Fomenko revised chronology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, the Turkic languages and IE not only existed and exist side by side, but also have a lot in common, more than you may expect, but this is not the crunch of the theory. Don’t take Fomenco word for word. He wrote his books and opted to wrap up his theories in one commercial package. Rather than present it in a speculative scholarly manner, he decided to promote it in a more catching know-all colorful style. He doesn’t know everything; tons of his assumptions are just that, assumptions. We talk about the spread of culture here, not language. Quite a few languages were spread before the time we are talking here, and underwent local developments in place. And curiously, they may have been spread from the same location the Byzantine Empire would later trigger cultural expansion.

I think that this bit actually illustrates one of the major underlying problems with this sort of theory, one not so much associated with the concept as how it is demonstrated.

Fomenko has a theory, one that would radically alter historiography in one way or another. But there are a few problems with this. He doesn't have any real experience or training as a historian, his data is often fabricated, altered, or selectivly chosen to say what he wants it to, his conclusions seem to be self-indulgent nationalist wanking, the participants in the rewriting of history lack any discernable motive, the scale of his conspiracy defies belief, his work is littered with internal inconsistencies, and the minor detail that it make absolutly no sense whatsoever. Now, if he were to try to advance this idea in academic circles, his theory would be ripped apart and he would be ridiculed. So he decides to take his argument straight to the public who, lacking the historical or scientific background to recognize the holes in his theory, are more likely to accept what he says as true. With a comercial book, he can get away with flouting academic standards and making gross assumptions.

This is a very common tactic for those trying to advance revisionist or conspiracy histories. Violators range from Gavin Menzies to various 9/11 debunkers. With almost all such cases, the pattern of the claims is roughly the same: the participants claim that a major event or time period is mis-interpreted or faked, and that only they were brave enough to challenge the orthodox thinking. Their moving into popular culture is thus defended as the only way to let people know the truth. The flaws in their argument are then that much harder to point out, and their theories become that much more popular.

But simply because a theory has a large public following, does not make it correct. The fact is that Fomenko is arguing pseudoscience, backed up by false assumptions, specious arguments, and shoddy reasoning. Fomenko's changing the forum for the debate does not validate his argument that easily.

I also wonder how one should accept a theory of history as valid, but still be able to disregard whatever portions of it don't match the facts (unless one happen to be Anatoly Fomenko).

Now, about the rest of that paragraph, while I'm here...

As far as languages go, there are a few similarities between turkic and Indo-european languages. But they are radically different language families, as has been detailed earlier (not to mention the difference between Slavic, Romance, and Hellenic tongues). Now, languages do not exist in a vacumn, and so if Fomenko is correct, then all of these disparate languages should at the very least be closely related. However, this is not the case. So we are left with two choices: either Fomenko's grand rewriting of history involved hastening the evolution and seperation of languages by thousands of years, or they are different because they were not in close proximity. Occam's razor suggests the later.

Bringing up culture also raises some questions. The thing is, IIRC Fomenko only gives culture passing mention in his theories. He manages to ignore the existence of many ancient, distinct cultures to make his theory work. He ignores the fact that the kings that he claims were duplicated existed in very different cultures. In fact, aside from his thoughts on the bible, the only cultural theory of his is that, in effect, all culture and technology is descended from his turko-slavic horde. This is, in most respects, nothing particularly new, and is little more than national self-glorification.
 
Robot,

How stupid of us! Of course the Normans brought all that stuff over with them and then buried it where we found it later.
Of course the fact that the Romance influences of Modern Britain descend largely (but actually not exclusively) from the Norman invasion is much better explained by the fact that the Angle and Saxon Germanic tribes more or less wiped out the Romanised Celts to form the root of modern British culture.
 
Not at all. I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the museums packed full of Roman artifacts, the Roman buildings still standing in places, the Roman coins, etc. I await it with interest, since the mainstream "explanation" is self-evidently flawed by its very existence.

I remember once walking into the British Museum packed with Roman artifacts and pondering over surprisingly advanced state of Roman tools. Many of them looked as if they were scooped from a garden shed rusty and old but remarkably advanced, given the time divide. I stood there in front of the display admiring the Roman ancient contraptions and thinking how far ahead the civilization might have been today, had it not been for those mind boggling dark ages and stingy Christians. No stupid alternative time-lines on my mind at the time, just chomped from the feeder.
 
I remember once walking into the British Museum packed with Roman artifacts and pondering over surprisingly advanced state of Roman tools. Many of them looked as if they were scooped from a garden shed rusty and old but remarkably advanced, given the time divide. I stood there in front of the display admiring the Roman ancient contraptions and thinking how far ahead the civilization might have been today, had it not been for those mind boggling dark ages and stingy Christians. No stupid alternative time-lines on my mind at the time, just chomped from the feeder.

Wait. I thought you were going to explain how the Romans were never in the British Isles, not talk about garden sheds. :confused:
 
There is a copious amount of evidence dug out from Roman archeological sites in Britain, and of the Latin influence on OE reflected in modern English brought to you by…the Norman Conquest. How comes the Romans have left no lexical imprints on Celtic, which should have been the case. It may be bullshit, yet pretty compelling.

There is a great deal of Latin influence in Welsh which is the closest thing from what you could consider as the old Briton language.
 
Fomenko has a theory, one that would radically alter historiography in one way or another. But there are a few problems with this. He doesn't have any real experience or training as a historian, his data is often fabricated, altered, or selectivly chosen to say what he wants it to, his conclusions seem to be self-indulgent nationalist wanking, the participants in the rewriting of history lack any discernable motive, the scale of his conspiracy defies belief, his work is littered with internal inconsistencies, and the minor detail that it make absolutly no sense whatsoever. Now, if he were to try to advance this idea in academic circles

This is what I am saying all along and I don’t mind his being a wanker as long as he throws meat on the table and it looks to me there is plenty of it. People study history from voluminous books where historical events are ordered on a plate, but they forget that history is an open book; that history is written by the winners; that it is written mostly on paper. They eventually obtain their degrees and write more books according to the only guidelines they know, refuting everything that is alien to their experience.
I agree again, there is no credible motive for the big fraud, and the motive he touts is mostly contradictory to what he writes about However, if there is no motive in sight, it doesn’t mean that murder has not been committed. There is always a motive. We can’t neglect a dead body with 20 bullets to the head lying by the road only because we don’t know what it is doing there and how the sap has been offed. I can’t say much about the book, he has written more than one, because I am not a bookman and it would take me years to verify the multi disciplinary stuff he is coming with. I can only say what I am following, and what I have observed keeps me engaged. The scale he works with has much to do with his ambition to render and address his collection as an entire package. He has already tried the academic route, failed, and assumed a different tack. This is a tactical trick on his part, doesn’t prove or disprove anything. I am not sure whether academic circles can enjoy thoroughly unbiased perspective. Fomenco or not, I myself disagree on several usually accepted renderings of history and don’t see a clear reason to believe what is put up for sale. There is too much credit for my liking put on the writings of ancient authors such Herodotus and Jordanes to name a few. Their stories are largely pure fantasies, much more fantastic than Fomenco, yet, modern history is manufactured around them, and then other disciplines like archeology with its carbon dating methods are used to double check the credibility. They do always match and everyone goes home happy, forgetting that they are often dealing with fantasy. This is not only Fomenko’s position.


As far as languages go, there are a few similarities between turkic and Indo-european languages. But they are radically different language families, as has been detailed earlier (not to mention the difference between Slavic, Romance, and Hellenic tongues). Now, languages do not exist in a vacumn, and so if Fomenko is correct, then all of these disparate languages should at the very least be closely related. However, this is not the case. So we are left with two choices: either Fomenko's grand rewriting of history involved hastening the evolution and seperation of languages by thousands of years, or they are different because they were not in close proximity. Occam's razor suggests the later.
I don’t buy everything Fomenko says. He writes what he thinks is right, I take what I think make more sense to me. As you have said, he is not a historian, nor linguist. He has tackled various fields, plenty of them, and backfires royal. Language is another thing that works against him, but only if one accepts him point blank. I have but skimmed through his book and even for a layman; it was easy to pick out blunders one after another. As for the linguistic, it doesn’t work with his theory only if you accept it point blank.
Anyway, the hallmark here is his new timeline and the disappearance of the Dark Ages. Let’s just work with that, send Mr Fomenko on holiday and try to bust the Middle Ages from one objective perspective and see if this can be done. If the arguments are ridiculous and coincidental (they look at least coincidental to me) than the Scaliger’s timeline is fine and dandy.
 
There is a great deal of Latin influence in Welsh which is the closest thing from what you could consider as the old Briton language.

Can you tell original Latin form Norman French from Vulgar Latin from Christian Latin in Welsh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top