42 replies to this topic

[Parsec]

Harsh86_Patel, on 28 September 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

The names of persons and geographical sites often changed meaning and location during the course of the centuries. The exact same name could take on an entirely different meaning in different historical epochs. Geographical locations were clearly defined on maps, only with the advent of printing. This made possible the circulation of identical copies of the same map for purposes in the fields of the military, navigation, education and governance, etc. Before the invention of printed maps, each original map was a unique work of art, both beautiful, non-exact and contradictory.

Mainstream Historians from Oxford say: «stop... everybody knows that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C. Do you really doubt it?» Yes, we really do. For us this statement is only a point of view that is dominant today. But it is only one of many possible points of view until the very fact of his life and deeds is proven.

In turn, we will also ask some simple questions: where did you get your information? from a textbook? That’s not good enough. Who was the first to say that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C.? What book, document and/or manuscript can you quote as a primary source? Who is the author of this source? When and by whom was this primary source written down and where discovered, if you please?

We do not accept «the textbook says so» type of answer as proof. As soon as you dig for proof slightly deeper than the school textbook, the adamant grounds for the totally and utterly dominant point of view suddenly evaporate. The whole world community of professional historians will not be able to come with up irrefutable documentary proof that Julius Caesar EVER existed, be it on paper, papyri, parchment or stone. Same story for ALL great names of Antiquity. The proof is unavailable!


This if true comes across as quite stunning.

Well, let's just say that it's not a good example, if you (or the person you quote) wanted to prove something.
Caesar even introduced, as Pontifex Maximum, a calendar reform, that took its name from him: http://en.wikipedia....Julian_calendar

It lasted more or less 1.500 years, before being replaced by the Gregorian Calendar

Some people should go more on open air running a bit, rather than writing nonsense

[Harsh86_Patel]

Parsec, on 01 October 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Well, let's just say that it's not a good example, if you (or the person you quote) wanted to prove something.
Caesar even introduced, as Pontifex Maximum, a calendar reform, that took its name from him: http://en.wikipedia....Julian_calendar

It lasted more or less 1.500 years, before being replaced by the Gregorian Calendar

Some people should go more on open air running a bit, rather than writing nonsense

Where have you got the information that it was Caesar(the julius caesar) who introduced the calender reforms that you point out.Is it irrefutable or completely reliable.When the theory is questioning the basic premise then the basic premise has to be defended.New chronology is challenging the 16th and 18th century compilations of world history and highlighting lack of original documentations from those times.


You can relate Caesar's entire biography as you know it and say that hence he existed but i guess that would be the text book version.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 03 October 2012 - 09:31 AM.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Harsh86_Patel, on 03 October 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Where have you got the information that it was Caesar(the julius caesar) who introduced the calender reforms that you point out.Is it irrefutable or completely reliable.When the theory is questioning the basic premise then the basic premise has to be defended.New chronology is challenging the 16th and 18th century compilations of world history and highlighting lack of original documentations from those times.


You can relate Caesar's entire biography as you know it and say that hence he existed but i guess that would be the text book version.

Hmm, about lack of original documents from before 16th century, what does New Chronology make of Rosseta Stone, or the papyrus scrolls existing from ancient times, are these not documents?

[Harsh86_Patel]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 03 October 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Hmm, about lack of original documents from before 16th century, what does New Chronology make of Rosseta Stone, or the papyrus scrolls existing from ancient times, are these not documents?

Stones can't be dated in an absolute fashion,i think that the new chronology proponents will use the Rossetta stone to further their case since it is a stone having inscriptions from three different languages so they would probably say that it wasn't so old and neither were the languages or the cultures.

The new chronology proponents also question the accuracy and caliberation of radio carbon dating process.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 04 October 2012 - 05:42 AM.

[Clobhair-cean]

I will just leave this article here

Was The First Queen of Denmark a Man?

[Harsh86_Patel]

Clobhair-cean, on 04 October 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

I will just leave this article here

Was The First Queen of Denmark a Man?

Pointless rhetoric.I came across some better objections to new chronology while searching online.

[Clobhair-cean]

Harsh86_Patel, on 04 October 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Pointless rhetoric.I came across some better objections to new chronology while searching online.

Please elaborate why this isn't an accurate representation of this ridiculous idea.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Clobhair-cean, on 04 October 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

I will just leave this article here

Was The First Queen of Denmark a Man?

Excellent, you have correctly understood the tricks of Fomenko, and others...

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Harsh86_Patel, on 04 October 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Stones can't be dated in an absolute fashion,i think that the new chronology proponents will use the Rossetta stone to further their case since it is a stone having inscriptions from three different languages so they would probably say that it wasn't so old and neither were the languages or the cultures.

The new chronology proponents also question the accuracy and caliberation of radio carbon dating process.

Of course they question anything that proves them wrong.
Fomenko attempts to show in his book "Египет, русские и итальянские зодиаки", (Egyptian, Russian and Italian Zodiacs", that a zodiac in the tomb of Ramesses IX shows a date of 1148 AD. He even quotes Champollion to verify what he says. This is Alice through the looking glass, but it sells books. Never underestimate the corrupting influence of $ when it comes to propagating such nonsense.

[Parsec]

Harsh86_Patel, on 03 October 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Where have you got the information that it was Caesar(the julius caesar) who introduced the calender reforms that you point out.Is it irrefutable or completely reliable.When the theory is questioning the basic premise then the basic premise has to be defended.New chronology is challenging the 16th and 18th century compilations of world history and highlighting lack of original documentations from those times.


You can relate Caesar's entire biography as you know it and say that hence he existed but i guess that would be the text book version.

I see your point. Following your reasoning, your new chronology can't be trusted neither. Better, you can't trust any written document, because the main point is that you can't verify what you can't see with your eyes. So, what makes you so sure that Fomenko is right? Maybe Napoleon lived few years after Plato, who knows?
You can't even be sure of what is happening right now around you in the world. Sure, you can read articles on the war in Darfur, about riots in Syria, but who knows, maybe none of them are real. Have you been there? Have you seen with your own eyes what's going on? If the answer is "No", then you can't be sure about anything.

I suggest you to leave this rubbish alone and if you are into this kind of things, try to read something more enlightening like some of Pirandello's works (http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Pirandello). I don't know how are the english versions, but I think you can find some good translations. I suggest you http://en.wikipedia....undred_Thousand and, for a quick and very insightful reading, try this http://books.google....nza eng&f=false (the translation is not the best, but it's readable).

Cheers

[Harsh86_Patel]

Parsec, on 04 October 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

I see your point. Following your reasoning, your new chronology can't be trusted neither. Better, you can't trust any written document, because the main point is that you can't verify what you can't see with your eyes. So, what makes you so sure that Fomenko is right? Maybe Napoleon lived few years after Plato, who knows?
You can't even be sure of what is happening right now around you in the world. Sure, you can read articles on the war in Darfur, about riots in Syria, but who knows, maybe none of them are real. Have you been there? Have you seen with your own eyes what's going on? If the answer is "No", then you can't be sure about anything.

I suggest you to leave this rubbish alone and if you are into this kind of things, try to read something more enlightening like some of Pirandello's works (http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Pirandello). I don't know how are the english versions, but I think you can find some good translations. I suggest you http://en.wikipedia....undred_Thousand and, for a quick and very insightful reading, try this http://books.google....nza eng&f=false (the translation is not the best, but it's readable).

Cheers

True that.Tertiary sources are all we have in many instances.For Eg-The debate of historical jesus still rages on.
Here is a good debate that highlights our lack of sources which happened right here at UM.
http://www.unexplain...howtopic=140620

You might dislike Fomenko's deductions but his methodology is not all that bad.

[kmt_sesh]

Harsh86_Patel, on 04 October 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Stones can't be dated in an absolute fashion,i think that the new chronology proponents will use the Rossetta stone to further their case since it is a stone having inscriptions from three different languages so they would probably say that it wasn't so old and neither were the languages or the cultures.

Those following the "new chronology" would be incorrect to say so. There are several different ways by which stones can be dated, although carbon dating isn't one of them. No one should propose that. The inscription on the stone is all that's required. It's dedicated to Ptolemy V and can be dated to 196 BCE just by the inscription alone. It does not contain three languages but two languages written in three different scripts: hieroglyphs at the top and demotic at center (both ancient Egyptian forms of writing), and Greek at the bottom.

Consider that the last hieroglyphic inscription (more of a graffito) was written in 394 CE at Philae. By then Egyptian hieroglyphs were fast disappearing from the stage of history, anyway. By the time the Muslims invaded Egypt in 639 CE, 245 years after the graffito at Philae, no one could read hieroglyphs anymore. That's a pretty narrow span of time, really, but if we were to look at this from the persepctive of the "new chronology," something perhaps like ten minutes must have passed. I might be exaggerating, but how did the transformation from hieroglyphs and demotic to Coptic script happen in all of ten minutes? And then a few more minutes must have passed before Arabic took over Coptic as the writing system of Egypt.

This "new chronology" is profoundly unrealistic. Just calling it like it is. It strikes me as some bizarre version of creationism, a desperate attempt to make the world much, much younger. It certainly doesn't seem to factor in innumerable aspects of science and history.

Quote

The new chronology proponents also question the accuracy and caliberation of radio carbon dating process.

This is typical of "young earthers" and similar sects. Very few of them actually understand the science of carbon dating and other dating methods, but they're quick to dismiss all of them. Out of desperation. It reminds me of the old cliché "Ignorance is bliss." If only such people would take the time to study and understand carbon dating as it is practiced today, they would have to understand how reliable it actually is.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 06 October 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

Those following the "new chronology" would be incorrect to say so. There are several different ways by which stones can be dated, although carbon dating isn't one of them. No one should propose that. The inscription on the stone is all that's required. It's dedicated to Ptolemy V and can be dated to 196 BCE just by the inscription alone. It does not contain three languages but two languages written in three different scripts: hieroglyphs at the top and demotic at center (both ancient Egyptian forms of writing), and Greek at the bottom.

Consider that the last hieroglyphic inscription (more of a graffito) was written in 394 CE at Philae. By then Egyptian hieroglyphs were fast disappearing from the stage of history, anyway. By the time the Muslims invaded Egypt in 639 CE, 245 years after the graffito at Philae, no one could read hieroglyphs anymore. That's a pretty narrow span of time, really, but if we were to look at this from the persepctive of the "new chronology," something perhaps like ten minutes must have passed. I might be exaggerating, but how did the transformation from hieroglyphs and demotic to Coptic script happen in all of ten minutes? And then a few more minutes must have passed before Arabic took over Coptic as the writing system of Egypt.

This "new chronology" is profoundly unrealistic. Just calling it like it is. It strikes me as some bizarre version of creationism, a desperate attempt to make the world much, much younger. It certainly doesn't seem to factor in innumerable aspects of science and history.



This is typical of "young earthers" and similar sects. Very few of them actually understand the science of carbon dating and other dating methods, but they're quick to dismiss all of them. Out of desperation. It reminds me of the old cliché "Ignorance is bliss." If only such people would take the time to study and understand carbon dating as it is practiced today, they would have to understand how reliable it actually is.

As far as i know Fomenko's hypothesis have offended historians and young Earth creationists alike.I know that we have dated the Rossetta stone in a relative fashion and not an absolute fashion.
I am being the devil's advocate here,but maybe the traditional pattern of language succession may not be accurate and many languages that we think are isolated may have been contemporary and eventually a few get wiped out because of wide scale use or poupularity of the others.I feel abrupt language changes cannot be justified historically.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Harsh86_Patel, on 06 October 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

As far as i know Fomenko's hypothesis have offended historians and young Earth creationists alike.I know that we have dated the Rossetta stone in a relative fashion and not an absolute fashion.
I am being the devil's advocate here,but maybe the traditional pattern of language succession may not be accurate and many languages that we think are isolated may have been contemporary and eventually a few get wiped out because of wide scale use or poupularity of the others.I feel abrupt language changes cannot be justified historically.

Yes they can. Abrupt language changes are the result of conquest or migration. The Lombards were a Germanic tribe who moved to Italy during the chaos of the migration period. Historic records show that within fifty years of their arrival they no longer spoke a Germanic language. In England the French speaking Normans changed English so radically that if you went back to pre-Norman England you would not understand the language except for a few words.

About Fomenko, you have read his books? in Russian?

[Harsh86_Patel]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 06 October 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Yes they can. Abrupt language changes are the result of conquest or migration. The Lombards were a Germanic tribe who moved to Italy during the chaos of the migration period. Historic records show that within fifty years of their arrival they no longer spoke a Germanic language. In England the French speaking Normans changed English so radically that if you went back to pre-Norman England you would not understand the language except for a few words.

About Fomenko, you have read his books? in Russian?

Languages are also retained under the pain of conquests or migrations,you can take for example the ottoman rule of greece etc there are ample examples.No language can dissappear or be discarded in a period of 50 years which is pretty much a single generation,it is next to impossible that a person who has spoken a language for first 20 years of his life will stop using it in a time period of 50 years,i don't know what is a historians take on this but i would surely laugh at such an idea.Modiftying a language to a large extent and a language dying out gradually are two seperate processes but a time period of 50 years is two small for either to have happened.
Ofcourse if a invasion takes place and all the natives are killed or reduced to a negligible population then the native language may dissappear but as long as a sufficient population of natives remain the language will survive and if it has to will die a slow and gradual death.