Controversies Resulting from Fomenko’s New Chronology

Timeline of the controversies:

1981, June 29th – A meeting was held in the Department of History of the AS USSR to condemn Fomenko’s New Chronology. It was held under the chairmanship of academician Julian V. Bromley (1921-1990). Some other important names to mention are correspondent member of the AS USSR Zinaida Vladimirovna Uda’tsova (1918–1987) and the head of the commission tasked with assessing Fomenko’s New Chronology, Elena Sergeevna Golubtsova (1921-1998).

There were several publications based on the responses of this committee which appeared in the academic journal “Voprosy istorii” (Questions of History). Fomenko claims to have tried to publish a rebuttal in the magazine but they refused to publish his response.

1984, April 9th – Another meeting took place, this time in the Institute of History of the USSR (Dmitry Ulianov st. 18). It was presented by a “Scientific Council” affiliated with the Department of History of the AS USSR. Important names here are: Academic secretary of the Department of history of the AS USSR candidate of historical sciences V. V. Volkov (Academic Secretary of the Department of History of the AS USSR), N. D. Lutskov (Academic Secretary of the Scientific Council), and B. A. Rybakov (Director of the Institute of Archeology of the AS USSR). Also V. G. Trukhanovskiy.

1998, April 22nd – “Unfortunately, a record of the recent meeting of the bureau of the historical department of the RAS (April 22, 1998) was not published. That’s why we have no possibility to comment it.”

Negative commentators: V. L. Yanin (1929-2020), Dean of the Historical Faculty of the MSU S. P. Karpov (lifetime?), Sergei Petrovich Novikov (1938-present), Yurii Nikolaevich Efremov (1937-present), Andrei Aleksandrovich Fursenko (1949-present). Also Dmitry Kharitonovich.

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

Fomenko’s bullet-points about the content of the responses:

1 – There are no specialists in chronology. Also, “We don’t know any publications, which would contain scientific, professional critiques of our works on chronology. Such works would be especially valuable for us.”

2 – Their “critics” resort to attacking the reconstruction and suppositions of Fomenko’s New Chronology as opposed to attacking the critical foundations.

3 – The critics of the conventional chronology have brought up good reasons to doubt the authenticity of that conventional chronology. The critics of the New Chronology have yet to validate the conventional chronology of which they use to criticize the New Chronology.

4 – There is a communication barrier between conventional historians and New Chronologists.

5 – Conventional historians claim that the conventional chronology could be restored, but do not make any effort to attempt to restore it.

6 – Lies are told about the New Chronology and its developers.

7 – There is an issue in how the scientific field influences the political and ideological fields.

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

References:

[1] – http://chronologia.org/en/answers_neva.html. Accessed July 17, 2020.

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

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

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

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: