[HN Gopher] Forgeries, Fakes, and Phantom Time
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Forgeries, Fakes, and Phantom Time
        
       Author : samclemens
       Score  : 36 points
       Date   : 2025-01-30 18:42 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.historytoday.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.historytoday.com)
        
       | andrewla wrote:
       | Fomenko's theories, mentioned in the article, are pretty
       | fascinating. I love the romance of the idea that history is all
       | wrong and that everything was made up at a variety of chokepoints
       | around literacy and access to original documents.
       | 
       | Fundamentally it seems implausible (extraordinary claims
       | requiring extraordinary evidence and all) but it's fun to read
       | about, although I have not braved his actual writings to get
       | context (I do, oddly, have a couple of mathematical textbooks
       | that he wrote, however).
       | 
       | The most interesting thing that I saw was his critique of
       | carbon-14 dating. And while I don't concede the central point, it
       | led me down a rabbit hole of realizing that carbon dating is a
       | lot more complex and rule-of-thumb driven than I would have
       | thought, because in the end it relies upon historic atmospheric
       | C14/C12 ratios that we mostly have good information on from ...
       | radiocarbon dating on artifacts of known provenance. That's not
       | the entirety of the story but it was surprising to me that
       | something that is so often thrown out as an example of formal
       | scientific methods in history is so heuristic and complex, rather
       | than a simple application of math and physics.
        
         | cwmma wrote:
         | I'm pretty sure it's mostly tree rings that they use to
         | calibrate it since they are pretty much perfect for it as each
         | ring absorbs carbon for a single year and then stops so you get
         | a two for one of basically a stack of samples each for a
         | different year covering a broad span of time.
        
           | louky wrote:
           | Dendrochronology (dating cut trees via counting
           | rings/size/ratios) has its own subjective interpretations,
           | and different databases that don't always line up.
        
           | andrewla wrote:
           | In the early days of radiocarbon dating these were pretty
           | much the exclusive source of calibration curves (since the
           | coverage is so comprehensive). There were many problems
           | encountered through this that led us to using a combination
           | of different heuristics.
           | 
           | Primary among those considerations was that the
           | dendrochronology record is of pretty limited timeframes -- we
           | have very few samples going back more than a couple of
           | hundred years.
           | 
           | And the study of carbon-14/12 ratios in dendrochronology led
           | to deeper questions: there appears to be a significant
           | geographic variation; the change in c14/12 ratio is non-
           | monotonic (i.e. there are times of sufficiently increased
           | historical C14 that samples from that era are
           | indistinguishable from samples in a later era).
           | 
           | This has led to a ton of research into calibration
           | methodologies, leaving many questions that are still open
           | today.
        
       | flanked-evergl wrote:
       | This is entirely unplausible. We have a heck of a lot of
       | arachnology refuting this theory.
        
         | cormorant wrote:
         | The spiders reveal the truth.
        
           | flanked-evergl wrote:
           | They never lie, they are too dumb to lie!
        
         | snapcaster wrote:
         | Tried to google for this and wasn't able to figure out what
         | you're referencing. Can you say more?
        
           | cormorant wrote:
           | I assume it was a typo/autocorrect for "archaeology".
        
             | snapcaster wrote:
             | haha i thought so? but then was like "maybe there is some
             | method of using arachnid fossils to establish dates" or
             | something crazy like that
        
             | flanked-evergl wrote:
             | Indeed, my appologies.
        
       | janice1999 wrote:
       | If people are interested in this type of conspiracy theory /
       | pseudo history, another one I find fascinating is the "Lost
       | Empire" of Tartaria [1].
       | 
       | [1] https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/what-is-the-
       | lo...
        
         | andrewla wrote:
         | This might be related to or be an offshoot of Fomenko's
         | alternate history? One of the tangents in his theory, as I
         | understand it, is that there was a large pseudo-Russian or
         | proto-Russian empire that has largely been erased but was
         | incredibly influential and was mingled into every aspect of
         | antiquity -- basically the idea is that every empire pre-1000AD
         | in the western world was the same empire.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-02-03 23:02 UTC)