A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskiy

With small editorial changes this answer was published in the magazine "Neva", issue 2, 1999, under the name "Old critics and new chronology".
As a foreword to the article also the following letter of the authors to the editorial board of the magazine "Neva" was published:

To the chief editor of the magazine "Neva"
Nikolskiy B.N.

Dear Boris Nikolayevich!
In the last time a number of magazines (including "Noviy mir", "Priroda") published rough speeches against our works on chronology, containing unreasoned accusations to our address and in some cases distorting the results of our scientific studies. We tried to answer on the pages of the same editions, but our answers were not published. Due to this, we ask you to publish on the pages of your magazine "Neva" our article-answer. We hope that this publication will improve an outstanding for our time situation, when only opinions of one side are allowed for print.

Yours sincerely,
Academician of the RAS A.T.FOMENKO
Candidate of ph.-m. sciences G.V.Nosovskiy

Let's shortly explain the issue.

1) In the XV-XVI centuries the chronology was considered as a division of mathematics, and then moved to the competence only of historians and was considered as some secondary discipline.
2) An accepted today version of the ancient chronology is a creation of the chronologists and historians of the XVI-XVII centuries. Mainly, more or less finally it was finished by famous medieval chronologists Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) and Dionysius Petavius (1583-1652). As our studies showed, this version of chronology and history of the ancient and medieval world, apparently, IS WRONG. Many outstanding scientists of the XVII-XX centuries understood this. But it turned to be a very difficult task to build a new, non-contradictory concept of the history. This problem is described in details in our books (the list of them is provided below). An accepted today chronology of the Ancient time should be called the SCALIGERIAN, as it is a creation of several persons, from whom Scaliger is the most well-known.
Apparently, entirely a final version of the CHRONOLOGY of the ancient and medieval history was proposed by our group in 1979. This group of scientists consists of mathematicians and physicians, mainly from the Moscow state university. The new concept of chronology is based, first of all, on the analysis of historical sources with the methods of modern mathematics and wide computer calculations. 3) Known to us today version of the ancient and medieval history is far not a self-evident thing. It appeared as a result of special investigations of the medieval historians-chronologists of the XVI-XVII centuries. As modern analysis showed, there are serious mistakes in their work. At the same time, most of us, educated on the school course of history, are sure that restoration of the events of the past is not a difficult thing. Like it is enough to take a chronicle, read it and retell in a modern language. And difficulties could be only with clarifying ones or others small details. Unfortunately, this is not so.
4) 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. This is a difficult scientific problem, solution of which required application of thin methods of modern mathematics and wide computer calculations. Although this activity is not main for us (our professional interests lie in the fields of pure and applied mathematics), it required from us much time and forces. Articles on this topic are published in scientific magazines since 1970s. Starting from 1990 our books are published. By now already ten monographs on this topic are published 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 yet not well known to a wide reader.
5) The project "new chronology" is far from finishing. But already today the received results let to state a supposition that in the presented to us since the school years version of the ancient and medieval history there are considerable and numerous mistakes. And the root, base of these mistakes is in a wrong chronology. Built by us with mathematical methods new chronology in many cases seriously differs from the chronology of J.Scaliger and D.Petavius, which historians still use. This last is actually a result of the activity of the schoolmen of the XVI-XVII centuries and, as appears, contains rough mistakes. Some of them were indicated by different scientists before us. For example, N.�.Morozov, I.Newton, E.Johnson and others. These mistakes, in their turn, lead to a strong distortion of the whole picture of the ancient and medieval history in general. At the same time in our publications we always clearly separate chronological conclusions, based on mathematical methods, from suppositions of historical character, which we stated only as a material for further scientific discussion and development.
6) It should be told that � widespread today misperception, that a famous radiocarbon method allegedly confirmed the Scaligerian datings, is deeply wrong. The same is related to dendrochronological method. In fact, modern historical science doesn't have any independent (from the Scaligerian chronology) method of dating, which would be reliably dimensioned and really used for the purposes of chronology. Talks about radiocarbon method and dendrochronology bear mainly an advertising character. Today (as well as before) the datings are actually given based on the Scaligerian scale, not based on the modern physical methods. Although a principal possibility of use of such methods for dating is not excluded. There is a big difference between "can do" and "done". All this is described in detail, for example, in our books.
7) Often there are voices, that the chronology "could be restored" (for example, based on household documents, archeological data etc., which reached us). Actually, this is correct. In fact, it is possible to restore the chronology. Other thing is if it is done in the historical science. The situation is such, that in reality this is not done in historical science. But it is always silently meant, that if it is done, than an independent confirmation of the Scaligerian chronology appears. This is not so. As our studies showed, the chronology, restored based on the application of mathematical methods to written sources, turns out to be not Scaligerian at all. We would like to hear from our opponents – who, how and where (in which book) restored the general chronology of the antiquity based, for example, on household documents, INDEPENDENTLY from the Scaligerian chronology.
8) In the last time, especially after the publication of our book "Empire", many well-wishing comments on the works on new chronology appeared in mass media. Their authors try, as much as it is possible within the frames of publications in magazines and newspapers, to bring the core of the issue to the reader. Along with these positive comments, we know also extremely negative comments. Unfortunately, they contain only emotions and no any serious objections in essence.
We know about more than 30 publications-comments, which appeared just for the last half a year (around forty such comments for the last year are known to us). For example, for the last two years many famous newspapers and magazines gave their comments, such as, for example, "Rossiyskaya gazeta", "Literaturnaya gazeta", "Izvestiya", "Segodnya", "Uchitelskaya gazeta", "Semya", "Knizhnoye obozreniye", "Poisk", "Krasnaya Zvezda", magazine "Voprosy istorii", magazine "Noviy mir", magazine "Chimiya and zhizn", magazine "Priroda", magazine "Zemlya and Vselennaya", magazine "Orientir", magazine "Voin Rossii", magazine "Itogi" and many others. The full list of known to us publications on this topic (with our short comments) is provided in our recently issued book "Biblical Russia".
On April 22, 1998 a special meeting of the bureau of the historical department of the Russian Academy of Sciences took place under the chairmanship of academician A.A.Fursenko, devoted to our works. This is already a second meeting of such type. The first, under the chairmanship of academician Yu.V.Bromley, was a special meeting of the Department of history of the AS USSR (June 29, 1981), devoted to the condemnation of our works. On the meeting of 1981 especially sharp were the reports of historians: correspondent member of the AS USSR Z.V.Udaltsova and the head of special commission E.S.Golubtsova. That time E.S.Golubtsova headed the commission of historians, created for the analysis of our works. But in fact there was no any analysis. The sense of the expressed "objections" was that the historians didn't want (or couldn't?) puzzle out the basics of the Scaligerian chronology and obviously trust it.
According to the materials of this discussion a series of publications of historians with sharp accusation of our works started in historical press. In particular, several publications appeared in the central magazine "Voprosy istorii". At those years we tried to speak out and give an answer on the pages of the magazine "Voprosy istorii". The magazine refused to publish our answer. Here is an official answer of the editorial board, brightly showing the level of argumentation of the historians: <<Sent by you article... represents one more attempt to argue against the generally accepted in the Marxist historical science periodization of the Ancient world. The magazine already officially took a negative position regarding these attempts, what is well known to you. Provided by you arguments can't change the position of the magazine regarding this subject>>. This level of argumentation of historians today remained the same. Only the form and phraseology changed. One more meeting (from known to us) took place on April 9, 1984 in the Institute of History of the USSR (Dmitry Ulianov st. 18). It was a meeting of the Scientific Council "Main consistencies of the development of human society" affiliated to the Department of history of the AS USSR. There a big group of historians in a sharp form condemned our works on the use of mathematical methods for analysis of the ancient chronology. In the official letter, sent to A.T.FOMENKO, an Academic secretary of the Department of history of the AS USSR candidate of historical sciences V.V.Volkov and Academic secretary of the indicated above Scientific council N.D.Lutskov in particular told: <<At this meeting, headed by the director of the Institute of archeology of the AS USSR academician B.A.Rybakov, in the speeches of the specialists of different types it was noted, that your conclusions contradict with the written sources, archeological and other scientific disciplines data. The speakers came to the conclusion that the application of "new methods" roughly distorts the picture of the development of human society and objectively is directed, want the creators this or not, against the Marxist-Leninist theory about the change of social-economic formations>> (May 8, 1984).

The magazine "Voprosy istorii", 1984, No.1, published a report about the meeting of historians, where, in particular, the following points of view were stated.
"Director of the Institute of Archeology of the AS USSR B.A.Rybakov... warned against excessive interest in the use of mathematical methods and ECM for solution of historical problems. This, he told, may lead, as it happened in the works of a number of mathematicians, to serious methodological mistakes in rendering of the world historical process" (p.115).
"V.G.Trukhanovskiy paid attention to the speeches in press of a group of mathematicians, trying to give their own rendering of the chronology of human history. They actually speak against the Marxist concept of the change of social-economical formations" (p.116).
" Z.V.Udaltsova supposes that it is necessary to use very skillfully quantitative methods in order to avoid rough mistakes applicably to the historical science, and illustrated this statement on the example of compositions of mathematicians, who, blindly confiding in the mathematical analysis, and not knowing the historical process, tried to cross out the antique history" (p.119).
Unfortunately, a record of the recent meeting of the bureau of the historical department of the RAS (April 22, 1998) was not published. That's why we have no possibility to comment it.

In the last months on the pages of newspapers and magazines with accusation of our works on chronology spoke, for example, historian academician V.L.Yanin, dean of the historical faculty of the MSU S.P.Karpov, mathematician academician S.P.Novikov, astronomer Yu.N.Efremov (GAISH). Academician A.A.Fursenko in a deep form spoke about our works on chronology in his speech on the General meeting of the RAS in Spring of 1998. On the same meeting also a letter of the academician S.P.Novikov was read, which was kept in a rough tone and requested accusation of our studies.
Besides, they don't provide any consistent arguments and even don't discuss the issue in essence.
So, a rather wide discussion starts to develop around our works. It hardly could be called "poor", as, for example, D.Kharitonovich did in [9], p.165.
It is worth saying that we consider our activity on chronology to be purely scientific and that's why we don't take part in newspapers polemics. Nevertheless, we wrote answers to some newspapers and magazines publications, containing clear distortion of the facts. For example, on the article of S.Leskov in "Izvestiya" from January 29, 1997, on the article of S.P.Novikov in the magazine "Priroda", No.2, 1997. Our answers, sent to these editions, were not published.
At the same time we participated and participate in the polemics on the pages of scientific editions. But the details of this polemics are not known to a wide reader. And on the pages of newspapers our "critics" often present the results of this polemics in a distorted and turned upside down view. That's why we appeal to the readers, wanting to understand the core of the issue, not to believe in such statements (especially many of them were done recently by astronomer Yu.N.Efremov), and ourselves we will address to the corresponding scientific editions. In particular, a full list of the literature on this subject, including a list of publications in scientific periodicals, could be found in our books.
It is necessary to say some words about the character of the appeared discussion. From known to us several tens of publications of historians the following picture comes.
1) We don't know any publications, which would contain scientific, professional critics of our works on chronology. Such works would be especially valuable for us. Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that in the modern historical science nobody seriously studies chronology. In any case, for twenty years of our contacts with historians on this subject, we didn't hear about such specialists.
That's why, speaking about our "critics", we put this word in quotations.
2) It is characteristic that the authors-historians in their negative comments immediately fall on our suppositions and reconstructions. Not mentioning critical part of studies and the results of application of mathematical methods to chronology. And, by the way, it should be expected that the historians begin their articles with a proof of the correctness of the Scaligerian chronology, which they use at every step. As exactly historians of the Scaligerian school (not we) teach their Scaligerian version in educational institutions: schools, universities, that is exactly they are chosen by the society in order to teach history to everybody. Exactly historians of the Scaligerian school are obliged to answer the question: how do you prove the correctness of your dates?
3) Studies of the critics of the Scaligerian chronology (N.A.Morozov, I.Newton, E.Johnson and others) showed that it doesn't have reliable basics. Isn't it a reason why historians try to avoid the necessity to prove their Scaligerian version? They pretend that this is not necessary, not interesting. And immediately they turn to the critics of suppositions and reconstruction of the opponents.
We would like to hear an answer IN ESSENCE that is an answer on the question: from where do you get grounds for the ancient dates? Unfortunately, it seems that we will not hear an answer of historians on this question. Nevertheless, the answer is known. It follows both from the study of the basics of the chronology of Scaliger-Petavius, made by our predecessors, and from our works in this field. Many independent means give the same result: this chronology is wrong. We can't but note a wonderful fact: in the modern historical science nearly nobody works on the questions of chronology. There is no modern historical monograph, where from the beginning to the end it was described, how and based on what the main dates of the ancient history were received, what is the "kitchen" of calculation of the ancient dates. In fact the Scaligerian chronology is taken as an axiom. Based on it all the other chronological studies are done. But the Scaligerian chronology is not an axiom. Of course people, accepting this chronology as an axiom, can't accept contradictory with it results.
4) Here, as it seems us, is the reason of the absence of mutual understanding between our group of mathematicians, physicians and historians. We, being mathematicians, indicate the mistakes in the Scaligerian chronology, and in answer we hear that "these dates COULD BE restored". And when we ask a question: Who exactly and how did it in one or another specific case? In answer we hear silence or general words, or (in the best case) references to Scaliger-Petavius.
5) Also the following should be told. Often sounding statements that "the chronology could be restored" (for example, based on reached us household documents, archeological data etc.) are actually correct. Other thing is if this is done. The situation is such, that actually in the historical science this is not done. But it is always silently meant that if it would be done, an independent confirmation of the Scaligerian chronology will appear. This is not so. As our studies showed, the chronology, restored based on the application of mathematical methods to written sources, turns out to be not Scaligerian. We would like to hear from our "critics": who, how and where (in which book) restored the ancient chronology based, for example, on the household documents, and INDEPENDENTLY from the Scaligerian chronology.
6) In some comments we are ascribed many things, which we not only didn't say, but which can't come out of our works. Sometimes so are covered the attempts of discrediting our results.
7) One more method of struggle with us – this is an attempt to bring a question about chronology from the scientific field to political or ideological field. In this field, - compared to the chronology, - our "critics" feel themselves rather confidently and knowledgeably try "to put labels on us" (as, for example, D.Kharitonovich does in [9] or S.P.Novikov in [11]).
After these general comments let's turn to review of some most solid "critical" publications. We will not discuss here an open abuse, reaching personal offences to our address, from time to time appearing on the pages of some newspapers and magazines.
In issue 2 of the magazine "Priroda" of 1997 the articles were published, in which the received by us scientific results on mathematical chronology were discussed. These articles make a strange impression on the pages of a respected academic magazine. They in a caricature view describe the content of our books on new chronology and reconstruction of the Russian history. Moreover, using wrong statements to the reader, a fully wrong picture of the general conclusion is drawn: "attempts to remake the chronology of the last two millenniums have no relation to science" (p.76).
Except general and misty words about the "unanimous conclusion of the seminar" in the Kurchatov institute (p.76), in this issue of the magazine "Priroda" only two persons are mentioned, who stated definite objections against new chronology. These are - astronomer Dr. Phys.-Math.Sci. Yu.N.Efremov and astronomer Ph.D. �.K.Dambis. It is also told about the speech of physician Ph.D. Yu.A.Zavenyagin. Here it is useful to remind that Yu.A.Zavenyagin already in 1983 published in the magazine "Voprosy istorii" (1983, No.12) an article (in co-authorship with E.S.Golubtsova), in which he tried to argue against new astronomical dating of the Egyptian Dender Zodiacs and new dating of Almagest of Ptolemy. But this attempt finished with fail, as Yu.N.Zavenyagin made serious mistakes. (Below this will be explained in detail). And some of them look like intentional distortion of the initial data of the task. These mistakes were long ago discovered and shown to Yu.N.Zavenyagin. See details in the book of A.T.FOMENKO [7].

Before starting to tell about the "critics" of Yu.N.Efremov, we will shortly tell about our dating of the star catalogue of "Almagest".
One of the main results of new chronology is an independent dating of the famous star catalogue of Ptolemy, placed in Almagest. It appeared that observations, collected in this catalogue, were made not at the second century of the Common Era, as Scaliger and Petavius had thought, but around one thousand years later [4]. A precise mathematical result is that these observations were made between 600 and 1300 years A.D. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the dating of Almagest for the chronology. It is enough to say that new dating of the star catalogue of Almagest entails re-dating of the entire layers of the ancient and medieval history. This dating was received as a result of thorough studies, which had lasted several years. A scientific book "Dating of the star catalogue of Almagest. Statistical and geometrical analysis" [4], written by us together with Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.V.Kalashnikov, and published both in Russia and in the USA (in English translation), was devoted to it.
Now let's look how is built the "critics" of our result in the mentioned issue of the magazine "Priroda".
As "crucial objections" (�.75) are given the results of Yu.N.Efremov on the dating of the star catalogue of Almagest, published by him yet in 1987 in the Reports of the AS USSR [1]. But these results are just incorrect. The issue is that Yu.Efremov made a rough mistake in the estimation of the accuracy of his method of dating. He estimated it in plus-minus 150 years, while in fact it is plus-minus 1000-1500 years. This fully blows upon the calculations of Yu.N.Efremov. As after the improvement of his mistakes (see below about them), these "calculations" only mean that the star catalogue of Almagest was composed not earlier than the second millennium B.C. and not later than the XVII century. But this is clear without calculations.
By the way, proposed by Yu.N.Efremov "method" of clarification of statistical estimation (which had let him "get" an unreal accuracy in plus-minus 150 years) "lets" with the same success unlimitedly increase the "accuracy" of nearly any estimation without engaging new information! Continuing in the same way, Yu.N.Efremov could easily get estimation with the "accuracy", let's say, of one day, 1 minute, 1 second etc. This "method", figuratively speaking, is something like an eternal engine, getting energy out of nothing.
It is worth saying that these mistakes were long ago shown to Yu.N.Efremov. For example, in the article of V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskiy and A.T.FOMENKO [8]. In more details this mistake was clarified in the corresponding section of the monograph of V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskiy and A.T.FOMENKO "Dating of the star catalogue of Almagest" [4]. This book was published in Russia in 1995, at the West (in the USA) - in 1993. We are sending a reader, interested in any details, related to the dating of Almagest. It is strange that now, in several years after the issue was settled in scientific print, the wrong result of Yu.N.Efremov appears again – this time on the pages of the magazine "Priroda".And not only on the pages of the magazine "Priroda". In the last time the name of Yu.N.Efremov permanently appears on the pages of newspapers and magazines in the same context of the following content. Like a serious specialist in astronomy Yu.N.Efremov proved incorrectness of our results on the dating of the star catalogue of "Almagest". With this there is no any scientific publication of Yu.N.Efremov on this topic.
But a reference to the authority of Yu.N.Efremov as a specialist in astronomy in this case is not enough. First, a proof of scientific result can't be replaced with a reference to the authority. Second, the main difficulty of the task of dating lies not in the field of astronomy, but in the field of mathematics. We get astronomical data from the same sources as Yu.N.Efremov. The issue is not in astronomical data and not in astronomical theory, but in a literate application of the methods of mathematical statistics, in order to receive a dating based on this indisputable astronomical data. Exactly here, in mathematics, Yu.N.Efremov makes mistakes.
In the articles of our "critics" everything is turned on its head. The wrong calculations of Yu.N.Efremov are given as a unanimous opinion of the astronomers, and our method of dating of the star catalogue of Almagest, which was published in many scientific magazines and in a monograph (and didn't induce any objections among professionals), - is presented to a reader like this. "Candidate of physical-mathematical sciences �.K.Dambis... provided the results of the analysis of modern positions not of 8 (as according to Fomenko), but 504 stars of the catalogue of Ptolemy" (p.75). The exposure of our results shows that respected opponents didn't read our book "Dating of the star catalogue of Almagest", or didn't understand anything in it. Otherwise they would learn from it about the dating by longitudes (about "inconsistency" with which tells Yu.N.Efremov), and that in our dating coordinates of all the stars of Almagest (more than one thousand) were taken into account, not just 8 of them, and about an analysis of the accuracy of the method of dating by proper motions of the stars and about many other things.
Next, on p.75 it is announced that in the magazine "Priroda" the "attention of astronomers" to our works was already reflected, and with this a reference to the article of Yu.N.Efremov "Almagest and new chronology" (1991, No.7) is given. In his article Yu.N.Efremov not only repeated once again his mistaken results, but roughly distorted our studies, having shown them in a wrong light. In 1991 we immediately sent an answer to the editorial board of the magazine "Priroda" with a request to publish it. But our answer was not published.
In the article of S.P.Novikov, published I n the same issue of the magazine "Priroda", also disagreement with our works on mathematical chronology is expressed. But the article of S.P.Novikov is not a review of our works, it doesn't contain any definite arguments, but is more of a memorial character. About his meetings, about his attention to different people. With this S.P.Novikov, unfortunately, makes statements, not corresponding to the reality.
He states that our "historical activity was included into the scientific plans of mech.-mat." This is wrong. And even if it was, there would be nothing strange, as chronology is related to the section of applied mathematics.
He announced insufficiently informative purely mathematical works on integrated systems of A.T.Fomenko and �.S.Mishchenko. As an answer to this �.S.Mishchenko and A.T.Fomenko had to tell the following to the mathematical society. "When in 1977 we wrote our first work on this topic, S.P.Novikov without any reasons for this… required that we put his name as a co-author. We refused as there was no his contribution". 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 A.T.Fomenko gave him this book as a gift yet in 1990. Here we quote an official speech of S.P.Novikov of 1992 in the academy: "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". (see the original)
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".
COMMENT OF A.T.FOMENKO. <<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.�.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. Exactly after these events, - 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>>. (End of the comment of A.T.Fomenko).

Now let's turn to other questions on the pages of the mentioned issue of the magazine "Priroda". On pp.75-76 there is a part of the speech of historian I.S.Sventsitskaya (Open pedagogical university). The main idea of I.S.Sventsitskaya shortly is that the historians have so many objections against our new chronology, that they simply have no possibility to state them. It is seen from the provided by her examples, what was meant. It is announced that the Scaligerian chronology is definitely correct as based on it conclusions confirm it. This is a vicious circle. Otherwise, built by today all the building of the Scaligerian chronology is actually announced an "objection of new chronology". So, a version of history, built based on the Scaligerian chronology, is announced a proof of this chronology itself. But this is obviously a vicious circle. Such "proofs" fully lose their sense as soon as it appears that the Scaligerian chronology was totally wrong. In general it is worth to note that in the speech of I.S.Sventsitskaya not only a full misunderstanding of the problem, but also unwillingness to understand it, is brightly seen.

In conclusion of our review of the mentioned issue of the magazine "Priroda" we provide a short analysis of "scientific achievements" of Yu.N.Efremov and Yu.A.Zavenyagin on the dating of Almagest.
On p.75 of the magazine "Priroda" there is a statement that Yu.N.Efremov allegedly showed that <<longitudes of the star in the catalogue of "Almagest" are absolutely incompatible with the conclusions of Fomenko>>. It is obvious that Yu.N.Efremov didn't read attentively our book [4], where the analysis of a possibility to date Almagest by longitudes is placed [4], pp.176-178. We showed that the accuracy of longitudes in Almagest is considerably less than the accuracy of latitudes, and intervals of dating, which come out, based on the longitudes, are several thousand years. That's why behavior of the longitudes can't contradict not only with our conclusions, but with any other dating of Almagest in any point of historical interval. Here we mean dating by longitudes, based on proper motions of the stars. Hardly there is sense to stop on "infant" attempts of dating Almagest by precession of longitudes. Many researchers of Almagest already long ago learned that some constant was added to the longitudes of his stars. And probably even not once. Not knowing the value of this constant, we obviously can't use precession for the dating of Almagest. See, for example, [3],[5].

Now we will shortly review the methods of Yu.N.Efremov, used by him for dating Almagest. We will use the article of Yu.N.Efremov and E.D.Pavlovskaya [1]. The same material in a widened form was also published in "Historical-astronomical studies" [2].
In this work an attempt to confirm a traditional dating of the star catalogue of Almagest by means of proper motions of the stars is made. A conclusion of the authors is the following: the catalogue of Almagest is dated with 13th year A.D. with the accuracy plus-minus 100 years. But such conclusion doesn't come out of the content of the works of Yu.N.Efremov and E.D.Pavlovskaya. Let's review their mistakes. Dating of the star catalogue of according to the method of Yu.N.Efremov is based on comparison of changing in time configuration of stars with those configurations, which are fixed in Almagest. With this the main contribution into the change of one or another configuration is done by a proper motion of the fastest star of this configuration. There is one such star in each configuration. That's why configurations, analyzed by Yu.N.Efremov, are called by him "groups" of the corresponding star. As a dating of the catalogue for the given "group" Yu.N.Efremov proposes to consider that time moment, for which the whole of pairwise distances between the stars in a changing estimated configuration is most close to the whole of pairwise distances in the configuration, fixed in Almagest. Closeness is understood in a mean square sense. With this, of course, comes out not a precise date of the observations of Ptolemy, but just some its point estimation. What is the accuracy of this estimation? There is actually no any reasoned answer to this question in the works of Yu.N.Efremov. In the work [1] a wrong method of "increase of the accuracy" of estimation is used, and in the work [2] discussion of the question of accuracy is replaced by appeal to the graph of dependence of the value of mean-square decline between the whole of pairwise distances. The authors write: "Epoch... is determined rather confidently, minimum of the function... sharp and deep" [2], p.183. But from their drawing it follows that when changing the a priori dating for one thousand years, the value of the mean-square decline changes for not more than 13 minutes for all the configurations except one – group �^2 Eridana. We will tell about this group in detail below.

The scale interval of Almagest is 10 minutes. And real accuracy of the stars' coordinates in Almagest is around 30 minutes. This means that when estimating the accuracy of the dates, received by Yu.N.Efremov according to the minimum of mean-square decline, we should allow a variation of the value of mean-square decline for 20-30 minutes. But this leads to the intervals of dating of 2-3 thousand years. Otherwise, the accuracy of the received by Yu.N.Efremov dates is plus-minus 1000-1500 years. But dating of the catalogue of Almagest with such accuracy doesn't represent any interest.
That's why there is a sense to stop only on the dating of Almagest according to the method of Yu.N.Efremov, based on the group �^2 Eridana. As it was told, datings by other groups have the accuracy plus-minus one and a half thousand years.
But it appears that identification of the star �^2 Eridana with one or another star, described in Almagest, considerably depends on the a priori dating of the catalogue. To clarify, there are no modern designations of the stars like �^2 Eridana in Almagest. That's why in case of faint stars (which is �^2 Eridana), not outstanding among their environment, the identification could be done only based on the star coordinates. And these coordinates for fast stars quickly change in time. That's why this identification depends on a priori dating of the catalogue. The star �^2 Eridana is a bright example of such fast faint stars. Changing its position on the sky, it, in different epochs, could be identified with different stars from Almagest. That is with three stars, the numbers of Bailly of which in Almagest are 778, 779, 780. From them the star 779 is usually identified with �^2 Eridana only based on the fact that around the beginning of the Common Era �^2 Eridana took a position, close to the position of the star 779, fixed in Almagest. That is, in the identification of this star it is clearly supposed that Almagest was dated with around the beginning of the Common Era. If a priori suppositions about the dating of Almagest will not be done, then, for example, on the interval from 900 to 1900 A.D. among the stars of Almagest the star 780 better corresponds to the real position of the star �^2 Eridana. And, with this, the star 779 in Almagest also doesn't remain without identification. It could be identified with the star 98 Heis. So Pierce identified the star 779. See. [3]. So, the star �^2 Eridana definitely can't be a base for dating.

So, in the works of Yu.N.Efremov actually a priori it is supposed that Almagest was dated with the beginning of the Common Era, and then, based on this, he comes to the "conclusion", that Almagest was dated with 13 A.D. plus-minus 100 years. Here, except mistake in the estimation of the accuracy, there is also an evident vicious circle, fully overcrossing its "result".
In the works of Yu.N.Efremov there is also a direct adjustment of the result for the given answer. The issue is that the "method" of Yu.N.Efremov strongly depends on the choice of the environment of the investigated quick star that is the structure of its group. Changing the structure of the group, it is possible to select a configuration with a "correct", convenient point dating. And Yu.N.Efremov uses this. For example, in case with the group of Arcturus. With change of the structure of the group of Arcturus a point dating by his "method" changes from zero to thousand year A.D. Yu.N.Efremov in this case chooses the date 310 A.D. plus-minus 360 years.
Other examples. Yu.N.Efremov applies his "method" to the catalogues of Ulugbek, Tycho Brahe and Hevel. In all the three cases he receives unreal precise results: the dates of creation of the catalogues of Tycho Brahe and Hevel are "restored" by him with the accuracy of 30-40 years. And the date of creation of the catalogue of Ulugbek (less precise from the three) – with a fantastical accuracy of 3 years. With this each of these datings was received according to its specially selected star configuration. As we already explained, with a suitable choice of configuration according to the "method" of Yu.N.Efremov it is not difficult to receive nearly any beforehand given point estimation. In particular, close to the "required answer".
Let's also stop at the article of Yu.N.Efremov <<Astronomy and "new chronology">>, published in the Astronomical calendar for 1998 under the edition of �.P.Gulyaev. Moscow, Kosmosinform, 1997, pp.296-303. The name of the magazine itself lets us hope, that this time Yu.N.Efremov published a scientific article with a detailed statement of his argumentation. But there is nothing like this in it. Again and again are repeated the "arguments", on which we already answered (see above). With this wrong statements are expressed. They are not reasoned, no references are given, where they would have been proved. This looks very strange, as the article is placed not in a newspaper, but in a scientific edition. In the other articles of the same "Astronomical calendar" there are graphs, formulas, tables. It would be natural to expect something like this from the article of Yu.N.Efremov. But there is nothing like this here. There is even no list of literature. The main "proofs" are emotional statements like: "Why on earth would Fomenko's observer of the X century need to recalculate the received by him longitudes for ten centuries back?!" (p.297). Or: "There is full seam with their logics" (p.301). etc.
More strange impression makes an editorial notice, in which, for example, there are such thoughts: "Mathematics is arms, which is when more blunt – is more dangerous" (p.303). Or: "The editorial board...considers the appearance of such suppositions to be an occurrence... standing in one raw with astrology, clairvoyance, bedeviling and unbedeviling, curing on TV from all the diseases etc." (p.303). It seems us that such "arguments" don't add honor to the editorial board of "Astronomical calendar". The astronomers – members of the editorial board, - could easily understand themselves the content of our book "Dating of the star catalogue of Almagest", and not to trust in this issue to the member of the editorial board Yu.N.Efremov. Here it is worth reminding once again that the article of Yu.N.Efremov in the Reports of the AS USSR (1987, volume 294, No.2, pp.310-313), devoted to the dating of "Almagest", contains fatal mistakes, fully overcrossing the main result of the article. A detailed review of these mistakes was gave in our book "Dating of the star catalogue of Almagest".

It is obvious that Yu.N.Efremov has nothing to answer us in the essence. But since we had found mistakes in his own works on chronology, the relation of Yu.N.Efremov to the problems of chronology (and to us personally) became far from impartial.

Let's also stop on the publication [6]. Its authors, Yu.�.Zavenyagin and E.S.Golubtsova as a proof of traditional dating of Almagest provide the following reasoning, showing their misunderstanding of the core of the issue. And also inability to use the simplest methods of data processing. Referring to Halley, the authors write that during the time, which passed from Ptolemy to Halley, Arcturus moved for 1,1 degrees to the side of Virgin. As for Arcturus moves for 2,285 seconds per year, then having divided 1,1 degrees on 2,285 angle seconds, the authors receive a time period of 1733 years. Having gladly subtracted 1733 from 1690 (that is from the year of composing the catalogue of Flamsteed, which Halley used), a dating of the catalogue 43 B.C. Next they write: "The mistake of the difference of coordinates of neighbor stars is considerably less than the mistake of the coordinates themselves, as at subtraction a systematical mistake is destroyed. That's why a medium mistake in the position of bright stars relatively to their neighbor stars in Almagest doesn't exceed 0,1 degree. This means that a possible mistake of the dating doesn't exceed 150 years" [6], p.75. Such reasonings may just entail a smile. First, from where is received an estimation of the accuracy of 0,1 degrees? Second, the provided "calculation" is based on a silent supposition that the vector of proper motion of Arcturus is directed exactly according to the line, connecting its modern position and the position, indicated in Almagest. But in fact this is not so. A real direction of Arcturus composes a considerable angle relatively to this line. That's why not 1,1 degrees should be divided on 2,285 arch seconds, but a considerably smaller value. This will give around 900 A.D. (Of course, with a very big mistake due to the principal roughness of such method of dating). Please note, that the general "idea" of E.S.Golubtsova and Yu.�.Zavenyagin to interpret occasional mistakes as a result of proper motion of the stars is absurd. Its absurdness is especially evident on example of slowly moving stars, nearly immovable. In this case dividing non-zero value of mistake (made by the author of Almagest in determining coordinates of a star) on nearly zero speed of proper motion gives an endlessly far "date of observation".

E.S.Golubtsova and Yu.�.Zavenyagin didn't limit themselves with consideration of Arcturus. They made an attempt of dating of the catalogue of Almagest by another fast and famous star - Procyon. This attempt is also helpless, like the first one. And it also leads them to a wrong result. Quote: <<Nearly the same result comes out when dating the catalogue of "Almagest" by means of proper motion of Procyon, to clarify, the catalogue of "Almagest" was created in the 330 B.C. with a possible mistake in 300 years to one or another side... Dating by Procyon is an absolutely independent confirmation of the dating by Arcturus, and both datings lead us to the last centuries B.C.>> [6], pp.75-76. But here the respected authors again made the same mistake, that in the case with Arcturus. They again didn't take into account that the direction of proper motion of Procyon didn't correspond with the line, connecting its modern position with the position, indicated in Almagest. When accurately calculated, a point dating for Procyon by their method gives the X century A.D. As for the reasoned estimations of the accuracy, there are no them in [6].

Review of the other works, devoted to the dating of "Almagest", is made in our book [4], published yet in 1995. There one can read about the works of Yu.N.Efremov and Yu.A.Zavenyagin on this topic. We send readers, who are interested in the question, to this book.

Now let's address to the article of Dmitry Kharitonovich "Phenomenon of Fomenko", published in the magazine "Noviy mir", 1998, No.3, pp.165-188. We are induced to review it not by the content of the article itself, - which seems us absolutely empty, - but respect to a famous magazine, on the pages of which the article was placed. Moreover, "Noviy mir" not for the first time writes about chronology. We will remind that in 1925 the magazine published a critical article of N.M.Nikolskiy "Astronomical breakthrough in historical science" (Noviy mir, 1925, No.1, pp.157-175), where an attempt to argue against the results of N.A.Morozov was made. A reasoned and calm answer of N.A.Morozov - "Astronomical breakthrough in historical science" was placed in "Noviy mir" in 1925 (No.4, pp.133-143). This answer fully removes all the objections of N.M.Nikolskiy.

In fifty years, already in 1975 "Noviy mir" again returned to the topic of chronology, having published a sharply negative article of G.Fedorov "Revelations and science" (1975, No.1., pp.203-210), in which G.Fedorov condemned the studies of N.A.Morozov on review of historical chronology. It is worth saying that G.Fedorov didn't provide any consistent arguments in his article, and just limited himself to references to the "authority of historical science".

And now, in 1998 a respected magazine again provided its pages for condemnation of the works on chronology. In the style of his predecessors, D.Kharitonovich in the first lines of the article presents to the readers a scientist N.A.Morozov with such words: "a famous terrorist, longtimer of Peter-Paul and Schlusselburg fortresses N.A.Morozov " (p.165). In fact N.A.Morozov was not a terrorist, but was just an ideologist of the organization "Folk Will", for what was prisoned. But D.Kharitonovich, for some reason, doesn't say a word, that N.A.Morozov is an outstanding scientist-encyclopedist, famous not only with his works on revision of chronology, but also with the works, for example, in chemistry (see. [12]). If he doesn't know or doesn't want to inform the readers of "Noviy mir" about this?

We start our analysis from the end of the article of D.Kharitonovich. A respected author openly writes the following: "Resuming: ... the Scaligeian chronology is a simple truth, doesn't bringing itself any spiritual or scientific depths, that's why New Chronology is lie" (p.188).

Of course, what he already learned, seemed simple, and what he didn't yet understood, seems complicated. But, with such approach to the problems, everything, what doesn't correspond to the learned in youth things, is wrong, as it seems more difficult, than well-known and familiar notion. And, according to the logics of D.Kharitonovich, complicated – means lie.

Moreover, a surprising attention of historians to the chronology is expressed here. In their notion, chronology is a simple thing, doesn't bringing "any scientific depths". Not being engaged in chronology, having no notion, what it is based on, learning the "basic dates" from the works of the XVII century or their later transpositions (actually, literal repeats), modern historians until now are in a strange misperception that the chronology is a simple thing, not containing any scientific depths. And with all the efforts they resist to the change of this point of view. So, of course, it is easier. There is no need to learn or to understand something new. But such notion of chronology is absolutely wrong. Chronology is a complicated scientific discipline, which should be seriously studied. And there is more than enough scientific depths in it.

So, as D.Kharitonovich already long ago learned the Scaligerian chronology, it seems him simple and correct. And new chronology, which he doesn't want to understand, seems him complicated and due to this incorrect. This is actually the core of his article. All the other its content – these are separate quotes from our works, provided with his comments, written exactly from this position.

Of course, D.Kharitonovich is not obliged to understand our works on chronology (for what he, probably, doesn't want to spend time) and, moreover, is not obliged to believe in our results. But, in such case, what for to write an article on this subject?

Let's go through his article. On its first pages (pp.165-167) D.Kharitonovich gives the content of our works, as he understood them. Frankly speaking, his retelling makes a strange impression. But we will not stop on it. Finally, D.Kharitonovich has a right for his own style of perception of scientific studies.

On the page 168 the first, noticed by us, objection appears. Probably we missed something, as the text of D.Kharitonovich, mildly speaking, is not distinguished with the preciseness of thoughts expression.

This objection of D.Kharitonovich comes down to the following. Our analysis of chronology is based on the total of chronicles, memories etc., which we used as directly, so also indirectly, when analyzing modern historical monographs. D.Kharitonovich indicates to us that modern historical science stands not only on these chronicles, but on the survived household documents: bills of sale, court decisions, state acts etc. Probably this is so, but not relatively to chronology. The issue is that the Scaligerian chronology was established exactly based on the chronicles, not bills of sale. There is a widespread belief among the historians, that if the total of all the survived household documents is considered, then the same Scaligerian chronology will "appear". This conviction is based on nothing. There is no any study, where the survived household documents would be put in the basics of chronology. From the other side, in our books we provided many facts, which show that from the old documents "appears" an absolutely different picture not only of the chronology, but also of the history of the Middle Ages. Not to mention the "ancient" history.

"Criticizing" our materials, devoted to the gross mistakes in radiocarbon dating of historical items of the last 1-2 thousand years, D.Kharitonovich tries to represent the issue so that all our arguments were based only on one single allegedly wrongly dated sample, which was found out by U W.-F.Libby (p. 169). But this provided by us example is related to a different field. In our books we provided a big number of facts, convincingly giving evidence of serious problems, discovered in the last years in application of the radiocarbon method to historical datings. We indicated the absence of huge control statistics, which would give a reason for the possibility of application of this method to historical samples. We informed about the works of archeologist Milojcic, who subjected to destroying critics an application of the radiocarbon method to archeology and informed about many cases of direct fraud of radiocarbon dates and so on and so forth. This is well known to professional archeologists. Some of them frankly acknowledge the absence of any reliable methods of dating in archeology even in a widespread press. See, for example, the article of P.Yu.Chernosvitov "Banged history according to Fomenko" in the magazine "Chemistry and life", 1997, No.11, p.30-37 (first part); 1997, No.12, pp.10-17 (second part). We underline, that P.Yu.Chernosvitov is far not a follower of new chronology. But he can't but accept the absence of the methods of dating in archeology. So, in vain D.Kharitonovich pretends that the collected by us huge critical material against the Scaligerian chronology simply "doesn't exist". And in a vain D.Kharitonovich �states that for the "Authors (that is for us - Aut.), probably, a late dating of one item reweights an early dating of all the others from the same series, as a single case can serve as a proof of NC, and many cases - can't" (p.169). Hardly the historian will manage to hide under such reasonings a gaping problem of discrepancy of the radiocarbon dates with the Scaligerian dates. Instead of this he would better indicate who, where and when proved at a modern scientific level the received by historians radiocarbon dates of historical samples. It is clear why D.Kharitonovich says nothing about it. In fact there is no such proof. And D.Kharitonovich makes all efforts to hide it. Or he really doesn't know about the modern state of this problem.

On p.171 D.Kharitonovich writes "I am not a specialist in astronomy and can just trust to those professionals, who placed in doubt the astronomical proofs of NC (that is new chronology - Aut.)". But here D.Kharitonovich provides only a reference to the publications in the magazine "Priroda", wrongness of which we discussed in detail above. We will not return to this question any more.

Right after this acknowledgment D.Kharitonovich turns to our strategic studies in the field of chronology, telling the following on this subject: "As for the mathematics, more details should be given. Since childhood we were convinced that the science is fully such, when speaking on the language of mathematics, that mathematical proof is the only reliable one etc. Is it so?" – asks a rhetorical question D.Kharitonovich. And next he starts to explain that "this is not so". It appears that according t D.Kharitonovich, "notion of the truth in mathematics differs from thereof in any other sciences" (p.171).

It is difficult to answer on such statement. Or we didn't understand the profundity of thought of D.Kharitonovich, or this is an open trifle.

Here is another bright example of how D.Kharitonovich builds his "critics" of our works. Speaking about the found by us chronological shifts in the "Scaligerian textbook on history", D.Kharitonovich doesn't say a word about our main result, that is about the existence of three main chronological shifts for around 330 years, for 1050 years and for 1800 years. This non-disclosure is strange, as in all our books this main result is especially thoroughly discussed and put on the first pages. Instead of this D.Kharitonovich provides a list of all the found by us chronological disagreements in the chronicles, including small, secondary, met only in some of historical texts. As a result appears a list of twenty four numbers. After this D.Kharitonovich exclaims: "The list of shifts... impresses and even confuses... It's too much" (p.172). So, instead of speaking about the main things, for the reader is proposed a long row of taken out of context numbers, provided by us at the end of the book for those, who would like to check our calculations and assure themselves in the fairness of our statistical results. Having philosophically talked on the subject of twenty four numbers, D.Kharitonovich satisfactory finishes this fragment with the words: "Mathematics describes not the real, but a virtual world, which may correspond or not correspond to the real one" (p.172). How tall these reasonings are related to the problem of chronology? May be D.Kharitonovich thinks that such "open messages" may prove the correctness of the Scaligerian chronology? No other proofs are given in his article.

In our books we developed statistical methods of search of parallelisms, duplicates (repeats) in the chronicles. These methods were successfully checked on a reliable historical material, after what applied for the chronicles, related to the antiquity today. We found out that a part of the "Scaligerian textbook on history" earlier than the XIII-XIV centuries A.D. consists of duplicates, repeats, which are "phantom reflections" of the events of the epoch of the XIV-XVII centuries A.D. At the interval of the XV-XX centuries our methods didn't find any unexpected duplicates. We many times underline this fact as evidence, that the last period of the history of the XV-XX centuries is chronologically authentic, and the chronology of earlier epochs needs serious review. D.Kharitonovich "criticizes" this result in the following way. "I, not a specialist in the theory of probabilities, could name FOUR... coincidences, which took place during even not 600, but 200 last years" (p.172). Next four separate examples of "similar events" from the recent history are given. Like, found by us duplicates in the ancient history are not better than these, my, and that's why they don't prove anything. But this is wrong. Separate examples of "similar events" or "similar biographies", provided as by D.Kharitonovich, so by some other "critics" of our results, have no any relation to the core of the issue. Really, there is no problem to indicate several separate "similar events" from the XX century and, for example, the XIX century. The issue is not in this. But in the fact that in the ancient chronicles based on several independent mathematical models we found out centuries-long sequences of events (for example, "historical biographies"), following each other during, let's say, two or three hundred years, which, by formal statistical criteria turn out to be extremely close to other sequences of events ("biographies"), also following each other during two or three hundred years. For example, a number of sequential biographies of twenty Rome imperators (following each other during two hundred years) doubles a number of sequential biographies of the Biblical tsars (also following each other during two hundred years). Moreover, the closeness of historical descriptions is established here not "by eye", but with the help of clearly described criteria, letting surely separate dependent events from the independent ones. Nothing like this was found out by D.Kharitonovich in close to us epochs, and can't find. With this he doesn't say a word (probably, he simply doesn't understand) neither about the necessity of building a model, according to which the duplicates could be found, nor about an evident necessity to consider only long sequences of close events-duplicates (otherwise it is possible to run into occasional coincidences), nor about an estimation of the probability, that the given two sequences turned out to be close (in a definite sense). Seems, that all this lies out of the frames of idea of D.Kharitonovich about mathematical methods in chronology. Only so his reasonings about "four similar events" could be judged.
Compared to mathematics, D.Kharitonovich, like all other our "critics", feels himself much confidently in linguistics. He provides many examples of our linguistic considerations and subjects them to mockery. Here the following should be told. In our works linguistic considerations newer serve as a proof of anything. We always underline this on the first pages of all our books on this topic. Then what for we engage linguistic considerations, often rather slippy? The issue is that when based on the restored (by means of mathematical methods) chronology appears a general, rather rough picture of new, probably correct understanding of the history, appears a desire to understand ones or others details of the old events. The only way to this is to try to read once again the available for us old chronicles. Of course, it would be very attractive to find an authentic chronicle, let's say, of the XVI century, in which a coeval would clearly describe the happening around him events. But, as follows from our works, we will not find such chronicle. Even if it exists, it should be first decoded and published. The texts, which are published, all passed a tendentious edition of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Of course, the Scaligerian editors have been missing some things. Especially in dark, not clear for them places. In cases, when the names are distorted, names are written in an unfamiliar form etc. An attempt to restore an authentic history by such chronicles is inevitably connected with a necessity to restore their former sense according to the spoiled distorted names. This restoration can't be one-valued and, of course, can't be faultless. Those new readings, which we propose, are just suppositions. Nevertheless, as it seems us based on our experience on reconstruction of the history, a considerable part of the proposed by us linguistic considerations has a real ground under its feet. Well, there is still big work to be done here. We always underline this, appealing historians and philologists to cooperation. In our opinion, a really huge field of activity opens for them here.
Many fragments of the article of D.Kharitonovich irrefutably prove, that here we come across not sincerely mistaken opponent, who probably was shocked (being a historian) by our studies, but nevertheless wanted to understand the core of the issue. Actually we come across an open attempt of falsification of our works. The issue is that the article of D.Kharitonovich contains, in particular, a direct forgery.
On page 182 he states that we intentionally use a "method of circle references" in order to embarrass a reader due to the absence of scientific arguments. D.Kharitonovich quotes from page 606 of the book "Empire" our phrase: "ARMENIA (scand. ARMENIA) = GERMANY. See paragraph 6". Next D.Kharitonovich writes: <<Let's look. "As we already told, the medieval Scandinavian authors often allegedly "mixed" the names ARMENIA and GERMANY (see paragraph 4)... Well. Arrived>> - pathetically exclaims D.Kharitonovich. So he tries to present the reissue so, that no arguments in favor of the statement about medieval "mess" between the names Germany and Armenia actually exist. And in order to hide this we allegedly resort to a crafty method of circle references, in hope that the reader will not pay attention to this. Like showing these cunning mathematicians. "Having proved" with this our "scientific inconsistency", next D.Kharitonovich starts passionately joke on this issue, providing rather loud parallels with "sepuleniye" in the book of fantast Stanislav Lema.
We open our book "Empire" on the indicated by D.Kharitonovich page 606. After the quoted by him phrase "ARMENIA (scand. ARMENIA) = GERMANY there is a full page of the text, where we provide definite references to the definite medieval texts, actually identifying the names Armenia and Germany. In paragraph 6, on page 609 we once again refer to this detailed and reasoned discussion. Moreover, on page 609 we give more details about the name Germany. So, in fact we don't give any circle references. There are only references to the pages where the same topic is discussed. Of course, such references are and should be circle ones.
Moreover, we start a discussion of the "medieval mess" between the names Armenia and Germany even not in the next paragraph 6, but in paragraph 4, at the same page 606, right after the phrase, quoted by D.Kharitonovich. In paragraph 6 we once again return to this topic.
It is difficult to believe that D.Kharitonovich didn't notice this detailed discussion on page 606. Most likely, he absolutely intentionally decided to condemn us in "circle references", in hope that far not every reader has at hand our book "Empire", and even having it, probably will not compare pages 606 and 609.
Such "activity" of D.Kharitonovich could be qualified only as an open forgery. When there are no arguments, he leads the discussion to a different plane. Not in vain the last part of the article of D.Kharitonovich is an open attempt to attach to us political labels. We will not discuss these attempts.
Let's write some words about the speeches in press of historian academician V.L.Yanin. We mean the article of V.L.Yanin "Humbling us deception" in "Obshchaya gazeta", No.14(244), 9-15 April 1998, and also his interview "If Novgorod was Yaroslavl and Batu – Ivan Kalita?" in the newspaper "Izvestiya" from June 11, 1998.
These articles, especially the article in "Obshchaya gazeta", seemed us rather interesting. Of course, V.L.Yanin expresses disagreement with our works, although this disagreement is not reasoned with anything. Instead, things, that V.L.Yanin tells us, don't deny, but confirm some our suppositions regarding Russian history (with which V.L.Yanin doesn't agree).
In our works we provided arguments in favor of the supposition that Novgorod the Great from the chronicles is actually not Vladimir-Suzdal Russia, but a famous Yaroslav's Court – this is the city of Yaroslavl on Volga. And in the city, which stands on river Volkhov, and until today is passed off as an ancient Novgorod the Great from the chronicles, there was nothing, what is told in the chronicles about Novgorod the Great. In particular, here there was no famous Yaroslav's Court, no famous Novgorod veche etc.
So, what V.L.Yanin tells us? He writes about that place of Novgorod on Volkhov, which is "appointed" by historians to be the Yaroslav's Court, the following: "Archeologists dug all the Yaroslav's Court, where, as it is known from the chronicle, a veche took place. And they didn't find any paved or footworn area". And in the newspaper "Izvestiya" he also repeats: "Yes, Karamzin wrote in his time that ten thousand people from Novgorod had participated in the veche. We didn't find such footworn place". So, V.L.Yanin clearly notes a bright contradiction between the chronicles data about Novgorod the Great and what the archeologists and he personally dug in the city on river Volkhov. There could be only two explanations of this. The archeologists search for Novgorod the Great from the chronicles in a wrong place, or the chronicles lie. V.L.Yanin is sure that the chronicles lie. After the chronicles, according to V.L.Yanin, lie Karamzin, Kluchevskiy and Soloviyev. V.L.Yanin writes like this: "Works of the old authors - Karamzin, Kluchevskiy Soloviyev, Kostomarov, filled with mythology" (Obshchaya gazeta).
But with all our respect to V.L.Yanin we want to ask: why his personal opinion should reweight all the evidences of the Russian chronicles? But another explanation is possible: Novgorod the Great from the chronicles was not there, where archeologists today look for it. In our works we showed that Yaroslavl well corresponds to all the chronicles evidences about Novgorod the Great. As V.L.Yanin doesn't find on Volkhov what was described in the chronicles, then he should first of all prove, that the place, where the diggings are done, is Novgorod the Great from chronicles. Where are these evidences? They are missing in the articles and in the book of V.L.Yanin, devoted to "Novgorod diggings".
In his interview to newspaper "Izvestiya" V.L.Yanin proudly speaks about found by him "special calendar of Novgorod" – a "layer-cake" of wooden pavements. He even supposes that we didn't know anything about this remarkable calendar. This is not so. Rumors about "Novgorod wooden calendar" are well known and it is difficult not to know about them. Why do we speak here about "rumors"? The issue is that we don't know about any detailed scientific work on dendrochronology of Novgorod on Volkhov. We will explain, that a "layer-cake" of Novgorod pavements – it is a dendrochronological scale. This scale should be reasoned, "stretched" to the past. Where, by whom and how it was done? For example, in the book of V.L.Yanin "I sent you a birchbark", fully devoted to the diggings on Volkhov, just around one page is devoted to this issue. Although V.L.Yanin in his book doesn't provide any graph and doesn't give any clear statement regarding dendrochronological scale of Novgorod on Volkhov, his text lets suspect serious problems in this subject.
V.L.Yanin doesn't avoid the question about astronomy with the same standard reference to the "studies" of Yu.N.Efremov. With this V.L.Yanin indicates that in our work on the dating of Almagest there is some absolutely trivial mistake. He says the following: <<Efremov compares this method with clockwise reading of minutes. So appears a gap of several centuries – a starting point of "New chronology">>. So fancily the unsuccessful attempts of Yu.N.Efremov to argue against our dating of Almagest broke in the words of V.L.Yanin.
Further more. V.L.Yanin goes down to (in the ordinary sense of the word) to personal offence: "Finally it appeared that this is not an amusement, but a kind of sickness". V.L.Yanin is not creative in it. Offences to our address, reaching indecency, sounded in the publications of Yu.N.Efremov, S.P.Novikov, D.M.Volodikhin, A.L.Ponomarev, Yu.M.Loshchits and some other defenders of the Scaligerian chronology. We consider such tone absolutely unacceptable. By the way, such style of "critics" is not new in the history of science of the last time. Exactly in such a way genetics and cybernetics were crushed in their time.

In conclusion we want to answer on some very unpleasant for us announcements of a general character, sometimes sounding in press. We mean absolutely unfair accusations that we allegedly discredit the Russian history, "take away from the Russian folks their great past", try to abase somehow the Russian church and its history. Moreover, rather often our "critics" suggests to the reader (sometimes by means of cunningly taken quotes from our works), that we allegedly state in our scientific studies on chronology some "sacrilegious" ideas. This is lies.
As it follows from the results of our studies on chronology and coming out of them (yet hypothetical) reconstruction of the universal and Russian history, Russia and its folks had much greater past, than it is presented in the modern historical version of Scaliger-Miller. With this, we didn't have a purpose to glorify specially the motherland history. This is the result of our scientific studies, not a willingness to glorify or bring somebody down. Opened to us great history of Russia was for us, educated on the version of Scaliger-Miller, a big surprise.
We will underline, that we have great respect to the Russian church, to Orthodoxy, to Islam and in general to religious feelings of any person of any belief. In our works on chronology and reconstruction of the history we touch neither articles of belief, nor theological issues. Of course, discussing history and chronology, we touch the history of church and the history of religions. But with this we always tried not to enter the field of theology. As it appears at detailed review, it doesn't cross with the chronology. Belief doesn't depend on the dates.
We call our colleagues-historians for cooperation. We are sure that cooperation of mathematicians and historians would be very fruitful and would lead to the results, having big interest for the society.


1) �. �. Fomenko. Methods of statistical analysis of narrative texts and applications to chronology. (Recognition and dating of dependent texts, statistical ancient chronology, statistics of ancient astronomical messages). Moscow, publishing house of the MSU, 1990, 440 p.
The second, modified and extended edition of this book was issued in 1996 in the publishing house Nauka:
A.T.FOMENKO. Methods of mathematical analysis of historical texts. Applications to chronology. – Moscow, publishing house Nauka, 1996.

The accepted today version of the ancient chronology is criticized, NEW EMPITICAL-STATISTICAL METHODS of studying chronicles are proposed. With MATHEMATICAL METHODS three chronological shifts in the accepted today version of the global chronology are discovered. A rough scheme of new, CONSIDERABLY SHORTER chronology of the ancient world is proposed. For the first time new and unexpected dating of Christmas with the eleventh century A.D, is proposed, that is one thousand later than the accepted.
2) A.T.FOMENKO. Global chronology. (Studies on the history of the Ancient world and the Middle Ages. Mathematical methods of analysis of the sources. Global chronology). Moscow, MSU, publishing house of the mechanical-mathematical faculty of the MSU, 1993, 408 p.

An astonishing parallelism between the events, described in the Bible and the events of the medieval Europe of the X-XVI centuries A.D. is discovered. It is told about re-datings of many astronomical occurrences, earlier related to the deep antiquity. In a Supplement, written by G. V. Nosovskiy, a famous Nicene Council is dated on a new way, and with a new independent method dating of Christmas with the eleventh century A.D. is confirmed.

3) A.T.Fomenko , V. V. Kalashnikov, G. V. Nosovskij. Geometrical and statistical methods of analysis of star configurations. Dating of Ptolemy's Almagest. CRC-Press, USA, 1993, 300 p.
In 1995this book was issued also in Russian:
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.

A new mathematical-statistical method of dating of the ancient star catalogues is developed. With its help a famous star catalogue of Ptolemy in his book <<Almagest>> is dated. It appears that <<Almagest>> was composed in the interval between 600-1300 years A.D., and not in the second century A.D., as the Scaligerian history proposes.
4) 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.

The first fundamental description in English of new mathematical empirical-statistical methods of dating of events. The history of creation of the Scaligerian chronology is described and a new concept of the ancient and medieval history, based on the mathematical methods, is proposed.
5) A.T.Fomenko . Critics of traditional chronology of the antiquity and the Middle Ages (What century is now?). Report. Moscow, MSU, publishing house of mechanical-mathematical faculty of the MSU. 1993, 204 p.

A popular report, letting to <<get into the subject>> quickly.
6) G. V. Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko . New chronology and the concept of the ancient history of Russia, England and Rome. (Facts. Statistics. Suppositions).
Volume 1. Russia. 382 p.
Volume 2. England, Rome. 290 p.
Moscow, 1995, publishing house of Learning-Scientific center of pre-university education of the MSU.
Second, revised and extended edition was issued in the same publishing house in 1996.

Statistical and historical analysis of the history of indicated regions. In particular, it is told ¦¦ what actually was a famous <<Tatar-Mongol �invasion>>, which WAS, and a famous <<Mongol yoke in Russia>>, which WASN'T . The book is written for a wide circle of readers, including those, not having special natural scientific education. Reading it is especially desirable, as the present book develops its ideas and methods.
7) A.T.Fomenko . New chronology of Greece. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Volumes 1,2. Moscow, MSU, publishing house of Learning-Scientific center of pre-university education of the MSU, 1996.

A new dating of historical astronomical texts is proposed. Including BiblicGal and Ancient Egyptian ones. It is discovered that "Antique" Greece ¦¦ it is to a great degree ¦¦ probably a reflection of the medieval Greece of the XI-XVI centuries. In the supplement it is told about discovery of the author's invariant of Russian literary texts, letting, for example, to identify plagiarism.
8) G. V. Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko . Empire. Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, Egypt. New mathematical chronology of the antiquity. Moscow, publishing house "Factorial", 1996.

A new interpretation and reconstruction of the history of the listed regions is proposed. In detail is explained based on the new chronology view on the history of "Mongol" conquest and the appeared in the result huge "Mongol" = Great empire. Compared to the book "New chronology and concept of the ancient history of Russia, England and Rome", here first of all the history of the conquered lands, not the "interior" history of Russia-Mongolia is described. For the first time the history of China and Egypt is analyzed in detail from new point of view. It is shown that a myth about many thousand years age of the Chinese and Ancient Egyptian civilizations, allegedly described in the written sources, which reached us, is a considerably recent "invention" of the XVII-XIX centuries. A short reconstruction of the universal history from the point of new chronology is given. It is told about little-known today foreign medieval documents and evidences, illuminating the real history of "Mongol" Slavonic- Turcoman conquest of the XIV-XV centuries. The book contains a Supplement, in which a number of new mathematical methods of restoration of the correct chronology are provided. The considered methods are based on the analysis of distribution of the own names in chronicles.
9) G. V. Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko . Russia and Rome. Volumes 1,2. Moscow, publishing house "Olimp", 1996.

The book is a popular description of the results, received in the previous books.
10) G. V. Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko . New chronology of Russia. - Moscoe, 1997, publishing house Factorial.
11 G. V. Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko . Mathematical chronology of the Biblical events. – Moscow, Nauka, 1997.
12) � G. V. Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko . Biblical Russia. (Russian-Horde empire in the Bible. New mathematical chronology of the antiquity). Volumes 1,2. - Moscow. Publishing house "Factorial", 1998.


1. Yu.N.Efremov, E.D.Pavlovskaya. <<Dating of "Almagest" by means of proper motions of the stars>>. Reports of the AS USSR, 1987, v.294, No.2, pp.310-313.
2. Yu.N.Efremov, E.D.Pavlovskaya. <<Determination of the epoch of observation of the star catalogue of "Almagest" by means of proper motions of the stars>>. Historical-astronomical studies. Moscow, Nauka, 1989, issue 18.
3. Peters C.H.F., Knobel E.B. Ptolemy's Cataloge of Stars. A revision of Almagest. - Washington: The Carnegie Inst. of
Washington, 1915.
4. V. V. Kalashnikov, G. V. Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko . Dating of the star catalogue of "Almagest". Statistical and geometrical analysis. – Moscoe, Factorial, 1995.
The book was issued in English in the American scientific publishing house CRC-Press in 1993:
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.
5. R.Newton. Crime of Claudius Ptolemy. - Moscow, Nauka, 1985.
6. Golubtsova E.S., Zavenyagin Yu.A. Once again about "new methods" and chronology of the Ancient world. – Questions of the history, 1983, No.12, pp.68-83.
7. A.T.Fomenko . Methods of statistical analysis of narrative texts and applications to chronology. - �., MSU, 1990; Nauka, 1996).
8. V. V. Kalashnikov, G. V. Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko . Dating of Almagest by variable star configurations. – Reports of the AS USSR, volume 307, No.4, 1989.
9. D.Kharitonovich. Phenomenon of Fomenko. – Magazine "Noviy Mir", 1998, No.3, pp.165-188.
10. V.L.Yanin. "If Novgorod was Yaroslavl and Batu – Ivan Kalita?" - Newspaper "Izvestiya", June 11, 1998.
11. S.P.Novikov. "Mathematicians and history". Magazine "Priroda", 1997, No.2, pp.70-74.
12. Nikolay Alexandrovich Morozov - scientist-encyclopedist; Collection of the articles. - Moscow, publishing house Nauka, 1982.

About the authors:
FOMENKO Anatoly Timofeevich
Born in 1945, academician of Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), actual member of RANS (Russian Academy of Natural Sciences), actual member of IAS of HS (International Academy of Science of Higher School), doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, professor, the head of the department of differential geometry and applications of the Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics of the Moscow State University. He solved a well-known Plateau problem in the theory of spectral minimal surfaces, created a theory of thin classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamical systems. Award winner of the State Prize of Russian Federation of 1996 (in the field of mathematics) for a series of works on the theory of invariants of the manifolds and Hamiltonian dynamical systems. An author of 180 scientific works, 24 monographs and text books, specialist in the field of geometry and topology, calculus of variations, theory of minimal surfaces, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry.
The author of several books on development and application of new empirical-statistical methods for the analysis of historical chronicles, chronology of the ancient time and Middle Ages.

NOSOVSKIY Gleb Vladimirovich

Born in1958, candidate of physical-mathematical sciences (MSU, 1988), specialist in probability theory, mathematical statistics, theory of stochastic processes, optimization theory, stochastic differential equations, computer modeling of stochastic processes. He worked in the Space Research institute (Moscow), in Moscow MOSSTANKIN institute, and also in Japan, within a scientific cooperation between the MSU and University of Aizu in the field of computer geometry. At the moment he works as Associate Professor at Mech-Math Faculty of the MSU at the Chair of Differential Geometry and Applications.