The History of Fomenko’s New Chronology

This article contains a concise overview of the development of Fomenko’s New Chronology. This article is directly based on the writing from Fomenko at the beginning of his ‘Royal Rome Rivers Oka and Volga’. This article also contains a concise account of the basic methods used in the development of the New Chronology.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

The commonly accepted chronology of today was created in the 16th-17th centuries. This chronology was created primarily by Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609). This chronology then was examined and completed by Dionysius Petavius (1583-1652). The chronology created by Scaliger and Petavius contained extensive tables but lacked scientific substantiation.

The chronology and history of Russia was spearheaded by Gerard Friedrich Müller (1705-1783), as well as other Germans. The chronology which forms the backbone of all others is the Graeco-Roman chronology. The popular modern version of the Graeco-Roman timeline may be flawed, according to the research presented in Fomenko’s New Chronology.

The new chronology of Fomenko has examined the vertebrae of the accepted chronology’s spinal column and identified that some were out of place, additionally it has attempted to reposition them into their correct locations.

Fomenko informs us of 6 stages to the new chronology’s development.

Stage 1 – 16th-20th century

Stage 2 – first half of the 20th century

Stage 3 – 1945-1973

Stage 4 – 1973-1980

Stage 5 – 1980-1990

Stage 6 – 1991-present

Stage 1 – 16th-20th century

Stage 1 was set by the immediate and continual opposition to the Scaliger-Petavius version of chronology. Some of the known scientists who disagreed are list as follows; De Arcilla (16th century), Isaac Newton (1643-1727), Jean Hardouin (1646-1729), Petr I Krekshin (1684-1763), Robert Baldauf (19th-20th cc.), Edwin Johnson (1842-1901), Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946), Wilhelm Kampier (end of 19th century-1959), Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979)

Stage 2 – first half of the 20th century

Stage 2 was set by Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946). Morozov had also noticed the inconsistencies in the Scaliger-Petavius version of chronology. He used a number of methods to analyze chronology and based highly persuasive arguments on such. His work fell short of the grand end, but the effort was significant nonetheless.

Stage 3 – 1945-1973

Stage 3 was set by the silence towards Morozov and his predecessors. The discussion on chronology stopped in Russia, and Morozov’s ideas were halted by slander. The West ends discussion over Velikovsky’s “catastrophism” hypothesis.

Stage 4 – 1973-1980

Stage 4 was set by Anatoly T. Fomenko’s development of new methods for analyzing narrative materials. The production of these methods were largely spurred by Fomenko’s assessment of the leap of parameter D” shown in a 1972 article by Robert Russell Newton (1918-1991). The leap in question allegedly happened around the 10th century. The issues which surround this leap have remained unexplained by modern scientific discussion.

During this time, Fomenko took a greater interest in Morozov’s works. In 1974, at the request of Fomenko, M. M. Postnikov gave 5 lectures on Morozov to mathematicians who worked at the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University. This resulted in a group of mathematicians taking an interest in the problems of chronology and creating statistical methods for analyzing historical texts. From 1975 to 1979, Fomenko proposed and developed new methods of these types, and with them discovered 3 important shifts in chronology, approximately 333 years, 1053 years and 1800 years.

From 1974 to 1982, Fomenko obtained results from his methods and compiled them in a manuscript about 6,000 pages long titled, Global Chronology of the Ancient and Medieval World: An Experiment in Statistical Research. Methods and Applications [3, p88].

Stage 5 – 1980-1990

Stage 5 is when the newly developed methods began being published in the scientific press.

“A foundation for this new branch of empirical “limited-sample” statistics was laid in a series of studies by Fomenko (1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1983). These new methods were evolved by Fedorov and Fomenko in (1986), by Kalashnikov, Rachev and Fomenko (1986) and successfully applied by Morozova (1985) to specific problems associated with analyzing source documentation and literature.” [2, p187]

There was a conference held on June 29th, 1981 by the Department of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR which highly criticized the new methods.

Stage 6 – 1990-present

Stage 6 is the stage of New Chronology book printing. The first book on this topic was Methods of Statistical Analysis of Narrative Texts and Applications to Chronology (Moscow, 1990). It would have been printed around 1983/4 but the request was denied since the methods did not conform with the “principles of Marxist historical science”.

Fomenko claims that in 1993 they were the first people to use the term New Chronology. Although, it does appear to me that David Rohl had used the term in the 1980s. However, I do think the term is much more applicable to Fomenko’s New Chronology than Rohl’s, as Rohl’s is incredibly limited in scope and only makes minor adjustments to one short period of Egyptian history, while Fomenko’s makes major adjustments to the bulk of ancient and medieval history.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

References:

[1] – http://chronologia.org/history.html. Accessed 26 July 2020.

[2] – http://chronologia.org/en/volume_functions_of_historical_texts.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2020.

[3] – http://chronologia.org/en/kw1.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2020.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

2 Comments on “The History of Fomenko’s New Chronology

  1. I got here via Zoon Politikon (i.e. Holly S) and then there’s loads on Logos Media with Jacob Duellman. I’m surprised there’e so few comments here …
    The first mention of Fomenko I got from here:
    https://www.academia.edu/40455073/The_Cult_of_the_Plausible_Lie where Laura Knight-Jadczyk
    in one of her articles mentions Fomerenko, almost in passing, saying how history was manufactured during the Middle Ages.
    That was a shock when i saw it, I tell you

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: