NEW CHRONOLOGY (FOMENKO)

The 'New Chronology' of Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko is an attempt to rewrite world chronology, based on his conclusion that world chronology as we know it today is fundamentally flawed. The ideas of the New Chronology are a direct continuation of earlier ideas of Nikolai Morozov, and may have had their origin in the theories of the French scholar Jean Hardouin. The chronology is commonly associated with the name of Fomenko, although it is, in fact, a collaboration of Fomenko with several other Russian mathematicians, including Gleb Vladimirovich Nosovsky.
The "New Chronology" is radically shorter than the conventional chronology, because all of ancient Greek/Roman/Egyptian history is "folded" onto the Middle Ages and Antiquity, and the Early Middle Ages are eliminated. According to Fomenko, the history of humankind goes only as far back as AD 800, we have almost no information about events between AD 800-1000, and most historical events we know took place in AD 1000-1500.
These views are entirely rejected by mainstream scholarship. While some mainstream researchers have offered revised chronologies of Classical and Biblical history which do shorten the timeline of ancient history by eliminating various "dark ages," none of these revisionist chronologies are as radical as Fomenko's: the events which are traditionally assumed to have happened in the centuries before AD 1 are still thought to have happened thousands of years ago, not hundreds of years ago as in Fomenko's timeline.

Contents

History of New Chronology

Fomenko's claims

Brief summary

Detailed description

Fomenko's methods

Statistical correlation of texts

Statistical correlation of dynasties

Astronomical evidence

Rejection of common dating methods

Popularity

Criticism

Overlooked convergence of uncertainty in archaeological dating

Inadequate quantification of history and forced pattern matching

Unaccounted astronomical phenomena

Magnitude and consistency of conspiracy theory

See also

References

Notes

External links

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 Jean Hardouin then suggested that many ancient historical documents were much younger than commonly believed to be.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.^[1] In the 18th 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.^[1][3]
In 1887, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely invented or corrupted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.^[4]
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.^[5]

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.
Fomenko became interested in Morozov's problematic 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. 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 England and Ireland to China.

Fomenko's claims

Brief summary

In volumes 1, 2 and 3 of ''History: Fiction or Science?'', Fomenko and his colleagues claim:
# 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;
# 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;
# That this chronology was completed by jesuit Dionysius Petavius in ''De Doctrina Temporum'', 1627 (v.1) and 1632 (v.2);
# 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 there is not a single document in existence that can be reliably dated earlier than the 11th century;
# 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;
# 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 1153 to 1186 AD;
# 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, the Catholicism, and Islam;
# That currently accepted chronology has many inconsistences, but these are generally overlooked and ignored, giving the perception that there are no problems;
# 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.
# That 34 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;
# 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.
# That the horoscopes contained in Sumerian/Babylonian tablets have solutions every 30-50 yrs on the time axis and are therefore useless for purposes of dating;
# That the Chinese tables of eclipses are useless for dating as they contain too many eclipses that did not take place;
# That powder and guns, paper and print, and all major inventions made in the tenth to sixteenth centuries are of European origin;
# 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.

Detailed description

Fomenko's theory claims that the traditional chronology consists of four overlapping copies of the "true" chronology, shifted back in time by significant intervals (from 300 to 2000 years), with some further revisions. All events and characters conventionally dated earlier than 11th century are either fictional or, more commonly, represent "phantom reflections" of actual Middle Ages events and characters, brought about by intentional or accidental misdatings 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: most of the history of ancient world is known to us from manuscripts that are conventionally dated centuries, if not millennia, after the events they describe.
For example, Fomenko claims that the historical Jesus is a reflection of the same person as 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). Further, John the Baptist baptized Jesus, someone named Maxim baptized St. Basil, the prophet Elijah was the predecessor of Elisha, and John Crescentius was in some way a predecessor of Pope Gregory VII; consequently, according to Fomenko, all of them are also reflections of the same person. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and timeframe of the authors of said accounts and biographies.
Merging together the biographies of the aforementioned people requires also to merge ''cities'', because conventional history places them throughout the entire ancient world, from Jerusalem to Rome. Fomenko identifies all their cities: "New Rome" = Constantinople = Jerusalem = Troy. The Biblical Temple of Solomon was not completely destroyed, says Fomenko - it is still known to us as the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. The historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around 1185 AD on a hill overlooking the Bosphorus''(Г.В.Носовский, А.Т.Фоменко Датировка Рождества Христова серединой XII века)''. The city that we now know as Jerusalem was known prior to the 17th century as a nondescript Palestinian village of Al-Quds.
On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word "Rome" 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 Italian Rome is at least third in the list of cities known as "Rome"; it was allegedly founded around 1380 AD by Aeneas. Similarly, the word "Jerusalem" is a placeholder rather than a physical location and can refer to different cities at different times.
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 unrelated example, according to Fomenko, Plato, Plotinus and Gemistus Pletho are one and the same person - according to him, some texts by or about Pletho were misdated 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.

Fomenko's methods

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.^[6]
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 Новые эмпирико-статистические методики датирования древних событий и приложения к глобальной хронологии древнего и средневекового мира (краткая справка), , A., T. Fomenko, , , . He also compares modern texts which describe different periods, and calculates low correlation, as expected. 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^[6].

Statistical correlation of dynasties

Sample Fomenko parallelism

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 Old 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.
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 associates initially the Star of Bethlehem with the 1054 AD supernova (now Crab Nebula) and the Crucifixion Eclipse with the total solar eclipse of 1086 AD. In the course of further research he came to coclusion 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 xv-xvi cy, with this objective in sight developes new methods of daing 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 (Dr Prof Dennis Duke, State University of Florida).

★ 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 Greece from 1374 to 1387 AD.

Rejection of common dating methods

Dendrochronology is rejected on the basis 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, (although relative dating does not generally depend on any chronology). Fomenko specifically points to a break of dendrochronological scales around 1000 AD^[6].
Fomenko also cites a number of cases where (now obsolete) carbon dating results on objects of known age gave significantly different dates before calibration of the radiocarbon dating scale. 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^[6].
Consequently, Fomenko concludes that carbon dating is not accurate enough to be used on historical scale. See the article on radiocarbon dating for an expanded discussion of Fomenko's assertions about archaeological, dendrochronological, and radiocarbon dating.

Popularity

Despite criticism, Fomenko has published and sold millions of copies of his books in his native Russia. The list of his supporters includes such famous figures as former Chess World champion Garry Kasparov. Kasparov met with Fomenko during the 1990s, and found that Fomenko's conclusions concerning certain subjects were the same as his own. Specifically, regarding what is called the Dark Ages, Kasparov was incredulous towards the commonly held notion that art and culture died and were not revived until the Renaissance. Kasparov also felt it illogical that the Romans living under the banner of Byzantium could fail to use the mounds of scientific knowledge left them by Ancient Greece and Rome, especially when it was of urgent military use.^[1] Fomenko's theories became accessible to the Western public with the publication of the first three volumes of the seven volumes series ''History: Fiction Or Science?'' vol. 1,2,3 in English.

Criticism

Although Fomenko is a well-respected mathematician, his historical theories have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who brand them as pseudoscience. In many cases, his critics accuse Fomenko of altering the data to improve the fit, and note that merely selecting the matches which do fit, and ignoring those which do not, creates better-than-chance correlations, either of which undermines Fomenko's statistical arguments.
His critics claim he violates a key rule of statistics by choosing only the facts and sources of data that he finds convenient for his theory and ignoring the rest. For example, one critic reproduces one of Fomenko's charts and quickly you can see the problems. First, Fomenko is comparing a first period of the Roman Episcopate (173 years length) to a second period of the Roman Episcopate (218 years length) which differ from each other in length by 43 years or by nearly 20% so here he is comparing 'dynasties' of unequal length (often used in rebuttal regarding his critics). Then he combines the reigns of Anastasius and Innocentius and flips the reigns of Felix I and Eutychianus. In statistics this is known as 'cooking the data' and is a major no-no as it makes the results useless. As final proof the critic then uses these same methods on the Kings of Denmark with the first 104 to 153 years (also nearly 20% difference) and the second 224 to 281 years (57 years or also around 20%)
and gets totally ludicrous results.^[11] Since Fomenko has not fully explained his reasoning in altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.), it is difficult for others, whether supporters or critics, to reproduce his methods and avoid introducing new methods besides Fomenko's giving the impression that his results may have a pathological science aspect to them akin to N-rays over a century ago and effectively making them a Ad hoc hypothesis.
Critiques of Fomenko's New Chronology have been published by reputable Russian scholars. One book, titled, in English, ''History and Counter-History: Critique of Academician A.T. Fomenko’s “New Chronology”,'' is a collection of papers and articles published by opponents of Fomenko's theory, which include prominent historians of Russia, Antiquity, and of the Middle Ages, as well as archaeologists, astronomers, physicists and mathematicians.^[12] Another similar book is titled, in English, ''Myths of the New Chronology: Conference in the History Department of the MGU: December 1999.''^[13]. Astronomical arguments of Fomenko are critically evaluated in a special book ''Astronomy against "New Chronology"'' ^[14]. While these books are available for purchase, they are only available in Russian and have yet to be translated into English.

Overlooked convergence of uncertainty in archaeological dating

The vast majority of archaeologists, conservators, and other experts dispute Fomenko's rejection of scientific dating methods. They accept that radiometric dating methods can only provide approximate dates, but they note that the uncertainty associated with each method is known and limited. When many dating methods are used in conjunction, they will usually converge to produce similar ages for objects from the same layer of a given archaeological site. Independent scientific absolute dating methods include thermoluminescence dating, optically stimulated luminescence dating, archaeomagnetic dating, and in some cases palaeoentomology, as well as relative dating techniques, relying on stratigraphy or the seriation of different artifact types.
Critics reject Fomenko's assertion that dendrochronology fails as an absolute dating method because of gaps in the record. Two dendrochronological sequences beginning with living trees, one from the southwestern United States and the other from southern Germany, exist that respectively extend back 8,500 and 10,000 years into the past. Sample of the wood from these incremental dating chronologies have been subjected to radiocarbon analysis as a way of calibrating and checking that method.
See carbon exchange reservior for a discussion of his unproven conclusions 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.''

Inadequate quantification of history and forced pattern matching

Opponents of Fomenko's theory note that his method of statistically correlating of texts is necessarily very rough, because it does not take into account the many possible sources of variation in length outside of "importance". They maintain that differences in language, style, and scope, as well as the frequently differing views and focuses of historians, which are manifested in a different notion of "important events," make quantifying historical writings a dubious proposition at best. What's more, Fomenko's critics allege that the parallelisms he reports are often derived by forcing the data – rearranging, merging, and removing monarchs as needed to fit the pattern.
For example, on the one hand Fomenko asserts that the vast majority of ancient sources are either irreparably distorted duplicate accounts of the same events or later forgeries. In his elision of Jesus and Pope Gregory VII he ignores the otherwise vast dissimilarities between their reported lives and focuses on the similarity of their appointment to religious office by baptism. (The evangelical Jesus is traditionally believed to have lived for 33 years, and he was an adult at the time of his encounter with John the Baptist. In contrast, Pope Gregory VII lived for at least 60 years and was born 8 years after the death of John Crescentius, according to the available primary sources.^[15]) On the other hand, while discarding the narrative detail of such accounts, Fomenko tacitly accepts as credible many of the numbers presented in those documents as to the movements of planets, the length of dynasties, and the durations of the reigns of individual rulers.
Critics allege that many of the supposed correlations of regnal durations are the product of the selective parsing and blending of the dates, events, and individuals mentioned in the original text.^[16]

Unaccounted astronomical phenomena

Critics say that solar eclipses are relatively frequent events: total solar eclipses occur on average every 300-400 years at any given point, and much more often if we consider, say, all partial eclipses visible somewhere within the borders of the ancient Roman Empire; thus multiple datings of any given eclipse or even sequence of eclipses are possible. What's more, ancient western astronomical observations cannot be assumed to be reliable to the degree of precision needed to use them for dating as Fomenko does. Although Fomenko does account for some possible errors, astronomer Dennis Rawlins points out that Fomenko's statistical analysis got the wrong date for the ''Almagest'' because he took as constant Earth's obliquity when it is a variable that changes at a very slow, but known, rate. He explained this in DIO 4.3, 1994, p. 119.^[17]. Moreover, Fomenko arbitrary selects from more than 1000 stars in Almagest only eight from which only one (Arcturus) has dominating proper motion. That is why the whole dating of Fomenko is based on this star having large systematic error in the catalogue of Almagest. Statistical analysis using the same method for all "fast" stars with proper account of the change in obliquity undoubtedly points at antiquity ^[18] (Published in ''Astronomy against "New Chronology"'' in Russian). In addition to all of this, mainstream scholars agree that a large number of Babylonian and Chinese eclipses can be dated consistently with conventional chronology at least as far back as 600 BC, if not further, contradicting Fomenko's claims ^[19].

Magnitude and consistency of conspiracy theory

Fomenko claims that world history prior to 1600 was deliberately falsified for political reasons. The consequences of this conspiracy theory are twofold. Documents that conflict with NC are said to have been edited or fabricated by conspirators (mostly Western European historians and humanists of late 16th to 17th centuries). The lack of documents directly supporting NC and conflicting traditional history is said to be thanks to the majority of such documents being destroyed by the same conspirators.
Consequently, there are many thousands of documents that are considered authentic in traditional history, but not in NC. Fomenko often uses "falsified" documents, which he in other contexts dismisses, to prove a point. For example, he analyzes the Tartar Relation and arrives at the conclusion that Mongolian capital of Karakorum was located in Central Russia (equated with present-day Yaroslavl.) However, the Tartar Relation makes several statements that are at odds with NC (such as that Batu Khan and Russian duke Ieroslaus are two distinct people). Those are said by Fomenko to have been introduced into the original text by later editors.
Many of the rulers that Fomenko claim are medieval doppelgangers moved in the imaginary past have left behind vast numbers of coins. Numismatists have made innumerable identifications of coins to rulers known from ancient sources. For instance, several Roman emperors issued coinage featuring at least three of their names, consistent with those found in written sources, and there are frequent examples of joint coinage between known royal family members, as well as overstrikes by kings who were known enemies.
Ancient coins in Greek and Latin are unearthed to this day in vast quantities from Britain to India. For Fomenko's theories to be correct, this could only be explained by counterfeit on a very grand and consistent scale, as well as a complete dismissal of all numismatic analyses of hoard findings, coin styles etc.

See also

★ New Chronology

★ Phantom time hypothesis

References

★ ''Mathematical Impressions'', by A. T. Fomenko and Richard Lipkin, American Mathematical Society, 1990, 184 pp. ISBN 0-8218-0162-7

★ A.T. Fomenko ''et al.'': History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 1, ''Introducing the problem. A criticism of the Scaligerian chronology. Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs.'' ISBN 2-913621-07-4

★ A.T. Fomenko ''et al.'': History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 2, ''The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy.
★ Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts.'' ISBN 2-913621-06-6

★ A.T. Fomenko ''et al.'': History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 3, ''Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs.'' ISBN 2-913621-08-2

★ A.V.Bolsinov and A.T. Fomenko : Integrable Hamiltonian Systems: Geometry, Topology, Classification (Hardcover) , ISBN 0-415298-05-9

★ Differential Geometry and Topology
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1987. USA, Consultants Bureau, New York and London.

★ Variational Principles in Topology.Multidimensional Minimal SurfaceTheory
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.

★ 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.

★ Empirico-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. USA. Lewiston. Queenston. Lampeter, 1999.

★ A.T. Fomenko: Новые эмпирико-статистические методики датирования древних событий и приложения к глобальной хронологии древнего и средневекового мира (''New empirical statistical techniques for dating ancient events, and their applications to the global chronology of the Ancient and Medieval World'')

★ Robert Grishin and Vladimir Melamed, "The Medieval Empire of the Israelites", published 2003; ISBN 0973757604

Notes

1. The Lost Millennium: History's Timetables Under Siege, , Florin, Diacu, Alfred A. Knopf, 2005,
2. The Lost Millennium: History's Timetables Under Siege, , Florin, Diacu, Alfred A. Knopf, 2005,
3. THE CHRONOLOGY OF ANCIENT KINGDOMS AMENDED. To which is Prefix'd, A SHORT CHRONICLE from the First Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great., , Isaac, Newton, , ,
4. Atiqua Mater, , Edwin, Johnson, , ,
5. Der Myths von der Geburt des Helden, , Otto, Rank, , ,
6. Новые эмпирико-статистические методики датирования древних событий и приложения к глобальной хронологии древнего и средневекового мира (краткая справка), , A., T. Fomenko, , ,
7. Новые эмпирико-статистические методики датирования древних событий и приложения к глобальной хронологии древнего и средневекового мира (краткая справка), , A., T. Fomenko, , ,
8. Новые эмпирико-статистические методики датирования древних событий и приложения к глобальной хронологии древнего и средневекового мира (краткая справка), , A., T. Fomenko, , ,
9. Новые эмпирико-статистические методики датирования древних событий и приложения к глобальной хронологии древнего и средневекового мира (краткая справка), , A., T. Fomenko, , ,
10. The Lost Millennium: History's Timetables Under Siege, , Florin, Diacu, Alfred A. Knopf, 2005,
11. "Was the First Queen of Denmark a Man?" ''Skeptic Report'' http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudohistory/fomenko.htm
12. http://www.panrus.com/books/details.php?langID=1&bookID=3683
13. http://www.panrus.com/books/details.php?langID=1&bookID=4434
14. http://www.newchrono.net/library/book6.htm
15. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06791c.htm
16. http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id13.html
17. http://www.dioi.org/vols/w43.pdf
18. http://www.newchrono.net/fomenko/starwars.htm
19. http://www.ras.org.uk/pdfs/Stephenson.pdf

External links

★ History:Fiction or Science? New Chronology vol.I , vol.II , vol.III

★ ''Has World History been tampered with?'' - "History: Fiction or Science?"

★ ''Had history been really tampered with? Conclusions'' - "History: Fiction or Science?"

★ Новая Хронология

★ Article "New Hypothetical Chronology and Concept of the English History. British Empire as a Direct Successor of Byzantine-Roman Empire. (Short Scheme)" by A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskij

★ http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/fom.htm

★ http://www.jesus1053.com/en/index.html

★ http://lib.ru/FOMENKOAT/engltr.txt

★ A debunking of Fomenko's theories: Who Lost the Middle Ages?

★ Fomenkology. Critical evaluation of New Chronology of Anatoly Fomenko