New Chronology

New Chronology theory complies with the most rigid scientific standards:

• it gives a coherent explanation of what we already know;
• it is consistent: independent lines of inquiry all lead to the same conclusion;
• the predictions it makes are confirmed empirically.

New Chronology goes by the following basic axioms:

• Chronology is the basis of history;
• Human evolution has always been linear, gradual, and irreversible;
• The “cyclic” nature of human civilization is a myth; likewise, all the gaps, duplicates, “dark ages” and “renaissances” that we know from consensual history are fantasy and hoaxes;
• The accumulation of geographical knowledge as reflected in cartography is a gradual and irreversible process;
• The closer in time a given manuscript is to the events described, the fewer distortions it contains;
• There is no “useless” information in authentic ancient sources.

---

Saint Augustine was quite prescient when he said:
“Be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth.”

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs. New Chronology Vol.I, 2nd revised Expanded Edition. 

Table of Contents V1

---

Specific Claims of the New Chronology:

• Historians and translators often “assign” different dates and locations to different accounts of the same historical events, creating multiple “phantom copies” of these events. These “phantom copies” are often misdated by centuries or even millennia and end up incorporated into the conventional chronology.

• This chronology was largely manufactured by Kabbalist Joseph Justus Scaliger in Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606) and represents a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major Kabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. The Jesuit Dionysius Petavius completed this chronology in De Doctrina Temporum, 1627 (v.1) and 1632 (v.2)

• Archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, numismatic dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact, or dependent on traditional chronology.
• On this point, OpenAI says that archaeological dating methods, including dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, numismatic dating, carbon dating, and others, are not inherently erroneous or non-exact. Archaeologists, scientists, and scholars have developed and refined these methods over many years to provide reliable estimates of the age of ancient sources and artifacts. While they are not always 100% precise due to certain limitations, they still provide valuable insights into chronology and historical context.

  No dating method is infallible, and all dating techniques have limitations. Here are some factors that can affect the accuracy and precision of these methods:

  1. Sampling and representation: The accuracy of dating methods can be influenced by the quality and representativeness of the samples used for analysis. Inaccurate or incomplete samples may lead to less precise dating results.

  2. Statistical uncertainty: Dating methods often rely on statistical analysis to estimate age. The precision of these estimates depends on the number and quality of samples, as well as the statistical models used. Results are typically reported with a margin of error to account for statistical uncertainty.

  3. Contamination and preservation: For some dating methods, such as radiocarbon dating, contamination or alterations to the original material can affect the accuracy of age estimates. Consider potential sources of contamination and take appropriate measures to minimize their impact.

  4. Calibration and calibration curves: Some dating methods, like radiocarbon dating, require calibration to convert raw measurements into calendar ages. Calibration involves comparing the measured data to independently dated reference samples and creating calibration curves. Uncertainties in the calibration process can introduce some degree of error.

  5. Assumptions and limitations: Each dating method is based on certain assumptions and has specific limitations. For example, carbon dating relies on the assumption that the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 has remained relatively constant over time, which is not always the case. Understanding these assumptions and limitations is essential when interpreting dating results.

  While traditional chronology can provide a framework for dating ancient sources and artifacts, dating methods are not solely dependent on it. Chronological frameworks are developed based on a combination of different dating techniques, historical records, and cross-referencing of archaeological and textual evidence.

  In summary, dating methods used in archaeology provide valuable insights into the age and historical context of ancient sources and artifacts. While they have limitations and are not always exact, they are continually refined through ongoing research and advancements in scientific techniques. When used critically and in combination with other evidence, the results obtained from these methods contribute significantly to our understanding of the past.

   

• No single document in existence can be reliably dated earlier than the 11th century. History is based on copies of copies of copies and on references to, from, and about. Most “ancient” artifacts may find a different than the consensual explanation.

• Histories of Ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt were crafted during the Renaissance by humanists and clergy – mostly based on documents of their own making.

• The Old Testament represents a rendition of events of the 14th to 16th centuries AD, in Europe and Byzantium, containing “prophecies” about “future” events related to the New Testament, a rendition of events of AD 1152 to 1185.

• The history of religions runs as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and the birth of Jesus), Bacchic Christianity (11th and 12th centuries, before and after the life of Jesus), Christianity (12th to 16th centuries) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam.

• The Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy, traditionally dated to around AD 150 and considered the cornerstone of classical astronomy, was compiled in the 16th and 17th centuries from astronomical data of the 9th to 16th centuries.

• 37 complete Egyptian horoscopes found in Dendera, Esna, and other temples have unique, valid astronomical solutions with dates ranging from AD 1000 to as late as AD 1700.

The vocabulary of Egyptian astronomical symbols once used for temple horoscopes allows extraction of unique eclipse dates. The astronomical data contained therein is sufficient for unique dating. Symbols allow astronomical interpretation, and they do not change from one temple horoscope to another. The temple horoscopes contain data about eclipses visible in Egypt that allow their exact pinpointing on the time axis.

• The Book of Revelation, as we know it, contains a horoscope dated from 25 September to 10 October 1486, compiled by Kabbalist Johannes Reuchlin.

The inability of the latter-day commentators to comprehend the astronomical symbolism of the Apocalypse directly results from the loss of knowledge about the correct chronology and the distortions introduced by historians of the XVI-XVIII century. Another possibility is that an unspoken general taboo on what concerned a subject as dangerous led to the misdating of the Apocalypse. One way or another, the understanding of the astronomical descriptions in the Apocalypse was lost at some point. The Apocalypse had lost its distinctive astronomical hue in the eyes of the readers. However, its “astronomical component” is not simply exceptionally important – it alone suffices for the dating of the book itself.

• The horoscopes found in Sumerian/Babylonian tablets do not contain sufficient astronomical data; consequently, they have solutions every 30–50 years on the time axis and are therefore useless for purposes of dating.

The vocabulary of Babylonian astronomical symbols once applied to clay tablets doesn’t allow for the extraction of unique dates of eclipses. The astronomical data contained therein is not sufficient for unique dating. Either there are not enough symbols allowing for astronomical interpretation of the symbols to change from one clay tablet to another. The clay tablets contain data about eclipses visible in Babylon that could have occurred every 30-40 years; they don’t allow exact pinpointing on the time axis.

The cuneiform texts (AKA translations) with alleged descriptions of ancient events do not contain irrefutable astronomical information that allows precise pinpointing of these events on the time axis. Archeoastronomy takes event dates from Scaliger-Petavius’s chronological tables, finds eclipses with matching dates, and concludes they confirm the Babylonian events. Circulus vicious.

• The Chinese tables of eclipses are useless for dating, as they contain too many eclipses that did not occur astronomically. Chinese comet tables, even if true, cannot be used for dating.
• Chinese eclipse observations can neither confirm nor refute any chronology of China at all, be it veracious or erroneous.

• All major inventions like powder, guns, paper, and print occurred in Europe between the 10th and 16th centuries.

• Ancient Roman and Greek statues showing perfect command of human anatomy were fakes crafted in the Renaissance when artists attained such command for the first time.

• There was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of yoke and slavery because ththe so-called “Tartars and Mongols” were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a bilingual state with Turkic spoken as freely as Russian. So, Russia and Turkey once formed parts of the same Empire.

• This “Evil” Empire was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities, and the hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called “blood tax”). The Mongol “invasions” were punitive operations against the regions of the empire that attempted tax evasion. Tamerlane was a compilation by  German historians of Russian and Turkish warlords.

• Official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia to legitimize the usurping Romanov dynasty (1613–1917).

• Moscow was founded as late as the mid-14th century. The Battle of Kulikovo took place in Moscow.

• The Czar Ivan the Terrible represents a collation of no fewer than four rulers, representing two rival dynasties: the legitimate Godunov rulers and the ambitious Romanov upstarts.

• English history of AD 640–1040 and Byzantine history of AD 378–830 are reflections of the same late-medieval original.

Refutation of the article in Wikipedia about the New Chronology

History: Fiction or Science? Volume 8: Reconstruction of Chronology Part of: History: Fiction or Science? (29 books)      by Anatoly T. Fomenko and Gleb W. Nosovskiy | Sep 3, 2023

Chron8-Table of Contents

History: Fiction or Science? A reconstruction of global history. The Great Empire’s legacy in Eurasia and America’s history and culture.: Chronology vol.7; part 2 of vol.6 Paperback – October 31, 2022  (Chronology Volume 7)

Table of Contents V7

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Mediæval World Empire • Conquest of the Promised Land (New Chronology Volume 6)

Table of Contents V6

 LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction of Science?: Conquest of the world. Europe. China. Japan. Russia (Chronology) (Volume 5)

Table of Contents V5

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Russia. Britain. Byzantium. Rome. New Chronology vol.4.   

Table of Contents V4

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs. New Chronology vol.3.

Table of Contents V3

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts. New Chronology Vol.2 

Table of Contents V2

LOOK INSIDE History: Fiction or Science? Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs. New Chronology Vol.I, 2nd revised Expanded Edition. 

Table of Contents V1

Also by Anatoly T. Fomenko

(List is non-exhaustive)

• Differential Geometry and Topology
• Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1987. USA, Consultants Bureau, New York, and London.
• Variational Principles in Topology. Multidimensional Minimal Surface Theory
• Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990.
• Topological variational problems. – Gordon and Breach, 1991.
• Integrability and Nonintegrability in Geometry and Mechanics
• Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1988.
• The Plateau Problem. vols.1, 2
• Gordon and Breach, 1990. (Studies in the Development of Modern Mathematics.)
• Symplectic Geometry.Methods and Applications.
• Gordon and Breach, 1988. Second edition 1995.
• Minimal surfaces and Plateau problem. Together with Dao Chong Thi
• USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991.
• Integrable Systems on Lie Algebras and Symmetric Spaces. Together with V. V. Trofimov. Gordon, and Breach, 1987.
• The Geometry of Minimal Surfaces in Three-Dimensional Space. Together with A. A.Tuzhilin
• USA, American Mathematical Society. In: Translation of Mathematical Monographs. vol.93, 1991.
• Topological Classification of Integrable Systems. Advances in Soviet Mathematics, vol. 6
• USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991.
• Tensor and Vector Analysis: Geometry, Mechanics, and Physics. – Taylor and Francis, 1988.
• Algorithmic and Computer Methods for Three-Manifolds. Together with S.V.Matveev
• Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1997.
• Topological Modeling for Visualization. Together with T. L. Kunii. – Springer-Verlag, 1997.
• Modern Geometry. Methods and Applications. Together with B. A. Dubrovin, S. P. Novikov
• Springer-Verlag, GTM 93, Part 1, 1984; GTM 104, Part 2, 1985. Part 3, 1990, GTM 124.
• The basic elements of differential geometry and topology. Together with S. P. Novikov
• Kluwer Acad. Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990.
• Integrable Hamiltonian Systems: Geometry, Topology, Classification. Together with A. V. Bolsinov
• Taylor and Francis, 2003.
• Empirical-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating.
• Vol.1: The Development of the Statistical Tools. Vol.2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval
• Records. – Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands, 1994.
• Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s
• Almagest. Together with V. V Kalashnikov., G. V. Nosovsky. – CRC-Press, USA, 1993.
• New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Greek and Bible History. Vols.1, 2, 3. – The Edwin Mellen Press. The USA. Lewiston.
• Queenston. Lampeter, 1999.
• Mathematical Impressions. – American Mathematical Society, USA, 1990.

More blogs:

• Jesus failed miracle
• Jesus, at the Nazareth school
• Jesus secret operation
• Jesus Fake Wine Plot
• Russians Convert Pope
• Christmas USA bailout
• Hell freezes soon
• The Bible Who is Who
• Jesus vs. Devil computer match
• Secret service of Jesus
• A.I. needs its own dirt ASAP
• Noah’s ark makes money
• Alaska saves the US from the default
• The Issue with ‘Troy’
• The Great Wall. History of China Copied on Europe and Byzantium
• ‘Ancient China’ is a Misunderstanding at Best
• Swords Cut Through the Mystery of the Coronation Mantles
• The Quadruple Baptism of Russia
• Maps & Coins of the Empire Eurasia
• Why and When the Crusades?
• The Issue with British History
• Could the Czars Read Arabic?
• Ancient USA Issues
• Double Tamerlane
• Terrible Ivans
• Horde from Pacific to Atlantic
• Russia at the Crossroads
• The Issue with the Dark Ages
• Astronomy vs. History
• A.I.Pizza

<!-- Google tag (gtag.js) -->
<script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=AW-868058050"></script>
<script>
  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
  gtag('js', new Date());

  gtag('config', 'AW-868058050');
</script>