| ||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £9.95
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in History: Fiction or Science? New Chronology: 1 for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £9.95, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Review
The British Encyclopaedia names Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) as the founder of the consensual chronology we live with. Scaliger had considered himself a great mathematician and boasted to have solved the classical ancient mathematical Quadrature of Circle problem that was subsequently proven insoluble. His principal works Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606) represent a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. Numerology was considered a major science then and J.J.Scaliger was a prominent cabbalist of his time. The English philosopher William Ockham (allegedly 1225-1279 AD) said: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". `Ockham s razor` applied to history leaves us with a vision of humankind where civilization comes into being in the VIII- X centuries at the earliest, if civilization is understood as a hierarchical system consisting of state, army, ideology, religion, communication and writing. Neither J.J.Scaliger nor his followers, clergy or humanists have paid much attention to Ockham s law when they crafted Roman and Greek Antiquity. Their clients were condottieri upstarts who were seeking legitimacy in days of yore in order to become Popes, Cardinals or to found regal dynasties such as the Medici. They paid exceedingly well for a glorious but fictitious past. Thorough research shows that there is literally no reliably datable information about events before the VIII century, and that there is only very scarce information originating from the VIII to the X century. As a matter of fact, most events of Ancient History took place from the XI to the XVI century, were replicated on paper in 1400-1600 AD, and positioned under different labels in an imaginary past. The author cross-checked archaeological, astronomical, dendro-chronological, paleo-graphical and radiocarbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts. Dr Prof Fomenko found them ALL to be non-independent, non-exact, statistically implausible, contradictory and inevitably viciously circular because they are based or calibrated on the same consensual chronology. Unbelievable as it may seem to the readers, there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century. Classical history is firmly based on copies made in the XV-XVII centuries of 'unfortunately lost' originals. Dr Prof Fomenko s theory simply returns the Chronology of World History to the realm of applied mathematics from which it was sequestrated by the clergy in the XVI-XVII centuries. He and his team have developed a valid and verifiable method of historical research based on statistics, astronomy and logic. The author et al assert that, for example, computer assisted recalculation of eclipses with detailed descriptions allegedly belonging to Antiquity shows that they either occurred in the Middle Ages or didn't occur at all. A simple application of computational astronomy to the rules of calculation of Easter according to the Easter Book introduced by the Nicean council of alleged 325 AD shows that it definitely could not have taken place before 784 AD. Some related questions may arise: when and where was Jesus Christ born, when was He crucified? Was The Old Testament compiled before or after the New One, etc..? No, the New Chronology theory does not cancel events, artefacts, Pyramids, Great Walls, etc..etc, but points to their more probable positions on the time axis. Truly daring! --New REview, CA, USA
History: Fiction Or Science? is a quite scholarly expose of the extreme limitations of our understanding of human history. So few physical records have survived hundreds, let alone thousands of years that it casts even the most conventional understanding of what really happened into doubt. Chapters address the problems of historical chronology in general, astronomical datings, astronomy in the Old Testament, methods of dating ancient events via mathematical statistics, the construction of a global chronological map, the Dark Ages, and much more. Black-and-white illustrations add a vivid touch to this scholarly work that may appear controversial yet deals with a very serious issue directly affecting humanity's comprehension of its own past. --MidWest Book Review, MA, USA
History: Fiction Or Science? is a quite scholarly expose of the extreme limitations of our understanding of human history. So few physical records have survived hundreds, let alone thousands of years that it casts even the most conventional understanding of what really happened into doubt. Chapters address the problems of historical chronology in general, astronomical datings, astronomy in the Old Testament, methods of dating ancient events via mathematical statistics, the construction of a global chronological map, the Dark Ages, and much more. Black-and-white illustrations add a vivid touch to this scholarly work that may appear controversial yet deals with a very serious issue directly affecting humanity's comprehension of its own past. --MidWest Book Review, MA, USA
Product Description
History: Fiction or Science? is the most explosive tractate on history ever written - however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by solid scientific data. The book is well-illustrated, contains over 446 graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays, which never cease to amaze the reader. Eminent mathematician proves that: Jesus Christ was born in 1153 and crucified in 1186 The Old Testament was compiled after the New One and refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486. Does this sound uncanny? This version of events is substantiated by hard facts and logic - validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources - to a greater extent than everything you may have read and heard about history before. The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the XVI century from a rather contradictory jumble of sources such as innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts whose originals had vanished in the Dark Ages and the allegedly irrefutable proof offered by late mediaeval astronomers, resting upon the power of ecclesial authorities. Nearly all of its components are blatantly untrue! For some of us, it shall possibly be quite disturbing to see the magnificent edifice of classical history to turn into an ominous simulacrum brooding over the snake pit of mediaeval politics. Twice so, in fact: the first seeing the legendary millenarian dust on the ancient marble turn into a mere layer of dirt - one that meticulous unprejudiced research can eventually remove. The second, and greater, attack of unease comes with the awareness of just how many areas of human knowledge still trust the three elephants of the consensual chronology to support them. Nothing can remedy that except for an individual chronological revolution happening in the minds of a large enough number of people
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Back Cover
Explore More
Concordance
Browse Sample PagesConcordance
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Back Cover
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
The only conspiracies here have to do with the number of insanely positive reviews. All seven five-star reviews have only this one review to their name. Funny that. It's almost like somebody has set up multiple accounts and is trying to up the rating. Parallelism indeed. Two with no other reviews may be coincidence. But seven? Great work pal. Very subtle. You might as well have just copied and pasted your review.
So, I'm not a mathematician and I don't know enough to contradict Fomenko's math, but I don't have to. By that reasoning Fomenko wouldn't be able to contradict me because I'm a Classical History Major and this is (ostensibly) a History book. I can tell you exactly why his math must be wrong and why he should be ashamed to call himself a scientist. Scientists must make the models match the data, not the other way round. When the facts don't fit your theory then the problem isn't with the facts, it's with your theory. And boy do the facts not fit this 'theory.' It would be hard to think of a way in which history could make less sense than it does through his model.
First, a brief explanation for anyone not familiar with this book. Anatoly Fomenko is a Doctor of Mathematics at Moscow State University. Despite a lack of support from his colleagues (who consider his ideas on history nuts) he published a series of seven books in which he rewrote the history of the world based on his ideas of Statistics. As explained on the back cover, "Jesus Christ was born in 1053 A.D. and crucified in 1086 A.D. The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486 A.D." I'll go more into why he thinks that makes sense later. The Roman Empire and all of Classical civilization was invented by Jesuit monks who wrote in a remarkably short time all of Western literature and invented an entire civilization which people then immediately forgot never existed. All Classical buildings are simply medieval ones that have been misdated.
And now a brief history of... well history, as seen through Fomenko-vision: History begins when Andronicos Comnenos dies and becomes Jesus. History records him as an unsuccessful Greek emperor with no real successes who was beaten to death by the mob and not a poor prophet from Nazareth who was crucified but hey, what do they know. It's not like the crucifixion was an important part of the story or anything. Immediately all of Europe decides that they're Christian and march against the Muslims. It may sound confusing why they'd blame the Muslims for what was an internal coup but they were probably just confused because Mohammed wasn't born yet. At some point they changed their minds and decided to skip the first three crusades and jump straight onto the Fourth (except that they didn't. It was actually the same as the First. Obviously. Please try and keep up). They then sacked Constantinople which was also Rome which was Troy which was Jerusalem. At some point they get confused and occupied the Holy Land as well and then forget all about Constantinople and let it fall back to the Greeks since Jerusalem was now Constantinople which was Troy which was Rome. People back then had very short memories often forgetting why they did something before they even did it. Very sad. During the First Crusade the Greeks decide to avenge the kidnapping of their queen by... also sacking Constantinople. After sacking their own city they quietly vanish for a few years, probably in embarrassment. Some time later Erasmus wrote the New Testament confusing generations of scholars who wondered what they had been copying out for all that time. Having now written a New Testament it was decided that they needed an Old one. I'm sure the reasons for the reversed order are as obvious to everyone else as they are to Fomenko. Some time in the 15th Century David rose up, except that he was Turkish and ruled in Constantinople. Despite the many wars with the Turks Europe had never warred with the Turks and accepted all of these events as holy writ. After all, the Turks were really Russian in funny hats and the Russians ruled the world. The Byzantines were secretly ruling in England. After the death of Solomon (Suleimon) the Jews split off from Christianity because they were tired of not being persecuted because of something they didn't do and decided that being hunted by the Inquisition was more fun. In the confusion the Catholics and Orthodox Christians split apart as well because everyone else was doing it and it seemed a good idea at the time. They were to regret this later when the Catholics sacked their city but that had already happened so it was fine.
It turns out that Russia has dominated the world since the earliest recorded history (what nationality was Fomenko again?). The Mongols were not from Mongolia because the people there are nothing but worthless servants of the Russian Empire (it's ok. Fomenko assures us that the Mongols never knew of Genghis Khan until some pesky monks told them that they used to rule the world). Russia was actually the major Empire that the Romans were based off of and have existed since the dawn of civilization. Silly Georgians thinking they are anything but the personal property of Russia! Ha ha. They also controlled America, Europe and North Africa by 1300 so I guess that we should all submit to the Russian yoke as is our hereditary duty. Occasionally a czar would allow the governors of Europe (kings hah!) to wage war on each other if they pleased him. Presumably the English sucked up to him better than France which is why they did so well in the Hundred Years War but then lost his favor again which resulted in the French winning. Joan of Arc was probably the czar's sister or something. The czar could summon anyone to his court and they had to obey which is why Moscow is renowned the world over as being filled with better artwork and architecture than such dives as Paris and Rome (which isn't the REAL Rome after all). After Russia fell in the 1600s (through internal troubles. No one could EVER conquer Russians) the rest of the world immediately conspired to hide that they ever existed lest they should try to rule over them again. Thus they erased this empire from the history books and replaced it with such lies as Rome and the Holy Roman Empire (couldn't they even pick a new name? Obvious!). Thus the treacherous Romanovs rose to power (did I mention that he first published this under the Soviets?) and they too decided to forget there had ever been a Russian Empire of such a scale. Many "Roman" documents are simply Russian ones with a few name changes. I'm not sure where Latin came from but the Russians probably invented it to confuse future generations of schoolkids. They had after all had it engraved all over the southern part of their empire on specific styles of buildings which they immediately buried and built medieval cities on top of to confuse archaeologists. It never showed up in Russia itself. Perhaps they punished the provinces by making them write everything in Latin. Oh those cruel Russians. After the late 18th Century things begin to return to what is normally called history.
As you can see it is far less confusing than the 'conventional' timeline. You might think I'm making this up but that is what you get when you put all his history together. Minus the sarcasm perhaps.
One of these two assumptions is underlying every single one of his conclusions. He treats his random and unsupported speculations with just as much respect as ones that have been established through years of research backed by hard evidence. Linguistically too he is a dunce since he views all languages as being mere corruptions of the original Russian. Linguistics after all, is not a science. Neither is Art, Archaeology, Sociology, Geneology, or Anthropology. Thus they are worthless as sources of information and aren't even worth mentioning unless to state (not argue or prove) that they are wrong.
It seems best to explain why he is wrong about the facts he lists before going into the facts that he's ignoring. First off comes a good example of how he combines Classical and Medieval history together. To him the First Crusade and the Trojan War are the same event. One of Fomenko's favorite tools, a chart, might demonstrate why this is.
Simularities:
First Crusade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Trojan War
A war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| A war
Sieges involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| All about a siege
East vs. West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| East vs. West
Um, took place on the planet earth . . . . . . . . . . .| Probably the same if it happened at all...
The differences:
First Crusade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Trojan War
Lead by Bohemund, Raymond, Geoffrey, etc. . . . ..| Led by Agamemnon, Achilles, Odysseus, etc. (No matching names)
Fought for religious reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Fought for political/personal reasons
Traveled by land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Traveled by sea
Leaders fought on horseback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Leaders arrived on chariots, fought on foot
Weapons: lances, spears, iron swords, chain mail ..| Weapons: spears, bronze swords, bronze greaves
All participants monotheist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| All participants polytheist
Came from all over Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Came from Greece
Lasted three years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Lasted ten years
Went to recover city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Went to destroy city and recover wife
Set up a kingdom on enemy land . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Immediately returned home
Leaders became kings and lords of new land . . . . Read more ›
So, I'm not a mathematician and I don't know enough to contradict Fomenko's math, but I don't have to. By that reasoning Fomenko wouldn't be able to contradict me because I'm a Classical History Major and this is (ostensibly) a History book. I can tell you exactly why his math must be wrong and why he should be ashamed to call himself a scientist. Scientists must make the models match the data, not the other way round. When the facts don't fit your theory then the problem isn't with the facts, it's with your theory. And boy do the facts not fit this 'theory.' It would be hard to think of a way in which history could make less sense than it does through his model.
First, a brief explanation for anyone not familiar with this book. Anatoly Fomenko is a Doctor of Mathematics at Moscow State University. Despite a lack of support from his colleagues (who consider his ideas on history nuts) he published a series of seven books in which he rewrote the history of the world based on his ideas of Statistics. As explained on the back cover, "Jesus Christ was born in 1053 A.D. and crucified in 1086 A.D. The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486 A.D." I'll go more into why he thinks that makes sense later. The Roman Empire and all of Classical civilization was invented by Jesuit monks who wrote in a remarkably short time all of Western literature and invented an entire civilization which people then immediately forgot never existed. All Classical buildings are simply medieval ones that have been misdated.
And now a brief history of... well history, as seen through Fomenko-vision: History begins when Andronicos Comnenos dies and becomes Jesus. History records him as an unsuccessful Greek emperor with no real successes who was beaten to death by the mob and not a poor prophet from Nazareth who was crucified but hey, what do they know. It's not like the crucifixion was an important part of the story or anything. Immediately all of Europe decides that they're Christian and march against the Muslims. It may sound confusing why they'd blame the Muslims for what was an internal coup but they were probably just confused because Mohammed wasn't born yet. At some point they changed their minds and decided to skip the first three crusades and jump straight onto the Fourth (except that they didn't. It was actually the same as the First. Obviously. Please try and keep up). They then sacked Constantinople which was also Rome which was Troy which was Jerusalem. At some point they get confused and occupied the Holy Land as well and then forget all about Constantinople and let it fall back to the Greeks since Jerusalem was now Constantinople which was Troy which was Rome. People back then had very short memories often forgetting why they did something before they even did it. Very sad. During the First Crusade the Greeks decide to avenge the kidnapping of their queen by... also sacking Constantinople. After sacking their own city they quietly vanish for a few years, probably in embarrassment. Some time later Erasmus wrote the New Testament confusing generations of scholars who wondered what they had been copying out for all that time. Having now written a New Testament it was decided that they needed an Old one. I'm sure the reasons for the reversed order are as obvious to everyone else as they are to Fomenko. Some time in the 15th Century David rose up, except that he was Turkish and ruled in Constantinople. Despite the many wars with the Turks Europe had never warred with the Turks and accepted all of these events as holy writ. After all, the Turks were really Russian in funny hats and the Russians ruled the world. The Byzantines were secretly ruling in England. After the death of Solomon (Suleimon) the Jews split off from Christianity because they were tired of not being persecuted because of something they didn't do and decided that being hunted by the Inquisition was more fun. In the confusion the Catholics and Orthodox Christians split apart as well because everyone else was doing it and it seemed a good idea at the time. They were to regret this later when the Catholics sacked their city but that had already happened so it was fine.
It turns out that Russia has dominated the world since the earliest recorded history (what nationality was Fomenko again?). The Mongols were not from Mongolia because the people there are nothing but worthless servants of the Russian Empire (it's ok. Fomenko assures us that the Mongols never knew of Genghis Khan until some pesky monks told them that they used to rule the world). Russia was actually the major Empire that the Romans were based off of and have existed since the dawn of civilization. Silly Georgians thinking they are anything but the personal property of Russia! Ha ha. They also controlled America, Europe and North Africa by 1300 so I guess that we should all submit to the Russian yoke as is our hereditary duty. Occasionally a czar would allow the governors of Europe (kings hah!) to wage war on each other if they pleased him. Presumably the English sucked up to him better than France which is why they did so well in the Hundred Years War but then lost his favor again which resulted in the French winning. Joan of Arc was probably the czar's sister or something. The czar could summon anyone to his court and they had to obey which is why Moscow is renowned the world over as being filled with better artwork and architecture than such dives as Paris and Rome (which isn't the REAL Rome after all). After Russia fell in the 1600s (through internal troubles. No one could EVER conquer Russians) the rest of the world immediately conspired to hide that they ever existed lest they should try to rule over them again. Thus they erased this empire from the history books and replaced it with such lies as Rome and the Holy Roman Empire (couldn't they even pick a new name? Obvious!). Thus the treacherous Romanovs rose to power (did I mention that he first published this under the Soviets?) and they too decided to forget there had ever been a Russian Empire of such a scale. Many "Roman" documents are simply Russian ones with a few name changes. I'm not sure where Latin came from but the Russians probably invented it to confuse future generations of schoolkids. They had after all had it engraved all over the southern part of their empire on specific styles of buildings which they immediately buried and built medieval cities on top of to confuse archaeologists. It never showed up in Russia itself. Perhaps they punished the provinces by making them write everything in Latin. Oh those cruel Russians. After the late 18th Century things begin to return to what is normally called history.
As you can see it is far less confusing than the 'conventional' timeline. You might think I'm making this up but that is what you get when you put all his history together. Minus the sarcasm perhaps.
One of these two assumptions is underlying every single one of his conclusions. He treats his random and unsupported speculations with just as much respect as ones that have been established through years of research backed by hard evidence. Linguistically too he is a dunce since he views all languages as being mere corruptions of the original Russian. Linguistics after all, is not a science. Neither is Art, Archaeology, Sociology, Geneology, or Anthropology. Thus they are worthless as sources of information and aren't even worth mentioning unless to state (not argue or prove) that they are wrong.
It seems best to explain why he is wrong about the facts he lists before going into the facts that he's ignoring. First off comes a good example of how he combines Classical and Medieval history together. To him the First Crusade and the Trojan War are the same event. One of Fomenko's favorite tools, a chart, might demonstrate why this is.
Simularities:
First Crusade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Trojan War
A war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| A war
Sieges involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| All about a siege
East vs. West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| East vs. West
Um, took place on the planet earth . . . . . . . . . . .| Probably the same if it happened at all...
The differences:
First Crusade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Trojan War
Lead by Bohemund, Raymond, Geoffrey, etc. . . . ..| Led by Agamemnon, Achilles, Odysseus, etc. (No matching names)
Fought for religious reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Fought for political/personal reasons
Traveled by land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Traveled by sea
Leaders fought on horseback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Leaders arrived on chariots, fought on foot
Weapons: lances, spears, iron swords, chain mail ..| Weapons: spears, bronze swords, bronze greaves
All participants monotheist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| All participants polytheist
Came from all over Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Came from Greece
Lasted three years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Lasted ten years
Went to recover city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Went to destroy city and recover wife
Set up a kingdom on enemy land . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Immediately returned home
Leaders became kings and lords of new land . . . . Read more ›
10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
PART II of my earlier review.
I agree with the reviewer who alludes to a Russian anarcho-syndicalist tinge to Dr. FOMENKO. The good Dr has EXTREME paranoia!
Whether he's politically aligned with a Screaming Lord Zhirinovsky brigade or another lot, I can't tell.
Since my Part I back in 2007, I took up YDNA research (in-depth). I notice Dr. FOMENKO avoids DNA. (either MtDNA or YDNA). Ironically this tool & the pedigrees derived from it could prove or disprove many of his theories. Furthermore, NUMISMATICS (i mean broad numismatics & coins --not the phoney cherry-picks he uses) from the Romans, via the "Dark" Ages, Mongol irruptions; and into the Middle Ages can do the same. He claims to be empirical but only selects freakish anomalies which support his pre-set views.
These 2 disciplines (YDNA & numismatics) ought to be pivotal yardsticks.
I think they are omitted because he knows they'd squarely debunk his shock-jock theories. Everyone is aware there are chrono-errors in certain chapters of history in the past 2,000 years...but we're talking of a few years or "decades" at most. Not entire centuries.
As for ancient Egyptian history i AM prepared to concede a possibly larger chrono-error there. Perhaps even as much as 300 years--the type of slippage posited by Derek Rohl, based on jumbling up of the early Kings' Lists. But that's a dicrete issue. One cannot simply lock-stock-transfer the notion of Egyptian chrono-errors into Greek, Roman and mediaeval history. That's false sophistry. Just because a cat is an animal with 4 legs; does not mean all animals have 4 legs. Anyway, some geneticist experts (nameless) have told me a certain well-known ex-secret-service premier of a Russian disposition takes a peculiarly personal interest in early research on Kievan-Rus history and genealogy. It seems this interest is not neutral - but might be oriented to actually 'filtering' the results, for reasons unknown. The Chinese were also unnerved by discoveries of many ancient CELTIC mummies in URUMQI and elsewhere. There is plenty we do not understand about history. But rampant maverick claims like Fomenko's whose aim is to sabotage the 4 pillars of the scientific world in the manner that Fomenko is attempting are 'de trop'. The creationists try to do the same eg: the bogus "Mysterious Origins of Man" using Charlton Heston as their 'pusher'. This is premeditated sabotage with a hidden agenda; & it ain't healthy.
I agree with the reviewer who alludes to a Russian anarcho-syndicalist tinge to Dr. FOMENKO. The good Dr has EXTREME paranoia!
Whether he's politically aligned with a Screaming Lord Zhirinovsky brigade or another lot, I can't tell.
Since my Part I back in 2007, I took up YDNA research (in-depth). I notice Dr. FOMENKO avoids DNA. (either MtDNA or YDNA). Ironically this tool & the pedigrees derived from it could prove or disprove many of his theories. Furthermore, NUMISMATICS (i mean broad numismatics & coins --not the phoney cherry-picks he uses) from the Romans, via the "Dark" Ages, Mongol irruptions; and into the Middle Ages can do the same. He claims to be empirical but only selects freakish anomalies which support his pre-set views.
These 2 disciplines (YDNA & numismatics) ought to be pivotal yardsticks.
I think they are omitted because he knows they'd squarely debunk his shock-jock theories. Everyone is aware there are chrono-errors in certain chapters of history in the past 2,000 years...but we're talking of a few years or "decades" at most. Not entire centuries.
As for ancient Egyptian history i AM prepared to concede a possibly larger chrono-error there. Perhaps even as much as 300 years--the type of slippage posited by Derek Rohl, based on jumbling up of the early Kings' Lists. But that's a dicrete issue. One cannot simply lock-stock-transfer the notion of Egyptian chrono-errors into Greek, Roman and mediaeval history. That's false sophistry. Just because a cat is an animal with 4 legs; does not mean all animals have 4 legs. Anyway, some geneticist experts (nameless) have told me a certain well-known ex-secret-service premier of a Russian disposition takes a peculiarly personal interest in early research on Kievan-Rus history and genealogy. It seems this interest is not neutral - but might be oriented to actually 'filtering' the results, for reasons unknown. The Chinese were also unnerved by discoveries of many ancient CELTIC mummies in URUMQI and elsewhere. There is plenty we do not understand about history. But rampant maverick claims like Fomenko's whose aim is to sabotage the 4 pillars of the scientific world in the manner that Fomenko is attempting are 'de trop'. The creationists try to do the same eg: the bogus "Mysterious Origins of Man" using Charlton Heston as their 'pusher'. This is premeditated sabotage with a hidden agenda; & it ain't healthy.
3 of 5 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Fomenko is "Mr. Anomaly" + Pravda-like fantasmagoria gone crazy...all in one 7 Volume chunky package. Not for the feint-hearted!
He debunks not merely the odd pillar, but the total, entire bastion of historical dating, proposing a 700 to 1000 year fictitious "add-on" section between 400 AD and 1100 AD (or larger) & argues that the conventional chronology sequence of almost EVERYTHING is erroneous.
Even if partially true this would be scary stuff.
Forget forbidden archeology which is for kindergarten....
Is he right?
Very entertaining, even if it were to be mostly wrong. Also, he thankfully avoids UFO & alien intervention, (for now) which is refreshing. Top points for hardcore shock value, Mr F.! Is this a contest aimed at scoring one better than the Graham Hancocks, Von Danikens & the rest....? What next?
He debunks not merely the odd pillar, but the total, entire bastion of historical dating, proposing a 700 to 1000 year fictitious "add-on" section between 400 AD and 1100 AD (or larger) & argues that the conventional chronology sequence of almost EVERYTHING is erroneous.
Even if partially true this would be scary stuff.
Forget forbidden archeology which is for kindergarten....
Is he right?
Very entertaining, even if it were to be mostly wrong. Also, he thankfully avoids UFO & alien intervention, (for now) which is refreshing. Top points for hardcore shock value, Mr F.! Is this a contest aimed at scoring one better than the Graham Hancocks, Von Danikens & the rest....? What next?
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Most Recent Customer Reviews
Truth is stranger than fiction
I haven't read the book; only excerpts from it; I should say that at the outset; but the author is onto something. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Peter Robinson
hmmmm ...
From reading the write-up, reviews and (unfortunately) viewing the YouTube video I really can't believe there are people dumb enough to buy this load of donkey-droppings !?!!?? Read more
Published on 17 May 2009 by Philip
Who is at stake? Dr Prof Fomenko or World History?
The conjectures in this book are so fantastic that only a very brave and well-credentialed person would dare to suggest them. The author has such credentials. Read more
Published on 21 July 2007 by susanne dannenbauer
Earth is flat
Earth was flat. Humans saw that it was flat, books were telling scholars that it was flat, teachers were teaching students it was flat; scientists knew it was flat. Read more
Published on 1 Jan 2005 by Dusek
Thoroughly researched challenge to "Scaligerian history"
This english translation may well be source of the same sort of paradigm shift that Bjorn Lomborg has instigated in environmental research when he exposed many researchers as... Read more
Published on 1 Jan 2005 by A. Hoekstra
May heresies flourish.
I approached this book with mixed feelings. On one hand, being familiar with Fomenko's reputation in the field of topology, I was inclined to believe he would not indulge in what... Read more
Published on 26 Jun 2004 by Tim Basler
Very disturbing!
This is a very disturbing book. The author proves with astronomical data and statistical analysis of ancient documents that the history of humankind is drastically shorter (! Read more
Published on 2 Nov 2003
a revolution in chronology
History: Fiction or Science? is the most explosive tractate on history ever written - however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by solid scientific... Read more
Published on 21 Oct 2003 by "baheb"
History updated
Very informative and somehow thrilling - to learn that our entire history we're so accustomed to has been manipulated with during centuries! Read more
Published on 14 Oct 2003 by I. Filippov
Listmania!
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
