FOREWORD OF À.Ò.FOMENKO
The present book is issued in a new edition, made by the author. It considerably differs from the previous ones. You see the first volume of the seven-volume book "Chronology" (the seven-volume is divided into14 books).
Volume 1. FIGURES AGAINST LIE. - A.T.Fomenko.
Volume 2. ANTIQUITY IS MIDDLE AGES. - A.T.Fomenko. Book 2. WE CHANGE DATES – EVERYTHING CHANGES. - A.T.Fomenko
Volume 3. Book 1: STARS TESTIFY. V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Book 2. CELESTIAL CALENDAR OF THE ANCIENTS - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko, T.N.Fomenko.
Volume 4. Book 1. NEW CHRONOLOGY OF RUSSIA. - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Book 2. THE MIRACLE OF RUSSIAN HISTORY - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko
Volume 5. Book 1. EMPIRE. - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Bookà 2. RISE OF THE TSARDOM. - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko
Volume 6. Book 1: BIBLICAL RUSSIA. - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Book 2: OPENING OF AMERICA BY RUSSIA-HORDE. - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Book 3: SEWEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko.
Volume 7. Book 1. WESTERN MYTH. - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Book 2. RUSSIAN ROOTS OF THE "ANCIENT" LATIN. - G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko, T.N.Fomenko
Why today we raise a question about the chronology of the Ancient times and propose to analyze it once again by means of new empirical-statistical methods? It is worth reminding that EARLIER, IN THE XVI-XVII CENTURIES, CHRONOLOGY WAS CONSIDERED A DEVISION OF MATHEMATICS. But later it moved to the competence of historians and today is considered as a field of historical knowledge, which is in general finished and requires only small clarifications, not touching the whole building of chronology in general. Nevertheless, it turns out, that the accepted today chronology of the Ancient times contains deep contradictions. That's why it is worth trying to understand the problem by means of modern statistical and astronomical methods.
It is often asked: why mathematicians got into this apparently purely historical problem?
An answer is the following. My main interests, as a professional mathematician, lie far from the problems of chronology and history. But in 1972-1973, studying one of the important questions of celestial mechanics, see chapter 2, I had to come across the dates of the ancient eclipses. The issue was about calculation of so called parameter D'' in the theory of movement of the Moon. It characterizes acceleration and is calculated as a function of time on a big historical interval. The calculations were done by a famous American astronomer and astrophysicist Robert Newton. He suddenly discovered that parameter D'' behaves in a very mysterious way. That is, makes an inexplicable jump to the epoch of the VIII-X centuries A.D. It is impossible to explain this jump based on modern gravitation theory. It is so incredible that Robert Newton had to invent mysterious "non-gravitational forces" in the system Earth-Moon. Well, they didn't express themselves in any other way, what was very strange.
This inexplicable fact interested me as a mathematician. Check of the work of R.Newton showed that his calculations were done on a high scientific level, there are no any mistakes. After this a discontinuity in graph D'' became much more inexplicable for me. Long thinking about this issue lead me to an idea to check THE ACCURACY OF DATINGS of those ancient eclipses, on which calculations of D' were based'. These dates in not an evident way lain in the fundament of calculations of R.Newton. As it later became clear, this thought turned out to be new for the scientists, earlier interested in this issue. Robert Newton, a famous specialist in astronavigation and theory of calculation of courses of celestial bodies and crafts, himself of course trusted in the ancient historical dates and tried to explain the discovered by him jump in the behavior of D'', not going out of the frames of his professional activity. That is, not putting a question about the authenticity of the ancient chronology. I was successful: it appeared, that a famous Russian scientist encyclopedist N.À.Morozov in his time, at the beginning of the XX century, analyzed the datings of the ancient eclipses and stated, that nearly all of them need revision. For many eclipses he proposed new dates, more close to us. Having taken his tables, I changed the accepted today dates of eclipses on "Morozov's ones" and repeated the calculations of R.Newton with these changed initial data. To my surprise, GRAPH D'' IMMIDIATELY RADICALLY CHANGED and turned into nearly horizontal main line. The same was predicted by a usual gravitation theory. THE MYSTERIOUS JUMP DISAPPEARED. In particular, the necessity to invent some fantastic "non-gravitational interactions" disappeared.
Together with satisfaction from successfully finished scientific work appeared an unexpected realization that a new serious question comes to the fore. Then how one can trust the accepted today chronology of the Ancient times?
From one side, the proposed by N.A.Morozov re-datings of many antique eclipses lead to smoothing of graph D'', removal of a strange contradiction in the celestial mechanics and to discovering absolutely natural picture of the behavior of one of the important parameters in the theory of the Moon movement.
From the other side, it was absolutely impossible to imagine that, for example, three antique eclipses, described by famous antique author Thucydides in his "History", took place actually not in the V century B.C., as it is considered today, but in the XI century A.D. or even in the XII century A.D. The issue is that for the "triad of Thucydides ",as appeared, only these two astronomical solutions exist, see chapter 2. Who is right: astronomy or accepted today chronology?
We had to address with this question to several famous historians. Including the historians of our Moscow state university. Their initial reaction was composedly polite (through time it became very annoyed). According to their words, there are no reasons to doubt in the generally accepted chronology. All the dates are long ago and reliably established. They are listed in any detailed textbook on the ancient history. And the fact that some graph D'' got its natural view after some re-calculations, based on awkward "new" chronology, is hardly interesting. And in general, better mathematicians would do mathematics and historians would do history. The same thought was told to me by a famous historian L.N.Gumilev. I didn't argue with him, as they avoided reading my first works on chronology.
I was not satisfied with the answer of historians.
First, because THE CHRONOLOGY, THAT IS THE PROBLEM OF CALCULATION OF THE DATES, IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE APPLIED MATHEMATICS. These are, in particular, astronomical calculations, estimation of their accuracy, calendar problems, decoding of the old signatures on the base of frequency characteristics of the texts etc. There are many not easy problems here.
Second, acquaintance with modern chronological tables rather quickly showed, that they give the ancient dates without any scientific proofs. Or, in the best case, refer to the first chronological lists, composed only in the XVI-XVII centuries. That is not long ago. Going deep into the topic, it was discovered, that the accepted today version of chronology was far not the only one. It appeared that already long ago famous scientists in different countries had spoken about the necessity of serious review of the ancient dates. It became clear, that the answer is not so easy, and in order to clarify this, much time and forces are needed. So in 1973 my active work in this direction started. Later some colleagues – professional mathematicians and physicians, mainly from the MSU, joined me.
The studies developed rather quickly. For the last years, starting from 1973, many things became clear, new extremely interesting results were received. They are published by me and my colleagues as in different books, so in scientific articles, listed in the literature. Our first publications on this topic appeared in 1980. Through time our point of view on some problems of chronology was changing. The changes didn't touch understanding of the whole picture in general, but in detail sometimes noticeable shifts took place.
The new mathematical methods of dating were for the first time created and published by me in several scientific articles, and then in the book "Methods of statistical analysis of narrative texts and applications to chronology. (Identification and dating of dependent texts, statistical ancient chronology, statistics of the ancient astronomical messages)". It was published in Moscow, in the publishing house of the MSU in 1990 and was reissued by the publishing house "Nauka" in 1996 in a widened and reviewed form, under the name "Methods of mathematical analysis of historical texts. Applications to chronology", Moscow, publishing house Nauka, 1996.
Some important results and new methods were received by me after 1981 together with an outstanding scientist, doctor of phisical-mathematical sciences, professor V.V.Kalashnikov (MSU and VNIISI - Scientific-Research Institute of System Researches, Russia, Moscow) and docent, candidate of physical-mathematical sciences G.V.Nosovskiy (mechanical-mathematical faculty of the MSU) – specialists in the theory of probabilities and mathematical statistics. Taking an occasion, I express my deep gratitude to V.V.Kalashnikov and G.V.Nosovskiy.
In 1981 my cooperation with G.V.Nosovskiy started. As a result we published with him several extremely important books on new chronology. In particular, exactly due to our joint work we managed to state the main features of the reconstruction of the ancient and medieval history.
It appeared that the created in the XVII century A.D. and accepted today version of history of the Ancient times contains big mistakes. Many outstanding scientists understood and discussed this during long period of time, see chapter 1. But it turned out to be a very difficult task to build a new, non-contradictory concept of the history.
Important studies in chronology were done together with the doctor of physical-mathematical sciences T.N.Fomenko. For example, dating of the ancient zodiacs with astronomical methods and analysis of the history of the battle of Kulikovo. T.N.Fomenko is a co-author of our books "Celestial calendar of the ancient", <<Russian roots of "ancient" Latin>>, and also "where are you, Kulikovo field?"
So, starting from 1973 I studied this problem together with a group of mathematicians, mainly from the Moscow State University. Interesting results were received, which were published both in scientific periodical press (several tens of scientific articles), so as separate monographs. Our new chronology is based, first of all, on the analysis of historical sources WITHT THE METHODS OF MODERN STATISTICS and on wide COMPUTER CALCULATIONS.
The task of IDENTIFICATION OF DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT TEXTS is actually the task of identification of images. It is met in the most different fields of knowledge: in applied statistics, linguistics, physics, genetics, historical source studies etc. For example, applicably to source studies it is interesting to find out DEPENDENT chronicles, that is going up to COMMON PRIMARY SOURCE, resting on a common original (which, probably, didn't reach our time). From the other side it is useful to know, which chronicles were INDEPENDENT, resting on considerably different primary sources.
A notion of the text itself could be rather broadly interpreted. Text could be a sequence of symbols, signals, codes of any nature. For example, a sequence of gene-codes in the DNA chains. A general task of the search of dependent texts is stated like this. It is necessary to find in a long sequence of signals "similar parts", that is fragments of the text, repeating, duplicating each other.
Today many methods of identification of dependencies, "similar images" are known. We propose new empirical-statistical methods. They are useful both for the analysis of historical chronicles, archive data, so for the search of so called homological fragments in the texts of more general nature.
There are several topics in the present book. I tried to separate the clearly stated statistical facts from suppositions. At the same time, separation of the book for topics is conventional, they are closely bound.
The problem of statistical identification of dependent and independent historical texts is solved. New statistical models and suppositions were stated by me. They are checked on a huge material, taken out from the chronicles. It appeared that the proposed models are in general confirmed. Interesting regularities are found, which manage the evolution of written information in time, that is – what happens with chronicles data during rewriting, editing etc. DISCOVERING THESE REGULARITIES IS THE FIRST MAIN RESULT.
Based on the discovered regularities new methods of dating of events, described in the chronicles, are proposed. For this the studied chronicles and documents are statistically compared with the chronicles, dating of events in which doesn't cause doubts. The methods are checked on a wide authentically dated material. It turns out that their application to chronicles, describing the events of the epoch of the XVII-XX centuries A.D. confirms the efficiency of the methods. In particular, the received by us datings agree with the dates, known earlier and established with other methods. At the interval of the XVII-XX centuries A.D. the BEFOREHAND DEPENDENT chronicles turn out to be STATISTICALLY DEPENDENT also from the point of our methods. And the BEFOREHAND INDEPENDENT chronicles turn out to be STATISTICALLY DEPENDENT also in our sense.
During analysis of reliably dated chronicles, describing the events of the XVII-XX centuries A.D., it was discovered (in 1974-1979), that natural numerical coefficients exist, which reliably separate the pairs of BEFOREHAND DEPENDENT chronicles from the pairs of BEFOREHAND INDEPENDENT chronicles. Roughly speaking, for beforehand dependent chronicles these numbers are rather small, and for beforehand independent – rather big. So, comparing a random pair of chronicles, we now can learn – if the value of their "closeness coefficient" enters the area of values for dependent chronicles, or in the area of values. Typical for independent chronicles. Of course, the zones borders are drawn by experiment.
The discovered hidden dependencies, managing the evolution of information in rather big chronicles, development and experimental check of new methods of dating (at the moment there are eight of them) – is the SECOND MAIN RESULT of the work. The datings, received by means of our methods, don't claim for being final ones. At the same time the discovered by us at the interval of the XVII-XX centuries A.D. coordination of the "statistical dates" with the earlier known indicates an objective character of our results.
It could be called CRITICAL. We analyze the accepted today datings of the events of the ancient and medieval Europe, Asia, Mediterranean, Egypt, America. Here is collected the material, scattered in scientific literature, known to specialists of different specializations, but OFTEN NOT WELL-KNOWN. It demonstrates serious difficulties, which take place now in the chronology of earlier than XVII century A.D.
We inform the reader about fundamental studies of an outstanding Russian scientist-encyclopedist Nikolay Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946), an honored member of the AS USSR, who for the first time stated in the full volume the problem of natural scientific proof of the chronology, collected a huge critical material and stated challenging suppositions.
We will also tell about chronological studies of Isaak Newton, who put into doubt many dates of the ancient events, and also about other famous representatives of the critical direction in history and chronology. We give the floor to big specialists in archeology, source study, numismatics. Often we quote the opinions of famous scientists, compare different points of view, in order the reader could create his own opinion about the touched problems.
The main application of new empirical-statistical methods is calculation of the dates of ancient events. That's why we had to analyze where possible all the remained until our time chronological versions. The issue is that the ancient and medieval chronicles often seriously differ in the datings of many important events. Studying this variety of medieval opinions, we pay special attention to the versions, fixed in the chronicles of the XV-XVI centuries A.D. The issue is that the chronologists of that epoch were closer in time to the described by them events, than we. Later versions of the XVII-XX centuries often represent a result of already secondary processing, befogging and seriously distorting the initial medieval point of view.
Starting from the XVI-XVII centuries A.D. a version of chronology, created in the works of famous medieval chronologists J.Scaliger and D.Petavius, "indurates". The accepted today chronological scale mainly coincides with the point of Scaliger and Petavius. Based on this we will conventionally speak about the SCALIGERIAN CHRONOLOGY and call the accepted today datings - SCALIGERIAN.
We suppose that the reader is more or less aware of the accepted today, - actually the Scaligerian, - ideas of chronology, received at school or university. That's why we don't tell in detail the Scaligerian concept, considering it to be well-known. The main attention will be paid to the discovered inside it difficulties. Next, we shortly analyze traditional methods of dating: by historical sources, archeological dating, numismatic, radiocarbon, dendrochronology etc. It is useful, in order the reader could himself estimate the reliability and accuracy of these methods, the frames of their applicability.
In 1975-1979 I built an extensive table, conventionally called a GLOBAL CHRONOLOGICAL MAP, shortly GCM. It could be considered as a rather full "Scaligerian textbook" on the ancient and medieval history. Along the horizontal axis of time all the main events of the Ancient times with their Scaligerian dates (accepted today), lists of the main historical personages etc. were placed. All the main primary sources, kept until our time and telling about the events of that period were listed for each epoch. The resulting chronological map contains tens of thousands of names and dates. It occupied an area of several tens of square meters and turned out to be an irreplaceable encyclopedia and guide on the modern (actually Scaligerian) structure of the ancient and medieval chronology. Due to big amount of material, GCM was included into by books "Figures against Lie", "Antiquity is Middle Ages" and "Changing dates-changes everything" with reductions, as short tables and graphs.
To the material, collected on a chronological map, in 1974-1979 I applied new empirical-mathematical methods of dating. Different pairs of historical epochs were considered together with the main their primary sources. These chronicles were statistically processed and then compared by pairs. Coefficients of the closeness of historical texts were calculated.
If such coefficient for two chronicles Õ and Y turned out to be the same in the order of magnitude, as of the beforehand dependent chronicles from the authentic epoch of the XVII-XX centuries A.D., than chronicles Õ and Y (and corresponding to them historical epochs on the Scaligerian chronological map) we called STATISTICALLY DEPENDENT. Such epochs, that are periods of time, were marked with the same symbols on our map. Let's say, with the same letter Ð. The symbols were chosen randomly.
If the coefficient (measure) of the closeness of chronicles Õ and Y turned out to be THE SAME in the order of magnitude, as of the beforehand independent chronicles from the authentic epoch of the XVII-XX centuries A.D., than chronicles Õ and Y we called STATISTICALLY INDEPENDENT. In such case such historical epochs were marked on the global map with different symbols. For example, with letters Í and Ñ.
In the Scaligerian "textbook on history" many pairs of statistically dependent chronicles (and corresponding epochs) were found out. Such chronicles, and described in them streams of events, we called STATISTICAL DUPLICATES, REPEATS.
It appeared that the results of application of different empirical-statistical methods are well agreed. That is, if some pair of chronicles turned out to be "statistically similar" according to one method, then it also turned out to be "statistically similar" also from the point of other methods (if, of course, they are applicable to these chronicles). Such agreement is very important.
Next, it is important that at the interval of the XVII-XX centuries A.D. our methods didn't discover any unexpected duplicates that are chronicles, dependence of which was not known earlier.
At the same time, earlier the XVII century A.D., and especially earlier the XI century A.D., the same methods unexpectedly discovered many statistically similar, close chronicles (duplicates), which were earlier considered independent in all the senses and related by modern historians to the different epochs now.
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL MAP (IN THE SCAALIGERIAN DATINGS) AND DISCOVERING DUPLICATES (REPEATS) IN IT – THE THIRD MAIN RESULT OF THE BOOK.
THE FOURTH MAIN RESULT IS THE DISCOVERED BY ME IN 1978 DECOMPOSITION (BREAK-UP) OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL MAP IN THE SUM OF FOUR LAYERS-CHRONICLES. Besides, they turned out to be nearly identic, but moved relatively each other on considerable time periods. Each such layer could be considered as a "short chronicle". Seriously rusticating the picture, one can say, that the MODERN SCALIGERIAN TEXTBOOK ON THE ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL HISTORY IS A SUM, GLUING OF FOUR COPIES OF THE SAME SHORT CHRONICLE.
Critics of the Scaligerian chronology and description of the listed four results – this is the main part of the present book. Other its sections sometimes bear hypothetical character. Here an answer on a naturally appearing question is proposed: what all the discovered by us "repeats in the history" mean? What was the history "in fact"?
We state suppositions about the reasons of the appearance of duplicates in the "Scaligerian textbook of history". This material is not considered by us as the final. The proposed "textbook of the shortcut history" doesn't yet pretend for the completeness. Here a hard work of many specialists of different profiles is required. Probably, even of scientific-research institutes.
* * *
The position of the author on many questions, touched in the books "Figures against Lie", "Antiquity is the Middle Ages", "Changing dates – everything changes" formed during many discussions with the scientists of different specialties, but first of all – with colleagues mathematicians. In particular, the proposed by me new statistical models and results were reported and discussed in different years in the following scientific societies.
On the 3rd and 4th International Vilnius conferences on the theory of probabilities and mathematical statistics in 1981 and 1985.
On the First International congress of the Society of mathematical statistics and theory of probabilities n.a. Bernoulli in 1986 in Tashkent.
On the seminar "Multidimensional statistical analysis and stochastic modeling of the real processes" under the supervision of professor S.À.Ayvazyan in CEMI (Central economical-mathematical institute of the AS USSR).
Many times – on the All-Union seminars on the problems of continuity and steadiness of stochastic models, headed by prof. V.Ì.Zolotarev (Institute of mathematics n.a. V.A.Steklov of the RAS) and prof. V.V.Kalashnikov (VNIISI – All-Union scientific-research institute of system studies).
Many times on the seminar "Managed processes and martingales", headed by prof. A.N.Siryaev (Institute of mathematics n.a. V.A.Steklov of the RAS) and prof. N.V.Krylov (mech.-mat. fac MSU, now works in the USA).
On the seminar of academician V.S.Vladimirov in mathematical institute of the RAS n.a. V.À.Steklov.
On the seminar of academician Î.À.Oleynik on the mechanical-mathematical faculty of the MSU.
On the seminar of academician À.À.Samarskiy in the All-Union center of mathematical modeling.
The author is grateful to all the listeners and participants of discussions.
The author expresses gratitude to academician E.P.Velikhov, academician V.S.Vladimirov, academician Yu.V.Prokhorov, academician I.M.Makarov, academician S.M.Nikolskiy, academician I.D.Kovalchenko, academician À.À.Samarinskiy, academician V.V.Kozlov, correspondent member S.V.Yablonskiy for the rendered assistance and support.
A bigger incentive for the work was discussion with colleagues-mathematicians, and also mechanics, physicians, chemists, historians. First of all these were scientists of the MSU:
prof. V.V.Alexandrov, prof. V.V.Belokurov, prof. N.V.Brandt, Candidate of Physical-Mathematical Sciences M.I.Grinchuk, prof. V.G.Demin, prof. N.N.Kolesnikov, prof. N.V.Krylov, prof. À.S.Mishchenko, prof. Å.Ì.Nikishin, prof. Ì.Ì.Postnikov, prof. Yu.P.Soloviyev, prof. Ya.V.Tatarinov, prof. V.i.Trukhin, prof. V.À.Uspenskiy, prof. Å.V.Chepurin.
And also employees of the Institute of mathematics n.a. V.À.Steklov of the RAS: prof. V.Ì.Zolotarev, correspondent member of the RAS prof. À.N.Shiryaev, employees of the VNIISI RAS prof.V.V.Kalashnikov, prof. V.V.Fedorov, employee of TcEMI prof. Yu.M.Kabanov, employee of IPPI RAS (All Union scientific-research institute of the problems of transmission of information) prof. À.V.Chernavskiy, employee of the Moscow institute of oil and gas prof. I.A.Volodin.
The author expresses sincere gratitude to all of them.
The author is grateful to S.N.Gonshorek for the rendered cooperation and support.
In different time in the project of New Chronology participated and participate the most different scientists and representatives of different fields of knowledge. Among them: V.V.Bandurkin, prof. D.Blagoevich (Yugoslavia, Belgrade, Belgrade university), Candidate of Physical-Mathematical Sciences B.Å.Brodskiy, N.Gostev, Candidate of Physical-Mathematical Sciences M.I.Grichuk, prof. V.D.Gruba, prof. I.V.Davidenko, prof. B.S.Darkhovskiy, D.V.Denisenko, Å.À.Eliseev, I.E.Kalinichenko, Candidate of Physical-Mathematical Sciences N.S.Kellin, i.I.Kurinnoy, prof. À.Lipovskiy (Yugoslavia, Belgrade, Belgrade university), prof. À.S.Mishchenko, N.À.Milyakh, prof. Å.Ì.Nikishin, À.À.Onishenko, Ì.Å.Polyakov, prof. Ì.Ì.Postnikov, Å.N.Sergienko, S.À.Suzdaleva, V.V.Sundakov, prof. Jordan Tabov (Bulgaria, Sofia, institute of mathematics of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), Yu.N.Torkhov, Doctor of Physical-Mathematical Sciences Ò.N.Fomenko, V.P.Fomenko, candidate of technical sciences T.G.Fomenko, G.À.Khrustalev, T.G.Chernienko, Yu.S.Chernyshov.
The author is also grateful to prof. V.K.Abalakin, V.V.Bandurkin, prof. Å.Ya.Gabovich, prof. Ì.I.Grossman, prof. R.L.Dobrushin, prof. À.Î.Ivanov, prof. Yu.Ì.Lotman, candidate of historical sciences S.A.Pustovoyt, prof. À.À.Tuzhilina for useful discussions and valuable observations.
I express gratitude to professor of the Technical university of Vienna (Austria) Peter Gruber for his help in our work.
The author is grateful for the help in statistical processing of the primary sources N.S.Kellin, P.A.Puchkov, M.Zamaletdinov, À.À.Makarov, N.G.Chebotarev, E.T.Kuzmenko, V.V.Bashe, B.A.Zilbergof, M.Yu.Shtein, V.P.Fomenko, candidate of technical sciences T.G.Fomenko, Doctor of Physical-Mathematical Sciences Ò.N.Fomenko.
Big help in the composing of algorithms, programs and statistical processing of the material on computers in different times rendered also Candidate of Physical-Mathematical Sciences N.Ya.Rives, Candidate of Physical-Mathematical Sciences I.S.Shiganov, Candidate of Physical-Mathematical Sciences S.Yu.Zholov, À.V.Kolbasov.
The author is grateful to Ò.G.Zakharov – director of the museum of N.À.Morozov (at the Institute of biology of the domestic waters of the RAS), all the employees of the museum and V.B.Biryukov for help in study of the archive materials, related to the scientific activity of N.À.Morozov.
Starting from 1998 a number of specialists from other fields of knowledge actively entered the discussion of new chronology.
In 1999-2001 in several speeches in press and on TV the World champion in chess G.K.Kasparov supported the critical part of new chronology, for this I am grateful to him. (Further he negatively spoke about the reconstruction of the history, coming from the new chronology).
I am grateful to an outstanding writer, logician and sociologist, professor of the MSU À.À.Zinovyev, and also members of his family for active support and fruitful discussions.
I am grateful to professor, academician of MANEB M.Kh.Myusin, merited worker of oil and gas industry of the RF, and members of his family, who participated in the project "New chronology".
Special gratitude to V.A.Rudnikov, who actively supported our studies and made a big contribution both in the development and in the promotion of the ideas of New Chronology.
Much was done for the development of the project by economist À.V.Podoynitsyn.
Big gratitude to the doctor of geological-mineralogical sciences, professor I.V.Davidenko.
The author is grateful to the dean of philological faculty of the Moscow state university, professor M.L.Remneva for the proposal to read a special course on the problems of chronology and new mathematical methods in history and linguistics. Such course was read by me and G.V.Nosovskiy on the philological faculty of the MSU in 1998. We are grateful to professor of the philological faculty À.A.Polikarpov, the head of the laboratory of computer methods in linguistics for help in organization of this course.
Deep gratitude to radio station "Svobodnaya Rossiya" (Moscow), which rendered informational support to the project "New chronology" in 1998-1999 as a big series of weekly specialized radio programs, devoted to our studies. Y.S.Chernishov brilliantly hosted these programs. In 2001 the second cycle of these programs started.
I am grateful to À.V.Nerlinskiy. In a great measure due to him some of our important books on chronology were published. Participation of À.V.Nerlinskiy in the first edition of the seven volume book "Chronology" ("First Canon") in the publishing house RIMIS (Moscow) hardly could be overestimated.
Big gratitude to the publishing house Astrel (AST) for huge work on publication of considerably reviewed and improved variant of the seven volume book "Chronology", divided now into fourteen books. First of all I am grateful to director Yu.V.Deykalo, head of the editorial board I.N.Arkharova, editor A.L.Gerasimova, specialist in computer page proof I.G.Denisova.
In difficult studies on chronology tens of other people also helped me. I am deeply thankful to all of them.
Special and warmest gratitude to my parents Valentina Polikarpovna Fomenko, Timofey Grigorievich Fomenko and my wife, mathematician, doctor of physical-mathematical sciencesTatyana Nikolaevna Fomenko for huge and invaluable help in processing of statistical materials, for co-authorship in development of the concept of New Chronology and for constant support in all the years of rather difficult and stormy development of this new science.
Moscow, Lomonosov Moscow state university