Chronology - what is it? Definition. "New Chronology" by A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky

The history of mankind has always been interested in its inadequacy. The older this or that fact, the more in its description of conjectures and inaccuracies. Among other things, the human factor and the interests of the rulers are added.

It is at similar contacts and built "New Chronology". What is special about this theory, which stirred up the bulk of academic scholars?

What is 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.

First, it determines when an event occurred.

Secondly, it follows the sequence and position of the incidents on the linear scale of the years.

It is divided into several departments - astronomical, geological and historical chronology.

Each of these departments has its own set of methods of dating and research. These include the 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 areas and only in the case of cross-validation of the facts makes a final verdict.

Let's take a closer look at other issues raised earlier. Who are Fomenko, Nosovsky? "New Chronology" is 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 NA Morozov. The latter, while in prison in St. Petersburg, made a calculation of the position of the stars mentioned in the Apocalypse. According to him, it appeared that this book was written in the fourth century AD. Not embarrassed at all, he declared falsifications in world history.

The authors of the "New Chronology" predecessors Morozov consider the Jesuit Garduen and the physicist Isaac Newton, who also tried to rethink and reclassify the chronology of mankind.

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 counted the years of the reign of the pharaohs on the list of Manetho. Judging by the results of his research, world history has declined by more than three millennia.

To similar "innovators" it is possible to carry also Эдвина Johnson and Robert Baldaufa, asserting, that to mankind no more couple of hundreds years.

So, Morozov displays absolutely fantastic figures on which his chronology is based. What are thousands of years of history? Myth! The Stone Age is the 1st century of our era, the second century is the Bronze Age, the third is the Iron Age. And you did not know? After all, all historical sources are falsified in modern times!

Let's take a closer look at this unusual theory and look at its refutation.

Basic Provisions

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, more or less reliable can be considered written sources only later than the eighteenth century. Prior to this, since the eleventh century, the works have to be treated with caution. And before the tenth century people did not know how to write.

All the data of archeology can be interpreted in the way the researcher would like, so they do not carry a clear historical value.

Secondly, the European chronology appeared only in the fifteenth century. Before that, each people had their own calendar and the starting point. From the creation of the world, from the flood, from birth or the ascension to the throne of some ruler ...
This statement grows from this thesis.

Thirdly, historical information on pages of annals, treatises and other works shamelessly duplicate each other. Thus, the chronology of Nosovsky argues that most of the events of ancient history occurred in the early Middle Ages or later. But because of the discrepancy between calendars and reference points, during translation, the information was not correctly handled and the story was blown up.

Traditional chronology is mistaken in the age of Eastern civilizations and the starting point of human history. Judging by the previous postulate, China and India can count no more than a thousand years of chronology.

The last point is the human factor and the government's desire to legitimize itself. As Fomenko says, chronology is written by each authority under itself, and old data is erased or destroyed. Therefore, it is impossible to fully understand the history. The only thing that can be based on is "accidentally preserved or missed fragments." This includes maps, pages of various annals and other documents supporting the theory.

Argument based on texts

The main evidence in this area is the "eagerness" similarity of the four historical eras and the frequency of events in the annals.

The key periods are 330 years, 1050 and 1800. That is, if we take this number of years from medieval events, we will come across complete correspondence of incidents.

From this comes the coincidence of different historical figures, who, according to Fomenko's theory, are one and the same person.

Under such conclusions chronology of Ukraine, Russia and Europe is adjusted. Most of the conflicting sources are ignored or declared as forgery.

The astronomical method

When disputes arise in certain disciplines, they try to attract research results from related sciences.

According to Fomenko, "New Chronology" is perfectly tested, and its postulates are proved with the help of ancient astronomical maps. Studying these documents, he repels from eclipses (solar and lunar), mentions of comets and, in fact, images of constellations.

The main source on which evidence is based is Almagest. This treatise, which was composed 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 to prove the theory from the "Almagest" were taken only eight stars (although the document recorded more than a thousand). Only these were declared "correct", the rest - "forged".

The main proof of the theory from the standpoint of eclipses is the composition of Livia about the Peloponnesian War. There are three phenomena: two solar and one lunar eclipse.

The catch is that Titus Livius writes about the events on the entire peninsula and reports that "in the daytime the stars were visible." That is, the eclipse was complete. Judging by other sources, in Athens at this time observed an incomplete eclipse.

Based on this inaccuracy, Fomenko argues that the full correspondence with the data of Libya was only in the eleventh century of our era. Due to this, he automatically transfers the entire ancient history for a millennium and a half ahead.

Despite the fact that most of the data on 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 accusations against the dendrological Novgorod scale, which has been confirmed in thousands of examples, are unfounded. The Fomenko group considers these data fit for a falsified chronology.

On the other hand, radiocarbon analysis is attacked. But the statements in his address are inconsistent. This method is wrong in everything, except for the times when they were tested the age of the Shroud of Turin. It was then that everything was "done accurately and conscientiously".

On what "doubts" is based "New Chronology"

Let's see what other flaws the Fomenko group finds in traditional science. The main attacks are the historical methods of investigation. And often the thesis reveals "double criteria". In the case of academic science, this or that method is declared a falsification, but the fans of the "New Chronology" are the only correct one.

The chronology of books was the first to be doubted. Based on the works of historians, chronicles and decrees of officials, Fomenko and Morozov create their own theory. But millions of pages of simple letters, economic documents and other "folk" records are ignored.

"Scaligerian" dating is abolished due to the use of astrology, and the rest of the researchers are ignored.

Most of the documents are declared counterfeit. Such a judgment is based on the fact that it is practically impossible to distinguish the source of the late Middle Ages from the ancient. Based on known falsifications, the thesis about unreliability of all books "allegedly created until the middle of the first millennium" is derived.

The main evidence base on which the "New Chronology" is based, Nosovsky and Fomenko build 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 asserts that there are several proofs of the illogicality of such a model.

First, it is impossible to "forget", and then simply "remember" whole layers of scientific knowledge.

Second, what does it mean to "restore" research data centuries ago? To preserve knowledge, there must be scientific schools, where information is transferred from teacher to student.

From such judgments it is concluded that the whole history of antiquity is simply artificially overdone events of the Middle Ages.

Especially the Fomenko group is interested in the chronology of Russia. From her data, information is derived about the allegedly existing medieval empire of the "Russian Khans," which covered the whole of Eurasia.

General scientific criticism

Many scientists disagree with the postulates that the New Chronology puts forward. What, for example, is "to drop the wrong scientific theories"? It turns out that only Fomenko, based on Morozov's notes, owns "true" knowledge.

In fact, there are three points that are very embarrassing to any sane person.

First, by refuting the traditional chronology, Fomenko's group thereby eliminates all sciences, which indirectly confirm academic data. That is, philologists, archeologists, 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 obvious inconsistency in many places. It is a question of one epoch, for the confirmation is given a map of the sky of a completely different period. Thus, all the facts are adjusted in the right frame.

Here also are the discrepancies between the supposedly "recurring" historical figures. For example, Solomon and Caesar are the same person, according to the New Chronology. What is the forty years of government of the first versus four of the second for the layman? Does not match? So, in the eighteenth century they falsified!

The last argument, which defines this theory as a pseudoscience, is as follows. Proceeding from numerous "amendments", it appears that there is a worldwide conspiracy of "incomprehensible-which-society", which was able to rewrite in secret the entire history of mankind. And this was done in the Middle Ages and a new time when the formation of states was going on and there was no question of any commonality and consolidation.

The last thing that frankly upset the scientific community was a clear attack on academic professionalism. If you find the theory of "New Chronology" to be true, it turns out that all scientists just play in the sandbox and do not even understand basic things. Not to mention ordinary common sense.

Why indignant astronomers

The main stumbling block was "Almagest". If we reject precisely the stars on which Fomenko's theory is based (they can not be dated unambiguously), we get a picture that completely coincides with the traditional one.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the movements of the luminaries were recounted using the latest techniques and computers. All the data of Ptolemy and Hipparchus were confirmed.

Thus, the indignation of scientists caused unjustified attacks on their professionalism on the part of the most complete amateur.

The answer of historians, linguists and archaeologists

In the field of influence of these disciplines, a heated debate broke out. First, they stood up for dendrochronology and radiocarbon analysis. Judging by Fomenko's statements, he has data for the 1960s. These sciences have long stepped forward. Their methods confirm the traditional history, and are also supported by related techniques. These include band clays, paleomagnetic and potassium-argon methods, and so on.

The birchbark was 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 Arabic, Armenian, Chinese and other written testimonies, which confirm the traditional history of Europe. Only those facts that support the theory are mentioned.

The emphasis on narrative sources puts fans of the "New Chronology" in an uncomfortable position. Their arguments are shattered to the dust by usual administrative and economic records.

If you look at the linguistic evidence of Fomenko, then, according to AA Zaliznyak, "this is utter dilettantism at the level of errors in the multiplication table." For example, Latin is declared a descendant of the Old Slavonic, and "Samara", when read back, becomes a "dialectal pronunciation of the word Rome".

Dates and names on coins, medals, gems are fully confirmed by academic data. Especially the amount of this material simply excludes the possibility of forgery.

In addition, the chronology of wars among authors belonging to different cultures, coincides with the reduction of calendars to a common denominator. There are even such data, which in the Middle Ages were simply not known, but opened only thanks to excavations in the twentieth century.

Conclusion of scientists about the "New Chronology"

First, today traditional science listens to Scaliger's works exactly as much as they are confirmed by the latest research.

And, on the contrary, Fomenko and Nosovski only contain attacks on this scientist of the sixteenth century. But there is no footnote or reference to the source, quotation or explicit indication of the error.

Secondly, complete ignoring of economic records. The entire evidence base is based on selected annals and other documents, which only show one-sided events. There is no complexity in the study.

Thirdly, the so-called "vicious cycle 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, unlike their own methods, which are often unsubstantiated and unsubstantiated.

And the last. The notorious "plot of fakes". It builds all the evidence, but if you approach from the point of view of common sense, then the arguments crumble like a house of cards.

Is it possible to collect all books, decrees, letters in a secret way, rewrite them in a new way and return them to their places. In addition, the vast amounts of archaeological finds simply can not really be forged. Also, the concepts of the cultural layer, stratigraphy and other typical moments of archeology are completely unknown to the theorists of the New Chronology.