Archaeologica.org

I've just come across a couple of books by Anatoly Fomenko entitled History: Fiction or Science? (2 vols). In these he apparently has a go at what is termed the consensual chronology of history - the chronology we all use and pretty much accept. His criticisms seem to be so radical as to be off the wall. He is obviously a genius or an idiot.

Has anyone heard of this guy or even read his books? Is it worth spending good money to buy them?

He is obviously a genius or an idiot.

I vote idiot.

Aha! A newcomer. Welcome Davidvs.


As for Fometko:

asserts from this that all of ancient history (including the history of Greece, Rome, and Egypt) is just a reflection of events that occurred in the Middle Ages and that all of Chinese and Arab history are fabrications of 17th and 18th century Jesuits. He also claims that Jesus lived in the 12th century A.D. and was crucified on Joshua's Hill; that the Trojan war and the Crusades were the same historical event; and that Genghis Khan and the Mongols were actually Russians.

I know that Napoleon said "History is a lie agreed upon" but this fellow seems to take the idea over the edge.

Having checked out Anatoly Fomenko I have decided to keep my money.

Fomenko may say daft things but his reasons are not so easily rubbished as they can raise fundamental questions. He has identified gaps (some) in our knowledge and is simply exploiting them. One such gap concerns the ‘provenance’ of historical textual information. Much in history (esp. ancient history) is taken for granted (i.e. believed) but rests upon a very murky foundation. Fomenko, amongst other things, is exploiting the pre-medieval obscurity of much of our historical knowledge.

Tacitus is a good example. A translator of The Annals of Imperial Rome says “our knowledge of the work is based on a single medieval manuscript of the first half of the work and another of its second half…..But certain aspects of their discovery in the 14th or 15th century are veiled in obscurity.”

Also, very little is known about Tacitus’ sources and “We have no external check on what he says.” In a recent radio discussion a panel of experts were asked about Tacitus’ reliability and they admitted it was largely down to his impressive style and coherency. In other words, Tacitus was convincing.

If I were Fomenko I would conclude that The Annals (i) was written in the 14th century (ii) cannot be accepted as historically reliable. He probably already has.

The one thing that everyone focuses on in Tacitus is the alleged Neronian persecution of christians. There is a school of thought which holds that this segment, which first turns up in ancient literature almost word for word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, was a much later insertion.

http://www.textexcavation.com/tacitustestimonium.html

Sulpicius Severus, early in century V, uses this Tacitean text in Chronicle 2.29.1-4a:

The trouble is that no one before Severus noted this nor particularly associated xtians with Nero's fire. This link,

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/Nero.htm

contains references to a number of early christian writers and their apparent lack of knowledge of any persecution by Nero at all.

Curious.

I don't know what the comparable English expression is, but in my language we have a saying that "one idiot can raise more questions than 7 wise men could answer in a 1,000 years". I.o.w.: raising questions in itself is hardly an achievement...

I had been unaware of the possible interpolation of Nero's persecution ('punishment') of the Christians. Cliff Carrington makes a strong case. Thank you for that, Minimalist.

A fairly recent and sympathetic biography of Nero offers explanations of why the Biblical writers (Gospels and Acts) made no mention of the persecution:

(i) these books were written before the fire
(ii) the persecuted Christians were of a deviant (disapproved) Christian sect and therefore not worthy or useful enough to mention
(iii) the writers were mindful not to offend their "secular masters" in the post-Neronian period
(iv) Tacitus got it wrong or simply exaggerated.

These explanations don't account for the later omissions or those by secular writers. The possibility that Tacitus got it wrong requires that later writers knew he had got it wrong - this doesn't seem to make much sense either.

The interpolation argument is a good one but, I would suggest, is merely a mini-example of Fomenko's rationale that everything is interpolated (by those sinister medieval scriveners).

Rokcet Scientist wrote:I don't know what the comparable English expression is, but in my language we have a saying that "one idiot can raise more questions than 7 wise men could answer in a 1,000 years". I.o.w.: raising questions in itself is hardly an achievement...

To be fair to Fomenko, I don’t know if he raised these questions or not. You can blame me for that.

What is I.o.w?

IOW = In Other Words

(iv) Tacitus got it wrong or simply exaggerated.

Two thoughts on this. One, Tacitus and Pliny were friends and Suetonius was a member of Pliny's staff so it seems reasonable to guess that he knew Tacitus as well. Suetonius' comment on christians during Nero's reign is that they were practitioners of a mischievous superstition and Pliny, arriving in Bithynia-Pontus to assume his governorshp seems never to have encountered them before arriving in Turkey. How could Tacitus have gotten it so wrong when his other associates were so dismissive of the christians?

Second, Nero is one of those characters in history about whom we have nothing written except by his enemies. Herod the Great is another example of this phenomena...as is Caligula.

Fomenko's ideas remind me of my grandfather, who insisted until the day he died that man never went to the moon and it was all "got up by Hollywood."

Although we used to tell him that that was ridiculous, when it came down to it, we never actually could prove him wrong.

Welcome, Davidvs!




.

One such gap concerns the ‘provenance’ of historical textual information. Much in history (esp. ancient history) is taken for granted (i.e. believed) but rests upon a very murky foundation. Fomenko, amongst other things, is exploiting the pre-medieval obscurity of much of our historical knowledge.

You are correct Davidvs, a tremendous amount of historical knowledge falls into the category of "accounts written at a much later date".

Many original documents were destroyed (actually, most documents) and it isn't easy to sort out any author's contextual bias. Regardless, I don't believe Fomenko has much more credibility that Bishop Ussher when it comes to dates. Any similarities between historical events can be attributed to a writer's perception, partial plagiary to add excitement to an account, or just plain similarities due to the adage that "history tends to repeat itself".

Like Min, I think this guy went over the edge.

Over here of course we have 'The Dark Ages' when for many years history was taught as though nothing happened, and of course nothing happened till the Romans rescued us from our barbarity either.
Also into more modern times my generation was taught that Wellington won the battle of Waterloo, the Dutch, Belgians and Prussians just held our coats for us!
The American Civil War was fought to free the slaves, no mention about the right of secession at all.
Without unbiased, or archaeological evidence, I think all written 'evidence' must be examined with a very critical eye.

Roy.

Nice point on the U S Civil War (or as it is still called in the Southern States “The War of Succession.” The text book companies actually have a Northern and a Southern edition.)
You have a hard time working up a population to the point of accepting a military draft over a legal argument.
But make an emotional appeal to “human rights” and off we go.
In the US, it wasn’t done for Iraq or Viet Nam and those wars were not popular.
It was done for Korea and both World Wars and those were well supported.
But few history books make the distinction.

One thing guaranteed to offend me is for a government to send soldiers off to fight an unpopular war then stand back when idiot, ill informed 'civilians' take it out on the soldiers!
Courage is courage under what ever circumstances and should be recognised as such!

Roy.

Minimalist wrote: How could Tacitus have gotten it so wrong when his other associates were so dismissive of the christians?

I think the point here is that Tacitus could have mistaken the scale of the persecution whereas later writers just ignored it as perhaps merely an incident. However this makes little sense if later writers only had Tacitus to go on. But it would explain why his contemporaries ignored it.

and

Second, Nero is one of those characters in history about whom we have nothing written except by his enemies. Herod the Great is another example of this phenomena...as is Caligula

I'm not sure what point you are making here.