The history of mankind has always been interested in its understatement. The older this or that fact, the more speculation and inaccuracies in his description. Among other things, the human factor and the interests of rulers are added.
It is on such contacts that the New Chronology is built. What is so special about this theory, which excited the bulk of academic scientists?
What is a chronology?
Before talking about an unconventional branch in historical science, it is worth determining what chronology is in the classical sense.
So, chronology is an auxiliary science that deals with several things.
Firstly, it determines when an event occurred.
Secondly, it monitors the sequence and position of incidents on a linear scale of years.
It is divided into several departments - astronomical, geological and historical chronology.
Each of these departments has its own set of dating and research methods. These include ratios of calendars of different cultures, radiocarbon analysis, thermoluminescent method, glass hydration, stratigraphy, dendrochronology and others.
That is, the classical chronology builds the order of events based on a comprehensive study. It correlates the results of the work of scientists from different fields and only in the case of cross-confirmation of facts makes a final verdict.
Let's look in more detail at other issues posed earlier. Who are Fomenko, Nosovsky? Is “New Chronology” a pseudoscience or a new word in the study of human history?
History of Origin
In general, the theory, sponsored by Fomenko, Nosovsky ("New Chronology"), is based on the research and calculations of N. A. Morozov. The latter, while in captivity in St. Petersburg, made a calculation of the position of the stars mentioned in the Apocalypse. According to him, it turned out that this book was written in the fourth century AD. Not at all embarrassed, he declared falsifications in world history.
The authors of the New Chronology consider Morozov's predecessors to be Jesuit Garduan and physicist Isaac Newton, who also tried to rethink and recalculate the chronology of humanity.
The first, based on philological knowledge, tried to prove that all ancient literature was written in the Middle Ages. Newton was preoccupied with ancient history. He recounted the years of the reign of the pharaohs on the list of the Manetho. Judging by the results of his research, world history has declined by more than three millennia.
Such "innovators" can also include Edwin Johnson and Robert Baldauf, who argued that humanity is no more than a couple of hundred years old.
So, Morozov deduces absolutely fantastic figures on which his chronology is based. What are thousands of years of history? Myth! The Stone Age is the 1st century AD, the second century is the Bronze Age, the third is the Iron Age. Didn't you know? After all, all historical sources are falsified in the New Time!
Let's take a closer look at this unusual theory and look at its refutation.
Key Points
According to Fomenko, the "New Chronology" differs from the traditional one in that it is cleared of falsifications and errors. Its main provisions contain only five postulates.
First, written sources can only be considered more or less reliable only after the eighteenth century. Prior to this, since the eleventh century, works should be treated with caution. And until the tenth century, people did not know how to write at all.
All data of archeology can be interpreted as the researcher wants, so they do not bear obvious historical value.
Secondly, the European chronology appeared only in the fifteenth century. Prior to this, each nation had its own calendar and starting point. From the creation of the world, from the flood, from the birth or ascension to the throne of some ruler ...
From this thesis, this statement arises.
Thirdly, historical information on the pages of annals, treatises and other works shamelessly duplicate each other. Thus, the chronology of Nosovsky claims that most of the events of ancient history occurred in the early Middle Ages or later. But due to the mismatch of calendars and benchmarks, during the translation, the information was not processed correctly and the history was aging.
The traditional chronology is mistaken at the age of eastern civilizations and the reference point of the history of mankind. Judging by the previous postulate, China and India can count no more than a thousand years of chronology.
The last position is the human factor and the desire of the government to legitimize itself. According to Fomenko, the chronology is written by each authority for themselves, and old data is erased or destroyed. Therefore, it is impossible to fully understand the story. The only thing you can rely on is “accidentally preserved or missed fragments”. This includes maps, pages of various annals and other documents confirming the theory.
Text Based Argument
The main evidence in this area is the “far-fetched” similarity of the four historical eras and the recurrence of events in the chronicles.
The key periods are 330 years, 1050 and 1800. That is, if this number of years is taken away from medieval events, we will stumble upon the full correspondence of the incidents.
From this, the coincidence of different historical figures, who, according to Fomenko's theory, are one and the same person, is deduced.
The chronology of Ukraine, Russia and Europe is adjusted to such conclusions. Most conflicting sources are ignored or declared fraud.
Astronomical method
When disputes arise in certain disciplines, they try to attract research results from related sciences.
According to Fomenko, the "New Chronology" is well tested, and its postulates are proved using ancient astronomical maps. Studying these documents, he is repelled by eclipses (solar and lunar), mentions of comets and, in fact, images of constellations.
The main source on which evidence is based is Almagest. This is a treatise compiled by Alexandrian Claudius Ptolemy in the middle of the second century AD. But Fomenko, after studying the document, dates it four hundred years later, that is, at least the sixth century.
It is noteworthy that in order to prove the theory, only eight stars were taken from the Almagest (although more than a thousand are recorded in the document). Only these were declared "right", the rest - "faked."
The main evidence of the theory from the point of view of eclipses is the work of Libya on the Peloponnesian war. Three phenomena are indicated there: two solar and one lunar eclipse.
The catch is that Titus Livy writes about the events on the entire peninsula and says that "the stars were visible during the day." That is, the eclipse was complete. Judging by other sources, an incomplete eclipse was observed in Athens at this time.
Based on this inaccuracy, Fomenko argues that full compliance with the data of Libya was only in the eleventh century AD. Thanks to this, it automatically transfers the entire ancient history for one and a half millennia forward.
Despite the fact that the bulk of the data on the constellations coincides with the “traditional” history on which the world chronology is based, they are not considered correct. All such sources are declared "corrected" in the Middle Ages.
Evidence from Other Sciences
The allegations against the dendrological Novgorod scale, which has been confirmed by thousands of examples, are unsubstantiated. The Fomenko group considers this data to be adjusted to falsified chronology.
On the other hand, radiocarbon analysis is under attack . But the statements addressed to him are inconsistent. This method is erroneous in everything, except for the time when they checked the age of the Shroud of Turin. It was then that everything was "done accurately and in good faith."
What "doubts" is based on the "New Chronology"
Let's see what other flaws the Fomenko group finds in traditional science. The main attacks are historical research methods. Moreover, often the thesis reveals “double criteria”. In the case of academic science, this or that method is declared falsification, while among fans of the New Chronology it is the only correct one.
The first doubts were the chronology of books. Based on the writings of historians, chronicles and decrees of officials, Fomenko and Morozov create their own theory. But millions of pages of simple letters, business documents and other "popular" records are ignored.
“Scaligerian” dating is abolished due to the use of astrology, and the remaining researchers are not taken into account.
Most documents are declared fake. Such a judgment is based on the fact that it is almost impossible to distinguish the source of the late Middle Ages from the ancient. Based on the well-known falsifications, the thesis about the unreliability of all books “supposedly created before the middle of the first millennium” is deduced.
The main evidence base on which the New Chronology is based is built by Nosovsky and Fomenko on the proximity of the culture of the era of antiquity and the Renaissance.
The events of the early Middle Ages, when most of the ancient knowledge was forgotten, are declared nonsense and fiction. Fomenko's group claims that there is some evidence of the illogicality of such a model.
Firstly, it is impossible to “forget”, and then simply “remember” entire layers of scientific knowledge.
Secondly, what does it mean to “restore” research data of centuries ago? To preserve knowledge, there should be scientific schools where information is transmitted from teacher to student.
From such judgments, it is concluded that the whole history of antiquity is simply artificially agitated events of the Middle Ages.
Fomenko's group is especially interested in the chronology of Russia. Information about the allegedly existing medieval empire of the "Russian khans", which covered all of Eurasia, is derived from its data.
General criticism
Many scholars disagree with the tenets of the New Chronology. What is, for example, “discarding incorrect scientific theories”? It turns out that only Fomenko, based on Morozov’s notes, possesses “true” knowledge.
In fact, there are three points that are very confusing for any sane person.
First, refuting the traditional chronology, the Fomenko group thereby erases all sciences in general, which indirectly confirm academic data. That is, philologists, archaeologists, numismatists, geologists, anthropologists and other specialists do not understand anything at all, but simply build their hypotheses based on erroneous arguments.
The second problem is the apparent inconsistency in many places. It is a question of one era, for confirmation a map of the sky of a completely different period is given. Thus, all the facts fit in the right framework.
This also includes mismatches of allegedly “repeating” historical figures. For example, Solomon and Caesar are one and the same person, as the New Chronology claims. What is the forty years of the reign of the first versus four of the second for a layman? Does not match? So, in the eighteenth century they rigged!
The final argument defining this theory as pseudoscience is as follows. Based on numerous "amendments", it turns out that there is a worldwide conspiracy of "an incomprehensible society" that could secretly rewrite the whole history of mankind. Moreover, this was done in the Middle Ages and a new time, when the formation of states was going on and there was no talk of any commonality or consolidation.
The last thing that frankly excited the scientific community was a clear attack against academic professionalism. If we consider the theory of the "New Chronology" true, it turns out that all scientists just play in the sandbox and are completely unaware of even elementary things. Not to mention ordinary common sense.
Why astronomers were indignant
The main stumbling block was Almagest. If we discard precisely those stars on which Fomenko's theory is based (they cannot be unambiguously dated), we get a picture that completely coincides with the traditional one.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, a recount of the movements of the stars was made using the latest techniques and computers. All data of Ptolemy and Hipparchus were confirmed.
Thus, the indignation of scientists caused unreasonable attacks on their professionalism by a complete amateur.
The answer of historians, linguists and archaeologists
In the field of influence of these disciplines heated debate flared up. First, they stood up for dendrochronology and radiocarbon analysis. Judging by the statements of Fomenko, he has data for the 1960s. These sciences have long stepped forward. Their methods confirm the traditional history, and are also confirmed by related techniques. This includes tape clay, paleomagnetic and potassium-argon methods and more.
The birch bark letters became an unexpected turn. Judging by what the New Chronology describes, Russian history runs counter to the information of these sources. The latter, by the way, are confirmed not only by dendrochronology, but also by many other data from related disciplines.
It is also interesting to completely ignore Arab, Armenian, Chinese and other written evidence that confirms the traditional history of Europe. Only those facts that confirm the theory are mentioned.
The emphasis on narrative sources puts New Chronology fans in an uncomfortable position. Their arguments are crushed to dust by the usual administrative and business records.
If you look at the linguistic evidence of Fomenko, then, according to A. Zaliznyak, “this is complete amateurism at the level of errors in the multiplication table.” For example, Latin is declared a descendant of Old Slavonic, and “Samara”, when read back, turns into a “dialect pronunciation of the word Rome."
Dates and names on coins, medals, gems fully confirm the academic data. Moreover, the amount of this material simply eliminates the possibility of fake.
In addition, the chronology of wars among authors belonging to different cultures coincides when bringing calendars to a common denominator. There are even such data that in the Middle Ages simply were not known, but were discovered only through excavations in the 20th century.
The conclusion of scientists about the "New Chronology"
Firstly, today, traditional science listens to the work of Scaliger exactly as far as they are confirmed by the latest research.
And, conversely, Fomenko and Nosovsky’s works contain only attacks on this sixteenth-century scientist. But there is not a single footnote or reference to the source, quotation, or an explicit indication of an error.
Secondly, the complete disregard for business records. The entire evidence base is based on selected chronicles and other documents that only show events one-sidedly. There is no complexity in the study.
Thirdly, the so-called “vicious circle of dating” disappears by itself. That is, supporters of the New Chronology are trying to prove that, based on initially false premises, most methods simply multiply errors. But this is not true, in contrast to their own methods, which are often unproven and unfounded.
And the last one. The notorious "conspiracy of fakes." All evidence is built on it, but if you approach it from the point of view of common sense, then the arguments collapse like a house of cards.
Is it realistic to secretly collect all the books, decrees, letters, rewrite them in a new way and return them to their places. In addition, the huge volumes of archaeological finds simply can not be falsified. Also, the concepts of the cultural layer, stratigraphy and other typical moments of archeology are completely unknown to the theorists of the New Chronology.