Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread post by odif » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:30 am

I am just finding out about Fomenko and his research. The official chronology is given to us by Joseph Scaliger. do an indepth look into Scaliger. Great Tartary is the most mindblowing aspect of the Fomenko research.

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread post by allynh » Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:35 pm

That's a ton of videos, I'm working through them now. Thanks...


Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread post by allynh » Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:52 pm

This is the list of episodes that I have listened to so far discussing Scaliger.

I started with this video, about the Tartary, then have worked through the Scaliger stuff. This is the stuff that I was hoping to find when I started posting about Fomenko. They have followed a different path in their research but have confirmed the stuff Fomenko has written. Deeply disturbing. HA!

UnSpun 103 – “Robert Roe: Tartary and the House of Israel”

UnSpun 074 - Jacob Duellman: “Scaliger notatus, hallucinatio Scaligeri"

UnSpun 076 - Jacob Duellman: “Scaliger notatus, hallucinatio Scaligeri, pt. 2"

UnSpun 082 – Jacob Duellman: “Scaliger Notatus, Hallucinatio Scaligeri, Part 3”

UnSpun 093 – Jacob Duellman: “Scaliger Notatus, Hallucinatio Scaligeri, Part 4”

UnSpun 098 – Jacob Duellman: “Scaliger Notatus, Hallucinatio Scaligeri, Part 5”

UnSpun 100 – Jacob Duellman: “Scaliger Notatus, Hallucinatio Scaligeri, Part 6”

I need to go through other episodes to see what these guys are talking about.

BTW, normally episodes like this are hard for me to listen too, the spoken word is so slow in transmitting information. Luckily I have a Jigsaw puzzle program on my Mac. I'm doing a puzzle per episode, so that helps me focus. HA!

Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread post by kiwi » Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:46 pm

Hi Allynh :)

I actually found Fomenko et al research via this researcher here and her videos.

The first thing that struck me was regards the origin of human knowledge, ( I will add the video link to this episode below on the History of the Roman Empire) If I were randomly asked WHO were the founders of all Western knowledge I would answer the Greeks, and following from that its quite reasonable to ask how OLD is the Greek Nation,... without havinmg studied the topic at any higher level than high school I would make a guess about 3000 to 5ooo years? ... yet the reality is Greece only became a Nation in 1830! ... This is when the red flags should start to pop up imo.

Anyway, back to Tartaria, here is her video dealing with that rather curious ( when considering its abscence from standard history) situation :arrow:

Its suggested first you watch the episode treating the Double Headed Eagle symbol, which is here :arrow:

And here is the video dealing with the Greco/Roman Empire :arrow:

Cheers :)

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread post by allynh » Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:22 pm

I'm working through the videos now.

The newearth 033 with the double eagle headed symbols makes me wonder if that is a plasma form.


Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread post by kiwi » Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:17 pm

allynh wrote: ...makes me wonder if that is a plasma form.

Sure why not :) .. late in the Roman Empire video you see a Greek style vase/pitcher featured , although she doesnt draw attention to it there is the Owl motif also ... the Owl and the Gryphon feature on the old Flags of Tartaria , said to be there main symbols of State. The Owl of course is another "Plasma" structure analogy.

I guess at some stage in the past a few maybe over-zealous EU supporters have crossed paths , as there is a note on the Site that warns of anyone wishing to push that barrow that its not tolerated.

Ive never expected to walk away from ANY alternative view research and agree 100 percent with ALL the summations made ... it applys also I guess to MS accepted research , but it bothers me not a wit , and rather than focus on those points I am only to happy to have gained a better insight via those aspects of said research that appear to my sensebillities as logical and making sense. Her reasoning and offered proofs in those matters are on point imo.

What is as good as any verbal opinion one way or the other is the undeniable fact that many of the ancient and not so ancient sites are closed to further investigation,... that reeks.

Her video on the Americas is fascinating (pursuant to clause in para 2 above) imo, again many valid observations such as the buried "modern" Citys , the Pagan Statues said to be erected by the same puritanical invaders that were slaughtering the locals in the name of Christianity at the same time ...the Peshtigo/Chicago fires are probably something that bought her to the attention of EU enthusiasts amongst other things.The old masonry on Brighton Beach in New York is also intriqing, as with the claims of the Washington Monument base and the quality of the work of the sculptures at the Worlds fair 1893? ...

This is the type of research that is very easy to attack and discredit by picking over individual aspects and ignoring the "whole". As in there is no denying that a culture of very smart humans were building with Polygonal Masonry ALL over our planet at some time in the past, and that is in direct conflict with the official narrative that preachs isolated evolution from each other in our past.

Interesting to read the Wiki entry on the Gouble Headed Eagle ...
After the Bronze Age collapse, there is a gap of more than two millennia before the re-appearance of the double-headed eagle motif.
Those "mysterious" DARK ages .... if you know what I mean :twisted:

Anyway , heres the Americas video and the Samurai one ... oh I will add also a great collection of images from the Syrian region by a guy called Vlad9TV ... its not short by internet standars at 41 minutes but its mind blowing imo... the architecture is fantastic, hang in there as some images seem to repeat but its worth the effort, preferably on a big flatscreen is best .

Cheers Allynh :)

The Americas

The Samurai

Syrian stone buildings

Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread post by jtb » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:04 am
part 24 - Atlantis/Hyperborea artefacts, the Tisul Princess, Siberian megaliths, Tsarichina
Sylvie mentions the Thunderbolts Project @ 45 - 51 minutes in this video.

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread post by allynh » Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:59 pm

Another example of invented histories.

Phantasmic Phoenicia ... -ancestors
The British, Irish and Lebanese have all claimed descent from the ancient Phoenicians. But ancient Phoenicia never existed

Josephine Quinn04 April, 2018
Modern nationalism created history as we know it today: what we learn in school, what we study at university, what we read at home is all shaped by the forms and norms of our nation-states. Modern nationalism took history from the province of the wealthy gentleman amateur, as nationalism’s focus on literacy and organised education professionalised and democratised the past. And in return, history is called upon to justify nationalism itself, as well as the existence of particular nation-states; Eric Hobsbawm once said: ‘History is to nationalism what the poppy is to the opium addict.’ All this gives modern nationalism an extraordinary power to shape – and misshape – the practice and understanding not only of modern history, but even of antiquity.

Take the ancient Phoenicians, enlisted in support of the nationalist histories of Lebanon, Britain and Ireland, and in some cases seriously distorted by them. Despite claims by various partisans of Lebanese, British and Irish nationalism to enlist the Phoenicians as their ancient progenitor, the Phoenicians never existed as a self-conscious community, let alone a nascent nation.

In the aftermath of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire that had ruled the Levant for 400 years collapsed. European powers scrambled to carve up the region in their own, relatively new, model of nation-states, initially under British or French supervision. The French Mandate of Syria included a strip of prosperous Mediterranean ports backing on to the rural highlands of Mount Lebanon, the traditional home of the Maronites, who are Eastern Catholics in communion with the Vatican, and the Druze, whose beliefs combine Islamic teachings with elements from other Eurasian religious traditions. The Maronites and the Druze had a history of warfare and little in common. Nonetheless, since 1861 they had been governed together under the Turks as a separate administrative district from the coastal cities of Beirut, Tyre and Sidon, which were largely inhabited by Sunni Muslims.

In 1919, with all the Ottoman territories on the negotiating table, a group of local Christian, francophone businessmen and intellectuals recognised an opportunity to expand this upland enclave to include the wealthy ports in a new state of ‘Greater Lebanon’. These ‘Lebanists’ emphasised the natural symbiosis between the mountain and the coast: for them, the proposed new country was already a coherent whole; it just needed a distinctive history to justify its political autonomy.

The nation-state might have been new in the Middle East, but the Lebanists knew that nationalist movements needed historical legitimation, a common past on which to build a common polity. A local candidate presented itself: the Phoenicians, the ancient traders who had founded the coastal cities, sailed the length of the Mediterranean and beyond, and invented the alphabet that we still use today. Portraying the Phoenicians as champions of free enterprise, much like themselves, the Lebanists argued that these ancient Phoenician roots gave the Lebanese a Western, Mediterranean-focused identity, very different from the Muslim culture of the broader Syrian region, which they saw as distasteful and uncivilised. It was central to their ideology that they were not Arabs: ‘There are no camels in Lebanon’ as the slogan still goes.

To provide a proper prototype and parallel for modern Lebanon, these Lebanists insisted that the Phoenicians were always a separate, single people or even nation, united by geography, culture, religion and a common identity. As Charles Corm, a charmer and a chancer, as well as Ford Motor Company’s sole representative in Syria, bluntly put it in the July 1919 issue of his short-lived nationalist journal La Revue Phénicienne: ‘We want this nation, because it has always taken precedence in all the pages of our history.’ The argument worked: from 1920, Greater Lebanon was administered as a separate state within the French Mandate. But was it true?

Subscribe to Aeon’s Newsletter

Modern nationalism, which insists both on the political autonomy of a specific territory, and its superiority over others, is a very recent phenomenon. A product of industrialisation, mass communications and the revolutions in France and the United States, it reached its height with the political unification of Germany and of Italy in the later 19th century. However, the language of the ‘nation’ goes back to the medieval period in Europe, along with ideas of national character – lists of ethnic stereotypes were already being collected in 11th-century monasteries – and personal attachments to particular nations that could even encourage notions of genocide.

Some scholars of nationalism have argued that we can even trace similar sentiments back into antiquity. Anthony D Smith’s classic book The Ethnic Origins of Nations (1986) made the case that self-conscious ethnic communities have existed since the third millennium BCE, and that these groups ‘form the models and groundwork for the construction of nations’ in the modern world. While not yet nations in the modern sense, these groups shared cultural and sentimental attachments, a common name, a myth of shared descent, shared historical memories and attachment to a particular territory. One of Smith’s examples was Phoenicia, where alongside ‘a political loyalty to the individual city state’, he found ‘a cultural and emotional solidarity with one’s cultural kinsmen, as this is interpreted by current myths of origin and descent … based on a common heritage of religion, language, art and literature, political institutions, dress and forms of recreation.’

‘Phoenician’ was just a generic label invented by ancient Greek authors for Levantine sailors

All of this, including Smith’s claim, would have surprised the ancient Phoenicians, a disparate set of neighbouring and often warring city-states, cut off from each other for the most part by deep river valleys. They did not see themselves as a single ethnic group or people, the kind that could provide the ‘groundwork’ for a nation. There is no known instance of a Phoenician ever calling themselves a Phoenician, or any other collective term. In their inscriptions, they describe themselves in terms of their individual families and cities. They don’t seem to have had a common culture, either: their dialects fall on a continuum that linked city states across Phoenicia, Syria and Palestine, and the individual ports developed separate civic and artistic cultures, drawing on different foreign examples and relationships: Byblos, for instance, looked more to Egyptian models; Arados to Syrian ones; Sidonian architecture drew on both Greece and Persia; while Tyre cultivated close political and commercial ties with Jerusalem.

‘Phoenician’ was just a generic label invented by ancient Greek authors for the Levantine sailors they encountered in their own maritime explorations. Although some of these Greek writers entertain a mild stereotype of these Phoenicians as rather cunning or tricksy, they never use the term as a description of a distinct ethnocultural community. The historian Herodotus, for instance, talks frequently – and with considerable admiration – about the Phoenicians, but he never gives an ethnographic description of them as he does for other groups including the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Persians.

So Smith didn’t just get the Phoenicians wrong; he got them perfectly backwards. The Phoenicians don’t illustrate the ancient ethnic origins of modern nations, but rather the modern nationalist origins of at least one ancient ethnicity.

The entanglement of the ancient Phoenicians with modern nationalism is a story that began a long way from 20th-century Lebanon. On the island now called Great Britain, the medieval search for national origins came from the start in both ‘English’ and ‘British’ varieties. The English path was first championed by the Venerable Bede in the 8th century, and focused on the country’s Saxon kings; the British course culminated in the 12th-century work of the Welsh scholar Geoffrey of Monmouth, who traced his history of the kings of Britain from Brutus the Trojan, great-grandson of Aeneas. Geoffrey was also the first author to give a detailed account of the exploits of King Arthur, who had supposedly (and briefly) defeated Britain’s Saxon conquerors. These British legends then found a new lease of life after Henry VIII’s break with Rome, since the local Catholic Church was closely associated with the ‘English’ Saxons, who had presided over its importation to the island in the 6th century CE. The Welsh origins of the Tudor kings made the larger British vision of the nation especially attractive in this period, as did their imperial ambitions towards Scotland.

Sometime around the middle of the 16th century, a schoolmaster and minor politician named John Twyne wrote two volumes of Latin Commentaries on Albionian, British, and English Affairs. Twyne presented these commentaries as a lunchtime discussion hosted by John Foche, the last Abbot of St Augustine’s of Canterbury before Henry VIII dissolved that monastery in 1538. Published posthumously in 1590, these commentaries have never been translated, and although highly rated at the time, they are now largely forgotten. This is a shame, as they are very entertaining, and the Abbot makes an intriguing new case to his guests for Britain’s roots.

Dismissing Geoffrey of Monmouth’s ridiculous story of Trojan origins, Foche declares that Albion, the son of the god Neptune, first settled Britain, then founded a race of cave-dwelling Giants in the land to which he gave his own name, Albion. More recently, however, the first foreigners to reach this island were the Phoenicians, attracted by Cornish metals. His evidence for this claim includes the ‘Punic dress’ still worn by some women in Wales, as well as that region’s ‘Punic huts’; furthermore, the Abbot explains, the famous British custom of body-painting with woad was clearly an attempt by the Phoenicians to regain some of the colour they had lost over many generations out of the sun. The idea of descent from Phoenicians was ingenious: by dismissing the old Trojan hypothesis, Twyne provided a new national history for the new Tudor dynasty, one that he was careful to associate in particular with Tudor Wales, and one that gave Britain more civilised and heroic ancestors than descent from what he has Foche call ‘an unknown and obscure refugee’.

The Phoenicians themselves, though, are hazy for Twyne, who simply repeats what he finds in the ancient texts. The Phoenicians are said to be merchants with a reputation for cunning and deceit. He also emphasises their relations with other people: they originated in Babylonia, before migrating to a variety of other venerable ancient lands, including Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, Greece and Spain, then finally arriving in Britain. After all, he asks, ‘from where in particular do men get the custom of shaving the beard except on the upper lip, if not the Babylonians?’ This approach fitted with contemporary thinking about nations, which was not yet premised on exclusivity or confrontation: a crucial ingredient in early conceptions of European ‘nations’ was in fact the notion of their shared descent. The Table of Nations in the Book of Genesis provided a map by which scholars traced their own people back through this larger family tree to the sons of Noah.

Words apparently derived from the Phoenician include the name of Cornwall and the word for beer

By the time that Aylett Sammes published Britannia Antiqua Illustrata, or, The Antiquities of Ancient Britain, Derived from the Phoenicians (1676), the thinking had moved on. Sammes’s Phoenician theory of ancient Britain was bolstered by the popular work of the French scholar Samuel Bochart, whose Sacred Geography (1646) had traced the dispersal of Noah’s descendants across the globe. Bochart had paid particular attention to the Phoenicians, suggesting that they had reached both Britain and Ireland. Sammes claimed that the Phoenicians settled in southern Britain, while the German Cimbri colonised the north.

It was, wrote Sammes, the Phoenicians who left the bigger mark: ‘Not only the name of Britain itself, but of most places therein of ancient denomination are purely derived from the Phoenician Tongue, and … the Language itself for the most part, as well as the Customs, Religions, Idols, Offices, Dignities of the Ancient Britains are all clearly Phoenician, as likewise their instruments of war.’ For Sammes, British words derived from Phoenician include the name of Cornwall and the word for beer, and survivals of Phoenician culture include the site of Stonehenge. What language does he think the Phoenicians spoke?

Sammes maintained that the migration of the Cimbri explains why Scottish people are so much larger and fiercer than the English, as well as the advantages of the Union of the Crowns in 1603. ‘Divers Languages, Customes, and Usages … are not contrary one to the other,’ he wrote, ‘but by the mixture of the Gentry, and the happy union of this Nation under one Monarch, do meet together in the making up of the best compacted Kingdom in the World.’ Sammes’s use of the different origins of the immigrants to explain distinct modern physical types suggests a shared ancestry or racial relationship in a way that Twyne’s story of cultural borrowings had not. It also picks up on a new trend in nationalist discourse, which now emphasised the difference between nations much more than the connections between them.

Similarly, and although he emphasises the complementary origins of the British kingdoms, Sammes strongly distinguishes Britain from other European nations. In particular, he is decidedly against Britain’s arch-rival France and the French. Already for Sammes and his contemporaries, the French were closely associated with the Romans, a land-based, territorial state. Britons’ supposed descent from Rome’s traditional enemy, the maritime trading power of Phoenician Carthage, emphasised the differences between the two modern nations, and accounted for Britain’s superiority on the sea.

Furthermore, his strong opposition to the French means that it is important for Sammes that Britain has always been an island, and not – as was in fact the case – once a peninsula of northern Europe. He wrote: ‘if this Isthmus were admitted, then it would seem beyond dispute that the Gauls peopled this Nation, which … can not be imagined. It seems more glorious for this excellent part of the Earth to have been always a distinct Nation by itself, than to be a dependent member of the Territory to which it hath often given Laws.’ It’s a fundamentally different account of the origins of British nationality than Twyne’s. Britain on Sammes’s account has always been a nation, and he applies the same principle to its original human inhabitants: he is the first to describe the Phoenicians as a ‘nation’, and even a ‘state’.

In Ireland, an alternative version of Phoenician nationalism arose. Sammes’s contemporary Roderic O’Flaherty (Ruaidrhí Ó Flaithbheartaigh) was the first Irish scholar to suggest in his influential work Ogygia (1685) that the Phoenicians formed part of Irish ancestry. In the 18th century, O’Flaherty’s theory of the Phoenicians as progenitors of the Irish became very popular among the Protestant Ascendancy as well as Gaelic intellectuals. The best-known Protestant enthusiast is Charles Vallancey, who arrived in Ireland in 1756 as a British Army surveyor, and remained there as a respected local antiquarian, and a founding member of the Royal Irish Academy. Vallancey’s particular interest was in the relationship between the two languages: ancient Irish, he declares in one of his numerous lengthy studies on the subject, ‘may be said to have been, in great degree, the language of Hannibal, Hamilcar, and Asdrubal’.

Just as British nationalists could deploy the Phoenicians to differentiate themselves from the more ‘Roman’ French, proponents of Irish nationality used a Phoenician past to distinguish the Irish from the more ‘Roman’ British. In this view, the British occupation of Ireland was cast as a great struggle between sophisticated, noble Carthage, ie the Phoenician-Irish, and the savage imperial power of Rome, ie Britain. At the same time, Vallancey’s grasp of Phoenician particularity in the ancient world was hazy, and he did not strongly distinguish them from other ancient peoples: he describes the Phoenicians as absorbing the Scythians on their travels, and he assigns the Irish round towers at different times to Phoenician and Persian construction.

Ideologies of nationalism encouraged historians to embrace the idea of an ancient Phoenician nation

True separatist Irish nationalism, even among Catholics, was a 19th-century phenomenon. While Vallancey might have been devoted to Irish culture and history, his major work is dedicated to the English King. Irish intellectuals like him celebrated the Phoenicians as just one of a complex, interrelated set of ancient roots, and they were not, as yet, seeking a single, separate Irish future. They appreciated Phoenician ancestors, but they did not seek a Phoenician nation.

By the middle of the 19th century, the recognition that the Indo-European language family that included Irish and English was quite separate from the Semitic one that included Phoenician rendered the search for these modern nations’ supposed Phoenician roots untenable. So too did a distinct lack of archaeological evidence for Levantine settlement in the North Atlantic archipelago. At the same time, however, developing ideologies of modern nationalism encouraged historians to embrace the idea of an ancient Phoenician nation, swept up in what Paul Gilroy in The Black Atlantic (1993) has called the ideology of ‘the nation as an ethnically homogenous object’, as well as the ‘fatal junction of the concept of nationality with the concept of culture’.

Books on ‘the Phoenicians’ began to appear with extensive chapters devoted to their crafts and culture. By the 1860s, when the French archaeologist (and later theorist of nationalism) Ernest Renan began to publish his Mission de Phénicie, the results of his own excavations in Lebanon, he could refer to the Phoenicians as a ‘nation’. According to Renan, the Phoenicians had a distinctive art and architecture, and shared a practical bent and business acumen. Soon they were also a race: according to Georges Perrot and Charles Chipiez in an 1885 volume on Phoenician and Cypriot art, ‘it has been very well said that the Phoenician had some characteristics of the medieval Jew, but he was powerful, and he belonged to a race whose strength and superiority in certain respects should be recognised.’

By the end of the 19th century, the process was complete, and George Rawlinson could begin the third edition of his History of Phoenicia by declaring that the Levantine coast was ‘inhabited by three nations, politically and ethnographically distinct’: Syria, Palestine, and Phoenicia. Three hundred years of nationalist scholarship had installed the Phoenicians in the ancient Levant as a fully fledged nation, an appropriate ancestor for a state under European imperial supervision.

Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread post by Sandokhan » Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:15 am

The historians are supposed to concern themselves with chronology. However, without a sufficient mathematical education – and in the case of chronological studies, sufficient means fundamental – the historians are forced to evade the solution and even the discussion of the rather complex chronological issues.

Every historical oddness and contradiction becomes carefully concealed from the public attention; in dangerous and slippery places the historians put on a “professional” mien, saying that “everything is really okay” and they shall “give you a full explanation” later on.

Dr. G. Nosovsky

A.T. Fomenko did a disservice to the new chronology field of study by claiming that Christ lived in the 11th century AD. Given the huge success of his History: Fiction or Science? books, and his credentials in advanced mathematics, the researchers in the field, not to mention the readers of his series of publications, found it difficult to separate the obvious and correct mathematical proofs which prove that everything prior to 1,000 AD pertaining to ancient/medieval history was forged and falsified, and the correctness of Fomenko's reconstruction of history in the period 1,000 AD - 1,600 AD, which is plain wrong. By not having understood that the dating of the destruction of both Pompeii and Herculaneum really occurred in the 18th century, or not having taken into account the proofs offered by Dr. Christoph Pfister (the pioneer in the field of the new radical chronology of history) Fomenko was practically forced to invent a fictitious history for the period 1,000 AD - 1,600 AD, which of course included his take on the Nativity/Resurrection, and which affected in a negative manner the faith of many people, especially those living in eastern Europe (orthodox denomination).

The new chronology of history: history only goes back to 800 AD, recorded history to 1000 AD. Everything was forged/falsified after 1500 AD.

The new RADICAL chronology of history: history only goes back to ~1650 AD, the great flood occurred in 1700 AD, the printing press was invented after 1730 AD, Christ was crucified at Constantinople ~1765-1700 AD. Everything was forged/falsified after 1800 AD.

More details on the new radical chronology of history here: ... 78#p124478

See also: ... msg2001449


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests