History of mankind has always interested in its understatement. The older this or that fact, the more conjectures and inaccuracies in its description. Among other things, the human factor and the interests of the rulers are added.
It is on such contacts that the "New Chronology" is built. What is so special about this theory, which has excited the bulk of academic scientists?
What is a chronology?
Before talking about an unconventional branch in historical science, it is worth deciding what chronology is in the classical sense.
So, chronology is an auxiliary science that deals with several things.
Firstly, it determines when an event occurred.
Secondly, keeps track of the sequence and position of incidents on a linear scale of years.
It is divided into several departments - astronomical,geological and historical chronology.
Each of these departments has its own set of dating and research methods. These include the ratio of calendars of different cultures, radiocarbon analysis, thermoluminescent method, glass hydration, stratigraphy, dendrochronology and others.
That is, the classical chronology builds the order of events based on a comprehensive study. It compares the results of the work of scientists from different fields and only in the case of cross-validation of the facts makes the final verdict.
Let's take a closer look at the other questions posed earlier. Who are Fomenko, Nosovsky? Is the "New Chronology" a pseudoscience or a new word in the study of human history?
History of origin
In general, the theory, the authors of which are Fomenko, Nosovsky ("New Chronology"), is based on the research and calculations of N. A. Morozov. The latter, being imprisoned in St. Petersburg, made a calculation of the position of the stars mentioned in the Apocalypse. According to him, it turned out that this book was written in the fourth century AD. Not at all embarrassed, he declared falsifications in world history.
The authors of the "New Chronology" consider the Jesuit Garduin and the physicist Isaac Newton to be Morozov's predecessors, who also tried to rethink and recalculate the chronology of mankind.
The first, based on philological knowledge, tried to prove that all ancient literature was written in the Middle Ages. Newtoninterested in ancient history. He recounted the years of the reign of the pharaohs according to the list of Manetho. According to his research, world history has shrunk by more than three millennia.
Edwin Johnson and Robert Baldauf, who claimed that humanity is no more than a couple of hundred years old, can also be attributed to such "innovators".
So, Morozov displays absolutely fantastic figures on which his chronology is based. What is thousands of years of history? Myth! The Stone Age is the 1st century AD, the second century is the Bronze Age, the third is the Iron Age. Didn't you know? After all, all historical sources are falsified in modern times!
Let's take a closer look at this unusual theory and look at its refutation.
Basics
According to Fomenko, the "New Chronology" differs from the traditional one in that it is cleared of falsifications and errors. Its main provisions contain only five postulates.
Firstly, written sources can be considered more or less reliable only later than the eighteenth century. Prior to this, from the eleventh century on, works must be treated with caution. Until the tenth century, people couldn't write at all.
All archeological data can be interpreted as the researcher wants, therefore they do not carry any obvious historical value.
Secondly, the European calendar appeared only in the fifteenth century. Prior to that, each nation had its own calendar and starting point. From the creation of the world, from the flood, from birth or ascensionto the throne of some ruler…
This statement grows out of this thesis.
Thirdly, the historical information on the pages of annals, treatises and other works shamelessly duplicate each other. Thus, Nosovsky's chronology states that most of the events of ancient history occurred in the early Middle Ages or later. But due to the discrepancy between calendars and reference points, during translation, the information was not processed correctly and the history became more ancient.
Traditional chronology is wrong about the age of Eastern civilizations and the starting point of human history. Judging by the previous postulate, China and India can have no more than a thousand years of chronology.
The last provision is the human factor and the government's desire to legitimize itself. As Fomenko says, the chronology is written by each authority for itself, and the old data is erased or destroyed. Therefore, it is impossible to fully understand history. The only thing you can rely on is "accidentally preserved or missing fragments." This includes maps, pages from various chronicles, and other documents that support the theory.
Text based argumentation
The main evidence in this area is the "far-fetched" similarity of four historical eras and the repetition of events in the annals.
The key periods are 330 years, 1050 and 1800. That is, if we subtract this number of years from medieval events, we will stumble upon a complete correspondence of incidents.
From this, the coincidence of various historical figures is deduced, which, according to the theoryFomenko, are one and the same person.
The chronology of Ukraine, Russia and Europe is adjusted to such conclusions. Most of the conflicting sources are ignored or declared fake.
Astronomical method
When there are disputes in certain disciplines, they try to draw on the results of research from related sciences.
According to Fomenko, the "New Chronology" is perfectly checked, and its postulates are proved with the help of ancient astronomical maps. Studying these documents, he starts from eclipses (solar and lunar), references to comets and, in fact, images of constellations.
The main source on which the evidence is based is the Almagest. This is a treatise that was compiled by the Alexandrian Claudius Ptolemy in the middle of the second century AD. But Fomenko, after studying the document, dates it four hundred years later, that is, at least the sixth century.
It is noteworthy that only eight stars were taken from the Almagest to prove the theory (although more than a thousand are recorded in the document). Only these were declared "correct", the rest - "forged".
The main proof of the theory in terms of eclipses is Livy's essay on the Peloponnesian War. Three phenomena are indicated there: two solar and one lunar eclipse.
The catch is that Titus Livius writes about events throughout the peninsula and reports that "the stars were visible during the day." That is, the eclipse was total. Judging by other sources, in Athens at this time, an incompleteeclipse.
Based on this inaccuracy, Fomenko proves that full compliance with the data of Livy was only in the eleventh century AD. Thanks to this, he automatically transfers the entire ancient history one and a half millennia forward.
Despite the fact that the main part of the constellation data coincides with the "traditional" history on which the world chronology is based, they are not considered correct. All such sources are declared "corrected" in the Middle Ages.
Evidence from other sciences
The accusations against the dendrological Novgorod scale, which has been confirmed by thousands of examples, are unfounded. The Fomenko group considers these data to be fitted to a falsified chronology.
On the other hand, carbon dating is under attack. But his statements are inconsistent. This method is erroneous in everything, except for the time when they checked the age of the Shroud of Turin. It was then that everything was “done accurately and conscientiously.”
On what "doubts" the "New Chronology" is based
Let's see what other shortcomings Fomenko's group finds in traditional science. Historical methods of research are the main attacks. Moreover, the thesis often has “double criteria”. In the case of academic science, this or that method is declared a falsification, but for fans of the "New Chronology" it is the only correct one.
The chronology of the books was the first to be questioned. Based on the writings of historians, chroniclesand decrees of officials, Fomenko and Morozov create their own theory. But millions of pages of simple charters, economic documents and other "folk" records are ignored.
"Scaligerian" dating is abolished due to the use of astrology, and other researchers are not taken into account.
Most of the documents are declared fake. Such a judgment is based on the fact that it is practically impossible to distinguish the source of the late Middle Ages from the ancient one. Based on well-known falsifications, the thesis is derived about the unreliability of all books “allegedly created before the middle of the first millennium.”
The main evidence base on which the "New Chronology" is based, Nosovsky and Fomenko build on the proximity of the culture of the era of antiquity and the Renaissance.
The events of the early Middle Ages, when most of the ancient knowledge was forgotten, are declared nonsense and fiction. The Fomenko group argues that there is several evidence of the illogicality of such a model.
Firstly, it is impossible to “forget” and then just “remember” entire layers of scientific knowledge.
Secondly, what does it mean to “recover” research data from centuries ago? To preserve knowledge, there should be scientific schools where information is transferred from teacher to student.
From such judgments it is concluded that the whole history of antiquity is just artificially ancient events of the Middle Ages.
The Fomenko group is especially interested in the chronology of Russia. From its data, information aboutthe supposedly existing medieval empire of the "Russian khans", which covered the whole of Eurasia.
General scientific criticism
Many scientists do not agree with the postulates put forward by the "New Chronology". What does it mean, for example, to "reject wrong scientific theories"? It turns out that only Fomenko, based on Morozov's notes, has "true" knowledge.
In fact, there are three things that are very confusing for any sane person.
Firstly, refuting the traditional chronology, Fomenko's group thus crosses out all the sciences that indirectly confirm academic data. That is, philologists, archaeologists, numismatists, geologists, anthropologists and other specialists do not understand anything at all, but simply build their hypotheses based on erroneous arguments.
The second problem is a clear inconsistency in many places. We are talking about one era, for confirmation, a sky map of a completely different period is provided. Thus, all the facts are adjusted to the desired framework.
This also includes discrepancies between supposedly "repeating" historical figures. For example, Solomon and Caesar are the same person, according to the New Chronology. What is the forty years of the reign of the first against the four years of the second for a non-specialist? Does not match? So, in the eighteenth century they falsified!
The last argument that defines this theory as pseudoscience is as follows. Based on numerous "amendments", it turns out that there is a worldwide conspiracy of "it is not clear-what-society" that was able to rewritesecretly throughout the history of mankind. Moreover, this was done in the Middle Ages and modern times, when states were being formed and there was no question of any commonality and consolidation.
The last thing that frankly excited the scientific community was a clear attack on academic professionalism. If we consider the theory of the "New Chronology" true, it turns out that all scientists are just playing in the sandbox and do not even understand elementary things at all. Not to mention common sense.
Why astronomers were outraged
The main stumbling block was "Almagest". If we discard exactly those stars on which Fomenko's theory is based (they cannot be uniquely dated), we get a picture that completely coincides with the traditional one.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the movements of the stars were recalculated using the latest techniques and computers. All data of Ptolemy and Hipparchus have been confirmed.
Thus, the indignation of scientists caused unreasonable attacks on their professionalism by a complete amateur.
Answer from historians, linguists and archaeologists
Hearted debate broke out in the field of influence of these disciplines. First, they stood up for dendrochronology and radiocarbon analysis. Judging by Fomenko's statements, he has data for the 1960s. These sciences have long stepped forward. Their methods confirm the traditional story, and are also confirmed by related methods. These include banded clays, paleomagnetic and potassium-argon methods, and more.
Birch-bark papers became an unexpected turn. Judging byto what the "New Chronology" describes, Russian history runs counter to the information of these sources. The latter, by the way, are confirmed not only by dendrochronology, but also by many other data from related disciplines.
Also interesting is the complete disregard for Arabic, Armenian, Chinese and other written evidence that confirms the traditional history of Europe. Only those facts are mentioned that support the theory.
The emphasis on narrative sources puts New Chronology fans in an uncomfortable position. Their arguments are shattered by the usual administrative and business records.
If you look at Fomenko's linguistic evidence, then, according to A. Zaliznyak, "this is complete amateurism at the level of errors in the multiplication table." For example, Latin is declared to be a descendant of Old Church Slavonic, and “Samara”, when read backwards, turns into “the dialectal pronunciation of the word Rome.”
Dates and names on coins, medals, gems fully confirm academic data. Moreover, the amount of this material simply excludes the possibility of forgery.
Besides, the chronology of wars for authors belonging to different cultures coincides when the calendars are brought to a common denominator. There are even data that were simply not known in the Middle Ages, but were discovered only thanks to excavations in the 20th century.
Conclusion of scientists about the "New Chronology"
Firstly, today traditional science listens to the works of Scaliger exactly as much as they are confirmed by the latestresearch.
And, conversely, Fomenko and Nosovsky's works contain only attacks on this sixteenth-century scientist. But there is not a single footnote or reference to the source, quotes or explicit indication of the error.
Secondly, the complete disregard for business records. The entire evidence base is based on selected chronicles and other documents that show events only one-sidedly. Lack of complexity in research.
Thirdly, the so-called "vicious circle of dating" disappears by itself. That is, the supporters of the "New Chronology" are trying to prove that, based on initially false assumptions, most methods simply multiply errors. But this is not true, unlike their own methods, which are often unproven and unsubstantiated.
And last. The notorious "conspiracy of fakes." The entire proof is built on it, but if you approach it from the point of view of common sense, then the arguments collapse like a house of cards.
Is it possible to secretly collect all the books, decrees, letters, rewrite them in a new way and return them to their places. In addition, the huge volumes of archaeological finds simply cannot be realistically faked. Also, the concepts of the cultural layer, stratigraphy and other typical aspects of archeology are completely unknown to the theorists of the New Chronology.
