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

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.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=140620

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

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I believe I am correct about Lombards and English, and 50 years in those days, particularly for a tribe in such circumstances, would be about 1.5 generations. I did not state they had lost all their German words in 50 years, simply that they did not speak a Germanic language. Probably a hybrid that soon, by the historical records, had almost no German words left.

And Fomenko?.....

Some more of his nonsense. In his book "Реконструкция всеобщей истории" (Reconstruction of world history), he states that Pope Innocent III (1160 - 1216, living in Rome) and Kniaz (prince) Ivan Kalita (1283 - 1341, living in Moscow and Novgorod) are the same person. I use them as an example because they are verifiable real people with dates of birth and death and what they did in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

None of the languages I mentioned abruptly disappeared. Coptic, for instance, is somewhat of an artificial designation and describes the script more so than the spoken word. After all, the spoken word of Coptic is merely the last development of the pharaonic language spoken in Egypt for millennia. The Egyptians used the Greek alphabet as well as several characters from their own demotic script to create the Coptic alphabet. The Arabic language did not even exist in pharaonic times but was a later development of one language from numerous Central Semitic tongues.

You're proving my own point. While I certainly agree with Atentutankh in the way that certain languages might abruptly change, the languages I mentioned evolved over a long time. And from ancient written texts in ancient Egyptian as well as Arabic, linguists can track how the grammar and syntax of these languages evolved over time. The new chronology takes none of this into account. It compresses great lengths of history into an indefensible model that cannot survive scrutiny. And I'm talking only about linguistics here. The greater body of scientific and historical studies renders the new chronology into tatters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I am correct about Lombards and English, and 50 years in those days, particularly for a tribe in such circumstances, would be about 1.5 generations. I did not state they had lost all their German words in 50 years, simply that they did not speak a Germanic language. Probably a hybrid that soon, by the historical records, had almost no German words left.

And Fomenko?.....

Some more of his nonsense. In his book "Реконструкция всеобщей истории" (Reconstruction of world history), he states that Pope Innocent III (1160 - 1216, living in Rome) and Kniaz (prince) Ivan Kalita (1283 - 1341, living in Moscow and Novgorod) are the same person. I use them as an example because they are verifiable real people with dates of birth and death and what they did in life.

Like i mentioned earlier Fomenko's technique and conclusions are not very innaccurate,if he has reached a conclusion it will be very difficult to prove the contrary based on evidence we have since he takes into account this missing or unreliable evidence to formulate his ideas,only real objective criticism of his technique can come from counter archeoastronomical evidence and assertations of radio carbon dating in some of his arguments.Other then that there is no real logic flaw or objective criticism of his technique or infferences,even if we take into account the contrary evidence based on archeoastronomy and radio carbon dating still they cannot prove false many of his conclusions or comparisons objectively and can contest only the parts of history which have not been asserted by him.My friend he is checking the reliability of sources that state the birth and death of these famous people that you talk about,his argument runs on a similar course as people who deny there was ever a historical jesus as all we have are tertiary sorces and that too are pretty inconclusive (hence i posted a link above where such a scenario was debated by Tiggs).Like i said before that you might not like his personal interpretations of world history but he has effectively pointed out the short comings of objective proofs in our mainstream chronology of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the languages I mentioned abruptly disappeared. Coptic, for instance, is somewhat of an artificial designation and describes the script more so than the spoken word. After all, the spoken word of Coptic is merely the last development of the pharaonic language spoken in Egypt for millennia. The Egyptians used the Greek alphabet as well as several characters from their own demotic script to create the Coptic alphabet. The Arabic language did not even exist in pharaonic times but was a later development of one language from numerous Central Semitic tongues.

You're proving my own point. While I certainly agree with Atentutankh in the way that certain languages might abruptly change, the languages I mentioned evolved over a long time. And from ancient written texts in ancient Egyptian as well as Arabic, linguists can track how the grammar and syntax of these languages evolved over time. The new chronology takes none of this into account. It compresses great lengths of history into an indefensible model that cannot survive scrutiny. And I'm talking only about linguistics here. The greater body of scientific and historical studies renders the new chronology into tatters.

Whether there is physical eveidence for a language or script it is difficult to gulp down that a popularly spoken language can dissappear from the native population in a matter of 50 years,if evaluated psychologically it is very difficult to explain like i said other then the scenario in which whole populations are massacred,death penaly is issued for speaking a particular language or the native population is enslaved and diffused geographically to not allow any interaction.No matter how much cultural interaction two populations speaking different languages have none will readily give up or even chose to dramatically alter their native language,though loan words are common and can be easily explained.Wide spread changes in spoken language can only be explained by invasion and violent or coersive(economically coersive along with imperialistic events as in the case of spread of English in the modern world) interactions and cultural influences cannot be the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i mentioned earlier Fomenko's technique and conclusions are not very innaccurate,if he has reached a conclusion it will be very difficult to prove the contrary based on evidence we have since he takes into account this missing or unreliable evidence to formulate his ideas,only real objective criticism of his technique can come from counter archeoastronomical evidence and assertations of radio carbon dating in some of his arguments.Other then that there is no real logic flaw or objective criticism of his technique or infferences,even if we take into account the contrary evidence based on archeoastronomy and radio carbon dating still they cannot prove false many of his conclusions or comparisons objectively and can contest only the parts of history which have not been asserted by him.My friend he is checking the reliability of sources that state the birth and death of these famous people that you talk about,his argument runs on a similar course as people who deny there was ever a historical jesus as all we have are tertiary sorces and that too are pretty inconclusive (hence i posted a link above where such a scenario was debated by Tiggs).Like i said before that you might not like his personal interpretations of world history but he has effectively pointed out the short comings of objective proofs in our mainstream chronology of history.

I don't care what nonsense he, or anybody else believes. It is that I am tired of seeing so many charlatans taking $$$ from the gullible. Yes yes, there is caveat emptor, though many forget this when confronted by the slick pagaging and words designed to make you feel happy and are an initiate in some great secret.

I think to say there could be a problem with dates of people living in the 12th and 13th centuries AD is stretching the imagination. It simply is not possible that Innocent III and Ivan Kalita are the same person. Their very bones still exist as proof they are two different individuals. New chronology is nonsense, nonsense on stilts and wearing a red nose and clowns hat, and laughing very loudly all the way to the bank...

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care what nonsense he, or anybody else believes. It is that I am tired of seeing so many charlatans taking $$$ from the gullible. Yes yes, there is caveat emptor, though many forget this when confronted by the slick pagaging and words designed to make you feel happy and are an initiate in some great secret.

I think to say there could be a problem with dates of people living in the 12th and 13th centuries AD is stretching the imagination. It simply is not possible that Innocent III and Ivan Kalita are the same person. Their very bones still exist as proof they are two different individuals. New chronology is nonsense, nonsense on stilts and wearing a red nose and clowns hat, and laughing very loudly all the way to the bank...

The way you get irritated by radical ideas is very entertaining.Bones being proof of person cannot be established until you have DNA samples from both or some medical reports from the time the person was alive.$$$ is demanded and spent in mainstream history as well,doesn't seem to discredit mainstream historians also even education requires $$$ do you discredit education,so people expecting money for their work/research does not necessarily discredit their work.If not through his books which other traditional historical studies organisation is going to fund Fomenko's research?

You seem to be a person who dislikes people making money for their work.I can't comment if you will work for free for long periods of time.I can understand that some of his conclusions can make conventional histroy stand on its head but that cannot be the only reason to discredit his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way you get irritated by radical ideas is very entertaining.Bones being proof of person cannot be established until you have DNA samples from both or some medical reports from the time the person was alive.$$$ is demanded and spent in mainstream history as well,doesn't seem to discredit mainstream historians also even education requires $$$ do you discredit education,so people expecting money for their work/research does not necessarily discredit their work.If not through his books which other traditional historical studies organisation is going to fund Fomenko's research?

You seem to be a person who dislikes people making money for their work.I can't comment if you will work for free for long periods of time.I can understand that some of his conclusions can make conventional histroy stand on its head but that cannot be the only reason to discredit his work.

You have entirely misrepresented and not understood a word I have written. This deliberate or......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have entirely misrepresented and not understood a word I have written. This deliberate or......

I apologise if i misunderstood what you were trying to convey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise if i misunderstood what you were trying to convey.

Apology not needed :) Probably there is a clash of language here. Mostly my comments have some humour in them.This often does not translate well....

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apology not needed :) Probably there is a clash of language here. Mostly my comments have some humour in them.This often does not translate well....

If you're location really is KV35, I'd imagine part of the problem is maintaining a good internet connection. Of course, you're being in there might be inciting the wrath of the spirit of Amunhotep II, so you might be suffering the mummy's curse. Unless you're the vengeful spirit of Amunhotep II, in which case I think you're doing pretty damn well, considering your language was long dead and you've had to learn a whole new one, not to mention the fact that internet-connection technology in Dynasty 18 was really poor.

Listen to me. I'm so full of BS. :w00t:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're location really is KV35, I'd imagine part of the problem is maintaining a good internet connection. Of course, you're being in there might be inciting the wrath of the spirit of Amunhotep II, so you might be suffering the mummy's curse. Unless you're the vengeful spirit of Amunhotep II, in which case I think you're doing pretty damn well, considering your language was long dead and you've had to learn a whole new one, not to mention the fact that internet-connection technology in Dynasty 18 was really poor.

Listen to me. I'm so full of BS. :w00t:

Hey, no going over to "the Dark Side". Even if they do have cookies. :lol:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, no going over to "the Dark Side". Even if they do have cookies. :lol:

cormac

No worries. They'd have to have milk too. I won't eat cookies without milk. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're location really is KV35, I'd imagine part of the problem is maintaining a good internet connection. Of course, you're being in there might be inciting the wrath of the spirit of Amunhotep II, so you might be suffering the mummy's curse. Unless you're the vengeful spirit of Amunhotep II, in which case I think you're doing pretty damn well, considering your language was long dead and you've had to learn a whole new one, not to mention the fact that internet-connection technology in Dynasty 18 was really poor.

Listen to me. I'm so full of BS. :w00t:

3,300 years of darkness and silence. Then noise, flickering lights, a strange barbaric language. But I was free again, free to leave my great, great, great grandfather's tomb. And here I am, hello.

Problem is that I have to wear a hat or my head will fill with water when it rains. Well, perhaps some denizens of this forum will say it is allready full, but not with water :D

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

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.