The New Chronology is a theory that the conventional chronology is fundamentally

flawed. The central concepts of the New Chronology are derived from the ideas of
Nikolai Morozov,[1] although Jean Hardouin can be viewed as an earlier predecessor.
[2] The New Chronology is commonly associated with Anatoly Fomenko, although it is
a collaboration between Fomenko and several other mathematicians.

The New Chronology also contains a reconstruction, an alternative chronology,

radically shorter than the conventional chronology, because all ancient Greek, Roman
and Egyptian history is "folded" onto the Middle Ages. According to the chronology,
the history of humankind goes only as far back as AD 800, there is almost no
information about events between AD 800-1000, and most known historical events
took place in AD 1000-1500.

History: Fiction or Science? which contains this New Chronology was written in the
Russian language but has been translated into English.

While some researchers have developed revised chronologies of Classical and Biblical
periods that shorten the timeline of ancient history by eliminating various "dark
ages", none of these are as radical as that of the New Chronology. The New
Chronology is rejected by mainstream historians and is inconsistent with absolute
and relative dating techniques used in the wider scholarly community. Most Russian
scientists considered the New Chronology to be pseudoscientific.[3][4]

History of New Chronology

The idea of chronologies different from the conventional chronology can be traced
back to at least the early 17th century. Jean Hardouin then suggested that many
ancient historical documents were much younger than commonly believed to be. In
1685 he published a version of Pliny the Elder's Natural History in which he claimed
that most Greek and Roman texts had been forged by Benedictine monks. When later
questioned on these results, Hardouin stated that he would reveal the monks'
reasons in a letter to be revealed only after his death. The executors of his estate
were unable to find such a document among his posthumous papers.[5] In the 17th
century, Sir Isaac Newton, examining the current chronology of Ancient Greece,
Ancient Egypt and the Ancient Near East, expressed discontent with prevailing
theories and proposed one of his own, which, basing its study on Apollonius of
Rhodes's Argonautica, changed the traditional dating of the Argonautic Expedition,
the Trojan War, and the Founding of Rome.[6][7]

In 1887, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely
invented or corrupted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[8] In 1909 Otto Rank made note
of duplications in literary history of a variety of cultures:

...almost all important civilized peoples have early woven myths around and
glorified in poetry their heroes, mythical kings and princes, founders of religions, of
dynasties, empires and cities—in short, their national heroes. Especially the history of
their birth and of their early years is furnished with phantastic [sic] traits; the
amazing similarity, nay literal identity, of those tales, even if they refer to different,
completely independent peoples, sometimes geographically far removed from one
another, is well known and has struck many an investigator.[9]

Nikolai Morozov was the first to claim the existence of correlations between the
dynasties of Old-Testament kings and Roman emperors and to suggest that the
entire chronology prior to the 1st century BC is wrong.[citation needed]
Fomenko became interested in Morozov's theories in 1973. In 1980, together with a
few colleagues from the mathematics department of Moscow State University, he
published several articles on "new mathematical methods in history" in peer-
reviewed journals. The articles stirred a lot of controversy, but ultimately Fomenko
failed to win any respected historians to his side. By the early 1990s, Fomenko
shifted his focus from trying to convince the scientific community via peer-reviewed
publications to publishing books. Beam writes that Fomenko and his colleagues were
discovered by the Soviet scientific press in the early 1980s, leading to "a brief period
of renown"; a contemporary review from the journal Questions of History complained,
"Their constructions have nothing in common with Marxist historical science."[10] His
books range from popular to rather involved, yet accessible to educated readers.

By 2005 his theory had grown to cover all of the Old World, from the British Isles to
China.
[edit] Fomenko's claims
[edit] Brief summary

In volumes 1, 2 , 3 and 4 of History: Fiction or Science?, Fomenko and his colleagues

claim:

1. That different accounts of the same historical events are often 'assigned'
different dates and locations by historians and translators, creating multiple
"phantom copies" of these events; these "phantom copies" are often misdated by
centuries or even millennia and end up incorporated into conventional chronology;
2. That this chronology was largely manufactured by 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 cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360;
3. That this chronology was completed by Jesuit Dionysius Petavius in De Doctrina
Temporum, 1627 (v.1) and 1632 (v.2);
4. That archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating,
numismatic dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating of ancient sources
and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional
chronology; that their use in conjunction as 'confiming' one another is a statistical
fallacy - probabilities can't be added.
5. That there is not a single document in existence that can be reliably dated
earlier than the 11th century; that most 'ancient' artifacts may find other than
consensual explanation;
6. That histories of Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were crafted during the
Renaissance by humanists and clergy mostly on the basis of documents of their own
making;
7. That the Old Testament is a rendition of events of the fourteenth to sixteenth
centuries AD in Europe and Byzantium, containing 'prophecies' about 'future' events
related in the New Testament, which is a rendition of events of 1152 to 1185 AD;
8. That the history of religions runs as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the
XI century and JC), Bacchic Christianity (XI-XII century, before and after JC), JC
Christianity (XII-XVI century) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity,
Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam;
9. That the most probable prototype of historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos
(allegedly AD1152 to 1185), the emperor of Byzantium; known for his failed reforms,
his traits and deeds reflected in 'biographies' of many real and imaginary persons;
[11]
10. That the Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy, traditionally dated to around 150 AD
and considered to be the corner stone of classical history, was compiled in sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries from astronomical data of the ninth to sixteenth centuries.
11. That 37 complete Egyptian horoscopes found in Denderah, Esna, and other
temples have unique valid astronomical solutions with dates ranging from 1000 AD
and up to as late as 1700 AD;
12. That the Book of Revelation we know of contains a horoscope that is dated to 25
September - 10 October 1486 compiled by cabbalist Johannes Reuchlin.
13. That the horoscopes found in Sumerian/Babylonian tablets do not contain
sufficient astronomical data; consequently, they have solutions every 30-50 yrs on
the time axis and are therefore useless for purposes of dating;
14. That the Chinese tables of eclipses are useless for dating as they contain too
many eclipses that did not take place astronomically; that Chinese tables of comets
even if they were true can't be used for dating;
15. That all major inventions like powder and guns, paper and print were made in
Europe in tenth to sixteenth centuries;
16. That Ancient Roman and Greek statues, showing perfect command of the
human anatomy are fakes crafted in the Renaissance when, according to Fomenko,
such command was for the first time attained;
17. That there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over
two centuries of yoke and slavery because the 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;
18. That the ancient Russian state 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");
19. That the Mongol "invasions" were punitive operations against the regions that
attempted tax evasion;
20. That the tsar Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. They
represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate Godunov rulers and the
ambitious Romanov upstarts;
21. That official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German
scholars brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs with the mission
of making Romanov's reign look legitimate;
22. That Moscow was founded as late as the mid 14th century and the battle of
Kulikovo took place in Moscow;
23. That Russia and Turkey were once parts of the same empire and that Tamerlane
was probably a Russian warlord;
24. That the English history of the alleged years 640 - 1040 A.D.and the Byzantine
history of 378 - 830 A.D. are reflections of the same late medieval original;

[edit] Detailed description

Fomenko's theory claims that the traditional chronology consists of four overlapping
copies of the "true" chronology, which lasted 350 years, shifted back in time by
significant intervals (integer multiples of 350 years), with some further revisions. All
events and characters conventionally dated earlier than 11th century are fictional,
and represent "phantom reflections" of actual Middle Ages events and characters,
brought about by intentional or accidental mis-datings of historical documents.
Before the invention of printing, accounts of the same events by different
eyewitnesses were sometimes retold several times before being written down, then
often went through multiple rounds of translating, copyediting, etc.; names were
translated, mispronounced and misspelled to the point where they bore little
resemblance to originals. According to Fomenko, this led early chronologists to
believe or choose to believe that those accounts described different events and even
different countries and time periods. Fomenko justifies this approach by the fact that,
in many cases, the original documents are simply not available: Fomenko claims that
all the history of the ancient world is known to us from manuscripts that date from
the Fifteenth Century to the Eighteenth Century, but describe events that allegedly
happened thousands of years before, the originals regrettably and conveniently lost.
For example, the oldest extant manuscripts of monumental treatises on Ancient
Roman and Greek history, such as Annals and Histories, are conventionally dated ca.
1100 AD, more than a full millennium after the events they describe; and they did
not come to scholars' attention until the Fifteenth Century.[citation needed] In
Fomenko's theory, the Fifteenth Century is probably when these documents were
first written.

Central to Fomenko's New Chronology is his invention of a vast Slav-Turk empire,

which he called the "Russian Horde", that played the dominant role in Eurasian
history before the seventeenth century. The various peoples identified in ancient and
medieval history, from the Scythians, Huns, Goths and Bulgars, through the Polyane,
Duleby, Drevliane, Pechenegs, to in more recent times, the Cossacks, Ukrainians, and
Belarussians, are nothing but elements of the single Russian Horde. For the New
Chronologists, peoples such as the Ukrainians, Belarussians, Mongols, and others
who assert their national independence from Russia, are suffering from a historical
delusion.[12]

Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was
Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD1152 to 1185), the emperor of Byzantium;
known for his failed reforms, his traits and deeds reflected in 'biographies' of many
real and imaginary persons. The historical Jesus is a composite figure and reflection
of the Old-Testament prophet Elisha (850-800 BC?), Pope Gregory VII (1020?-1085),
Saint Basil of Caesarea (330-379), and even Li Yuanhao (also known as Emperor
Jingzong or "Son of Heaven" - emperor of Western Xia, who reigned in 1032-1048),
Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in
the 'alleged' biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages,
points of view and time-frame of the authors of said accounts and biographies.

Fomenko also merges Jerusalem, Rome and Troy, contrary to the conventional
history that places them in different locations of the ancient world separated by
hundreds of years, and identifies them as: "New Rome" = Gospel Jerusalem (in the
period 12-13 centuries) = Troy = Yoros Castle.[13] To the south of Yoros Castle is
Joshua's Hill; (allegedly Gospel Calvary).[14]

The Biblical Temple of Solomon was not destroyed, says Fomenko - it is still known to
us as the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople = Old Testament Jerusalem (in the period
14-16 centuries). The biblical Solomon himself is identified as sultan Suleiman the
Magnificent (1494-1566). The historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was
crucified around 1185 AD on hill overlooking the Bosphorus.[15] The city that we now
know as Jerusalem was known prior to the 17th century as the nondescript Ottoman
village of Al-Quds, where biblical "Palestine" is actually the Palatina, along the Rhine,
between Basel ,where Erasmus Rotterdamus wrote the "New-Testament" and
between his hometown Rotterdam. It is also likely it wasn't named "Al-Quds" i.e. "the
holy", before Scaliger decided it would have been the "Holy city" of "Jerusalem".

On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word "Rome" is a placeholder and can
signify any one of several different cities and kingdoms. The "First Rome" or "Ancient
Rome" or "Mizraim" is an ancient Egyptian kingdom in the delta of the Nile with its
capital in Alexandria. The second and most famous "New Rome" is Constantinople.
The third "Rome" is constituted by three different cities: Constantinople (again),
Rome in Italy, and Moscow (which Orthodox scholars have long named the third
Rome). Rome in Italy was allegedly founded around 1380 AD by Aeneas. Moscow as
the third Rome was the capital of the great "Russian Horde".[16] Similarly, the word
"Jerusalem" is actually a placeholder rather than a physical location and can refer to
different cities at different times and the word "Israel" did not define a state, even
not a territory but people fighting for God, for example French St Louis and English
called themselves the King/Queen of Israel.

Parallelism between John the Baptist, Jesus, and Old-Testament prophets implies that
the New Testament was written before the Old Testament. Fomenko claims that the
Bible was being written until the Council of Trent (1545-1563), when the list of
canonical books was established, and all apocryphal books were ordered destroyed.

As another example of history duplicates, according to Fomenko, Plato, Plotinus and

Gemistus Pletho are one and the same person - according to him, some texts by or
about Pletho were mis-dated and today believed to be texts by or about Plotinus or
Plato. Similar duplicates include Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite and Dionysius Petavius. Florence and the princes of Medici bankrolled and
played an important role in creation of the magnificent 'Roman' and 'Greek' past.

Fomenko's theory is both Eurocentric and Eurasian, describing an Empire that was
spreading worldwide and falling apart simultaneously.
[edit] History and its revision according to A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovsky

The enormous “Mongolian” = Great Empire was forged in the XIV-XV century; it
comprised the entire territory of Eurasia, the America and North Africa, for one.
Therefore, the Western European rulers were de facto the vicegerents (or vassals) of
the mighty Czar, or Khan, of the Horde, or Russia. According to Dr Fomenko, there is
plenty of evidence testifying to the subservient position of the Western European
rulers in old documents, notwithstanding even the biased editing campaign of the
XVII-XVIII century. Dr Fomenko cites allegedly relevant and abundant examples in his
vol.4 of “History:Fiction or Science?”. His description of the general situation in the
XIV-XVI century is as follows:

Remote provinces of the Empire (among them the countries of Western Europe)
differed from the metropolitan imperial centre (Russia, or the Horde, and the
Ottoman = Ataman Empire) in status, and most considerably so. The centre of the
Empire was primarily occupied with military pursuits and fortification construction,
which was a vital prerequisite for holding on to the enormous imperial territories.
Every now and then, there would be a rebellion, a dispute or a skirmish between
different regions of the Empire. The rebellions needed to be quelled, the disputes,
settled, and the warring neighbours pacified and judged. Those tasks required an
enormous professional army – or even several armies. A great deal of resources were
invested in maintaining an extensive communications network that spanned the
whole territory of the Empire. Other liabilities included the collection of tax and the
organisation of trade between remote imperial provinces. This is why the
metropolitan part of the Empire required military men and government officials for
the most part, and enormous administrative machinery.

Remote provinces of the Empire were in a different situation. The Khan of the Horde,
or the Czar, was very far away from them. His vicegerents ruled as plenipotentiaries,
assisted by the nearby “Mongolian” Cossacks garrisons that took care of maintaining
order. Therefore, the primary concerns were not with the local military problems,
which did exist, of course, but rather the task of winning the Emperor’s favour. A lot
had depended upon it. For example, one could gain advantage over one’s neighbours
without the need to destroy their armies, simply by sending appropriate gifts to the
Czar, or Khan, of the Horde. If the gifts were good, the Czar, of Khan, could be kind
enough to permit the local ruler the annexation of another ruler’s territory –
especially in cases when the Khan was displeased with the latter for one reason or
another (territory mismanagement, irregular tax payments, or the mere inability to
offer anything of novelty or interest to the royal court and poor quality of gifts).

This is why applied sciences and arts flourished in Western Europe, for instance – and
served the purpose of entertainment, among other things. A certain entertainment
industry was created, especially in the resort provinces of the Empire with a
salubrious climate, such as Italy, France and Spain. The best specimens were sent to
the Khan’s court. The French and the Italians made great headway in architecture,
literature, history and music. The British were accomplished shipbuilders, and so on.

The Khan’s court in the Horde considered all the cultural and scientific advances of
the Western Europe their very own, at the disposal of the Empire at all times. If the
court needed a new fleet to be built, for instance, they would send for British
shipbuilders, or build the ships on British wharfs. A skilled medic could be summoned
from France, for instance, if France was the residence of some renowned
representative of the medical profession around that time. If a cathedral needed to
be built in Moscow and the deadline was a tight one, Italian craftsmen could be
summoned (which was the case with the construction of the Moscow Kremlin, qv
above). They arrived right away.

It is vital to realise that such a summons could not be disobeyed. As soon as a

province would receive orders from the Empire, the locals hastened to carry them out
or send the required specialists to the imperial capital – from Italy, France, Spain,
Germany, Britain and Asia.

One must assume that there were parties comprising the representatives of a variety
of provinces at the court of the Khan, or the Czar, in Yaroslavl – English, French,
German parties etc. They competed for priority commissioner status and be assigned
to carry out the most honourable and profitable orders, each party attempting to
prove it to the “Mongolian” Khan and his administration that their specialists were
the best ones around. The victorious party would get commissioning priorities and
become more important in the eyes of the Khan’s administration, which meant quite
a lot in that epoch.

Then, in the XVII century, after the split-up of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, when
the Western European countries declared their independence, the efforts of the
independent imperial vicegerents (and their historians, obviously enough) were
focussed on the proof of “historical continuity” of the modern status quo (the
independence of Western European countries, that is, the main implication being that
the Westerners have never been dependent on the Horde, or Russia. They sought to
wipe out the very memory of the rebellion and their usurper status (from their
epoch’s perspective). This was the very reason why Scaligerian and Romanovian
history was created – its primary objective has been to cast the Great = “Mongolian”
conquest into deep antiquity under the coy moniker of “The Great Migration” (the
Slavic conquest of Europe in the alleged IV-V century A. D.). The very recent Empire
was hastily wiped out from the maps of Europe. The history of the “Mongolian” Khan
dynasty of the XIV-XVI century was appropriated as the history of the “European
Habsburgs”. The latter were declared as “our very own former emperors, and who’s
ever heard of Muscovite rule? Such absurd and politically harmful notions should by
no means ever be harboured by anyone.

This ‘historical’ activity completely supposedly coincided with the intentions of the
pro-Western dynasty of the Romanovs, who seized power in Russia illegally, as a
result of a coup d’état. This is why the dynasty of the Romanovs and their rebellious
comrades-in-arms, the new rulers of the Western Europe, were completely
coordinated. The Ottomans (or Atamans), who had stood in the way of this
“civilisation process”, were crushed in a crusade – carried out by Russian soldiers and
paid for in Russian blood.

A revision of old documents, chronicles, memoirs and all sorts of historical evidence
in general has been conducted. Many foreigners visited Russia in the XIV-XVI century.
Therefore, many authentic documents had still existed in Western Europe, and they
reflected the real relations between Western Europe and the Horde perfectly frankly.
Documents were discovered and destroyed, rewritten or edited drastically, with new
versions published under older dates. In other words, the documents were
deliberately backdated in order to confirm the new point of view about the status quo
being supported by chronological continuity. Thus, insists Fomenko, one must always
retain the awareness that the distant past of the XIV-XVI century is, according to his
view, greatly thwarted by the distorting prism of the XVII century editing.

According to Fomenko, abundant unorthodox historical evidence has survived

nevertheless, thus some of the documents that deal with Russia and written by West
Europeans in the XVI century seem quite unordinary at present, the tendentious
editing notwithstanding. In Fomenko's view, some minor details have escaped the
attention of the meticulous editors. Some of them may have understood their
objective worse than others; also, they weren’t all of equal intelligence. Apart from
that, the “authentic picture of history” took a while to form in the heads of what
Fomenko considers XVII-XVIII century hoaxers. He suggests much of what would be
resolutely removed from old documents by later historians and editors of the XIX-XX
century was left intact by an earlier editor of the XVII-XVIII century, providing insights
considered valuable by Fomenko.
[edit] Fomenko's methods
[edit] Statistical correlation of texts

One of Fomenko's simplest methods is statistical correlation of texts. His basic

assumption is that a text which describes a sequence of events will devote more
space to more important events (for example, a period of war or an unrest will have
much more space devoted to than a period of peaceful, non-eventful years), and that
this irregularity will remain visible in other descriptions of the period. For each
analysed text, a function is devised which maps each year mentioned in the text with
the number of pages (lines, letters) devoted in the text to its description (which could
be zero). The function of the two texts are then compared.[17]

For example, Fomenko compares the contemporary history of Rome written by Titus
Livius with a modern history of Rome written by Russian historian V. S. Sergeev,
calculating that the two have high correlation, and thus that they describe the same
period of history, which is undisputed.[18] He also compares modern texts which
describe different periods, and calculates low correlation, as expected.[18] However,
when he compares, for example, the ancient history of Rome and the medieval
history of Rome, he calculates a high correlation, and concludes that ancient history
of Rome is a copy of medieval history of Rome, thus clashing with mainstream
accounts.[19]

In a somewhat similar manner, Fomenko compares two dynasties of rulers using

statistical methods. First, he creates a database of rulers, containing relevant
information on each of them. Then, he creates "survey codes" for each pair of the
rulers, which contain a number which describes degree of the match of each
considered property of two rulers. For example, one of the properties is the way of
death: if two rulers were both poisoned, they get value of +1 in their property of the
way of death; if one ruler was poisoned and another killed in combat, they get -1; and
if one was poisoned, and another died of illness, they get 0 (there is possibility that
chroniclers were not impartial and that different descriptions nonetheless describe
the same person). An important property is the length of the rule.

Fomenko lists a number of pairs of seemingly unrelated dynasties – for example,

dynasties of kings of Israel and emperors of late Western Roman Empire (300-476 AD
) – and claims that this method demonstrates correlations between their reigns.
(Graphs which show just the length of the rule in the two dynasties are the most
widely known, however Fomenko's conclusions are also based on other parameters,
as described above.) He also claims that the regnal history of the 17th-20th centuries
never shows correlation of "dynastic flows" with each other, therefore Fomenko
insists history was multiplied and outstretched into imaginary antiquity to justify this
or other "royal" pretensions.

Statistical correlation of dynasties

Fomenko uses for the demonstration of correlation between the reigns exclusively
the data from the Chronological Tables of J. Blair (Moscow 1808-1809). Fomenko says
that Blair’s tables are all the more valuable to us since they were compiled in an
epoch adjacent to the time when Scaligerian chronology. According to Fomenko
these tables contain clearer signs of “Scaligerite activity” which were subsequently
buried under layers of paint and plaster by historians of the XIX-XX century.

Astronomical evidence

Fomenko examines astronomical events described in ancient texts and suggests that
the chronology is actually medieval. For example:

* He explains the mysterious drop in the value of the lunar acceleration parameter
D" between the years 700-1300 AD, which the American astrophycist Robert Newton
had explained in terms of non-gravitational forces. By eliminating those anomalous
early eclipses the New Chronology produces a constant value of D" beginning around
1000 AD.[20]

* He associates initially the Star of Bethlehem with the 1140 (±20) AD supernova
(now Crab Nebula) and the Crucifixion Eclipse with the total solar eclipse of 1170
(±20) AD. In the course of further research he came to the conclusion that Crab
Nebula supernova could not have exploded in AD 1054, but probably in AD 1153. He
connects it with total eclipse of AD 1186. Moreover he holds in strong doubt the
veracity of 'ancient' Chinese astronomical data.

* He argues that the star catalog in the Almagest, ascribed to the Hellenistic
astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, was compiled in 15th to 16th centuries AD, with this
objective in sight develops new methods of dating old stellar catalogues and proves
that Almagest is based on the data collected between 600 and 1300 AD, whereby the
telluric obliquity is well taken into account. The dating method was tested
unambiguously on 736 8-star combinations (Prof Dennis Duke, State University of
Florida).[dubious – discuss]

* He refines and completes Morozov's analysis of some ancient horoscopes, most

notably, the so-called Dendera Zodiacs—two horoscopes drawn on the ceiling of the
temple of Hathor—and comes to the conclusion that they correspond to either the
11th and 13th centuries AD. Moreover he makes in his vol.3 of 'History:Fiction or
Science' series final computer aided dating of all 37 Egyptian horoscopes that contain
sufficient astronomical data, and shows they all fit into xi-xix timeframe. Traditional
history usually either interprets these horoscopes as belonging to the 1st century BC
or suggests that they weren't meant to match any date at all.

* In his final analysis of an eclipse triad described by the ancient Greek Thucydides
in History of the Peloponnesian War, Fomenko dates the eclipses to 1039, 1046 and
1057 AD. Because of the layered structure of the manuscript, he concludes that
Thucydides actually lived in medieval times and in describing the Peloponnesian War
between the Spartans and Athenians he was actually describing the conflict between
the medieval Navarrans and Catalans in Spain from 1374 to 1387 AD.

* Fomenko claims that the abundance of dated astronomical records in cuneiform

texts from Mesopotamia is of little use for dating of events as the astronomical
information they contain has solutions on the time axis X approx. every 30–40 years.

[edit] Rejection of common dating methods

On archaeological dating methods, Fomenko concludes that:

Archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating

of ancient sources and artifacts are both non-exact and contradictory, therefore there
is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artifact that could be reliably and
independently dated earlier than the XI century
—Anatoly Fomenko, History: Chronology 1: Second Edition

Dendrochronology is rejected with a claim that it, for dating of objects much older
than the oldest still living trees, isn't an absolute, but a relative dating method, and
thus dependent on traditional chronology. Fomenko specifically points to a break of
dendrochronological scales around 1000 AD.[21]

Fomenko also cites a number of cases where carbon dating of a series of objects of
known age gave significantly different dates. He also alleges undue cooperation
between physicists and archaeologists in obtaining the dates, since most radiocarbon
dating labs only accept samples with an age estimate suggested by historians or
archaeologists. Fomenko also claims that carbon dating over the range of 0 to 2000
AD is inaccurate because it has too many sources of error that are either guessed at
or completely ignored, and that calibration is done with a statistically meaningless
number of samples.[22] Consequently, Fomenko concludes that carbon dating is not
accurate enough to be used on historical scale.

Fomenko points out that when not fake, presumed 'ancient' coins (Greek, Roman,
Persian) are medieval, their abundance due to the widespread rights of feudal local
coinage. The numismatic dating is both subjective and circular as one based on the
consensual chronology.[citation needed]

He fully agrees with absolute dating methods for clay tablets or coins like
thermoluminescence dating, optically stimulated luminescence dating,
archaeomagnetic, metallographic dating, but points out that their precision does not
allow for comprehensive pinpointing on the time axis either.[citation needed]

Fomenko also condemns the common archaelogical practice of submitting samples

for dating accompanied with an estimate of the expected age.[citation needed] He
points out that convergence of uncertainty in archaeological dating methods proves
strictly nothing per se. Even if the sum S of probabilities of the veracity of event
produced by N dating methods exceeds 1.00 it does not mean that the event has
taken place with 100% probability.