It’s NOT Always Sunny in Ancient Rome

A priceless 2000 year old Roman bust was bought at a Goodwill for $35 and spent about 3 years in the living room of a Texan couple who named it Dennis, after the character from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Laura Young, the woman who purchased it and brought it home, described Dennis and his ancient counterpart as “…cool, …aloof — no emotion — possibly a little sociopathic.”[3] – cue S3E11

Now, this is all very exciting news for the German historic building soon to reobtain a long lost item from its collection, and for those who love to learn about history, but… insert commercial clip elephant

Forgery. It’s a force to be reckoned with in the world of art. Most fakes enter the pool of genuine artefacts without making a splash at all, blending in well enough to avoid suspicion from scholars and laypeople alike.[9, p.494] In one case, a forgery was deemed authentic for about 7 years by experts who closely analyzed it. The thing that finally exposed it was a few weeks of skepticism and further scientific testing.[10], [11]

To my knowledge, Dennis has not been tested scientifically at all. The experts judged it to be 2000 years old based on photographs alone.[3]

The way I see it, there are 4 main options for this bust:

1 – It was forged by 2018.

2 – It was forged by the 1830s.

3 – It’s inauthentic but not forged, meaning that the person who made it had no intention for it to deceive anyone.

4 – It’s authentic.

As of right now, every person that I’ve seen post about Dennis is going with option 4. I haven’t seen anyone else even suggest options 1, 2, or 3.

Forged by 2018

Option 1 is based on the obscure history of the object prior to it surfacing in 2018. Experts are saying that it was stolen from the Pompejanum in 1944 or 1945 during World War 2. This could be that bust, or it could be one attempting to imitate it. There’s only been one piece of evidence put forth to support that it was there prior to the war, and it’s this photo.

I’ve zoomed in on the bust that they say is Dennis and I’ve placed a recent picture of it next to it.

There do appear to be some differences in the facial structure but the older image is too blurry to say for certain. The main problem is that the angles of the two photos don’t match. A solution to this problem would be to take a new picture from the same angle as the old one to make for a better comparison. I have many questions about this. One is: are there other pre-war photos or images of the same bust?

Some others are:

1 – How common of knowledge is it that this specific bust has been missing?

2 – How long was it after the war that anybody noticed it was gone?

Moving on to Option 2, let’s grant that the bust we have today is the one that is in the photo.

Forged by the 1830’s

The only other piece of evidence used for its provenance is King Ludwig I of Bavaria’s 1833 inventory list. Here’s a picture of it:

Entry 201 is named “DRUSUS”. It states it’s a head made of white marble and it gives a height of 1 foot and 7 inches. An English translation of the German text “Bruder des Kaisers Tiberius, mit dem er Aehnlichkeit hat” is “Brother of Emperor Tiberius, with whom he bears a resemblance”.

Is this item included in other catalogues? Is it even the same object as the one bought from Goodwill? One thing that stuck out to me is that Entry 201 is labeled as a “head” while Entry 202 is labeled as a “bust”. Is there a notable difference between the two?

To move this along, let’s grant that Entry 201 is the object we have today. It could still be a forgery, but the latest it could have been made would be just before the king acquired it.

The king became heavily involved in collecting arts and antiquities during his reign in the early 1800s, when he acquired the bust (before 1833 but after 1804).[8] This was a time when a steep rise of interest in collecting antiquities was sweeping all across Europe. This craze gave way to a similarly massive increase in forgeries. So many in fact that the 1800s have been called “the great age of faking”.[7, p.161]

Don’t let the name fool you into thinking that forgery wasn’t prevalent prior to this time because it was. In the 19th century, forging Roman busts was a practice already hundreds of years in the making. Italians in the 1500’s forged on a scale that might shock, and among their forgeries, busts of Roman emperors were the most popular.[6, p.79]

All this is to say that there is reason to be skeptical of new historical finds that have not been scientifically tested, this includes especially of Dennis.

To say it one last time, the expert consensus is that this is a Roman bust dating back to around 2000 years old. It’s on display now in the San Antonio Museum of Art and is scheduled to return to Germany next year in 2023.

So, is Dennis an authentic ancient Roman bust, or is he a fake from a more recent age? Tell me what you think in the comments.

Like, subscribe, and check out my video on the history of forgery.

Advertisements
Advertisements

References:

[1] – Fanning, Timothy. “Texas woman made an unusual find at Goodwill. It turned out to be a Julio-Claudian-era Roman bust.” (San Antonio Express-News, 4 May 2022). https://www.expressnews.com/lifestyle/article/roman-bust-texas-goodwill-san-antonio-museum-17147409.php. Accessed 25 May 2022.

[2] – Grant, Daniel. “Looted Roman bust, bought from Texas secondhand store for $34.99, will be returned to Germany” (The Art Newspaper, 4 May 2022). https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/05/04/roman-bust-germany-goodwill-store-texas-restitution. Accessed 25 May 2022.

[3] – Edwards, Jonathan. “Shopper pays $34.99 at Goodwill for a priceless ancient Roman bust” (The Washington Post, 10 May 2022). https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/10/roman-marble-bust-goodwill/. Accessed 25 May 2022.

[4] – Philipps, Hannah J. “Ancient Roman treasure found at Goodwill now on display at Texas museum” (CultureMap Fort Worth, 16 May 2022). https://fortworth.culturemap.com/news/travel/05-16-22-ancient-roman-bust-found-at-goodwill-texas-museum/#slide=0. Accessed 25 May 2022.

[5] – Sorensen, Stephen. “Over 30 Years of Forgery Exposed: Man Charged With Forging Antiquities By The Thousands” (Ctruth, 3 Sept. 2021). https://ctruth.today/2021/09/03/over-30-years-of-forgery-exposed-man-charged-with-forging-antiquities-by-the-thousands/. Accessed 25 May 2022.

[6] – KURZ, OTTO. “EARLY ART FORGERIES: FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, vol. 121, no. 5198, 1973, pp. 74–90. JSTORwww.jstor.org/stable/41371017. Accessed 19 May 2021.

[7] – Jones, Mark, et al. Fake? The Art of Deception. First Edition, University of California Press, 1990.

[8] – Amineddoleh & Associates LLC. “Our Client’s Voluntary Return of Marble Bust to Germany Provides Model for Restitution of Looted Artifacts” (2 May 2022). https://www.artandiplawfirm.com/voluntary-return-of-marble-bust-to-germany-provides-model-for-restitution-of-artifacts-looted-in-wartime/. Accessed 25 May 2022.

[9] – Roussin, L. A., & Muscarella, O. W. (2002). The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient near Eastern Cultures. Journal of Field Archaeology, 29(3/4), 494. doi:10.2307/3250912. Accessed 25 May 2022.

[10] – Wilding, Nick. Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 4, 2014, pp. 1337–40. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/679809. Accessed 26 May 2022.

[11] – WILDING, NICK. “Forging the Moon.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 160, no. 1, 2016, pp. 37–72. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26159243. Accessed 27 May 2022.

[12] – Miller, Joshua Rhett. “Antiques dealer bought priceless 2,000-year-old Roman bust at thrift store for $35” (New York Post, 5 May 2022). https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/antiques-dealer-bought-priceless-2000-year-old-roman-bust-at-thrift-store-for-35/. Accessed 26 May 2022.

How You Decide What’s True

We are bombarded daily with tons of information from a variety of sources. Naturally, we make quick decisions about what’s true, false, or unknowable. Psychologists have been working hard to figure out what methods we typically use to sort this info and I’m here to let you know what they’ve come up with.

Their findings boil down to what is now being called the “Big Five of Truth Judgement”.[1, p.75] These “Big Five” are the checkpoints we stop at to judge whether a claim is true or false. To name them all quickly, they are:

1 – Compatibility

2 – Coherence

3 – Credibility

4 – Consensus

5 – Evidence

The Scam

I’m going to use a story from my own life to illustrate how these five categories help us decide what’s true and what’s false. A few years ago, in 2018 or 2019, my grandfather was the target of an elaborate scam call.

The caller was somebody pretending to be me. They had a story about how I went to New Jersey for a friend’s wedding, got completely wasted, arrested, jailed, and now I needed $5,000 for bail. The reason given for contacting my grandfather was that I was too embarrassed by the whole situation to contact my dad about it.

It’s unclear just how much of the story my grandfather believed. He wasn’t shaken up by it enough to send any money, but he did call my dad to see if he was “aware of the situation”. Red flags went up immediately for my dad when he heard what was going on. He called the scammers back and was told the same story. When he asked about my height and my eye color, the scammers gave up and dropped the call. After that, he called me and we quickly recognized what was going on.

All of the “big five” can be seen in action here.

The initial story was compatible with my grandfather’s understanding of the world. He said that the first caller sounded like me and called him by his usual nickname. These two elements added credibility to the caller. The story was coherent. There were no internal contradictions. The tale began to fall apart when consensus was brought in. It was less compatible with my dad’s understanding of the world. He tested the credibility of the callers and checked in on me to gather evidence and expand the consensus.

All of these moving parts came together to create an example of how the Big Five can save a person from getting scammed. But that’s not all they can do for you. These five checkpoints can help you understand why you believe what you believe, as well as why other people believe what they believe.

Fundamentally, we decide what’s true based on the amount of green and red flags we get when evaluating information. Info that produces a string of green flags is more likely to be accepted as true than info that produces a string of red flags.

So how do we decide what’s true? Typically it’s by running information through one or more of the Big Five checkpoints.

Questions

Here’s a table showing the Big Five with questions that can be asked when evaluating each point:[1, p.74]

The Origins of the Big Five

To my understanding, the “Big Five” concept was originally proposed in 2014 by Professor Norbert Schwarz.[2]

References:

[1] – Greifeneder, Rainer, et al. The Psychology of Fake News: Accepting, Sharing, and Correcting Misinformation. 1st ed., Routledge, 2021. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9780429295379/psychology-fake-news-rainer-greifeneder-mariela-jaff%C3%A9-eryn-newman-norbert-schwarz. Accessed 13 May 2022.

[2] – Sorensen, Stephen. The “Big Five” of Truth Assessment (Ctruth, 8 Apr. 2022). https://ctruth.today/2022/04/08/the-big-five-of-truth-assessment/. Accessed 16 May 2022.

Topical Calendar Bibliography

This bibliography contains books organized by topics.

Asia

Eade, J. C. The Calendrical Systems of Mainland South-East Asia. Leiden, The Netherlands, Brill Academic Publishers, 1995.

Henning, Edward. Kalacakra and the Tibetan Calendar (Treasury of the Buddhist Sciences). New York, American Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2007.

Hoskins, Janet. The Play of Time: Kodi Perspectives on Calendars, History, and Exchange. Revised, University of California Press, 1997.

Martzloff, Jean-Claude. Astronomy and Calendars – The Other Chinese Mathematics. New York, United States, Springer Publishing, 2016.

Americas

Dowd, Anne, and Susan Milbrath. Cosmology, Calendars, and Horizon-Based Astronomy in Ancient Mesoamerica. 1st ed., University Press of Colorado, 2015.

Freidel, David, et al. Maya E Groups: Calendars, Astronomy, and Urbanism in the Early Lowlands (Maya Studies). 1st ed., Gainesville, Florida, University Press of Florida, 2017.

Greene, Candace. One Hundred Summers: A Kiowa Calendar Record. Illustrated, China, University of Nebraska Press, 2009.

Malmström, Vincent. Cycles of the Sun, Mysteries of the Moon: The Calendar in Mesoamerican Civilization. Illustrated, University of Texas Press, 1997.

Milbrath, Susan. Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars (The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies). 1st ed., Austin, Texas, University of Texas Press, 1999.

Pharo, Kirkhusmo Lars. The Ritual Practice of Time: Philosophy and Sociopolitics of Mesoamerican Calendars (Early Americas: History and Culture). Brill, 2014.

Rice, Prudence. Maya Calendar Origins: Monuments, Mythistory, and the Materialization of Time (The William and Bettye Nowlin Series in Art, History, and Culture of the Western Hemisphere). Illustrated, University of Texas Press, 2007.

Weeks, John, et al. Maya Daykeeping: Three Calendars from Highland Guatemala (Mesoamerican Worlds). Illustrated, Boulder, Colorado, University Press of Colorado, 2009.

Ancient

Bickerman, E. J. Chronology of the Ancient World. Ithica, New York, Cornell University Press, 1968.

Croinin, Daibhi, et al. Late Antique Calendrical Thought and Its Reception in the Early Middle Ages. Turnhour, Belgium, Brepols, 2017.

Hannah, Robert. Time in Antiquity (Sciences of Antiquity). 1st ed., Routledge, 2009.

Plunket, M. Emmeline. Ancient Calendars and Constellations. London, John Murray, 1903.

Rosen, Ralph. Time and Temporality in the Ancient World. Illustrated, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2004.

Stern, Sacha. Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies. 1st ed., Oxford University Press, 2012.

Christian

Nothaft, Philipp. Dating the Passion: The Life of Jesus and the Emergence of Scientific Chronology (200–1600) (Time, Astronomy, and Calendars). Brill, 2011.

Egypt

Bagnall, Roger Shaler, and Klaas Anthony Worp. Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt: Second Edition. Brill, 2004.

Barak, On. On Time: Technology and Temporality in Modern Egypt. First, University of California Press, 2013.

Clagett, Marshall. Ancient Egyptian Science: A Source Book. Volume Two: Calendars, Clocks, and Astronomy. Illustrated, Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society, 2004.

Parker, Richard. The Calendars of Ancient Egypt. The University of Chicago Press, 1950.

Europe

Grafton, Anthony. Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship. Volume I: Textual Criticism and Exegesis (Oxford-Warburg Studies). 1st ed., Clarendon Press, 1983.

Grafton, Anthony. Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship. Volume II: Historical Chronology (Oxford-Warburg Studies). 1st ed., Clarendon Press, 1994.

Mondschein, Kenneth. On Time: A History of Western Timekeeping. Illustrated, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2020.

Nothaft, Philipp. Scandalous Error: Calendar Reform and Calendrical Astronomy in Medieval Europe. Illustrated, Oxford University Press, 2018.

England

Jensen, Phebe. Astrology, Almanacs, and the Early Modern English Calendar. 1st ed., Routledge, 2020.

Karasawa, Kazutomo. The Old English Metrical Calendar (Menologium). Cambridge, D.S. Brewer, 2015.

France

Champion, Matthew, et al. Peter de Rivo on Chronology and the Calendar (Ancient and Medieval Philosophy–Series 1, 57). Leuven University Press, 2020.

Perovic, Sanja. The Calendar in Revolutionary France: Perceptions of Time in Literature, Culture, Politics. Reprint, Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Shaw, Matthew. Time and the French Revolution: The Republican Calendar, 1789-Year XIV (Royal Historical Society Studies in History New Series). Great Britain, Royal Historical Society, 2011.

General

Aveni, Anthony. Empires of Time: Calendars, Clocks, and Cultures. 1st ed., Basic Books, 1989.

Bellenir, Karen. Religious Holidays and Calendars. Detroit, Michigan, Omnigraphics, 2004.

Ben-Dov, Jonathan, et al. Living the Lunar Calendar. Oxbow Books, 2012.

Evers, Liz. It’s About Time: From Calendars and Clocks to Moon Cycles and Light Years – A History. Michael O’Mara, 2013.

Galison, Peter. Einstein’s Clocks and Poincare’s Maps: Empires of Time. Illustrated, W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.

Gould, Stephen Jay. Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time. Harvard University Press, 1987.

Formichelli, Linda, and Eric Martin. Tools of Timekeeping: A Kid’s Guide to the History & Science of Telling Time (Tools of Discovery Series). Nomad Press, 2005.

Higginbotham, Charles. Precision Time Measures, Their Construction and Repair: A Manual of the Theory and Mechanical Laws Governing the Construction of Timekeeping Machines and Accepted Methods of Their Maintenance and Repairs. Chicago, Hazlitt & Walker, Publishers, 1913.

Macdonald, James Cecil. Chronologies and Calendars. London, William & Andrews Co., 1897.

Nilsson, Martin. Primitive Time-Reckoning; A Study in the Origins and First Development of the Art of Counting Time Among the Primitive and Early Culture Peoples. Lund, C.W.K. Gleerup, 1920.

Reingold, Edward, and Nachum Dershowitz. Calendrical Calculations: The Ultimate Edition. 4th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Richards, E. Mapping Time: The Calendar and its History. 1st ed., Oxford University Press, 1999.

Rooney, David. About Time: A History of Civilization in Twelve Clocks. W. W. Norton & Company, 2021.

Rosenberg, Daniel, and Anthony Grafton. Cartographies of Time. New York, Netherlands, Princeton Architectural Press, 2010.

Stern, Sacha. Calendars in the Making: The Origins of Calendars from the Roman Empire to the Later Middle Ages. Brill, 2021.

Steel, Duncan. Eclipse: The Celestial Phenomenon That Changed the Course of History. 1st ed., Joseph Henry Press, 2001.

Steele, John. Calendars and Years II: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient and Medieval World. Illustrated, Oxbow Books, 2011.

Toulmin, Stephen, and June Goodfield. The Discovery of Time. New edition, University of Chicago Press, 1982.

Whitrow, G. Time in History: Views of Time from Prehistory to the Present Day. Barnes & Noble Books, 2004.

Wigen, Kären, and Caroline Winterer. Time in Maps: From the Age of Discovery to Our Digital Era. First, University of Chicago Press, 2020.

Greek & Roman

Hannah, Robert. Greek and Roman Calendars: Constructions of Time in the Classical World. Illustrated, Bloomsbury, 2005.

Meritt, Benjamin. Athenian Year. First Edition, University of California Press, 1961.

Mikalson, N. The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year. Princeton, New Jersey, Netherlands, Princeton University Press, 1975.

Pasco-Pranger, Molly. Founding the Year: Ovid’s Fasti and the Poetics of the Roman Calendar (Mnemosyne, Supplements). Brill, 2006.

Planeaux, Christopher. The Athenian Year Primer: Attic Time-Reckoning and the Julian Calendar. Westphalia Press, 2021.

Pritchett, William Kendrick. Athenian Calendars and Ekklesias. Amsterdam, J.C. Gieben, 2001.

Rand, Christopher. Grecian Calendar. Oxford University Press, 1962.

Rüpke, Jörg, and Richardson. The Roman Calendar from Numa to Constantine. Hoboken, NJ, United States, Wiley, 2011.

Salzman, Michele Renee. On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity (Volume 17) (Transformation of the Classical Heritage). First, University of California Press, 1990.

Samuel, Alan. Greek and Roman Chronology: Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity. 1972.

Turfa, Jean MacIntosh. Divining the Etruscan World: The Brontoscopic Calendar and Religious Practice. 1st ed., Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Islamic

Blake, Stephen. Time in Early Modern Islam: Calendar, Ceremony, and Chronology in the Safavid, Mughal and Ottoman Empires. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

King, David. In Synchrony with the Heavens, Volume 1 Call of the Muezzin: (Studies I-IX) (Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science. Texts and Studies). Brill, 2004.

King, David. In Synchrony with the Heavens, Volume 2 Instruments of Mass Calculation (2 Vols.): (Studies X-XVIII) (Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science. Texts and Studies). Brill, 2005.

Medieval

Henisch, Bridget Ann. The Medieval Calendar Year. 1st ed., Penn State University Press, 1999.

Near (Middle) East

Cohen, Mark. Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Amsterdam, Netherlands, Amsterdam University Press, 1993.

Cohen, Mark. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Capital Decisions, 1993.

Fleming, Daniel. Time at Emar: The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive (Mesopotamian Civilizations). 1st ed., Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 2000.

Miller, Kassandra. Down to the Hour: Short Time in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near East (Time, Astronomy, and Calendars: Texts and Studies, 8). Illustrated, BRILL, 2019.

Shibata, Daisuke, and Shigeo Yamada. Calendars and Festivals in Mesopotamia in the Third and Second Millennia BC (Studia Chaburensia). Harrassowitz, 2021.

Other

McLean, Adam. The Magical Calendar: A Synthesis of Magial Symbolism from the Seventeenth-Century Renaissance of Medieval Occultism (Magnum Opus Hermetic Sourceworks Series). 1st ed., Phanes Press, 2008.

Semitic

Babcok, Bryan. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446 (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement). 1st ed., Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 2014.

Beckwith, Roger. Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 33.). Brill, 2001.

Finegan, Jack. The Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible. Revised, Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998.

Jacobus, Helen. Zodiac Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Their Reception. Brill, 2014.

Nothaft, Philipp. Medieval Latin Christian Texts on the Jewish Calendar: A Study with Five Editions and Translations. Illustrated, Brill, 2014.

Parry, Donald, and Emanuel Tov. Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Part 4, Calendrical and Sapiential Texts. Brill Academic Publishers, 2004.

Saulnier, Stéphane. Calendrical Variations in Second Temple Judaism. Leiden, The Netherlands, Brill, 2012.

Stern, Sacha. Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, 2nd Century BCE to 10th Century CE. 1st ed., Clarendon Press, 2001.

Stern, Sacha. The Jewish Calendar Controversy of 921/2 CE. Brill, 2019.

Stern, Sacha. Time and Process in Ancient Judaism. Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2003.

Stern, Sacha, and Charles Burnett. Time, Astronomy, and Calendars in the Jewish Tradition. 1st ed., Brill, 2014.

VanderKam, James. Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls). New York, New York, Routledge, 1998.

Wagenaar, Jan. Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar (Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Fur Altorientalische Und Biblische). 1., Aufl. ed., Harrassowitz, 2006.

A Temporally Organized Bibliography of Forgery

This bibliography was taken from A Bibliography of Forgery as it was in April 2022.

General

General

Abramson, Julia. Learning From Lying: Paradoxes Of The Literary Mystification. 2nd ed., UNKNO, 2005.

Boese, Alex. Hippo Eats Dwarf. 1st ed., New York-United States, United States, Macmillan Publishers, 2009.

Havens, Earle [ed.], Fakes, Lies and Forgeries: Rare Books and Manuscripts from the Arthur and Janet Freeman Bibliotheca Fictiva Collection, Baltimore: The Sheridan Libraries, Johns Hopkins University, 2016.

Hector, L. C. Palaeography and Forgery. London: St. Anthony’s Press, 1959.

Miller, Christopher. Impostors: Literary Hoaxes and Cultural Authenticity. First, University of Chicago Press, 2018.

Ruthven, K. Faking Literature. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Histories

Caterson, Simon. Hoax!: A Short History of Fakes, Frauds and Imposters. Hardie Grant Books, 2006.

Chambers, Edmund Kerchever. The History and Motives of Literary Forgeries. Blackwell, 1891.

Katsoulis, Melissa. Literary Hoaxes: An Eye-Opening History of Famous Frauds. Reprint, Skyhorse, 2015.

Katsoulis, Melissa. Telling Tales: A History of Literary Hoaxes. Constable, 2013.

Nobili, Riccardo. The Gentle Art of Faking: A History of the Methods of Producing Imitations & Spurious Works of Art from the Earlies Times Up to the Present Day. Academic Service, 1922.

Ancient (before c.500 CE)

Cueva, Edmund, and Javier Martínez. Splendide Mendax: Rethinking Fakes and Forgeries in Classical, Late Antique, and Early Christian Literature. Barkhuis, 2016.

Ehrman, Bart. Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. 1st ed., Oxford University Press, 2012.

Guzmán, Antonio, and Javier Martínez, editors. Animo Decipiendi?: Rethinking Fakes and Authorship in Classical, Late Antique, & Early Christian Works. Barkhuis, 2018, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvggx27t. Accessed 12 Apr. 2022.

Higbie, Carolyn. Collectors, Scholars, and Forgers in the Ancient World: Object Lessons. 1st ed., OUP Oxford, 2017.

Lennartz, Klaus, and Javier Martínez, editors. Tenue Est Mendacium: Rethinking Fakes and Authorship in Classical, Late Antique, & Early Christian Works. Barkhuis, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv29j3dpf. Accessed 12 Apr. 2022.

Martínez, Javier. Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature. Brill, 2014.

Mheallaigh, Ní Karen. Reading Fiction with Lucian: Fakes, Freaks and Hyperreality (Greek Culture in the Roman World). 1st ed., Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Peirano, Irene. The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake: Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Peters, Ken. Counterfeit Coins of Roman Britain. Envoy Publicity, 2011.

Rebillard, Éric. The Early Martyr Narratives: Neither Authentic Accounts nor Forgeries (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion). University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020.

Ancient to Early Modern

Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich, et al. Pseudo-Galenica: The Formation of the Galenic Corpus from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Volume 34) (Warburg Institute Colloquia). New edition, University of London Press, 2021.

Freeman, Arthur, and Janet Freeman. Hoax, Fake, and Fraud: Literary Forgery from Ctesias to Wise. Arthur Freeman Rare Books and Manuscripts, 2013.

Gielen, Erika, and Jan Papy. Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Brepols, 2020.

Grafton, Anthony, and Ann Blair. Forgers and Critics, New Edition: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship. New, Princeton University Press, 2019.

Ancient to Modern

Arnau, Frank, and Maxwell Brownjohn. The Art of the Faker: Three Thousand Years of Deception. Little, Brown and Co., 1961.

Casement, William. The Many Faces of Art Forgery: From the Dark Side to Shades of Gray. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2022.

Farrer, James Anson. Literary Forgeries. New York, 1907.

Freeman, Arthur, Bibliotheca Fictiva: A Collection of Books & Manuscripts Relating to Literary Forgery, 400BC – AD 2000, London: Bernard Quaritch Limited, 2014

Friedrich, Michael, and Cécile Michel. Fakes and Forgeries of Written Artefacts from Ancient Mesopotamia to Modern China (Studies in Manuscript Cultures). De Gruyter, 2020.

Ostrowski, Donald. Who Wrote That?: Authorship Controversies from Moses to Sholokhov. Northern Illinois University Press, 2020.

Medieval (c.500-c.1500)

Hiatt, Alfred. The Counterfeit Text: Falsification in Medieval History and Literature. 1994.

Medieval to Early Modern (c.500-c.1800)

McNicholas, Mark. Forgery and Impersonation in Imperial China. Amsterdam-Netherlands, Netherlands, Amsterdam University Press, 2016.

C6th

Kharlamov, Vladimir. The Authorship of the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus: A Deliberate Forgery or Clever Literary Ploy? 1st ed., Routledge, 2019.

C10th

Roach, Levi. Forgery and Memory at the End of the First Millennium. Princeton University Press, 2021.

C15th

Hiatt, Alfred. The Making of Medieval Forgeries: False Documents in Fifteenth-Century England (British Library Studies in Medieval Culture). Revised ed., University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2004.

Early Modern (c.1500-c.1800)

Olds, Katrina. Forging the Past: Invented Histories in Counter-Reformation Spain. Yale University Press, 2015.

Russett, Margaret. Fictions and Fakes: Forging Romantic Authenticity, 1760–1845 (Cambridge Studies in Romanticism, Series Number 64). Illustrated, Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Stephens, Walter, et al. Literary Forgery in Early Modern Europe, 1450–1800. Illustrated, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019.

Whitehead, John. This Solemn Mockery the Art of Literary Forgery. 1St Edition, Arlington Book Company, 1973.

Wood, Christopher. Forgery, Replica, Fiction: Temporalities of German Renaissance Art. University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Early Modern to Modern (c.1500-present)

Becker, Daniel, et al., editors. Faking, Forging, Counterfeiting: Discredited Practices at the Margins of Mimesis. Transcript Verlag, 2018. JSTORwww.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1wxr9t. Accessed 24 June 2021.

Haywood, Ian. Faking It : Art and the Politics of Forgery. New York: St. Martins Press, 1987.

Landon, Richard. Literary Forgeries and Mystifications : An Exhibition at the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, 17 June to 29 August, 2003. First Edition, Montreal, PQ, Canada: National Film Board of Canada/Office National du Film du Canada, 2003.

Myers, Robin, and Michael Harris. Fakes and Frauds: Varieties of Deception in Print and Manuscript (Publishing Pathways Series). Reprint, Oak Knoll Pr, 1996.

Rosenblum, Joseph. Practice to Deceive: The Amazing Stories of Literary Forgery’s Most Notorious Practitioners. New Castle: Oak Knoll Press, 2000.

C16-C17th

Garcia-Arenal Rodriquez, Mercedes. The Orient in Spain: Converted Muslims, the Forged Lead Books of Granada, and the Rise of Orientalism (Numen Books: Studies in the History of Religions). Illustrated, BRILL, 2013.

C17th

Rowland, Ingrid. The Scarith of Scornello: A Tale of Renaissance Forgery. 1st ed., University of Chicago Press, 2004.

C17th-C18th

Loveman, Kate. Reading Fictions, 1660–1740: Deception in English Literary and Political Culture. 1st ed., Routledge, 2018.

C18th

Baines, Paul. The House of Forgery in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Routledge Revivals). 1st ed., Routledge, 2021.

Macpherson/Ossian

Curley, Thomas. Samuel Johnson, the Ossian Fraud, and the Celtic Revival in Great Britain and Ireland. Illustrated, Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Gaskill, Howard, and Elinor Shaffer. The Reception of Ossian in Europe (The Reception of British and Irish Authors in Europe). 1st ed., Continuum, 2008.

Moore, Dafydd. International Companion to James Macpherson and The Poems of Ossian (International Companions to Scottish Literature). Scottish Literature International, 2017.

Modern (c.1800-present)

Groom, Nick. The Forger’s Shadow : How Forgery Changed the Course of Literature. Picador, 2003.

C19th

Bak, János, et al. Manufacturing a Past for the Present: Forgery and Authenticity in Medievalist Texts and Objects in Nineteenth-Century Europe (National Cultivation of Culture). Brill, 2014.

Bordier, Henri Leonard, et al. The Prince of Forgers. First Edition, Oak Knoll Pr, 1998.

Briefel, Aviva. The Deceivers: Art Forgery and Identity in the Nineteeth Century. 1st ed., Cornell University Press, 2006.

Carpenter, Scott. Aesthetics of Fraudulence in Nineteenth-Century France: Frauds, Hoaxes, and Counterfeits. 1st ed., Routledge, 2019.

Freeman, Arthur, and Janet Freeman. John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century. Annotated, Yale University Press, 2004.

Malton, Sara. Forgery in Nineteenth-Century Literature and Culture: Fictions of Finance from Dickens to Wilde. 1st ed. 2009, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Madden, Richard Robert. Exposure of Literary Frauds and Forgeries Concocted in Ireland. J.F. Fowler, 1866.

C19th & C20th

Constantine, Mary-Ann. The Truth Against the World: Iolo Morganwg and Romantic Forgery (Iolo Morganwg and the Romantic Tradition). University of Wales Press, 2007.

Löffler, Marion. The Literary and Historical Legacy of Iolo Morganwg, 1826–1926 (Iolo Morganwg and the Romantic Tradition). University of Wales Press, 2008.

C20th

Abbott, Craig. Forging Fame: The Strange Career of Scharmel Iris. Northern Illinois University Press, 2007.

Berger, Sid. The Anatomy of a Literary Hoax. First Edition, Oak Knoll Pr, 1994.

Heidenreich, Rosmarin. Literary Impostors: Canadian Autofiction of the Early Twentieth Century. 3rd ed., McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2018.

C20th & C21st

Israel, Lee. Can You Ever Forgive Me?: Memoirs of a Literary Forger. Media Tie-In, Simon and Schuster, 2018.

Vice, Sue. Textual Deceptions: False Memoirs and Literary Hoaxes in the Contemporary Era. 1st ed., Edinburgh University Press, 2014.

Uncertain

Aldington, Richard. Frauds. First Edition, Heinemann, 1957.

Altick, Richard. Scholar Adventurers. The Macmillan Company, 1950.

Barker, Nicolas, et al. Forgery of Printed Documents. Amsterdam University Press, 2016.

Red Light, Green Light: Fomenko’s New Chronology

Fomenko’s New Chronology is an argument that human civilization dawned around 1200 years ago and all of recorded history falls between that point and now. If true, this would mean that all of recorded human history stretches back only about 1200 years. Is it true though? I don’t attempt to answer that here, but I do in my Examining Fomenko’s New Chronology articles. What I do address here are the green and red lights that popped up over the years as I looked through New Chronology media.

The green lights represent things that are ok, things that I think have merit. They say “This checks out, pass go and collect $200”. The red lights represent things that are questionable or problematic. They say “straight to jail”. With green meaning “go”, red meaning “stop”, I present to you 4 of each. Here’s a brief overview of what I’ll be covering:

Green Lights

1 – History & Interpretation

2 – Big Fake History

3 – Dating Method Issues

4 – Accessibility

Red Lights

1 – Methodology

2 – Published Information

3 – Unpublished Information

4 – Publications

Green Lights

1 – History & Interpretation

False information has been found in historical records for centuries. Stories that can not possibly conform to reality are common amongst the writings of some of history’s most important historians. Mistakes and distortions happen intentionally and unintentionally. Some collections of manuscripts are riddled with errors to the point of being nearly useless. Other records duplicate and triplicate people and events, thereby artificially extending human history.

Aside from errors popping up in the texts themselves, there is also the problem of interpretation. There can be many contradictory interpretations of a single work. This problem of interpretation is covered academically, among other works, in Umberto Eco’s Limits of Interpretation. This problem is also the comedic fuel for Key & Peele’s Text Message Confusion skit. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo).

Eusebius

According to Paul Maier, a former Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, Eusebius is “our principal primary source for earliest Christianity, and his Church History is the cornerstone chronicle on which later historians would build”.[1, p.9] Despite this esteemed position, the surviving manuscripts of his rarely have the “correct” dates and are virtually useless for chronology building.[2, p.88]

Grant (1995)

Even if the errors were results of the copyists, this doesn’t account for errors made intentionally or unintentionally by the original author. Michael Grant illuminated a collection of these types of errors in his 1995 publication “Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation”. Reportedly, the C5th BCE Greek historian Hellanicus had taken an event that occurred under one archonship and spread it over three.[3, p.32] In doing so, he tripled the amount of time in which a single event took place.

Livy

The famous Roman historian Livy appears to have had a similar habit. He duplicated events and people. One commentator presumes it was a result of not recognizing that the story he was copying was listed in multiple spots in his source. By not recognizing repetition of the story, he duplicated it into multiple different stories, sometimes being separated by a few years, other times by centuries.[3, p.36]

Fomenko

These are just a couple examples among many. I mention them here because they are not all that different from what Fomenko is arguing. He argues that the European histories are based on a forgotten original.[4, p.10] Over the past 400 years or so this original was distorted, historical figures and events were fractured into phantom duplicates. In this fashion, Fomenko argues that some 800 years between the C9th and C17th were stretched into about 5600 years (4000 BCE to 1650ish CE). This latter period is 7 times longer than Fomenko’s proposed timeline.

For Fomenko’s New Chronology to be possible, distortions in and misinterpretations of historical records would have to exist. They do exist, so this was a green light for me to keep reading.

2 – Big Fake History

It’s possible that a gigantic sum of fictional tales have commonly been passing for history. In other words, it’s possible that large portions of “history” are fake.

“Riddled with the inconsistency of compelling yet conflicting preconceptions …
all ‘olden times’ are potentially fraudulent.”
David Lowenthal (1990)[5, p.17]

David has been credited with making heritage studies into an academic discipline. He was a scholar and he made the above statement in the introduction to Mark Jones’ “Fake? The Art of Deception”. There are three main supporting arguments that leave this potentiality open.

Fictions

The ease with which fiction is created is the first main support. It does not take much time at all to create fictional characters, places, and events. Back in January 2020 I analyzed a handful of popular fictional shows from the past century to see how many fictional characters were created for them. Out of the 30 shows/franchises that I looked at, I tallied up around 37,500 characters. This is a huge amount of fiction that far outweighs almost any collection of historical records. It’s also only a small fraction of the total amount of fiction created over the past 100 years. The fact that fiction can be made so easily leaves the possibility that large portions of history are entirely fabricated.

Late Copies

Another issue is the gap of time between the writing of an alleged original and its copy/copies. The majority of the copies we have today attributed to ancient authors were made hundreds if not thousands of years after the authors wrote them. This case of “copies from hundreds of years or more after supposed first writing” is the norm for Western[6] and (from what I can tell) Eastern historians. The issue here is that we do not have contemporary evidence to say what the text looked like originally, or if there even was an original text.

Forgeries

The late copies problem is intensified by what has been learned through forgery scholarship, the academic study of forgery and its history. What has been noted is that forgery has been constant throughout all of history, giving way to a panoply of forgers. Some forged the works of others from their times, some forged works predating them by decades, centuries, or even millennia. This was especially the case in medieval times. These craftspeople reportedly forged nearly everything imaginable. As Otto Kurz noted back in 1973;

“…medieval people … forged to an extent unsurpassed by any other age relics, legends, charters, chronicles, seals, precious stones, etc.”[7, p.77]

The majority of the earliest surviving “copies” of the ancient texts are believed to have been written around the turn of the second millennium (c.1000). This is also the time when virtually every literary institution across Europe had engaged in copying old scripts and forging documents. Interpolations, redraftings, and “improvements” were being made to older literature. Religious houses were forging their forgotten and absent histories. English archives were being forged en masse. The French were forging legal documents.[8] All this is to say that forgery has consistently been an issue throughout the centuries. The possibility of a large part of history being intentionally fabricated has not been scientifically or academically ruled out.

Fomenko

While Fomenko thinks most historical records are not forgeries, he does believe an interpretation of them was forged in the 1600-1700s. Fomenko has stated;

“I cannot at all agree with the hypothesis of Morozov, according to which most literary works of antiquity are fabrications of the Apocrypha of the Renaissance, which would mean that what we know today as ancient history is actually the result of premeditated falsification. … My standpoint is different, namely that, due to the results of the application of the new dating methods, almost all surviving ancient documents (of antiquity or the Middle Ages) are authentic and written for the purpose of perpetuating real events rather than leading future historians astray.”[4, p.196]

On the homepage of his website, in the section titled “FROM THE AUTHORS”, he states;

“Our analyses of the chronology and history opened a striking circumstance. Based on the applied by us mathematical methods it was proved, that the Scaligerian chronology, and therefore also the Scaligerian history of the “antiquity” and the Middle Ages, is totally wrong. Moreover, it appeared that our history right up to the end of the XVI century was consciously falsified at the epoch of the XVII-XVIII centuries.”[9]

The light is green for the first part because large swathes of history could be fake. It turns to yellow when he asserts that a massive forgery occurred in the 1600-1700s that has drastically warped the our general view of human history. Forgery was prevalent in those centuries so I think it’s a possibility that such a deception could have been created but ultimately his evidence would need to support his claims and I’m not sure it does (hence the red lights).

In summary; large portions of history could be fabricated. Critical, scientific, and academic approaches to the evidence are our best chance at determining just how much can be and is fake.

3 – Dating Method Issues

For Fomenko’s New Chronology to be possible, the dating methods used by historians, archeologists, and related professionals have to have underlying issues that would allow for a shortening of the timeline of human civilization. Human civilization is commonly believed to have dawned around 4000-5000 BCE. If human civilization dawned in the past 1200 years, and about 800 years of it was misinterpreted, then objects associated with the Roman empire between around 700 BCE and 500 CE (1200 years) must have been misdated by at least 700 and at most 1500 years. Here’s a list of rough estimates to help visualize the errors needed for Fomenko’s hypothesis to be possible:

Roman (c.700 BCE to c.500 CE): misdated by 700-1500 years

Mayan (c.2600 BCE to c.1500 CE):[10] 700-4200 years

Chinese (2200 BCE to c.1700):[11] 900-3800 years

Ancient Egyptian (c.5000 BCE to c.700):[12] 100-6600 years

The dates that go past 800 CE (1200 BP) count for the minimum. Taking the Maya for example, 1500 minus 800 is 700. The Chinese, 1700 minus 800 is 900. For the maximum amount, I calculated the amount of years between 1600 (when the main deception was beginning to be implemented) and the oldest date for the civilization. For Rome, it was 700 BCE to 1600 CE, which is 2300 years.

Examples of Surprises

I give Fomenko the green light here because I think the popular methods used today can err upwards towards 6600 years. One example of this is the approximately 6600 year error when carbon dating a castle’s mortar. The authors reported that “Of the seven samples dated, six produced 14C ages significantly older than the true ages…”.[13] Sometimes carbon dates come back significantly younger than expected, as is the case with a handful of samples reported in 2010 to have been upwards towards 4600 years off the mark.[14] Not directly related to human civilization but still connected to carbon dating is what’s known as the Lehi horse. Its death was initially dated to around 14,000-16,000 BCE but after the carbon results came back they re-dated it to the 17th-20th centuries, some 13,500+ years younger.[15]

I do not believe the existing dating methods are useless but I do believe they need to be explored in much more depth.

Lack of Testing

The majority of objects assigned to the ancient and medieval periods have not undergone scientific testing. This is especially true for manuscripts and other mediums used for writing. There are a wide range of tests that can be applied to written documents so that we can extract objective facts about them. For anything organic, we can obtain carbon information. For anything with ink, we can run cyclotron analyses. I’m not sure if they’ve started doing this yet, but for anything made from animal skin, we could obtain genetic information and see which vellum are from the same families.

Due to the lack of testing and the errors produced by the tests that have been run, I think Fomenko’s shortened timeline is a possibility, and so this is a green light for me to look further. I will say here that it was the looking further bit that brought up the red lights. So while I still think a shortened chronology is a possibility, I don’t think Fomenko’s New Chronology is a good model for it.

4 – Accessibility

Almost all of the core material is available to read for free online. I think overall this is a positive thing and its made it more likable compared to some academic publishers who charge hundreds and thousands of dollars to become familiar with the core literature.

This was a green light to me because it shows an openness to criticism and collaboration. Whereas the academic publishers mostly only publish material that you’d have to pay a decent amount of money to be able to criticize, Fomenko posted his for all to read.

Red Lights

1 – Methodology

“That’s why during 1973-1980 yeas the main attention was given to the creation of mathematical and statistical analysis methods for historical texts. As a result in 1975-1979 years A.T.Fomenko managed to propose and develop several such new methods. Based on them it appeared to be possible to determine a global picture of chronological re-dating in the version of Scaliger, after which mistakes of this version are mainly removed.”[22]

It is claimed that Fomenko developed methods in the 70s that lead to the revelation of a radically different timeline for human civilization. However, these methods not only get very little attention from the critics and supporters, but from the authors as well. Ideally, the methods would be clear and easily repeatable. That is to say that you could learn the methods, apply them to the source material, and arrive at the same conclusions. This ideal scenario does not appear to be the reality.

The fact that these were not clearly laid out is a red flag to me. That and the fact that they don’t advertise these new methods on the Russian or English homepages of their website. The methods don’t even appear to be well-defined in the works themselves. In July 2020, I started putting together a “Glossary of Fomenko’s New Chronology”, where I listed out the terms used in their literature. There are a number of principles and methods listed, but hardly any of them are appropriately articulated.[16] If I’m wrong about this, just point out where the methods and principles are well-articulated and I’ll update the glossary and this section of this article.

The methodology used for their astronomical calculations is also somewhat obscure. It appears to me to not be very rigorous, which is a red flag. I want to create a program that could do what they wanted to do but better, as well as clearer so that people could see exactly what they need to learn to be able to verify it.

To sneak a green flag in amongst these red ones, I do think it’s possible to date events through horoscopes. The planets will only align in certain orders every so often and this can be used to figure out when someone could have seen what they depicted. Fomenko’s New Chronology claiming to use this was a green flag. The way he went about executing and explaining is more of a yellow flag, meaning I think there’s huge room for improvement, but I’m not educated enough to make those improvements myself and have not been persuasive enough to get an educated-enough someone to make them. For me, as well as the vast majority of people on this planet, the horoscopes are unverifiable. To verify them would take a great deal of learning and coding.

2 – Published Information

The works that they have published contain a plethora of factually incorrect information. I have lists of the errors in my examination articles. This is a red flag because some of their conclusions are based on this verifiably false information. For example, in part 8 of my exam, they claim that Jesus lived in the 12th century and that carbon dating supports that. The claim that carbon dating supports this is false.[17]

However, Fomenko being wrong about the carbon dating doesn’t mean he’s wrong about Jesus living in the 12th century. The shroud could be a fake and Jesus could have still lived about 800 years ago. For example, Pirro Ligorio (c.1512-1583), known as the “prince of forgers”, once forged an inscription to debunk the common belief of his time that Verrius Flaccus wrote the Fasti Capitolini. Reportedly, the scholarly consensus today agrees with Ligorio on the question of authorship.[20, p.3] While I cannot say one way or the other if Fomenko intentionally lied to support his argument, the parallel can be seen in “the wrong argument but correct conclusion”.

While they still get most of their information correct, the bulk that isn’t is a big red flag. Also the fact that they have not corrected any of these errors over the past 20 years or so is another red flag. If corrections are made in future publications, the flag will go down. As long as the false information stands, the flag stays up.

3 – Unpublished Information

They have not published all of the research they’ve supposedly conducted. Reportedly, from 1974 to 1982, he applied his methods to historical records and produced a work about 6,000 pages long entitled Global Chronology of the Ancient and Medieval World: An Experiment in Statistical Research. Methods and Applications.[4, p.88] However, as far as I can tell, this book has never been published. If it has been published, where can I find it? They claim the first book published on this topic was published in 1990, some 8 years after the results were already collected.[18] Was the 6000 page work published after that?

4 – Publications

Outdated Texts

The bibliography on the Russian homepage of their website states:

“If we talk about all the books on the New Chronology in general, then some of them are outdated and are no longer reprinted, some repeat the previous ones in an updated and revised form, some are popular or abridged presentations of other books, some are full-color illustrated editions.”

A red flag pops up in that there is no summary of the outdated information (how it became outdated, where it was published, etc…). For such a radical reconstruction, a work that summarizes what they got wrong, how they realized they were wrong, and then what they did to remediate the problem would be a useful work. As far as I’m aware, this work does not exist.

Recent Publications

Unfortunately for my own sake, I cannot find any reference to support this memory that I have of seeing somewhere on their website that one of the main goals of the New Chronology was to develop reliable dating methods. If this memory is accurate and the evidence has been deleted with changes to the website, then a red flag pops up for me when looking at their recent publications.

Since the publication of their 7 volume series, it does not appear they’ve done much of anything to refine and apply their methods of textual analysis to new materials. It appears to me that their main focus, maybe even their only focus, is to write narrative histories based on the results they allegedly got through their studies and methods.

Suggestions for Fomenko & Co.

1 – Clarify your methods and place them somewhere easy to find. For example, on your website’s front page, in an article linked on your website’s front page, or in your books at the end or beginnings.

2 – Publish online the c.6000 page book.

3 – Correct the errors I’ve pointed out in my examination articles and release a fixed version of your text that acknowledges the previous mistakes.

4 – Create a summary of the errors and corrections you’ve made, listing out the works with outdated material and where in those works the outdated material is.

Advertisements
Advertisements

References:

[1] – Maier, Paul L. “Eusebius–the church history : a new translation with commentary” (1999). https://archive.org/details/eusebiusthechurc00euse/page/9/mode/1up. Accessed 18 Oct. 2020.

[2] – Bickerman, E. J. “Chronology of the ancient world” (1980). https://archive.org/details/chronologyofanci00bick/page/81/mode/1up?q=roman+dates. Accessed 18 Oct. 2020.

[3] – Grant, Michael. Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation. 1st ed., Routledge, 1995.

[4] – Fomenko, Anatoly. “Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating, Volume I: The Development of the Statistical Tools” (1994). https://chronologia.org/en/kw1.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

[5] – Jones, Mark, et al. Fake? The Art of Deception. First Edition, University of California Press, 1990.

[6] – Sorensen, Stephen. “Ctruth Transmission Studies” (2 Jan. 2022). https://ctruth.today/2022/01/02/ctruth-transmission-studies/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

[7] – KURZ, OTTO. “EARLY ART FORGERIES: FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, vol. 121, no. 5198, 1973, pp. 74–90. JSTORwww.jstor.org/stable/41371017. Accessed 19 May 2021.

[8] – Sorensen, Stephen. “A Brief History of Medieval and Early Modern Forgery” (30 Sep. 2022). https://ctruth.today/2021/09/30/a-brief-history-of-medieval-and-early-modern-forgery/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

[9] – Main Website for Fomenko’s New Chronology. https://chronologia.org/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

[10] – Canadian Museum of History. “Maya Timeline”. https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/civil/maya/mmc09eng.html. Accessed 15 Apr. 2022.

[11] – Sorensen, Stephen. “Chinese Timeline Comparisons” (5 Mar. 2019). https://ctruth.today/2019/03/05/chinese-timelines-comparisons/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2022.

[12] – Sorensen, Stephen. “Comparing Timelines of Ancient Egypt” (6 Mar. 2019). https://ctruth.today/2019/03/06/comparing-timelines-of-ancient-egypt/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2022.

[13] – Sorensen, Stephen. “Carbon Dating Mollusks, Seals, Trees, & Other Material. Also Criticizing Methodology” (27 Mar. 2021). https://ctruth.today/2021/03/27/p-2-fomenkos-carbon-dating-ch-1-15-1-2-vol-1-history-fiction-or-science/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2022.

[14] – Sorensen, Stephen. “Radiocarbon Dating, Ancient Egypt, and Some Commentary on Relevant Scholarship” (19 Dec. 2021). https://ctruth.today/2021/12/19/radiocarbon-dating-ancient-egypt-some-commentary-on-relevant-scholarship/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2022.

[15] – Sorensen, Stephen. “Lehi Horse Misdated by Over 13,000 Years” (6 Mar. 2022). https://ctruth.today/2021/03/06/lehi-horse-misdated-by-over-13000-years/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2022.

[16] – Sorensen, Stephen. “Glossary of Fomenko’s New Chronology” (26 Jul. 2020). https://ctruth.today/2020/07/26/glossary-of-fomenkos-new-chronology/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2022.

[17] – Sorensen, Stephen. “Examining Fomenko’s New Chronology” (1 Oct. 2020). https://ctruth.today/2020/10/01/examining-fomenkos-new-chronology/. Accessed 16 Apr. 2022.

[18] – Sorensen, Stephen. “The History of Fomenko’s New Chronology” (26 May. 2019). https://ctruth.today/2019/05/26/the-history-of-fomenkos-new-chronology/. Accessed 16 Apr. 2022.

[19] – The New Chronology Bibliography. https://chronologia.org/bibliography.html. Accessed 16 Apr. 2022.

[20] – Loffredo, F., & Vagenheim, G. (2019). Pirro Ligorio’s Worlds. doi:10.1163/9789004385634. Accessed 20 Dec. 2021.

[21] – Sorensen, Stephen. “The Creation of Fictional Characters Over the Past 100 Years” (13 Jan. 2020). https://ctruth.today/2020/01/13/the-creation-of-fictional-characters-over-the-past-100-years/. Accessed 24 Apr. 2022.

[22] – Main Website for Fomenko’s New Chronology. “THE HISTORY OF NEW CHRONOLOGY”. https://chronologia.org/en/history.html. Accessed 28 Apr. 2022.

Lost Ancient Temple of Zeus Reemerges in Egypt, 2500+ Years Old

Archeologists working in the Sinai Peninsula have recently unearthed an ancient temple dedicated to the Greek god Zeus. It’s located just off the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in Northern Sinai, in Pelusium, the city which Mary, Joseph, and baby Jesus reportedly travelled through to enter Egypt.

Zeus is the Greek god of the sky, the weather, kings, and fate. There are a number of temples already known to be dedicated to him: the Temple of Zeus from Ancient Olympia, the Temple of Olympian Zeus from Ancient Athens, and the Temple of Ellanios Zeus from Aegina.

Advertisements

The news of the discovery was originally announced on the 25th of April 2022.

Ancient pillars and large granite blocks were found on the site. The blocks are thought to have been stairs leading up to the (then mostly mud brick) temple.

Dating back some 2500+ years to the late Pharaonic period of Egyptian history, there is evidence of human presence at the site throughout the centuries at least until early Islamic times (7th-8th centuries CE).

Advertisements

This temple was renovated during Roman times by Emperor Hadrian (117-138) and Titos Flavios Titanas, as evidenced by inscriptions found during the excavations.

Digs in this area (the Tell el-Farma district) go back to the early 20th century. The French Egyptologist Jean Cledat had stumbled upon ancient inscriptions indicating the Zeus-Kasios temple existed, but it was never unearthed until recently.

Advertisements

The name “Zeus-Kasios” is based on mixing “Zeus” with the mountain which he was worshipped on, Mount Kasios.

The archeologists are eager to conduct a photogrammetry survey in order to help visualize the original design of the temple.

This survey would allow topographical maps of the site to be made from spatial and/or aerial imagery.

Image Credit : Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities
Image Credit : Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities
Image Credit : Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities
Advertisements
Advertisements

References:

[1] – PA News Agency. “Ruins unearthed of ancient temple for Greek god Zeus in Egypt” (South Wales Guardian, 24 Apr. 2022). https://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/news/20092788.ruins-unearthed-ancient-temple-greek-god-zeus-egypt/. Accessed 25 Apr. 2022.

[2] – Tabikha, Kamal. “Ancient temple dedicated to Zeus found in North Sinai” (The National News, 25 Apr. 2022). https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/egypt/2022/04/25/ancient-temple-dedicated-to-zeus-found-in-north-sinai/. Accessed 25 Apr. 2022.

[3] – Heritage Daily. “Ancient temple dedicated to Zeus uncovered in Northern Sinai” (Heritage Daily, 25 Apr. 2022). https://www.heritagedaily.com/2022/04/ancient-temple-dedicated-to-zeus-uncovered-in-northern-sinai/143418. Accessed 25 Apr. 2022.

[4] – The Associated Press & Scripps National. “Archaeologists in Egypt make discovery: Ruins of ancient Zeus temple unearthed in Sinai” (TheDenverChannel, 25 Apr. 2022). https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/archaeologists-in-egypt-make-discovery-ruins-of-ancient-zeus-temple-unearthed-in-sinai. Accessed 25 Apr. 2022.

[5] – THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. “Ruins of an ancient temple for Zeus were unearthed in Egypt” (NPR, 25 Apr. 2022). https://www.npr.org/2022/04/25/1094730176/ancient-egypt-temple-zeus-archaeology. Accessed 25 Apr. 2022.

[6] – The Theoi Project. “Zeus”. https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Zeus.html. Accessed 25 Apr. 2022.

[7] – Greek-Gods.Info. “PLACES OF WORSHIP OF ZEUS”. https://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/zeus/places-of-worship/. Accessed 25 Apr. 2022.

Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements

The “Big Five” of Truth Assessment

Disinformation, misinformation, forgeries, hoaxes, mystifications, and their ilk were prominent forces in what lead me late last year to read Greifeneder, et al.’s “The Psychology of Fake News: Accepting, Sharing, and Correcting Misinformation” (2021).[1] It was Chapter 5 that first exposed me to the “big five” of truth assessment. They are:

1 – Compatibility

2 – Coherence

3 – Credibility

4 – Consensus

5 – Evidence

The authors of Chapter 5 provided a table of these criteria, first mentioned in this quote:

“When people do evaluate whether information is likely to be true, they typically consider some (but rarely all) of the five criteria shown in Table 5.1 (Schwarz, 2015).”
Schwarz & Jalbert (2021)[1, p.74]

Here’s the table:[1, p.74]

The quote above references (Schwarz, 2015). In this reference, Schwarz states:

“When people do evaluate the truth of a statement or belief, they are likely to attend to a limited set of criteria, usually a subset of what might be considered the Big Five of truth assessment…”
Schwarz (2015)[2, p.210]

The work that the following quote is taken from is not cited in Schwarz 2015, even though this source was used:

“In making these assessments, people attend to a limited set of criteria, usually a subset of what might be considered the “Big Five” of truth assessment.”
Greifeneder & Schwarz (2014)[3, p.316]

As far as I can tell, Greifender & Schwarz (2014) is the first place the “Big Five” were called by that term.

Bibliographies Summary

What follows here is a summary of the changes in number of sources used between the 2014 and 2015 publications. Most sources stay the same but some are dropped and others added. The bibliographies follow the summary.

1 – Consensus

Two sources were dropped (2014), one was added (2015).

2 – Evidence

Three sources were dropped (2014), six were added (2015).

3 – Compatibility

One source was dropped (2014), three were added (2015).

4 – Credibility

Three sources were dropped (2014), three were added (2015).

5 – Coherence

Three sources were dropped (2014), none were added (2015).

Bibliographies

1 – Consensus

2 – Evidence

3 – Compatibility

4 – Credibility

5 – Coherence

1: Consensus 2014

Consensus:

Total: 7

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140

Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Visser, P. S., & Mirabile, R. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 779–795

*Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Boston: Pearson

Ross, M., Buehler, R., & Karr, J. W. (1998). Assessing the accuracy of conflicting autobiographical memories. Memory and Cognition, 26, 1233–1244.

*Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131.

Weaver, K., Garcia, S. M., Schwarz, N., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 821–833.

1: Consensus 2015

Consensus:

Total: 6

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140

Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Visser, P. S., & Mirabile, R. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 779–795

*Harris, A. J. L., & Hahn, H. (2009). Bayesian rationality in evaluating multiple testimonies: Incorporating the role of coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1366–1373. doi:10.1037/a0016567

Ross, M., Buehler, R., & Karr, J. W. (1998). Assessing the accuracy of conflicting autobiographical memories. Memory and Cognition, 26, 1233–1244.

Weaver, K., Garcia, S. M., Schwarz, N., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 821–833.

1: Consensus 2021

(Festinger, 1954

Cialdini, 2009

Newcomb, 1943; Visser & Mirabile, 2004

Cialdini, 2009

Harris &
Hahn, 2009; Ross, Buehler, & Karr, 1998

(Lewandowsky,
Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz, & Cook, 2012; Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Vaughan,
2013

2: Evidence 2014

Evidence:

Total: 7

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.

Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.

Schwarz, N. (1998). Accessible content and accessibility experiences: The interplay of declarative and experiential information in judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 87–99.

Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 332–348.

Haddock, G., Rothman, A. J., Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Forming judgments of attitude certainty, intensity, and importance: The role of subjective experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 771–782.

Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2002). Ease of retrieval effects in persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1700–1712.

Ask, K., Greifeneder, R., & Reinhard, M. A. (2012). On the ease of (dis)believing: The role of accessibility experiences in credibility judgments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 779–784.

2: Evidence 2015

Evidence:

Total: 10

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.

Haddock, G., Rothman, A. J., Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Forming judgments of attitude certainty, intensity, and importance: The role of subjective experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 771–782.

Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2002). Ease of retrieval effects in persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1700–1712.

Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 347–356. doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.3.347

Sanna, L. J., & Schwarz, N. (2003). Debiasing hindsight: The role of accessibility experiences and attributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 287-295. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00528-0

Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195

Winke, M., Bless, H., & Biller, B. (1996). Subjective experience versus content of information in the construction of attitude judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1105–1113. doi:10.1177/01461672962211002

Sanna, L. J., Schwarz, N., & Small, E. (2002). Accessibility experiences and the hindsight bias: I-knew-it-all-along versus it-could-never-have-happened. Memory and Cognition, 30, 1288–1296. doi:10.3758/BF03213410

Stepper, S., & Strack, F. (1993). Proprioceptive determinants of emotional and nonemotional feelings.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 211–220. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.211

Tormala, Z. L., Falces, C., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Ease of retrieval effects in social judgment: The role of unrequested cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 143–157. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.143

2: Evidence 2021

Total: 4

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.

Haddock, G., Rothman, A. J., Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Forming judgments of attitude certainty, intensity, and importance: The role of subjective experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 771–782.

Schwarz, N. (1998). Accessible content and accessibility experiences: The interplay of declarative and experiential information in judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 87–99.

Schwarz, N., & Vaughn, L. A. (2002). The availability heuristic revisited: Ease of recall and content of recall as distinct sources of information. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 103–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3: Compatibility 2014

Compatibility (Consistency):

Total: 5

Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.). (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Winkielman, P., Huber, D. E., Kavanagh, L., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Fluency of consistency: When thoughts fit nicely and flow smoothly. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 89–111). New York: Guilford Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press.

Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (Eds.). (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand-McNally

Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (Eds.). (2012). Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition. New York: Guilford Press.

3: Compatibility 2015

Compatibility:

Total: 7

Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (Eds.). (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand-McNally

McGuire, W. J. (1972). Attitude change: The information processing paradigm. In C. G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 108–141). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Wyer, R. S. (1974). Cognitive organization and change: An information processing approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press.

Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (Eds.). (2012). Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition. New York: Guilford Press.

Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1976). Dissonance and the attribution process. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 199–217). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Winkielman, P., Huber, D. E., Kavanagh, L., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Fluency of consistency: When thoughts fit nicely and flow smoothly. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 89–111). New York: Guilford Press.

3: Compatibility 2021

Petty & Cacioppo, 1986

Taber & Lodge,
2006; Winkielman et al., 2012

Festinger, 1957; Gawronski & Strack, 2012

4: Credibility 2014

Credibility:

Total: 7

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.

Brown, A. S., Brown, L. A., & Zoccoli, S. L. (2002). Repetition-based credibility enhancement of unfamiliar faces. The American Journal of Psychology, 115, 199–209.

Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., Brown, J., & Jasechko, J. (1989). Becoming famous overnight: Limits of the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 326-338.

Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley, C. (1989). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by dividing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 115–125.

Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (1992). Impressions of babyfaced individuals across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1143–1143.

Wänke, M., & Bless, H. (2000). The effects of subjective ease of retrieval on attitudinal judgments: The moderating role of processing motivation. In H. Bless & J. P. Forgas (Eds.), The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior (pp. 143–161). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

4: Credibility 2015

Credibility:

Total: 7

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.). (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, A. S., Brown, L. A., & Zoccoli, S. L. (2002). Repetition-based credibility enhancement of unfamiliar faces. The American Journal of Psychology, 115, 199–209.

Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., Brown, J., & Jasechko, J. (1989). Becoming famous overnight: Limits of the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 326-338.

Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley, C. (1989). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by dividing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 115–125.

Lev-Ari, S., & Keysar, B. (2010). Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1093–1096. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025

Newman, E., Sanson, M., Miller, E., Quigley-McBride, A., Foster, J., Bernstein, D., & Garry, M. (2013). People think others with easy to pronounce names make more trustworthy claims. Unpublished manuscript, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

4: Credibility 2021

Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986

Luhmann, 1979

Gefen, 2000

Brown, Brown, & Zoccoli, 2002; Weisbuch & Mackie, 2009

Jacoby, Woloshyn, & Kelley, 1989

(Newman et al., 2014)

5: Coherence 2014

Coherence:

Total: 7

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2012). Mental models and consistency. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 225–243). New York: Guilford Press.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror (pp. 192–223). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Topolinski, S. (2012). Nonpropositional consistency. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 112–131). New York: Guilford Press.

Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2008). Where there’s a will—there’s no intuition. The unintentional basis of semantic coherence judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 1032–1048.

Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2009). The architecture of intuition: Fluency and affect determine
intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 39–63.

Morsanyi, K., & Handley, S. J. (2012). Logic feels so good—I like it!: Evidence for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 38, 596–616.

5: Coherence 2015

Coherence:

Total: 4

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2012). Mental models and consistency. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 225–243). New York: Guilford Press.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror (pp. 192–223). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Topolinski, S. (2012). Nonpropositional consistency. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 112–131). New York: Guilford Press.

5: Coherence 2021

Johnson-Laird, 2012

Pennington & Hastie, 1993

Topolinski, 2012

(Topolinski & Strack, 2008, 2009)

Morsanyi & Handley, 2012

Advertisements
Advertisements

References:

[1] – Greifeneder, Rainer, et al. The Psychology of Fake News: Accepting, Sharing, and Correcting Misinformation. 1st ed., Routledge, 2021. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9780429295379/psychology-fake-news-rainer-greifeneder-mariela-jaff%C3%A9-eryn-newman-norbert-schwarz. Accessed 4 Apr. 2022.

[2] – Schwarz, N. (2015). Metacognition. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, E. Borgida, & J. A.
Bargh (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition (pp. 203–229). Washington, DC: APA.

[3] – Greifeneder, Reiner & Norbert Schwarz (2014). Metacognitive Processes and Subjective Experiences. In J.W. Sherman, B. Gawronski, Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind (pp. 314-327).

Fomenko & Pompeii (H:FoS? Vol. 1 Ch. 1.13.2)

In this portion, I examine Fomenko addressing Pompeii and its study.

Fomenko’s Sources:

[304] – Иегер (Егер) Оскар. “Всеобщая история”. Тома 1-4. – Издание А.Ф.Маркса. Спб., 1894-1904.

[304] – Jaeger (Jaeger) Oscar. “General history”. Volumes 1-4. – Edition of A.F. Marx. SPb., 1894-1904.

[389] – Классовский В. “Систематическое описание Помпеи и открытых в ней древностей”. – СПб., 1848.

[389] – Klassovskiy V. “Systematic description of Pompeii and antiquities discovered in it”. – SPb., 1848.

[433] – Косамби Д. “Культура и цивилизация древней Индии”. – М., Прогресс, 1968. Английское издание: Kosambi D. “The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline”. – Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1965.

[433] – Kosambi D. “Culture and civilization of ancient India”. – M., Progress, 1968. English edition: Kosambi D. “The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline”. – Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1965.

[434] – Косидовский З. “Когда солнце было богом”. – М., Наука, 1968. Польское издание: Kosidowski Z. <<Gdy Slon’ce Bylo Bogiem>>. – Warszawa, 1962.

[434] – Kosidovsky Z. “When the sun was god”. – M., Science, 1968. Polish edition: Kosidowski Z. << Gdy Slon’ce Bylo Bogiem >>. – Warszawa, 1962.

[873] – Федорова Е.В. “Латинские надписи”. – М., Изд-во Моск. ун-та, 1976.

[873] – Fedorova E.V. “Latin inscriptions”. – M., Publishing house of Moscow. un-that, 1976.

[1177] – Harley JB and Woodward David. “The History of Cartography. Volume 1. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean”. – The University of Chicago Press. Chicago & London. 1987.

Advertisements
Advertisements

Finding Pompeii

Claims 1-10

Total: 11

Determined: 7/11 (63.63%)

Supported: 3/7 (42.85%)

Contradicted: 4/7 (57.14%)

Grade: F

Claim 1:

“The excavations of the “ancient” town of Pompeii are a perfect illustration to the problems that arise in the dating of archaeological materials.”

Claim 1 is undetermined.

Claim 2:

“First and foremost, it isn’t clear which year’s eruption destroyed it.”

Claim 2 is undetermined.

As early as 1831, John Auldjo noted that no accurate dating of the pre-1631 eruptions could be done through scientific testing.[17]

As far as the clarity of which year’s eruption destroyed Pompeii, I haven’t determined if this checks out or not.

Claim 3:

“Apparently, the XV century author Jacopo Sannazaro wrote: “We were approaching the town (Pompeii), and could already see its towers, houses, theatres and temples, untouched by the century [?! – A. F.]” (quoted in [389], page 31).”

Claim 3 is contradicted.

I marked this claim as contradicted because it’s a misuse of the Sannazaro quote.

The quote is somewhat of an English translation of the original Italian quote that Jacopo did write in the 15th century, but it’s from a fictional poem and it’s being misused here by Fomenko to act as if Pompeii was still alive and well in the 1400’s.[4], [5, p.190]

Fomenko’s translation does not seem to be a very good one either. The word for century is nowhere present in the original text. Here follows the original accompanied by two translations:

“E gia in queste parole eramo ben presso alla citta, ch’ ella dicea , della quale e le torri , e le case , e i teatri , e i templi si poteano quasi integri discernere.”
Jacopo Sannazaro[5, p.190]

“And already in these words we were close to the city, which she said, of which the towers, and the houses, and the theatres, and the temples could almost be discerned intact.”
– Google Translate

“And with these words we were almost at the city she described, and its towers, houses, theatres, and temples could be picked out nearly intact.”
– Ingred Rowland quoting Sannazaro[6, p.31]

In Fomenko’s quote, the word “we” is used. This refers to two people from the story, Sannazaro’s alter-ego and a nymph. Both are fictional individuals.

I have not yet checked Fomenko’s source and so it’s difficult to say whether Fomenko did this on purpose or he got duped by his source. If you have access to his source, please let me know so I can expand this portion of the the exam.

Claim 4:

“It is assumed, however, that the town of Pompeii has got destroyed and completely buried after the eruption of 79 A.D.”

Claim 4 is supported.

Claim 5:

“This is why the archaeologists have to interpret Sannazaro in the following manner: “in the XV century some of the buildings of Pompeii were already emerging from the debris” ([389, page 31).”

Claim 5 is undetermined.

I have not yet reviewed Fomenko’s source. It dates to 1848. Is Fomenko’s source an archeologist? Is the source even commenting on Sannazaro? Leaning contradicted.

Claim 6:

“It is thus assumed that Pompeii had been covered by a thick layer of earth, since the ruins of the town were only found in 1748, and the discovery was purely accidental.”

Claim 6 is contradicted.

The ruins were discovered as early as 1689.[3] Even earlier if we count the late 16th century activities of Domenico Fontana.[12]

Claim 7:

“Herculaneum was discovered in 1711 ([389], pages 31-32).”

Claim 7 is supported.

I have not yet reviewed Fomenko’s source.

This claim is contested. Some sources say 1711[7, p.223], [8] others say 1709,[9], [10] one even says both.[11] This contestation aside, it’s close enough that I’m granting it. Depending on what Fomenko’s source says, I may change this conclusion.

Claim 8:

“Nowadays the history of the discovery of Pompeii is related after the documented recollections of that epoch as follows: “during the construction of a canal on the river Sarno (1594-1600), the ruins of an ancient town were found. Nobody had the merest notion it might be Pompeii… Methodical scientific excavations were started as late as 1860 by Giuseppe Fiorelli. However, his method of work was far from the usual scientific standards” ([433], page 49).”

Claim 8 is contradicted and contradicted.

The Sarno canal was constructed by Domenico Fontano in 1592, not 1594-1600.[6, p.31]

Systematic and methodological excavations were being conducted in the 17th century.[13] I’m not marking this contradicted or giving it a point at all because it’s technically true (Fiorelli did start his excavations in 1860 and did rock the boat of norms), but the quote could be considered misleading.

The citation is not correct, so I negate a point for that. Wherever the quote is from, it isn’t Kosambi. There also doesn’t appear to be any citations related to Pompeii near Fomenko’s [433]. Lastly, the variations of 433 yield no significant results either.

Claim 9:

“The excavations were indeed conducted in a barbaric manner.”

Claim 9 is supported.[13]

Claim 10:

“”Nowadays it is hard to estimate the damage done by the sheer vandalism of that time… if somebody thought a picture or a figurine wasn’t artful enough or visually pleasing, it would become destroyed and thrown away as trash. Sculpture fragments had been sold as souvenirs, often as statuettes of saints” ([434], pages 224-225).”

Claim 10 is undetermined.

I think the citation is correct but I can’t read Russian fluently so I’m not sure. The part of the book being cited does focus on Pompeii. That’s why I think maybe it could be correct.

What do other sources say about the vandalism and destruction?

Highbrow Pompeii

Claims 11-33

Total: 24

Determined: 5/24

Supported: 5/5

Contradicted: 0/5

Grade: A+

Claim 11:

“Some of these “Christian forgeries” may have been mediaeval originals that did not fit the Scaligerian chronology, and hence wound up sold as souvenirs instead of becoming part of a museum’s collection.”

Claim 11 is undetermined.

Claim 12:

“If one’s cogitation is to be confined within the paradigm of the Scaligerian chronology, the artistic level of the artefacts found in Pompeii is very high indeed – be it frescoes, inlays, or statues.”

Claim 12 is undetermined.

What do art historians have to say about this? Is the artistic level high compared to other works from that time?

Claim 13:

“The state of science is also deemed advanced enough to correspond to that of the Renaissance epoch.”

Claim 13 is undetermined.

Who says this? What’s the source?

Claim 14:

“One of the findings was a sundial with uniform hourly divisions, which were considered a high level of precision even towards the end of the Middle Ages.”

Claim 14 is undetermined.

What source mentions this sundial? How many uniform hourly divisions were there?

The day being split into 24 sections goes back to around 2100 BCE when the Egyptians starting doing it.[14]

Claim 15:

“This finding was analyzed by N. A. Morozov.”

Claim 15 is undetermined.

Where/when did Morozov analyze this?

Claim 16:

“An “ancient” picture of a part of such a device that had been found on a villa near the town of Pompeii can be seen in fig. 1.47.
Fig. 1.47. “Ancient” mural from the Boscoreale villa near Pompeii. “We can distinctively see a terrestrial globe shown in an approximate perspective. The object was also related to the sundial” ([1177], ill. 4, inset between pages 106-107). Taken from [1177], plate 4.”

Claim 16 is supported.[15, p.613]

The image is correctly cited and the original source does say it’s a globe that has been called a sundial.[15, p.613]

Claim 17:

“V. Klassovsky wrote that “a set of surgical instruments has been discovered that is all the more noteworthy since some of the items have been previously supposed to belong to the modern times, discovered and introduced by the scientific avant-garde of the operative medicine” ([389], page 126).”

Claim 17 is undetermined.

Did Klassovsky say this?

The surgical instruments are commonly compared to modern instruments but I want more specifics on people claiming the instruments from Pompeii were modern.

Claim 18:

“Some of the graffiti art found on the walls of Pompeii is clearly mediaeval in its origin.”

Claim 18 is undetermined.

I think it’s good practice to avoid terms like “clearly”, “obviously”, etc… How is it clearly mediaeval?

Also, is it not possible that mediaeval individuals left graffiti on ancient ruins?

What would be mind-boggling is if they found graffiti dating to a time prior to when the building it’s on dates to.

Claim 19:

“For instance, the picture of a hooded henchman ([389], page 151, qv in fig. 1.48). We see a mediaeval henchman that drags his victim (a man in a cape) onto a scaffold with a rope.”

Claim 19 is undetermined.

Is that really what we’re looking at in that image?

What other references do we have to draw this conclusion?

Claim 20:

“V. Klassovsky tells us this is a “copy from a drawing made on plaster with some sharp object.””

Claim 20 is undetermined.

Claim 21:

“Another drawing that is definitely worthy of our attention is that of a mediaeval warrior wearing a helmet with a visor ([389], page 161, see fig. 1.49).”

Claim 21 is undetermined.

Claim 22:

“These two drawings are but a small part of the Pompeian graffiti that is explicitly mediaeval in its content (qv in the illustrations to [873]).”

Claim 22 is undetermined.

Claim 23:

“One should mark the illustration that one sees on page 44 of [873] (fig. 1.50). Nowadays we are told that it portrays “ancient” gladiators ([873], page 44).”

Claim 23 is undetermined.

Claim 24:

“However, what we see is clearly a mediaeval knight with a visor on his helmet.”

Claim 24 is undetermined.

Are there other examples from the ancient or medieval worlds of graffitied knights?

Claim 25:

“This is well-known military equipment of the Middle Ages.”

Claim 25 is undetermined.

Claim 26:

V. Klassovsky sums up his general impression of the excavations of Pompeii as follows: “I have been amazed many a time… to find that ancient Pompeian artefacts often prove to be spitting images of the objects of a much later epoch” ([389], page 133).”

Claim 26 is undetermined.

Claim 27:

“We also find out that, according to Klassovsky, many of the famous Pompeian inlays bear an amazing resemblance to the mediaeval frescoes of Refael and Giulio Romano in composition, colouring and style ([389], page 171, comment A). To put it simply, they look like mediaeval frescoes.”

Claim 27 is undetermined.

Claim 28:

“An example of such an inlay can be seen in fig. 1.51, ([389], page 172, table XII). This is assumed to be the ancient battle of Alexander the Great and the Persian king Darius (on the right).”

Claim 28 is supported and supported.[15]

I realized this claim had 2 sentenced too late for me to shift all the following claims up a notch on the number scale.

I give this 2 supported points because it is an example that resembles some medieval art and it is assumed to be a battle between Alexander the Great and Darius.[15]

Claim 29:

“The inlay was discovered in 1831 and is now in the domain of the National Museum in Naples ([304], Volume 1, pages 232-233).”

Claim 29 is supported.[15]

Claim 30:

“V. Klassovsky’s comment runs as follows:
“On the floor of the triclinium one sees the famous mosaic from coloured stone, which now crowns the collection of the museum in Naples. The colouring and the technique are unparalleled, the composition may well be compared to the best works of Raphael and Giulio Romano… It is most remarkable indeed that there should be a semblance between the work of the anonymous ancient artist and Raphael’s ‘Battle between Constantine and Maxentius’ in style and the composition of the main group. Certain decorations of the Roman thermae of Titus bear amazing resemblance to some of Raphael’s frescoes as well [sic!].” ([389], page 171)”

Claim 30 is undetermined.

Claim 31:

The Scaligerian history as followed by Klassovsky tries to convince us that all these works of “ancient” art were created in the I century A.D. the latest, and have remained buried until very recently, when the excavations of Pompeii finally began.”

Claim 31 is supported.

Claim 32:

“Raphael, Giulio Romano and other artists of the Renaissance are supposed to have created paintings strongly resembling these “ancient originals” without even having seen them.”

Claim 32 is undetermined.

Claim 33:

“All of this is highly suspicious.”

Claim 33 is undetermined.

Claim X:

“The hypothesis that we put forward is as follows: Pompeii is a mediaeval town of the Renaissance epoch. It has been destroyed by one of the relatively recent eruptions of the Vesuvius. The “ancient” Pompeian artists were contemporaries of Raphael and Giulio Romano, hence the stylistic semblances. Pompeii might have been destroyed and buried by ashes during the well-known eruption of the Vesuvius that occured in 1500 ([389], page 28), or even by the eruption of 1631. See more in CHRON2, Chapter 2.”

No point is awarded for this because it’s just them positing a hypothesis.

Graffiti & Valentis-Nero

Claims 34-39

Claim 34:

“Most of the Pompeian graffiti cannot be used for dating purposes, such as quotidian announcements, slang, etc.”

Claim 34 is undetermined.

Is this true?

Claim 35:

“However, some of the inscriptions explicitly contradict the Scaligerian chronology.”

Claim 35 is undetermined.

Claim 36:

“One of them can be found in [389], and was translated by N. A. Morozov as follows: “The hunt and the decorations of Valentis Nero Augustus the Holy, son of the Holy D. Lucretius Valentis the Immanent, the 28th of March.”

Claim 37:

“We run into a contradiction between the Scaligerian history and actual inscriptions discovered a result of excavations. An emperor with the double name of Valentis-Nero is mentioned here, whereas in Scaligerian chronology these names belong to two different emperors separated by about 300 years.”

Claim 38:

“A longer version of the same “ancient” announcement referring to the pageants of 6-12th April can be seen in [873], No. 73 (see fig. 1.52).”

Claim 39:

“The translation offered by V. Fyodorova in [873], page 74, separates Nero from Valentis, as we had expected.”

Claim X:

“We had no opportunity of checking the authority of both translations.”

This is unverifiable.

Christian Artefacts

Claims 40 & 41

Claim 40:

“Artefacts of the Christian epoch have been found in the “ancient” town of Herculaneum.”

Claim 40 is undetermined.

This claim is currently a matter of debate amongst scholars. A number of scholars have argued that Christian artefacts have been found but there are others who argue against that.[16, p.1]

Due to this ongoing conflict of opinion, I’m leaving this undetermined.

Claim 41:

“In fig. 1.53, for instance, one can see a Christian chapel discovered during the excavations of Herculaneum with a large cross on the wall.”

Claim 41 is undetermined.

This photo is problematic. It doesn’t show the full cross and it doesn’t say where the photo was taken. What site was this in? Where is this artefact now? Until more context is provided, this is undetermined.

Advertisements
Advertisements

References:

[1] – Vol. 1 History: Fiction or Science?. https://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N01-EN-049-070.pdf. Accessed 8 Dec. 2021.

[2] – Fomenko’s source list. https://chronologia.org/lit_nx.html. Accessed 8 Dec. 2021.

[3] – Sorensen, Stephen. Pompeii: Lost for 1,684 Years Or Known Through the Centuries? (2 Nov. 2019). https://ctruth.today/2019/11/02/pompeii-lost-for-1684-years-or-known-through-the-ages/. Accessed 8 Dec. 2021.

[4] – Warburg Institute. “The Arcadian poet: Jacopo Sannazaro”. https://omeka.warburg.sas.ac.uk/exhibits/show/the-invention-of-poetic-landsc/the-arcadian-poet–jacopo-sann. Accessed 17 Feb. 2022.

[5] – Sannazaro, Jacopo. “Arcadia” (Milan, 1806). https://archive.org/details/arcadia1806sann/page/188/mode/2up?q=Sebeto. Accessed 17 Feb. 2022.

[6] – Rowland, Ingrid. From Pompeii: The Afterlife of a Roman Town. The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2014. Accessed 17 Feb. 2022.

[7] – CUP Archive. “annals of politics and culture” (Cambridge, 1901). https://books.google.com/books?id=cPA8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=herculaneum+discovered+1711&source=bl&ots=lHbzXsTWXw&sig=ACfU3U3iQk3fDS-KQVafc1mAtD9rtAK2-A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTvIXby4f2AhU9DzQIHQ_iDtMQ6AF6BAglEAM#v=onepage&q=herculaneum%20discovered%201711&f=false. Accessed 17 Feb. 2022.

[8] – Bella Italia. “Herculaneum” (26 May, 2013). https://bellaitaliacampania.blogspot.com/2013/05/herculaneum.html. Accessed 17 Feb. 2022.

[9] – Britannica. “Pompeii: History of excavations”. https://www.britannica.com/place/Pompeii/History-of-excavations. Accessed 17 Feb. 2022.

[10] – SC. “The Discovery of Pompeii and Herculaneum: Discovery and Excavation” http://omeka.wellesley.edu/piranesi-rome/exhibits/show/discovery-of-pompeii-and-hercu/discovery-and-excavation. Accessed 17 Feb. 2022.

[11] – “The Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius: Excavations”. https://mtvesuvius-oliviasolia.weebly.com/excavations.html. Accessed 17 Feb. 2022.

[12] – SV. “The Discovery of Pompeii and Herculaneum: Pompeii: Initial Discoveries”. http://omeka.wellesley.edu/piranesi-rome/exhibits/show/discovery-of-pompeii-and-hercu/pompeii-initial-discoveries. Accessed 17 Feb. 2022.

[13] – Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. “Pompeii Redsicovery Timeline”. https://omsi.edu/sites/default/files/Pompeii%20Rediscovery%20Timeline.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb. 2022.

[14] – Sorensen, Stephen. “The History of Timekeeping” (10 Jan. 2021). https://ctruth.today/2021/01/10/the-history-of-timekeeping/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2022.

[15] – Mingoia, Jessica. “Alexander Mosaic from the House of the Faun, Pompeii” (Smarthistory, 6 Ju. 2021). https://smarthistory.org/alexander-mosaic-from-the-house-of-the-faun-pompeii/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2022.

[16] – Cook, J. G. (2018). Alleged Christian Crosses in Herculaneum and Pompeii. Vigiliae Christianae, 72(1), 1–20. doi:10.1163/15700720-12341330. Accessed 21 Feb. 2022.

[17] – Wiles, Julia. “The Map: Vesuvius, 1832” (History Today Volume 67 Issue 4 April 2017). https://www.historytoday.com/archive/cartography/map-vesuvius-1832. Accessed 24 Mar. 2022.

Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements

Ctruth Mis/Disinfo Bibliographies

This article contains links to other Ctruth articles that contains bibliographies for specific genres of mis/disinfo literature.

General

Mis/Disinformation General Works Vol. 1:
https://ctruth.today/2022/03/28/mis-disinformation-general-works-vol-1/

Political Science & International Relations

Mis/Disinformation in Political Science & International Relations Vol. 1:
https://ctruth.today/2022/03/24/mis-disinformation-in-political-science-international-relations-vol-1/

Social Media

Mis/Disinformation on Social Media Vol. 1:
https://ctruth.today/2022/03/23/mis-disinformation-on-social-media-vol-1/

Stopping

Stopping Mis/Disinformation Vol. 1:
https://ctruth.today/2022/03/18/stopping-mis-disinformation

Mis/Disinformation General Works Vol. 1

Chadwick, Andrew, James Stanyer. “Deception as a Bridging Concept in the Study of Disinformation, Misinformation, and Misperceptions: Toward a Holistic Framework”. Communication Theory, Volume 32, Issue 1, February 2022, Pages 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtab019

Culloty, E., & Suiter, J. (2021). Disinformation and Manipulation in Digital Media: Information Pathologies (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003054252

Dave, Aashka, et al. Targeting Greta Thunberg: A Case Study in Online Mis/Disinformation. German Marshall Fund of the United States, 2020, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep26753.

Douven, Igor, Rainer Hegselmann. Mis- and disinformation in a bounded confidence model. Artificial Intelligence, Volume 291, 2021. 103415, ISSN 0004-3702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103415.

Hameleers, Michael, et al. “Mistake or Manipulation? Conceptualizing Perceived Mis- and Disinformation among News Consumers in 10 European Countries.” Communication Research, Apr. 2021, doi:10.1177/0093650221997719.

Kapantai E, Christopoulou A, Berberidis C, Peristeras V. “A systematic literature review on disinformation: Toward a unified taxonomical framework.” New Media & Society. 2021;23(5):1301-1326. doi:10.1177/1461444820959296

Kirdemir, Baris. EXPLORING TURKEY’S DISINFORMATION ECOSYSTEM: An Overview. Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies, 2020, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep26087.

Kuo, Rachel, & Alice Marwick. Critical disinformation studies: History, power, and politics (Harvard, 12 Aug. 2021). https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/critical-disinformation-studies-history-power-and-politics/

Nunberg, Geoffrey. “INFORMATION, DISINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION.” Information: A Historical Companion, edited by Ann Blair et al., Princeton University Press, 2021, pp. 496–502, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1pdrrbs.58.

Titterton, James. Deception in Medieval Warfare: Trickery and Cunning in the Central Middle Ages. Boydell & Brewer, 2022, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv24tr74p.

Young, Jason C. Disinformation as the weaponization of cruel optimism: A critical intervention in misinformation studies. Emotion, Space and Society, Volume 38, 2021, 100757, ISSN 1755-4586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2020.100757.

Petratos, Pythagoras N. Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news: Cyber risks to business. Business Horizons, Volume 64, Issue 6, 2021, Pages 763-774, ISSN 0007-6813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.07.012.

PROTHERO, DONALD R. “Are Dinosaurs Faked?” Weird Earth: Debunking Strange Ideas about Our Planet, Red Lightning Books, 2020, pp. 145–51, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260g0.16.

Springer, Simon and Vural Özdemir. “Disinformation as COVID-19’s Twin Pandemic: False Equivalences, Entrenched Epistemologies, and Causes-of-Causes“. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology.Feb 2022.82-87. http://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2021.0220

Titterton, James. Deception in Medieval Warfare: Trickery and Cunning in the Central Middle Ages. Boydell & Brewer, 2022, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv24tr74p.

%d bloggers like this: