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.

Fomenko noticed that discussions on the topic failed to question whether the dates ascribed to ancient eclipses were accurate or not. Fomenko became familiar with both Morozov’s and Newton’s works and published his own work on such in 1980. He decided that developing new independent dating methods would be required for establishing an accurate model of chronology. A concise summary of some of these methods is as follows;

1 – The method of local maxima.

This method divides a chronicle into pieces and compares sequences for repetition. The principle of correlation of maxima and the statistical model based on it were formulated by this method. Based on the findings, it appears that long chronicles may contain multiple duplicates of shorter chronicles. Where these shorter chronicles were not previously considered to be the same story.

2 – The method of recognition and dating of the rulers dynasties.

This method compares the various ruling dynasties throughout history. The principle of small dynastic distortions was formulated by this method. Based on the findings, it appears that there are dynasties which have long been considered as two or more distinct dynasties are in reality one and the same dynasty.

3 – The method of organizing historical texts in time.

This method studies the distribution of names in historical chronicles. The principle of attenuation of frequencies was formulated by this method. Based on the findings, it appears possible to detect duplicates of chronicles by significant bursts of frequencies of names of characters.

4 – The method of duplicate detection.

This method uses the principle of attenuation of frequencies to discover additional duplicates. The principle of frequency duplication was formulated by this method. Based on the findings, many duplicates were discovered in the Bible.

5 – Method of questionnaires codes.

This method compares royal biographies for repeats. This method has revealed many duplicates within short fragments contained in longer chronicles.

6 – The method of correct chronological ordering and
dating of ancient geographical maps.

This method compares maps against geography. The result is the possibility to establish the order in which maps have been created.

To simplify the above, I have created a concise list to refer to the methods above;

1 – Comparing narrative materials

2 – Comparing ruling classes

3 – Comparing distribution of names

4 – Comparing comparisons (?)

5 – Comparing biographies

6 – Comparing maps

Fomenko then created the Global Chronological Map. He applied the methods to the Scaliger-Petavius version of history. What was discovered was that the historical material of the 17th-20th centuries showed no contradictions. There were also three distinct shifts in chronology discovered. These shifts were around 333, 1053, and 1800 years. It appears that the earliest writing was created around the 10th century.

Between 1973-1980, he printed his first scientific works on this topic. Due to these works, Fomenko headed a group of Moscow State University mathematicians in the use of applied mathematics to review chronology. It became common knowledge that all areas of historical study are dependent on chronology.

Stage 5 – 1980-1990

Stage 5 was set mainly by dating astronomical records. This includes sources such as solar and lunar eclipses, star catalogs, horoscopes, etc. It was discovered that all historical descriptions can fit between the 10th-17th centuries. The first book on the new chronology was published in 1990.

Stage 6 – 1991-present

Stage 6 is being set by further research and publication. While Fomenko and his team were focusing on chronology, writing what may have happened would be left to the historians. The historians however, did not want any part of this. Given the circumstances, Fomenko and his team have taken it upon themselves to not only conduct the research, but author the history of what may have been.

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

References;

(1) – http://chronologia.org

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

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

2 Comments
  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