History: Fiction or Science?

[Sopio]

I stumbled across an advertisement for an interesting book recently. In History: Fiction or Science?, Anatoly Fomenko, a Russian mathematician at the University of Moscow, argues that human history is much shorter than commonly thought, making such claims that the events in the Old Testament actually happened in the middle ages. I don't know about you, but this sounds like it would be a fascinating read and even if not, it would be great for trolling your friends. This is a description from the Amazon page.

History: Fiction or Science? is the most explosive tractate on history ever written - however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by solid scientific data. The book is well-illustrated, contains over 446 graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays, which never cease to amaze the reader. Eminent mathematician proves that: Jesus Christ was born in 1153 and crucified in 1186 The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486. Does this sound uncanny? This version of events is substantiated by hard facts and logic - validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources - to a greater extent than everything you may have read and heard about history before. The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the XVI century from a rather contradictory jumble of sources such as innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts whose originals had vanished in the Dark Ages and the allegedly irrefutable proof offered by late mediaeval astronomers, resting upon the power of ecclesial authorities. Nearly all of its components are blatantly untrue! For some of us, it shall possibly be quite disturbing to see the magnificent edifice of classical history to turn into an ominous simulacrum brooding over the snake pit of mediaeval politics. Twice so, in fact: the first seeing the legendary millenarian dust on the ancient marble turn into a mere layer of dirt - one that meticulous unprejudiced research can eventually remove. The second, and greater, attack of unease comes with the awareness of just how many areas of human knowledge still trust the three elephants of the consensual chronology to support them. Nothing can remedy that except for an individual chronological revolution happening in the minds of a large enough number of people.

There are four volumes in the series. But I think the above description (and this page) (http://history.mithec.com/) cover only the first volume. It can be purchased on Amazon in paperback format for the very reasonably price of $9.95. Not too bad for 624 pages of wondrous historical revisionism. On the other hand, subsequent volumes in the series are currently priced higher, volumes III and IV being $39.95 for paperbacks and are probably not worth purchasing at the moment.

Volume I. (http://www.amazon.com/History-mathematical-statistics-Eclipses-Chronology/dp/2913621074)

Older edition, $1 cheaper. (http://www.amazon.com/History-Fiction-Science-Chronology-No/dp/2913621058)

[Yggdrasil]

This is ludicrous. I just looked it up on amazon, I don't even know how this guy can spin such bullshit with a straight face. On the same level of insight as David Icke and John Titor. The later two can get away with their statements because they deal with things not very tangible (the future, mass conspiracies etc), but there's such a wealth of science documenting human history, I don't know on what grounds you can make those claims, unless you're out to get publicity and money from saps.

[Sopio]

Can you imagine, what if classical history was entirely fabricated? Actually this thought is giving me an intense feeling of deva vu and I can't figure out why.

I really want to purchase this book but I feel like I should be tighter with my money for a while after spending over $300 on university textbooks the other day.

[tariel]

Carbon dating kind of throws a spanner in the works so to speak.

But there is an element of truth to the idea that a lot of History may be fiction, for the very simple fact that what gets written down and becomes "History" is dictated by the winner.

[p6867]

Can you imagine, what if classical history was entirely fabricated? Actually this thought is giving me an intense feeling of deva vu and I can't figure out why.

I really want to purchase this book but I feel like I should be tighter with my money for a while after spending over $300 on university textbooks the other day.

You know that scene in pulp fiction where john travolta says something along the lines of "Jules, if you give this asshole 1500 dollars i swear i will kill him myself"

That's pretty much how i feel about the possibility of someone on this site buying this guys book.

[Sopio]

Oh, yeah? Is that a threat?

Carbon dating kind of throws a spanner in the works so to speak.

Supposedly, dating techniques feature prominently in the work.

[Yggdrasil]

Supposedly, dating techniques feature prominently in the work.

There's too many different things to even bother entertaining what this guy is saying. Historical linguistics, for example. Ice core sampling. Not worth your $10, buy yourself something decent instead, some Camus, Jared Diamond, etc.

[p6867]

Oh, yeah? Is that a threat?

1. The remark is clearly against the person receiving the money.

2. Why would i be threatening you? you just want to believe something very exciting to you. That you would overlook all other evidence that indicates this dick is just trying to make a fast buck off of you with a shoddily researched position piece is sad, not something for me to be angry about.

[Struwwelpeter]

Yeah go buy yourself some fucking Jared "Auschwitz" Diamond bullshit

I bought this guys book. It's very interesting and I tend to place a great deal of faith in what the author has to say. The critics in this thread prove yet again beyond a doubt that skepticism is rooted in bullshit. Skeptics are not skeptical because they are reasonable people, on the contrary they are very unreasonable people just looking for an outlet for their hostility (which usually stems from sexual starvation and being bullied in adolescence)

[Struwwelpeter]

PS folks, you don't actually get to discredit someone by typing the words "carbon dating." That in of itself does nothing. You actually have to use carbon dating to disprove the claimant

[Sopio]

There's too many different things to even bother entertaining what this guy is saying. Historical linguistics, for example. Ice core sampling. Not worth your $10, buy yourself something decent instead, some Camus, Jared Diamond, etc.

What do Jared Diamond, [Albert?] Camus, and c. have to do with this subject? Did Camus even write about history? You might as well say to pick up some Stephen Hawking, Walter Rudin, and Franz Kafka (etc.)! I don't seek assurance that what I am reading is one hundred per-cent factual before I commit to reading it. Books are never without errors, if not outright fiction. I read for my entertainment. There is little to be purchased which provides even a comparable amount of entertainment to a book. $10 for 624 pages isn't so bad at all. You pay just as much at the movies for only a few hours of entertainment.

[Yggdrasil]

What do Jared Diamond, [Albert?] Camus, and c. have to do with this subject? Did Camus even write about history? You might as well say to pick up some Stephen Hawking, Walter Rudin, and Franz Kafka (etc.)! I don't seek assurance that what I am reading is one hundred per-cent factual before I commit to reading it. Books are never without errors, if not outright fiction. I read for my entertainment. There is little to be purchased which provides even a comparable amount of entertainment to a book. $10 for 624 pages isn't so bad at all. You pay just as much at the movies for only a few hours of entertainment.

Fair enough I guess. Oh, and I shouldn't have mentioned Diamond, it probably just threw you off, I was just naming random authors I liked.

[Struwwelpeter]

with your hooker ass self

[Launchpad]

I take issue with the terms of the question.

"History" and "the past" are two different things. When looking at "the past" one might reasonably attempt to designate events as "factual" through appropriate evidence. For example, if I videotape a car accident it could later be used in a court of law as evidence that something "factually" occurred.
"History," on the other hand, is created when a narrative is shaped by a set of pre-agreed upon "facts" about the past.

To paraphrase E.H. Carr, millions of people have crossed the Rubicon but when Caesar did it, the act became "history." These "Facts-that-become-History" then enter into the historical lexicon and act as raw materials for historians, political scientists, etc. This factual ammunition was greatly strengthened in the late 19th century by the professionalization of historical study, as it now fell to the elite-class of historians to decide what events "from the past" would be shaped into "history."

I suppose my argument is that "History" is neither "Fiction" nor "Science." The history wars of the 1980s are over, and historians in general have come to terms with many aspects of postmodernism. We realize that any type of "history" is really a structured narrative shaped by personal experience and perception of the past. Two historians might look at the same evidence and write two completely different "histories" of an event, and both can be equally valid and valuable.

I might look at the history of Harlan County, U.S.A. and see a narrative of the exploitation of workers, violence on the part of the aristocratic class, and assurances by the government that working-class rights remained non-existent. Another historian might look at the same history and see a rich narrative of collective working-class experience, where communities came together and crafted a culture, where stories and songs documented a life (hard as it may have been) where you could get up in the morning, grab your lunch pail, and go to work with your buddies, and where workers and their families achieved agency through clandestine acts of subterfuge. In many ways these two narratives are oppositional, but it is a good example of how two "versions" of history are able to co-exist within the same framework of "established facts."

That being said, I would not extrapolate postmodernism to its extreme ends of nihilism and existentialism. Although it might make me sound douchey, I suppose I enjoy being a post-postmodernist.

[The Methematician]

This book is a must for any1 interested in history. Afterall .... how can you say he's churning bullshit if you havent even read it ?????

Buy it.

[Sopio]

It's here! It's here!! It's heeeeeere!!!

Jesus Christ was born in 1152 A.D and crucified in 1185 A.D.

The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events.

Apocalypse was written after 1486 A.D.

Not quite what you have learned in school? This version of events is more substantiated by hard facts and logic--validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources--than everything you have read and heard about history before.

The so-called consensual history is a finely woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the XVI century. There is not a single piece of firm evidence or artefact that could be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the XI century. The archeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts are both non-exact and contradictory.

The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the XVI century from a rather contradictory jumble of sources, such as innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts whose originals have vanished in the Dark Ages and the allegedly irrefutable proof delivered by the late mediaeval astronomers, all cemented by the power of the exxlesial authorities. Nearly all of its components are blatantly untrue!

This is History in the Making



Unfortunately, I do not have free time to begin reading this book until this immediately, but I cannot wait to fully digest the contents of this wonderful volume. I will use this new knowledge to harass students of history and the classics at local universities.

[Sopio]

Hey, Launchpad, there's a difference between two people writing different interpretations of an event and each saying that the event took place one thousand years apart from the other's date and there's nothing that postmodernism and workers rights can do to change that.

[Launchpad]

I agree with you Sopio.

It was never my intention to defend the pure insanity that is History: Fiction or Science I was only attempting to address the common misconception (obviously one held by the 'author') that history is one story, one string of facts, that can be "scientifically" figured out and placed end to end to form the true story.

I suppose in some ways I was answering a question that nobody asked, and for that I apologize.

[Sopio]

The author's contention seems to be that history is a story in that it is literally FICTION. The history of the past is all invented. The principle objective of these books appear to be to revise the dates of historical events, not to impose one irrefutable interpretation of history. Moreover, I don't know why you saw fit to but the word author in quotation marks, as if you dispute the authorship of the book because, you know, it's a common misconception that an author is one person.

It's really a defeatist point of view to state that there is no point in interpreting the events of the past if it does not cover everything. Is there no point in doing science or philosophy just because we will never fully understand the universe?

Since you are such a pedant, you might enjoy this: "De Fabula" by Isidore (http://tinyurl.com/4yuy6b4) from his Etymologies.

[Star Wars Fan]

Looks like a case of Beethoven Was An Alien Spy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeethovenwasanAlienSpy) and No Such Thing As Wizard Jesus (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoSuchThingAsWizardJesus).

[Launchpad]

Where did I claim that the author was attempting to impose an "irrefutable" version of history?

Where did I claim that "there is no point in interpreting the events of the past if it does not cover everything?"

I will explain my claims simply to you, so that you aren't distracted by all the big words and shiny things.

1.) The author believes, as you've put it, "the history of the past is all invented."

I draw your attention to the use of the word "history."

Using the term "history" in this sense implies a vision of the past (popular in the 19th century), in which there is one (1) "history" that can be proven/disproved. In fact the author claims to have disproved this "official" narrative, and believes that the dates of all events in this singular narrative are incorrect. Presumably, keeping in mind that I have not read the "book" (bothered?), the author puts forth his newly revised history, with all new dates, as the real history.

2.) If anything, I would argue that the meanings and themes of the past only become accessible to us through interpretation. The entire point of the postmodernist argument is that it is never possible to "cover everything."

3.) Since you are such a fuckwad, you might enjoy this: "Fuck Off" by Kid Rock from his Devil Without a Cause.

[Sopio]

Hmm... I think you said it best when you said, "I was answering a question that nobody asked."

[Launchpad]

Only commenting on an issue that I felt was relevant to this post and to the History community in general.

Obviously some people would rather keep the conversation to the micro level through a continued discussion of the pro's and con's of this type of populist drivel. Your unwarranted attack on me, for the crime of expressing something that I felt was relatively interesting to those of us who are interested in history, cheapens both the discourse and the discipline.

Congrats on addressing my post in a substantive and informed reply, btw. Folks like you are clearly the reason why this online community is thriving.

[Sopio]

Only commenting on an issue that I felt was relevant to this post and to the History community in general.

Obviously some people would rather keep the conversation to the micro level through a continued discussion of the pro's and con's of this type of populist drivel. Your unwarranted attack on me, for the crime of expressing something that I felt was relatively interesting to those of us who are interested in history, cheapens both the discourse and the discipline.

You came in here, posting a critique of a book you have never read, which is not at all relevant to this thread more than any thread about any book concerning history (that is, not at all), and which sounds like typed up lecture notes from some introductory humanities class. It doesn't bother me that most people in this thread have expressed doubts about the authors claims as they do sound absurd and I can't say that I am not skeptical myself. History may be an inherently subjective science, but if an event happened one thousand years apart from when others said it did, then it happened when it happened regardless of what any historian says, and there are scientific methods, even if of questionable accuracy, which can be used to determine historical dates, and the author is calling the usual interpretations drawn from these methods into question and therefore, the entire chronology of human history. That is the subject of the book: did Tacitus live during the Renaissance, not what's the deal with the working class of Harlan County. So yes, I would like if the conversation stayed on the micro level if that means it stays relevant to the contents of the book and that we don't have to preface every thread about history with "to paraphrase the great E. H. Carr..." for the fear of offending anyone's communist sensibilities.

I thought Planet of the Apes (the newer version) was an interesting take on this subject.

How so?

[Launchpad]

You came in here, posting a critique of a book you have never read, which is not at all relevant to this thread more than any thread about any book concerning history

You haven't read the book either and you made the damn thread. Also, my criticism is totally relevant. Most historians are aware of advances in the theories and philosophies of the discipline over the past 100 years. The author of this book does not appear to be. This is not a critique that could apply to many other books that claim to be history, because most people who claim to be historians possess at least a cursory knowledge about the subject.

History may be an inherently subjective science, but if an event happened one thousand years apart from when others said it did, then it happened when it happened regardless of what any historian says, and there are scientific methods, even if of questionable accuracy, which can be used to determine historical dates, and the author is calling the usual interpretations drawn from these methods into question and therefore, the entire chronology of human history.

Apparently you make the same mistake. Is he calling into question "the entire chronology of human history" or is he calling into question popular conceptualizations of the totality of past events in human experience?
For a fuller understanding of the difference between "history" and "the past" please see my original post.

The postmodern turn has destroyed the concept of an "entire chronology of human history," such a concept is no longer accepted within the discipline.

If he is attempting to debate the validity of current beliefs about "the entire[ty of]...human history," he is doing so in an echo chamber where he has already established straw man arguments for the entire historical discipline. This is especially true because historians do not believe that the "entirety of human history is a real concept that can be debated/challenged. If this is his attempt, than he has already illustrated that he is literally clueless about the study of history and thus his ridiculous book is totally invalid.

If he is calling into question "the totality of past experience" he must be omniscient, because nobody could ever claim to know the totality of past experience. If this is his aim, than he again proves his insanity.

I don't have to go into his bullshit about Tacitus living during the Space Age because his crazy ass argument has already fallen. There is literally nobody that would take the other side of his argument, because nobody believes that a monolithic "chronology of human experience" actually exists.

Yes, I would like if the conversation stayed on the micro level

You mean like getting down and dirty over this author's wild claims, which encompass literally thousands of years of history? Sounds micro to me, chum...p.