1588=338yrs and 1440-1947=507yrs (50% difference of base). Thefore everything that follows is just comparing horse apples to apples. For the second, Dr Prof A.Fomenko repeatedely insists that one must use different methods to draw valid conclusions, like calculating dynastic flow proximity ratio. For the third, the chart of two essentially uncertain periods (25% difference of base!) of fictive roman Popes 'dynasties' from non-existant New Tradition site used by the Danish critic is very secondary to Dr Fomenko point (p.271, vol.1, 'History:Fiction or Science?'). Ch.6 thereof is full of clean valid statistical results, including dynastic charts (these ones with bases +-5% difference) supporting New Chronology central paradigm: history was dramatically shorter than generally presumed. Danish data shows that Danish dynastic flows of 1340-1588 and 1588-1947 are perfectly INDEPENDENT. Try for a change dismantling Dr Fomenko theory AFTER reading his treatise.

86.203.172.144 Poggio Bracciolini

Genetics
Quite some time ago, I brought up genetic analysis as a critique against Fomenko's work, but let me detail it more-

Population genetics concides with virtually everything we've seen in written, mainstream history. There's no denying it. It's even helped us solve major historical dilemmas, such as the origins of the Hazara people of Afghanistan.

I'm not sure if anybody has truly brought up population genetics as a major point against Fomenko's work, or if Fomenko has ever really considered it- but someone should look into it.

Check DNA on WIKI
neither genetic analysis, nor population genetics are relevant to chronology new or old. As consolation read sci pop The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes. 83.114.157.129 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Poggio

Intro, literary and technological contradictions
Hello everyone, if you look at my list of contributions to wikipedia (minor edits here), you can tell right away that I'm a Chinese history nut, and I leave no rock unturned when it comes to Chinese history. It's bad enough that he asserts ancient Egypt, Sumer, Assyria, classical Greece, Rome, Persia, and India did not exist, but I get quite a kick out of reading anything Mr. Fomenko has to say about Chinese history (or any history for that matter). This website says it best:

The Phantom Time interval closely approximates the Tang Dynasty of China, a high point of Chinese culture and political power. So there's a neat conspiratorial interpretation. The Tang Dynasty is an invention, a classic "golden age" myth. The only thing lacking is some explanation of how someone from medieval Europe convinced the Chinese to create a fake dynasty complete with bogus archives.

Not only that, when could they have? In another one of Anatoly's phantom time intervals perhaps? I wonder if the brilliant Fomenko tackles that quagmire. For being a supposed great mathematician, Anatoly Fomenko really sucks at doing math. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So Anatoly pretty much asserts that Chinese history began with the Song Dynasty (960-1279 AD), to fit neatly in with when Russian history truly began. My ultimate question to Anatoly Fomenko would be how was the Technology of the Song Dynasty so advanced if there was no technological basis before it for the Chinese to build upon? That's called technological evolution, my friend (kind of like cultural evolution, art evolution, language evolution, written character evolution, literary evolution, societal evolution, and every other type of human-based evolution that contradicts Fomenko).--PericlesofAthens 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So basically Anatoly Fomenko believes everyone (including the Chinese) was running around as cavemen who just discovered fire and the wheel in the 8th and 9th centuries and had no writing. Then suddenly, out of the blue, by the 10th and 11th centuries the Chinese had horse collars, trebuchet catapults, papermaking, hydraulic powered trip hammers, armillary spheres, gnomons, inflow clepsydra clocks, astronomical clocks, magnetic compasses, woodblock printing, movable type printing, paper printed money, written gunpowder solutions in the Wujing Zongyao of 1044 AD, flamethrowers and fire lances, blast furnaces, hydraulic powered bellows, hydraulic-powered chain pumps and mills, bituminous coal replacing charcoal in the 11th century Chinese iron industry, the clockwork escapement mechanism, the differential gear of the South Pointing Chariot, the chain drive, the belt drive, enormous Chinese ships with separate bulkhead hull compartments, paddle-wheel ships, wind mills, winnowing machines, rotary fans, manufactured toilet paper, experimentation with camera obscura, etc. etc. etc.? Add to that the developing Chinese literary fields in the 11th century of historiography, poetry, zoology, botany, mineralogy, geology, astronomy, mathematics, pharmacology, meteorology, metaphysics, climatology, geography, cartography, ethnography, physics, metaphysics, economic science, military strategy, etc. etc. etc. The Song Dynasty encyclopedia of the Prime Tortoise of the Record Bureau published in 1013 AD was divided into 1000 volumes of 9.4 million written Chinese characters, and you don't have that many words in a written language over just a century or two of a civilization's development. And people wonder why I call Anatoly a complete idiot, scam-artist, fleeting book-seller.--PericlesofAthens 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'ancient' Chinese have invented the technologies you've listed about as much as they INVENTED the goods that flood the world market nowadays.81.250.141.124 10:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Poggio
 * Once again, what a sad, ignorant response from you. You've still given no proof for anything that supports anything you say and still no formal rebuttal.--PericlesofAthens 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, how did China, virtually overnight, spawn a total population of 100 million people from the 10th century until the 11th century? Try to wrap your head around that and explain, Fomenko fans. And if 17th century European Jesuits convinced the Chinese that the Tang Dynasty existed, then how was it possible that Chancellor Sima Guang (1019-1086 AD) covered the entire history of the Tang Dynasty in his universal history of the Zizhi Tongjian published in 1084 AD? Which, by the way, covered Chinese history from the beginning of the Warring States in 403 BC until 960 AD when the Song period began.--PericlesofAthens 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fomenko's bed-time fairy tales about ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome being Middle Ages parallels are amusing at best, but he got really lazy when it came to the history of China and Arabia. I'd love to hear what he has to say about Chinese art, architecture, and mountains of literary records produced before the 10th century, but I've probably already wasted too much time on this idiot. I give Fomenko two thumbs down, and if I was a mutant with three thumbs, I would probably put that thumb down too. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I really tore him apart there with China (without even mentioning Shen Kuo or Su Song once), but I haven't even touched how advanced the Islamic world was in the 11th century. If there was no precedent for science in the 8th and 9th centuries, then how do you explain all the 11th century giants of science and technology such as Ibn al-Haytham, Avicenna, Abu al-Qasim, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, Abu Nasr Mansur, etc.? Simple answer, you can't, and neither can Fomenko.--PericlesofAthens 19:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fomenko would probably answer that technology you mention is not really technology of Song Dynasty, but technology from more modern time which is misdated and misattributed to Song Dynasty. FWIW, he probably would claim that Song Dynasty didn't exist at all but is a duplication of another dynasty. Nikola 11:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that it? Is that all you have? Is that the only thing Fomenko has in his "intellectual" arsenal? Truly pathetic. If Fomenko is such a master of chronology, then why is he unable to grasp even the most simple and basic concept of cause-and-effect? I'm so glad the meticulous Chinese bothered recording everything they did precisely and accurately since 841 BC (during the Gonghe regency), because it really lodges a bullet into the heart of Fomenko's underground jihad against history. And another thing, I don't think you actually read anything I wrote, or opened up any of their articles, otherwise you would have just bothered not responding, knowing your argument would get crushed into the dirt. I wonder what Fomenko would say about the 3rd century BC Chinese Terracotta Army. Wait a minute, scratch that, I don't really give a damn what he has to say, since all of his writing about history belongs in a fireplace with some kindling. Because really, some extra kindling is about all his books are worth.--PericlesofAthens 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV, please. Pericles has perfect command of the consensual version of history, chinese section. Pericles sees no problem in non-availability of the original Chinese records predating xv cy, and abundance copies of 'orginals unfortunately' lost, moreover the increasing flow of new discoveries of new copies of new sources (clear correlation with PRC GNP). The touted c14 datings of chinese artefacts are simply null and void. 'Improved' c14 method has dendrochronology calibration based on consensual timeline built in, 'unimproved' one is extremely finicky and spoiled by people writing recent history with nukes. Vicious cirle.
 * From what you just wrote, you've proved that you have little grasp of history in evolutionary stages, that much is certain. To assume that China has "non-availability of the original Chinese records predating xv cy [10th century]" is absurd and wholly ignorant of what's already been known in the West since the 19th century. Seriously, you've never heard of the caves at Dunhuang? Contrary to what has been discovered post 1949 by PRC archeologists, the caves at Dunhuang were discovered in the 19th century by French and English archeologists, hardly a Chinese nationalist among that camp (especially since Chinese nationalism was non-existent at that point under the Qing Empire). Anyways, to the point. What was found in Dunhuang (a cave full of Buddhist artwork of stone-carved statues of different eras that was sealed off completely in the 10th century and not discovered until 9 centuries later) was a massive amount of literary documents ranging from the Southern and Northern Dynasties (420-589), Sui Dynasty (589-618), and Tang Dynasty (618-907), everything from legal court documents to poems to Buddhist scripture to love letters. Uh oh! You know what that does? Puts a big ole contradiction in what you just had to say (that and about a million other documents predating the 10th century that were found in China before the PRC government existed). That could be problematic for Fomenko, considering that he believed humans were simple Neolithic people living in grass huts during the Southern and Northern Dynasties period of China. How could all of you be so foolish as to follow this obnoxious person? It's so blatantly obvious that he is a fake, fraud, phony in it for your money. Quit shoveling money towards his cause, you're only making an intellectual criminal very, filthy rich. Emphasis on filthy, since he doesn't deserve one American dime of what he's been paid. Oh, and one more thing. I find it ironic that you should mention a "vicious circle", considering your own circular logic about wholeheartedly and uncritically assessing any material in your Bible known as Fomenko's New Chronology.--PericlesofAthens 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And another thing I find incredibly funny about Fomenko is that he just assumes that not only the Chinese, but the entire Islamic world and South Asian world were working with Europe and the Jesuits in some grand scheme to rewrite all of history in all of their history books in the 17th century (which does not take into account historical texts that were written before the 10th century and found later by modern archeologists). How do you not see how incredibly stupid that is? The impossibility of such an enormous task to recreate the history of whole past civilizations in such a dinky amount of time and in an age where everything was written by hand? Let alone the suspicion and hatred each group had for the other, which would have halted cooperation right then and there. Tell me how any Ottoman or Safavid Muslim in the 17th century would have the balls and nerve to approach their leader and tell them to accept everything the Jesuits said (yeah right!), just because they had a neat new idea about rewriting all of history, an ultimate schoolyard prank if you will that somehow no one, out of the millions, in their own time would notice? I'm sorry, but believing that is about as stupid as putting your hand in a blender and pressing the "on" button.--PericlesofAthens 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pericles, thanks you for reminding about the caves at Dunhuang. So, British and French scholars opened (woth sesam as keyword) the sealed cave(s?), found many documents and artifacts, and carefully placed them on the consensual but completely arbitrary timeline. When was the cave sealed? How is this date ascertained? How these documents and artifacts were dated? Has Ali-baba left his signature too? Actually, some documents, i.e. Jesus sutra supports NC theory. What your take will be on Cherchin Men visible in Urumchi museum, dozens of mummies of Caucasian descent, all measuring well over 6 feet.


 * For NC even the brilliant archeological research on Tut performed by Carter does not suffice for the unambigous dating with 2500 BC. 'Ancient' Egypt datable AD x-xi.19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Poggio

Glad you asked, literary and artistic contradictions
Elementary, my dear Watson. There's a wonderful old photograph on page 107 in a book I own, called East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History (2006), written by Ebrey, Walthall, and Palais. The old photograph (now located in the British Library) is of Cave 16 at Dunhuang in the Mogao Caves, taken just after the caves were discovered. It shows a quite weathered, ancient looking Buddha statue with other smaller statues standing around it at an alter, with old, dusty painted murals covering the walls all around it. On the floor is a large pile of rolled paper scrolls, documents that were found in the side chamber of Cave 16. In these old documents, there is no word of the Song Dynasty, the Yuan Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty, or the Qing Dynasty, because when these documents were written, these dynasties did not exist yet. In regards to era, these documents, some of which are dated by day, month, and reign year already in their writing, speak of nothing but life during the Tang Dynasty, and several other dynasties before it (since the caves existed as a commemorative Buddhist art project centuries before the Tang era). I will reproduce, word for word, what Ebrey, Walthall, and Palais have to say on this, from pages 106 to 108. Shall we? ;)--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

THE DUNHUANG DOCUMENTS [pages 106-108.]

--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is also important to note here that a Chinese artisan of the Song Dynasty, Bi Sheng (990-1051), was the first to invent movable type printing, long before Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century.--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote by Poggio:

Um, what does this have to do with anything? What, is it some big surprise to you that Caucasian people lived in Central Asia and the Tarim Basin? That's been known for a long time.--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is virtually a Mount-Everest-size mountain of literary documents that exist from the Tang period alone, let alone the Song Dynasty. I'll refrain for now, because I waste too much time on Fomenko, who doesn't even deserve this amount of attention.--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazing. Absense of documents from alleged dynasties (i.e., not invented yet?) is not a valid method of dating. No doubt these documents were old, but just how old? Didn't Emperor Qianlong, clean up, and redecorate the chinese stables in xviii cy? --86.199.104.220
 * First off what does decorating stables have to do with anything we're talking about, and second of all, are you insane? I don't think you get the point at all. Here is a bunch of documents pretty much saying in print: "I live in the Northern Wei Dynasty" or "I live in the Sui Dynasty" or "I live in the Tang Dynasty" and "here is a bit of my life story". Even the Chinese forgot about the whereabouts of this massive cave complex, not rediscovered until 1900. Here is stone-cold proof smacking you right in the face like a brick to the head, and yet you still want to shy away from the truth like a scared kitten scurrying away from the threat of getting wet in a stream (i.e. the stream being a continual torrent of historical facts that undeniably contradict Fomenko). Pathetic. In addition to the documents, there is also a treasure trove of artwork in wall murals and painted statues, all of which are distinctly Northern Wei, Sui, and Tang, which were not popular styles of art found in later periods of China. Much how the use of language and different Chinese characters sometimes changed over the ages, so went the evolution of artistic tastes in China. Although the photographs of this website are in poor quality, the descriptions are valuable to what I'm asserting. This website too. For a good photo of the painted statues in the cave, this photo is priceless.--PericlesofAthens 18:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just plain old contradictions
Ebrey, Walthall, and Palais mentioned the Tang Dynasty capital of Chang'an in the passage I posted above. Out of the vast history of the entire country of China, looking at just a three hundred year history of this city during the Tang Dynasty alone is incredible, considering how much we know about what happened. I will wikilink below the sections of this article that give locations and events for the Tang capital by individual sectors of the city. Let's take another look. Shall we? ;)--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Chang'an, the Tang Dynasty Capital.

The Locations and events during the Tang Dynasty, by region of the city.


 * Southwestern Chang'an
 * South Central Chang'an
 * Southeastern Chang'an
 * West Central Chang'an
 * Central Chang'an
 * East Central Chang'an
 * Northwest Chang'an
 * North Central Chang'an
 * Northeast Chang'an
 * The West Palace
 * The West Park
 * The Daming Palace
 * The East Park

Just some recorded events and locations from these regions of the city during the Tang period include:
 * A mansion in Southwestern Chang'an where the owner carefully exhumed and reburied the remains of a long-dead military general because the grave was too close to the home's outhouse.
 * An event in the year 815 where assassins murdered Chancellor Wu as he was leaving the eastern gate of the northeasternmost ward in South Central Chang'an; the event took place just before dawn. After fleeing to the East Central sector of the city, the assassins of Chancellor Wu hid in the bamboo groves of a rich person's mansion.
 * An event in the year 849 where an imperial prince was impeached from his position by officials at court for erecting a building in South Central Chang'an that obstructed a street in the northwesternmost ward in south central Chang'an.
 * The Giant Wild Goose Pagoda was built in Southeastern Chang'an by the year 652.
 * The West Market (西市); its surface area covered the size of two regular city wards, and was divided into 9 different city blocks. It sported a Persian bazaar that catered to tastes and styles popular then in medieval Iran. It had numerous wineshops, taverns, and vendors of beverages (tea being the most popular), gruel, pastries, and cooked cereals. There was a safety deposit firm located here as well, along with government offices in the central city block that monitored commercial actions.
 * An event in the year 613 where a family in West Central Chang'an threw their gold into the well of their mansion because they feared the city government would confiscate it.
 * A mansion home in Central Chang'an that was valued at 3 million Tang-era copper coins in the 9th century.
 * The East Market (东市); like the West Market, this walled and gated marketplace had nine city blocks and a central block reserved for government offices that regulated trade and monitored the transactions of goods and services. There was a street with the name "Ironmongers' Lane", plenty of pastry shops, taverns, and a seller of foreign musical instruments.
 * An event in 775 where an Uyghur Turk stabbed a man to death in broad daylight in the East Market before being arrested in the marketplace shortly after. However, his Uyghur chieftan named Chixin (赤心) or Red Heart broke into the county prison and freed the murderous culprit, wounding several wardens in the process.
 * The North Hamlet (the Gay Quarters); the homosexual community of Chang'an was concentrated here in a ward to the northwesternmost area of the city sector. Homosexuality in China was often called 'pleasures of the bitten peach', the 'cut sleeve', or the 'southern custom'.
 * An event in the year 828 where a eunuch commanded fifty wrestlers to arrest 300 commoners over a land dispute in Northwestern Chang'an, whereupon a riot broke out in the streets.
 * An event in the year 730 where Emperor Xuanzong of Tang had four palace halls dismantled and reassembled as halls and gates for a Daoist abbey in Northeastern Chang'an, the grounds of which was formally a large garden for the Bureau of Agriculture.
 * An event in the year 835 where palace troops captured rebel leaders in a tea shop of Northeastern Chang'an that were planning a palace coup de tat against the chief court eunuchs.
 * An event in 756 where the occupying rebel An Lushan ordered Sun Xiaozhe to have eighty three princesses, their husbands, and parties of Yang Guozhong and Gao Lishi murdered at Zongren Fang in reprisal for his already executed son An Qingzong.

The list goes on and on. And we're only talking about one city here, there were hundreds of others in the Tang period. In fact, in the Tang Dynasty tax census for the year 754 AD, there were 1,859 cities, 321 prefectures, and 1,538 counties throughout the empire. Refer to page 45 of Charles Benn's China's Golden Age: Everyday Life in the Tang Dynasty, published by Oxford University Press in 2002.--PericlesofAthens 21:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

World History mainstream rejects Fomenko outright - so what?
Dear Pericles,

Turn the clock, not the rock. Take an aspirin and read the book instead of surfing, read at least discussion on this page, better yet search inside with google>books>fomenko ot amazon>books>fomenko. In Dr Prof A.Fomenko own words:

The British Encyclopaedia names Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) as the founder of the consensual chronology we live with. Scaliger had considered himself a great mathematician and boasted to have solved the classical “ancient” mathematical ‘Quadrature of Circle’ problem that was subsequently proven insoluble. His principal works Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606) represent a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. Numerology was considered a major science then and J.J.Scaliger was a prominent cabbalist of his time. The English philosopher William Ockham (allegedly 1225-1279 AD) said: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". `Ockham’s razor` applied to history leaves us with a vision of humankind where civilization comes into being in the VIII- X centuries at the earliest, if civilization is understood as a hierarchical system consisting of state, army, ideology, religion, communication and writing. Neither J.J.Scaliger nor his followers, clergy or humanists have paid much attention to Ockham’s law when they crafted Roman and Greek Antiquity. Their clients were condottieri upstarts who were seeking legitimacy in days of yore in order to become Popes, Cardinals or to found regal dynasties such as the Medici. They paid exceedingly well for a glorious but fictitious past. Thorough research shows that there is literally no reliably datable information about events before the VIII century, and that there is only very scarce information originating from the VIII to the X century. As a matter of fact, most events of “Ancient” History took place from the XI to the XVI century, were replicated on paper in 1400-1600 AD, and positioned under different labels in an imaginary past. We have cross-checked archaeological, astronomical, dendro-chronological, paleo-graphical and radiocarbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts. We found them ALL to be non-independent, non-exact, statistically implausible, contradictory and inevitably viciously circular because they are based or calibrated on the same consensual chronology. Unbelievable as it may seem, there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century. Classical history is firmly based on copies made in the XV-XVII centuries of 'unfortunately lost' originals. Our theory simply returns the Chronology of World History to the realm of applied mathematics from which it was sequestrated by the clergy in the XVI-XVII centuries. We have developed a valid and verifiable method of historical research based on statistics, astronomy and logic. For example, computer assisted recalculation of eclipses with detailed descriptions allegedly belonging to Antiquity shows that they either occurred in the Middle Ages or didn't occur at all. A simple application of computational astronomy to the rules of calculation of Easter according to the Easter Book introduced by the Nicean council of alleged 325 AD shows that it definitely could not have taken place before 784 AD. Some related questions may arise: when and where was Jesus Christ born, when was He crucified? Was The Old Testament compiled before or after the New One, etc..? No, the New Chronology theory does not cancel events, artefacts, Pyramids, Great Walls, etc..etc, but points to their more probable positions on the time axis.

81.250.200.66 10:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Poggio


 * One question: How does any of this contradict what I just wrote above? Simple answer, it doesn't. You've given no substantial proof to contradict what I wrote, and I did a little amazon search inside Fomenko's book on what he says about China, yet he barely says a thing at all, except for some jumbled useless garbage about European maps in the 14th or 15th century.--PericlesofAthens 12:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Special for History of China lovers
Great Wall of China as a military defense is non-sensical. It was actually built in mid 17th cy to mark the border between Great Tartary and China. You will not find this wall on earlier maps. `Mongol` nomadic tribes were small, illiterate, and scattered before 19th cy, in fact they even did not even know they were touted as great conquerors.

81.250.200.66 10:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Poggio


 * No, the Great Wall as we see it today was not built in the middle of the 17th century. It was built at its current stage during the Ming Dynasty, which began in 1368 and ended in 1644. Last I checked, 1644 is the middle of the 17th century, and by that point, with enormous internal rebellions that rocked the empire and the Manchus riding their back and conquering everything in the north, the Chinese Ming Dynasty was in no position to be building any part of the Great Wall (by 1644 northern China was overrun). Most of the Great Wall as we see it was built during the 16th century. You know, 1501 to 1600, when the Ming Dynasty was stable. However, the tradition of the Great Wall began in the Warring States period (403 BC-221 BC) and was unified as one gigantic wall during the Qin Dynasty (221 BC-207 BC). In those days most of the Great Wall was built in the rammed earth style, some of the ruins of which still stand today in remote parts of China, most of them dating to the Han Dynasty (202 BC-220 AD).


 * Anyways, what the hell does the Great Wall have to do with anything? You have not addressed one point I have written above. Instead your measly attempt to divert from the topic puts a grin on my face. What, are you too afraid to look at the truth staring you straight in the face? The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.--PericlesofAthens 11:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you gotta love the raving lunatic Fomenko when he says that the Mongols were Russians. So let me get this straight: the Russians invaded and conquered China, Tibet, Central Asia, Korea, Persia, Mesopotamia, and launched unsuccessful invasions into Hungary, Transylvania, Vietnam, and Japan? And you actually are gullible enough to believe it was a Russian army that lost to the Egyptian Mamluks at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260? Apparently Fomenko never opened a history text that outlined the life of Michael of Chernigov, the last leader of Kievan Rus who lost his principality due to the Mongol invasion and was stabbed to death on September 20 1246. The Russians were Mongol vassals by the time Kublai Khan conquered the rest of China under the Southern Song Dynasty in 1279 AD. It's pretty obvious that none of the Mongol rulers of the Yuan Dynasty over China were Russian in ethnicity, considering the fact that we still have their contemporary portrait paintings showing their facial features as Mongols. Does Fomenko care to explain? Or is this but one of a million facts he chooses to ignore because it doesn't fit neatly with his bogus theories about eclipse dating.--PericlesofAthens 12:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Fomenko, European depictions of Mongols show Caucasian people, so the same argument could be applied to traditional chronology. Michael of Chernigov is of course well known to Fomenko, and he claims that he lost his principality to another Russian ruler. Nikola 11:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "European depictions of Mongols show Caucasian people"
 * That's no surprise, people in Europe back then didn't know what people in Far East Asia even looked like, they only knew what their fellow Whites looked like. This persisted even until the 16th century, and was also applied to other regions (such as European paintings and drawings in the 16th century showing Native Americans as White people; in fact, I have a printed sheet from one of my college classes of this exact thing, showing a late 16th century French engraving of a Native American woman killing a male Indian, both of whom are portrayed with White skin and Caucasian facial features, showing that many Europeans even in their age of globalization had no idea what other people from other places even looked like). It's also well known that the Mongols, upon conquering much of the Eurasian land mass, incorporated into their service and personal entourages technicians, bureaucrats, and soldiers ranging from Russia, to Iran, to China, to Korea, to Turkmenistan, etc. If Chernigov lost his principality to another Russian, then why was this not documented? Why are there no records to indicate this? Why is there mountains of evidence from multiple civilizations (in dozens of different languages) attesting to the Mongol conquest stampeding from the East as an ultimately new force and threat the world had not yet seen? That's not even taking into account the hundreds of different military tactics the Mongols used in battle that had nothing to do with the way Russians fought war (including the cavalry archer ability to accurately shoot behind oneself while riding), attested to by witnesses across the Eurasian world. And if it was the Russians who were the besiegers in the Battle of Baghdad (1258), then why did the Arabs make absolutely no reference to this, instead attributing the destruction to the Mongols?--PericlesofAthens 19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And on a final note, I think the funniest thing about Fomenko fans is that they actually know very little about history (when Fomenko knows damn well what he's doing, exploiting the ignorance of every one of them), and follow everything Fomenko says like a lemming following another one off of a cliff. Come on, Russians, you're better than this.--PericlesofAthens 19:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Russians were called Mongols. Nikola 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, if Fomenko stated that we had the ability to fly in the air by flapping our arms, you'd be the first to jump off a building to prove him right. Lemming to the max. It's people like you who make idiots like him rich.--PericlesofAthens 05:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And why do you think that I believe him? Nikola 07:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The 'ancient' Greek Pericles was probably a Mongol per Fomenko. Actually according to Fomenko et al the very word 'Mongol' is a corrupted Greek word 'Megalion',i.e. Great. Pericles, kindly read about NPOV and study, not surf vol.1,2,3 of History: Fiction or Science? before 'refuting'. You are free to believe that a crowd of wild nomads in rags riding the ponies has conqured the world. Patience is a virtue, your China will be dealt with in vol.6.81.53.225.130 19:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Poggio

Ooh! I'm so scared what Fomenko is going to write about China that I'm practically shaking in my boots! Dude, get a life. Oh, and just because the Mongols were a bunch of wild nomads in rags riding Mongolian ponies does not mean they weren't organized and that they weren't smart when it came to military strategy. The reason they were able to besiege and conquer so well was their adoption of advanced siege machinery (such as the counterweight trebuchet) and troops from more sophisticated civilizations around them, like employing Persian and Chinese engineers of warcrafts against other Persians and Chinese armies and Persian and Chinese cities. That and threatening cities with the message that if they resisted and lost, their city would be leveled and the whole populace inside slaughtered. Look at what the Xiongnu, the Xianbei, the Khitans, Tanguts, and Jurchens were able to do in northern China long before the Mongols ever swept through. Although they were all originally nomadic groups, their cavalry tactics on the North China Plain were impeccable and dominant compared to Chinese forces up north that often lacked enough good steeds in their stables to match them cavalry-wise (Emperor Wu of Han even fought a war over this with the Yuezhi that had conquered Hellenized Fergana, acquiring the desired powerful and large horses of Central Asia through his conflict of 104 BC to 102 BC). This is why northern China was at times easy to overrun, but not southern China, with a multitude of mountains, rivers, and lakes, one needs a powerful navy to conquer that territory, which is why during the Jin Dynasty (Eastern Jin), Song Dynasty (Southern Song), and Ming Dynasty (Southern Ming) the Chinese court always fled south when the north was in imminent danger. However, the Mongols were smart enough, that when they approached southern China, they had a strong Chinese navy built to match the Southern Song Chinese, in essence, pitting a Chinese navy against a Chinese navy. Also, don't easily forget the Mongol invasions of Japan during the late 13th century, and how enormous Kublai Khan's fleet was. Although by that point Kublai was pretty much a sinicized Mongol.

Once again, you're just proving my point that you know little of history, which puts a big ole happy smile on my face. :) Read a book besides Fomenko's book for once. And one more thing, why have none of you been able to disprove or refute what I have written above about technology? I think I have a pretty good idea why. Don't even get me started on the history of artwork and cultural development of each and every Chinese dynasty, though. That may take several hundred pages on this discussion page. :)--PericlesofAthens 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above about Fomenko, "I'm sorry, but believing [Fomenko] is about as stupid as putting your hand in a blender and pressing the 'on' button." You are quite obviously an ardent ultra-Russian-nationalist. Seriously, saying something like that is almost like me, an American, saying "Yeah dude, we totally kicked butt in Vietnam and technically won because we killed more people...oh, and that cosmosnot Yuri Gagarin was more than a truth-lie, he never even made it into space, it was us Americans who were first." And what's with this attitude towards the Mongols still? What, the Russian victories against the Mongols in the Battle of Kulikovo and the break up of the Golden Horde during the reign of Vasili II of Russia weren't enough for you? Taking revenge beyond their graves, I see.--PericlesofAthens 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above about Fomenko, "I'm sorry, but believing [Fomenko] is about as stupid as putting your hand in a blender and pressing the 'on' button." You are quite obviously an ardent ultra-Russian-nationalist. Seriously, saying something like that is almost like me, an American, saying "Yeah dude, we totally kicked butt in Vietnam and technically won because we killed more people...oh, and that cosmosnot Yuri Gagarin was more than a truth-lie, he never even made it into space, it was us Americans who were first." And what's with this attitude towards the Mongols still? What, the Russian victories against the Mongols in the Battle of Kulikovo and the break up of the Golden Horde during the reign of Vasili II of Russia weren't enough for you? Taking revenge beyond their graves, I see.--PericlesofAthens 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Mongols' was just another monicker for Russians in the days of yore. Battle of Kulikovo was a civil war affair. 'Ancient' Russian history you have so briliiantly learned is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scientists brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs, whose ascension to the throne was the result of coup d'etat, charged with the mission of making their reign look legitimate. Fomenko proves Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. They represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate rulers and the ambitious upstarts. . The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the XVII-XVIII century only. It is perfectly recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation, this time performed on the Chinese soil by the loving Jesuit hands. 81.250.141.124 10:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Poggio

Is that a fact? Then where is your research and cited source material for this? Or did you just pull that out of your *** because you know you can't support your argument. You know, for all your talk, you've done nothing to back yourself up, whereas I can name a few credible scholarly sources at least.


 * Joseph Needham
 * G.E.R. Lloyd
 * Nathan Sivin
 * Rafe de Crespigny
 * Simon Leys
 * Wang Li
 * Ray Huang
 * Paul Pelliot
 * Takeuchi Yoshimi
 * Bernhard Karlgren
 * Derk Bodde

Just to name a few. Let me guess, you're going to cite, Fomenko! Haha! Sorry, you'll have to do better than that, so don't bother, nothing he writes is credible. Find another "scholar" who asserts what you do, and I'll show you a floating genie.--PericlesofAthens 19:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And now we turn to the Jesuits
Poggio:

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Jesuits, but did you fall on your head when you were a kid or something? Eat a lot of paint chips? Sniff glue? Tell me, which Jesuit was this that rewrote the entire history of China, with every single event, person, historical place, cultural tid-bit of knowledge, throughout history, while the Chinese court sat and nodded their head in approval of his new version of history as if they didn't care or had no problem with the ramifications of such a thing. Not only that, but the Jesuits would have to master the entire present Chinese writing and language system (with tens of thousands of different written characters), on top of learning old and out-of-use Chinese writing systems with thousands of more characters, every single type of Chinese calligraphy style, along with the ancient rhyming patterns of the Chinese language that changed over centuries of time. Are you insane? I've read much of what the Jesuits first arriving in China had to say (from Ricci to Trigault), they understood very little of Chinese culture and the enormity of its historical past. If anything, they gave praise to ancient Chinese philosophers such as Kong Fuzi (551-479 BC), but there was still a limited understanding. Hey, you know what else contradicts Fomenko (amongst a million other things)? The Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci Latinized Kong Fuzi's name as Confucius in the late 16th century, and you believe that Kong Fuzi was just a fairy tale made up by the Jesuits when they arrived in China, right? The teachings of Kong Fuzi in Confucianism were paramount in Chinese culture and governance from the Han Dynasty (202 BC-220 AD) under Emperor Wu of Han all the way up to the 1911 revolution that toppled the Qing Dynasty. Long before Matteo Ricci had ever set foot in China, the name "Kong Fuzi" ("孔夫子") was written billions of times in Chinese literary documents beforehand, because his philosophy became front-and-center in importance in the Chinese world.

And not only that, you actually believe that the entire Islamic world and South Asian world of India was involved in some huge conspiracy to cover up the past with the Jesuits. What makes you think any of these groups trusted the Jesuits, let alone allowed them to rewrite all of their history books? Do you understand the enormity of such a task? There weren't too many Jesuits to begin with, and in those days everything had to be written by hand first. You're thinking in 21st century terms, not what life was really like back then. The Muslims in the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires would have laughed the Jesuits out of their courts at such a radically stupid proposal (just how Fomenko probably laughs at all of you while handling all the money he's earned from you buying his books). What none of you Fomenko fans (who repeat what Fomenko writes like a loyal parrot) don't seem to realize is that other cultures, such as Islamic and Chinese, hold their lineages and histories in high esteem. Many Chinese families trace their roots back thousands of years to exact geographical, regional, and sometimes municipal, locations. They would never allow a foreigner to soil or disturb their written history. Plus, you have the audacity to believe the Chinese even allowed the Jesuits to step foot into the Imperial Archives, let alone handle precious historical documents. Then of course there is the Islamic world. No faithful Muslim would allow the Jesuits to tamper with their history, and why would the Jesuits, being faithful Christians, write mountains of documents in praise of the Prophet Muhammad, his family, his early followers, etc.?--PericlesofAthens 21:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh man, I love my response from Amazon.com! Take a look:

--PericlesofAthens 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

--PericlesofAthens 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

--PericlesofAthens 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

--PericlesofAthens 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

--PericlesofAthens 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

--PericlesofAthens 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pericles wins the Chinese round
Yes, Pericles is a true China crack. No, Jesuits did not falsify, replicate, distort glorious Chinese history. The grown up Chinese have done it themselves. All the jesuits did was to supply abundant European propaganda leaflets, books, etc..for further creative chinese cuisine. Look closer at the chinese history you know so well, you may discover repeating patterns. Don't study Fomenko, you risk to turn into another NC zealot. Mea culpa, actually there are only two instances of jesuits briefly mentioned in vol.1: Dionysius Petavius, - the pupil of Scaliger, and Jean Hardouin, chief librarian of Louis XIV. Poggio Bracciolini 11:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Coinage
Credit to all those who take their valuable time to discuss with the Fomenkoists. This is the drawback of Wikipedia: the believers in Flat earth, Hollow earth or New Chronology, few and neglected they may be, gather here like moths to a flame.

I think that we shall add to criticism that there are coins of virtually all rulers that Fomenko rejects as "reflections". Millions of coins, most of them worn-down petty coinage. For instance, I believe there are no lacunas at all among the Roman/Byzantine emperors, for 1500 years. If Fomenko is correct, this is a case of consistent forgery on a scale the world has never seen, even outside the western world. Ancient Greek coins are found in Punjab in large quantities, many of them matching the few names we got for the rulers of the Indo-Greek kingdom. The coins alone indicate why nobody in their right mind takes the man's claims seriously. Sponsianus 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another example of POV without prior reading of Dr Fomenko and team original text.


 * I suspect, Sponsianus, that in general with such cranks we are blessed with one or two who sockpuppet a lot. Beyond that, there is any amount of evidence to prove fairly conclusively that Fomenko's chronology is a joke and doesn't make any sense.  There's no real point in presenting any of it, because the people who are arguing for it don't care about actual normal evidence - they're off in their own world.  Any attempt to engage is pointless.  john k 05:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly it! You've just stated what I've been writing all this time above, Sponsianus. I don't think Fomenko fans truly grasp the enormity of history (in every aspect), which they wish to deny in their Willy Wonka fantasy world. If they can't grasp the contradiction of minted coins (let alone everything I've typed above to scratch the tip of the ice berg that is China, just one civilization), then I don't think they're capable (or willing) to grasp anything at all, except for what Fomenko writes. It's almost too devout of them, like they congregate every Sunday or every full moon dressed in black robes while whipping themselves, beating their foreheads with New Chronology books in rhythmic pattern, and praying to Fomenko to forgive them of their sins of reading this, because he is the one true God. One word of advice if you actually witness this monstrosity: don't drink the punch! Lol.--PericlesofAthens 10:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: NUMISMATIC DATING
It is assumed that in some cases certain archaeological findings can be dated with the aid of the ancient coinage found on the site. However, one should be aware that the so-called numismatic dating as used today is wholly dependent on Scaligerian chronology. This chronology was created in the XVI-XVII century, and all the kings and rulers described in chronicles and other documents took certain chronological places. Then the ancient coins were distributed along the time axis – for instance, coins bearing the legend “Nero” were dated to the I Scaligerian century a.d., the ones saying “Justinian,”as the VI Scaligerian century a.d.,etc., since those are the centuries where Scaligerian chronology locates the Roman emperors Nero and Justinian. After that, all of the coins found in the XVIII-XX century have either been dated by the same “method,” or compared to the ones that have already received datings, and placed on the time axis accordingly. It is perfectly obvious that any alteration of the Scaligerian chronology that this “method” is based upon shall automatically alter the “numismatic datings” as well. Furthermore, an independent comparison of different coins that isn’t based on external chronological considerations, cannot even tell us anything about the relative chronology of the coins under comparison, let alone their absolute chronology. Comparing actual coins as metallic objects bearing graphical designs of some sort cannot give us exact knowledge of which coin is older and which is newer. The analysis of the metal that the actual coin is made of can point at its geographical point of origin in some cases.However, the calculation of the date – absolute or relative – sadly remains an impossibility. It is possible that some method will be developed eventually that will estimate absolute ages of coins after a study of the alloys that they are made of.However, as far as we know, no such method has yet been developed.

Note: xvii-xvii cy clearly dated Russian coinage allows for very interesting conclusions. Numismatics is not completely lost as instrument of historical research, starting with xvi cy only.


 * There are many external methods of dating the soil-disturbances in which many coins are found. These include stratigraphy/superposition for relative dates of the soil-disturbances and structures; seriation for relative dates of other objects in the soil-disturbances, using multiple features on multiple types of artifact, carbon dating and other absolute dating techniques for the same, pollen analysis, which may not produce dates but still produce other relevant data, etc. And please sign your post. Jacob Haller 20:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Haller is correct, dear unsigned, and anyway your message misses the point. If a number of kings are merely "reflections" (such as the earlier Byzantine emperors, obviously all the Hellenistic kings, earlier English rulers etc) as Fomenko has explicitly claimed, then naturally these kings didn't strike coins since they didn't exist. Yet we possess millions of coins - most of them worn down petty coins - which match the rulers in ancient and medieval chronicles very closely.

Dating methods are irrelevant to this point - if a chronicle refers to kings of certain names, and coins of kings with such names are unearthed, the chronicle must refer to real persons. The only alternative is that the coins have been forged.

To give one example: very few ancient sources mention the Greek kings who ruled in Afghanistan and India after the death of Alexander the Great. There are seven names: Diodotos (2 kings), Euthydemus, Demetrius, Eucratides, Antimachus (2 kings), Menander and Antialcidas. And indeed, tens of thousands of coins with all these names have been found there, as well as coins of some thirty other Greek rulers who were not recorded in any chronicles at all.

The same goes for all of the Byzantine and English rulers that Fomenko considers "reflections" in his famous analysis. Many of these kings have unique names, and coins with those names are extant. Somebody must have counterfeited the coins, and what more in such a consistent way that numismatists are fooled all over the world. Sponsianus 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Funny Money
Existence of coins bearing the same names as the rulers mentioned in the originals of chronicles does not contradict NC. These coins can be easily resituated on the corrected timeline. Following points are crucial here: a) the right of coinage was a widespread privilige, b)coins were predecessors of the movable print by no more than a 100-150 years, b)elongated timeline implies the consequential reigns of rulers on clearly defined territories, NC timeline allows for the parallel reigns of rulers on territories of variable geometry. No need to couterfeit coins to suit NC. Poggio Bracciolini 07:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The distribution of these coins follows the traditional geography, this Roman/Byzantine coins are most common in the Roman/Byzantine empire (the later ones being more common in the east than in the west) despite widely-varying lead content. Lower-value (lead or copper) currency is less likely to travel than higher-value (silver and gold) currency. Trade generally helps cross-reference different local time-frames. Jacob Haller 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh, there's no point, Jacob. Best thing to do is ignore Poggio.  It's not as though he's going to be convinced by anything we say. john k 16:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A simple but efficient refutation of NC by suggesting that most Roman Emperors had their own coins, therefore Dr Fomenko NC theory is wiped out doesn't hold water. Contrary to the abundance of 'ancient' roman coins one can not attach to an Emperor X with 100% certainty a coin Y (with rare expetions). The imagery on coins is mostly deities, symbols, portraits, names of moneyers. Minting seems to be a popular sport in those days of 'roman' yore. Yes, the numismatists have found slots on the time axis for the most of coins, but this xix cy (!) classification was made completely arbitrary (in most cases) with consensual chronology firmly inbuilt. ~WIKI up roman coins. Poggio Bracciolini 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting quite ridicilous. You seem unaware - or wish to deny - that many ancient coins bear the names of rulers. Roman emperors were usually known by three names; in several cases these names and those of their queens and sons are known. When coins with these three names, not seldom accompanied by issues struck with family members are found, we have a match of up to half a dozen names between sources and an actual single coin. I personally own a bronze of the emperor Julian the Apostate, whose name the sources claim was Flavius Claudius Julianus, and was known to be bearded. The portrait is of a bearded man with the inscription Fl. Cl. Iulianvs. Hard to identify? Perhaps if you are very near-sighted.

Hellenistic kings used epithets and these are usually recorded in sources. Take for instance the Seleucid co-regents Antiochus XI and Philip I in Syria, mentioned by several authors. Coins with conjoined busts of the kings Antiochus and Philip have been found in Syria, with the epithet "brother-loving". Half a century earlier, sources mention a war between the Seleucid Demetrios I Soter and the usurper Timarchus in Babylonia. And in Iraq, there has indeed been unearthed several coins where a king calling himself Demetrios Soter has been badly overstruck those of another king called Timarchos (i.e. you can see remains of Timarchus' inscription underneath). I think that we can be 100% certain that the sources referring to this conflict were meticulously correct. There are hundreds of such examples, even if we disregard all we know about the technical and stylistical development of the coinage. Coins are often found in hoards, usually containing rulers from the same period. One such hoard can give - and do, frequently - matches with dozens of names from ancient sources. Sponsianus 16:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I noted earlier that when traditional history and coin-issues record one ruler, they do so in the same places. The greatest concentrations of their coins, especially their lower-value coins, are generally near where the traditional history puts their centers of power or their capitals. When Fomenko relocates these rulers, or reorders them, he needs to explain the location of their coins, and the stratigraphy of deposits containing them, respectively. Jacob Haller 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point with Fl. Cl. Iulianvs. But remember I said 'in most cases'. Naturaly there are exceptions when information on the coins matches other sources. Nevertheless the very oversupply of true 'ancient' coins as well as their weak average informative content do not allow for building an independent chronological scale. Finding cases supporting Canonical Version of History is easy an selffulfilling circular prophecy because numismatics populated with coins consensual chronology scale. Moreover, one must not forget about unknown % of counterfeit items. Scientific digging rules, techniques, methologies are quite recent as you certainly know. Poggio Bracciolini 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 A last post, before I consider writing a short section on coins. Fl. Cl. Iulianvs is not an exception where coins and names match very well. The three sons of Constantine the Great ruled before Julian: Constantius II is known from sources and coins as Fl(avius) Ivl(ianvs) Constantius, his brother Constantine as Fl(avius) Cl(audius) Constantinus, and the third brother Constans: Fl(avius) Ivl(ianvs) Constans. Flavius is the name of their gent, and Claudius that of the dynasty's legendary founder Claudius II, Julian was the name of Constantine the Great's brother.

Their cousins Hannibalianus and Dalmatius, whom the sources say were murdered after the death of Constantine the Great, struck rare coins as Fl Hannibalianus and Fl Delmatius. Since the cousins belonged only to the outer family, perhaps it makes sense that they only use the name Fl and not the middle name which represented the inner family. Sources claim that Hannibalianus had been made king in a client-kingdom and Dalmatius was Caesar (sub-emperor) and their coins do indeed have the titles "Regi" and "Caesar" respectively, never "Augustus", as the highest emperor was known.

Constantine's first son Crispus, who was executed by his father but also had ruled with the lower rank of Caesar, struck coins with the name Fl Ivl Crispus Caeasar.(There are admittedly also alternative forms of this prince's name, such as Flavius Valerius Crispus, in the sources.)

There are coins of Constantine's wife, Fausta,as Fl Max Fausta. Fl of course a married name, Max is from her father, the emperor Maximian.

Constantine the Great (who came to power by his own means and perhaps had less need to show his ancestry) seems to have used only "Constantine" or "Constantine Max", on his coins, but given that the ancient chroniclers have preserved the names of at least eight relatives so well, perhaps we can be lenient enough to trust that he too existed? He struck coins with his oldest sons Crispus and Constantinus as Caesars, portrayed as young boys on the reverse.

Members of the dynasty where the name matches are less obvious include: the very brief Nepotian, who ruled a few months in 350 (he bribed the gladiators in Rome). He has been identified with the very rare coins of a Fl Nep Constantinus, which of course is backed by likeness in portrait, coin style and weight, hoard findings, mint marks etc. Then there's Gallus, Julian's brother, Caesar in Asia, whose full name on coins was Fl Cl Constantius (Caesar). Gallus' own surname seems to have been omitted on coins: either it was an informal name or the coins were struck with the name of his suzerain Constantius II. And finally Julian's wife Helena, a daughter of Constantine the Great; she is called Fl Helena and uses the same maxim as Julian "Security of the republic" on her coins. There are joint portraits of the two, but perhaps not on coins.

Well, that was a little dynastical run-through, but I think it proves that the most of the dynasty of Constantine the Great could be unambigously identified on coins.

Overstrikes are yet another invaluable resource, and there are probably enough of them to create a reasonable chronology which in the very least affirms the relative order of most ancient rulers.

If the chronology of the more than 100 Roman/Byzantine emperors were wrong, we would at least find one overstrike to defy it, where let's say a Byzantine emperor overstruck a member of Augustus' dynasty. But that never happens, just like the creationists never find human and dinosaur bones together.

The Seleucids issued their own era, which was continued by the Parthians. This means that we have progressively dated ancient coins (in tens of thousands)with Greek legends for about 500 years. Fomenko style, this dates the fall of the Parthian empire to the 16th century - and the Parthians did not use Iranian languages, nor Arabian, nor (of course) any Moslem symbols.

What you say about counterfeits is of course valid, but it did as I mentioned demand that actually millions of worn out coins have been counterfeited, and placed around the world in good matching with the forged historical chronicles. As I see this has developed into too much of a discussion of minute details, I'll end here. Sponsianus 11:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When, where and who has found all these coins? When, where and who has certified these findings? I suspect that most 'ancient' coins have the same origin as most 'ancient' manuscripts that have disappeared for millenia, reappearing as brand new copies, as most 'ancient' artifacts (statues, mosaics, etc..) that were mass produced in xv-xix centuries. Why the chemical composition of certain coins 'allegedly' separated by millenia is sometimes exactly the same? Poggio Bracciolini 10:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Poggio, why in the world should anyone care about what you "suspect"?  You're completely ignorant about everything besides the writings of Anatoly Fomenko.  john k 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Poggio, glad that my little run-through of names has established that many Roman coins can indeed be connected to a certain emperor. As for your questions: there are coin catalogues dating back to at least the 19th century (f.i. Mitchiner) which records find places etc. Most coins have been unearthed since, so we can be rather certain (about as certain as we are for fossil finds) that they have been buried in the earth.

Who struck them? Well, either the emperor whose three names are engraved on the coins and known from sources, or somebody who had manufactered said sources and wished to create coins to accompany his frauds. Which brings us to the question I raised: Fomenko has to assume that an enormous number of coins were created fraudulently,as you acknowledge.

The difference between coins and manuscripts is a) that there are thousand times more of coins, and that they are very consistent style-wise (monograms, motifs etc). b) That according to accepted chronology ancient coins, in the Middle ages, were more than a millenium old. This means that they could not generally be accepted as genuine in mint quality. Those who imitated Roman emperors were also very consistent - most emperor's coins look the same throughout the empire. One would have thought that a counterfeiter in Britain would have depicted Fl Cl Julianus rather differently than his colleague in Syria, but nope. There must have been globally available manuals for those who wished to counterfeit coins.

Please note that not only did the counterfeiters create coins of dynastical kings (perhaps to support their own claims, as Fomenko has suggested) but also those of usurpers and extinct lines. Julian the Apostate did for instance die without issue and was detested by his Christian successors. Nepotian - mentioned above - was executed and his coins could hardly have been credit to any medieval ruler.

(16th century conversation: A: "Look, a sparkling bronze of Nepotian, who rebelled against our king's forefathers 12 centuries ago!" B:"Yes, see how it glistens. This does indeed enhance our king's legitimacy!")

As for the chemical composition - if you have sources for such suspicions, please refer to them! Since most coins are made out of one or two metals, similar alloys could of course have been recreated numerous times out of pure chance. Sponsianus 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)213.64.164.43 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: SIEGE MACHINERY
Dear Pericles, The so-called “non-gunpowder artillery of the ancients” is one of the greatest mysteries known to date.

Old sources contain countless early drawings of cannons and gunners in action. The perspective, the composition and the postures are, more often than not, extremely primitive – yet the cannons are easy enough to recognize. At the same time, nearly every single drawing, sketch or blueprint of a heavy «non-gunpowder» projectile launcher available to date looks conspicuously modern; the composition and posture look classic (sic!). Why would that be? What if the only catapults and ballistae ever built were in fact the models of modern reconstruction enthusiasts and their immediate predecessors of the XX and the XIX century? Indeed, there is hardly a shortage of «reconstructed» ballistae, catapults, mangonels and trebuchets today. But what of their historical authenticity? And how formidable were these weapons in reality? It has to be stated right away that archaeologists have found nothing remotely resembling a carcass of an ancient machine used for hurling heavy projectiles. Also, the very notion of using such devices successfully in a siege of a castle contradicts the history of fortifications as well as elementary physics.


 * Metal parts for a ballista frame have been found at Hatra, and wooden bolt shafts have been found at Dura Europus (Bishop & Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, pp. 168-169).
 * Moreover, while histories refer to the use of cannons and trebuchets against walls, they only refer to the use of torsion artillery against personnel, like more powerful and longer-range crossbows. Jacob Haller 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The breakpoint in the history of fortifications coincides with the introduction of cannons in the second half of the XV century. That is when the time-honoured tradition of building castle walls as tall as possible ceased to exist. Walls started to get shorter and sturdier, and became obsolete eventually. A modern fort is an inconspicuous well-camouflaged construction that doesn't protrude much above ground level. Fortifications evolved in this manner to match the growing firepower of cannons. The very construction of earlier walls demonstrates that their builders did not take any heavy projectile type weapons into account. The sole purpose of the ancient castle wall was to stop enemy infantry from getting in. Had ballistae and catapults been a real menace, the construction of these walls would have been entirely different.

The so-called «reconstructed» catapults take full advantage of modern science and technology in terms of materials and engineering. It is impossible to build a functional model without synthetic elastic materials, high-grade steel and so on. Otherwise, no matter how heavy the projectile (and its weight does have a very tangible limit in practice), its velocity (max.40 m/sec) shall a priori be insufficient; and the punch very weak compared to a canon ball(velocity abt 400m/sec). Ekinetic = M x V2/2. Punch of the projectile with mass M is propotional to the velocity V SQUARED), that is with same mass 100 fold! Also, the aerodynamic properties of logs and stones (presumably used as projectiles in the Middle Ages and earlier) make it impossible to use them to damage or destroy a castle wall.


 * It doesn't need that much power to kill a man. Jacob Haller 20:14, 29

July 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct. But From the military point of view non-powder artillery is non-sensical. The walls of castles we built high to make scaling them hard. Apparently the builders did not give a damn about powerful ballistae. 'Roman' bits and pieces could have belong with the same success to the 'ancient' Boing 747, or to a latrine, couldn't they?


 * Outside of Hollywood, nobody claims that they were designed for use against walls, but for use against people, and sometimes against wooden siege towers, against battering rams, etc. Jacob Haller 13:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The small caliber “mechanical artillery” has ever existed in reality – bows, crossbows and slingshots were the only projectile type weapons used before the discovery of gunpowder. In that case, how about the numerous Renaissance drawings of catapults, ballistae, trebuchets and so on?

Those are most likely to be imaginary devices, similar to the figmental spaceships of the late XIX – early XX century. Lots of them exist as drafts and drawings, but none of those designs are functional, obviously enough. The “ancient” catapults and ballistae were nothing but popular motifs in the “artistic sci-fi” of the Renaissance epoch. The first projectile type weapon to be of any real use in siege warfare was the cannon – thus, “non-gunpower artillery”, apart from being an oxymoron, is also a myth.


 * Do you have any evidence for any of these absurd claims? You're just asserting a lot of apparent nonsense with nothing to back it up. john k 05:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The kinetic energy formula is attributed to prominent non-historian Sir Isaac Newton, the term was coined by Lord Kelvin. Have no other evidence.

Priceless, for everything else, there's Sanity...and MasterCard. Lol
No, I'm pretty sure that's not one of them; I'm pretty sure one of the greatest mysteries known to date is how a majority of those in the world who have been severely brain damaged to near vegetable status somehow rallied together in congregation to support Fomenko's book, while they weren't busy at the moment eating brains as zombies, of course. That my friend, is a true mystery, a common phenomena if you will that baffles scientists to this very day (the ones who actually give a trebuchet-flying crap in wasting a minute in one day of their professional lives to read Fomenko and fans of his foaming at the mouth like you; personally I enjoy it, in the same sort of way that one becomes interested in the various personalities found living at a mental institution). Seriously, with all the worthless tripe you've just written about artillery, Mr. Mystery Man who doesn't sign his posts, you obviously don't understand how things piece together in evolutionary stages at all. From the late 13th century and 14th century we have some of the earliest guns and cannons already discovered by archeologists (some of these guns and cannons even inscribed with dates and descriptions), let alone tons of documents illustrating them in the European, Islamic, and Chinese spheres. Since I've written so much about China, I might as well share this wikilink about a 14th century Chinese military treatise documenting all the various gunpowder weapons known to the Chinese in that century: Huolongjing. It becomes clear-as-crystal that many of the weapons used were primitive to standards of even the 17th century. Seriously, do not come here acting like you know anything about artillery, which you obviously don't. Period.--PericlesofAthens 11:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pericles, you should be careful here. I'm fairly certain that I'm pretty sure one of the greatest mysteries known to date is how a majority of those in the world who have been severely brain damaged to near vegetable status somehow rallied together in congregation to support Fomenko's book, while they weren't busy at the moment eating brains as zombies qualifies as a personal attack.  john k 14:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Although it was the Chinese who first invented the traction trebuchet catapult under the Mohists in the 5th century BC, the counterweight trebuchet which had become common in medieval Europe and the Islamic Middle East was used by the Mongols in their campaign against Song Dynasty China in the 1270s AD. The destructive force was met with such horror by the Chinese once their walls were leveled that many Chinese writers across the board felt compelled to write about the newly-known hui-hui pao, from Chinese to English, the Muslim trebuchet, and also called the Xiangyang Pao, because they were first encountered by the Chinese at the continuous Battle of Xiangyang (1267-1273). What I find funny about Fomenko fans is their inability to understand how connected the Eurasian world was, and many goods, ideas, and technologies that were used by one civilization were, surprise, found out by others soon after and written of independently! Is that so hard for you to grasp, Fomenko fan? Or are you too busy concentrating on slaughtering the lamb for your 3-foot tall golden Fomenko shrine that you pray to every day. I'll give you some time to wash the sacrificial lamb's blood off your hands so you can write a pointless response to this on your keyboard. Actually, on second thought, don't bother! I don't plan on coming here to this discussion page very often. I think I've proved my point a bit.--PericlesofAthens 11:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So, Fomenko does address coins. Firefox is misbehaving so I can't give exact pages, but his arguments are: And in any way, unless there is someone who is an expert in the field and has been criticising Fomenko's assesment of coin dating, it shouldn't be in the article. Nikola 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * coins are a relative dating method: if in a grave we find a coin minted in the time of Julius Caesar, we know that the grave was made during reign of Julius Caesar, or later, but the coin itself doesn't tell us when that was;
 * antique and medieval Roman coins are plentiful, while coins from dark ages are few, and Fomenko maintains that this is left without sufficient explanation;
 * different rulers used different names in different parts of empires they ruled, and this is reflected in coins (some ruler names are dated to one period and some to another);
 * dark age coins that are found Fomenko attributes to local rulers, forgeries and so on;
 * Some coins actually support NC; for example, those that refer to Ceasar as emperor.

Languages, their distribution, variation, relationships, etc.
I'm wondering whether Fomenko addresses linguistics, and, if so, how he explains, among other possible issues, the following: I don't mean to dwell on one document, but raise it as an example. Jacob Haller 20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The existence of a Finno-Ugric language (Magyar) in Central Europe
 * The regularity of the sound shifts in the Indo-European languages (e.g. Grimm's and Verner's laws apply to the Germanic languages, and most words in the Germanic languages, and the exceptions can be explained as loan words, many of which deal with politics or trade).
 * Whether, for example, the Codex Argenteus (generally considered a real document and a 6th-century one) is real or is a fake, and if it is real, when and where it was made, and if it is fake, how they got the right language-features before discovering the appropriate laws.


 * My understanding is that Fomenko's treatment of linguistics is rather calamitously bad - he either ignores it or makes outrageously wrong claims. john k 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct. Dr Fomenko developes certain conjectures the historians would die for. Any topologist worth his salt can turn a doughnut into Bugs Bunny and vice versa. Dr Fomenko is the top of the tops as topologist. Linguistics is certainly not his realm. But every time he ventures there he honestly warns the reader. The Codex Argenteus is alleged vi or n-th cy. Same goes for ALL alleged 'ancient' documents dating. All classic history is built on copies made in xv-xix centuries from originals unfortunately lost. Poggio Bracciolini 14:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the parchment that's interesting, or the text, so much as the language the text is in. It's hard to see how people could fake many languages, even ones closely related to extant languages, let alone ones unrelated to these. Jacob Haller 15:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * right. It's just a matter of the timeframe: Canonical Version of History says thousands of years, NC says hudnreds of years. Esperanto is an example of a speak concocted in barely ten years of pasttime by an eye-doctor. Dr Fomenko provides unsinkable statistical proof of artificial elongation of the timeline and proves the figmental nature of 'ancient' eclipses for the glory of the winning parties, i.e. Constantine or JC. His own history conjectures are just that..conjectures. Caught 'historian's' virus? Poggio Bracciolini 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned this above, and I'm glad others are here to tackle that subject. Not that it should be difficult to refute anything Fomenko writes; a young 5th grade student could do that in 45 minutes by studying in his elementary school library; ok, I'll admit, that was sort of mean. It's more likely that a 6th grade student could do that in 45 minutes by studying in his elementary school library. There that's better. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

'''The art of refuting without studying the subject is easy to master. Pericles, you are a true master. Congratulations.'''
 * Why thank you, sugar-bumps! But have you ever heard of total and absolute irony? To answer that question, I'm guessing...not.--PericlesofAthens 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics is essentially about finding patterns.
History repeats itself, etc.. that is proverbial. Dr Fomenko and team elaborated a number of valid statistical methods for finding such patterns..well, they are the whistleblowers. Let's hope that the advanced (blind test proof) mass spectrometry dating methods will be developed at last and applied INDEPENDENTLY (from schools of thought, religions, and traditions) to the documents and artifacts producing a true chronological grid. All versions of history should be tested against such grid. Dr Fomenko's own version of history is just..another version. Sadly, for the time being stays true the definition of history given by American philosopher George Santayana : "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there." Poggio Bracciolini 14:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right! In fact, this conversation never even took place, because there's no way we can tell the date in which you signed your post, 14:59, 30 July 2007, is valid because Jesuits and humanists must have rewritten the time! In fact, Poggio isn't even really Poggio! He's actually George Washington; if you look at the patterns, you can tell that Jesuits took George Washington's writing and made it into Poggio's. That's the only logical explanation to me. (Lol)--PericlesofAthens 17:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Pericles, you suggestion to look for confirmation of Canonical Version of History in textbooks is about as scietific as looking for the proof of God or Intelligent Design in the Bible. Bravo. Poggio Bracciolini 19:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Freud belong here?
There's one sentence about Freud's views on biblical history in this article. It doesn't really seem to belong here, IMHO. His views as expounded in Moses and Monotheism kept traditional chronology (mostly) intact. They were unconventional, of course, but not all unconventional views begin world history around the year 1000 AD. His certainly didn't! --Christofurio 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Freud did question consensual chronology, din't he? Suggest to leave it as is. Proceed to UNDO Poggio Bracciolini 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between major changes after 1000 CE (in the conventional chronology) and smaller changes before 1000 BCE (itcc). Stone-age, bronze-age, and pre-Colombian chronologies have often been disputed. Archaeologists have developed methods, however imperfect, which can clarify sequences and sometimes timespans where "conventional chronologies" do not exist or have extensive gaps. Freud used different methods, but many scholars have questioned timescales in (what is considered) deep antiquity without changing those (considered) closer to the present. Jacob Haller 00:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Even Velikovsky would have found Fomenko's chronology ridiculous.  Beyond that, I'm not sure why Freud ought to be discussed at all.  He was not a specialist in ancient history, and wrote Moses and Monotheism 70 years  ago.  Discussion of Freud's views of ancient history belong in  articles about  Freud and  his theories,  but not elsewhere.  john k 06:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Overconfident?
The comments about Dr Prof Fomenko NC theory coming from historians present the latter as straws-in-the-hair-mad scientist. Well, he is a high grade scientist who happened to discover clear patterns in history. Yes, numismatics has perfomed a whale of a job to sort and classify multitudes of coins (many of them false) in accordance with consensual chronology. Period. Numismatics of pre xv cy coins in its actual state can not produce independent chronogical grid because the coins themselves cannot be dated independently, moreover the multitude of coins contains a numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. It is not for Dr Fomenko to explain this or another peculiarities, coincidencies, inconsistancies or contradictions inferrable from artifacts, it is for protagonists of CVH to adequately refute his statistical results or astronomical conclusions, for example that he is wrong is his reconstitution of the sky map of 10/10/1486 visible from Patmos, etc..to be continued.. Poggio
 * It's up to Fomenko to explain the evidence which fits the commonly-used chronology and doesn't seem to fit his chronology. Fomenko doesn't simply shorten the commonly-used chronology, but changes the order and locations of events.
 * I think it's clear how archaeological evidence shows the locations of events. Stratigraphy and seriation show the orders of events, with or without written history, but usually not the timespan. In archaeology, many alternative chronologies have shortened or lengthened various phases, but very few change their order let alone their location!
 * After the introduction of C14 dates, many surprisingly early dates came from northern Europe. Some archaeologists challenged these dates, and physicists and dendrochronologists refined them in response. (I know Fomenko rejects C14 but bear with me). More such early dates kept coming, and most archaeologists concluded that they had allowed too little time for the northern European sequences, and expanded these; they did not change the order of the various archaeological cultures, but did correct the dating and duration, which meant these northern European cultures contemporary with earlier Mediterranian ones than had been thought before. To test this, archaeologists asked not only whether the C14 dates were consistent, but whether the trade goods matched. Did northern European sites show any of the same trade goods as Mediterranian sites? Did this match with the older (pre-C14) or the newer (C14) chronology? Jacob Haller 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr Fomenko all his genius notwithstanding is not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Once his theory formulated he and his team found lots of juicy morsels in the cauldron of history supportive to NC, and left the rest alone. His is not the ancient history chair of MSU, but one of differential geometry-topology. His NC is very eurocentric, but contrary to his own conjectures he doesn't consider nil as the probability of completely independent Southern hemisphere civilization cores. Dr Fomenko does not deny developed prehistoric northern or southern Europe, he has no-problem with trade goods comparison, he does not cancel pyramids, coliseums and cathedrals, but presents necessary and sufficient proof to place most of CVH either to the realm of prehistory or fantasy (especially history of 'ancient' Rome, Greece and Egypt). For example, he argues convincingly that iron was discovered and used before bronze, which he dates earliest xiii cy. The chronological tables crafted by the cabbalist Scaliger were built exclusively on authority of the church fathers, and contain sufficient data to see through their numerological origin. Scaliger's principal works Opus Novum de emendatione temporum(1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606) represent a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. The chronological grid for AD 1400 to BC 2000 STAYED UNCHANGED since. This alone is sufficient to make the consensual chronology of antiquity suspicious. Once such major machination discovered he looks closely at all methods of dating and finds them inevitably viciously circular with chronology inbuilt, he welcomes the calibration of c14, but rightly insists that c14 method should submitted to a series blind tests, to be ranked as independent, and suggests that all artifacts sent to labs should be submitted first to the blind test and only then refined by comparison to the dating suggestion of archealogists. Otherwise it is just a scientifically looking rubberstamp, author's of WIKI page on c14 opinion notwithstanding. At present state all dating methods have rather relative than absolute dating value. Poggio Bracciolini 12:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Iron before bronze? We don't need C14 to disprove that, we can use plain old stratigraphy. Jacob Haller 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm. Perfect. Which stratigraphy, please - geological, paleological, archeaological? Extremely finicky method in its archeaological stratigraphy version. Earnest application thereof began when, pre wwi or after wwii? Very good for relative dating, no doubt, but would you put your hand in fire that kilotons of bronze artifacts filling museums were stratigraphically dated? Kindly explain abundance of lovely bronze statuettes showing perfect command of human anatomy (end of xv cy for the first autopsies) and confidently BC dated? Benin bronze datings (xiv-xv cy) are mostly correct though. Any metallurgist will confirm that firstly crude iron process is simpler, than one of the tin metal, and secondly that bronze alloy consists of approx. 90% copper and 10% metallic tin. Poggio Bracciolini 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Archaeological, of course. The basic principles were known by the end of the 19th century and the actual techniques have continuously improved. Some archaeologists prefer to excavate by fixed depth-units and others by soil units (natural stratigraphy) but the important thing is to associate the artifacts with the soil units as precisely as possible. I'm not sure why you call it "extremely finicky."
 * Not everything in a museum is well-dated. Some artifacts have no secure provenience, others are surface finds, etc. Archaeological succession is partly based on those sites which have seen either continious or repeated settlement and well-documented excavation. These may not be the type sites for the cultures involved. It is also partly based on seriation, which is more finicky. It is, for example, possible to get the seriation in the wrong order if other clues aren't available.
 * Bronze requires much lower temperatures than iron does. I'm not that familiar with the bronze/iron transition, but I believe there are sites with secure stratigraphies across the boundary. iirc, in the near and middle east, bronze-age cities frequently see destruction layers, and iron-age cities built above the destruction. Jacob Haller 21:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bronze age meldown. Tin smelting requires even lower temperatures that iron, bronze or copper. One cannot produce bronze without metallic tin. Metallic tin smelting dates back to xiii cy (Sienberge in Germany). Achilles and Hector werre hacking at each other with bronze axes containing no tin, please?
 * WTF? Do you have a source and is it consistent with either chronology? Tin jewelry is very common in what are considered bronze-age finds in Wessex. Jacob Haller 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WIKI as a source? CVH says on WIKI: While copper and tin can naturally co-occur, the two ores are rarely found together (although one ancient site in Thailand and one in Iran provide counterexamples). Serious bronze work has therefore always involved trade (and the compelling idea that there were really traders in such goods). In fact, archaeologists suspect that a serious disruption of the tin trade precipitated the transition to the Iron Age. In Europe, the major source for tin was Great Britain, where significant deposits of ore could be found in Cornwall. Phoenician traders visited Great Britain to trade goods from the Mediterranean for tin.

Seems rather stretched out, i.e., Cornwall - Lebanon tin run, consequently NC asserts: there was no notable long-distance tin or any other trade in Europe prior to ix-x cy AD. Most bronze artifacts are datable to xiii-xvii cy. Cornish gals liking tin jewellery from cornish lads theory is in line with both NC and CVH. Romans have invaded Cornwall for a reason? Outsourcing of tinhats? Poggio Bracciolini 16:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Loose change?
The coinage history has allegedly seen an “ancient dawn,” then the Dark Ages are supposed to have come, and later on the Renaissance epoch. It is assumed that between the VIII and XIII century a.d. all Roman golden coinage disappeared from Italy ([Cipolla, Carlo M.Money, Prices and Civilization in the Mediterranean World. 5-17 century. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 1956.]). This strange effect is noticeable enough to have entered the names of chapters of certain monographs on history and numismatics, such as “The End of Roman Coinage (V century),” or “Imitation epoch (VI century)” ([Grierson, Philip. Monnaies du Moyen Âge. Fribourg, 1976.]). Let us pay close attention to the following information provided by specialists in numismatic history. It turns out that in the Middle Ages “the West of Europe did not try to compete with Byzantium and the Muslims in this respect. The idea of having regular gold coinage was given up, and most mints produced silver coins” ([Prices and Civilization in the Mediterranean World. 5-17 century.], page 20; [1435]). It is also said that “regular golden coinage had practically ceased in VIII-century Western Europe, and towards the end of the same century on the Italian peninsula as well. Even in Muslim Spain no golden coinage was minted between the beginning of the VIII century and the beginning of the X” ([Prices..], page 20). Numismatists attempt to give some sort of explanation to this mysterious “mediaeval gap” in coinage history. It is suggested that “gold coinage was ceased by an order issued by Pepin”. The council at Reims allegedly forbade the use of the golden solidi of imperial Rome, and the type of circulating coinage allegedly “became barbaric” in the VIII century ([The End of Roman Coinage ], page 151). Doesn’t this imply that the “ancient”Western European coinage is really mediaeval, minted after the XIV century a.d., and cast way back in time by Scaligerian chronology? Historians proceed to tell us that “there are no Papal coins from the time of Benedict VII (who died in the alleged year 984 a.d. – A. F.) to that of Leo IX [allegedly the middle of the XI century – A. F.] in existence; this is purely incidental, since the coinage must have existed, naturally… There is only one coin from the times of Leo IX… Even stranger is the fact that not a single coin remained from the times of Gregory VII” ([Gregorovius, F. History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages. London, G. Bell & Sons, 1900-1909.], Volume 4, page 74, comment 41). Where did all these mediaeval coins go? Let us formulate a hypothesis. All of these coins have been misdated, and thrown back into the past, transforming into “ancient coins” as a result. Some of them are exhibited in museums as “very old ones” nowadays. Apparently, the naissance of golden and silver coinage in Western Europe really dates to the XIII century a.d. at the earliest. Confronted by the non-existence of mediaeval Western European coins predating the XIII century a.d., the numismatists were faced with the necessity to invent various theories aimed at explaining the economical stagnation of Europe that allegedly followed the “flourishing Classical age”. The strange “stagnation” in Roman minting between the VIII and XIII century a.d. is all the more amazing since it follows a very fruitful and glorious period of Roman coinage of the alleged I-VI century a.d. Golden coins of this “ancient” empire are on a par with the mediaeval ones dated to the XIII-XVII century in quality and detail. This oddity is most probably explained by the misdating of the XIII-XVII century coins that have been moved a long way into the past.


 * Doesn’t this imply that the “ancient”Western European coinage is really mediaeval, minted after the XIV century a.d., and cast way back in time by Scaligerian chronology? No, it does not imply such a thing. john k 20:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Naval Warfare History
The Canonical Version of History (CVH further in the text) is as follows. Once there were the valiant ancient Greeks, who came up with orderly navy combat tactics verging on the impeccable and used it with great success – first against the Persians, and then against each other (in the Peloponnesian war and the countless skirmishes of Alexander's successors. Then the iron-clad legions of Rome learned to set sail, and eventually mastered the art of naval combat as well, defeating the Carthaginians in the Punic Wars, and then each other in a plethora of internecine conflicts. Then came the lugubrious Middle Ages, the noble art of naval tactics was lost, and the dim-witted Christian Barbarians couldn't do any better than crashing the board of their vessel into the nearest enemy ship and use various metallic objects to bang on each other's heads. It was only with the advent of the Renaissance that the European admirals got some notion of tactics from the oeuvres of Plutarch and Sueton – however, even the Battle of Gravelines (1588) looked more like a free-for-all than orderly and sensible manoeuvring. Really, the CVH has a very rigid and immutable (and therefore doubly dangerous) system of “sympathies and antipathies”, which is perfectly irrational at a closer look and much resembles the way teenage schoolgirls assess the virtues and shortcomings of their classmates. -   - This is what we see to be the case here. The “ancient Greeks” are the darlings of the CVH – so wise, so shapely, with no greater joy than to discuss the sublime and the eternal, prove a theorem or baffle the profane with a dazzling sophism. Also, they had Homer, who wrote a poem that was sung by every shepherd in Hellas for centuries to come, never mind his being blind. Shepherds had nothing better to do, after all, than to strum their lyres all day long and recite the “Iliad” - all of its 700 pages. A very typical opinion of the lumpen intelligentsia, whose familiarity with sheep does not go beyond mutton chops and lambskin hats. And the sonorous names of the authors and the characters! Euripides, Anaximander and so forth. A far cry from all the Johns and the Fritzes, isn't it? The fact that these nobly-named characters were extremely prone to betraying their beloved Hellas and each other, being no strangers to fornication, poison and other attributes of mediaeval life, is usually de-emphasised or altogether hushed up. -   - Oh, and the Greeks had democracy as well – one of the holiest cows revered by the lumpen intelligentsia. Granted, it would keep transforming into oligarchy, dictatorship and what-have-you, but let us refrain from mentioning such atrocities. . . Wouldn't it be nicer to talk about Empedocles and Agathocles? We could also discuss the Romans as a set-off. They surely look somewhat hammer-headed as compared to the Greeks. To think of all the statues they destroyed in the city of Syracuse! They murdered Archimedes in his prime, too. Fortunately, they realised it soon enough that the Hellenistic way of life was the only correct modus vivendi, and learned to compose iambic verse and make statues, which made them look more positive in the eyes of the learned historians. Apart from that, they came up with many a brilliant aphorism – not to mention the culture and the order that they brought to the conquered nations (doesn't this kind of argumentation bring the likes of Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Rosenberg to mind?) Who would have mettle enough to point an accusing finger at such trifles as gladiator fights and slave exploitation? -   - The Barbarians and their successors, such as the crusaders and other ill-bred Christians, are definitely regarded with scorn by the historical science. Those no-goodniks invariably woke up with the thought of finding a statue to smash or a library to burn, not to mention their use of temples as stables. Obviously enough, they remained a malicious and destructive force up until the epoch when they started to read Ovid and Sueton and became a bit more civilized. There is no talk of the Slavs – those half-apes were still learning to tell their left hand from their right. -   - Sad, but so very true: historians are extremely biased in their estimation of one nation or another, the presence or absence of statues being their primary criterion. This has to be borne in mind by anyone who studies the works of the CVH aficionados. As for the evolution of naval tactics, their dynamic was as follows, according to the official version: -   - V century B. C. Themistocles the wise, who made such brilliant speeches at the agora just yesterday (a politician, in other words), is featured as the fearless leader of a fleet of 370 ships, no less, which takes on 800 ships of the Persians, manoeuvres hither and thither, destroys the Persians and returns to Athens triumphant, wreathed and clad in white. -   - III century B. C. The Roman consuls Caius Duilius and Marcus Atilius Regulus lead a fleet of 330 ships into battle against 250 Carthaginian vessels at Cape Ecnomus. They deftly manoeuvre, crush the flanks and attack the enemy from the rear, effectively destroying the Carthaginian fleet, to be wrapped up in purple by the adoring multitudes upon return. -   - I century B. C. In the Battle of Cape Actium the 260 ships of Octavian and Agrippa meet fleet of 170 vessels led by Antony and Cleopatra. Octavian is the victor. -   - What do all of the above battles have in common? Firstly, the main type of vessel employed by all participants – the trireme. According to the CVH, it was a ship with three rows of oars (and therefore oarsmen) on each side. Of course, there were aberrations, which is perfectly natural; engineers of all times were subject to kinks of all sorts, which resulted in the construction of unusual devices, with the base model transformed beyond recognition, compact as well as megalomaniac. There were biremes, for instance, with two rows of oars, and also quadriremes and quinqueremes – with four and five rows of oars, respectively. Also, either Strabon or Pliny mention deciremes – vessels with ten rows of oars. -   - Secondly, what all of the above have in common is the method of harming the enemy. Apparently, each and every ancient fleet used catapults of all sorts at the stage of approaching the enemy, bombarding the enemy with stones and pots with burning oil. Then, upon reaching a closer distance, the ships sought to use rams in order to damage the hull of the enemy vessel – copper-bound stem posts, that is. Finally, after the loss of velocity and ability to manoeuvre, the enemy ships were boarded. -   - Thirdly, the excellent organisation and perfect control over fleets comprising several hundreds of ships. This is the most amazing thing. The ships could manoeuvre, advance, retreat, outflank the enemy and hasten towards their comrades in peril as if every skipper had a walkie-talkie or a mobile phone hidden in the folds of his tunic. In other words, Greek and Roman fleets (and ancient fleets in general) demonstrate outstanding seamanship, unrivalled for centuries to come. -   - The ancient Rome perished eventually, and the ecclesiastical witch hunters raised their ugly heads, smashing all the statues and burning all the scrolls. What happened next? The following. -   - The XIV century. Hundred years' war, naval battle at Sluys. The French ships stand anchored at the shore, the English fleet approaches them from the windward side, and a head-to-head battle commences. No manoeuvring, no catapults, no rams – a regular battle of the most unsophisticated sort. The English “marines” must have been better at fencing than the Genoese and the French, and gave them a thorough beating. -   - The XV-XVII century. The epoch of the most heated confrontation between the Christian Europe and the Turko-Arabic world, as well as ceaseless skirmishes between the European countries, in the Mediterranean for the most part. -   - The scenario is just the same as above. Here is a classical example of a naval battle of that epoch: 1571, the Battle of Lepanto, 209 Christian ships against 296 vessels of the Muslims. How do they fight? As follows: the manoeuvres are of the simplest kind imaginable – the ships plunge forward, and shoot at one another from harquebuses and falconets when the distance is sufficient (very primitive firearms indeed) in order to reduce the enemy numbers as much as possible. This is followed by – yes, you guessed it, the good old boarding free-for-all. No manoeuvres! No rams! No catapults, either – those were replaced by the bombards. As a matter of fact, why would that be? Weren't the catapults more effective? -   - Let us also consider the 1588 Battle of Gravelines, which is the name used in British historiography for a series of battles fought between the British fleet and the “Great Armada”. This is a seminal battle indeed – the first time when the dubious romance of hand-to-hand battle as the means of defeating the enemy gave way to the romance of the artillery duel, just as dubious. This did not make the battle any more elegant – small groups of ships and individual vessels brought together randomly by the blowing winds, and firing as many cannonballs and as much buckshot at one another as their fire power allows. - ..to be continued Poggio Bracciolini 18:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)