Nouvelle chronologie

La Nouvelle chronologie est un théorie pseudohistorique qui fait valoir que le conventionnel chronologie de l’histoire du Moyen-Orient et de l’Europe est fondamentalement défectueux, et que des événements attribués aux civilisations de l’Empire romain, Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt effectivement eu lieu pendant la Moyen Âge,plus de mille ans plus tard. Les concepts centraux de la nouvelle chronologie sont dérivés des idées d’un érudit russe Nikolai Morozov (1854-1946), bien que les travaux de l’érudit français Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) puissent être considérés comme un prédécesseur antérieur. Cependant, la nouvelle chronologie est le plus souvent associée au mathématicien russe Anatoly Fomenko (né en 1945), bien que les travaux publiés sur le sujet soient en réalité une collaboration entre Fomenko et plusieurs autres mathématiciens. Le concept est expliqué plus en détail dans History: Fiction or Science?, Publié à l’origine en russe.

Anatolij Fomenko
Anatolij Fomenko

La nouvelle chronologie contient également une reconstitution, une chronologie alternative, radicalement plus courte que la chronologie historique standard, car toute l’histoire ancienne est “repliée” sur le Moyen Âge. Selon les affirmations de Fomenko, l’histoire écrite de l’humanité ne remonte qu’à l’an 800 de notre ère. Il n’y a pratiquement aucune information sur les événements survenus entre 800 et 1000 AD, et la plupart des événements historiques connus ont eu lieu entre 1000 et 1500 AD.

La nouvelle chronologie est rejetée par les historiens traditionnels et est incompatible avec les techniques de datation absolues et relatives utilisées par la communauté scientifique au sens large. La majorité des commentateurs scientifiques considèrent que The New Chronology est pseudoscientifique. L’intérêt suscité par la théorie à l’université découle principalement de sa popularité, qui a obligé les historiens et autres scientifiques à s’opposer à ses méthodes et à l’histoire du monde proposée. Un deuxième point d’intérêt de la part de la communauté universitaire consiste à comprendre pourquoi il est devenu si populaire qu’il suscite peut-être la sympathie de 30% des Russes. On ne sait pas vraiment dans quelle mesure les lecteurs des textes de la Nouvelle chronologie le considèrent comme une histoire ou une fiction. Il n’existe pas non plus de statistiques fiables sur les lecteurs.

La théorie est apparue à côté d’autres histoires alternatives et de la littérature sur le complot dans la période de liberté de parole accrue qui a suivi l’éclatement de l’Union soviétique. Tandis que d’autres auteurs ont écrit sur la théorie de la nouvelle chronologie, comme le partenaire junior de Fomenko, G.V. Le mathématicien bulgare Iordan Tabov, Nosovskiy, qui a élargi la théorie aux Balkans, la théorie est principalement discutée en référence aux écrits de Fomenko.

L’idée de chronologies différentes de la chronologie conventionnelle remonte au moins au début du 17ème siècle. Jean Hardouin a ensuite suggéré que de nombreux documents historiques anciens étaient beaucoup plus jeunes que ce que l’on pense généralement. En 1685, il publia une version de l’histoire naturelle de Pline l’Ancien dans laquelle il affirmait que la plupart des textes grecs et romains avaient été forgés par des moines bénédictins. Après avoir été interrogé sur ces résultats, Hardouin a déclaré qu’il dévoilerait les raisons des moines dans une lettre à révéler uniquement après sa mort. Les exécuteurs de sa succession ont été incapables de trouver un tel document parmi ses papiers posthumes. Au 17ème siècle, Sir Isaac Newton, examinant la chronologie actuelle de la Grèce antique, de l’Égypte ancienne et du Proche-Orient ancien, exprima son mécontentement vis-à-vis des théories dominantes et dans La chronologie des royaumes anciens, Amended en proposa l’une des siennes, qui fonda son étude sur Apollonius of Rhodes’s Argonautica a changé la datation traditionnelle de l’expédition Argonautic, de la guerre de Troie et de la fondation de Rome.

En 1887, Edwin Johnson exprima l’opinion que l’histoire des premiers chrétiens était en grande partie inventée ou corrompue aux 2e et 3e siècles.

En 1909, Otto Rank nota les doubles emplois dans l’histoire littéraire de diverses cultures:presque tous les peuples civilisés importants ont très tôt tissé des mythes et glorifié dans la poésie leurs héros, rois et princes mythiques, fondateurs de religions, de dynasties, d’empires et de villes – en bref, leurs héros nationaux. Surtout l’histoire de leur naissance et de leurs premières années est remplie de traits fantastiques; l’étonnante similitude, voire l’identité littérale, de ces contes, même s’ils font référence à des peuples différents, complètement indépendants, parfois géographiquement éloignés les uns des autres, est bien connue et a frappé de nombreux enquêteurs.

Fomenko s’intéresse aux théories de Morozov en 1973. En 1980, avec quelques collègues du département de mathématiques de l’Université d’État de Moscou, il publie plusieurs articles sur “les nouvelles méthodes mathématiques de l’histoire” dans des revues à comité de lecture. Les articles ont suscité beaucoup de controverses, mais Fomenko n’a finalement pas réussi à gagner des historiens respectés à ses côtés. Au début des années 1990, Fomenko a décidé de ne plus convaincre la communauté scientifique par le biais de publications revues par des pairs, mais par la publication de livres. Beam écrit que Fomenko et ses collègues ont été découverts par la presse scientifique soviétique au début des années 1980, menant à “une brève période de renommée”; Une revue contemporaine de la revue soviétique Questions of History se plaignait: “Leurs constructions n’ont rien de commun avec la science historique marxiste”.

En 1996, sa théorie s’étendait à la Russie, à la Turquie, à la Chine, à l’Europe et à l’Egypte.

La nouvelle chronologie de Fomenko repose essentiellement sur sa revendication de l’existence d’un vaste empire slave-turc, qu’il a appelé la “Horde russe”, dont il dit avoir joué le rôle dominant dans l’histoire eurasienne avant le XVIIe siècle. Les divers peuples identifiés dans l’histoire ancienne et médiévale, depuis les Scythes, les Huns, les Goths et les Bulgares, en passant par les Polyane, les Duleby, les Drevliane, les Pechenegs, et plus récemment, les Cosaques, les Ukrainiens et les Biélorusses Horde russe unique. Pour les nouveaux chronologues, des peuples tels que les Ukrainiens, les Biélorusses, les Mongols et d’autres personnes qui affirment leur indépendance nationale vis-à-vis de la Russie souffrent d’un délire historique.

Fomenko affirme que le prototype le plus probable du Jésus historique était Andronikos I Komnenos (prétendument de 1152 à 1185 ap. J.-C.), l’empereur de Byzance, connu pour l’échec de ses réformes; ses traits et ses actes reflétés dans les “biographies” de nombreuses personnes réelles et imaginaires. Le Jésus historique est une figure composite reflétant le prophète Élise (850–800 av. J.-C.), le pape Grégoire VII (1020? –1085), saint Basile de Césarée (330–379) et même Li Yuanhao (également connu sous le nom d’empereur Jingzong ou “Fils du Ciel” – empereur de Xia occidental, qui régna entre 1032 et 488), Euclides, Bacchus et Dionysius. Fomenko explique les différences apparemment considérables dans les biographies de ces chiffres, résultant des différences de langue, de points de vue et de calendrier des auteurs de ces récits et biographies. Il prétend que le Jésus historique est peut-être né en 1152 et a été crucifié vers 1185 après Jésus-Christ sur la colline de Josué, surplombant le Bosphore.

Fomenko fusionne également les villes et les histoires de Jérusalem, Rome et Troie dans une “nouvelle Rome” = évangile de Jérusalem (aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles) = Troie = château de Yoros. Au sud du château de Yoros se trouve la colline de Josué qui, selon Fomenko, est la colline du calvaire décrite dans la Bible.

Fomenko prétend que Hagia Sophia est en fait le temple biblique de Salomon. Il identifie Salomon comme étant le sultan Suleiman le Magnifique (1494-1566).

D’autre part, selon Fomenko, le mot “Rome” est un espace réservé et peut signifier n’importe laquelle de plusieurs villes et royaumes différents. Il affirme que la “Première Rome” ou “Rome antique” ou “Mizraim” est un ancien royaume d’Égypte situé dans le delta du Nil avec sa capitale à Alexandrie. La deuxième et la plus célèbre “Nouvelle Rome” est Constantinople. Le troisième “Rome” est constitué de trois villes différentes: Constantinople (encore), Rome en Italie et Moscou. Selon ses affirmations, Rome en Italie aurait été fondée vers 1380 par Enée et Moscou, car la troisième ville était la capitale de la grande “Horde de Russie”.

Dans les volumes 1, 2, 3 et 4 de History: Fiction or Science?, Fomenko et ses collègues font de nombreuses affirmations:

  • Les historiens et les traducteurs “assignent” différentes dates et différents lieux à différents comptes des mêmes événements historiques, créant ainsi plusieurs “copies fantômes” de ces événements. Ces “copies fantômes” sont souvent mal datées de siècles, voire de millénaires et finissent par être incorporées à la chronologie conventionnelle.
  • Cette chronologie a été en grande partie fabriquée par Joseph Justus Scaliger dans l’Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) et le Thesaurum temporum (1606) et représente une vaste gamme de dates produites sans aucune justification, contenant les séquences répétitives de dates avec des décalages égaux à des multiples. les principaux numéros cabbalistiques 333 et 360. Le jésuite Dionysius Petavius a complété cette chronologie dans De Doctrina Temporum, 1627 (v.1) et 1632 (v.2).

On pourrait se demander pourquoi nous devrions vouloir réviser la chronologie de l’histoire ancienne aujourd’hui et fonder notre révision sur de nouvelles méthodes empiriques et statistiques. Il serait utile de rappeler au lecteur qu’au XVIe-XVIIe siècle, la chronologie était considérée comme une subdivision des mathématiques.

  • 37 horoscopes égyptiens complets trouvés à Denderah, Esna et d’autres temples possèdent des solutions astronomiques valides uniques datant de l’an 1000 à 1700.

Le vocabulaire des symboles astronomiques égyptiens autrefois appliqués aux horoscopes des temples permet d’extraire des dates uniques d’éclipses. Les données astronomiques qu’il contient sont suffisantes pour une datation unique. Il existe des symboles permettant une interprétation astronomique et les symboles ne changent pas d’un horoscope de temple à un autre. Les horoscopes des temples contiennent des données sur les éclipses visibles en Égypte, ce qui permet de les localiser avec précision sur l’axe du temps.

  • Le livre de l’Apocalypse, tel que nous le connaissons, contient un horoscope daté du 25 septembre au 10 octobre 1486, établi par le cabbaliste Johannes Reuchlin.

Comme nous l’avons déjà noté, l’incapacité des commentateurs des derniers jours à comprendre le symbolisme astronomique de l’Apocalypse résulte directement de la perte de connaissances sur la chronologie correcte et des distorsions introduites par les historiens du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle. Une autre possibilité est qu’il existe un tabou général non dit sur ce qui concerne un sujet tout aussi dangereux, ce qui a eu pour conséquence l’annonce erronée de l’Apocalypse. D’une manière ou d’une autre, la compréhension des descriptions astronomiques contenues dans l’Apocalypse s’est perdue à un moment donné. L’Apocalypse avait perdu sa teinte astronomique distinctive aux yeux des lecteurs. Cependant, sa «composante astronomique» n’est pas simplement d’une importance exceptionnelle, elle suffit à elle seule à la datation du livre lui-même.

  • Les horoscopes trouvés dans les tablettes sumériennes / babyloniennes ne contiennent pas suffisamment de données astronomiques; par conséquent, ils ont des solutions tous les 30 à 50 ans sur l’axe des temps et sont donc inutiles pour la datation.

Le vocabulaire des symboles astronomiques babyloniens autrefois appliqués aux tablettes d’argile ne permet pas d’extraire des dates uniques d’éclipses. Les données astronomiques qu’il contient ne suffisent pas pour une datation unique. Soit il n’ya pas assez de symboles permettant une interprétation astronomique, soit les symboles changent d’une tablette d’argile à une autre. Les tablettes d’argile contiennent des données sur les éclipses visibles à Babylone qui auraient pu se produire tous les 30 à 40 ans. Par conséquent, n’autorisez pas leur localisation exacte sur l’axe des temps.

  • Les tables d’éclipses chinoises sont inutiles pour les rencontres, car elles contiennent trop d’éclipses qui n’ont pas eu lieu de manière astronomique. Les tables chinoises de comètes, même si elles sont vraies, ne peuvent pas être utilisées pour dater.

Les observations de l’éclipse chinoise ne peuvent ni confirmer ni réfuter une quelconque chronologie de la Chine, qu’elle soit véridique ou erronee.

Une des méthodes les plus simples de Fomenko est la corrélation statistique des textes. Son hypothèse de base est qu’un texte décrivant une série d’événements consacrera plus de place à des événements plus importants (par exemple, une période de guerre ou une agitation aura beaucoup plus d’espace qu’une période de paix et d’années sans événement). , et que cette irrégularité restera visible dans d’autres descriptions de la période. Pour chaque texte analysé, une fonction est créée qui mappe chaque année mentionnée dans le texte avec le nombre de pages (lignes, lettres) consacrées dans le texte à sa description (qui peut être zéro). La fonction des deux textes est ensuite comparée.

Par exemple, Fomenko compare l’histoire contemporaine de Rome écrite par Titus Livius à une histoire moderne de Rome écrite par l’historien russe V. S. Sergeev, en calculant que les deux ont une corrélation élevée et décrivent donc la même période d’histoire, qui est incontestée. Il compare également des textes modernes décrivant différentes périodes et calcule comme il se doit une faible corrélation. Cependant, lorsqu’il compare, par exemple, l’histoire ancienne de Rome et l’histoire médiévale de Rome, il calcule une corrélation élevée et conclut que l’histoire ancienne de Rome est une copie de l’histoire médiévale de Rome, en contradiction avec les grands courants.

De manière assez similaire, Fomenko compare deux dynasties de dirigeants à l’aide de méthodes statistiques. Il crée tout d’abord une base de données de règles contenant des informations pertinentes sur chacune d’entre elles. Ensuite, il crée des “codes de levé” pour chaque paire de règles, qui contiennent un nombre décrivant le degré de correspondance de chaque propriété considérée de deux règles. Par exemple, l’une des propriétés est la voie de la mort: si deux dirigeants ont été empoisonnés, ils obtiennent une valeur de +1 dans leur propriété de la voie de la mort; si un dirigeant est empoisonné et un autre tué au combat, ils gagnent -1; et si l’un d’entre eux est empoisonné et qu’un autre meurt de maladie, il obtient 0 (Fomenko affirme qu’il est possible que les chroniqueurs ne soient pas impartiaux et que des descriptions différentes décrivent néanmoins la même personne). Une propriété importante est la longueur de la règle.

Fomenko énumère un certain nombre de paires de dynasties non apparentées – par exemple, les dynasties des rois d’Israël et des empereurs du dernier Empire romain d’Ouest (300-476) – et affirme que cette méthode démontre les corrélations entre leurs règnes. (Les graphiques qui montrent juste la longueur de la règle dans les deux dynasties sont les plus connus. Cependant, les conclusions de Fomenko sont également basées sur d’autres paramètres, comme décrit ci-dessus.) Il affirme également que l’histoire royale des XVIIe au XXe siècles ne Fomenko insiste sur le fait que l’histoire a été multipliée et étendue dans l’antiquité imaginaire pour justifier cette prétention ou d’autres prétentions «royales».

Roman Empire parallelism
Parallélisme de l’empire romain

Fomenko utilise pour la démonstration de corrélation entre les règnes exclusivement les données des tableaux chronologiques de J. Blair (Moscou 1808-09). Fomenko dit que les tables de Blair sont d’autant plus précieuses qu’elles ont été compilées à une époque adjacente à la chronologie scaligérienne. Selon Fomenko, ces tableaux contiennent des signes plus clairs «d’activité de Scaligerite» qui ont ensuite été enterrés sous des couches de peinture et de plâtre par des historiens des XIXe et XXe siècles.

Fomenko examine les événements astronomiques décrits dans des textes anciens et affirme que la chronologie est en réalité médiévale. Par exemple:

  • Il dit que la mystérieuse baisse de la valeur du paramètre d’accélération lunaire D “(” une combinaison linéaire des accélérations [angulaires] de la Terre et de la Lune “) entre les années 700 et 1300, expliquée par l’astronome américain Robert Newton dans termes de forces “non gravitationnelles” (c’est-à-dire de marée). En éliminant ces éclipses précoces anormales, la nouvelle chronologie produit une valeur constante de D “à partir de l’an 1000 environ.
  • Il associe initialement l’étoile de Bethléem à la supernova de l’an 1140 (± 20) (aujourd’hui la nébuleuse du crabe) et à l’éclipse de crucifixion à l’éclipse totale de 1170 (± 20). Il pense également que la supernova du crabe n’aurait pas pu être vue en 1054 ap. J.-C., mais probablement en 1153. Il la relie à l’éclipse totale de 1186. En outre, il doute fort de la véracité des anciennes données astronomiques chinoises.
  • Il soutient que le catalogue d’étoiles de l’Almagest, attribué à l’astronome hellénistique Claudius Ptolemy, a été compilé aux XVe-XVIe siècles de notre ère. Avec cet objectif en vue, il développe de nouvelles méthodes de datation de vieux catalogues stellaires et affirme que l’Almagest est basé sur des données recueillies entre 600 et 1300 AD, qui tiennent compte de l’obliquité tellurique.
  • Il affine et complète l’analyse par Morozov de certains horoscopes anciens, notamment les soi-disant zodiacs de Dendera – deux horoscopes dessinés sur le plafond du temple de Hathor – et conclut qu’ils correspondent au 11ème ou au 13ème siècle de notre ère. . De plus, dans sa série finale Histoire: fiction ou science, il établit une datation assistée par ordinateur des 37 horoscopes égyptiens contenant suffisamment de données astronomiques, et affirme qu’ils correspondent tous à la période du 11ème au 19ème siècle. [Clarification nécessaire] L’histoire traditionnelle interprète généralement soit ces horoscopes appartenant au Ier siècle av. J.-C. ou suggèrent qu’ils n’étaient pas censés correspondre à une date du tout.
  • Dans son analyse finale d’une triade d’éclipses décrite par l’ancien Grec Thucydide dans l’Histoire de la guerre du Péloponnèse, Fomenko date les éclipses jusqu’en 1039, 1046 et 1057. J.-C. fois et en décrivant la guerre du Péloponnèse entre les Spartans et les Athéniens, il décrivait en réalité le conflit entre les Navarrans médiévaux et les Catalans en Espagne de 1374 à 1387.
  • Fomenko affirme que l’abondance d’enregistrements astronomiques datés dans des textes cunéiformes de Mésopotamie est peu utile pour la datation d’événements, car les phénomènes astronomiques qu’ils décrivent reviennent de manière cyclique tous les 30 à 40 ans.

Fomenko affirme à propos des méthodes de datation archéologiques:Les méthodes archéologiques, dendrochronologiques, paléographiques et sur carbone utilisées pour la datation des sources et des artefacts antiques sont à la fois inexactes et contradictoires. Par conséquent, il n’existe pas un seul élément de preuve écrite solide ni d’objet ne pouvant être daté de manière fiable et indépendante antérieure au XIe siècle.

La dendrochronologie est rejetée en affirmant que, pour dater des objets beaucoup plus anciens que les arbres les plus anciens encore vivants, ce n’est pas une méthode de datation absolue, mais relative, et dépend donc de la chronologie traditionnelle. Fomenko signale en particulier une rupture des échelles dendrochronologiques autour de l’an 1000.

Fomenko cite également un certain nombre de cas où la datation au carbone d’une série d’objets d’un âge connu donnait des dates significativement différentes. Il affirme également que les physiciens et les archéologues ont coopéré de manière excessive pour obtenir les dates, étant donné que la plupart des laboratoires de datation au radiocarbone acceptent uniquement des échantillons avec une estimation d’âge suggérée par des historiens ou des archéologues. Fomenko affirme également que la datation du carbone dans la plage allant de AD à 2000 est inexacte car elle comporte trop de sources d’erreur supposées ou totalement ignorées, et que l’étalonnage est effectué avec un nombre d’échantillons statistiquement insignifiant. En conséquence, Fomenko conclut que la datation au carbone n’est pas assez précise pour être utilisée à l’échelle historique.

Fomenko rejette la datation numismatique en tant que circulaire basée sur la chronologie traditionnelle. Elle évoque des cas de pièces similaires frappées à des périodes lointaines, de longues périodes inexpliquées sans pièces frappées et des cas de non concordance de la datation numismatique avec des récits historiques.

Les idées historiques de Fomenko ont été universellement rejetées par les spécialistes, qui les ont qualifiées de pseudosciences, mais ont été popularisées par l’ancien champion du monde d’échecs, Garry Kasparov. Billington écrit que la théorie “aurait peut-être été emportée par les théâtres d’universitaires” si ce n’était de l’écriture de Kasparov dans le magazine Ogoniok. Kasparov rencontra Fomenko au cours des années 1990 et découvrit que ses conclusions concernant certains sujets étaient identiques à la sienne, à savoir l’opinion populaire (qui n’est pas celle des universitaires) selon laquelle l’art et la culture sont morts au cours de l’âge sombre et n’ont pas été ravivés jusqu’à la Renaissance. Kasparov a également estimé qu’il était illogique que les Romains et les Grecs vivant sous la bannière de Byzance ne puissent utiliser les connaissances scientifiques laissées par la Grèce antique et Rome, en particulier lorsqu’elles étaient utilisées à des fins militaires. Cependant, Kasparov ne soutient pas la partie reconstruction de la nouvelle chronologie. Les critiques russes avaient tendance à considérer la nouvelle chronologie de Fomenko comme “un embarras et un symbole puissant des profondeurs auxquelles l’académie et la société russes se sont généralement enfoncées … depuis la chute du communisme”.Les critiques occidentaux voient dans ses idées une partie de l’idéologie russe impériale renouvelée, qui consiste à “préserver la conscience impériale et le messianisme laïc en Russie”.

En 2004, à la Foire internationale du livre de Moscou, Anatoly Fomenko et son co-auteur Gleb Nosovsky ont été récompensés pour leurs livres sur “La nouvelle chronologie”, l’anti-prix appelé “Abzatz” (littéralement “paragraphe”, un mot en argot russe signifiant “catastrophe” ou ” fiasco ‘) dans la catégorie “Pochotnaya bezgramota” (le terme est un jeu de mot sur “Pochotnaya gramota” (certificat d’honneur) et peut être traduit soit “certificat de déshonneur”, soit littéralement, “d’alphabétisation respectable”) pour le pire livre publié en Russie.

Les critiques ont accusé Fomenko de modifier les données pour mieux s’adapter à ses idées et ont noté qu’il enfreignait une règle clé de la statistique en sélectionnant des correspondances dans l’enregistrement historique qui étayait sa chronologie, tout en ignorant celles qui ne le faisaient pas, en créant une meilleure corrélations que par hasard, et que ces pratiques sapent les arguments statistiques de Fomenko. La nouvelle chronologie a été analysée de manière critique dans le cadre d’une table ronde intitulée “Les” mythes “de la nouvelle chronologie” présidée par le doyen du département d’histoire de l’Université d’État de Moscou en décembre 1999. L’un des participants à cette table ronde, le L’archéologue russe distingué, Valentin Yanin, a comparé le travail de Fomenko à “un tour de passe-passe pour David Copperfield”. Le linguiste Andrey Zaliznyak a expliqué qu’en utilisant les approches de Fomenko, on pouvait “prouver” toute correspondance historique, par exemple entre les pharaons égyptiens antiques et les rois français.

James Billington, ancien professeur d’histoire russe à Harvard et Princeton et bibliothécaire du Congrès de 1987 à 2015, a placé le travail de Fomenko dans le contexte du mouvement politique de l’eurasianisme, qui cherchait à lier étroitement l’histoire de la Russie à celle de ses voisins asiatiques. Billington décrit Fomenko comme attribuant à l’influence des historiens occidentaux la croyance en l’hostilité passée entre la Russie et les Mongols. Ainsi, selon la chronologie de Fomenko, “la Russie et la Turquie font partie d’un empire auparavant unique”. Un critique français du livre de Billington a fait part de son inquiétude face aux conceptions fantasmagoriques de Fomenko sur la “nouvelle chronologie” mondiale.

H.G. Van Bueren, professeur émérite d’astronomie à l’université d’Utrecht, a conclu son analyse critique des travaux de Fomenko sur l’application des mathématiques et de l’astronomie aux données historiques comme suit:Il est pour le moins surprenant qu’un éditeur (néerlandais) réputé puisse produire un livre coûteux, d’une valeur intellectuelle aussi douteuse, dont le seul mot positif est qu’il contient une quantité énorme de documents historiques factuels. , ordonné sans ordre, vrai; mal écrit, oui; mélangé avec un non-sens conjectural, bien sûr; mais quand même, beaucoup de choses utiles. Car le reste du livre ne vaut absolument rien. Cela rappelle les premières tentatives soviétiques de production de science tendancieuse (Lyssenko!), De polywater, de fusion à froid et de créationnisme moderne. En bref: un livre inutile et trompeur.

Tandis que Fomenko rejette les méthodes de datation communément acceptées, les archéologues, les conservateurs et d’autres scientifiques font un usage intensif de telles techniques, qui ont été rigoureusement examinées et affinées au cours de décennies d’utilisation.

Dans le cas spécifique de la dendrochronologie, Fomenko affirme que cette méthode échoue en tant que méthode de datation absolue en raison de lacunes dans l’enregistrement. Toutefois, les séquences dendrochronologiques indépendantes commençant avec des arbres vivants de diverses régions d’Amérique du Nord et d’Europe remontent à 12 400 ans. De plus, la cohérence mutuelle de ces séquences dendrochronologiques indépendantes a été confirmée en comparant leurs âges radiocarbone et dendrochronologique. Ces données et d’autres ont fourni une courbe d’étalonnage pour la datation au radiocarbone dont l’erreur interne ne dépasse pas ± 163 ans sur l’ensemble des 26 000 années de la courbe.

En fait, les archéologues ont développé une série de dendrochronologie entièrement ancrée remontant à 10 000 ans avant notre ère. “La chronologie absolue des cernes des arbres remonte maintenant à 12 410 cal BP (10 461 av. J.-C.).”

Les critiques de la théorie de Fomenko affirment que son utilisation des sources historiques est très sélective et ignore les principes de base d’une solide étude historique. Fomenko … ne fournit aucune analyse impartiale de la littérature historique sur un sujet qu’il traite, ne cite que les sources qui servent ses objectifs, utilise des preuves d’une manière qui semble étrange aux historiens de formation professionnelle et affirme que les spéculations les plus folles sont: si elle a le même statut que l’information commune à la littérature historique conventionnelle.Ils notent également que sa méthode de corrélation statistique des textes est très grossière, car elle ne prend pas en compte les nombreuses sources possibles de variation de longueur en dehors de “l’importance”. Ils soutiennent que les différences de langage, de style et de portée, ainsi que les points de vue et les objectifs fréquemment divergents des historiens, qui se manifestent dans une notion différente des “événements importants”, font de la quantification des écrits historiques une proposition douteuse au mieux. De plus, les détracteurs de Fomenko allèguent que les parallélismes qu’il rapporte sont souvent dérivés de ce que Fomenko aurait forcé à forcer les données – réorganisant, fusionnant et supprimant les monarques selon les besoins.

Par exemple, Fomenko affirme que la grande majorité des sources anciennes sont soit des comptes dupliqués irréversiblement faussés, soit des récits en double des mêmes événements, soit des contrefaçons ultérieures. Dans son identification de Jésus avec le pape Grégoire VII, il ignore les différences considérables entre leurs vies relatées et se concentre sur la similitude de leur nomination à une fonction religieuse par baptême. (On pense traditionnellement que le Jésus évangélique a vécu 33 ans et qu’il était adulte au moment de sa rencontre avec Jean-Baptiste. En revanche, selon les sources primaires disponibles, le pape Grégoire VII aurait vécu au moins 60 ans et est né 8 ans après la mort de John Crescentius, l’équivalent de John-the-Baptist de Fomenko.)

Les critiques allèguent que bon nombre des corrélations supposées des durées régnales sont le produit de l’analyse et du mélange sélectifs des dates, des événements et des individus mentionnés dans le texte original. Un autre point soulevé par les critiques est que Fomenko n’explique pas comment il a modifié les données (modification de l’ordre des règles, suppression des règles, combinaison des règles, traitement des interregna comme des règles, permutation entre théologiens et empereurs, etc.), empêchant ainsi une duplication de l’effort et efficacement. faisant de cette théorie une hypothèse ad hoc.

Les critiques soulignent que la discussion de Fomenko sur les phénomènes astronomiques a tendance à être sélective, en choisissant des exemples isolés qui soutiennent la Nouvelle chronologie et en ignorant le grand nombre de données qui fournissent des preuves étayées par des statistiques pour la datation conventionnelle. Pour sa datation du catalogue d’étoiles Almagest, Fomenko a choisi arbitrairement huit étoiles parmi plus de 1000 étoiles du catalogue, l’une d’entre elles (Arcturus) présentant une erreur systématique importante. Cette étoile a un effet dominant sur la relation amoureuse de Fomenko. L’analyse statistique utilisant la même méthode pour toutes les étoiles “rapides” pointe vers l’antiquité du catalogue d’étoiles Almagest. Rawlins souligne en outre que l’analyse statistique de Fomenko a donné une mauvaise date à l’Almagest parce qu’il a pris pour constante l’obliquité de la Terre lorsqu’il s’agit d’une variable qui change à une vitesse très lente, mais connue.

Les études de Fomenko ignorent l’abondance d’enregistrements astronomiques datés dans des textes cunéiformes de Mésopotamie. Parmi ces textes, on trouve une série de journaux intimes babyloniens, qui enregistrent des observations astronomiques précises de la Lune et des planètes, souvent datées du règne de personnages historiques connus remontant au 6ème siècle avant notre ère. Les rétrocalculs astronomiques pour tous ces objets en mouvement nous permettent de dater ces observations et, par conséquent, les règnes des dirigeants, en un seul jour. Les observations sont suffisamment redondantes pour que seule une petite partie d’entre elles soit suffisante pour dater un texte pour une année unique dans la période allant de 750 avant notre ère à 100 avant notre ère. Les dates obtenues sont en accord avec la chronologie acceptée. En outre, F. R. Stephenson a démontré, par une étude systématique d’un grand nombre d’enregistrements babyloniens, européens antiques et médiévaux et chinois d’observations d’éclipse, qu’il était possible de les dater de manière cohérente avec la chronologie conventionnelle au moins aussi loin que 600 av. Contrairement aux siècles manquants de Fomenko, les études de Stephenson sur les observations d’éclipse révèlent une incertitude accumulée dans le choix du moment de la rotation de la Terre de 420 secondes à 400 av. J.-C. et de 80 secondes à 1000 av.

Fomenko affirme que l’histoire mondiale antérieure à 1600 a été délibérément falsifiée pour des raisons politiques. Les conséquences de cette théorie du complot sont doubles. Les documents en conflit avec New Chronology auraient été édités ou fabriqués par des conspirateurs; le Vatican, le Saint Empire romain germanique et la dynastie pro-allemande Romanov. New Chronology exploite traditionnellement les pensées anti-occidentales russes et les idées de l’Allemagne en tant que principal ennemi. En outre, la théorie est que les cultures russocentriques diminuent les réalisations d’autres cultures et revendiquent des réalisations majeures de la civilisation russe et proposent un empire géant de la “Horde de Russie” et éliminent le temps historique qui existait auparavant. La théorie prétend également saper le nationalisme dans les pays voisins de la Russie en positionnant les divisions et les conflits comme fabriqués. Contrairement à d’autres théories populaires du complot, la Nouvelle chronologie n’est pas antisémite en soi, mais elle contient des affirmations qui pourraient être mal accueillies par les communautés juives, comme le fait que l’Ancien Testament est plus récent que le Nouveau Testament, plaçant Jérusalem à Constantinople et projetant des stéréotypes sur les Juifs en proposant Les Juifs sont originaires de banquiers de la Horde russe qui ont adopté la religion du judaïsme, qui est un dérivé du christianisme et non l’inverse.

La théorie fournit un récit historique alternatif de la “vraie” histoire centrée sur un empire mondial appelé “la Horde russe”. La portée de la nouvelle chronologie a été comparée au monde imaginaire de J. R. R. Tolkien. Des milliers de pages ont été écrites à ce sujet et les auteurs abordent un large éventail d’objections.

Fomenko a publié et vendu plus d’un million d’exemplaires de ses livres dans sa Russie natale. De nombreux forums Internet sont apparus dans le but de compléter son travail par une recherche amateur supplémentaire. Ses critiques ont laissé entendre que la version de l’histoire de Fomenko faisait appel au lecteur russe en préservant une conscience impériale afin de remplacer leur désillusion par les échecs du communisme et des oligarchies d’entreprise post-communistes.

New Chronology

The New Chronology is a pseudohistorical theory which argues that the conventional chronology of Middle Eastern and European history is fundamentally flawed, and that events attributed to the civilizations of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt actually occurred during the Middle Ages, more than a thousand years later. The central concepts of the New Chronology are derived from the ideas of Russian scholar Nikolai Morozov (1854–1946), although work by French scholar Jean Hardouin (1646–1729) can be viewed as an earlier predecessor. However, the New Chronology is most commonly associated with Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko (born 1945), although published works on the subject are actually a collaboration between Fomenko and several other mathematicians. The concept is most fully explained in History: Fiction or Science?, originally published in Russian.

Anatolij Fomenko
Anatolij Fomenko

The New Chronology also contains a reconstruction, an alternative chronology, radically shorter than the standard historical timeline, because all ancient history is “folded” onto the Middle Ages. According to Fomenko’s claims, the written 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.

The New Chronology is rejected by mainstream historians and is inconsistent with absolute and relative dating techniques used in the wider scholarly community. The majority of scientific commentators consider The New Chronology to be pseudoscientific. Interest in the academia in the theory stems mainly from its popularity which has compelled historians and other scientists to argue against its methods and proposed world history.[9] A second point of interest from the mainstream academic community is to understand why it has become so popular as to perhaps have the sympathy of 30 percent of Russians. It is not really known to which extent readers of New Chronology texts regard it as history or fiction. Nor are there reliable statistics on who the readers are.

The theory emerged alongside other alternate histories and conspiracy literature in the period of increased freedom of speech that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union. While other authors have written on New Chronology theory, such as Fomenko’s junior partner G.V. Nosovskiy and Bulgarian mathematician Iordan Tabov who expanded the theory in regards to the Balkans, the theory is mostly discussed in reference to Fomenko’s writings.

The idea of chronologies that differ 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.[11] 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 in The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended 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.

In 1887, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely invented or corrupted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

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 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.

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 Soviet journal Questions of History complained, “Their constructions have nothing in common with Marxist historical science.”

By 1996 his theory had grown to cover Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, and Egypt.

Central to Fomenko’s New Chronology is his claim of the existence of a vast Slav-Turk empire, which he called the “Russian Horde”, which he says played the dominant role in Eurasian history before the 17th 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 Belarusians, are nothing but elements of the single Russian Horde. For the New Chronologists, peoples such as the Ukrainians, Belarusians, Mongols, and others who assert their national independence from Russia, are suffering from a historical delusion.

Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 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 1032–48), Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and time-frame of the authors of said accounts and biographies. He claims that the historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around AD 1185 on the Joshua’s Hill, overlooking the Bosphorus.

Fomenko also merges the cities and histories of Jerusalem, Rome and Troy into “New Rome” = Gospel Jerusalem (in the 12th and 13th centuries) = Troy = Yoros Castle. To the south of Yoros Castle is Joshua’s Hill which Fomenko alleges is the hill Calvary depicted in the Bible.

Fomenko claims the Hagia Sophia is actually the biblical Temple of Solomon. He identifies Solomon as sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494–1566).

On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word “Rome” is a placeholder and can signify any one of several different cities and kingdoms. He claims 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. According to his claims, Rome in Italy was founded around AD 1380 by Aeneas and Moscow as the third Rome was the capital of the great “Russian Horde”.

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

  • Historians and translators often “assign” different dates and locations to different accounts of the same historical events, creating multiple “phantom copies” of these events. These “phantom copies” are often misdated by centuries or even millennia and end up incorporated into conventional chronology.
  • 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. The Jesuit Dionysius Petavius completed this chronology in De Doctrina Temporum, 1627 (v.1) and 1632 (v.2).

One might wonder why we should want to revise the chronology of ancient history today and base our revision on new empirical-statistical methods. It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century chronology was considered to be a subdivision of mathematics.

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

The vocabulary of Egyptian astronomical symbols once applied to horoscopes from temples allows for extraction of unique dates of eclipses. Astronomical data therein contained is sufficient for unique dating. There are symbols allowing for astronomical interpretation and the symbols do not change from one temple horoscope to another. The horoscopes from temples contain data about eclipses visible in Egypt allowing their exact pinpointing on the time axis.

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

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

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

  • The Chinese tables of eclipses are useless for dating, as they contain too many eclipses that did not take place astronomically. Chinese tables of comets, even if true, cannot be used for dating.

Chinese eclipse observations can neither confirm nor refute any chronology of China at all, be it veracious or erroneous.

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.

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. 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.

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 (Fomenko claims 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.[30]

Fomenko lists a number of pairs of unrelated dynasties – for example, dynasties of kings of Israel and emperors of late Western Roman Empire (AD 300-476) – 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 from the 17th to 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.

Roman Empire parallelism
Roman Empire parallelism

Fomenko uses for the demonstration of correlation between the reigns exclusively the data from the Chronological Tables of J. Blair (Moscow 1808–09). Fomenko says that Blair’s tables are all the more valuable to us since they were compiled in an epoch adjacent to the time of 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 19th and 20th centuries.

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

  • He says the mysterious drop in the value of the lunar acceleration parameter D” (“a linear combination of the [angular] accelerations of the Earth and Moon”[31]) between the years AD 700–1300, which the American astronomer Robert Newton had explained in terms of “non-gravitational” (i.e., tidal) forces.[31] By eliminating those anomalous early eclipses the New Chronology produces a constant value of D” beginning around AD 1000.
  • He associates initially the Star of Bethlehem with the AD 1140 (±20) supernova (now Crab Nebula) and the Crucifixion Eclipse with the total solar eclipse of AD 1170 (±20). He also believes that Crab Nebula supernova could not have been seen 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 the 15th to 16th centuries AD. With this objective in sight he develops new methods of dating old stellar catalogues and claims that the Almagest is based on data collected between AD 600 and 1300, whereby the telluric obliquity[clarification needed] is well taken into account.
  • 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 or the 13th century AD. Moreover, in his History: Fiction or Science series finale, he makes computer-aided dating of all 37 Egyptian horoscopes that contain sufficient astronomical data, and claims they all fit into 11th to 19th century timeframe.[clarification needed] 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 AD 1039, 1046 and 1057. Because of the layered structure of the manuscript, he claims 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 AD 1374 to 1387.
  • 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 phenomena they describe recur cyclically every 30–40 years.

On archaeological dating methods, Fomenko claims:
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

Dendrochronology is rejected with a claim that, for dating of objects much older than the oldest still living trees, it 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 AD 1000.

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 AD 1 to 2000 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. Consequently, Fomenko concludes that carbon dating is not accurate enough to be used on historical scale.

Fomenko rejects numismatic dating as circular, being based on the traditional chronology, and points to cases of similar coins being minted in distant periods, unexplained long periods with no coins minted and cases of mismatch of numismatic dating with historical accounts.

Fomenko’s historical ideas have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who brand them as pseudoscience, but were popularized by former world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Billington writes that the theory “might have quietly blown away in the wind tunnels of academia” if not for Kasparov’s writing in support of it in the magazine Ogoniok. Kasparov met Fomenko during the 1990s, and found that Fomenko’s conclusions concerning certain subjects were identical to his own regarding the popular view (which is not the view of academics) that art and culture died during the Dark Ages and were not revived until the Renaissance. Kasparov also felt it illogical that the Romans and the Greeks 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. However, Kasparov does not support the reconstruction part of the New Chronology. Russian critics tended to see Fomenko’s New Chronology as “an embarrassment and a potent symbol of the depths to which the Russian academy and society have generally sunk … since the fall of Communism”.Western critics see his views as part of a renewed Russian imperial ideology, “keeping alive an imperial consciousness and secular messianism in Russia”.

In 2004 at the Moscow International Book Fair, Anatoly Fomenko with his coauthor Gleb Nosovsky were awarded for their books on “New Chronology” the anti-prize called “Abzatz” (literally ‘paragraph’, a Russian slang word meaning ‘disaster’ or ‘fiasco’) in the category “Pochotnaya bezgramota” (the term is a pun upon “Pochotnaya gramota” (Certificate of Honor) and may be translated either “Certificate of Dishonor” or literally, “Respectable Illiteracy” ) for the worst book published in Russia.

Critics have accused Fomenko of altering the data to improve the fit with his ideas and have noted that he violates a key rule of statistics by selecting matches from the historical record which support his chronology, while ignoring those which do not, creating artificial, better-than-chance correlations, and that these practices undermine Fomenko’s statistical arguments. The new chronology was given a comprehensive critical analysis in a round table on “The ‘Myths’ of New Chronology” chaired by the dean of the department of history of Moscow State University in December 1999. One of the participants in that round table, the distinguished Russian archaeologist, Valentin Yanin, compared Fomenko’s work to “the sleight of hand trickery of a David Copperfield“. Linguist Andrey Zaliznyak argued that by using the Fomenko’s approaches one can “prove” any historical correspondence, for example, between Ancient Egyptian pharaohs and French kings.[49][50]

James Billington, formerly professor of Russian history at Harvard and Princeton and the Librarian of Congress from 1987-2015 placed Fomenko’s work within the context of the political movement of Eurasianism, which sought to tie Russian history closely to that of its Asian neighbors. Billington describes Fomenko as ascribing the belief in past hostility between Russia and the Mongols to the influence of Western historians. Thus, by Fomenko’s chronology, “Russia and Turkey are parts of a previously single empire.” A French reviewer of Billington’s book noted approvingly his concern with the phantasmagorical conceptions of Fomenko about the global “new chronology”.

H.G. van Bueren, professor emeritus of astronomy at the University of Utrecht, concluded his scathing review of Fomenko’s work on the application of mathematics and astronomy to historical data as follows:
It is surprising, to say the least, that a well-known (Dutch) publisher could produce an expensive book of such doubtful intellectual value, of which the only good word that can be said is that it contains an enormous amount of factual historical material, untidily ordered, true; badly written, yes; mixed-up with conjectural nonsense, sure; but still, much useful stuff. For the rest of the book is absolutely worthless. It reminds one of the early Soviet attempts to produce tendentious science (Lysenko!), of polywater, of cold fusion, and of modern creationism. In brief: a useless and misleading book.

While Fomenko rejects commonly accepted dating methods, archaeologists, conservators and other scientists make extensive use of such techniques which have been rigorously examined and refined during decades of use.

In the specific case of dendrochronology, Fomenko claims that this fails as an absolute dating method because of gaps in the record. However, independent dendrochronological sequences beginning with living trees from various parts of North America and Europe extend back 12,400 years into the past. Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages. These and other data have provided a calibration curve for radiocarbon dating whose internal error does not exceed ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve.

In fact, archaeologists have developed a fully anchored dendrochronology series going back past 10,000 BCE. “The absolutely dated tree-ring chronology now extends back to 12,410 cal BP (10,461 BC).”

Critics of Fomenko’s theory claim that his use of historical sources is highly selective and ignores the basic principles of sound historical scholarship.
>Fomenko … provides no fair-minded review of the historical literature about a topic with which he deals, quotes only those sources that serve his purposes, uses evidence in ways that seem strange to professionally-trained historians and asserts the wildest speculation as if it has the same status as the information common to the conventional historical literature.
They also note that his method of statistically correlating of texts is 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 alleged forcing by Fomenko of 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 identification of Jesus with 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, according to the available primary sources, Pope Gregory VII lived for at least 60 years and was born 8 years after the death of Fomenko’s John-the-Baptist equivalent John Crescentius.)

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. Another point raised by critics is that Fomenko does not explain his altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.) preventing a duplication of the effort and effectively making this whole theory an ad hoc hypothesis.

Critics point out that Fomenko’s discussion of astronomical phenomena tends to be selective, choosing isolated examples that support the New Chronology and ignoring the large bodies of data that provide statistically supported evidence for the conventional dating. For his dating of the Almagest star catalog, Fomenko arbitrarily selected eight stars from the more than 1000 stars in the catalog, one of which (Arcturus) has a large systematic error. This star has a dominant effect on Fomenko’s dating. Statistical analysis using the same method for all “fast” stars points to the antiquity of the Almagest star catalog. Rawlins points out further 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.

Fomenko’s studies ignore the abundance of dated astronomical records in cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia. Among these texts is a series of Babylonian astronomical diaries, which records precise astronomical observations of the Moon and planets, often dated in terms of the reigns of known historical figures extending back to the 6th century BCE. Astronomical retrocalculations for all these moving objects allow us to date these observations, and consequently the rulers’ reigns, to within a single day. The observations are sufficiently redundant that only a small portion of them are sufficient to date a text to a unique year in the period 750 BCE to 100 CE. The dates obtained agree with the accepted chronology. In addition, F. R. Stephenson has demonstrated through a systematic study of a large number of Babylonian, Ancient and Medieval European, and Chinese records of eclipse observations that they can be dated consistently with conventional chronology at least as far back as 600 BCE. In contrast to Fomenko’s missing centuries, Stephenson’s studies of eclipse observations find an accumulated uncertainty in the timing of the rotation of the earth of 420 seconds at 400 BCE, and only 80 seconds at 1000 CE.

Fomenko states that world history prior to 1600 was deliberately falsified for political reasons. The consequences of this conspiracy theory are twofold. Documents that conflict with New Chronology are said to have been edited or fabricated by conspirators; the Vatican, the Holy Roman Empire and pro-German Romanov dynasty. New Chronology taps traditionally Russian anti-Western thoughts and ideas of Germany as a chief enemy. Further, the theory is Russocentric diminishing achievements of other cultures and claiming major civilization accomplishments as Russian and by proposing a giant “Russian Horde” empire and eliminating historical time before its existence. The theory also claimed to undermine nationalism in countries neighboring Russia by positioning divisions and conflicts as fabricated. Unlike other popular conspiracy theories New Chronology is not anti-semitic per se, but it contains claims that may be unwelcome by Jewish communities like that the Old Testament is newer than the New Testament, placing Jerusalem in Constantinople and projecting stereotypes of Jews by proposing that Jews originate from bankers in the Russian Horde that adopted the religion of Judaism, itself a derivative of Christianity and not the other way round.[9]

The theory provides an alternate history account of the “true” history centered around a world empire called the “Russian Horde”.[9] The scope of the New Chronology has been compared to J. R. R. Tolkien‘s fantasy world. Thousands of pages has been written about it and authors address a wide range of objections.

Fomenko has published and sold over one million copies of his books in his native Russia. Many Internet forums have appeared which aim to supplement his work with additional amateur research. His critics have suggested that Fomenko’s version of history appealed to the Russian reading public by keeping alive an imperial consciousness to replace their disillusionment with the failures of Communism and post-Communist corporate oligarchies.

taken from Wikipedia

 

New Chronology

The New Chronology is a pseudohistorical theory which argues that the conventional chronology of Middle Eastern and European history is fundamentally flawed, and that events attributed to the civilizations of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt actually occurred during the Middle Ages, more than a thousand years later. The central concepts of the New Chronology are derived from the ideas of Russian scholar Nikolai Morozov (1854–1946), although work by French scholar Jean Hardouin (1646–1729) can be viewed as an earlier predecessor. However, the New Chronology is most commonly associated with Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko (born 1945), although published works on the subject are actually a collaboration between Fomenko and several other mathematicians. The concept is most fully explained in History: Fiction or Science?, originally published in Russian.

Anatolij Fomenko
Anatolij Fomenko

The New Chronology also contains a reconstruction, an alternative chronology, radically shorter than the standard historical timeline, because all ancient history is “folded” onto the Middle Ages. According to Fomenko’s claims, the written 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.

The New Chronology is rejected by mainstream historians and is inconsistent with absolute and relative dating techniques used in the wider scholarly community. The majority of scientific commentators consider The New Chronology to be pseudoscientific. Interest in the academia in the theory stems mainly from its popularity which has compelled historians and other scientists to argue against its methods and proposed world history. A second point of interest from the mainstream academic community is to understand why it has become so popular as to perhaps have the sympathy of 30 percent of Russians. It is not really known to which extent readers of New Chronology texts regard it as history or fiction. Nor are there reliable statistics on who the readers are.

The theory emerged alongside other alternate histories and conspiracy literature in the period of increased freedom of speech that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union. While other authors have written on New Chronology theory, such as Fomenko’s junior partner G.V. Nosovskiy and Bulgarian mathematician Iordan Tabov who expanded the theory in regards to the Balkans, the theory is mostly discussed in reference to Fomenko’s writings.

The idea of chronologies that differ 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. 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 in The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended 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.

In 1887, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely invented or corrupted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

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 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.

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 Soviet journal Questions of History complained, “Their constructions have nothing in common with Marxist historical science.”

By 1996 his theory had grown to cover Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, and Egypt.

Central to Fomenko’s New Chronology is his claim of the existence of a vast Slav-Turk empire, which he called the “Russian Horde”, which he says played the dominant role in Eurasian history before the 17th 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 Belarusians, are nothing but elements of the single Russian Horde. For the New Chronologists, peoples such as the Ukrainians, Belarusians, Mongols, and others who assert their national independence from Russia, are suffering from a historical delusion.

Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 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 1032–48), Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and time-frame of the authors of said accounts and biographies. He claims that the historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around AD 1185 on the Joshua’s Hill, overlooking the Bosphorus.

Fomenko also merges the cities and histories of Jerusalem, Rome and Troy into “New Rome” = Gospel Jerusalem (in the 12th and 13th centuries) = Troy = Yoros Castle. To the south of Yoros Castle is Joshua’s Hill which Fomenko alleges is the hill Calvary depicted in the Bible.

Fomenko claims the Hagia Sophia is actually the biblical Temple of Solomon. He identifies Solomon as sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494–1566).

On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word “Rome” is a placeholder and can signify any one of several different cities and kingdoms. He claims 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. According to his claims, Rome in Italy was founded around AD 1380 by Aeneas and Moscow as the third Rome was the capital of the great “Russian Horde”.

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

  • Historians and translators often “assign” different dates and locations to different accounts of the same historical events, creating multiple “phantom copies” of these events. These “phantom copies” are often misdated by centuries or even millennia and end up incorporated into conventional chronology.
  • 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. The Jesuit Dionysius Petavius completed this chronology in De Doctrina Temporum, 1627 (v.1) and 1632 (v.2).

One might wonder why we should want to revise the chronology of ancient history today and base our revision on new empirical-statistical methods. It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century chronology was considered to be a subdivision of mathematics.

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

The vocabulary of Egyptian astronomical symbols once applied to horoscopes from temples allows for extraction of unique dates of eclipses. Astronomical data therein contained is sufficient for unique dating. There are symbols allowing for astronomical interpretation and the symbols do not change from one temple horoscope to another. The horoscopes from temples contain data about eclipses visible in Egypt allowing their exact pinpointing on the time axis.

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

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

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

  • The Chinese tables of eclipses are useless for dating, as they contain too many eclipses that did not take place astronomically. Chinese tables of comets, even if true, cannot be used for dating.

Chinese eclipse observations can neither confirm nor refute any chronology of China at all, be it veracious or erroneous.

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.

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. 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.

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 (Fomenko claims 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 unrelated dynasties – for example, dynasties of kings of Israel and emperors of late Western Roman Empire (AD 300-476) – 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 from the 17th to 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.

Roman Empire parallelism
Roman Empire parallelism

Fomenko uses for the demonstration of correlation between the reigns exclusively the data from the Chronological Tables of J. Blair (Moscow 1808–09). Fomenko says that Blair’s tables are all the more valuable to us since they were compiled in an epoch adjacent to the time of 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 19th and 20th centuries.

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

  • He says the mysterious drop in the value of the lunar acceleration parameter D” (“a linear combination of the [angular] accelerations of the Earth and Moon”) between the years AD 700–1300, which the American astronomer Robert Newton had explained in terms of “non-gravitational” (i.e., tidal) forces. By eliminating those anomalous early eclipses the New Chronology produces a constant value of D” beginning around AD 1000.
  • He associates initially the Star of Bethlehem with the AD 1140 (±20) supernova (now Crab Nebula) and the Crucifixion Eclipse with the total solar eclipse of AD 1170 (±20). He also believes that Crab Nebula supernova could not have been seen 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 the 15th to 16th centuries AD. With this objective in sight he develops new methods of dating old stellar catalogues and claims that the Almagest is based on data collected between AD 600 and 1300, whereby the telluric obliquity[clarification needed] is well taken into account.
  • 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 or the 13th century AD. Moreover, in his History: Fiction or Science series finale, he makes computer-aided dating of all 37 Egyptian horoscopes that contain sufficient astronomical data, and claims they all fit into 11th to 19th century timeframe.[clarification needed] 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 AD 1039, 1046 and 1057. Because of the layered structure of the manuscript, he claims 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 AD 1374 to 1387.
  • 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 phenomena they describe recur cyclically every 30–40 years.

On archaeological dating methods, Fomenko claims:
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

Dendrochronology is rejected with a claim that, for dating of objects much older than the oldest still living trees, it 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 AD 1000.

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 AD 1 to 2000 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. Consequently, Fomenko concludes that carbon dating is not accurate enough to be used on historical scale.

Fomenko rejects numismatic dating as circular, being based on the traditional chronology, and points to cases of similar coins being minted in distant periods, unexplained long periods with no coins minted and cases of mismatch of numismatic dating with historical accounts.

Fomenko’s historical ideas have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who brand them as pseudoscience, but were popularized by former world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Billington writes that the theory “might have quietly blown away in the wind tunnels of academia” if not for Kasparov’s writing in support of it in the magazine Ogoniok. Kasparov met Fomenko during the 1990s, and found that Fomenko’s conclusions concerning certain subjects were identical to his own regarding the popular view (which is not the view of academics) that art and culture died during the Dark Ages and were not revived until the Renaissance. Kasparov also felt it illogical that the Romans and the Greeks 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. However, Kasparov does not support the reconstruction part of the New Chronology. Russian critics tended to see Fomenko’s New Chronology as “an embarrassment and a potent symbol of the depths to which the Russian academy and society have generally sunk … since the fall of Communism”.Western critics see his views as part of a renewed Russian imperial ideology, “keeping alive an imperial consciousness and secular messianism in Russia”.

In 2004 at the Moscow International Book Fair, Anatoly Fomenko with his coauthor Gleb Nosovsky were awarded for their books on “New Chronology” the anti-prize called “Abzatz” (literally ‘paragraph’, a Russian slang word meaning ‘disaster’ or ‘fiasco’) in the category “Pochotnaya bezgramota” (the term is a pun upon “Pochotnaya gramota” (Certificate of Honor) and may be translated either “Certificate of Dishonor” or literally, “Respectable Illiteracy” ) for the worst book published in Russia.

Critics have accused Fomenko of altering the data to improve the fit with his ideas and have noted that he violates a key rule of statistics by selecting matches from the historical record which support his chronology, while ignoring those which do not, creating artificial, better-than-chance correlations, and that these practices undermine Fomenko’s statistical arguments. The new chronology was given a comprehensive critical analysis in a round table on “The ‘Myths’ of New Chronology” chaired by the dean of the department of history of Moscow State University in December 1999. One of the participants in that round table, the distinguished Russian archaeologist, Valentin Yanin, compared Fomenko’s work to “the sleight of hand trickery of a David Copperfield“. Linguist Andrey Zaliznyak argued that by using the Fomenko’s approaches one can “prove” any historical correspondence, for example, between Ancient Egyptian pharaohs and French kings.

James Billington, formerly professor of Russian history at Harvard and Princeton and the Librarian of Congress from 1987-2015 placed Fomenko’s work within the context of the political movement of Eurasianism, which sought to tie Russian history closely to that of its Asian neighbors. Billington describes Fomenko as ascribing the belief in past hostility between Russia and the Mongols to the influence of Western historians. Thus, by Fomenko’s chronology, “Russia and Turkey are parts of a previously single empire.” A French reviewer of Billington’s book noted approvingly his concern with the phantasmagorical conceptions of Fomenko about the global “new chronology”.

H.G. van Bueren, professor emeritus of astronomy at the University of Utrecht, concluded his scathing review of Fomenko’s work on the application of mathematics and astronomy to historical data as follows:
It is surprising, to say the least, that a well-known (Dutch) publisher could produce an expensive book of such doubtful intellectual value, of which the only good word that can be said is that it contains an enormous amount of factual historical material, untidily ordered, true; badly written, yes; mixed-up with conjectural nonsense, sure; but still, much useful stuff. For the rest of the book is absolutely worthless. It reminds one of the early Soviet attempts to produce tendentious science (Lysenko!), of polywater, of cold fusion, and of modern creationism. In brief: a useless and misleading book.

While Fomenko rejects commonly accepted dating methods, archaeologists, conservators and other scientists make extensive use of such techniques which have been rigorously examined and refined during decades of use.

In the specific case of dendrochronology, Fomenko claims that this fails as an absolute dating method because of gaps in the record. However, independent dendrochronological sequences beginning with living trees from various parts of North America and Europe extend back 12,400 years into the past. Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages. These and other data have provided a calibration curve for radiocarbon dating whose internal error does not exceed ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve.

In fact, archaeologists have developed a fully anchored dendrochronology series going back past 10,000 BCE. “The absolutely dated tree-ring chronology now extends back to 12,410 cal BP (10,461 BC).”

Critics of Fomenko’s theory claim that his use of historical sources is highly selective and ignores the basic principles of sound historical scholarship.
>Fomenko … provides no fair-minded review of the historical literature about a topic with which he deals, quotes only those sources that serve his purposes, uses evidence in ways that seem strange to professionally-trained historians and asserts the wildest speculation as if it has the same status as the information common to the conventional historical literature.
They also note that his method of statistically correlating of texts is 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 alleged forcing by Fomenko of 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 identification of Jesus with 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, according to the available primary sources, Pope Gregory VII lived for at least 60 years and was born 8 years after the death of Fomenko’s John-the-Baptist equivalent John Crescentius.)

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. Another point raised by critics is that Fomenko does not explain his altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.) preventing a duplication of the effort and effectively making this whole theory an ad hoc hypothesis.

Critics point out that Fomenko’s discussion of astronomical phenomena tends to be selective, choosing isolated examples that support the New Chronology and ignoring the large bodies of data that provide statistically supported evidence for the conventional dating. For his dating of the Almagest star catalog, Fomenko arbitrarily selected eight stars from the more than 1000 stars in the catalog, one of which (Arcturus) has a large systematic error. This star has a dominant effect on Fomenko’s dating. Statistical analysis using the same method for all “fast” stars points to the antiquity of the Almagest star catalog. Rawlins points out further 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.

Fomenko’s studies ignore the abundance of dated astronomical records in cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia. Among these texts is a series of Babylonian astronomical diaries, which records precise astronomical observations of the Moon and planets, often dated in terms of the reigns of known historical figures extending back to the 6th century BCE. Astronomical retrocalculations for all these moving objects allow us to date these observations, and consequently the rulers’ reigns, to within a single day. The observations are sufficiently redundant that only a small portion of them are sufficient to date a text to a unique year in the period 750 BCE to 100 CE. The dates obtained agree with the accepted chronology. In addition, F. R. Stephenson has demonstrated through a systematic study of a large number of Babylonian, Ancient and Medieval European, and Chinese records of eclipse observations that they can be dated consistently with conventional chronology at least as far back as 600 BCE. In contrast to Fomenko’s missing centuries, Stephenson’s studies of eclipse observations find an accumulated uncertainty in the timing of the rotation of the earth of 420 seconds at 400 BCE, and only 80 seconds at 1000 CE.

Fomenko states that world history prior to 1600 was deliberately falsified for political reasons. The consequences of this conspiracy theory are twofold. Documents that conflict with New Chronology are said to have been edited or fabricated by conspirators; the Vatican, the Holy Roman Empire and pro-German Romanov dynasty. New Chronology taps traditionally Russian anti-Western thoughts and ideas of Germany as a chief enemy. Further, the theory is Russocentric diminishing achievements of other cultures and claiming major civilization accomplishments as Russian and by proposing a giant “Russian Horde” empire and eliminating historical time before its existence. The theory also claimed to undermine nationalism in countries neighboring Russia by positioning divisions and conflicts as fabricated. Unlike other popular conspiracy theories New Chronology is not anti-semitic per se, but it contains claims that may be unwelcome by Jewish communities like that the Old Testament is newer than the New Testament, placing Jerusalem in Constantinople and projecting stereotypes of Jews by proposing that Jews originate from bankers in the Russian Horde that adopted the religion of Judaism, itself a derivative of Christianity and not the other way round.

The theory provides an alternate history account of the “true” history centered around a world empire called the “Russian Horde”. The scope of the New Chronology has been compared to J. R. R. Tolkien‘s fantasy world. Thousands of pages has been written about it and authors address a wide range of objections.

Fomenko has published and sold over one million copies of his books in his native Russia. Many Internet forums have appeared which aim to supplement his work with additional amateur research. His critics have suggested that Fomenko’s version of history appealed to the Russian reading public by keeping alive an imperial consciousness to replace their disillusionment with the failures of Communism and post-Communist corporate oligarchies.

taken from Wikipedia

New Chronology

The New Chronology is a pseudohistorical theory which argues that the conventional chronology of Middle Eastern and European history is fundamentally flawed, and that events attributed to the civilizations of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt actually occurred during the Middle Ages, more than a thousand years later. The central concepts of the New Chronology are derived from the ideas of Russian scholar Nikolai Morozov (1854–1946), although work by French scholar Jean Hardouin (1646–1729) can be viewed as an earlier predecessor. However, the New Chronology is most commonly associated with Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko (born 1945), although published works on the subject are actually a collaboration between Fomenko and several other mathematicians. The concept is most fully explained in History: Fiction or Science?, originally published in Russian.

Anatolij Fomenko
Anatolij Fomenko

The New Chronology also contains a reconstruction, an alternative chronology, radically shorter than the standard historical timeline, because all ancient history is “folded” onto the Middle Ages. According to Fomenko’s claims, the written 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.

The New Chronology is rejected by mainstream historians and is inconsistent with absolute and relative dating techniques used in the wider scholarly community. The majority of scientific commentators consider The New Chronology to be pseudoscientific. Interest in the academia in the theory stems mainly from its popularity which has compelled historians and other scientists to argue against its methods and proposed world history. A second point of interest from the mainstream academic community is to understand why it has become so popular as to perhaps have the sympathy of 30 percent of Russians. It is not really known to which extent readers of New Chronology texts regard it as history or fiction. Nor are there reliable statistics on who the readers are.

The theory emerged alongside other alternate histories and conspiracy literature in the period of increased freedom of speech that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union. While other authors have written on New Chronology theory, such as Fomenko’s junior partner G.V. Nosovskiy and Bulgarian mathematician Iordan Tabov who expanded the theory in regards to the Balkans, the theory is mostly discussed in reference to Fomenko’s writings.

The idea of chronologies that differ 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. 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 in The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended 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.

In 1887, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely invented or corrupted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

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 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.

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 Soviet journal Questions of History complained, “Their constructions have nothing in common with Marxist historical science.”

By 1996 his theory had grown to cover Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, and Egypt.

Central to Fomenko’s New Chronology is his claim of the existence of a vast Slav-Turk empire, which he called the “Russian Horde”, which he says played the dominant role in Eurasian history before the 17th 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 Belarusians, are nothing but elements of the single Russian Horde. For the New Chronologists, peoples such as the Ukrainians, Belarusians, Mongols, and others who assert their national independence from Russia, are suffering from a historical delusion.

Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 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 1032–48), Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and time-frame of the authors of said accounts and biographies. He claims that the historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around AD 1185 on the Joshua’s Hill, overlooking the Bosphorus.

Fomenko also merges the cities and histories of Jerusalem, Rome and Troy into “New Rome” = Gospel Jerusalem (in the 12th and 13th centuries) = Troy = Yoros Castle. To the south of Yoros Castle is Joshua’s Hill which Fomenko alleges is the hill Calvary depicted in the Bible.

Fomenko claims the Hagia Sophia is actually the biblical Temple of Solomon. He identifies Solomon as sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494–1566).

On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word “Rome” is a placeholder and can signify any one of several different cities and kingdoms. He claims 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. According to his claims, Rome in Italy was founded around AD 1380 by Aeneas and Moscow as the third Rome was the capital of the great “Russian Horde”.

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

  • Historians and translators often “assign” different dates and locations to different accounts of the same historical events, creating multiple “phantom copies” of these events. These “phantom copies” are often misdated by centuries or even millennia and end up incorporated into conventional chronology.
  • 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. The Jesuit Dionysius Petavius completed this chronology in De Doctrina Temporum, 1627 (v.1) and 1632 (v.2).

One might wonder why we should want to revise the chronology of ancient history today and base our revision on new empirical-statistical methods. It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century chronology was considered to be a subdivision of mathematics.

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

The vocabulary of Egyptian astronomical symbols once applied to horoscopes from temples allows for extraction of unique dates of eclipses. Astronomical data therein contained is sufficient for unique dating. There are symbols allowing for astronomical interpretation and the symbols do not change from one temple horoscope to another. The horoscopes from temples contain data about eclipses visible in Egypt allowing their exact pinpointing on the time axis.

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

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

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

  • The Chinese tables of eclipses are useless for dating, as they contain too many eclipses that did not take place astronomically. Chinese tables of comets, even if true, cannot be used for dating.

Chinese eclipse observations can neither confirm nor refute any chronology of China at all, be it veracious or erroneous.

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.

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. 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.

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 (Fomenko claims 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 unrelated dynasties – for example, dynasties of kings of Israel and emperors of late Western Roman Empire (AD 300-476) – 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 from the 17th to 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.

Roman Empire parallelism
Roman Empire parallelism

Fomenko uses for the demonstration of correlation between the reigns exclusively the data from the Chronological Tables of J. Blair (Moscow 1808–09). Fomenko says that Blair’s tables are all the more valuable to us since they were compiled in an epoch adjacent to the time of 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 19th and 20th centuries.

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

  • He says the mysterious drop in the value of the lunar acceleration parameter D” (“a linear combination of the [angular] accelerations of the Earth and Moon”) between the years AD 700–1300, which the American astronomer Robert Newton had explained in terms of “non-gravitational” (i.e., tidal) forces. By eliminating those anomalous early eclipses the New Chronology produces a constant value of D” beginning around AD 1000.
  • He associates initially the Star of Bethlehem with the AD 1140 (±20) supernova (now Crab Nebula) and the Crucifixion Eclipse with the total solar eclipse of AD 1170 (±20). He also believes that Crab Nebula supernova could not have been seen 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 the 15th to 16th centuries AD. With this objective in sight he develops new methods of dating old stellar catalogues and claims that the Almagest is based on data collected between AD 600 and 1300, whereby the telluric obliquity[clarification needed] is well taken into account.
  • 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 or the 13th century AD. Moreover, in his History: Fiction or Science series finale, he makes computer-aided dating of all 37 Egyptian horoscopes that contain sufficient astronomical data, and claims they all fit into 11th to 19th century timeframe.[clarification needed] 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 AD 1039, 1046 and 1057. Because of the layered structure of the manuscript, he claims 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 AD 1374 to 1387.
  • 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 phenomena they describe recur cyclically every 30–40 years.

On archaeological dating methods, Fomenko claims:
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

Dendrochronology is rejected with a claim that, for dating of objects much older than the oldest still living trees, it 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 AD 1000.

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 AD 1 to 2000 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. Consequently, Fomenko concludes that carbon dating is not accurate enough to be used on historical scale.

Fomenko rejects numismatic dating as circular, being based on the traditional chronology, and points to cases of similar coins being minted in distant periods, unexplained long periods with no coins minted and cases of mismatch of numismatic dating with historical accounts.

Fomenko’s historical ideas have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who brand them as pseudoscience, but were popularized by former world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Billington writes that the theory “might have quietly blown away in the wind tunnels of academia” if not for Kasparov’s writing in support of it in the magazine Ogoniok. Kasparov met Fomenko during the 1990s, and found that Fomenko’s conclusions concerning certain subjects were identical to his own regarding the popular view (which is not the view of academics) that art and culture died during the Dark Ages and were not revived until the Renaissance. Kasparov also felt it illogical that the Romans and the Greeks 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. However, Kasparov does not support the reconstruction part of the New Chronology. Russian critics tended to see Fomenko’s New Chronology as “an embarrassment and a potent symbol of the depths to which the Russian academy and society have generally sunk … since the fall of Communism”.Western critics see his views as part of a renewed Russian imperial ideology, “keeping alive an imperial consciousness and secular messianism in Russia”.

In 2004 at the Moscow International Book Fair, Anatoly Fomenko with his coauthor Gleb Nosovsky were awarded for their books on “New Chronology” the anti-prize called “Abzatz” (literally ‘paragraph’, a Russian slang word meaning ‘disaster’ or ‘fiasco’) in the category “Pochotnaya bezgramota” (the term is a pun upon “Pochotnaya gramota” (Certificate of Honor) and may be translated either “Certificate of Dishonor” or literally, “Respectable Illiteracy” ) for the worst book published in Russia.

Critics have accused Fomenko of altering the data to improve the fit with his ideas and have noted that he violates a key rule of statistics by selecting matches from the historical record which support his chronology, while ignoring those which do not, creating artificial, better-than-chance correlations, and that these practices undermine Fomenko’s statistical arguments. The new chronology was given a comprehensive critical analysis in a round table on “The ‘Myths’ of New Chronology” chaired by the dean of the department of history of Moscow State University in December 1999. One of the participants in that round table, the distinguished Russian archaeologist, Valentin Yanin, compared Fomenko’s work to “the sleight of hand trickery of a David Copperfield“. Linguist Andrey Zaliznyak argued that by using the Fomenko’s approaches one can “prove” any historical correspondence, for example, between Ancient Egyptian pharaohs and French kings.

James Billington, formerly professor of Russian history at Harvard and Princeton and the Librarian of Congress from 1987-2015 placed Fomenko’s work within the context of the political movement of Eurasianism, which sought to tie Russian history closely to that of its Asian neighbors. Billington describes Fomenko as ascribing the belief in past hostility between Russia and the Mongols to the influence of Western historians. Thus, by Fomenko’s chronology, “Russia and Turkey are parts of a previously single empire.” A French reviewer of Billington’s book noted approvingly his concern with the phantasmagorical conceptions of Fomenko about the global “new chronology”.

H.G. van Bueren, professor emeritus of astronomy at the University of Utrecht, concluded his scathing review of Fomenko’s work on the application of mathematics and astronomy to historical data as follows:
It is surprising, to say the least, that a well-known (Dutch) publisher could produce an expensive book of such doubtful intellectual value, of which the only good word that can be said is that it contains an enormous amount of factual historical material, untidily ordered, true; badly written, yes; mixed-up with conjectural nonsense, sure; but still, much useful stuff. For the rest of the book is absolutely worthless. It reminds one of the early Soviet attempts to produce tendentious science (Lysenko!), of polywater, of cold fusion, and of modern creationism. In brief: a useless and misleading book.

While Fomenko rejects commonly accepted dating methods, archaeologists, conservators and other scientists make extensive use of such techniques which have been rigorously examined and refined during decades of use.

In the specific case of dendrochronology, Fomenko claims that this fails as an absolute dating method because of gaps in the record. However, independent dendrochronological sequences beginning with living trees from various parts of North America and Europe extend back 12,400 years into the past. Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages. These and other data have provided a calibration curve for radiocarbon dating whose internal error does not exceed ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve.

In fact, archaeologists have developed a fully anchored dendrochronology series going back past 10,000 BCE. “The absolutely dated tree-ring chronology now extends back to 12,410 cal BP (10,461 BC).”

Critics of Fomenko’s theory claim that his use of historical sources is highly selective and ignores the basic principles of sound historical scholarship.
>Fomenko … provides no fair-minded review of the historical literature about a topic with which he deals, quotes only those sources that serve his purposes, uses evidence in ways that seem strange to professionally-trained historians and asserts the wildest speculation as if it has the same status as the information common to the conventional historical literature.
They also note that his method of statistically correlating of texts is 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 alleged forcing by Fomenko of 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 identification of Jesus with 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, according to the available primary sources, Pope Gregory VII lived for at least 60 years and was born 8 years after the death of Fomenko’s John-the-Baptist equivalent John Crescentius.)

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. Another point raised by critics is that Fomenko does not explain his altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.) preventing a duplication of the effort and effectively making this whole theory an ad hoc hypothesis.

Critics point out that Fomenko’s discussion of astronomical phenomena tends to be selective, choosing isolated examples that support the New Chronology and ignoring the large bodies of data that provide statistically supported evidence for the conventional dating. For his dating of the Almagest star catalog, Fomenko arbitrarily selected eight stars from the more than 1000 stars in the catalog, one of which (Arcturus) has a large systematic error. This star has a dominant effect on Fomenko’s dating. Statistical analysis using the same method for all “fast” stars points to the antiquity of the Almagest star catalog. Rawlins points out further 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.

Fomenko’s studies ignore the abundance of dated astronomical records in cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia. Among these texts is a series of Babylonian astronomical diaries, which records precise astronomical observations of the Moon and planets, often dated in terms of the reigns of known historical figures extending back to the 6th century BCE. Astronomical retrocalculations for all these moving objects allow us to date these observations, and consequently the rulers’ reigns, to within a single day. The observations are sufficiently redundant that only a small portion of them are sufficient to date a text to a unique year in the period 750 BCE to 100 CE. The dates obtained agree with the accepted chronology. In addition, F. R. Stephenson has demonstrated through a systematic study of a large number of Babylonian, Ancient and Medieval European, and Chinese records of eclipse observations that they can be dated consistently with conventional chronology at least as far back as 600 BCE. In contrast to Fomenko’s missing centuries, Stephenson’s studies of eclipse observations find an accumulated uncertainty in the timing of the rotation of the earth of 420 seconds at 400 BCE, and only 80 seconds at 1000 CE.

Fomenko states that world history prior to 1600 was deliberately falsified for political reasons. The consequences of this conspiracy theory are twofold. Documents that conflict with New Chronology are said to have been edited or fabricated by conspirators; the Vatican, the Holy Roman Empire and pro-German Romanov dynasty. New Chronology taps traditionally Russian anti-Western thoughts and ideas of Germany as a chief enemy. Further, the theory is Russocentric diminishing achievements of other cultures and claiming major civilization accomplishments as Russian and by proposing a giant “Russian Horde” empire and eliminating historical time before its existence. The theory also claimed to undermine nationalism in countries neighboring Russia by positioning divisions and conflicts as fabricated. Unlike other popular conspiracy theories New Chronology is not anti-semitic per se, but it contains claims that may be unwelcome by Jewish communities like that the Old Testament is newer than the New Testament, placing Jerusalem in Constantinople and projecting stereotypes of Jews by proposing that Jews originate from bankers in the Russian Horde that adopted the religion of Judaism, itself a derivative of Christianity and not the other way round.

The theory provides an alternate history account of the “true” history centered around a world empire called the “Russian Horde”. The scope of the New Chronology has been compared to J. R. R. Tolkien‘s fantasy world. Thousands of pages has been written about it and authors address a wide range of objections.

Fomenko has published and sold over one million copies of his books in his native Russia. Many Internet forums have appeared which aim to supplement his work with additional amateur research. His critics have suggested that Fomenko’s version of history appealed to the Russian reading public by keeping alive an imperial consciousness to replace their disillusionment with the failures of Communism and post-Communist corporate oligarchies.

taken from Wikipedia

La Nuova Cronologia

La nuova cronologia è una teoria pseudoscientifica, elaborata da Anatolij Timofeevič Fomenko, che si pone l’obiettivo di riscrivere l’intera cronologia della storia mondiale, basandosi sull’ipotesi che quella che conosciamo oggi sia fondamentalmente sbagliata.

Le idee della nuova cronologia sono una continuazione diretta delle idee iniziali di Nikolaj Aleksandrovič Morozov. La nuova cronologia è associata comunemente con il nome di Fomenko, anche se è, in effetti, il risultato di una collaborazione di Fomenko con parecchi altri matematici russi, tra i quali Gleb Vladimirovič Nosovskij.

La nuova cronologia è radicalmente più breve della cronologia convenzionale, perché tutta la storia dell’Antico Egitto, quella della Grecia antica e la storia romana vengono comprese nel Medioevo, e l’Alto medioevo viene eliminato. Secondo Fomenko, la storia dell’umanità risale solo fino all’anno 800: a suo dire, non avremmo quasi informazioni sugli eventi fra l’800 ed il 1000, e la maggior parte degli eventi storici che conosciamo sarebbero avvenuti tra il 1000 ed il 1500.

Anatolij Fomenko
Anatolij Fomenko

Questa teoria è rifiutata dal mondo accademico ed è ritenuta in contrasto con tutte le tecniche di datazione assoluta e relativa. Sebbene qualcuno abbia provato a rivisitare le cronologie riviste dell’antichità classica e della storia biblica che ne accorciano effettivamente la durata eliminando varie epoche oscure, nessuna di queste revisioni è tanto radicale quanto quella di Fomenko. Gli eventi che si assume tradizionalmente siano avvenuti prima dell’1 d.C. sono comunque considerati come avvenuti migliaia di anni fa, non centinaia come nella visione di Fomenko. L’idea di cronologie differenti dalla cronologia convenzionale può essere riportata almeno ai primi del XVII secolo. Jean Hardouin suggerì che molti degli antichi documenti storici fossero molto più recenti di quanto comunemente ritenuto. Nel 1685 pubblicò una versione della Naturalis historia di Plinio il Vecchio nella quale asseriva che molti tra i testi greci e romani erano stati falsificati dai monaci benedettini. Quando più tardi gli fu richiesto di argomentare queste teorie, Hardouin asserì che avrebbe rivelato le ragioni dei monaci in una lettera che sarebbe stata resa pubblica solo dopo la sua morte. L’esecutore del testamento fu incapace di trovare tale documento tra le carte di Hardouin. Nel XVIII secolo Isaac Newton, esaminando la cronologia comunemente accettata di Grecia antica, Antico Egitto ed antico Medio Oriente, espresse il proprio disaccordo con le teorie prevalenti e ne propose un’alternativa, la quale, basandosi sulle Argonautiche di Apollonio Rodio, cambiò la datazione tradizionale della spedizione degli Argonauti, della guerra di Troia e della fondazione di Roma.

Nel 1887 Edwin Johnson disse che la storia delle prime comunità cristiane era stata in gran parte inventata o corrotta nel II e III secolo. Nel 1909 Otto Rank evidenziò le varie duplicazioni nella storia letteraria di una varietà di culture:

…quasi tutte le genti civilizzate hanno tessuto miti e glorificato con la poesia i propri eroi, re mitici e principi, fondatori di religioni, di dinastie, di imperi e città – in breve, i loro eroi nazionali. Specialmente la storia della loro nascita e dei loro primi anni di vita è guarnita con tratti fantastici [sic]; la sorprendente similitudine, anzi l’identità letteraria, di queste storie, anche se si riferiscono a diversi popoli, completamente indipendenti, alcune volte geograficamente lontani uno dall’altro, è ben risaputa ed ha colpito più di uno studioso.

Nel 1939 Sigmund Freud provò a ricostruire la storia biblica in relazione al suo contributo dato alla psicologia sociale.

Nikolaj Aleksandrovič Morozov fu il primo ad evidenziare l’esistenza di una correlazione tra le dinastie dei re del vecchio testamento e gli imperatori romani e suggerì che l’intera cronologia prima del I secolo fosse sbagliata.Fomenko si interessò nelle Teorie problematiche di Nikolaj Morozov durante il 1973. Nel 1980 assieme ad alcuni colleghi del dipartimento di matematica dell’Università statale di Mosca, pubblicò alcuni articoli sui “nuovi metodi matematici nella storia” in riviste dedicate. Gli articoli suscitarono molte controversie e Fomenko non convinse gli storici. Nei primi del 1990, Fomenko smise di scrivere articoli su riviste storiche e iniziò a pubblicare libri.

Nel 2005 ampliò la sua teoria, che adesso riguarda tutto il Vecchio Mondo, dall’Inghilterra all’Irlanda, alla Cina.

Fomenko afferma:

  1. che differenti versioni degli stessi eventi storici sono spesso contestualizzate con diverse date e collocazioni geografiche, da parte di storici e traduttori, il che avrebbe creato una serie di “copie fantasma” multiple di questi eventi. Tali copie, a causa delle diverse date riportate, sono così fatte risultare distanziate da periodi lunghi secoli o addirittura millenni, mentre secondo la teoria l’evento descritto è invece uno solo, e successive alterazioni di nomi e date hanno portato alla creazione delle copie;
  2. che tutti questi eventi, reali e fittizi, finiscono incorporati nella cronologia tradizionale;
  3. che, come conseguenza, la cronologia presa universalmente come corretta è in realtà sbagliata e ripete eventi principalmente dal 900 in avanti;
  4. che questa cronologia è stata essenzialmente inventata nel sedicesimo secolo e nel diciassettesimo secolo;
  5. che la datazione archeologica, la datazione dendrocronologica, la datazione paleografica</a, la datazione al Carbonio 14, ed altri metodi di datazione di fonti antiche ed artefatti conosciuti al giorno d’oggi sono erronee, non esatte o usano sistemi di riferimento temporale dipendenti dalla cronologia tradizionale;
  6. che non c’è un singolo documento esistente che possa essere verosimilmente datato a prima dell’XI secolo;
  7. che l’Antica Roma, l’Antica Grecia e l’Antico Egitto sono stati creati durante il Rinascimento dagli umanisti e dal clero;
  8. che l’Antico Testamento è probabilmente un resoconto di eventi accaduti nel Medioevo, e che il Nuovo Testamento è in realtà più vecchio dell’Antico Testamento;
  9. che la cronologia correntemente accettata ha molte incoerenze, ma queste sono generalmente ignorate passandoci oltre, dando la percezione che non ci siano problemi;
  10. che gli oroscopi egiziani evidenziano periodi dal 1000 fino al 1700 al più tardi, ma non prima;
  11. che il Libro della Rivelazione o Apocalisse di Giovanni che noi conosciamo, contiene un oroscopo che risale al 25 settembre – 10 ottobre 1486, compilato dal filosofo, umanista e ebraistaJohannes Reuchlin
  12. che gli oroscopi contenuti sulle tavolette sumere/babilonesi hanno una ricorrenza di 30-50 anni sulla linea temporale e che quindi sono inutili per la datazione;
  13. che le tavolette delle eclissi cinesi sono inutili per la datazione poiché riportano troppe eclissi che invece non si sono mai verificate;
  14. che le statue antiche greche e romane, dalla così perfetta rappresentazione anatomica, sono in realtà dei falsi rinascimentali.

La teoria di Anatolij Fomenko vuole che la cronologia tradizionale consista in realtà di quattro copie della “vera” cronologia (ossia ciò che secondo questa teoria è veramente accaduto) che si sovrappongono, spostate indietro nel tempo di intervalli significativi (da 300 a 2000 anni), con alcune revisioni. Tutti gli eventi e personaggi convenzionalmente datati prima dell’XI secolo o sono fittizi, o più comunemente rappresentano “immagini riflesse fantasma” di eventi e personaggi medievali, trasportati da errori intenzionali o errate datazioni accidentali di documenti storici. Prima dell’invenzione della stampa, resoconti degli stessi eventi da differenti testimoni erano ripetuti talvolta centinaia di volte prima di essere riportati su scritti, poi spesso attraversavano molti processi di traduzione, rifacimenti, ecc.; i nomi erano tradotti, pronunciati non correttamente o graficamente errati, fino al punto da sembrare simili all’originale solo di poco. Secondo la teoria di Fomenko, questo ha portato i primi studiosi di cronologia a credere o a scegliere di credere che questi resoconti si riferissero a diversi eventi, anche a diverse nazioni e a diversi periodi. Fomenko giustifica questo approccio con il fatto che, in molti casi, i documenti originali sono semplicemente non più reperibili: la maggior parte della storia del mondo antico è conosciuta da noi tramite manoscritti che sono datati convenzionalmente secoli, se non millenni, dopo l’evento che riportano.

Per esempio Fomenko asserisce che il Gesù storico sia un’immagine della stessa persona del profeta Eliseo (850-800 a.C.), così come gli corrispondono anche papa Gregorio VII (1020?-1085), San Basilio Magno di Cesarea (330-379), ed anche Li Yuanhao (anche conosciuto come l’Imperatore Jingzong o “figlio del cielo” – imperatore dello Xia Occidentale, che regnò nel 1032-1048), e l’imperatore bizantino Andronico I Comneno. Inoltre Giovanni Battista battezzò Gesù, qualcuno di nome Massimo battezzò San Basilio Magno, il profeta Elia fu il predecessore di Eliseo, e Giovanni Crescenzio fu in qualche modo il predecessore di Gregorio VII; di conseguenza, secondo il ragionamento di Fomenko, sono tutte immagini riflesse della stessa persona. Fomenko spiega la grande differenza nella biografia di queste figure come il risultato di differenza di linguaggio, punti di vista e distanza temporale tra gli autori di questi avvenimenti ed il lavoro dei biografi.

La confusione delle biografie delle persone sopramenzionate richiede anche la confusione di città, perché la storia convenzionale le posiziona attraverso l’intero mondo antico, da Gerusalemme a Roma. Fomenko identifica tutte queste città come: “Nuova Roma” = Yoros = Gerusalemme (≈periodi dal 1000 fino al 1261) = Troia.A sud dal castello Yoros c’è Collina Yuşa (che secondo la teoria corrisponderebbe al Golgota).

Il biblico Tempio di Salomone non fu completamente distrutto, dice Fomenko, ed è ancora conosciuto a noi come l’Hagia Sophia a CostantinopoliGerusalemme (≈periodi dal 1261 fino al 1600). Il Gesù storico sarebbe nato nel 1152 e crocefisso attorno al 1185 su un colle che sovrastava il Bosforo. La città comunemente nota come Gerusalemme era conosciuta prima del XVII secolo come il non meglio identificato villaggio palestinese di Al-Quds.

D’altra parte, secondo Fomenko, la parola “Roma” può intendere una serie di differenti città e regni. La “prima Roma” o “Antica Roma” o “Mizraim” è un antico regno Egiziano nel delta del Nilo, con la sua capitale in Alessandria d’Egitto. La seconda e più famosa “Nuova Roma” è Costantinopoli. La Roma italiana è almeno la terza nella lista delle città conosciute come “Roma”: essa si presume essere fondata attorno al 1380 a.C. da Enea. Similmente, la parola “Gerusalemme” è un concetto, più che un luogo fisico, e può riferirsi a diverse città in diversi tempi.

Il parallelismo tra Giovanni Battista, Gesù ed i profeti dell’Antico Testamento implica che il Nuovo Testamento sia stato scritto prima del Antico Testamento. Fomenko crede che la Bibbia sia stata stilata fino al Concilio di Trento (1545-1563), quando fu stabilita la lista dei libri canonici, e tutti i libri apocrifi vennero distrutti.

Come altro esempio, secondo Fomenko, Platone, Plotino e Giorgio Gemisto Pletone sono un’unica persona – secondo lui, alcuni testi scritti da Pletone o riguardanti Pletone sono stati affetti da una datazione errata e sono creduti oggi essere di Plotino o di Platone.

Uno dei metodi più semplici usati da Fomenko è la correlazione statistica dei testi. Il suo punto di partenza è che un testo che descrive una sequenza di eventi dedicherà più spazio ad eventi importanti (per esempio, un periodo di guerra o una rivolta avranno più spazio di un periodo di pace, o di anni senza eventi particolari), e che questa irregolarità rimarrà visibile in altre descrizioni dell’evento. Per ogni testo analizzato, è sviluppata una funzione matematica che mappa ogni anno menzionato nel testo con il numero di pagine (o righe, o lettere) dedicate nel testo alla sua descrizione, che potrebbe anche essere zero, se ad esempio nel confronto tra due testi l’avvenimento è descritto in un testo e nell’altro no. Le funzioni di due testi sono poi confrontate tra di loro.

Per esempio Fomenko compara la storia contemporanea di Roma scritta daTito Livio con la moderna Storia di Roma scritta dallo storico russo Vladimir Sergeyevič Sergeyev, calcolando che entrambe hanno un’alta correlazione, poiché descrivono lo stesso periodo di storia, non creando alcuna disputa. Compara anche testi moderni che descrivono periodi differenti, e calcola una bassa correlazione come ci si aspetta. Tuttavia, quando compara, per esempio, la storia antica di Roma e la storia medievale di Roma, ottiene un’alta correlazione e conclude che la storia antica di Roma è solo una copia della storia medievale di Roma, il che stride con la concezione storica comune.

Con un metodo praticamente simile, Fomenko compara due dinastie di governanti usando i metodi statistici. Fomenko crea dapprima un database di governanti, che contiene informazioni rilevanti su ciascuno di essi; in seguito, crea dei codici di mappatura per ciascuna coppia di governanti, che contiene un numero che descrive la percentuale di similitudine tra i due. Per esempio, uno dei fattori discriminanti è il modo in cui è avvenuta la morte: se due governanti sono stati entrambi avvelenati, essi guadagnano un valore di +1 nella voce “modi di morte”; se un governatore è stato avvelenato e l’altro ucciso in combattimento, la funzione di similitudine ottiene un valore di -1; se uno è stato avvelenato e l’altro morto di malattia, essi ottengono un valore 0 (c’è la possibilità che gli estensori delle cronache non siano stati imparziali e che le differenti descrizioni descrivano comunque la stessa persona). Una proprietà importante è la lunghezza del periodo di governo.

Fomenko abbina coppie di dinastie apparentemente scollegate – per esempio, le dinastie dei Re dell’Antico Israele e gli imperatori del tardo Impero Romano d’Occidente (300 – 476 d.C.) – ed afferma che il suo metodo dimostra correlazioni tra i loro regni. I grafici che mostrano solo la lunghezza del periodo di governo nelle due dinastie sono i più ampiamente conosciuti, tuttavia le conclusioni di Fomenko si basano anche su altri parametri, come descritto prima. Afferma anche che la storia dei regni tra il XVI secolo ed il XX secolo non mostra alcuna relazione con tutti gli altri “flussi dinastici”, quindi Fomenko insiste che la storia è stata moltiplicata ed adattata, fino a costruire una sorta di antichità immaginaria, per giustificare queste o altre pretese “regali”.

Fomenko esamina eventi astronomici descritti in testi antichi e suggerisce che la cronologia sia medievale. Ad esempio:

  • Associa la Stella di Betlemme con la supernova del 1140 d.C. (±20) e l’eclissi di sole avvenuta durante la crocifissione di Gesù con l’eclissi totale di sole del 1170 d.C.(±20). Entrambe le coppie di eventi presentano la stessa sequenza di base (prima l’apparizione della stella, poi l’eclissi), e la distanza temporale in entrambi i casi è la stessa (32 anni, l’età approssimativa di Gesù al momento della morte): si tratta di un’eventualità abbastanza rara, e per Fomenko non si tratta di una coincidenza, ma di una prova della veridicità della sua teoria.
  • Afferma che il catalogo stellare nell’Almagesto, attribuito all’astronomo Claudio Tolomeo, fu in realtà redatto tra il 600 ed il 1300 d.C.
  • oroscopi antichi, soprattutto il cosiddetto Zodiaco di Dendera, due oroscopi tracciati sul pavimento del tempio di Hathor, e giunge alla conclusione che si riferiscano ai secoli XI e XIII d.C. La storia tradizionale li interpreta come riferiti al I secolo a.C. o suggerisce che non siano da correlare a nessuna data in particolare.
  • Nella sua analisi finale su una triade di eclissi descritta da Tucidide nella Guerra del Peloponneso, Fomenko data le eclissi al 1039, 1046 e 1057. Per via della struttura stratificata del manoscritto conclude che Tucidide abbia vissuto in epoca medievale e descrivendo la guerra fra Spartani e Ateniesi abbia in realtà descritto il conflitto fra il Regno di Navarra e i Catalani avvenuto in Grecia fra il 1374 e il 1387.

La dendrocronologia è rifiutata sulla base che, quando viene usata per datare oggetti più vecchi dei più antichi alberi esistenti, risulta essere non un metodo assoluto di datazione, ma un metodo relativo, e per questo è dipendente dalla datazione tradizionale; Fomenko mira ad interrompere la verificabilità della scala dendrocronologica attorno all’anno 1000 d.C.

Fomenko cita anche un numero di casi di datazione al carbonio-14 (adesso obsoleta) che portava a false datazioni di oggetti risalenti a periodi invece accertati, prima della calibrazione con la scala cronologica. Cita anche la strana cooperazione tra fisici ed archeologi nell’ottenere le date, poiché la maggior parte di laboratori di datazione accetta solo campioni con una data già stimata da storici o archeologi. Fomenko asserisce anche che la datazione al Carbonio 14 su un campo che va dall’anno 0 al 2000 d.C. manca di accuratezza perché ha troppi possibili errori che sono o volutamente nascosti o semplicemente ignorati, e che la calibrazione è compiuta con un numero statisticamente insignificante di campioni. Di conseguenza Fomenko conclude che la datazione al carbonio-14 non è abbastanza accurata per essere usata con un elevato margine di precisione.

Fomenko sostiene che quando non smaccatamente false, le monete greche, romane e persiane sono di origine medievale, la loro abbondanza dovuta alla capillare diffusione del diritto di conio tipica del feudalesimo. La datazione numismatica sarebbe sia soggettiva che circolare come quella basata sulla cronologia tradizionale.

Concorda coi metodi di datazione assoluta per le tavolette di argilla o le monete, come la termoluminescenza, la luminescenza ottica e i metodi archeomagnetici o metallografici, ma sottolinea che la loro precisione sia insufficiente per tracciare punti fermi nell’arco del tempo.

Fomenko condanna nel complesso la pratica archeologica comune di sottoporre alla datazione campioni accompagnati da stime sull’età, sostenendo che la concordanza fra metodi di datazione di per sé incerti non prova nulla, anzi, si riduce a una profezia che si auto-avvera: anche se la somma S delle probabilità di veridicità di un evento prodotta da N metodi di datazione è superiore a 1, ciò non significa che l’evento sia avvenuto con il 100% di probabilità.

Fomenko non tiene assolutamente conto di resti archeologici quali opere d’arte, strade, templi o persino città: li considera dei falsi, o dei soggetti geografici non corrispondenti con quelli storici.
Non si tiene nemmeno conto dell’immensa mole di documenti e dei riscontri che hanno le antiche cronache con la realtà (ad esempio Pompei o le corrispondenze linguistiche dovute a migrazioni o conquiste).

Fomenko fornisce anche una datazione alternativa per la nascita della Pompei romana (http://www.anticorpi.info/2014/03/la-pompei-sepolta-nel-1631-svela-i.html?m=1), fornendo come “prova” il fatto che il canale Conte di Sarno si integra bene con la città, associando il terremoto del 1631 con l’eruzione del 79 d.C.; in realtà, fu proprio durante la costruzione del canale che si ritrovarono le prime tracce della Pompei sepolta.

Sebbene Fomenko sia abbastanza rispettato come matematico, le sue teorie storiche sono state universalmente rifiutate dagli studiosi, che le definiscono pseudostoria. I critici gli rimproverano di scegliere solo i fatti e le fonti convenienti per la propria teoria e di ignorare il resto.

Fomenko è stato anche accusato dai critici di alterare i dati per farli corrispondere meglio alla propria teoria, e di eliminare dall’analisi i dati statistici che non la seguono, violando così uno dei fondamenti della statistica, secondo cui il risultato va desunto dai dati e non viceversa.

Tratto da Wikipedia

United States of America and Israel against all

In these days we are witnessing an attack against one of the most important organs of mankind, the International Criminal Court (ICC) by the United States of America and Israel. Let’s try to understand why these states now threaten sanctions against the peoples that will support this story. As you can read on the website of the International Criminal Court (https://www.icc-cpi.int/afghanistan) there are preliminary exams now almost complete and we are about to move to a meeting to determine whether to initiate a trial or not against the United States of America but also Israel is going through the same judicial path with regard to the Palestinian people.

Internation Criminal Court
Internation Criminal Court

So today I read this article by Missy Ryan and Anne Gearan in the Washington Post of September 9, 2018:

The United States will threaten Monday to punish individuals who cooperate with the International Criminal Court in a potential investigation of U.S. wartime actions in Afghanistan, according to people familiar with the decision.

The Trump administration is also expected to announce that it is shutting down a Palestinian diplomatic office in Washington because Palestinians have sought to use the international court to prosecute U.S. ally Israel, those people said.

White House national security adviser John Bolton is expected to outline threats of sanctions and a ban on travel to the United States for people involved in the attempted prosecution of Americans before the international court in an address Monday.

Donald Trump
Donald Trump

Bolton is a longtime opponent of the court on grounds that it violates national sovereignty.

The speech, titled “Protecting American Constitutionalism and Sovereignty from International Threats,” is Bolton’s first formal address since joining the administration in April. It is sponsored by the Federalist Society, a conservative and libertarian policy group.

Palestinian officials on Monday vowed to fight what they called bullying tactics and “collective punishment” of the Palestinian people.

Palestinian refugee students were back at school Sept. 3 as the United Nations relief agency reopened schools in camps, despite the United States funding cut.(Reuters)

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said he was officially notified of the decision ahead of Bolton’s speech.

“These people have decided to stand on the wrong side of history by protecting war criminals and destroying the two-state solution,” Erekat said. “I told them if you are worried about courts, you should stop aiding and abetting crimes.”

Benjamin Netanyahu
Benjamin Netanyahu

The move by the Palestine Liberation Organization is part of a renewed campaign to challenge the court’s legitimacy as it considers cases that could put the United States and close allies in jeopardy for the first time, according to individuals familiar with the planned remarks who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so on the record.

Bolton is likely to lay out American opposition to the court and propose measures including new agreements to shield U.S. personnel from international prosecution and the threat of sanctions or travel restrictions for people involved in prosecuting Americans.

One person said Bolton plans to use the speech to announce that the Trump administration will force the closure of the PLO office in Washington in a dispute over a Palestinian effort to seek prosecution of Israel through the ICC.

During a rare address to the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called for an international Middle East peace conference to be convened by the middle of this year and slammed the Trump administration for its recognition last December of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.(Reuters)

Bolton’s announcement is closely related to concern at the Pentagon and among intelligence agencies about potential U.S. liability to prosecution at the court over actions in Afghanistan, said a senior administration official familiar with aspects of the forthcoming announcement.

The ICC investigation of U.S. wartime actions represents exactly the kind of infringement on U.S. sovereignty that Bolton and other opponents of the court have long warned about, the official and others said.

“It’s a much more real policy matter now because of the potential liability in Afghanistan,” the official said, adding that other nations have similar concerns.

The Trump administration has questioned whether the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute U.S. citizens for actions in Afghanistan, because Afghan, U.S. and U.S. military law all could apply in different situations, the official said.

The new broadside against the ICC follows steps by the administration challenging international cooperation in other areas. This year, the administration has threatened to pull out of the World Trade Organization.

>Bolton’s speech comes two weeks before President Trump will attend the United Nations General Assembly, where he will address other world leaders. U.S. officials have said Trump will focus on U.S. claims about the threat posed by Iran and will reiterate his opposition to the international nuclear deal with Iran. Trump pulled the United States out of the deal in May.

Trump’s opposition to the Iran deal is related to a wider suspicion of international agreements and organizations such as the ICC.

Three successive U.S. administrations of both political parties have rejected the full jurisdiction of the international court over American citizens, although U.S. cooperation with the court expanded significantly under the Obama administration.

The United States has never ratified the 2002 international treaty, called the Rome Treaty, that established the court, which is based in The Hague.

Stephen Pomper, who worked on issues related to the ICC in the Obama administration, said an attempt to weaken the court would exacerbate strains between the United States and allies in Europe and elsewhere who were supporters of the court.

“It’s going to create friction that’s not necessary, and it’s going to create the impression the United States is a bully and a hegemon,” said Pomper, who now is U.S. program director at the International Crisis Group.

Bolton was part of an effort during the George W. Bush administration to formalize U.S. resistance to the court, including through legislation prohibiting U.S. support and efforts to pressure other countries into agreements not to surrender U.S. citizens to the body.

Bolton’s opposition has intensified as ICC judges evaluate a request from prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who last fall asked for permission to formally investigate alleged crimes committed during the Afghan war. That could include actions by U.S. military or intelligence personnel in the detention of terrorism suspects.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal last November, Bolton said the investigation added urgency to the need to keep the United States and its citizens out of the court’s reach.

“America’s long-term security depends on refusing to recognize an iota of legitimacy” of the court, he wrote.

David Bosco, a professor at Indiana University’s School of Global and International Studies, said the judges were likely to approve Bensouda’s request.

The court is also considering a request from Palestinian authorities to probe alleged crimes committed in Palestinian territories, a step that could result in attempts to prosecute Israeli officials.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in a speech at the United Nations a year ago, called on the ICC to investigate and prosecute Israeli citizens for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

In response, the Trump administration had moved in November to close the Palestinian diplomatic office, but quickly backtracked and allowed the office to remain open with temporary restrictions.

That office serves as a de facto embassy, staffed by an ambassador, to represent Palestinian interests to the U.S. government.

The Trump administration contends that the Palestinians violated U.S. law by seeking prosecution of Israel at the ICC. The administration’s initial decision to close the office caused a breach with Abbas that widened in December when Trump announced that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and move its embassy there.

The Trump administration has not publicly committed to support a separate sovereign Palestine alongside Israel, which was the goal of previous administrations. But like previous U.S. administrations, the Trump White House considers Palestinian efforts to seek statehood recognition through international organizations to be illegitimate.

The Bush and Obama administrations sought negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to reach that goal. The Trump administration has drafted a detailed proposal to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but has not released it or publicly discussed how it would address Palestinian statehood.

Bosco said punitive moves would “mark a return to a kind of cold war between Washington and The Hague.”

But a move against the ICC is likely to generate less outcry from Congress than those against other international bodies because politicians of both parties generally oppose attempts to subject Americans, particularly service members, to international prosecution.

The ICC has been subject to international criticism for other reasons, including that it has moved slowly to convict and has focused mainly on crimes occurring in Africa.

Julie Tate and Carol Morello in Washington and Loveday Morris in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

I am convinced that the world’s people are tired of dealing with imperial and colonialist wars disguised and covered by the usual hands that control the news of the major broadcasting organs (big newspapers, radio, television stations and some sites in the network), to send to home these oligarchs of war for world domination and control of the human race all that remains is to count the hours, because if not in this life, the peace people of the whole world will defeat them on the next.

Author: Daniel Evangelista

Stati Uniti d’America ed Israele contro tutti

 

In questi giorni stiamo assistendo ad un attacco contro uno degli organi più importanti del genere umano, ovvero, contro la Corte Penale Internazionale da parte degli Stati Uniti d’America ed Israele. Cerchiamo di capire perché ora questi Stati minacciano sanzioni contro le persone che appoggeranno il probabile processo contro di loro. Come si legge nel sito della Corte Penale Internazionale (https://www.icc-cpi.int/afghanistan) ci sono esami preliminari in atto ormai quasi conclusi e si sta per passare ad una riunione per determinare se intentare un processo oppure no nei confronti degli Stati Uniti d’America ma anche Israele sta passando per lo stesso percorso giudiziario riguardo il popolo Palestinese.

Corte Penale Internazionale
Corte Penale Internazionale

Quindi oggi leggo sul Washington Post del 9 Settembre 2018 questo articolo di Missy Ryan e Anne Gearan:

“Gli Stati Uniti minacceranno lunedì di punire le persone che cooperano con la Corte penale internazionale in una potenziale indagine sulle azioni belliche degli Stati Uniti in Afghanistan, secondo le persone che hanno familiarità con la decisione.

L’amministrazione Trump dovrebbe anche annunciare che sta chiudendo un ufficio diplomatico palestinese a Washington perché i palestinesi hanno cercato di usare il tribunale internazionale per perseguire l’alleato degli Stati Uniti d’Israele, hanno detto quelle persone.

Si prevede che il consigliere per la sicurezza nazionale della Casa Bianca John Bolton sollevi minacce di sanzioni e il divieto di viaggiare negli Stati Uniti per le persone coinvolte nel tentativo di perseguire gli americani davanti al tribunale internazionale in un discorso lunedì.

Donald Trump
Donald Trump

Bolton è un avversario di lunga data della corte per il fatto che viola la sovranità nazionale.

Il discorso, intitolato “Proteggere il costituzionalismo americano e la sovranità dalle minacce internazionali”, è il primo discorso formale di Bolton da quando è entrato a far parte dell’amministrazione ad aprile. È sponsorizzato dalla Federalist Society, un gruppo politico conservatore e libertario.

Si prevede che Bolton delineerà una nuova campagna per contestare la legittimità della corte, considerando i casi che potrebbero mettere gli Stati Uniti e gli alleati vicini in pericolo per la prima volta, secondo le persone che hanno familiarità con le osservazioni programmate che parlavano della condizione di anonimato perché non erano autorizzati a farlo sul disco.

Bolton probabilmente esporrà l’opposizione americana alla corte e proporrà misure che includano nuovi accordi per proteggere il personale degli Stati Uniti dall’accusa internazionale e la minaccia di sanzioni o restrizioni di viaggio per le persone coinvolte nella persecuzione degli americani.

Benjamin Netanyahu
Benjamin Netanyahu

Una persona ha detto che Bolton prevede di usare il discorso per annunciare che l’amministrazione Trump costringerà la chiusura dell’ufficio dell’Organizzazione per la liberazione della Palestina a Washington in una disputa per uno sforzo palestinese di perseguire l’Israele attraverso la CPI.

L’annuncio di Bolton è strettamente collegato alle preoccupazioni del Pentagono e tra le agenzie di intelligence sulla potenziale responsabilità degli Stati Uniti nei procedimenti giudiziari per le azioni in Afghanistan, ha detto un funzionario dell’amministrazione senior che ha familiarità con gli aspetti del prossimo annuncio.

Le indagini della Corte Penale Internazionale sulle azioni belliche degli Stati Uniti rappresentano esattamente il tipo di violazione della sovranità degli Stati Uniti che Bolton e altri oppositori della corte hanno a lungo avvertito, il funzionario e altri hanno detto.

“Ora è una questione molto più reale a causa della potenziale responsabilità in Afghanistan”, ha detto il funzionario, aggiungendo che altre nazioni hanno preoccupazioni simili.

L’amministrazione Trump ha messo in dubbio che la CPI abbia la giurisdizione per indagare e perseguire i cittadini degli Stati Uniti per azioni in Afghanistan, poiché la legge militare afgana e statunitense potrebbe applicarsi in diverse situazioni, ha detto il funzionario.

La nuova bordata contro la CPI segue i passi dell’amministrazione sfidando la cooperazione internazionale in altri settori. Quest’anno, l’amministrazione si è ritirata dall’organismo dei diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite, ha bloccato il sostegno finanziario per un programma di aiuti U.N. per i rifugiati palestinesi e ha minacciato di ritirarsi dall’Organizzazione mondiale del commercio.

Il discorso di Bolton arriva due settimane prima che il presidente Trump partecipi all’Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite, dove si rivolgerà ad altri leader mondiali. Funzionari degli Stati Uniti hanno detto che Trump si concentrerà sulle affermazioni degli Stati Uniti sulla minaccia rappresentata dall’Iran e ribadirà la sua opposizione all’accordo nucleare internazionale con l’Iran. Trump ha ritirato gli Stati Uniti dall’accordo a maggio.

L’opposizione di Trump all’accordo con l’Iran è legata a un più ampio sospetto di accordi e organizzazioni internazionali come la CPI.

Tre successive amministrazioni degli Stati Uniti di entrambi i partiti politici hanno respinto l’intera giurisdizione del tribunale internazionale sui cittadini americani, sebbene la cooperazione degli Stati Uniti con la corte sia cresciuta significativamente sotto l’amministrazione Obama.

Gli Stati Uniti non hanno mai firmato il trattato internazionale del 2002, chiamato Trattato di Roma, che ha istituito la corte, che ha sede all’Aia.

Stephen Pomper, che ha lavorato su questioni relative alla Corte penale Internazionale nell’amministrazione Obama, ha detto che un tentativo di indebolire la corte esacerberebbe le tensioni tra gli Stati Uniti e gli alleati in Europa e altrove che erano sostenitori della corte.

“Creerà attriti che non sono necessari e creerà l’impressione che gli Stati Uniti siano un bullo e un egemone”, ha detto Pomper, che ora è direttore del programma degli Stati Uniti presso l’International Crisis Group.

Bolton faceva parte di uno sforzo durante l’amministrazione di George W. Bush per formalizzare la resistenza degli Stati Uniti alla corte, anche attraverso la legislazione che proibiva il sostegno degli Stati Uniti e gli sforzi per far pressione su altri paesi in accordi per non cedere i cittadini statunitensi al corpo.

L’opposizione di Bolton si è intensificata quando i giudici della Corte Penale Internazionale hanno valutato una richiesta del procuratore Fatou Bensouda, che lo scorso autunno ha chiesto il permesso di indagare formalmente sui presunti crimini commessi durante la guerra in Afghanistan. Ciò potrebbe includere potenzialmente azioni del personale militare o di intelligence degli Stati Uniti nella detenzione di sospetti terroristi.

Lo scorso novembre, scrivendo sul Wall Street Journal, Bolton ha affermato che l’inchiesta ha aggiunto l’urgenza alla necessità di tenere gli Stati Uniti ei suoi cittadini fuori dalla portata del tribunale.

“La sicurezza a lungo termine dell’America dipende dal rifiuto di riconoscere una virgola di legittimità” della corte, ha scritto.

David Bosco, professore alla Scuola di Studi Globali e Internazionali dell’Indiana University, ha affermato che i giudici avrebbero probabilmente approvato la richiesta di Bensouda.

La corte sta anche valutando la richiesta da parte delle autorità palestinesi di indagare sui presunti crimini commessi nei territori palestinesi, un passo che potrebbe portare a tentativi di perseguire i funzionari israeliani.

Il presidente dell’Autorità palestinese Mahmoud Abbas, in un discorso alle Nazioni Unite un anno fa, ha invitato la CPI a indagare e perseguire i cittadini israeliani per presunti crimini contro i palestinesi.

In risposta, l’amministrazione Trump si era trasferita a novembre per chiudere l’ufficio diplomatico palestinese, ma rapidamente tornò indietro e permise all’ufficio di rimanere aperto con restrizioni temporanee.

Quell’ufficio funge da ambasciata di fatto, con un ambasciatore, per rappresentare gli interessi palestinesi nel governo degli Stati Uniti.

L’amministrazione Trump sostiene che i palestinesi hanno violato la legge degli Stati Uniti chiedendo il perseguimento di Israele alla Corte penale internazionale. La decisione iniziale dell’amministrazione di chiudere l’ufficio ha causato una frattura con Abbas che si è allargata a dicembre quando Trump ha annunciato che gli Stati Uniti avrebbero riconosciuto Gerusalemme come capitale israeliana e trasferito la propria ambasciata.

L’amministrazione Trump non si è impegnata pubblicamente a sostenere una distinta Palestina al fianco di Israele, che era l’obiettivo delle precedenti amministrazioni. Ma come nelle precedenti amministrazioni degli Stati Uniti, la Casa Bianca di Trump considera illegittimi gli sforzi palestinesi per ottenere il riconoscimento dello stato attraverso organizzazioni internazionali.

Le amministrazioni Bush e Obama hanno cercato negoziati tra Israele e i palestinesi per raggiungere questo obiettivo. L’amministrazione Trump ha elaborato una proposta dettagliata per risolvere il conflitto israelo-palestinese ma non lo ha rilasciato né discusso pubblicamente su come avrebbe affrontato lo stato palestinese.

Bosco ha detto che le mosse punitive “segnerebbero il ritorno a una sorta di guerra fredda tra Washington e L’Aia”.

Ma una mossa contro l’ICC rischia di suscitare meno scalpore rispetto al Congresso rispetto a quelle contro altri organismi internazionali perché i politici di entrambe le parti si oppongono generalmente ai tentativi di assoggettare gli americani, in particolare i membri dei servizi, ai procedimenti giudiziari internazionali.

La CPI è stata oggetto di critiche internazionali per altri motivi, tra cui il fatto che si sia mosso lentamente per condannare e si sia concentrato principalmente sui crimini che si verificano in Africa.

Julie Tate e Carol Morello hanno contribuito a questo rapporto” (Traduzione dell’autore)

Sono convinto che il popolo mondiale sia oltre modo stanco di affrontare guerre imperiali e colonialiste mascherate e coperte da le solite mani che controllano le notizie dei grandi organi di diffusione (grandi testate giornaliste, radio, televisioni ed alcuni siti nella rete),  per mandare a casa questi oligarchi della guerra per il dominio mondiale ed il controllo della razza umana non resta altro che contare le ore, perché se non in questa vita, la prossima il popolo della pace di tutto il mondo li sconfiggerà.

di Daniel Evangelista

Stati Uniti d’America ed Israele contro tutti

 

In questi giorni stiamo assistendo ad un attacco contro uno degli organi più importanti del genere umano, ovvero, contro la Corte Penale Internazionale da parte degli Stati Uniti d’America ed Israele. Cerchiamo di capire perché ora questi Stati minacciano sanzioni contro le persone che appoggeranno il probabile processo contro di loro. Come si legge nel sito della Corte Penale Internazionale (https://www.icc-cpi.int/afghanistan) ci sono esami preliminari in atto ormai quasi conclusi e si sta per passare ad una riunione per determinare se intentare un processo oppure no nei confronti degli Stati Uniti d’America ma anche Israele sta passando per lo stesso percorso giudiziario riguardo il popolo Palestinese.

Corte Penale Internazionale
Corte Penale Internazionale

Quindi oggi leggo sul Washington Post del 9 Settembre 2018 questo articolo di Missy Ryan e Anne Gearan:

“Gli Stati Uniti minacceranno lunedì di punire le persone che cooperano con la Corte penale internazionale in una potenziale indagine sulle azioni belliche degli Stati Uniti in Afghanistan, secondo le persone che hanno familiarità con la decisione.

L’amministrazione Trump dovrebbe anche annunciare che sta chiudendo un ufficio diplomatico palestinese a Washington perché i palestinesi hanno cercato di usare il tribunale internazionale per perseguire l’alleato degli Stati Uniti d’Israele, hanno detto quelle persone.

Si prevede che il consigliere per la sicurezza nazionale della Casa Bianca John Bolton sollevi minacce di sanzioni e il divieto di viaggiare negli Stati Uniti per le persone coinvolte nel tentativo di perseguire gli americani davanti al tribunale internazionale in un discorso lunedì.

Donald Trump
Donald Trump

Bolton è un avversario di lunga data della corte per il fatto che viola la sovranità nazionale.

Il discorso, intitolato “Proteggere il costituzionalismo americano e la sovranità dalle minacce internazionali”, è il primo discorso formale di Bolton da quando è entrato a far parte dell’amministrazione ad aprile. È sponsorizzato dalla Federalist Society, un gruppo politico conservatore e libertario.

Si prevede che Bolton delineerà una nuova campagna per contestare la legittimità della corte, considerando i casi che potrebbero mettere gli Stati Uniti e gli alleati vicini in pericolo per la prima volta, secondo le persone che hanno familiarità con le osservazioni programmate che parlavano della condizione di anonimato perché non erano autorizzati a farlo sul disco.

Bolton probabilmente esporrà l’opposizione americana alla corte e proporrà misure che includano nuovi accordi per proteggere il personale degli Stati Uniti dall’accusa internazionale e la minaccia di sanzioni o restrizioni di viaggio per le persone coinvolte nella persecuzione degli americani.

Benjamin Netanyahu
Benjamin Netanyahu

Una persona ha detto che Bolton prevede di usare il discorso per annunciare che l’amministrazione Trump costringerà la chiusura dell’ufficio dell’Organizzazione per la liberazione della Palestina a Washington in una disputa per uno sforzo palestinese di perseguire l’Israele attraverso la CPI.

L’annuncio di Bolton è strettamente collegato alle preoccupazioni del Pentagono e tra le agenzie di intelligence sulla potenziale responsabilità degli Stati Uniti nei procedimenti giudiziari per le azioni in Afghanistan, ha detto un funzionario dell’amministrazione senior che ha familiarità con gli aspetti del prossimo annuncio.

Le indagini della Corte Penale Internazionale sulle azioni belliche degli Stati Uniti rappresentano esattamente il tipo di violazione della sovranità degli Stati Uniti che Bolton e altri oppositori della corte hanno a lungo avvertito, il funzionario e altri hanno detto.

“Ora è una questione molto più reale a causa della potenziale responsabilità in Afghanistan”, ha detto il funzionario, aggiungendo che altre nazioni hanno preoccupazioni simili.

L’amministrazione Trump ha messo in dubbio che la CPI abbia la giurisdizione per indagare e perseguire i cittadini degli Stati Uniti per azioni in Afghanistan, poiché la legge militare afgana e statunitense potrebbe applicarsi in diverse situazioni, ha detto il funzionario.

La nuova bordata contro la CPI segue i passi dell’amministrazione sfidando la cooperazione internazionale in altri settori. Quest’anno, l’amministrazione si è ritirata dall’organismo dei diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite, ha bloccato il sostegno finanziario per un programma di aiuti U.N. per i rifugiati palestinesi e ha minacciato di ritirarsi dall’Organizzazione mondiale del commercio.

Il discorso di Bolton arriva due settimane prima che il presidente Trump partecipi all’Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite, dove si rivolgerà ad altri leader mondiali. Funzionari degli Stati Uniti hanno detto che Trump si concentrerà sulle affermazioni degli Stati Uniti sulla minaccia rappresentata dall’Iran e ribadirà la sua opposizione all’accordo nucleare internazionale con l’Iran. Trump ha ritirato gli Stati Uniti dall’accordo a maggio.

L’opposizione di Trump all’accordo con l’Iran è legata a un più ampio sospetto di accordi e organizzazioni internazionali come la CPI.

Tre successive amministrazioni degli Stati Uniti di entrambi i partiti politici hanno respinto l’intera giurisdizione del tribunale internazionale sui cittadini americani, sebbene la cooperazione degli Stati Uniti con la corte sia cresciuta significativamente sotto l’amministrazione Obama.

Gli Stati Uniti non hanno mai firmato il trattato internazionale del 2002, chiamato Trattato di Roma, che ha istituito la corte, che ha sede all’Aia.

Stephen Pomper, che ha lavorato su questioni relative alla Corte penale Internazionale nell’amministrazione Obama, ha detto che un tentativo di indebolire la corte esacerberebbe le tensioni tra gli Stati Uniti e gli alleati in Europa e altrove che erano sostenitori della corte.

“Creerà attriti che non sono necessari e creerà l’impressione che gli Stati Uniti siano un bullo e un egemone”, ha detto Pomper, che ora è direttore del programma degli Stati Uniti presso l’International Crisis Group.

Bolton faceva parte di uno sforzo durante l’amministrazione di George W. Bush per formalizzare la resistenza degli Stati Uniti alla corte, anche attraverso la legislazione che proibiva il sostegno degli Stati Uniti e gli sforzi per far pressione su altri paesi in accordi per non cedere i cittadini statunitensi al corpo.

L’opposizione di Bolton si è intensificata quando i giudici della Corte Penale Internazionale hanno valutato una richiesta del procuratore Fatou Bensouda, che lo scorso autunno ha chiesto il permesso di indagare formalmente sui presunti crimini commessi durante la guerra in Afghanistan. Ciò potrebbe includere potenzialmente azioni del personale militare o di intelligence degli Stati Uniti nella detenzione di sospetti terroristi.

Lo scorso novembre, scrivendo sul Wall Street Journal, Bolton ha affermato che l’inchiesta ha aggiunto l’urgenza alla necessità di tenere gli Stati Uniti ei suoi cittadini fuori dalla portata del tribunale.

“La sicurezza a lungo termine dell’America dipende dal rifiuto di riconoscere una virgola di legittimità” della corte, ha scritto.

David Bosco, professore alla Scuola di Studi Globali e Internazionali dell’Indiana University, ha affermato che i giudici avrebbero probabilmente approvato la richiesta di Bensouda.

La corte sta anche valutando la richiesta da parte delle autorità palestinesi di indagare sui presunti crimini commessi nei territori palestinesi, un passo che potrebbe portare a tentativi di perseguire i funzionari israeliani.

Il presidente dell’Autorità palestinese Mahmoud Abbas, in un discorso alle Nazioni Unite un anno fa, ha invitato la CPI a indagare e perseguire i cittadini israeliani per presunti crimini contro i palestinesi.

In risposta, l’amministrazione Trump si era trasferita a novembre per chiudere l’ufficio diplomatico palestinese, ma rapidamente tornò indietro e permise all’ufficio di rimanere aperto con restrizioni temporanee.

Quell’ufficio funge da ambasciata di fatto, con un ambasciatore, per rappresentare gli interessi palestinesi nel governo degli Stati Uniti.

L’amministrazione Trump sostiene che i palestinesi hanno violato la legge degli Stati Uniti chiedendo il perseguimento di Israele alla Corte penale internazionale. La decisione iniziale dell’amministrazione di chiudere l’ufficio ha causato una frattura con Abbas che si è allargata a dicembre quando Trump ha annunciato che gli Stati Uniti avrebbero riconosciuto Gerusalemme come capitale israeliana e trasferito la propria ambasciata.

L’amministrazione Trump non si è impegnata pubblicamente a sostenere una distinta Palestina al fianco di Israele, che era l’obiettivo delle precedenti amministrazioni. Ma come nelle precedenti amministrazioni degli Stati Uniti, la Casa Bianca di Trump considera illegittimi gli sforzi palestinesi per ottenere il riconoscimento dello stato attraverso organizzazioni internazionali.

Le amministrazioni Bush e Obama hanno cercato negoziati tra Israele e i palestinesi per raggiungere questo obiettivo. L’amministrazione Trump ha elaborato una proposta dettagliata per risolvere il conflitto israelo-palestinese ma non lo ha rilasciato né discusso pubblicamente su come avrebbe affrontato lo stato palestinese.

Bosco ha detto che le mosse punitive “segnerebbero il ritorno a una sorta di guerra fredda tra Washington e L’Aia”.

Ma una mossa contro l’ICC rischia di suscitare meno scalpore rispetto al Congresso rispetto a quelle contro altri organismi internazionali perché i politici di entrambe le parti si oppongono generalmente ai tentativi di assoggettare gli americani, in particolare i membri dei servizi, ai procedimenti giudiziari internazionali.

La CPI è stata oggetto di critiche internazionali per altri motivi, tra cui il fatto che si sia mosso lentamente per condannare e si sia concentrato principalmente sui crimini che si verificano in Africa.

Julie Tate e Carol Morello hanno contribuito a questo rapporto” (Traduzione dell’autore)

Sono convinto che il popolo mondiale sia oltre modo stanco di affrontare guerre imperiali e colonialiste mascherate e coperte da le solite mani che controllano le notizie dei grandi organi di diffusione (grandi testate giornaliste, radio, televisioni ed alcuni siti nella rete),  per mandare a casa questi oligarchi della guerra per il dominio mondiale ed il controllo della razza umana non resta altro che contare le ore, perché se non in questa vita, la prossima il popolo della pace di tutto il mondo li sconfiggerà.

di Daniel Evangelista

“The one straw revolution”

Masanobu Fukuoka
Masanobu Fukuoka

Born in 1914, Masanobu Fukuoka is the father of natural agriculture or “of non-doing”, as he himself defines it, since the aim of his research has always been to minimize human interventions on natural processes. He studied microbiology in Japan and began his career as a soil scientist, specializing in plant diseases. At age 25, however, he began to question the preconceptions of the science of agriculture. He then decided to leave his post as a scientific researcher to return to his family’s farm on Shikoku Island in southern Japan to grow mandarins. He thus began to dedicate his life to the development of a system of organic and environmentally friendly agriculture in competition with industrial agriculture.

Clay seed dough
Clay seed dough

In essence, Fukuoka’s method tries to reproduce the natural conditions as faithfully as possible. The soil is not plowed and the germination takes place directly on the surface, after mixing the seeds, if necessary, with clay and fertilizer (this allows to reduce the number of seeds needed). In intact soil, where ideally have been made to grow non-invasive plants that fix nitrogen (eg clover), which retain the soil and prevent the development of weeds, the desired cultivation is simultaneously cultivated. Antagonistic animals are introduced to fight infestations (eg carp, insectivorous in rice crops, or ducks to fight snails). The soil must be returned as much as possible of what it has produced, so the farmer must seize only the fruits and leave on the field all the scraps and remnants of the crop, which will act as mulch. The soil is always covered, thus reducing depletion by surface erosion, and the aerial part of the annual plants, after harvest, must be used for mulching. Also the lack of plowing, or in any case of artificial aeration of the ground, reduces the need for fertilization, since the bacteria that fix nitrogen in the soil are anaerobic.

“I have been studying alternative techniques for modern agriculture a few years ago. The main reason that pushed me in this direction is that I have never been comfortable with the use of pesticides and chemicals. Trying to study the topic a little, I realized that there is no substitute for these products in the modern agricultural system. Let me explain: pesticides and other chemicals are part of a unique “package” that also contains monocultures, the use of heavy vehicles and large plots exploited intensively.
The operators of this system will tell you that you can not do without. We could call this way of operating “industrial agriculture” or “market agriculture”. This type of agriculture has the characteristic of being very complex, it needs a lot of control on the part of man, as well as a great theoretical and technological effort on the part of the scientific world. Basically: if we want to abandon the chemicals, we must change the model of cultivation on a large scale.
The alternative to this agricultural world exists! It is already made up of various communities and individuals who in their own way seek a different approach to cultivation. We talk about: “natural agriculture”, “synergistic agriculture”, “permaculture”, “biodynamic agriculture” etc. The list is long.

Sometimes one is led to think that these are different worlds. At an intellectual level maybe they are, each of them has practices that, followed as if they were commandments, would make them different from each other. The thing I noticed instead is that beyond the reason, which dominates industrial agriculture, these practices respond to the same need of man to return to a way of cultivating that is more in contact with nature, and finally more to contact with ourselves. That’s why those who practice agriculture of this kind should not split up on terms, getting lost in the theory of agriculture.
What we are looking for with these agricultures does not need definitions. It is a way of doing where man has no control. He can observe and intuit, that’s all. The art of observing what nature offers us is a gift that is being lost.
The initial starting point of industrial agriculture is the desired result. This approach can not work simply because desire has no limits and follows the utopian myth of infinite growth.
Masanobu Fukuoka, argued that agriculture is a practice that comes effortlessly. Instead of asking ourselves: “what can we do more?”, We should ask ourselves: “what could we do less?”. Is not this perhaps the driving sentiment of new farming? So here comes a new agricultural system where: you do not work the land, do not fertilize, do not use chemicals. This is not due to a party but because it is simply a natural mode.
In my opinion it is useful to abandon judgments and expectations at first and learn to observe and experiment. Where expectations and judgments are abandoned is where intuition and creativity can arise, together with the vast world of natural cultivation. So we could also understand that there are no two equal points on earth. There is such a great variety of climates, land, plants and animals that there will not be two places with the same conditions, and everyone will be able to do agriculture in his own way. This is natural agriculture. “(Taken from www.italiachecambia.org)

 

Masanobu Fukukoa sows
Masanobu Fukukoa sows

“Before the end of the war, when I went up to the citrus grove to put into practice what I then thought was natural agriculture, I did not prune myself and left the orchard to itself. The branches tangled together, the plants were attacked by pests and almost one hectare of mandarineto dried and died.

Since then I always had a question in mind: “What is the natural form?”. To get to the answer I was forced to sacrifice another 400 plants and finally today I can say: “The natural method is this”. I have to admit that I had my share of failures during the forty years I have dedicated to research, but now I can get the same or better harvest, in every respect, compared to those cultivated in a conventional way.

And more importantly: my method is successful with a minimum amount of work and with significantly reduced costs, and at no time during the cultivation process is the smallest use of polluting products, all without depleting soil fertility.

The “non-action” method is based on four fundamental principles:

1. No processing, no plowing or overturning of the ground. For centuries, farmers have believed that the plow was essential to increase crops. Yet not working the land is of fundamental importance for natural agriculture. The earth works by itself thanks to the action of penetration of the roots and the activity of microorganisms and microfauna of the soil.

2. No chemical fertilizer or compost. Dull agricultural practices deplete the soil of its essential nutrients causing a gradual depletion of natural fertility. Left to itself, the soil naturally retains its fertility, in accordance with the natural cycle of plant and animal life.

3. Neither herbicides nor harrows. Spontaneous plants have a specific role in the fertility of the soil and in the balance of the ecosystem. As a basic rule they should be checked (for example with straw mulch or white clover cover), not completely eliminated.

4. No use of chemicals. Since the time when weak plants developed as a result of unnatural practices such as plowing and fertilizing, diseases and insect imbalances became a major problem in agriculture. Nature, let it be, is in perfect balance. Harmful insects and pathogens are always present, but they never take the upper hand to the point where it is necessary to use chemicals. The most sensible attitude for disease and insect control is to have vigorous crops in a healthy environment. “(Article taken from Terra Nuova – April 1999)

Original book
Original book

“He is a forerunner, sustainability has practiced, experimented and has become philosophy, way of life. It fights aridity and desertification by spreading semi-essential essences that could adapt to a specific area, protected by a clay capsule to protect them from insects, rodents and birds. Then leave it to nature. What will sprout will be the best for that geographical area.
So it is rebuilding the vegetation in desert areas in India, in the north of Greece, on 10 thousand hectares around Lake Vegoritis, and also in an experimental area in Cisternino, in the province of Brindisi, Italy. The problem of desertification is crucial for our generation and for the next, in terms of food and thinning of livable surfaces. Apocalyptic scenarios are emerging, along with decades of agricultural supersfructuring and the consequent climate changes.

“When I was in the desert of the United States – says Fukuoka – I perceived that rain does not fall from the sky but rises from the ground. Deserts are not formed because there is no rain; on the contrary, rain does not fall because the vegetation has disappeared “. He has dedicated fifty years of his life to natural agriculture and fifteen years to combat desertification. “Even if all this may seem like the illusion of a peasant who has tried in vain to return to nature and alongside God, I still want to become the one who plants this seed. Nothing would make me happier than to meet other like-minded people. ”

And its seeds are already sprouting. Here and there there are small communities of people who have married another rhythm of life, another time, fleeing the fictitious needs imposed by society. Also in Cisternino a foundation was established, called Bhole Baba, it has made available its land that the founders themselves cultivate and in these days they host Mr. Fukuoka, you want to take care of the wounded land. Up to now what results did you get on the field?

Coupons in Somalia, Ethiopia and Tanzania. We have also managed to create small vegetable gardens, and in some cases, after six months, papaya and banana plants have appeared. But there is a worse desert, made of stones, which is found in Greece and in Italy. Here it is even more difficult. We started a sowing on 10 thousand hectares in Greece last year, which was attended by three thousand people from all the countries of Europe.

In your opinion how much time passes between the beginning of a process of greening and the birth of higher plants?

On average five years, but also depends on the quantity of seeds that are inserted in each clay ball “(article taken from” Terra Nuova “)

We must begin to stop behaving like slaves, and to do so we must first recognize that we are slaves, then we must rebuild our lives according to our real needs, those that we feel true within us, those that make us feel good and that make us feel others well. Doing more, to give a surplus, is an ethics that has deep roots in our history and that we should all study to understand why. If we want a better world, we must stop continuing to perpetrate this. That of “Fukukoa” is not the method, but one of many possible, so here we must only take inspiration from this, so that everyone can find his own.

by Daniel Evangelista

“La rivoluzione del filo di paglia”

Masanobu Fukuoka
Masanobu Fukuoka

Classe 1914, Masanobu Fukuoka, è il padre della agricoltura naturale o del non fare, come lui stesso la definisce, poiché l’obiettivo della sua ricerca è sempre stato ridurre al minimo gli interventi dell’Uomo sui processi naturali. Ha studiato microbiologia in Giappone e ha iniziato la sua carriera come scienziato del suolo, specializzandosi nelle patologie delle piante. A 25 anni però ha cominciato a mettere in dubbio i preconcetti della scienza dell’agricoltura. Quindi ha deciso di lasciare il suo posto di ricercatore scientifico per tornare nella fattoria della sua famiglia sulla isola di Shikoku nel Giappone del Sud per coltivare mandarini. Ha così iniziato a dedicare la sua vita allo sviluppo di un sistema di agricoltura biologica ed ecocompatibile in concorrenza con l’agricoltura industriale.

Nell’essenza, il metodo di Fukuoka tenta di riprodurre quanto più fedelmente le condizioni naturali. Il terreno non viene arato e la germinazione avviene direttamente in superficie, dopo aver mescolato i semi, se necessario, con argilla e fertilizzante (questo consente di ridurre il numero di semi necessari). Nel terreno intatto, dove idealmente sono state fatte crescere piante poco invadenti che fissano l’azoto (es. trifoglio), che trattengono il terreno e impediscono lo sviluppo di infestanti, viene coltivata simultaneamente la coltivazione voluta. Animali antagonisti vengono introdotti per combattere infestazioni (ad esempio carpe, insettivoro nelle coltivazioni di riso, o anatre per combattere le lumache). Al terreno deve essere restituito quanto più possibile di ciò che ha prodotto, quindi l’agricoltore deve cogliere esclusivamente i frutti e lasciare sul campo tutti gli scarti e le rimanenze della coltivazione, che fungeranno da pacciamatura. Il terreno rimane sempre coperto, riducendo così l’impoverimento per erosione superficiale, e la parte aerea delle piante annuali, dopo il raccolto, deve essere utilizzata per una pacciamatura. Anche la mancanza di aratura, o comunque di aerazione artificiale del terreno, riduce la necessità di concimazione, in quanto i batteri che fissano l’azoto nel terreno sono anaerobi.

Impasto di semi con argilla
Impasto di semi con argilla

“Sto approfondendo da qualche anno le tecniche alternative rispetto all’agricoltura moderna. Il motivo principale che mi ha spinto in questa direzione è che non sono mai stato a mio agio con l’uso dei pesticidi e dei prodotti chimici. Cercando di studiare un po’ l’argomento mi sono reso conto che non c’è qualcosa di sostitutivo a questi prodotti nel moderno sistema agricolo. Mi spiego meglio: i pesticidi e gli altri prodotti chimici fanno parte di un “pacchetto” unico che contiene anche le monocolture, l’uso di mezzi pesanti e i grandi appezzamenti sfruttati in maniera intensiva.

Gli operatori di questo sistema vi diranno che non si può fare senza. Potremmo chiamare questa modo di operare “agricoltura industriale” o “agricoltura di mercato”. Questo tipo di agricoltura ha la caratteristica di essere molto complessa, ha bisogno di molto controllo da parte dell’uomo, oltre che un grande sforzo teorico e tecnologico da parte del mondo scientifico. Sostanzialmente: se vogliamo abbandonare i prodotti chimici, bisogna cambiare modello di coltivazione su grande scala.

L’alternativa a questo mondo agricolo esiste! È già costituita da varie comunità e singoli che a loro modo cercano un approccio diverso alla coltivazione. Si parla di: “agricoltura naturale”, “agricoltura sinergica”, “permacultura”, “agricoltura biodinamica” ecc. La lista è lunga.

Delle volte si è portati a pensare che questi siano mondi diversi. A livello intellettuale magari lo sono, ognuna di essa ha delle pratiche che, seguite come fossero comandamenti, le renderebbero diverse l’una dall’altra. La cosa che ho notato invece è che al di là della ragione, che domina l’agricoltura industriale, queste pratiche rispondono al medesimo bisogno dell’uomo di tornare ad un modo di coltivare che sia più a contatto con la natura, ed infine più a contatto con noi stessi.  Ecco perché chi pratica agricolture di questo tipo non dovrebbe dividersi sui termini, perdendosi nella teoria dell’agricoltura.

Ciò che ricerchiamo con queste agricolture non ha bisogno di definizioni. È un modo di fare dove l’uomo non ha il controllo. Egli può osservare ed intuire, ecco tutto. L’arte di osservare quello che la natura ci offre è un dono che si sta perdendo.

ll punto di partenza iniziale dell’agricoltura industriale invece è il risultato voluto. Questo approccio non può funzionare semplicemente perché il desiderio non ha limiti e segue il mito utopico della crescita infinita.
Masanobu Fukuoka sosteneva che l’agricoltura è una pratica che arriva senza sforzo. Invece di chiedersi: “cosa possiamo fare in più?”, dovremmo chiederci: “cosa potremmo fare di meno?”. Non è questo forse il sentimento guida delle nuove agricolture? Ecco dunque che sorge un nuovo sistema agricolo dove: non si lavora la terra, non si concima, non si usano prodotti chimici. Questo non per partito preso ma perché è semplicemente una modalità naturale.

Secondo me è utile abbandonare giudizi e aspettative in un primo momento e imparare ad osservare e sperimentare. Dove le aspettative e i giudizi sono abbandonati è dove l’intuizione e la creatività possono sorgere, assieme al vasto mondo delle coltivazioni naturali. Così potremmo anche capire che non ci sono due punti uguali sulla terra. C’è una così grande varietà di climi, terreni, piante e animali che non ci saranno due posti con le medesime condizioni, e ognuno potrà fare agricoltura a suo modo. Questa è agricoltura naturale.” (tratto da www.italiachecambia.org)

Masanobu Fukukoa semina
Masanobu Fukukoa semina

“Prima della fine della guerra, quando andai su all’agrumeto a mettere in pratica quella che allora credevo fosse agricoltura naturale, non feci alcuna potatura e lasciai il frutteto a sé stesso. I rami si aggrovigliarono fra loro, le piante furono attaccate dai parassiti e quasi un ettaro di mandarineto seccò e morì.

Da allora ebbi sempre in mente un interrogativo?: “Qual è la forma naturale?”. Per arrivare alla risposta fui costretto a sacrificare altre 400 piante e finalmente oggi posso dire: “Il metodo naturale è questo”. Devo ammettere di aver avuto la mia parte di insuccessi durante i quarant’anni che ho dedicato alla ricerca, ma adesso riesco a ottenere raccolti uguali o anche migliori, sotto ogni aspetto, rispetto a quelli coltivati in maniera convenzionale.

E cosa più importante: il mio metodo ha successo con una minimo apporto di lavoro e con costi decisamente ridotti, inoltre in nessun momento del processo di coltivazione c’è il più piccolo impiego di prodotti inquinanti, il tutto senza depauperare la fertilità del terreno.

Il metodo della “non-azione” è basato su quattro principi fondamentali:

1. Nessuna lavorazione, cioè niente aratura, né capovolgimento del terreno. Per secoli, i contadini hanno creduto che l’aratro fosse indispensabile per incrementare i raccolti. Eppure non lavorare la terra è di fondamentale importanza per l’agricoltura naturale. La terra si lavora da sé grazie all’azione di penetrazione delle radici e all’attività dei microrganismi e della microfauna del suolo.

2. Nessun concime chimico o compost. Ottuse pratiche agricole impoveriscono il suolo delle sue sostanze nutritive essenziali causando un progressivo esaurimento della fertilità naturale. Lasciato a se stesso, il suolo conserva naturalmente la propria fertilità, in accordo con il ciclo naturale della vita vegetale e animale.

3. Né diserbanti, né erpici. Le piante spontanee hanno un ruolo specifico nella fertilità del suolo e nell’equilibrio dell’ecosistema. Come norma fondamentale dovrebbero essere controllate (per esempio con una pacciamatura di paglia o la copertura con trifoglio bianco), non eliminate del tutto.

4. Nessun impiego di prodotti chimici. Dall’epoca in cui si svilupparono piante deboli per effetto di pratiche innaturali come l’aratura e la concimazione, le malattie e gli squilibri fra insetti divennero un grande problema in agricoltura. La natura, lascia fare, è in equilibrio perfetto. Insetti nocivi e agenti patogeni sono sempre presenti, ma non prendono mai il sopravvento fino al punto da rendere necessario l’uso di prodotti chimici. L’atteggiamento più sensato per il controllo delle malattie e degli insetti è avere delle colture vigorose in un ambiente sano.” (Articolo tratto da Terra Nuova – Aprile 1999)

Testo originale
Testo originale

“Lui è un precursore, la sostenibilità l’ha praticata, sperimentata ed è diventata filosofia, modo di vivere. Combatte l’aridità e la desertificazione spargendo semidi essenze che potrebbero adattarsi ad una determinata zona, protetti da una capsula di argilla per difenderli da insetti, roditori e uccelli. Poi lascia fare alla natura.  Quello che germoglierà sarà il meglio per quell’area geografica.

Così sta ricostruendo la vegetazione in aree desertiche in India, nel nord della Grecia, su 10 mila ettari attorno al lago Vegoritis, e anche in una zona sperimentale a Cisternino, in provincia di Brindisi. Il problema della desertificazione è cruciale per la nostra generazione e per le prossime, sotto il profilo dell’alimentazione e dell’assottigliamento delle superfici vivibili. Si profilano apocalittici scenari, complici un pluridecennale supersfruttamento agricolo e i conseguenti cambiamenti climatici.

“Quando ero nel deserto degli Stati Uniti – dice Fukuoka – ho percepito che la pioggia non cade dal cielo ma sorge dal suolo. I deserti non si formano perché non c’è la pioggia, al contrario, la pioggia non cade perché la vegetazione è scomparsa”. Ha dedicato cinquant’anni della sua vita all’agricoltura naturale e quindici per combattere la desertificazione. “Anche se tutto ciò può sembrare l’illusione di un contadino che ha tentato invano di tornare alla natura e al fianco di Dio, desidero ugualmente diventare colui che pianta questo seme. Niente mi renderebbe più felice che conoscere altre persone che la pensano allo stesso modo”.

E i suoi semi stanno già germogliando. Qua e là vi sono piccole comunità di persone che hanno sposato un altro ritmo di vita, un altro tempo, rifuggendo i bisogni fittizi imposti dalla società. Anche a Cisternino è stata costituita una fondazione, si chiama Bhole Baba, ha messo a disposizione i suoi terreni che gli stessi fondatori coltivano e in questi giorni ospitano Fukuoka presentandolo e facendolo parlare con intere scolaresche.

La trasferta pugliese si è poi conlusa in una giornata all’Istituto agronomico mediterraneo di Valenzano, con la presentazione del direttore Cosimo Lacirignola. Qui l’abbiamo incontrato. Aveva custodito gelosamente un grappolo di semi di riso, una pianta che riesce a produrre fino a 350 chicchi. La mostra con orgoglio e con timore.

E’ quello che ha prodotto il suo sistema che lascia fare alla natura e che fa gola alle multinazionali della produzione agricola, in barba alla biodiversità e all’interesse degli agricoltori: “a loro sta a cuore solo la produzione”, dice. Ha avuto pressioni per cedere i semi ma non ci pensa nemmeno: “l’ingegneria genetica ne farebbe degli ibridi, li distruggerebbe e decreterebbe la scomparsa degli agricoltori”.

Signor Fukuoka, lei vuole curare la terra ferita. Fino ad ora quali risultati ha ottenuto sul campo?

Buoni in Somalia, Etiopia e Tanzania. Si è riusciti a creare anche piccoli orti e, in alcuni casi, dopo sei mesi sono spuntate piante di papaia e banane. Ma esiste un deserto peggiore, fatto di pietre, che si trova in Grecia e in Italia. Qui è ancora più difficile. Abbiamo iniziato l’anno scorso in Grecia una semina su 10 mila ettari, cui hanno partecipato tremila persone venute da tutti i paesi d’Europa.

Secondo lei quanto tempo passa tra l’inizio di un processo di rinverdimento e la nascita di piante superiori?

In media cinque anni, ma dipende anche dalla quantità dei semi che si inseriscono in ogni pallina d’argilla” (articolo tratto da “Terra Nuova”)

Dobbiamo cominciare a smettere di comportarci da schiavi, e per farlo dobbiamo prima riconoscere che lo siamo, poi dobbiamo ricostruire la nostra vita in base alle nostre reali esigenze, quelle che sentiamo vere dentro di noi, quelle che ci fanno stare bene e che fanno stare bene gli altri. Fare di più per dare un surplus è un etica che ha radici profonde nella nostra storia e che dovremmo studiare tutti per capirne le ragioni. Se vogliamo un mondo migliore, dobbiamo smettere di continuare a perpetrarne uno come quello in cui viviamo. Quello di Fukukoa non é il metodo ma uno dei tanti possibili, ecco quindi, che dobbiamo solo prendere ispirazione da questo affinché ognuno trovi il suo.

 

di Daniel Evangelista