The Lost Millennium, can our historical dates really be that far off?
I’m eagerly awaiting the opportunity to read a library copy of University of Victoria professor Florin Diacu’s The Lost Millennium: History’s Timetables Under Siege, which critically and chiefly from a mathematical perspective examines the controversial theory of Russian mathematician Anatoli T. Fomenko and his colleagues that we are not living in 2005, but in a much, much earlier year. Though I haven’t been able to trace it in a bibliographic database, which I believe appeared in 2000 based on an online citation in a thesis, I remember reading the same article in Saturday Night Dr. Diacu read and felt myself on the side of the so-called traditionalists. I mean, our historical dates are likely off, but by a thousand years?
For another review of Fomenko and his collaborators’ work see “New Applications
of Mathematics: Investigation of the Correctness of the Historical Dating” by Petr P. Zabreiko and Wieslaw Krawcewicz (no date, but 1999 or later; http://www.jesus1053.com/l2-wahl/l2-autoren/l3-alle/chronology.pdf)
Update for 02006 03 09:
I finished reading The Lost Millennium a couple of days ago. Like Dr. Diacu, I was not convinced by any of Fomenko’s historical analyses of either astronomical data or historical sources. I got the feeling that Fomenko, once he had what he felt was success with one analysis, started interpreting his data to make it fit his theory. Dr. Diacu points out that even Fomenko’s interpretation of such astronomical observations as the eclipse described by Thucydides and used the date the Peloponnesian War were based educated guesses, basically, having to hypothesize about why Thucydides described the eclipse as he did.
As far as the overlapping dynasties and repetitions go, it’s interesting that even though we have almost a thousand years of fairly well-documented English history and English monarchs who, so far as we know were not overlapping but successive beginning with William the Conqueror in 1066 AD, I don’t recall Dr. Diacu mentioning this long stretch of history. England also interacted with parts of Europe and the Middle East during the last 500 years or so of the Middle Ages before the start of the Renaissance. England was also occupied by Imperial Rome, an occupation that ended, so say the traditional historians, in the 5th century AD (400s). So what we’re down to is around 600 years between then and the Battle of Hastings.
Since he discussed Fomenko’s blunders with linguistic analyses the Russian used to bolster his case, I can’t resist pointing out what I view as a a classic blunder in an interview of Dr. Diacu in the March 02006 issue of Focus, a Victoria magazine. He seems unware of this thousand-year span of unbroken and unquestionable English history, stating that “The last five to six hunded years are fine. Nobody’s questioning that. For them we have enough evidence. But everything before that is questionable.”
Is this true, that nothing prior to 600 years ago is trustworthy? Yes, we have solid evidence for 500 years of history from 1992 back to 1492 when Columbus sailed the ocean blue to the New World. And yet for England itself we can go back even further from 1492 to 1066 when the Normans invaded and conquered England at the Battle of Hastings, a total of 940 years from today back to 1066. Curiously too, one important astronomical observation that has not been challenged, so far as I remember, is that of Halley’s Comet which appeared during the Battle of Hastings and was recorded in the Bayeux Tapestry.
Interestingly enough too, in a special edition of Scientifc American on the subject of time, an article by William J.H. Andrews, “A Chronicle of Timekeeping”, notes that the “earliest recorded weight-driven mechanical clock was installed in 1283 at Dunstable Priory in Bedfordshire, England.” Which was 723 years ago.
So if we’re indeed missing a thousand years somewhere, which I believe is possible, it’s likely in a much earlier era, and definitely not in the last thousand years.
I am totally facinated. This could be one of the biggest stories in the last 500 years, or else it could be a great bust. I hope academicians will at least take it seriously enough to prove beyond doubt if the traditional chronologies are right.
I think there may be some leeway for shorter time periods in the 900 BC – 1200 BC timeframe
as argued by author Peter James et al in “Centuries of Darkness”, published in the early 1990
’s. This would shorten the ancient chronology for Egypt and Greece, and somewhat eliminate
their dark ages before the time of Homer.
My opinion is that a chronological error of any magnitude is the most critical factor of human development. If our biological clocks are off by even seconds much less millenia serious reprecussions ensue. Implementation of the Gregorian calendar should be highly suspect judging from the history of Catholic Church since inceptiion.
Timing is all we have and if that is off by an iota humankind will not achieve full development. Forget about making $$$$ and writing books that will do only that. Write for humanity. Pb
Thanks for your comment Gary. The Russian mathematician and his circle are not arguing about lost biological time, Yes, I agree that the timing of biological processes is critical for our continuing functioning as healthy beings, but it simply has no bearing on this particular question of whether the various calendars humans have invented over the centuries are missing a thousand years or so.
You may read my long but still unfinished review on the book of F.Diacu and Fomenko’s theory here:
http://astrohist.livejournal.com/2008/02/