Ch. 1.1, Vol. 1, History: Fiction or Science?

This article contains my analysis of Fomenko’s History: Fiction or Science?, Volume 1, Chapter 1, Part 1. Chapter 1 is titled “The problems of historical chronology”, and part 1 is titled “Roman chronology as the foundation of European chronology”. This part is relatively short, only containing two paragraphs.

Not all of the sentences from the selected reading are listed as claims. Some were not relevant for this article, which attempts to establish a grade for the core claims of Fomenko’s narrative.

I established 6 fundamental claims from the selected reading.
Supported: 6.
Contradicted: 0.

Final grade: 100%.

Fomenko’s Narrative:

Claim 1 – Chronology “allows for the determination of the time interval between the historical event and the current era”.

Claim 2 – “Nearly all the fundamental historical conclusions depend on the dating of the events
described in the source that is being studied.”

Claim 3 – “An altered or imprecise dating of an event defines its entire interpretation and evaluation”.

Claim 4 – “The current global chronology model has evolved owing to the labour of several generations of chronologists in the XVII-XIX century…”

Claim 5 – “…and has Julian calendar datings ascribed to all the major events of ancient history.”

Claim 6 – “The datings of events referred to in some freshly discovered document are predominantly based on the Roman chronology, since it is considered that “all the other ancient chronological datings can be linked to our calendar via direct or indirect synchronisms with the Roman dates” ([72], page 77).”

Checking the Narrative:

Claim 1:

Claim is supported. Chronology can be considered the study of time, and this does allow us to determine how much time has passed between an event and the present.

Claim 2:

Claim 2 is supported. When a source or evidence is discovered, it is dated to a specific period and then conclusions are formed around that dating.

Claim 3:

Claim 3 is supported. Changing the dates changes the perspective. If it turned out tomorrow that Jesus was really born 1820 years ago instead of 2020 years ago, a massive amount of historical writing would be affected.

Claim 4:

Claim 4 is supported. While this is the sketchiest claim out of the 6, I still consider it supported because the 17th-19th centuries really were the critical centuries in which our modern conception of chronology was developed. The Father of Modern Chronology, Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) published his Thesaurus temporum in 1606, James Ussher (1581-1656) published his Annals of the World in 1650. Dionysius Petavius (1583-1652) published his Opus de Doctrina Temporum in 1627 and his History of the World in 1659. Thomas Hearne (1678-1735) published his Ductor historicus in 1698. John D. Blair (d.1782) published The Chronology and History of the World in 1754. William Hales (1747-1831) published A new analysis of chronology in 1809. Henry Fynes Clinton (1781-1852) published his Fasti Hellenici from 1824-1851 and his Fasti Romani from 1845–1850.

To concisely sort the above information, the fundamental works for global chronology and history were published in 1606, 1627, 1650, 1659, 1698, 1754, 1809, 1824-1851, and 1845-1850.

The two most important works listed above are the one by Scaliger and the two by Petavius. These established the basis for later additions and corrections.

Claim 5:

Claim 5 is supported. Prior to the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, the Julian calendar was most popular. Due to this, when an advanced interest in human history began to develop in the 16th-17th centuries, all major events were assigned Julian dates. Click here to see the 29 Fundamental Points of Chronology (all of which are assigned Julian dates).

For perspective, the Gregorian calendar was introduced into Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and most of France in 1582. The United Kingdom and its colonies, as well as most of the United States and Canada, did not switch from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar until 1752. Furthermore, Russia didn’t make the switch until 1918, Greece until 1923, and Turkey until 1926/1927.

Claim 6:

Claim 6 is supported.

Fomenko cited page 77 of:
#[72], “Bikerman E. “Chronology of the Ancient World”. – Moscow, Nauka, 1975. Translated from the English edition: Bickerman EJ “Chronology of the Ancient World”. – Thames & Hudson, London, (1968), 1969″.

I don’t have access to that specific edition, but I was able to access an English 1980 edition.

Fomenko cited page 77 as saying, “all other chronological datings can be linked to our calendar via direct or indirect synchronisms with the Roman dates”. Fomenko’s claim that world history’s spinal column is based on Roman history is supported by Bickerman’s (expanded) passage:[2, p.82]

“All the other datings of ancient chronology are linked to our reckoning by direct or indirect synchronisms with Roman dates. For instance, the Egyptian chronology is based on the list of Pharaohs, made by Manetho under Ptolemy II. His list contains the reigns of Persian kings, beginning with Cambyses, who ruled in Egypt and who also appears in the Royal Canon. In this way a correspondence with Roman chronology is obtained.”
Bickerman (1980)

Bickerman went on comment about how ancient Indian and Greek history can be dated according to Roman history too. In the next paragraph, he said and provided examples for:

“Where the link to Roman chronology is broken, we grope vainly for certitude.”
Bickerman (1980)

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

References:

[1] – http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N01-EN-001-030.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept. 2020.

[2] – https://archive.org/details/chronologyofanci00bick/page/81/mode/1up?q=roman+dates. Accessed 14 Sept. 2020.

[3] – https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-gregorian-switch.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2020.

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

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

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is a263a37f-6510-4454-b98f-41c166cdcfad.jpg

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

Support Ctruth directly by donating @

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

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: