Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Harsh86_Patel

New Chronology VS Conventional Chronology

43 posts in this topic

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_16.htm

Came across this link and read a little more about it.Thought it is a very interesting concept and like to know more and discuss the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall a theory espoused hereabouts once that the year was 1810 not 2010 becuase we basically accidentally added 200 years to the Dark Ages.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if New chronology is not a correct extrapolation but still it highlights how cyclical some historical events are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall a theory espoused hereabouts once that the year was 1810 not 2010 becuase we basically accidentally added 200 years to the Dark Ages.

Oh yes, see, the world did not end in 2000 as it was supposed to, so they had to add some years from somewhere to not look like the morons they are :devil:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fomenko is wrong. It is very obvious. Recently his ideas have been denounced as being likely to disturb the mental wellbeing of people. The state believes there is simply too much end of the world doom and gloom on internet, particulary youtube, and have made vague comments that this should be rectified. Personally I am totally against censorship. If anybody wants to make themselves look foolish, then let them.

However, this site by Sergey Apin is much more sensible as it deals with science and not the quasi religious nonsense of Fomenko

http://www.sergey-apin.ru/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....ology_(Fomenko)

As usual wiki article is laden with criticism but i feel he has somethings going for him (i mean Fomenko)

From http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=59078&sid=db767fe24a383576878f6ee956a5a420

Fomenko collates this evidence to argue that all those ancient chronicles are different versions of events which really happened roughly between 1000 AD and 1400 AD.
Volume 2 shows how the timelines of the "First" through "Third" Roman empires, ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, and the Bible are all reflections of events which took place in so-called "Medieval" times. The reason pre-1600 history tends to move in cycles of about 350 years (punctuated by Dark Ages) is, we are told, because there only is about 350 years of pre-1600 history in the first place.

According to Fomenko, nothing happened before 1000 CE. Everything, even ancient history happened 1000 CE - 1400 CE

I think that pretty much invalidates his theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But his research can be helpful in mapping events which are thought to be independant but are actually one and the same.Though his whole hypothesis can be rejected but the kind of work he is doing can be useful to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One area of study that seems to be overlooked is Genealogy. We know who the descendants of Julius Caesar are and by starting closest to modern day and working backwards we can help determine approximately when a person lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask a layman question.

What is conventional chronology based on?

What is New Chronology Based on?

IMHO, conventional Chronology is based on actual evidences, dating - both absolute and relative.

I don't know what New Chronology is based on..at all.

If harsh could elaborate???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask a layman question.

What is conventional chronology based on?

What is New Chronology Based on?

IMHO, conventional Chronology is based on actual evidences, dating - both absolute and relative.

I don't know what New Chronology is based on..at all.

If harsh could elaborate???

You may find this of use

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=59078&sid=db767fe24a383576878f6ee956a5a420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

A proof of existance of Julius Ceasar not dependant on later written accounts is a Denarius from 44BC bearing his face, name and saying that he is "Perpetual Dictator".

Also, to see exactly the type of "useful work" Fomenko is engaged on, it is only necessary to visit his site and see all the many books with attractive covers for sale. Making $$$ is indeed useful....

And it is interesting to see how big the snowball Helena Blavatsky rolled down the hill so many years ago has become...

And for anybody interested in visiting Fomenko's temple of obscurantism, if only to look at the seductive titles and cover art, then look here. (Russian only)

http://www.chronologia.org/

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask a layman question.

What is conventional chronology based on?

What is New Chronology Based on?

IMHO, conventional Chronology is based on actual evidences, dating - both absolute and relative.

I don't know what New Chronology is based on..at all.

If harsh could elaborate???

As i said i am new to the topic myself but the 'New chronology' is a stastical mapping of relative events based on actual physically verifiable original historical sources and archeo astronomy etc.The methodology from what i know of it is seems very logical and mathematical and if i can be excused also scientific.There is a huge gap of original sources and hence we rely often on copies to map many historical events which does give a lot of scope for errors of repetitions(from different perspectives) to seep in.I think Fomenko does have a point when he highlights these shortcomings of classical historians who were definitely more prejudiced and ignorant then modern historian and our understanding of many events may be fallacious if we rely on 16th and 18th century sources as an absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A proof of existance of Julius Ceasar not dependant on later written accounts is a Denarius from 44BC bearing his face, name and saying that he is "Perpetual Dictator".

Also, to see exactly the type of "useful work" Fomenko is engaged on, it is only necessary to visit his site and see all the many books with attractive covers for sale. Making $$$ is indeed useful....

And it is interesting to see how big the snowball Helena Blavatsky rolled down the hill so many years ago has become...

And for anybody interested in visiting Fomenko's temple of obscurantism, if only to look at the seductive titles and cover art, then look here. (Russian only)

http://www.chronologia.org/

I was just quoting an article posted by someone. But probably what he meant was that the actual life and deeds of Julius Ceasar as we know it may not be based on irrefutable sources.But thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/Julian_calendar

:lol:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:lol:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/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.org/wiki/One,_No_one_and_One_Hundred_Thousand and, for a quick and very insightful reading, try this http://books.google.it/books?id=cuBU9zxH5u8C&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=la+signora+frola+and+her+son-in-law+signor+ponza+eng&source=bl&ots=XdvY40y9Y8&sig=AJtkephAPjbAdIeJy5vaNY5uRxk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nxZuUI_vGKeh4gSS_IFg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=la%20signora%20frola%20and%20her%20son-in-law%20signor%20ponza%20eng&f=false (the translation is not the best, but it's readable).

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.