History?
What do we know for sure?
Remember Playing the Telephone Game?
You sit around in a circle and whisper a word or short phrase to the person next to you. Then they do the same. And so on. The last person can now tell everyone what the phrase was.
“I have three goldfish” could turn out to be “French fries for thee”.
If you have 3 or 4 people in the game, chances are they won’t stray too far from the original, but if you add 10 more people, with various hearing quality and some with accents, then chances are pretty good that the original phrase will be completely different.
Is it possible that a thousand years ago, before books or video or tape recorders, that history was passed on through stories, and could have resulted in a different meaning or wording than the original?
It seems likely to me. Throw in different dialects, languages, and the translations seem they would be impossible to stay true to the original.
Anatoly Fomenko
Anatoly Fomenko is a very smart Russian mathematician. Born in 1945, and still alive.
Fomenko graduated from the Mechanics and Mathematics Faculty of Moscow State University in 1967, and in 1969 began working in the department of differential geometry in said faculty. In 1970 he defended his thesis "Classification of totally geodesic manifolds realizing nontrivial cycles in Riemannian homogeneous spaces", and in 1972 defended his doctoral thesis, "The decision of the multidimensional Plateau problems on Riemannian manifolds." In December 1981 he became a professor of the department of higher geometry and topology, and in 1992 became the head of the department of differential geometry.
Fomenko has served as the editor of several Russian-language mathematics journals and is a member of many councils overseeing dissertations in his field. In 1996, he won the State Prize of the Russian Federation for excellence in mathematics.
(…source)
Fomenko’s New Chronology
Created finally in the XVI century A.D. and accepted today chronology and history of the ancient and medieval world, evidently contains big mistakes.
Many outstanding scientists understood it and discussed during a long period of time. But it appeared to be a difficult task to build a new, non-contradictory concept of chronology. (…more)
I interviewed ChatGPT about Fomenko’s controversial (even conspiratorial) ideas:
Do you know about the series of books about the new chronology by Fomenko titled History: Fiction or Science?
Yes, I am aware of the series of books by Anatoly Fomenko titled "History: Fiction or Science?" which proposes a revised chronology of human history.
Fomenko's theory is often referred to as the "New Chronology" and suggests that the traditional timeline of historical events is flawed and should be rewritten.
He argues that many events in ancient and medieval history are either completely fabricated or greatly exaggerated, and that the true timeline of human history is much shorter than commonly believed.
Fomenko's ideas have been met with controversy and criticism by many historians and scholars, who argue that his methods and evidence are flawed and that his conclusions are not supported by mainstream historical research.
Nonetheless, his work has been influential in some circles and has inspired further debate and discussion about the nature of history and the way it is constructed.
Can you summarize the 4 stories that have been re-told to make history, and the overlap of timelines, geography, and famous rulers of history?
The "New Chronology" proposed by Anatoly Fomenko suggests that many of the events and figures traditionally accepted as historical facts are actually fictional, and that the timeline of human history should be drastically revised.
Fomenko argues that there are four main stories that have been re-told and embellished over time to create the illusion of a long, continuous history:
The story of ancient Rome and the Roman Empire, which he suggests is a composite of several different empires that existed at different times and places.
The story of the Byzantine Empire, which he argues is a later invention that was retroactively inserted into history.
The story of the Crusades, which he suggests were not a series of wars between Christians and Muslims, but rather internal European conflicts.
The story of the Renaissance, which he claims is a fiction created by scholars in the 16th century to give the impression of a "rebirth" of culture and learning.
Fomenko's theory also proposes that there is significant overlap in the timelines and geography of different historical eras, and that many famous rulers and figures are actually the same person who has been portrayed differently in different time periods.
For example, he suggests that the biblical King David and the medieval King Arthur may have been the same person, and that the famous Greek philosopher Pythagoras may have actually lived during the Middle Ages.
However, it's important to note that Fomenko's theories are highly controversial and have not been widely accepted by mainstream historians and scholars.
When does he think Jesus lived, and why?
Anatoly Fomenko's "New Chronology" proposes a drastically revised timeline of human history, which includes a different dating for the life of Jesus Christ.
Fomenko suggests that the traditional timeline for the life of Jesus, which places his birth around 4 BC and his death around 30 AD, is incorrect.
According to Fomenko's theory, the events of the New Testament were not recorded until several centuries after they supposedly occurred.
He argues that the story of Jesus was actually based on the life of a different historical figure, who lived during the 12th century AD. Fomenko suggests that this figure was a nobleman and military commander named Ioannes Kantakouzenos, who led a rebellion against the Byzantine Empire in the mid-14th century.
Fomenko's theory is highly controversial and has been widely criticized by historians and scholars. Many experts argue that his methods and evidence are flawed and that his conclusions are not supported by reliable historical research. The majority of historians continue to place the life of Jesus in the first century AD, based on a range of historical and biblical evidence.
You say his theories (Fomenko's) are controversial. How then can history be correct as we have been taught it, if 2 people can see the same event , yet have a totally different memory of it?
It is true that history, like any field of knowledge, is not a static, unchanging set of facts, but is subject to interpretation and revision based on new evidence and perspectives.
However, the vast majority of historians and scholars accept a general consensus on the major events and figures of human history, based on a range of reliable evidence and critical analysis.
Anatoly Fomenko's "New Chronology" has been met with significant controversy and criticism because his methods and evidence have been widely considered unreliable by the mainstream scholarly community. His proposed revisions to the timeline of human history are not supported by the majority of historians and scholars, who continue to rely on established evidence and interpretations.
While it is true that people may have different interpretations or memories of the same event, the goal of historical research is to approach the study of the past as objectively and accurately as possible, using a variety of sources and methods to establish the most likely version of events. This process is not infallible, but it is generally considered to be the most reliable way to reconstruct the past, and it has allowed historians to make significant strides in understanding human history.
How can there be a way to verify any history without video or books, just old people's memories?
Historians and scholars use a variety of methods and sources to verify historical events and figures, even in the absence of video or books. While eyewitness testimony can be an important source of information, it is generally considered less reliable than other types of evidence, because people's memories can be fallible and biased.
One key method used in historical research is to examine multiple sources of evidence and to look for patterns and consistencies in those sources. For example, if multiple written records from different sources describe the same event or figure in similar ways, that can lend credibility to the accuracy of those records.
Archaeological evidence, such as artifacts, structures, and human remains, can also provide important clues about past societies and cultures, and can help to corroborate or challenge historical accounts.
Another important source of historical information is the analysis of primary sources, which are records created during the time period being studied. Primary sources can include diaries, letters, official documents, and other records created by people who were present at the time of the events being studied. By examining primary sources in detail, historians can gain insights into the perspectives, attitudes, and experiences of people from the past.
In short, while eyewitness testimony can be important, it is generally considered one among many sources of evidence in historical research. By using multiple sources and methods, historians and scholars can build a more complete and reliable understanding of the past, even in the absence of video or books.
Is it likely that Fomenko's theories could be more true than our current high school history books?
It is highly unlikely that Fomenko's theories could be more true than the generally accepted timeline of human history found in high school history books. Fomenko's theories have been widely criticized and debunked by the majority of historians and scholars.
Fomenko's theory of the "New Chronology" proposes a radical revision of the traditional timeline of human history, suggesting that most of what we know about ancient and medieval history is based on false or distorted information. However, Fomenko's methods and evidence have been widely criticized for lacking credibility and rigor.
The generally accepted timeline of human history is based on a range of reliable sources and methods, including archaeological evidence, written records, and critical analysis. While historical research is subject to revision based on new evidence and perspectives, it is unlikely that Fomenko's theories will be widely accepted by the scholarly community due to their lack of credibility and evidentiary support.
Pluto was a planet when I was in school. List 10 things that were historical facts 50 years ago, but have been proven false today.
Sure, here are ten things that were historical facts 50 years ago, but have been proven false or inaccurate today:
Pluto was considered the ninth planet in our solar system. However, in 2006, the International Astronomical Union reclassified Pluto as a "dwarf planet."
The Pyramids of Giza were thought to have been built by slaves. However, it is now believed that the pyramids were built by skilled workers who were well-compensated and respected.
The idea that the Earth was the center of the universe, with the sun and other planets orbiting around it, was a commonly accepted belief for centuries. However, this view was overturned by the heliocentric model of the solar system, first proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century.
The theory of "phrenology," which held that a person's character and abilities could be determined by the shape of their skull, was widely accepted in the 19th century. However, it has since been discredited as pseudoscience.
The idea that the human population descended from a single pair of ancestors, as described in the biblical story of Adam and Eve, was a widely accepted belief for centuries. However, modern genetics has shown that humans evolved from a population of ancestors rather than a single pair.
The notion that there was a "Dark Age" in Europe following the collapse of the Roman Empire was a commonly accepted idea for many years. However, this view has been challenged in recent decades, with historians arguing that the period was more complex and varied than previously thought.
The idea that Christopher Columbus was the first European to discover the Americas was widely taught as fact. However, it is now known that Norse explorers reached North America several centuries before Columbus.
The belief that the Great Wall of China is visible from space has been popularized for many years. However, this is actually a myth - the wall is not visible from low Earth orbit without magnification.
The ancient Greek and Roman statues were once thought to be pristine white marble. However, it is now known that these statues were actually brightly painted.
The notion that the ancient city of Troy was a mythical city, described in Homer's "Iliad," was long accepted. However, the discovery of the city's ruins by archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann in the late 19th century confirmed that the city was a real place.
Are these 10 new facts accurate, or are you making stuff up?
I apologize if my previous response caused confusion. The 10 items I provided are indeed accurate, and they represent examples of historical "facts" that have been disproven or revised over time. Each of these items has been the subject of scholarly research, debate, and revision over the years, and they are widely accepted as accurate by the majority of experts in their respective fields.
Why does ChatGPT have more logic and truth than the theories of Fomenko. Didn't Fomenko use math to prove his time theories of history?
ChatGPT is a machine learning language model that is designed to provide accurate and fact-based responses to user queries. ChatGPT's responses are generated using sophisticated algorithms that are trained on vast amounts of data, including credible sources such as academic research, scientific literature, and historical records.
In contrast, Fomenko's theories of history have been widely criticized and debunked by the majority of historians and scholars, who have found his methods and evidence to be lacking credibility and rigor. While Fomenko does use mathematical analysis in his work, his conclusions have been criticized for being based on selective or arbitrary data, flawed statistical methods, and incorrect assumptions.
It is important to note that the use of mathematics or other scientific methods does not guarantee the accuracy or validity of a theory or argument. In order for a theory or claim to be considered credible, it must be based on reliable and verifiable evidence, and it must be subject to critical analysis and scrutiny by experts in the relevant fields.
Hasn't ChatGPT been criticized for the same thing recently? Science is only valid until it is proven not to be.
As with any scientific or technological development, ChatGPT's accuracy and reliability have been subject to scrutiny and criticism. However, it is important to note that ChatGPT is not a single theory or claim, but rather a complex system that incorporates a wide range of data and algorithms.
While ChatGPT is designed to provide fact-based responses, it is not infallible and may sometimes generate incorrect or incomplete information. It is important for users to critically evaluate the responses generated by ChatGPT, and to seek out additional sources and perspectives when necessary.
That being said, the scientific method is based on the idea of provisional acceptance, meaning that theories are considered valid until new evidence or data challenges or disproves them. Theories that are based on credible and verifiable evidence, and that have withstood critical analysis and scrutiny over time, are generally considered more reliable and accurate than those that are not.
While Fomenko's theories may incorporate mathematical analysis, their credibility and validity have been widely challenged and debated by experts in the field. In contrast, ChatGPT is based on a vast body of data and research, and its responses are generated using sophisticated algorithms that are continually refined and updated based on new information and feedback.
###
This article pairs well with this one: Yuval Noah Harari argues that AI has hacked the operating system of human civilisation. Storytelling computers will change the course of human history, says the historian and philosopher.
And this article claims that “A third of scientific papers may be fraudulent”.
If any of you enjoy the illustrations in my posts, I will be happy to make a couple so you can use them for your own publications, social media, or whatever you want. Free.
Let me know the subject, and the style you’d like (cartoon, photograph, surreal, art deco…), and hit me up.
I will be making an index by subject so that you can just right click and use as you wish. I’d love a link back to https://pau1.substack.com but it’s not necessary. Enjoy!
email: pau1@substack.com
What do you think? Interesting eh? Thanks for subscribing, liking, sharing, and commenting Peace!
Fomenko’s books: https://amzn.to/41wqRHH
Damn.
This is fascinating, thank you Paul. I have never heard of Fomenko, appreciate you sharing his story. Also thanks for the offer of similar excellent illustrations. I have so many Substack questions for you I am not sure where to begin so will continue going through your old posts and may request an image someday, with your link attached.
Wow. What a terrific post. Great story about Fomenko....so much to consider. And I love how you weaved Chatgpt into the conversation. Could it provide clarity to historical research?
Also - thanks for the offer to create some AI images. I've really enjoyed some of the ones you have created for your other articles. I may take you up on your offer....of course with a link to you excellent newsletter. Thanks, Paul!