I took some time to look at the Russian wiki page for Fomenko’s New Chronology today. The first citation of theirs was to new.chronologia.org and the second one was a download in Russian that I was not able to use the page translate feature on. Their third citation was online and it was a transcript of the Bureau of the History Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ meeting that took place on April 22, 1998. I’m aware that there are issues with the page translate feature and so if I make any comments based on poor translation, wrong please let me know.
The focus of the discussion was A.T. Fomenko’s works. Overall it was negative. Different speakers voiced different reasons for why Fomenko’s works were not scientific. I did not find any of the critiques substantial, impressive, or professional.
The first critic, I.N. Danilevsky, pointed out that radiocarbon and dendrochronology are reliable methods for dating but the critic did not address any of Fomenko’s critiques of those methods which had been made at least as early as 1994, some 4 years before the meeting ever took place.[2, p.133-136] Danilevsky ended his comment by saying Fomenko’s New Chronology (FNC) had no scientific value. Did Danilevsky publish an expanded critique somewhere else? I’m interested in reviewing that if so.
Yu. L. Bokarev commented that the “IRI” was planning on publishing criticisms of FNC. Does anyone know if they happened? If so, where can I find those?
V.P. Kozlov threw FNC into the realm of clairvoyant parapsychologists, which I’ve never seen any of that in FNC. It seems to me like a way to falsely equivocate it with something it isn’t to try and make it seem more ridiculous than it really is. Kozlov did go on to mention reading chapters of FNC that dealt with Russian history, specifically he commented on how much FNC got wrong about the Radziwiłł Chronicle.
“…I managed to read first of all the chapters directly related to Russian history. I will dwell only on one of them, dedicated to the Radziwill Chronicle. In this chapter, there is practically not a single reliably and accurately stated fact, except maybe the only one – the fact of the existence of the Radziwill Chronicle itself.”
Kozlov’s above statement is a blatant lie and is the only part of his critique that comes anywhere close to being an attempt to address the content of Fomenko’s books. I examined a section of Fomenko’s works that deal with the Radziwill chronicle: https://ctruth.today/2021/02/16/ch-1-3-1-vol-4-history-fiction-or-science-exam/. Every claim I was able to determine to be supported or contradicted was supported. What did Kozlov read? He did not specify. Why did Kozlov lie? Maybe he can explain.
I think Kozlov goes on to say that FNC itself is a forgery and a means to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Kozlov also mentions that thousands of “errors, strains, etc.” were found in the books. Is the 2000+ list of these things published anywhere? If so, I’m interested in seeing that too.
Kozlov continued his criticism but then did offer three ways to deal with FNC that I thought were good.
“1 – public discussion of all his works;
2 – for this purpose the creation of a joint working group with mathematicians;
3 – organize a public discussion in the presence and with the participation of the ATF itself.”
I would add to step two bringing in experts on C-14 and dendrochronological dating too. I think that would make it more educational all around. A public discussion with Fomenko involved is also something I’d like to see.
G.M. Bongard-Levin echoed an earlier sentiment that FNC harms public consciousness. Aside from that he mainly sided with Kozlov and said that FNC can be handled privately, there’s no need for public handling.
I fully agreed with everything N.A. Makarov said:
“Historical science itself contributed to the advent of ATF. There is a loss of taste among historians for the study of chronology. The radiocarbon method, luminescence method, and calibration are not used sufficiently. There is a great deal of mistrust in scientific dating methods. What is needed is not a noisy discussion, but a program for the study of chronology.”
V. I. Ukolova criticized Fomenko without any specifics (which I don’t support) but did advocate for making advancements in historical and chronological publications (which I do support).
I don’t think D. E. Kharitonovich’s criticism was good because I think it was a strawman. I don’t think a fundamental principle of FNC is that “All history consists of chronicles and only of chronicles”. Please point me to a page number in one of his books if you do know a place where he says this.
In the final closing summary point, this statement was made:
“It is pointless to enter into a direct discussion with ATF, because it is pointless.”
That is textbook circular reasoning (if the translation is accurate). I don’t know if everyone speaking there had already published expanded critiques elsewhere but nothing substantial was said here about Fomenko’s methods and studies. If you know if they did publish those please let me know where to find them.
 – Myths And Reality In History. https://web.archive.org/web/20180207213128/http://hbar.phys.msu.su/gorm/fomenko/protocol.htm. Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.
 – http://chronologia.org/en/kw1.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.
Access exclusive Ctruth content:
Buy Ctruth merch:
Donate to Ctruth directly: