In the magazine "Priroda", 1997, No.2, pp.70-74, an article of S.P.Novikov was published: "Mathematicians and history". The article is negative. There are no any definite arguments. The author expresses his disagreement with our works. An attempt to put labels on us is done. But the article doesn't serve as review of our works, it is of memorial character. About himself, about his meetings, about his relation to different people. The main content of the article is emotions.
А.Т. Fomenko sent an answer to the magazine "Priroda". According to the request of the chief editor academician А.F.Andreev the reply was rewritten several times, but finally was not published. Below is the last variant, which was sent to the editor's office of "Priroda".
To the chief editor of the magazine "Priroda"
Dear Alexander Fedorovich!
According to your desire I prepared a third variant of the article, devoted to the problems of chronology. I maximally tried to take into account all your wishes. I kindly ask to publish my reply in your magazine. At the moment you have already three variants of my reply on critical articles to my address in your magazine. The editorial team can choose any of them for publication.
August 11, 1997
PROBLEMS OF CHRONOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT TIMES
Academician А.Т. Fomenko
In volume 2 of the magazine "Priroda" of 1997 there were articles, in which achieved by me and my co-authors scientific results on mathematical chronology were discussed. These articles, containing in particular loud statements like: "Fomenko run to give explanations to CC" (S.P.Novikov), producing strange impression on the pages of respected academic magazine, in a deformed way describe the content of our books on new chronology and reconstruction of the Russian history. Moreover, using wrong statements a wrong picture of general conclusion is presented to readers: "attempts to rewrite chronology of the last two millenniums have no relation to science" (p.76).
With this not only the names of our already printed scientific books on new mathematical chronology, but also the fact of existence of several tens of articles on this topic in scientific magazines is not mentioned. Isn't it for the purpose that a reader couldn't check and understand himself, what is the core of the issue and had to judge it just based on the critical articles, published in this issue of the magazine?
In short it is clear, what is the issue. The purpose of scientific project, which we shortly call "new chronology", is creation of reliable independent methods of dating of the ancient and medieval events. It is a difficult scientific problem, solution of which required use of thin methods of modern mathematics and vast computer calculations. Although this activity is not the main for us (our professional interests lie in the fields of pure and applied mathematics), it required much of our time and efforts. Articles on this subject are published in scientific magazines since 1970s. Starting from 1990 the books are issued. By the moment eight monographs on this subject are published by us in Russia and two abroad. So our works on new chronology are published in scientific editions already for more than 20 years, although they are probably not well known for a general reader.
One of the main results of new chronology is independent dating of a famous star catalogue of Ptolemy, placed in Almagest. It appeared that investigations, collected in the catalog, were made not in the second century of the Common Era, as Scaliger and Petavius thought, but around one thousand years later [а1], [а2]. A precise mathematical result is that the investigations were made between 600 and 1300 years of the Common Era. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the dating of Almagest for chronology. It is enough to say that new dating of the star catalogue of Almagest entails redating of the entire layers of the ancient and medieval history.
We will shortly tell about this interesting scientific problem. For many years dating of the ancient events was interesting for scientist and caused disputes among them. The problem became especially severe after publication by I.Scaliger and D.Petavius in the XVI-XVII centuries of their version of the global history. It lies in the base of the accepted today version of chronology. A few ancient documents reached us in their initial state and that's why attempts to determine the time of one or another event, as a rule, are based on different allowances. Cases, when somebody manages to use a strict and, moreover, a mathematical method for such purpose is rather rare and hence is especially interesting. One of them is Almagest, containing catalogue of around 1000 stars. The Scaligerian chronology prescribes Almagest to the ancient astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (around 90 - 160 A.D.). But already for a long time in the history of astronomy there is a question, if Hipparch, who lived, as considered, in the II century B.C., could be a real author of the star catalogue (and probably of other parts of the book)?
Today it is considered that Ptolemy was the last great antique astronomer. After him "darkness" in the history of astronomy came and only in the VIII-IX centuries A.D. interest to astronomy awoke again, but that time among Arabians. They translated Almagest. Greek and Latin texts of Almagest, which reached us, are considered today to be translations from Arabian. The earliest manuscripts of Almagest relate to the IX century (Arabian variant).
Of course we would like to discover a real date of its creation. A famous American astronomer Robert Newton in his book "Crime of Claudius Ptolemy" [а3] had to call Ptolemy "the most successful fraud in the history of science". Such statement is based on a thorough analysis of numerical material, contained in Almagest. R.Newton found that much "observational information", provided in Almagest, in reality is just a result of later calculations back to the past based on astronomical theory of Ptolemy. And the results of theoretical calculations were then intentionally included into Almagest allegedly like "real observations". Nevertheless R.Newton doesn't leave in doubt the Scaligerian date of the catalogue. But, for example, a great Russian scientist-encyclopedist N.А.Morozov in his multivolume work "Christ" (1924-1932) stated a supposition about considerably later period of writing of Almagest, which was rather convincingly reasoned.
Having addressed to the problem of dating of Almagest, we first took only its star catalogue and applied mathematical methods to it. There were no any limits for a searched data in advance and it was just a priory supposed, that it lies between 600 B.C. and 1800 A.D.
In the star catalogues, both ancient and modern, it is accepted that the stars are placed on imaginary celestial sphere of long radius. Mobile stars move around it and immobile ones are fixed. By the way, this is just a conventional immobility: simply the speed of the "standing" stars is small (ancient people thought that all stars were immobile). In order to fix the state of the stars different spherical coordinates are used. More often than others eclipsetic (we find it in Almagest) and equatorial (modern catalogues) systems are used. As planes of ecliptic and equator change their position through time, both systems appear to be variable.
It seems natural to date the catalogue like this: based on the modern states of the placed in it stars calculate where they should have been in different years in the past (such calculation is made today with big accuracy according to modern astronomical data taking into account the own movement of stars) and compare the found coordinates with those placed in Almagest. Probably the catalogue was composed on that time interval, where the best agreement between both groups of values had been found.
But obstacles appear on the way of such comparison.
First of all it is necessary to understand "who is who". Otherwise speaking, it is necessary to identify each star of Almagest with any of the observed today stars. A priori it is absolutely not clear if the result will be one-valued. The stars move around the roof of heaven and in different epochs may occupy different positions, corresponding to different stars of the catalogue. If one of the possible identifications is preferred in such situation, it will be equal to random choice of dating. Subjective identification will lead to the same subjective dating.
Next, coordinates of the stars in Almagest contain mistakes, sometimes considerable ones. The value of division in the catalogue is 10 minutes. It is so called "stated accuracy". But real accuracy is lower. Is it much or few? Taking into account that the fastest stars pass such distance during 350-400 years, the hopes to get a time reference with 100 or even 200 years inaccuracy look at least naive.
Inaccuracies appeared during measurements due to "nonideality" of astronomical instruments. Inaccurate knowledge (of the author of Almagest) of fundamental astronomical characteristics, for example, an angle between the surfaces of ecliptic and equator, also caused inaccuracies. There also could be distortions, consciously made by author. So increase or diminishing of ecliptical longitudes on some constant value may "make old" or "rejuvenate" observational data of the catalogue (due to precession).
We took for analysis the catalogue in the state, in which it was provided in [а4], [а5] and in a fundamental work [а6]. And although in a famous work [а6] many of the above mentioned problems are studied, we saw right to do all the calculations once again.
It is clear that preliminarily it would be necessary to "clean" the catalogue from stars, coordinates of which are beforehand seriously distorted and have inaccuracy exceeding, let's say, 1 degree. Except this, we also checked identification of the stars of the catalogue with the stars of the "modern sky", contained in the work [а6]. As expected, in general it was confirmed. But several of the found stars were ambiguously identified (for example, о^2 Eridana). By the way, attention to this circumstance was also paid in work [а6]. The stars, having ambiguous identifications, were excluded from the studies as uninformative. As a result in a "clean" catalogue of Almagest only 864 stars remained.
In order to move forward more delicate methods were required. First of all we had to find out a systematic mistake in the coordinates of stars, appearing when determining position of ecliptic at the moment of observation. If the author of the catalogue had found its position in a wrong way, than the coordinates of all stars were distorted.
A position of the plane of ecliptic (or, the same, a position of the pole of ecliptic), as well as a position of the point of the vernal equinox, is a result of rather thin measurements. Let's imagine that the author of the catalogue made a mistake in measurement and instead of the real ecliptic used a "wrong" ecliptic, and also instead of the real equinox point used a "wrong" equinox point. It will lead to shift of the pole of ecliptic. But then coordinates of all the stars will change. A shifted position of the plane of ecliptic could be fully parametrized by two angles. Please note, that they fully determine a resulting latitude mistake, while in order to identify a longitude mistake it is necessary to know also a mistake in determining a point of the vernal equinox. This circumstance served as one of the arguments for using for the purposes of dating only latitude coordinates of stars from Almagest. As additional argument served a conclusion of R.Newton [а4] about falseness of longitudes of stars in the star catalogue of Almagest. Consideration of only latitude coordinates gives a possibility to remove an additional source of mistakes. With this, as appeared, knowledge of latitudes is enough to solve the assigned tasks of dating.
Described above systematical mistake is similar to a mistake, made by a shooter at a shooting range, using an unzeroed gun: even with a precise hindsight due to maladjustment of the "muzzle sight" not the center of the target, but some other point will be stricken. In a real situation also an individual mistake of a shooter is put on a mistake due to unzeroed gun. In our case both systematical and individual accidental mistake (let's conventionally call it a measurement mistake) in determining latitude of a star are added to a real latitude of a star. It is natural to suppose that an average value of the last mistake (for the majority of stars) is 0.
In these conditions, analyzing the coordinates of all the 864 stars of the "clean" catalogue and using standard methods of mathematical statistics, it is possible to find a systematical mistake (as a time function). It appeared that it is expressed with a diagram, based on which one can come to a conclusion that the author of Almagest really made a mistake in determining the angle between ecliptic and equator. Of course we found not precise values of the angle mistake, but so called "confidence interval", in which the value of real mistake is placed with a high probability (in our work - 99,5%).
Let's ask a question, what for it is necessary to determine this mistake? The issue is that knowing a systematical mistake now it is possible to remove it (reimburse). So instead of the distorted latitudes, written by the author of Almagest, now we can consider more correct values, which differ from the real latitudes only on unknown to us value of an individual mistake and represent "refined" results of measurements, which the author would have written in the catalogue, if he could determine the position of ecliptic absolutely accurately. So, on this stage mathematical statistics let us sift out ashes from cinders and find out the systematical mistake and the value of measurement mistake. Also we managed to check the demands of the author of the catalogue for stated by him accuracy. It appeared that found by us root mean square value of individual mistakes, characterizing the accuracy of measurements, confirms the demands of the author of the catalogue for 10' accuracy. We mean the following.
To clarify the obtained result we separately have analyzed different areas of the roof of heaven of Almagest and as a result we managed to divide it into "homogeneous fields". Well, the result was not equal for different fields of the roof of heaven; there were found seven of them on the star sky of Almagest. The fields differ in accuracy, with which the latitudes were measured. And it appeared that the position of stars, included into each of fields, "on an average" was measured with the same mistake.
Field А appeared to be not only the biggest, but also "the most accurate" from the others. For the most part of its stars after compensation (deduction) of systematical mistake a latitude closing error (that is accuracy of latitude measurements) became less than 10'. While before compensation of the systematical mistake only 30% of the stars had such accuracy. It becomes clear why the cost of division 10' was chosen in Almagest: observing the most part of stars with such inaccuracy the author was free to take the indicated value as a starting in a step scale.
Seems that the author of the catalogue placed special emphasis on field А. It is definitely outlined with named stars of Almagest, which are 12. Named stars are those having names in the catalogue of Almagest. To make it easier to compare the fields, we will divide them into pairs: А and В, Zodiac А and Zodiac В, C and Д. It appeared that for each pair in the field, placed on the right from the Milky Way, measurements were done more accurately than for the one on the left. We can speak about a "good" field in this pair and about a "bad" one. The Milky Way appears to be a "medium" field, but closer to the "bad" one. We see that it divides the star sky on two unequal parts: "good" and "bad". While the "good" one is considerably bigger than the "bad" one. This fact can be explained in a different way. And although our conclusions absolutely don't depend on the explanation, we will propose our supposition. Probably the stars on the right from the Milky Way were measured more accurately because they were observed in Spring and Summer, when the conditions are more favorable for observations. While the fields on the left probably were observed in Autumn and Winter. The issue is that "good" field is better "seen" exactly in Spring and Summer, and its antipode, instead, in Winter and Autumn.
So, a statistical analysis lets us come to the conclusion that in Almagest the stars from Zodiac A are more accurately measured. This is not surprising, as the stars of Zodiac were always paid special attention. Moreover, exactly in this field close to it there are seven (from 12) named stars (stars, having names in the catalogue; with this their special importance for the author was underlined). In order to determine the date of composing the catalogue it is necessary to use the effect (unknown to the ancient astronomers) of movement of stars around the celestial sphere and in consequence change of the geometry of their configuration through time.
Based on the circumstance that we confirmed the stated accuracy of the author of the catalogue (at least for the majority of the stars), it is reasonable to propose a supposition that at the moment of observation individual mistakes of measurements of the coordinates of the most important stars didn't exceed the stated accuracy of 10'. For dating of the catalogue it is necessary to know, which stars were measured by the author of the catalogue more thoroughly. It was natural to suppose that 12 named stars of Almagest are included into them. These are bright stars, constituting a well noticeable basis on the sky. But they can't be treated on the same way. For example, Canopus is too "South" star, subject to serious refractive distortions, and its latitude in Almagest is given with not more than 1 degree mistake. Coordinates of the star Previndemiatrix in all known lists and early editions of Almagest have several degrees inaccuracy. Aquila and Sirius also fall out of the consideration, as they belong to those areas of the sky, where latitude mistakes, even after compensation of systematical mistake, are too big (around 20').
Eight stars remain: Arcturus, Spica, Caapella, Vega, antares, Aselly, Procyon (although formally it lies out of the interior border of Zodiac А, in the South area С) and Regulus. The calculations showed that after compensation of systematical mistake a latitude closing error for all the above mentioned stars at the same time becomes less than 10' (that is less than stated by the author accuracy of the catalogue) between 600 A.D. and 1300 A.D. So appeared an interval of possible datings of the star catalogue Almagest: 600-1300 A.D.
By the way, now, when the interval of possible datings is known, it is possible to find a definite value of systematical inaccuracy in the catalogue of Almagest. It appeared that the author was mistaken for around 20 minutes in determination of the plane of ecliptic.
As the previous discussions were based on statistics, there is a small probability that the received conclusions could be unreliable. Let's ask a question: if there are other ways, letting to combine the real (calculated on computer for the sequential epochs in the past) coordinates of the named stars with those given in Almagest, with the same 10 minutes latitude closing error? Among the named stars there are quickly moving ones, so that their configuration is rather changeable. If it will appear that for any year the stated task is solved, then such year (years) should be considered a possible date of composing the catalogue. It is clear that new way of dating can only widen already found by us time interval (as at the epoch of 600-1300 A.D. the required alignment already exists). But if statistical analysis correctly defined a systematical mistake of the catalogue, then dating of the catalogue shouldn't change.
So, if there is any turn of the celestial sphere, with which for the given time moment shifted positions of latitudes of all the marked 8 named stars turn to be on the distance less than 10' from written in the catalogue values? It is clear that candidates for the dating can be only such time moments, for which the indicated turns exist. The results of the carried out calculations show that neither earlier 600 A.D. nor later 1300 A.D. there were no any turns of the celestial sphere, leading to latitude closing error of 10' for all the named stars at the same time. Please note that the resulting borders stay far from the Scaligerian epochs of Ptolemy and, moreover, Hipparch.
In our studies some allowances were done, a number of parameters (such as systematical mistakes) were not accurately defined. That's why a question is reasonable – how marked allowances and inaccuracies influence on the found interval of dating: 600-1300 A.D.? We found that possible rational indignations of the stated accuracy of the catalogue, a composition of the named stars, a trustworthy probability of systematical mistake, and also deformation of the celestial sphere (reflecting inaccuracies of fabrication of measuring devices, for example, astrolabe) do not lead to "capture" of the epoch of Ptolemy. For example, it is possible "to capture" the Scaligerian epoch of Ptolemy only in case if we suppose that the celestial sphere was deformed (with a broken measuring device) into such ellipsoid, the main axes of which differ from each other on 4%. But such defect is not allowable even in production of wheels for drays!
So, found by us interval of dating 600-1300 A.D. doesn't confirm neither the Scaligerian version about composing of the catalogue around the beginning of the common era, nor the version about its composing by Hipparch in the II century B.C.
Please note that the proposed method was applied by us also for dating of the catalogues of Ulugbek, Т.Brahe and Hevel. Here we got traditional, well known dates. The same method was checked on a number of artificially created (on computer) star catalogues. Here the "date of composing" was, of course, known to the author, but not to the researcher. Such experiments also confirmed the efficiency of the method: received with its help dates nearly didn't differ from those known in advance.
A detailed analysis and dating of the catalogue of Almagest, and also study of the other works, devoted to his dating, is done in our book [а2]. Also you can read about mistaken works of Yu.N.Efremov and Yu.А.Zvenyagin on this topic.
"New chronology" is yet far from its finishing. But already today the received results let us make a supposition that in the given to us since school version of the ancient and medieval history there are many significant mistakes. And the root, the base of mistakes is in a wrong chronology. Built by us with mathematical methods new chronology in many cases considerably differs from the chronology of J.Scaliger and D.Petavius, which is still used by historians. The last is actually the result of the activity of schoolmen of the XVI-XVII century and, as appeared, contains rough mistakes. Different scientists indicated some of these mistakes before us. For example, N.А.Morozov, I.Newton, E.Johnson, R.Baldauf and others. These mistakes, in their turn, lead to serious distortion of the whole picture of the ancient and medieval history in general. At the same time in our publications we always accurately separate our chronological conclusions, based on the mathematical methods from suppositions of historical character, which we state only as a material for further scientific discussion and development.
It is worth saying that an expanded today opinion, that a famous radiocarbon method allegedly had confirmed the Scaligerian datings, seems to be deeply mistaken (it appeared, that mistakes of the method were too big). The same is regarding a dendrochronological method. See detailed discussion in ХРОН1. Our studies lead us to the conclusion that modern historical science has no any independent from the Scaligerian chronology method of dating, which would be well dimensioned and really used for the purposed of chronology. Datings today, as well as before, are actually given based on the Scaligerian scale, and not based on the modern physical methods. Although a principal possibility of use of such methods for dating, of course, is not excluded. But there is a big difference between "can do" and "done".
That's why we decided to study the problems of chronology using developed by us empirical-statistical methods of dating of the ancient texts. The methods were first checked on a proved material of the XV-XX centuries and here their efficiency was fully confirmed.
Then with the same methods we analyzed the chronology of the Ancient and Medieval history of Europe, Mediterranean, Egypt, Middle East and Asia. Numerical data of two tens of the main medieval and modern chronological tables were complemented with information from around two hundred historical texts, chronicles etc., containing all together description of nearly all the main events from 4000 B.C. until 1800 A.D. in the Scaligerian datings. All the information – wars, kings, empires etc. – was graphically allocated on a flat surface as a graph-map (Scaligerian chronological map), stretched along the time axis.
So, the resulting line-map performs a maximally full "textbook" on the Ancient and Medieval history in the Scaligerian version. Methods of identification of duplicates (repeats) were applied to the "Scaligerian textbook". Special closeness or "similarity" values were calculated for different pairs of historical texts, covering big time intervals. As a result of rather wide ranging experiment, unexpectedly, pairs of epochs (texts), which are considered independent in the Scaligerian history, but closeness values of which turned to be very small, were found. That is distinctive for "beforehand dependent" pairs of texts, telling about the same events.
Lists of all the governors from 4000 B.C. to 1800 A.D. in the Scaligerian datings were collected. A method of detection – according to allocation of the duration of governance – of "similar, dependent" dynasties was applied to the list of dynasties. Unexpectedly the experiment discovered outstanding pairs of dynasties, which were earlier considered independent in all senses, but the closeness values of which turned to be "very small", that is of the same order, as for the beforehand dependent dynasties. Under "dependent dynasties" here we mean the same real dynasty, but multiplied, probably with small distortions, in different chronicles.
At the moment there are seven such empirical-statistical methods of dating.
Then an important fact was discovered: applying of all the developed methods of dating to the "Scaligerian textbook" nearly always gives the same result. So the worked out dates agree with each other, although they were calculated with different methods. Moreover, statistical "text" results agree with independent astronomical datings, in particular, with the discovered effect of shift upside of the dates of "ancient" eclipses.
Let's describe the scheme of allocation of the found duplicates-"repeats" in the "textbook of Scaliger -Petavius". We will provide the result as a line-chronicle Е, where separate "Scaligerian epochs" are notionally marked with letters. Equal letters indicate the found duplicates, "repeats", i. е. epochs, which double each other, close, "similar" in the sense of described methods.
Our main formal statistical, if you want, mathematical result is that a "long Scaligerian chronicle Е" turns to be a summing up, gluing of four nearly equal "short chronicles" С1, C2, C3, C4. Vertically adding these four chronicles together and identifying, gluing equal letters, which turned to be under each other, we get chronicle E. With this chronicle C2 is glued with a shift of 333 years down, chronicle C3 is glued with a shift of 1053 years, and, finally, chronicle C4 is glued with a shift of 1778 years.
Starting from this moment we enter the area of interpretations and suppositions. The described formal statistical result can be interpreted in a different way. Some people may say that the found strange "repeats-periodicities" present some mysterious law of historical development (although, we should say, that starting from the epoch of the XVI century and closer to us such "periodicities" for some reason are not found any more).
From the other possible hypothetic explanations we would emphasize the following: "modern textbook" of the ancient and medieval history of Europe is a "layered chronicle", received after gluing four nearly equal copies of a short chronicle C1. There chronicles C2, C3, C4 turn out of chronicle C1 with its simple shift down as a hard entire on: 333 years, 1053 years, 1778 years (approximately).
Otherwise, a "modern textbook of Scaliger-Petavius" is nearly fully reconstructed at its smaller part A, which is fully placed on the right from 300 A.D. Moreover, nearly all the information in chronicle C1 is concentrated even on the right from 960 A.D. That is each "Scaligerian epoch", placed on the left (below) from 960 A.D., is just a "phantom reflection" of some later historical epoch, lying on the right from 960 A.D. And it is the "original" of all the generated by it duplicates.
The following supposition can be proposed. At the late Middle Ages chronologists started to create the global chronology and the history of the antiquity. With this they for the first time tried to put into order the accumulated historical material: separate (and multilingual) chronicles, documents etc. But a mistake was done during "linking" of such pieces into a single scheme. Four copies of the same chronicle (probably multilingual), describing actually the same history of Europe and Mediterranean, were taken as allegedly different chronicles, telling about allegedly different events. And four chronicles were "glued" not in parallel, as it should have been, but sequentially with shifts on 333 years, 1053 years and 1778 years (at an average). As a result a "very long chronicle" Е appeared, that is a modern Scaligerian textbook on the ancient and medieval history. So a real "short written" history could turn into a mistaken "very long written history". We will repeat once again, we don't consider our suppositions as the final ones and propose them just as a material for discussion. See details in our books, listed below.
We have to mention shortly also the article of S.P.Novikov, published in issue 2 of the magazine "Priroda". A disagreement with the works on mathematical chronology, written by me and my co-authors, is expressed in it. But the article is not actually a review of our works; it doesn't contain any specific arguments and is more of memorial character. About himself, his meetings, his offences, his relation to different people. With this unfortunately statements of S.P.Novikov don't correspond with reality.
He say that our "historical activity was included into scientific plans of mech.-mat." No "historical activity" was or is in any plans of mech.-mat. And even if it was there, there would be nothing strange, as chronology is related to the section of applied mathematics.
He announced insufficiently informative our joint with professor А.S.Mishchenko purely mathematical works on integrated systems. In our joint with А.S.Mishchenko reply to the statements of S.P.Novikov we had to tell the following facts. See below a fragment of our reply (October 1996).
ANSWER TO THE LETTER OF S.P.NOVIKOV
From July 1996 in Russia and abroad one text was promoted, in which the name of S.P.Novikov was indicated as an author. In the text many Russian mathematicians are accused of incompetence, unscientific character of their studies, corruption, links with KGB, with "former dark structures" etc. Management of the Russian Academy of Sciences, administration of the Moscow State University and mechanical-mathematical faculty of the MSU are accused of allegedly destruction and degradation of Russian mathematics. The style of writing is fully characterized, for example, with such statement of S.P.Novikov about the MSU: "Eltsyn power got as an award a frowzy national-communistic propagandist center, center of growing crap".
We will not discuss such statements, but will review shortly only the points, directly related to our mathematical works.
It is told that "Mishchenko and Fomenkо wrote a series of absolutely vain works in 1977-81 about integrated systems, adding nothing but abstract words to the work of S.Manakov". We will explain: these are works, for which (in particular) А.S.Mishchenko and А.Т.Fomenkо got a State Award of RF in 1996. Speaking about this award S.P.Novikov once again returns to the mentioned works: "I looked at this and even tried to prevent, taking into account a secondary, insignificant level of the works, presented by Fomenko for the Award".
In connection with this we have to announce to mathematical society the following. When in 1977 we wrote our first work on this topic, S.P.Novikov without any reasons for this and using the fact that he had been taking a higher position at the department, REQUIRED THAT WE PUT HIS NAME AS CO-AUTHOR. We refused and told that if he would have named any of his works on the equal topic, we will use a reference on it. He couldn't name such work. So we came across a bright attempt to assign the results of other people (which today S.P.Novikov announces "empty").
S.P.Novikov writes: "Both of us, Arnold and me, wrote negative comments on Fomenko, being experts in the theory of integrated systems..."
Due to this we have to announce to mathematical society one more fact, characterizing the style of behavior in mathematics of S.P.Novikov and V.I.Arnold.
In the review of V.I.Arnold, V.V.Kozlov, А.N.Neyshtadt "Mathematical aspects of classical and celestial mechanics", placed in the encyclopedic volume "Fundamental directions, volume 3", under the edition of V.I.Arnold (Results of science and techniques, Dynamical systems-3, Moscow, VINITI, 1985), there is even a SPECIAL PARAGRAPH "Noncommutative sets of integrals". All the section is devoted to statement of two main theorems of Mishchenko-Fomenkо from this cycle of works, about "nothingness" of which S.P.Novikov and allegedly V.I.Arnold, according to S.P.Novikov, started to speak today.
Which opinion should we trust? Positive opinion of V.I.Arnold of 1985 or negative opinion of S.P.Novikov of 1996?
And in another, already later review of V.I.Arnold and А.B.Givental "Simplectic geometry", placed in the next encyclopedic volume "Fundamental directions, volume 4", under the edition of V.I.Arnold and S.P.Novikov (Results of science and techniques, Dynamical systems-4, Moscow, VINITI - 1985), there is also a SPECIAL PARAGRAPH "Noncommutative integratability of Hamilton systems". But here interesting things appear. Here again the same theorems of Mishchenko-Fomenkо are stated. But the first of them, probably, really the most effective, is given already WITHOUT ANY REFERENCES to the authorship of Mishchenko-Fomenkо. Should it be understood like this: the theorem, and in general the whole theory, of course is good, but its authors are bad? Here a reader of the review may ask a question: who is the author of again and again quoted theorem (announced today allegedly "vain")? Isn't it Arnold himself (or Givental) – as their review unassumingly suggests to the reader, not giving references to the result in this case?
Please pay attention that the first splash of accusations of S.P.Novikov (several years ago) on his Russian colleagues coincided with his employment in Maryland university of the USA. And now, as people say, he gets a full position in the same university. Isn't it a reason why S.P.Novikov again tries to develop an enhanced campaign of blackening the Russian Academy of Sciences, mech.-mat. faculty of the MSU and the MSU in general and to excuse with this his stay abroad? All this looks like organization of personal welfare for the account of his Russian colleagues>>.
[End of quote from the answer of А.S.Mishchenko and А.Т.Fomenkо. Moscow, MSU, October 1996].
It is obvious that S.P.Novikov highly appreciated our works on integrated systems.
Further, in the article in "Priroda" S.P.Novikov wrote about "a defeat of the book of Fomenko on geometry in scientific literature" and refers to the comment of American mathematician Almgren. In reality Almgren friendly commented the content of the book in his review and at the end expressed dissatisfaction, the reason of which was liberty of language in advertisement on the cover page, where instead of "varieties spectrum with an adge" it was written "varieties with an edge". But I don't know any cases, when anybody would announce about mistakes in some theorem of Fomenko. Besides, Almgren started his review with the words: "Anatoly Fomenkо is the most outstanding mathematician in the Soviet Union, working on the theory of multidimensional minimal surfaces". And where is a "defeat" here?
Nevertheless it is worth to discuss in details the review of Almgren, as S.P.Novikov likes to refer to it.
One of my main results in a multidimensional variational calculus — it is proof of the existence of global minimal stratified surface in each class of generalized spectral homologies or co-homologies. It is the main topic of by book, reviewed by Almgren. I prove the existence and nearly everywhere regularity of each strata of minimal surface through the development of the arguments of Reifenberg — a mathematician, who published in 1960 an article about the problem of Plateau and later died in the mountains during mountain climbing.
Almgren say that the results of Fomenkо were considerably based on the ideas of Reifenberg. It is correct. And, of course, I clearly mention this in my book, giving his due to an outstanding mathematician Reifenberg. Any new theory has predecessors and even I.Newton modestly admitted that he was standing on the shoulders of the giants.
Then the reviewer states, that a part of the result of Fomenko, related to the smoothness of strata, follows from his – Almgren article. This remark is not related to critics. The same fact could be proved in a different way, based on different considerations.
After this Almgren gives theirs due to my spectacular examples of minimal (multidimensional) surfaces in Lie groups and made by me full classification of local-minimal, absolutely geodesic sub-manifolds, realizing nontrivial cycles in symmetric spaces.
But then Almgren states: «The reviewer personally knows Fomenko for more than 20 years and still can't understand, why he doesn't answer any more for his mathematical statements». And then he provides the following two examples to justify this accusation.
1) On the cover page of the book it is written: «In this volume a solution of the Plateau problem in the class of all the manifolds with a fixed border is given in details». But this statement is not proved in the book. Until now it is not known if minimal surfaces of the type, which Fomenko had studied, realizing any continuous images of manifolds or at least finishing topological complexes, exist or not.
2) In p. 8 of chapter 2 Fomenko states: «Dao Chong Thi solved the problem of Plateau, having fixed the existence of local Lipschitz mapping … ». Let's leave out the details of this mathematical statement, which Almgren considers mistaken and shortly indicates, where exactly was the mistake.
I am puzzled about claims to my mentioning in the review of one of the results of Dao Chong Thi, which I didn't use anyhow in my studies. Moreover, wide and interesting studies of Dao Chong (by the way, not limiting to a theorem, with which Almgren was not satisfied) started considerably later, than I already had got the solution of the problem of Plateau in the class of spectral multidimensional surfaces. Moreover, this is not my responsibility to answer for somebody's mistakes, if they take place.
As for the statement on the cover page of the book, it is absolutely not a strict mathematical statement and serves only to give a potential reader primary notion of the content of the book. There is no such statement in the book, as it needs many explanations and simply mathematical designations for an accurate definition. Even if it is granted that a micro-preview on the cover page is not very clear, doubtful statement, it doesn't reflect on the content of my book, in which Almgren didn't find any my mistake or inaccuracy.
Now let's return to the statements of S.P.Novikov.
S.P.Novikov writes: <<after my return from the USA in 1992 ... I learned two things, which were big news for me... In Summer of 1992 I learned that in the Publishing house of the MSU, not long ago before it, appeared a book of Fomenko "Methods of statistical analysis of narrative texts and applications to chronology", in which the whole amount of Morozov's delirium was included>>. Actually I gave him this book as a gift yet in 1990. Here I quote a fragment from the letter of S.P.Novikov (written by him at the very end of 1991) to academician Yu.S.Osipov, a President of the Academy, and academician A.A.Gonchar. In the letter S.P.Novikov recommended several mathematicians to academicians for the upcoming elections to the Academy. S.P.Novikov wrote: "To academicians A.A.Gonchar and Yu.S.Osipov from S.P.Novikov. I ask to announce my opinion at the elections in the Department (section)... I want to indicate several outstanding Moscow mathematicians, who are unduly not yet elected to the AS USSR... I can't keep silence about Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko (MSU), an outstanding mathematician, a person of wide intellectual interests (including art), who recently became a correspondent member of the AS USSR. He would enrich the RAS". What else could be meant here by "wide intellectual interests", if not my works on history?
In the words of S.P.Novikov it turns out that the biggest specialist in the theory of probabilities and mathematical statistics, who wrote a foreword to my first book on chronology, a correspondent member of the RAS
А.N.Shiryaev, deceived western experts, sending them for review some "English summary" instead of the text of the book. In fact long ago before the appearance of my book А.N.Shiryaev had sent for review my big article about use of statistical methods for analysis of definite historical chronicles to three experts from the Bernoulli Society. The article got positive comments and was published in 1988 in the magazine International Statistical Review (vol.56, No.3, pp.279-301). The book was published two years later. In a foreword to the book А.N.Shiryaev writes only about mathematical methods and doesn't give estimation to historical suppositions.
According to the words of S.P.Novikov, in 1996 at the meeting of the Department of mathematics of the RAS "academician V.P.Maslov spoke in defense of my historical investigations". Actually, the issue is about the following speech of V.P.Maslov, which took place after accusation by S.P.Novikov of publication of my books on chronology. I should note, that academician V.P.Maslov has another historical concept, which he explained in his article in "Noviy mir" (1991, No.1). At the meeting he told that prohibition for publication of unorthodox works was not the best solution of the problem. As V.P.Maslov told, it is the same if at the discussion of the process of Trotsky-Bukharin block in its time nobody gave voice against punishment and would have stated that he had spoken in defense of anti-Marxist theory of permanent revolution. And, by the way, such things have happened.
S.P.Novikov writes: "I started to move to different countries for a part of the year. In 1992 ... in Maryland I learned that Fomenko, having agreed with Logunov and Sadovnichiy separated my department. Before my trip to the USA he didn't tell me a word about his plans". In fact as soon as the management of the MSU proposed me to become a head of the recovered department of differential geometry of my teacher professor P.К.Rashevskiy (which was one of the oldest departments of the faculty and was closed several years ago after his death), AT THE SAME DAY I informed S.P.Novikov, who was in the USA, about this proposal (that time I worked at the department of S.P.Novikov). On the next day S.P.Novikov answered me that he was not against. Although, as S.P.Novikov writes himself in his article, "at the end of 80s – beginning of 90s I hoped that I will manage to give the department and the Moscow mathematical society to Fomenko". Nevertheless, I accepted the proposal of management of the MSU, about what I also immediately informed S.P.Novikov. Earlier I replaced S.P.Novikov for rather long time on many important issues during his frequent trips abroad, "pulled" many different tasks, what started to be an obstacle to my scientific activity; all the biggest books of S.P.Novikov were written in co-authorship with me. Creation of my own department let me, in particular, rather quickly and far promote new scientific direction in the theory of Hamilton systems. New rates were given to our small department. So, the words of S.P.Novikov about "separation of the department" don't correspond to the reality.
Here is an explanation of a modern position of S.P.Novikov. Exactly after the recovery of the department of differential geometry, - and absolutely not after my works on chronology, - S.P.Novikov radically changed his "scientific opinion" about my works.
I will not write about other, not less bright facts of distortion in the "memories" of S.P.Novikov, which are not related to me personally. But already based on the above quotes one can understand all the other things.
[а1] А.Т.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskiy. Dating of Almagest according to variable star configurations. – Reports of the AS USSR, v.307, No.4, 1989.
[а2] А.Т.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskiy. Dating of the star catalogue of "Almagest". - Moscow, Factorial, 1995. [а3] R.Newton. Crime of Claudius Ptolemy. - Moscow, Nauka, 1985.
[а4] Ptolemy. The Almagest. Great Books of the Western World. V.16. Translated by R.Catesby Taliaferro. - The Univ. of Chicago. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952.
[а5] Ptolemy's Almagest. Transl. and annot. by G.J.Toomer. - London, 1984.
[а6] Peters C.H.F., Knobel E.B. Ptolemy's Cataloge of Stars. A revision of Almagest. - Washington: The Carnegie Inst. of Washington, 1915.
NOTICE-ANSWER of А.Т.Fomenko of 1999.
Above a fragment from the letter of S.P.Novikov of 1991 was quoted, where he recommended several mathematicians into academicians: "I want to indicate several outstanding Moscow mathematicians, who are unduly not yet elected to the AS USSR... I can't keep silence about Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko (MSU), an outstanding mathematician, a person of wide intellectual interests (including art), who recently became a correspondent member of the AS USSR. He would enrich the RAS".
In the last time S.P.Novikov began to state that he didn't write this letter at all and that I falsified this text.
S.P.Novikov announced this to the editorial board of the magazine "Priroda", in the mathematical department of the RAS. Due to this I have to publish the corresponding scanned fragment of the original letter of S.P.Novikov, written by his hand and signed by him personally, pic. p4.1.
NOTICE-ANSWER of А.Т.Fomenko of 2000.
Relatively not long ago in a mathematical magazine "Success of mathematical sciences" S.P.Novikov published his article "Pseudo-history and pseudo-mathematics: phantasy in our life" (UMN, v.55, issue 72(332), 2000). In it he stated, that his quoted above letter, in which he highly evaluated my mathematical works, was just a personal letter to the President of the RAS Yu.S.Osipov, and was not official. S.P.Novikov says lies. His letter was official.
<< To academician А.А.Gonchar and Yu.S.Osipov from S.P.Novikov.
With request to announce my opinion at the elections in the Department (section).
Unfortunately I am in a foreign business trip, planned before the appointment of the date of elections to the RAS and I can't participate personally. Being a President of the Moscow mathematical society, one of the most authoritative societies of mathematicians in a civilized world, I want to indicate several outstanding >>.
Next there follows a text, in which, in particular, there is a quoted above rather positive opinion of S.P.Novikov about my works.
S.P.Novikov wrote this letter in my presence, personally gave me the original, and asked to type it and to give to the Academy, as he was going abroad for a long time. I carefully did his request. That time I related to S.P.Novikov with respect, and the original of his letter with such high evaluation of my works remained in my archive. But I didn't even had a though about publicizing this letter, before S.P.Novikov forced me to do this with not corresponding to reality announcements that I faked his letter. Here I place a photo of the initial fragment of the original letter of S.P.Novikov, pic. p4.2.
COMMENT OF А.Т.FOMENKO OF 2010.
In conclusion I will mention a very small, but a distinctive stroke from the "memories" of Novikov). It is related to my student - I.S.Novikova, a daughter of S.P.Novikov. In 2009 mech.-mat. of the MSU published a book "Mech.-mat. remembers - 2" (published and prepared by V.B.Demidovich). It also includes memories of S.P.Novikov. On page 87 he tells about his children: "My daughter graduated from the mech.-mat. of the MSU. By the way, her supervisor in geometry was Bolsinov, and she became".
These statements about supervisor don't correspond to the reality. During several years of the study of Irina Sergeevna in the MSU her scientific supervisor was А.Т.Fomenko together with ph.D. А.А.Maltsev. S.P.Novikov personally asked me to learn his daughter mathematics and to introduce her into scientific life. А.А.Maltsev was more a formal supervisor (in the mathematical institute of V.А.Steklov), and actual was А.Т.Fomenko (at the mech-mat. of the MSU). It was me who chose and set a task to Irina Sergeevna. It was an interesting and challenging question from the theory of minimal surfaces (what I actively studied myself that time). A scientific topic of А.А.Maltsev (mainly in the field of general topology) didn't have any relation to the theory of multidimensional
Exactly under my supervision I.S.Novikova successfully passed her Ph.D. defense in 1990 on the topic "Minimal cones, invariantal relatively to joint action of compact Lie groups". On the title page of the thesis А.Т.Fomenko and А.А.Maltsev are indicated as supervisors, pic.3.139. On the 4th page of the thesis I.S.Novikova clearly writes that the task was set by А.Т.Fomenko: "In the thesis the task of finding globally minimal surfaces of a conic type is solved... As appeared, this task, set by А.Т.Fomenko in , , was solved for all the classical compact Lie groups..." The thesis of I.S.Novikova is placed in the library of our department and, in particular, together with the other theses of our students, is published at dfgm.math.msu.su, in "Theses".
At headed by me scientific geometrical seminar at mech.-mat. an equivariant multidimensional problem of Plateau, within which I set a task to the daughter of Novikov, was actively discussed. My student A.V.Bolsinov also participated in the seminar. During discussions at the seminar he announced interesting ideas, which turned to be useful for a quick movement within this task. I advised Irina Sergeevna to use this idea of Bolsinov and soon, as a result of joint discussions, attracting also other ideas, the three of us managed to find a final solution of the task, which composed the essence.
So, it was me, who introduced the daughter of S.P.Novikov into scientific and teaching activity, being her scientific supervisor and a creator of scientific school, within which she and A.V.Bolsinov worked at that time.
So S.P.Novikov distorts the reality here.
As an aftereword to the article of S.P.Novikov magazine "Priroda" (issue 2 for 1997) placed a note of А.V.Byalko "We the whole, we ancient world will destroy?" (p.75-76). The note is negative. А.V.Byalko doesn't provide any definite objections. It is told about a seminar in Kurchatov institute, which was mentioned also in the quoted above article in "Izvestiya". Moreover, in his afterword А.V.Byalko provides an extract from the speech of historian I.S.Sventsitskaya (Open pedagogical university). The main idea of I.S.Sventsitskaya shortly was that historians had so many objections against our new chronology, that they simply were not capable to state them. What is meant here is seen from the provided by her examples. It is announced that the Scaligerian chronology certainly is correct, as the conclusions, based on it, also confirm it. Otherwise, constructed by today edifice of the Scaligerian chronology is announced to be an "objection of new chronology". But such objection is obviously based on the thesis about correctness of the Scaligerian chronology. But we state, that the "Scaligerian edifice" is totally wrong. It is worth to note, that in the speech of I.S.Sventsitskaya brightly seen not only full misunderstanding of the problem, but also an absence of desire to understand it.
In conclusion we will remind, that the magazine "Priroda", starting from 1991 leads rather strange "one-sided polemic" against new chronology. So, it publishes the speeches of only one side, refusing to publish our answers on them. We already told about this above, see section of 1991.
As it was told, А.Т.Fomenko sent his answer to the magazine "Priroda" in Spring of 1997. The chief editor academician А.F.Andreev asked А.Т.Fomenko "to answer in a different way". This repeated several times. Until now the magazine didn't publish any answer, without explanation of the reasons. The correspondence stopped.
COMMENT OF А.Т.FOMENKO ABOUT B.А.RYBAKOV.
The issues of chronology are rather difficult and sometimes require a difficult statistical, mathematical, astronomical analysis. It is difficult to expect that they could be solved in public discussions. For this a scientific press exists, special scientific monographs are published. Nevertheless we are ready to participate in the debates. But they should be open and fair and take place in a neutral place. A principle of equality, symmetry and publicity should be kept – both sides should have equal access to the exposure.
Otherwise strange mismatches appear, sometimes even bordering with curiosities (for which there is no place in science). For example, that's what R.B.Rybakov, the head of the Institute of oriental studies of the RAS tells about his father, historian, academician B.А.Rybakov, on the pages of magazine "Vestnik":
<<I remember the last meeting of the bureau of department, where B.А. (Rybakov - Aut.) made a speech. It was long, everybody got tired and, when he was given a right to speak, he was telegraphically short: "There are two dangers, standing before historical science. Volos book. And Fomenko". And he took his place. Actually, this became his devise to us, historians... They tell that once, reading a lecture in the same classroom of historical faculty of the MSU, where a memorial plate of V.A. is placed today, he spoke for a long time about the "concept" of Fomenko, and then finalized: "One should treat such books like this!" – and threw a book in a high open window – there is rather big distance there>> (Rybakov R.B. "Son about father". – Newsletter of the Russian Academy.
Such "methods of struggle", probably, are spectacular in public, but not effective in respect of science. B.А.Rybakov newer and nowhere published any scientific objection against New Chronology. Hardly is it possible, throwing scientific books into window, to neutralize "dangerous" ideas.
COMMENT OF А.Т.FOMENKO ABOUT V.А.CHUDINOV.
The most different methods are used for struggle with new chronology.
For example, parodies. Here two persons stick out: writer-satirist М.N.Zadornov and doctor of philosophic sciences V.А.Chudinov. М.N.Zadornov in his many public humorous speeches on the stage, including ones on the central television, announcing some of our results, - and not indicating our names for some reason, - announces them as his own openings, and at the same time presents them in a parodical-buffoonish way, evoking laugh of the audience. With this he frankly fulfills an order for discrediting of the ideas of New Chronology, specially mixing our results with frankly awkward statements. Such way of «scientific struggle» is well known: to glue in one clod tasty food with a spoon of tar.
V.А.Chudinov (as, by the way, also G.S.Grinevich, an author of the book "Common Slavonic writing. Results of decoding", М., 1993) actively publishes his parodies on the most interesting studies of F.Volanskiy and А.D.Chertkov (famous scientists of the XIX century) on decoding of Etruscan writing. And also without indication of their names. "The studies" of V.А.Chudinov are hardly sincere. Their purpose is to obstruct and defame important scientific openings of serious scientists, who based on the Slavonic language, decoded many ancient signatures of Europe, Asia and Africa. In the same parodical way a "Dialogue of Michail Zadornov and Valery Chudinov" is kept, which was published in several issues of Literature Newspaper (for example, issue 12-13 (6165), 2008, p.14) By the way, our names were already mentioned in this parodical dialogue. So, many people were mobilized for struggle against New Chronology – from some academicians to fools.
REVIEW OF THE BOOKS "ANTIFOMENKO" AND <<HISTORY AND ANTI-HISTORY. CRITICS OF "NEW CHRONOLOGY" OF ACADEMICIAN А.Т.FOMENKO>>.
In December of 1999 at the historical faculty of the MSU there was a conference under the name "Myths of new chronology". At the conference a number of speeches against new chronology took place. Mainly there were historians, but at the end of the conference a word was given to some representatives of exact sciences, who also seriously criticized our works on new chronology. The mood of all the speeches without exception was deeply critical, sometimes going far beyond all the bounds of scientific discussions. Neither we nor anybody else from those, who developed new chronology, were proposed to present a report on this conference (see above more details about this "invitation"). We weren't on this conference, but had a possibility to have a look at a video of it, kindly given to us by one of its listeners. Having attentively watched the video, we came to the conclusion that there is no sense to answer on such stream of emotions and rudeness. We didn't find any new, worth analysis counterarguments from the side of our critics in the sounded speeches.
But is Summer of 2000 two books under the names "Antifomenko" [р19] and <<History and anti-history. Critics of "new chronology" of academician А.Т.Fomenko>> [р20] were published. They reflect critics of our work, which sounded at the conference "Myths of new chronology". Both books have nearly the same content in the part, related to new chronology. Despite different names and different design, both books –actually present the same collection of articles, containing in a "smoothen" and sometimes widened form texts of the speeches on the conference "Myths of new chronology". Moreover, in 2001 number of books under the name "Antifomenko" increased until seven. But all of them differ from each other mainly only with cover pages. As a rule, the same articles of the same authors are reprinted, sometimes with insignificant changes. That's why we decided to stay with the collected volume [р19], as it was the first to come in our view. We find it needless to answer on the other books of the series "Antifomenko" with the same content, as there is nothing new in them.
Below we give a review of all the articles from [р19], related to our works. With this, in the cases, when answer to one or another speech of our critics is already placed in one of our books, we don't repeat it and address a reader to the corresponding parts of our books.
2. REVIEW OF THE SPEECH OF V.L.YANIN "DEHISCENT HIGHNESS OF ACADEMICIAN FOMENKO" [р19], pp.21-26
With great interest we read an article of V.L.Yanin [р19], pp.21-26. We wanted to learn, which exactly arguments V.L.Yanin will provide against new chronology. As appeared, an article nearly word for word repeats the text of his speech at the conference "Myths of new chronology".
V.L.Yanin begins it with the words: "I would prefer not to go out of the frames of my specialty and to stop only on some questions, related to archeology and history of the Ancient Russia" [р19], p.21. And really, the only argument, which V.L.Yanin propose, and not against new chronology, but just against our reconstruction of the Russian history, - it is full confidence of V.L.Yanin in the correctness of his understanding and his interpretation of the diggings in Novgorod on Volkhov.
Next follows a text of V.L.Yanin about dendrochronology.
V.L.Yanin for some purpose for rather long time tells about well-known theoretical grounds of dendrochronological dating (against which we newer argued). A text of V.L.Yanin about dendrochronology is not related to the core of the issue, as it doesn't touch any from really existing serious problems of dendrochronological dating. It contains only listing of obvious well-known facts. Moreover, there is no any relation to the problems of chronology in reasonings of V.L.Yanin about "social order", about speeches of the Soviet leaders in the UNO in 60s of the XX century, and also not clear what for drawn by V.L.Yanin "humorous" picture of transportation of cultural layer from Yaroslavl to Novgorod on Volkhov etc. Unfortunately, the biggest part of the article of V.L.Yanin consists of such "out of topic" reasonings. These reasonings have no any relation to the problems of chronology.
In general, the objections of V.L.Yanin against our works on chronology reduce to the conclusion, that according to his opinion, the results of diggings in Novgorod on Volkhov allegedly are able to prove identity of this city with Novgorod the Great of Russian chronicles. While according to our reconstruction of the Russian history these are absolutely different cities.
Although the objections of V.L.Yanin, as was mentioned, don't touch the new chronology as such, as an answer to V.L.Yanin we will shortly comment the core of his approach to dendrochronological dating of the diggings in Novgorod on Volkhov. See detailed analysis in ХРОН4, ch.3:12. Here we will shortly explain the core of the subject.
The issue is that all the dendrochronological scale of Novgorod on Volkhov, built by V.L.Yanin and his colleagues, as our analysis showed [р18], p.11-28, turned out to be moved to the past for around 400 years. There is even an impression that the beginning of the scale was just artificially combined by V.L.Yanin with "the required" XI century. That is the epoch, simply taken from the Scaligerian-Miller version of the chronology of the Russian history. After this the resulting scale is stated by V.L.Yanin as a proof of the correctness of this version.
We see a vicious circle, mistaken logics.
But moving the beginning of the Volkhov "dendrochronological pie" to the past, of course it was necessary to move its end on the same value. And it appeared, that the end of the dendrochronological scale of Novgorod on Volkhov "moved" from the recent past (where it obviously should have been) in the XV century. That is 400 years earlier. As a result Volkhov dendrochronologists discovered an astonishing picture. The soil of Novgorod on Volkhov, according to V.L.Yanin, kept until our time many monuments of the XI-XV centuries. And starting from the end of the XV century – allegedly NOTHING remained. But V.L.Yanin and his colleagues don't give any intelligible explanations to this, mildly speaking, counterintuitive situation, appearing in the archeology of Novgorod on Volkhov.
V.L.Yanin mentions in his article several birchbark letters, found in Novgorod on Volkhov. The recipients of the letters, according to V.L.Yanin, were some personages of Russian chronicles. V.L.Yanin doesn't provide any evidence that the same people are mentioned in the chronicles and birchbark letters. Here reasonings of V.L.Yanin are just interpretations, based on Romanov-Miller version of the Russian history and on moved to the past Novgorod on Volkhov archeology. Such interpretations could have sense and value only under the condition that the used version of chronology is reasoned enough. And while such reasoning is missing, these interpretations don't prove and don't deny anything. With change of chronological version they will give place to other interpretations – not worse than previous ones.
Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that in the article of V.L.Yanin there was no place for serious discussion of the problems of historical dating and chronology.
3. ABOUT THE ARTICLE OF А.А.ZALIZNYAK "LINGUISTICS ACCORDING TO А.Т.FOMENKO" [р19], pp.74-105.
3.1. GENERAL REMARKS.
An extensive article of А.А.Zaliznyak - the biggest of critical articles to our address, placed in [р19], [р20], - absolutely doesn't touch the questions of grounding or building the basics of chronology. Only our reconstruction of the universal history, proposed by us yet as a hypothetical picture, based on the interpretation of historical information from the point of proposed by us new chronology, is discussed in the article.
Our reconstruction is criticized by А.А.Zaliznyak from the point of the Scaligerian chronology, on which he constantly, clearly or instinctively, rests in his critics. А.А.Zaliznyak straightly writes: "Having started building suppositions in the field of history and linguistics, АТF should be judged with the same court, as usual historians and linguists" [р19], p.75.
In answer we will note, that "usual" historians and linguists work within the frames of the Scaligerian chronology, often even not being aware of big dependence of their conclusions on this chronology. And they judge the works of each other, of course, also from the point of the Scaligerian chronology. It is easy to understand, what will happen, if our work, made within the frames of new chronology, in principle different from the Scaligerian, would be judged "with the same court". With the mentioned above phrase, placed in the beginning of the article, A.A.Zaliznyak could easily finish the article. As the following its content, in full accordance with the indicated phrase, has no any relation to chronology. Is it worth saying, that with chosen by him approach А.А.Zaliznyak at every step discovers grievous, revolting contradictions with familiar to him things. All the above could be shortly summarized just in several words: our reconstruction of the history sharply contradicts with the Scaligerian chronology and many conclusions, made from this chronology, in particular, in linguistics. And it is really so. As our reconstruction is built on the base of absolutely different chronology of the history. It is a trivial fact, which hardly requires such expanded evidence, as the article of А.А.Zaliznyak.
As for linguistic remarks, accompanying our reconstruction of the history, on which А.А.Zaliznyak especially strongly hits, in our books we always underline that linguistics for us is not a means of proof of anything. Particularly in chronology linguistics in the meanwhile was yet hardly useful. For building new chronology it was not used at all. But when chronology is already built, then at the stage of historical interpretations sometimes it is useful to engage linguistic considerations. Of course, taking them not as a proof, but as some directing considerations, able to clarify in some degree or complement an already in general built picture of the events of the past.
3.2. MORE DETAILED REVIEW OF SOME STATEMENTS OF А.А.ZALIZNYAK.
Although А.А.Zaliznyak says that he considers mainly our book "New chronology and the concept of the ancient history of Russia, England and Rome", calling it shortly NC, next he actually speaks about all our books, on all the variety of our studies, starting from the condemnation of our astronomical analysis, statistics etc. With this, in the beginning of his article А.А.Zaliznyak writes: <<I can't but condemn an annotation to the book [NC] and placed on the cover page information about the authors. In the annotation it is told: Aimed for the widest groups of readers, interested in the application of natural scientific methods in humanities". This is disinformation: usual humanitarian methods are used in the book>> [р19], pp.75-76.
Academician А.А.Zaliznyak lies. All our studies are based on the application of statistical, natural scientific, mathematical methods to different historical material. It is in detail explained in several of our books. In our other publications permanently, nearly on each step, there are references to the results of empirical-statistical studies. Here is a question, if А.А.Zaliznyak has read our books, devoted to natural scientific methods in history? Did he saw permanent references on their results? Yes or no. If he has read and seen, than he intentionally deceives the readers with phrases like quoted above. If he hasn't read, than probably, it would be better not to speak about a subject, the core of which А.А.Zaliznyak, as we see, actually didn't understood.
Next А.А.Zaliznyak starts his article with a section under a meaningful name "Amateur linguistics as a tool for revamping of history". А.А.Zaliznyak continues to lie. In all our books we especially many times underline that engaged by us from time to time linguistic considerations are not an independent proof of anything. Only the results of natural scientific methods are a proof. Only after this, during an attempt to read ancient documents once again, we have to demonstrate the ambiguity of their interpretation, appearing, first of all, due to the fact, that ancient texts were often written without vowel marks. Here different linguistic considerations appear. Here is a question, does А.А.Zaliznyak understand the indicated correlation in our works between natural scientific methods and linguistic considerations? Yes or no. If he understands, than once again he intentionally deceives the readers with statements like quoted above. If no, than what for to speak about a subject, the core of which remained deeply incomprehensible for А.А.Zaliznyak?
It is interesting, that the mentioned first section of his book linguist А.А.Zaliznyak starts not with linguistics, but with astronomy. He accuses us in the fact that we dated in a wrong way eclipses of Thucydides, using too free, "literary translation" of the text of Thucydides, telling about eclipses. This, he says, is "a bright example of mistake" [р19], p.76. А.А.Zaliznyak writes: "Speaking about the eclipse of 431 B.C., Thucydides tells, that the Sun became moonlike, and that some stars appeared. АТF, on the basis of literary Russian translation of Thucydides, understands this so, that first the Sun became moonlike, and later (when the eclipse reached the full phase) the stars appeared... But... The authentic text of Thucydides doesn't give such possibility: it could be understood so that the indicated events took place at the same time: the Sun became moonlike (not fully closed) and at the same time some stars appeared" [р19], p.76.
That's why we start our answer from astronomy.
[Next we shortly describe our research, fully provided in ХРОН1, ch.2:2.3. That's why here we will leave this material out, sending a reader to ХРОН1].
We ask, if А.А.Zaliznyak is acquainted with these our and Morozov's results? He states that he is [р19], pp.76-77. But in such case he intentionally writes lies, presenting our results in a quated above distorted way. And turns the subject from scientific plane to purely demagogic.
Having discussed astronomy А.А.Zaliznyak turns to condemnation of our linguistic considerations, appearing in our works, - we repeat once again, - just as an attempt to read once again ancient texts, often unadjusted. This, biggest part of the article of А.А.Zaliznyak, is written like in a humorous way. He proposes different witty remarks, which should show how awkward could be sound analogues, bringing together different in their core notions. Such humor has no any relation to our studies. We find it needless to comment anything here.
On example of the provided in ХРОН1, ch.2:2.3, review of the case with eclipses of Thucydides it is seen that the analysis of the basics of chronology in each specific case is a rather difficult task, requiring laborious and thorough research. All the required details could be found in our books. Unfortunately, there is an impression that the authors of "Antifomenko" collected books [р19], [р20] are hardly interested in the core of the issue. Otherwise the level of discussion, proposed in [р19], [р20], was considerably different. Unfortunately, we have no possibility to review in detail, like though an example with the triad of Thucydides, all the light-weighted statements of the authors of collected books [р19], [р20], often having just a visibility of "scientific objections". We send an interested reader, who really would like to understand the core of the opened questions, to our books.
4. REVIEW OF THE ARTICLE OF А.А.VENKSSTERN AND А.I.ZAKHAROV <<DATING OF "ALMAGEST" OF PTOLEMY BY PLANETS' CONFIGURATIONS>> [р19], pp.111-123, AND THE ARTICLE OF YU.D.KRASILNIKOV <<ABOUT COVERAGE OF STARS WITH PLANETS IN "ALMAGEST" OF PTOLEMY>> [р19], pp.160-165.
The first part of the article of А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov is devoted to an attempt to date Almagest by 23 observations of stars, which Ptolemy prescribes to himself [р19], p.111. (А.I.Zakharov - astronomer, an employee of GAISH, А.А.Venkstern - mathematician, his scientific supervisor on mechanical-mathematical faculty of the MSU was А.Т.Fomenko). In the article a number of calculations in this direction are provided; we didn't check them, but we have no reasons to doubt in correctness of them. Let's quote the received by authors result. It doesn't anyhow contradict with our studies of Almagest.
А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov write: "Conclusion: One of the two takes place:
a) observations of planets, on which Ptolemy builds his theory, really took place in the II century A.D.; b) these observations were calculated according to some theory for the indicated date" [р19], p.111.
As for the possibility b), that is falsification of the data of Almagest, А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov tell the following: <<In order to check the possibility of fake of the data by medieval falsificators (before creation by Kepler of his theory), we decided to learn: how quickly grows a mistake in the theory of Ptolemy? Or in a different way: how far in time the falsificator could live ("Ptolemy") from the traditional time, in order to have a possibility to falsify observations, using a theory, which he explained in "Almagest"? ... Conclusion: the discussed observations couldn't be falsified based on the theory like the theory of Ptolemy, "TIME OF THE LIFE" OF SUCH THEORY IS JUST 200-300 years>> [р19], p.114.
All this perfectly agrees with our calculations and with our reconstructions. See details in the book "Astronomical analysis of the chronology" [р7]. We think [р7] that Almagest, in his famous today view, is an edition of the XVII century – that is EDITION OF THE EPOCH OF KEPLER, - some famous old astronomical work. Activity on the editing of Almagest in the XVII century was FALCIFICATION, the purpose of which was to show Almagest as a creation allegedly of the II century A.D. This epoch was taken from the Scaligerian chronological tables. Falsificators-scaligerians brought into the correspondence with the epoch of the II century A.D. those astronomical data of Almagest, which, using the theory of Kepler, they couldn't calculate for the II century A.D. For example, a planet theory of Ptolemy. What now А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov discover in their work, published in [р19]. We should give them proper respect; they clearly speak about what exactly is proved by them.
Those astronomical data, which in the XVII century nobody yet could reliably calculate, for example, sun eclipses were just excluded from Almagest. As a result, Almagest in its modern form in a strange way doesn't mention any sun eclipse (?!).
We were successful that the falsificators of the XVII century didn't exclude from Almagest an old star catalogue of Ptolemy. Most likely, they simply didn't suspect that it was possible to take the dating of Almagest from the catalogue based on such thin effect like proper motions of stars [р7]. More rough effects, as, for example, precession of longitudes, of course, they didn't take into account.
As for the precession of longitudes, it was not a difficult task to calculate it for the I century A.D. not only in the XVII, but also in the XV-XVI centuries. And today – within brackets – another critic, astronomer Yu.N.Efremov, in numerous newspaper publications tells how to date Almagest by precession of longitudes. That is how to restore the date, "sewn" by the Scaligerian editors of the XVII century and with this "successfully confirm" the Scaligerian chronology. These funny considerations of Yu.N.Efremov you can also find in [р19], p.143.
So, returning to the work of А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov, we can conclude that the received by them result doesn't contradict with the new chronology and our reconstruction of the history. But it contradicts with the Scaligerian version of chronology and history. And very strongly, although А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov themselves don't note this.
The issue is in the following. In their article, in section "Possibility of falsification of planet observations of Almagest on the base of other theories" [р19], pp.113-114, А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov study the question: how long a planet theory, explained in Almagest, could "live". We should explain that through time the characteristics of planetary orbits slowly change. That's why some planetary theory, which satisfactorily worked at the epoch of its creation, in several hundred years could become dreadfull. And then, of course, it would be necessary to change it for another one. Or, at least, to renew it, having improved its criteria. The question is how long the theory of Ptolemy could work?
The answer is given by А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov: not more than 300 years.
Made by them calculations showed that <<mistake of the theory of Ptolemy runs very quickly, that's why with such criteria out of the neighborhood plus-minus 300 years the theory already works too badly... "The time of the life" of such theory is just 200-300 years>> [р19], p.114.
Let's suppose now that the Scaligerian historical-chronological picture is correct. And that Almagest, in its known today view, was really written by Ptolemy around the beginning of the Commmon Era. For example, in the I-II centuries B.C. or in the I-II centuries A.D. But then it appears that the planet theory, described in Almagest, stopped to work already in the VI-VII century. We add 300 years – maximal time of life of this theory, calculated by А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov, by the Scaligerian date of finishing of Almagest (around 150 year A.D. [р24], p.430) and we receive 450. Let it be even 500 or 600 year A.D. But not later. After this time the planetary theory of Ptolemy was obliged to be out of use or to be subject to modification.
What do we read in the Scligerian textbooks on history? In the Scaligerian version it is considered that Almagest was the main source of astronomical knowledge in general and planetary theory in particular until the epoch of Copernicus, which is until the XVI century A.D. [р24], pp.445-448; [р25], pp.2-3. See also our review of the history of Almagest in the Scaligerian version [р7], p.19-21.
It turns out that HAVING FIRST DURING 200-300 YEARS GOOD PLANETARY THEORY, astronomers and mathematicians THEN DURING MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND YEARS USED AN EXTREMELY BAD PLANETARY THEORY, which already by the V-VI century A.D. finally lost its accuracy and became absolutely unsatisfactory. And only in the XVI century they finally decided to refuse it. But before this, during hundreds of years they used it, translated into other languages, studied, admired etc. And it didn't come to anybody's mind at least simply to improve the criteria of planetary orbits in it. If somebody had done it, then the calculations of А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov would give not the I century A.D., but the date of the last change.
Such picture is incredible. The only, in our opinion, reasonable explanation of the results of А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov is the fact that the planetary theory of Almagest in the view, in which we see it today, was written in it in the XVII century, at the epoch of Kepler, with the purpose of falsification of its dating. Falsification was important for the launched exactly at that time Scaligerian historical-chronological version. See details in [р7]. Of course, falsificators adapted the criteria of planetary orbits for the required date – beginning of the Common Era. That was found in the work of А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov.
In the next, last section of their article in [р19], А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov address to critics of the found by us astronomical solution of four covers of stars with planets, described in Almagest. We will remind that our decision: morning of February 14, 959 A.D. for Mars, morning of October 18, 960 for Venus, dawn of July 25, 994 for Jove and evening of August 16, 1009 for Saturn – perfectly corresponds with the dating of star catalogue of Almagest by means of proper motions of stars. Allowable interval of dating of the catalogue of Almagest by means of proper motions: from 600 to 1300 year A.D. [р7], p.392. Found by us solution for coverage comes right in the center of the interval.
Moreover, we discovered that the found by us solution for coverage of the stars with planets ideally satisfies the time of day, when, according to the words of Ptolemy, one or another coverage was seen [р7], pp.454-467. So, for example, in case of Mars, Ptolemy says that the cover was observed in the morning – and really in our solution Mars was seen only after midnight, that is only in the morning. In case with Jove Ptolemy informs that the cover was seen in the morning – and really, in our solution Jove rose around one hour before the sunrise, being always in the sunrise area of the sky. And, let's say, in "traditional", that is Scaligerian, solution Jove was seen near the star all the night, and that's why the words of Ptolemy about observation of the cover only at the sunrise become exceeding and even strange. So, a traditional solution in this place (and not only here) contains a strain. Next, in case with Saturn, Ptolemy notes that approach with a star was seen in the evening. And really, in our solution Saturn went in one hour after the sunset and, therefore, was seen only in the evening, at the sunset. But in the Scaligerian solution Saturn was seen again all the night, what makes explanation of Ptolemy about evening observation exceeding and even incomprehensible. The same fine correspondence of our solution with description of Ptolemy is regarding Venus [р7], pp.454-467.
At the same time we absolutely didn't require that the found by us solution on covers was the only possible. The issue is that there are no ideal solutions for stated by us task – as in the case with Mars, for example, as "cover" should be considered an approach of Mars with the indicated star just for 15 arc minutes. Such approach, strictly speaking, is not a cover. Moreover, Mars didn't cover the required star in the historical epoch. That's why a question about the unicity of solution becomes diffuse. There is still no ideal solution, and there will be as more close to ideal ones, as more we will weaken the terms of Ptolemy. This fact was noted by us in [р7]. It is also confirmed in the article of А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov.
But absolutely groundless and even mistaken in the article of А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov is a comparison of our solution on coverage of stars with the Scaligerian solution, which they put in a short table [р19], p.117. In the table it is stated that our solution "badly satisfies the circumstances of covers", while the Scaligerian solution "more or less satisfactorily describes the circumstances of covers" [р19], p.117. This is wrong. Examples of the reverse we just provided above. In more details this question could be learned from ХРОН3.
Extremely doubtful looks also the statement of А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov that they have found five more series of datings for covers, which satisfy the descriptions of Ptolemy not worse than the solution, which was found by us. Of course, at the absence of ideal decision one can argue, if one solution is "worse" or "better" than another one. Nevertheless, we will note, that no one from the solutions, provided by А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov in the table on page 119 of the book [р19], doesn't satisfy the indicated above conditions of the time of visibility ("morning", "evening", "sunrise"), which Ptolemy provides. This is seen at least from the column "digression from the Sun" in their table [р19], p.119.
As for our solution, also included by А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov in their table, a strange typing error in the line on Jove pays attention to itself. In the second column of the line it is indicated that at the day of cover of the star by Jove the end of the night (dawn) took place at 4:36 local time, and in the fifth column of the same line it is told that the Sun rose at 4:58 local time. But the Sun rises around one hour after the dawn that is after the end of night. It is well known to А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov, and they clearly write about this on page 117 [р19]. This is also seen from all the other lines of their table [р19], p.119. Why at this day the Sun rose just in 20 minutes after the dawn?
Probably it is just a casual typing error. But for the indicated line А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov give the following note: "The time of rise of Jove until 6 degrees under the horizon is indicated. A weak star delta Cnc is not seen due to closeness to the Sun" [р19], p.118. So, А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov, as they think, indicate a disadvantage of our solution.
In which described by Ptolemy cover "was impossible to see anywhere in the world" [р19], p.118. The same they say regarding Saturn [р19], p.118. Both statements of А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov don't correspond to the reality. But mentioned above typing error in their table makes an impression that the issue was like they say. As it appears that cover of the star by Jove was seen allegedly only 20 minutes before the sunrise. Of course, when a star couldn't be noticed by observers on already lightened sky and due to this really a cover couldn't be observed. Actually, the calculations, for example, with easy and convenient for rough calculations program Turbo-Sky, show that approaches of Jove and Saturn with the corresponding stars took place in our solution one hour before the sunrise in case of Jove and in one hour after the sunset in case of Saturn. That could be easily observed on a rather blackened sky, although not for a long time. That's why Ptolemy says about observation exactly "at the dawn" and "in the evening".
By the way, a question about the possibility of real observation of covers of stars in our solution is not essential neither for new chronology in general nor for the dating of Almagest. The issue is that as the solution was not strict (no ideal covers), then remains a theoretical possibility that the covers in fact were not observed, but calculated. So, we have to do not with reports about real observations, included into Almagest, but with the results of medieval calculations. Which, of course, were not very precise.
Let's go now to the article of Yu.D.Krasilnikov <<About covers of stars with planets in "Almagest" of Ptolemy>> [р19], pp.160-165. In it Yu.D.Krasilnikov tells about the Scaligerian solution of the task of dating of covers. In particular, he had to accept that cover of the star by Venus, which Ptolemy called "precise cover", in the Scaligerian solution turned to be only an approach on 12 angle minutes [р19], p.161. Such approach hardly could be called "precise cover", that's why here in the solution, protected by Yu.D.Krasilnikov, it is an evident strain. There are several more such strains. For example, Ptolemy underlines that cover of the star by Jove was seen at the dawn, but in a solution of 241 A.D., which Yu.D.Krasilnikov defends, the approach of Jove with the star was seen nearly all the night – around five hours [р19], p.163. This is also some strain. Indication of Ptolemy of an evening time of observation of the approach of Saturn with the star fully "hangs in the air" in the solution, which Yu.D.Krasilnikov liked. In this solution Saturn is seen all the night. A confused comment of Yu.D.Krasilnikov on this issue with rather inappropriate claims on disadvantages of a computer program, which Yu.D.Krasilnikov used for calculation of covers, could be read on page 163 of the collection [р19].
By the way, Yu.D.Krasilnikov, as well as А.А.Venkstern and А.I.Zakharov, for some reason is sure, that for new chronology and our dating of Almagest it is important that there was now other solution for covers, except the proposed by us one. This is not so. For us it is enough that there is a solution for covers, probably not the only one, which is well agreed with the received by us dating of the catalogue of Almagest. See details in [р7].
At the end of his article Yu.D.Krasilnikov compares the Scaligerian solution, which he liked, with our solution, trying to prove that our solution was "much worse". With this Yu.D.Krasilnikov mainly insists that we in our solution didn't take into account the Sun longitude, provided in Almagest within description by Ptolemy of the covers of stars with planets. Our answer is the following. First of all, the Sun longitude is not a part of the used by Ptolemy observations. A longitude is calculated in Almagest for each cover. Second, it is not difficult to understand that a Sun longitude – it is the same date, but in other designations.
As we have today only a falsified in the XVII century edition of Almagest, it is difficult to expect that such simple things like Sun longitude were not brought by the editors of Almagest to the necessary for them Scaligerian date. No doubt, they were thoroughly agreed with the required date. That is what Yu.D.Krasilnikov finds out now, studying the Sun longitude in Almagest. With this he thinks that he "restores" a real date of Almagest, but actually he restores only an opinion of the editors-falsificators of the XVII century about this date. We already know this opinion – the Scaligerian date is written in all the textbooks. It is strange that Yu.D.Krasilnikov doesn't understand this. Probably he simply didn't read our book [р6], [р7], where everything is explained in details.
5. REVIEW OF THE ARTICLE OF YU.D.KRASILNIKOV "ARITHMETICAL AND ASTRONOMICAL MISTAKES OF NEWCHRONOLOGIST N.А.MOROZOV"
The article brightly demonstrates one of the methods, with which the core of the methods and results of N.A.Morozov and ours is sometimes being distorted. The issue is about dating of eclipses. As we already showed in the review of the article of А.А.Zaliznyak on example of the triad of Thucydides, see. ХРОН1,ch.2:2.3, this is usually not an easy task and requires a thorough detailed analysis. A detailed review of the dating of each separate eclipse usually takes several pages, not just ten lines, like Yu.D.Krasilnikov did. If Yu.D.Krasilnikov really had a purpose to acquaint a reader of the collected book [р19] with the problem of dating of eclipses, he would need to take the whole list of "antique" eclipses, as N.A.Morozov did in his time, and then we also did, and, having gone through it from the beginning till the end, to analyze thoroughly separately each eclipse. If Yu.D.Krasilnikov did everything "in good faith", then as a result he would have found out that most of "antique" descriptions of eclipses allow many astronomical solutions. That's why they are useless for an independent dating. As for those few cases, when we have detailed descriptions of eclipses in the primary sources, like "History" of Thucydides, the precise astronomical solutions appear to be medieval and even late medieval.
There is nothing like this in the article of Krasilnikov. Instead of this he takes a book of N.A.Morozov and chooses from it several examples of eclipses, dating of which considerably leans on calendar indications. For example, on the mentioning of calendar dates or count of years, let's say, by Olympics. We send a reader to [р3] or to ХРОН1, ch.2:4.3, where we explain, why it is dangerous to use calendar indications in the primary sources for its dating. By the way, N.A.Morozov didn't understand till the end this important circumstance.
Returning to the article of Yu.D.Krasilnikov, it is impossible not to note that he actually backed out of discussion of the triad of eclipses of Thucydides. It is clear why. As we already told, the triad is described by Thucydides without engaging any calendar indications, and that's why the role of its astronomical dating grows seriously. Moreover, it contains two Sun eclipses at once. And we already showed that the resulting solution is medieval. It differs from the proposed by Petavius and accepted today in the Scaligerian chronology for as much as one and a half thousand years. Feeling the weakness of his position, Yu.D.Krasilnikov here didn't find anything better but to repeat without reference a demagogic proposal of Hofmann to consider "stars of Thucydides" a rhetorical decoration.
A scientific level of the article of Yu.D.Krasilnikov is very low. But it is true that demagogically it is high. The readers, who really want to understand this not easy scientific problem, can address to our books and the books of N.A.Morozov [р1], [р3], [р30].
5. REVIEW OF THE SPEECH OF M.L.GORODETSKIY "RADICAL MATHEMATICAL MISTAKE IN MATHEMATICAL-STATISTICAL METHODS OF А.Т.FOMENKO" [р19], pp.124-129
Discussed here article of M.L.Gorodetskiy is a parody on our method of analysis of numerical dynasties [р3], part 1, pp.414-428. The parody is hidden under the mask of "conscientious scientific study" and when reading "cornerwise" can be easily accepted as a report about allegedly done by M.L.Gorodetskiy serious scientific work.
In his article M.L.Gorodetskiy states that he allegedly precisely restored our calculations of the closeness values of numerical dynasties. See the description of our method in [р3], part 1, pp. 414-428. As a result of his calculations M.L.Gorodetskiy, as he writes, "as much as possible strictly following the description of the method of determining the remoteness of the dynasties" [р19], p.125, received absurd results. For example, he "discovered", that the dynasty of the medieval Navarre kingdom "is parallel" to the dynasty of Swedish kings of 1611-1950 [р19], p.125.
What answer could be on this? Of course, the result, received by M.L.Gorodetskiy, is absurd. Certainly, from here it follows that the calculations of M.L.Gorodetskiy and (or) their interpretation of M.L.Gorodetskiy were wrong. But it doesn't follow from here, however much M.L.Gorodetskiy wanted, that OUR calculations and OUR CONCLUSIONS were wrong.
We will shortly explain what the issue is here. M.L.Gorodetskiy in his article tries to create an impression of the reader (although he doesn't state this clearly due to understandable in his situation caution), that he used EXACTLY THE SAME METHOD as we TO THE SAME DATA as we, but finally received a different result – absolutely absurd one. But this is not so.
Let's start from the initial data. In our method data about the duration of governances was taken from around one and a half tens of chronological tables and reference books, listed in [р3], part 1, p.426, and also from a number of historical primary sources – memorials, chronicles. With this we took into account all the variants of the beginning and the end of governance of one or another governor. And this is important for proposed by us method.
The issue is that for the Ancient time and Middle Ages often there are rather many different variants of the dates of the same governance in chronicles. There are variants for nearly every old dynasty. For example, let's take a dynasty of Navarre kings, taken by M.L.Gorodetskiy from a modern reference book and provided by him on the first page of his article [р19], p.124. In the dynasty for one of the most famous Navarre kings, Sancho III the Great, M.L.Gorodetskiy gives the dates of governance: 1004-1035. And now let's open the "Soviet encyclopedia" – also a modern reference book, but different – not the one M.L.Gorodetskiy used. And we see that there the years of governance of the same Sancho III the Great differ: 1000-1035 [р26], p.16. The difference in the beginning of governance is four years. But both reference books are modern scientific editions. When reading each of them separately, one may think that the beginning of the governance of Sancho III the Great is absolutely accurately, without variants known to modern science. This is wrong. Moreover, if we address to chronicles, memorials, old chronological tables, we will see that there is a big disagreement in the years of governance. Simply today in scientific historical reference books for some reason it is usual to leave only one variant. And silence is kept about the conventionality of this variant.
If we in our method have limited ourselves only to one, let's say, taken from some modern reference book, variant of duration for each governor, as M.L.Gorodetskiy did (if he really calculated anything), then we would drastically cut the amount of information, based on which our method works. Of course, with this its efficiency would lower, and reliability of separation of dependent and independent dynasties in general could fall. For how much – we don't know, as we didn't do such calculations (due to their uselessness). But theoretically it might be that at such shortening of the initial information the efficiency of our method will considerably lower. It is natural, as any such method is a method of information processing. If considerably less information is given "at the input" of the method, then nothing could be received "at the output". M.L.Gorodetskiy, according to his parody article, doesn't understand this simple truth. Otherwise he would build his parody more correctly (in this place).
Now let's turn to the method itself. In our description of the method it was underlined that it was an empirical-statistical one. This means that its efficiency should be checked by experiment on beforehand true data. By means of experiment are determined both the fact of separation with the method of dependent and independent dynasties, and specific sills, which let to separate them. See. [р3], part 1, p.428. The indicated stage of experimental checking of the method and finding separating sills – it is an important stage, without which the method would have no sense. In the article of M.L.Gorodetskiy there is no a word that such stage of the work was done by him. Once again, we here suppose that M.L.Gorodetskiy really calculated something.
And after this M.L.Gorodetskiy is surprised that two beforehand independent numerical dynasties turned to be parallel according to his "method". There is nothing surprising here. As we see from his article, M.L.Gorodetskiy simply didn't understand the core of our method. Thinking that he "as possible strictly" follows it in his calculations, actually he misses important steps, without which the method simply can't work.
That's why those cruel points of accusation, which M.L.Gorodetskiy with pathos states in his article [р19], pp.126-127 against allegedly introduced by us measure of closeness of numerical dynasties, actually relates to the measure of closeness, calculated (or imagined) by M.L.Gorodetskiy himself.
But even if M.L.Gorodetskiy really didn't read anything, and just wrote a parody (supposing that the editors of the collected book [р19] still will not understand), then it is worth to admit that M.L.Gorodetskiy studied the subject not enough deeply. He should have read our books more attentively. Or, probably, to learn more theory. Then the parody would be much better.
"Discussion" by M.L.Gorodetskiy of one of the found by us dynasty parallelisms on the pages 128-129 of the collected book [р19] is a bright proof of the fact, that M.L.Gorodetskiy didn't understand the basics of our method and didn't read our books on this method. Or he read, but didn't understand.
As for outward similarity of the graphs-"herring-bones", in the example, provided by M.L.Gorodetskiy [р19], p.125, the "similarity" itself doesn't prove anything. It is clearly written about this in our books, which M.L.Gorodetskiy probably simply didn't read. Let's quote our text: <<it is impossible to determine similarity or diversity of the graphs of two dynasties (more precisely, graphs of their governances) "by eye". Visual similarity of two graphs may not say anything. There are examples of beforehand independent dynasties, the graphs of governances of which will turn to be rather similar>> [р3], part 1, p.421.
6. REVIEW OF THE ARTICLE OF Yu.N.EFREMOV "NEW, BUT FALSE CHRONOLOGY" [р19], pp.142-146
Around half of the text of the article of Yu.N.Efremov consists of emotionally colored statements, expressing unlimited confidence of Yu.N.Efremov in the chronology of Scaliger-Petavius and in school course of history. So, for example, according to Yu.N.Efremov "the generally accepted chronology doesn't need new checking and confirmations" [р19], p.142. Next, Yu.N.Efremov is sure that against new chronology "historians continue to publish very politely irresistible arguments... but politeness doesn't help" [р19], p.142. For this reason Yu.N.Efremov desided to refuse the rules of politeness, accepted in scientific discussions and, as he writes "to call things with their names" [р19], p.142. However, extremely rude tone of polemics is typical for the most articles from [р19], [р20], not only for the article of Yu.N.Efremov. In this sense the article of Yu.N.Efremov is more a rule, than an exception in [р19], [р20].
As a fun we would note, that according to Yu.N.Efremov, for example, the following "strong argument" successfully works against new chronology. Quote: "The spirit of the epoch has different taste. Vergil is not similar to Dante, Julius Caesar - to Charlemagne, and gothic cathedrals - to the Parthenon. WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS IT IS CLEAR that many centuries of evolution of the mankind separate them" [р19], p.142. Yu.N.Efremov has strange logics. Let's say, St. Basil's Cathedral on the Red Square and Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin absolutely don't resemble each other. And nevertheless they are built at the same epoch. Where did Yu.N.Efremov get his immovable sureness ("without discussions it is clear"), that not resembling each other buildings should be definitely separated by "many centuries of evolution"? Many examples show that this is not so.
Now let's turn to discussion of the own results of Yu.N.Efremov in the field of chronology. Please note, that Yu.N.Efremov personally was engaged in dating of the star catalogue of Almagest by means of proper motionst of stars. He got a result, which, as it seemed him, confirmed the Scaligerian chronology [р21], [р22]. Unfortunately, the works of Yu.N.Efremov on the dating of the catalogue of Almagest have a mistake for around one thousand years in the estimation of the accuracy of the received by him dates. This fully devaluates dating of the catalogue of Almagest, received by Yu.N.Efremov. The mistakes in the works of Yu.N.Efremov [р21], [р22] on dating of the star catalogue of Almagest were in detail reviewed by us in the books [р6], [р7], [р8]. Here we will not repeat the review once again.
But in his article, published in [р19] and reviewed by us here, Yu.N.Efremov states, that his new work together with A.K.Dambis [р23] already without mistakes (as he thinks) confirms the Scaligerian dating of the star catalogue of Almagest, and therefore – the Scaligerian chronology. Moreover, Yu.N.Efremov straightly writes that his previous method of dating of Almagest, already several times reviewed in detail by us in print, already "lost its value in the light of the results" of the article [р23]. See. [р19], p.145. Otherwise, according to Yu.N.Efremov, all his previous mistakes in the dating of Almagest now were improved, and the same result was received – confirming the Scaligerian chronology. No details regarding his new method of dating of Almagest Yu.N.Efremov doesn't give in [р19] and just addresses a reader to English language publication [р23] in the magazine Journal for History of Astronomy.
That's why we address to the indicated article of Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis [р23]. According to the authors, even two new methods of dating of the star catalogue of Ptolemy are proposed in it. Of course, both methods, according to the authors [p23], "fully confirm" the Scaligerian chronology. But analysis of the work [р23] shows that, unfortunately, Yu.N.Efremov together with his co-author A.K.Dambis again and again repeats the same his old mistake. He incorrectly evaluates the accuracy of the received by him approximate dates.
The first of the two new methods of dating of the catalogue of Almagest, proposed by Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis, is described in [р23] in the section "Results of Mutual Distances Method". The method is just taken from our book [р8], about what Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis directly say [р23], p.121. According to their opinion, we, having proposed this method, allegedly didn't notice ourselves, what a "good" result it gave [р23], p.121. But in our book, devoted to the dating of the star catalogue of Almagest [р6], [р7], [р8], we rather clearly explained, why the indicated method, as well as a number of other simple approaches to the dating of the catalogue of Almagest, DOESN'T GIVE ANY NONTRIVIAL RESULT. The reason is that the ACCURACY of the given by these methods datings is too low and, as a consequence, the datings themselves have too big dispersion. As a result datings of the catalogue of Almagest with such rather simple modes turn to be uninformative, trivial. As for the method, taken from our book by Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis, we address the reader to paragraph 3, chapter 3 of the edition [р6] or to section 3.3 of the edition [р7] of our book on the dating of Almagest. See also section 7.4 "Dating of the catalogue of Almagest by widened informative core" in the last edition [р7] of our book on the dating of Almagest.
Here we once again come across the fact that Yu.N.Efremov in a strange way doesn't place importance on the evaluation of the accuracy in the problem of dating of the star catalogue of Almagest. Evaluations of the accuracy of approximate datings of the catalogue composing are not given by Yu.N.Efremov at all – as in the reviewed case, - or are wrong. The provided example of borrowing by Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis of a method of dating from our book – besides the method, thrown away by us due to its low accuracy, - brightly characterizes the relation of Yu.N.Efremov to the issue of evaluation of accuracy in general. By the way, evaluation of accuracy is the key question in this problem. See details in [р6], [р7].
Let's turn to the next section of the article [р23]. It is named "The Case of o^2 Eri". Here the authors directly write: "The fastest of the Almagest stars, o^2 Eri is important for catalogue dating by means of proper motions". This is really so. But in order to use the star o^2 Eri in the dating of Almagest, at least it is necessary to be sure, that this star is really included in the catalogue of Almagest. In order to prove this Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis refer to the works of a number of astronomers, who searched for identification of the star number 779 from Almagest (in numeration of Baily), which was called by Ptolemy in Almagest just "medium star". This not remarkable star of Almagest was really identified by the most researchers with also not remarkable star o^2 Eri of the modern sky. But we underline, only based on the fact, that at the epoch of the II century A.D., where the Scaligerian chronology places Ptolemy, the star o^2 Eri better than her neighbors corresponded to the coordinates, prescribed in Almagest to the star number 779. We underline, that no other arguments for the mentioned identification, except correspondence of the coordinates, were used in case with the star number 779. This star is marked neither by brightness nor by own name or more or less detailed description in Almagest.
But let's recall, that the star o^2 Eri has rather big proper motion. It considerably changes its position on the sky through centuries.
And if in the beginning of the Common era o^2 Eri really could be the best candidate for identification with the star number 779 from Almagest, then in the other epochs it is not so. The fact, that astronomers stopped at the identification of the star number 779 from Almagest with the star o^2 Eri, is a trivial consequence of the circumstance, that astronomers had already used information about proper motions of the stars. Moreover, they, of course, used the Scaligerian dating of Almagest. Otherwise, the mentioned identification – extremely important for Yu.N.Efremov – is just a consequence of the Scaligerian dating of Almagest. To use it for dating of Almagest, as Yu.N.Efremov does, - it is the same as to solve a reverse problem and to restore according to the results of the work of astronomers of the XVIII-XX centuries that the Scaligerian dating of Almagest, which they used in their work on identification of the stars of Ptolemy. But such dating is well known – it is, we will repeat, the Scaligerian dating. Of course, with such approach Yu.N.Efremov couldn't receive any other date for Almagest, but the Scaligerian one. Here we come across a vicious circle in the reasonings of Yu.N.Efremov, who as a consequence insistently gives forwarding.
Many times we explained to Yu.N.Efremov, that using of o^2 Eri for dating of the catalogue of Almagest is senseless, as it leads to a vicious circle. In our book [р6], [р7], [р8] it is explained in detail, corresponding drawings of the positions of Ptolemian and real stars in the constellation of Eridan are provided. Nevertheless, Yu.N.Efremov insistently continues to date Almagest according to o^2 Eri, each time repeating the same vicious circle. Finally, it becomes wearisome to explain him this.
The next section [р23] under the name "The Bulk Method" finishes the substantial part [р23]. The remaining sections of the article [р23] are devoted to conclusions and gratitudes.
According to the authors [р23], in this section they propose a method of dating of the catalogue of Almagest by means of proper motions, considerably differing from the previous method of Yu.N.Efremov [р21], [р22]. An important difference of such mode from the previous method of Yu.N.Efremov, as Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis write in [р23], is that this time for dating of the catalogue of Ptolemy all the fast stars from Almagest were used together. While in the previous method of Yu.N.Efremov each of the fast stars was used for dating separately [р23], p.125.
But it is surprising, that a transition to new modified method of dating didn't improve, but instead, worsened a bit the accuracy of the received by Yu.N.Efremov dating. So, in his previous work [р21] Yu.N.Efremov dated Almagest with 13th year A.D. allegedly with plus-minus 100 years. And in the work [р23], having developed and improved his method of dating, Yu.N.Efremov could date Almagest "only" with the accuracy plus-minus 122 years. The result of new dating of Almagest of Yu.N.Efremov is such: 90 year B.C. plus-minus 122 years [р23], p.128. So, the method was improved, and the accuracy, which it gives, - worsened. How this could be understood?
The answer is that both in work [р21] and in work [р23] Yu.N.Efremov in a wrong way evaluates the accuracy of the received by him datings.
Whimsicality of the stated by Yu.N.Efremov order of accuracy of the received by him datings of the catalogue of Ptolemy was explained by us in detail else within the review of the previous works of Yu.N.Efremov. See also our book [р6], [р7], where this question is discussed in detail [р6], pp.99-102; [р7], pp.200-212. A simple calculation shows, that a real order of the accuracy of the method of Yu.N.Efremov is not 100-120 years, as he for some reason thinks, but around THOUSAND years [р6], pp.99-102; [р7], pp.200-212.
By the way, in his first work on dating of Almagest [р21] Yu.N.Efremov told in detail, how did he receive his estimation of accuracy. This gave a possibility to find a mistake in his reasonings, which was shown to him [р6], pp.99-102; [р7], pp.200-212. But in the last work of Yu.N.Efremov [р23] on the dating of Almagest by means of proper motions not less fantastic estimations of the accuracy are given without any ground. No formulas, no algorithms, based on which the estimations were received, are given in [р23]. Other, more detailed works on this topic Yu.N.Efremov, apparently, also doesn't have. At least neither in [р19], nor in [р23] there are no links on such works. That's why it is difficult to indicate the specific mistakes in the estimation of accuracy, made by Yu.N.Efremov in [р23]. But there is no need in it. The presence of mistake in the estimations of accuracy of the datings in [р23] follows from the analysis of accuracy characteristics of the catalogue of Almagest, provided by us in [р6], [р7]. The characteristics are such, that the accuracy of dating of the catalogue of Almagest by means of proper motions of the stars with the mehod of Yu.N.Efremov can't be better, than plus-minus 400-500 years with the use of arch closing errors or, at least, plus-minus 300 years with the use of latitude closing errors [р7], p.206, [р7].
Moreover, it is not excluded, that like in his previous works [р21], [р22], in the work [р23] Yu.N.Efremov made a task oriented preliminary selection of the environments of fast stars, what provided the "required" answer. At least, from the text of the article [р23] it is not absolutely clear, according to which rule environments of one or another fast star were chosen when getting the final dating. As the method of Yu.N.Efremov is unstable to the choice of the stars environment, then with the help of the choice of suitable environment it is possible to receive the desired in advance date from the catalogue of Almagest. See details in our review of the method of Yu.N.Efremov [р6], pp.99-102; [р7], pp.200-212.
In general, new method of dating of Almagest by means of proper motions, proposed in [р23] doesn't differ much from the initial variant of the method from [р21], [р22]. The difference is only in the fact, that earlier Yu.N.Efremov received datings for each fast star separately (with some choice of its environment). We will clarify, that in the method of Yu.N.Efremov a position of a fast star is determined relatively to its environment, which consists of close to it stars. We found out that change in the composition of the environment is able to change considerably the received by such method dating [р6], pp.99-102; [р7], pp.200-212. Now, in the work [р23], Yu.N.Efremov proposes to get a single date for all fast stars.
With this some not very clear from the text [р23] rule of the choice of environments is used. Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis determine the searched single date as follows [р23], p.125.
Ecliptic coordinates on the celestial sphere for the epoch of the beginning of the Common era are considered. One of the coordinates, latitude or longitude, is fixed. Next one of the datings, according to the initial method of Yu.N.Efremov, is presented as a point on a plane. On horizontal axis the component of the speed of proper motion of the given fast star for this coordinate is given (with some amendment for the speed of the stars of the environment, what doesn't change the essence of the issue). A closing error for this coordinate lies over the vertical axis for an average distance from this fast star to its environment. A closing error is taken between an average distance, calculated by Almagest, and the same distance, calculated on the estimated sky for the beginning of the Common era. A point on a plane appears. After this, dating according to the method of Yu.N.Efremov for this fast star and for this environment is expressed with a decline of a line, drawn from the beginning of the coordinates to the received point.
The indicated procedure is done for each of the ecliptic coordinates – latitude and longitude – and for all the fast stars and their different environments.
A field of points on a plane appears. It is clear that if the catalogue of Almagest contained ideally precise coordinates of the stars, then all such stars would lie on one straight line. A decline, which would represent the date of the catalogue. But as coordinates of the stars in Almagest contain mistakes, there are no points on this line. Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis had an idea to use the method of linear regression and to determine the date of the catalogue from the decline of a regression line, drawn through the received field of points.
The idea itself is rather reasonable. But that field of points for Almagest, which Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis got, [р23], p.125, pic.5, doesn't let to estimate the decline of a regression line with the stated by them accuracy. What is, of course, not surprising due to essential inaccuracy of their method.
The field of points, provided on pic.5 of the work [р23], more or less randomly fills an area, resembling ellipsis with the center in the beginning of the coordinates. See pic.p5.3, which reproduces ill.5 from the work of Yefremov and Dambis. We just added to the picture a corresponding vertical axis, going through zero. An ellipsis, made by the field of points on pic. p5.3, is pulled a bit horizontally (correlation of semi-axis around 2:1). Yu.N.Efremov and A.K.Dambis state that the angle of decline of a regression line, determined with such «ellipsoidal» field of points, is close to zero. Moreover, they actually state that the angle allegedly can be determined with a fantastic accuracy just in several degrees [р23], p.125, ill.5. This is more than doubtful. It is obvious that Yu.N.Efremov once again made a mistake in estimation of the accuracy of the received by him date.
So, let's conclude. A new work of Yu.N.Efremov on the dating of Almagest, to which he refers in [р19], in fact, is just a variant of his old mode of dating of Almagest. In it the same mistake of Yu.N.Efremov is repeated – an incorrect estimation of the accuracy of the received by him dating. Moreover, in this work Yu.N.Efremov again uses the star o^2 Eri for the dating, the presence of which in the catalogue of Almagest could be reasoned only within a suggestion that the catalogue is composed close to the beginning of the Common era – that is in the Scaligerian epoch. It is clear that using such star for dating.
7. SHORT REVIEW OF THE OTHER SPEECHES, PUBLISHED IN [р19], [р20].
I.A.Nastenko in the article "Instead of the foreword" [р19], pp.8-11, actually doesn't express any objections against new chronology. I.A.Nastenko states his own version, how and who, according to his opinion, created the new chronology. This version mainly consists of the thoughts of I.A.Nastenko and is far from reality. Many emotions: "insolent lies", "promoted delirium", "serious danger for the native culture" etc. The article finishes with a pathetic and even a bit hysterical reference of the author "to the academician А.Т.Fomenko", where I.A.Nastenko speaks about the "strain of virus, which went out of the laboratory" and other such kind trifle. The article of I.A.Nastenko takes 4 pages in [р19]. V.А.Kuchkin in the article <<"New geography" of Russian historical events>> [р19], pp.27-30, also doesn't contain objections against new chronology. In the article our reconstruction of the Battle of Kulikovo is discussed – a supposition, which is not directly connected with chronology. It is discussed that the sources, to which we refer to confirm our point of view, - this are allegedly lapses of ignorant rewriters of chronicles, allegedly wrong opinions of the authors of the XIX century etc. All the text of the article is written in the sense of absolute misunderstanding of the problems of chronology and even misunderstanding of the existence of problems. The article of V.А.Kuchkin takes 4 pages in [р19].
L.V.Milov in an expanded article "To question about the authenticity of Razdvilovskaya chronicle" [р19], pp.31-46, as an objection to our analysis of Razdvilovskaya chronicle probably decided to write everything, what he knew about this chronicle himself. L.V.Milov does this with many words and rather disconnectedly, but in fact the text of L.V.Milov doesn't contain contradictions of those conclusions, which were made by us during the analysis of Razdvilovskaya chronicle [р13], [р14], [р16]. The article of L.V.Milov finishes with a number of appendixes, which are not related to our works at all. They describe scientific achievements of L.V.Milov, with which he probably is especially proud. Seems that L.V.Milov simply decided to seize an occasion for their publication. The article of L.V.Milov takes 16 pages in the edition [р19]. G.А.Koshelenko in the article "About the sources of one fantastical cheat" [р19], pp.47-52, simply retells a textbook on history in the Scaligerian version, which G.А.Koshelenko definitely mixed with the real truth. The article of G.А.Koshelenko takes 6 pages in the edition [р19].
D.M.Volodikhin in the article <<The place of "new chronology" in folk-history>> [р19], pp.53-56, expresses his subjective view on some things, which are not related to the problems of chronology. D.M.Volodikhin definitely his nothing to say. The stream of his "valuable thoughts" finishes in three and a half pages off the edition [р19].
G.A.Eliseev in the article <<Christianity and "new chronology">> [р19], pp.57-65, writes something philosophical, related to anything, but not to the problems of chronology. According to his article, G.A.Eliseev didn't read our works on chronology and has no any idea about them. At least G.A.Eliseev refers mainly to the works of N.A.Morozov. Philosophical reasonings of G.A.Eliseev, which have no any relation to chronology, take 9 pages in the edition [р19]. O.I.Eliseeva with the article "Gnoseological roots of the theory of А.Т.Fomenko in philosophical concepts of the epoch of Enlightenment" with an epigraph "Everything best in this best of the worlds", without giving any reference on our works and, seems, not mentioning the word "chronology", increases the amount of "arguments against new chronology" in the edition [р19] for 8 more pages [р19], pp.66-73. M.Yu.Sokolov in the article "Pleasure to be an orphan" [р19], pp.106-108, discusses only the cover pages of our books, which he has seen in stores. According to his article, he didn't open our books. But still he is deeply outraged that "new chronologists" want "to take from people their majestic property - ... motherland and world history, - leaving a senseless porridge instead of it" [р19], p.108. As the word is, "didn't read, but condemn". His "sincere indignationе" M.Yu.Sokolov expresses on three pages of the edition [р19].
A.Yu.Andreev in the article <<"New chronology" from the point of mathematical statistics>> [р19], pp.106-108, according to the name of the article, took an obligation before the publishers of the edition [р19] to find mathematical-statistical mistakes in our works. But he didn't manage to do this, and A.Yu.Andreev could just complain, that <<the books of ATF are built so that it turns to be very difficult to find and "to catch him in the act" in mathematical methods>> [р19], p.109. Having met the failure, A.Yu.Andreev limited himself to two pages of indistinct text without a single formula. By the way, this didn't prevent him from victorious end of such fast review with a "devastating" conclusion: "the results of Fomenko are on the same way mathematically illiterate, as relatively to history, philology and OTHER" [р19], p.110. A beautiful conclusion and two more pages of "arguments" in the edition [р19].
M.L.Gorodetskiy in the article "About Comet Halley, history, astronomy, physics and some mathematicians" [р19], pp.130-141, makes an attempt, in the stream of words, having just a visibility of natural scientific text, to "sink" our evidence of falsification of the list of "ancient"-Chinese observations of Comet Halley [р16], pp.167-180. In particular, M.L.Gorodetskiy states, that the found by us contradiction, indicating falsification of Chinese list of comets, allegedly "is easily explained within a limited problem of three bodies" [р19], p.140. But if it is so easy for M.L.Gorodetskiy, why wouldn't he provide the promised explanation here, in the article? He doesn't do this. Although there is enough space, given to M.L.Gorodetskiy for his "scientific arguments" - 12 pages of a wide format edition [р19].
D.A.Talantsev in his article <<Some mistakes of "new chronology" of А.Т.Fomenko>> [р19], pp.166-171, discusses our work, devoted to the question of dating of the Christian paschal cycle, accepted at the First Nicene Council and to the question of calculation of the initial point of the era "Anno Domini". D.A.Talantsev couldn't find any mistakes in our discussions. In this sense the content of his article contradicts with its name. A complete answer to the article of D.A.Talantsev is already placed in our books, see, for example, [р5]. We have nothing to add to the told things. Reasonings of D.A.Talantsev take 6 pages in the edition [р19].
U.V.Chashchikhin in the article <<Natural scientific objections against "new chronology">> [р19], pp.172-185, among other "natural scientific" objections appeals for help, for example, article 129 of the Criminal Code. This criminal article, according to U.V.Chashchikhin, should be applied to us for "slander relatively to the history" [р19], p.175. "Natural scientific objections of" U.V.Chashchikhin took 14 pages in [р19].
[р1] А.Т.Fomenko. 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). -Moscow, publishing house of the MSU, 1990.
[р2] А.Т.Fomenko. Methods of mathematical analysis of historical texts. Applications to chronology. - Moscow, Nauka, 1996.
[р3] А.Т.Fomenko. Methods of statistical analysis of historical texts. Applications to chronology. Parts 1,2. - Moscow, publishing house "Kraft+Lean", 1999.
[р4] A.T.Fomenko. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating.
Volume 1. The Development of the Statistical Tools.
Volume 2. The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records. - Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands. 1994.
[р5] G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Mathematical chronology of biblical events. - Moscow, "Nauka", 1997.
[р6] V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Dating of the star catalogue of "Almagest". Statistical and geometrical analysis. - Moscow, publishing house "Factorial", 1995.
[р7] V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Astronomical analysis of chronology. Almagest. Zodiacs. - Moscow, "Delovoy express", 2000.
[р8] A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovski. Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating of Ptolemy's Almagest. - CRC-Press, USA, 1993.
[р9] A.T.Fomenko. Global chronology. (Studies on the history of the Ancient World and Middle Ages. Mathematical methods of analysis of the sources. Global chronology). – Moscow, MSU, publishing house of the mechanical-mathematical faculty of the MSU, 1993.
[р10] A.T.Fomenko. Critics of traditional chronology of the antiquity and the Middle Ages (What century is now?). Report. - Moscow, MSU, publishing house of the mechanical-mathematical faculty of the MSU. 1993.
[р11] G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Introduction into new chronology. What century is now? - Moscow, publishing house "Kraft+Lean", 1999.
[р12] G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. New chronology and concept of the ancient history of Russia, England and Rome. (Facts. Statistics. Suppositions). Volume 1: Russia. Volume 2: England, Rome. - Moscow, 1995, publishing house of Learning-Scientific center of pre-university education of the MSU. Second revised edition of the same book was issued in the same publishing house in 1996. Page numbers of this edition don't correspond to numeration of the first edition.
[р13] G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. New chronology of Russia. – Moscow, publishing house Factorial, 1997. The book was republished several times with the same publishing house in 1998-2000.
[р14] G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. New chronology of Russia, England and Rome. – Moscow, publishing house ANVIK, 1999.
[р15] A.T.Fomenko. New chronology of Greece. Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Volumes 1,2. - Moscow, MSU, publishing house of Learning-Scientific center of pre-university education of the MSU, 1996.
[р16] G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Empire. Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, Egypt. New mathematical chronology of the antiquity. – Moscow, publishing house "Factorial", 1996.
[р17] G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Reconstruction of the universal history. (New chronology). Book 1. - Moscow, Financial publishing house "Delovoy express", 1999.
[р18] G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko. Reconstruction of the universal history. Studies of 1999-2000. (New chronology). - Moscow, Financial publishing house "Delovoy express", 2000.
[р19] "Antifomenko". Collection of the Russian Historical Society. Volume 3 (151). - Moscow, "Russian panorama", 2000.
[р20] History and anti-history. Critics of "new chronology" of academician А.Т.Fomenko. - Moscow, "Languages of Russian culture", 2000.
[р21] Efremov Yu.N., Pavlovskaya Е.D. Dating of "Almagest" by means of proper motions of stars. – DAS USSR, v.294, issue 2 (1980), pp.310-313.
[р22] Efremov Yu.N., Pavlovskaya Е.D. Determination of the epoch of the star catalogue of "Almagest" by analysis of the proper motions of stars. – In the collected book
"Historical-astronomical studies" under the edition of А.А.Gurshtein. М. 1989. pp. 175-192.
[р23] A.K.Dambis, Yu.N.Efremov. Dating Ptolemy's Star Catalogue through Proper Motions: The Hipparchus Epoch. - Journal for History of Astronomy, XXXI, 2000, pp.115-134.
[р24] Claudius Ptolemy. Almagest or mathematical composition in thirteen books. Translation from the Ancient Greek of I.N.Veselovsky. Moscow, Nauka. Fizmatlit, 1998.
[р25] Ptolemy's Almagest. Transl. and annot. by G.J.Toomer. London, 1984.
[р26] Big soviet encyclopedia. Second edition. Volume 29. Moscow, "Big soviet encyclopedia", 1955.
[р27] Thucydides. "The history of Peloponnesian war" in eight books. Translation of F.G.Mishchenko. Volumes 1,2. Volume 1: books 1-4. Volume 2: books 5-8. М., 1887-1888.
[р28] Thucydides. "History". - Leningrad, publishing house Nauka, Leningrad department, 1981.
[р29] Chistyakova N.A., Vulikh N.V. The history of antique literature. - М., Higher school, 1972.
[р30] Morozov N.А. Christ. (The history of mankind in natural scientific light) vv. 1-7. - M.-L., Gosizdat, 1924-1932. v.1: 1924 (2nd edition 1927), v.2: 1926, v.3: 1927, v.4: 1928, v.5: 1929, v.6: 1930, v.7: 1932.
In 1998 a reprint reedition of this work of N.А.Morozov in Moscow publishing house "Kraft". All the seven volumes were republished.
COMMENT-ANSWER OF 2001.
In the beginning of 2001 in Moscow a third variant of the book "Antifomenko" under the name <<"So it turned to be!" Critics of "new chronology" of А.Т.Fomenko (answer inessence)>>, Moscow, publishing house "ANVIK K", 2001.
(For today there are already seven such books). But there is nothing new in this collected book.
For the third time some articles from the book "Antifomenko", about which we wrote above, were published. But a new detail appeared. A draftsman of the collected book (U.V.Chashchikhin) and publishing house "ANVIK K" (director А.А.Kuvshinov) made a forgery, having without informing us included into the collected book UNDER OUR NAMES an article <<Review of the books "Antifomenko" and <<History and anti-history. Critics of "new chronology" of academician А.Т.Fomenko>> >>.
For this they used published by us in Internet answer, the full text of which see above. With this U.V.Chashchikhin and А.А.Kuvshinov seriously edited our text, considerably shortened it (for example, our comments regarding the article of U.V.Chashchikhin are put away. The publication allegedly from our name, under our last names, of distorted materials – this is new and, frankly speaking, dirty stroke in the behavior of some followers of the Scaligerian chronology.
On March 27, 2001 a widened meeting of the Presidium of RAS took place, where academicians of RAS, correspondent members of RAS and many guests were invited. At the meeting, in the speech of the President of RAS academician Yu.S.Osipov was announced "A report about the activity of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2000. Main results". Participants of the meeting were given both the text of the Speech and its widened version under the name: "Report about the activity of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2000. Main results in the field of natural, technical, humanitarian and social sciences". Both texts are published by publishing house Nauka, Moscow, 2001. Notable, that in both published variants of the Report, in the section "Historical sciences", among THE MOST IMPORTANT AND MAIN RESULTS of academic historical science of Russia in 2000, which were marked seven, there was stated "struggle against new chronology". Let's fully quote the corresponding section from the short variant of the Report - "Main results". <<A systematical critical analysis of new concept of the universal history (so called "New chronology"), which develops in the works of academician А.Т.Fomenko, was done. In the collected book "History and anti-history" scientists of different specialties, professionally connected with a round of problems of historical chronology, showed full scientific failure of the constructions of Fomenko>> (Report, p.43). At the meeting, as a member of "Commission of the RAS on struggle with anti-science" academician V.L.Ginzburg made a speech with categorical condemnation of our studies and with a request for organizational conclusions.
We told above, what exactly is included into the books of the series "Antifomenko", including the collected book "History and anti-history". Hardly the mentioned books should be related to the main scientific results of the RAS in 2000.
Here we will stop. Of course, we can't comment all the magazines and newspapers publications, and also books, touching our works. Starting from 1999-2000 there are a lot of them, and many of them don't reach us.
In the last time many replies on our works appeared also in Internet. But the volume of discussion is so huge, that it turns to be a big work to choose more or less substantial replies. We have no possibility to do this. We would note the appearance of many authors, who discovered new bright arguments in favor of new chronology.
In conclusion we would quote the words of Max Planck. "New scientific idea is seldom introduced by the way of progressive conviction and conversion of enemies, it seldom happens, that Saul becomes Paul. In reality the issue goes so, that the opponents step by step die, and a growing generation since the beginning accustoms with new idea".