From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject History of Science  
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Time    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Time, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Greece (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Time assessment rating[edit]

I just signed up for WikiProject Time a little while ago (19:33, 2 January 2008 to be exact), but I think this High-importance article needs a serious overhaul, so I'm rating it Start. I rewrote the opening, but Chronology and most related articles need to become more encyclopedic. I intend to work up a comprehensive template in the next couple of days to get the ball rolling. -- Yamara 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

separate article[edit]

It seems to me that this deserves an article of its own, in fact that this is the right place to describe the current state of knowledge of general chronology, and to free the Egyptian chronology page to describe the state of Egyptian chronology. Andrewa 23:44 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK, I've made a start. Needs a lot more work and research obviously! Andrewa 00:46 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) --- Echoing silence. A chronology page that starts with Fomenko is not a promising stub, apparently.Wetman 19:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

moved section to Talk[edit]

During the 20th century, many previously accepted conclusions of historical chronology were questioned and revised, both by the introduction of new techniques, by new discoveries, and by claims that not all was well even in the original analysis of existing material. Thus at the start of the 21st century, the chronologies of ancient civilisations in particular were in a state of some controversy. For example, Russian member of Academy of sciences Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko has been very popular lately in Russia with his theory of New Chronology of Russia and Europe.

This is really awful POV. Fomenko's theories are not a "controversy" in the science of chronology. Professional historians almost to the last person regard him as a crackpot and ignore him. Selling popular books in Russia counts for nothing, since Russian historians treat him with the same disdain as Western historians do. Scientific theories are not judged by the number of books sold to the public, otherwise alien abductions and hidden codes in the Bible would be up there with particle physics. --Zero 00:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though I absolutely agree with Zero personally, there should be a non-committal hyperlinked reference in the article to the so-called "New Chronology". It isn't good policy to suppress all mention, even of what I'd agree is pop zaniness. A good quote from a mainstream historian? Hard to find, maybe... --Wetman 00:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


While this is an excellent short article on chronology and the study of events in time, I think the presentation of events in time (A timeline) deserves its own article. Elijahmeeks 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

'American technique of seriation'[edit]

This does not follow from the seriation (archaeology) page, where Swedish archaeologist Oscar Montelius is credited with its development. I am not completely sure which is correct, so I have not edited the page. Does anyone know which is correct? --hAl 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree with u but i dont understand the information shown in the history section if only they could give instructions on how to read the info:(.

Even were the method to have been developed by US archaeologists, it still shouldn't be listed as an 'American technique'. Many other methods have been developed in various countries for various things, and they aren't always prefaced as 'Swedish methods' 'Russian methods' 'Spanish methods', and so on unless there is a good reason why they are particular to a country. I have changed the words. Ephemera (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


The caption to the picture at the top of the article is unclear. Could someone who understands it please expand and clarify it? Thanks. YechielMan 06:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Time assessment[edit]

It's still a mess in there, but I'm slowly kicking out the riff-raff, and letting in the quality. Of writing and editing, that is. -- Yamara 06:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi I LIKE THIS ARTICULE ITS NICE —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology formerly part of mathematics[edit]

As late as in the 17th century chronology was considered a sub-division of [[mathematics]].<ref>{{Cite book |author= [[Anatoly Fomenko|Fomenko, Anatoly]] |title= History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 1 |chapter= Preface by Anatoly N. Fomenko |publisher= Delamere Publishing |location= [[Douglas, Isle of Man]] |year= 2003 |page= xxii |isbn= 2-913621-05-8 }}</ref>

The above text was removed in this edit with the edit summary: "Fomenko is not a reliable source for anything but his own and possibly related work - I can't find a source for this so I'm removing it". I suggest an effort be exerted to attempt to verify this claim using sources independent of Fomenko. __meco (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I put some effort in and failed, hopefully someone else can. I think the effort should be first to show it was considered a sub-division of mathematics, the 17th c claim isn't as important. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
It's funny how libraries across the world abound in old books, however, we seem to be utterly lost when it comes to using them for this encyclopedia-building effort. __meco (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

SFQHV FTHRGH2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)