THE EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY
34. THE COSSACKS-ARYANS: FROM RUSSIA TO INDIA. EPIC MAHABHARATA.
We have mentioned earlier the famous 'ancient' Indian epic Mahabharata. Here is the summary of our research results.
#The Epic largely relies on the Bible. It was created in the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. and was finally completed only in the XVII-XVIII cc.
# The central theme of the Epic is the great battle of the people in the Kuru field. Here reflected is the colossal Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. In the Mahabharata under the name of Arjuna (= Horde-Khan) is described Dmitry Donskoy. And under the name of Duryodhana (=Evil Khan) appears Mamai, the adversary of Dmitry. The authors sympathise with Arjuna = Dmitry Donskoy and are ill-disposed towards Duryodhana = Mamai. Similar is the point of view of the Russian chronicles: 'good Dmitry' and 'evil Mamai'.
When comparing Mahabharata to the Russian chronicles, we restored many details of the Russian Horde history preserved in the 'ancient' Aryan Epic, but lost in Russia. They were either forgotten or cleansed by the Romanovs' historians. For example, the downfall of Duryodhana was described in the Mahabharata in great detail. But the surviving Russian primary sources speak of khan Mamai's blight very scantily. The reason is understandable. Having declared the Cossacks=Tatars the be 'evil people', the Romanovs' historians crossed out from our history all the positive accounts about khan Mamai and his fellows in arms. We were continuously indoctrinated with the idea that the 'Russians' and the 'Tatars' are allegedly long-standing foes.
There is a 'Book of the Women' in Mahabharata. And in it there is a big section 'Women's lament' , v.8, p.136-176. It describes the wives lamenting their dead warriors who fell in the field of the great battle. ‘The Lament’ is one of the emotional peaks of Mahabharata.
It is possible, that here is told a story of the mourning of those who perished in the field of the Battle of Kulikovo. In the Russian chronicles the lament was reflected very poorly. In this way we emerge deeper into the events of Hordian Moscow which followed the battle. The significant part of the 'Lament' mourns the warriors of Duryodhana, i.e of khan Mamai. It is even more interesting considering that in the Romanovs' version Mamai is represented negatively, and there are no details about his supporters.
# Mahabharata narrates about the 'Mongol' conquest of the XV century. The famous Indian Aryans are 'Yuryievans' ('Yuiryievtsy') = Georgyievans (Georgyievtsy), i.e. – the Hordian troops of the Cossacks (aka the chronicle 'Tatars' who have colonized the Hindustan Peninsula and lands surrounding it. The word ARYA in Sanskrit 'means both: the name of the people and 'kind', 'wise') , v.2, p.250. It is possible that in the name ARYANS reflected the Russian word YARY (FIERCE), YARO (FIERCELY). Which very well corresponds with the essence of this name 'Yuryi'= Georgyievtsy – the FIERCE warriors of Yuryi (Georgyi - George) The Conqueror. Let's also remember the name Yaroslav, i.e. Fierce Glory or Aryan-Glory.
In the XIV-XV cc. the territory of modern India was occupied and developed by the army of Russia Horde. They were the 'Mongolian' army directed to the South and to the East. According to the Byzantine chronicler John Malalas, the colonization of the world of that time was carried out generally in a peaceful way. Vast expanses of Eurasia were yet little populated. In the majority of cases there was no one to fight. In particular, MALALAS DESCRIBES WESTERN EUROPE AS A HALF SAVAGE COUNTRY WHERE THERE ARE EVEN NO CITIES . p.28.
The Hordians who stepped on the Hindustan Peninsula, were not at all Muslim in the modern meaning of this word. On the territories of the vigorously expanding 'Mongol' Empire reigned the Apostolic Christianity rooted in the XII century. Islam in the modern sense of this word appeared only in the XVI-XVII cc., after the split of the Christianity into Orthodox Christianity and Islam. The army of the Horde of the XIV century was called 'Muslim' post factum, in later history textbooks.
The Indian God KRISHNA (Buddha) – is the image of Jesus CHRIST, transformed on local grounds. The researchers of the history of religions have already cautiously spoken about it [2v1], ch.1. However, they avoided making any conclusions for fear of casting doubt over Scaligerian chronology. We, however, are articulating this idea clearly and directly. At the heart of the 'ancient' Indian Ramayana are the events of the XIV-XVI cc., when the powerful 'ancient' Christian Rome, aka Russia Horde together with The Ottoman Empire-Ottomania spreads its rule over Eurasia, Oceania (Pacific Islands) and America. Hence the Mediaeval population of Hindustan believed in Christ. In India His name was expressed as Krishna.
The Horde army was followed by the migrants, women and children. In their rows of carts they carried not only weapons and armament, but also the documents, archives and chronicles. After the founding of the 'Mongol' states in the Hindustan Peninsula, which were controlled by the Hordian governors, there also appeared the libraries, where among other things, the Russian chronicles were kept. Khan's clerks, civil servants, scribes and scientists have arrived to India. The culture and the language of its metropoly and provinces was ubiquitous.
B.L.Smirnov, the Fellow of the Academy of Sciences of the Turkmen Soviet Republic wrote: 'Reference to the blue eyed Aryans repeatedly occurs in 'Mahabharata'; this anthropologic detail is curious enough for the matter of the origin of the Aryans, which until present day didn't receive a universally acknowledged admission' , v.4, p.560. Today in historic literature it is not acceptable to say 'Aryan'. It is preferable to say 'arya' or 'airya'. We can explain the 'blue-eyed' quality of the ariyas. In Russia, for example, there were always quite a lot of blue-eyed people.
In the result of the 'Mongol' conquest the Hordian chronicles and events described in them were 'spreading' over the entire Empire. The Hordians-Cossacks leaving for campaigns, took with them mementos, chronicles, documents and archives. Having settled in the distant provinces, they tried to preserve the memory of their motherland. But as time went by, their descendants began to think that the old legends inherited by them from their fathers and grandfathers, were a narrative about their life 'here', i.e. where they lived now. They began to sincerely look for the very place where, for example, occurred the battle of Kulikovo of their ancestors. They were mistakenly looking 'nearby', close to where they lived at that point. And of course they 'found' it. Here and there. Some would begin to think that it is some kind of field on the Hindustan Peninsula. 'It turned out' to be the field Kurukshetra. This being said, it is not impossible that some other important battles took place there, but they were 'local' battles. The other descendants of the Hordians, who settled in the West, would erroneously point at some field in Western Europe. It would 'result' as a battlefield of Sempach [7v1], ch.3. And so on. It is not impossible that the reflecting glare of the battle on the Moscow field of Kulikovo shed its light on the famous Kosovo field in Serbia.
The Romanovs' historians also contributed to the obfuscation of true history. They moved (on paper) the Kulikovo field from Moscow to outside of Tula [4v1], ch.6.
As we have shown in [��], in the Battle of Kulikovo cannons were used. On the pages of Mahabharata (substantially edited in the XVIII-XIX cc.) there survive many references to the fire arms pounding the Kuru field (aka Kulikovo field) during the great battle between Pandavas and Kauravas. It is likely that in the original text of Mahabharata, dating back to the XVI century, the fire arms were described more explicitly.
Even after editing the surviving 'fire arms fragments' from Mahabharata are absolutely unambiguous. Only the incorrect chronology prevents the historians admitting that those are obvious descriptions of cannons. At the same time the 'fire arm scenes' in the Epic are so colourful that the historians had to come up with a theory of some kind of 'divine heavenly fire' in order to substantiate the artificial ageing of Mahabharata and to conceal from the readers the cannon battles in 'ancient' Indian history. At first they were concealing it under orders, but later they were doing it mechanically, having forgotten the origin of the matter [���], ch.1.
Here is a list of the Biblical events of the XV-XVI cc. comprising the essence of various chapters of Mahabharata. 1) The flood and voyage of the patriarch Noah-Manu (=Columbus) across the ocean in the XV century. 2) The Exodus of Moses in the XV century. 3) The story of Esther (Elena Voloshanka) of the XVI century. 4) The story of the biblical Susanna – another reflection of Esther. 5) The story of Esther is also described in the most 'ancient' Babylonian epic.
And here are the 'evangelical chapters' in the 'ancient' Mahabharata. 1) Immaculate Conception, Virgin Mary. 2) Indian God-Human Yudhisthira – as the reflection of Christ. 3) King Herod's schemes against Christ. The Holy Family's flight to Egypt. 4) Christ's return to Jerusalem. 5) The Flagellation of Christ. 6) Christ's Ascent of Golgotha. The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Apostles' dream. 7) The Ascension of Christ. 8) Christ's descent into Hell.
Having moved the Indian Epic (like the Epics of other nations) to the deepest antiquity and having narrowed down the geographical framework of the events described in it, the historians of the XVII-XVIII cc. endeavoured to hide the fact that Mahabharata in fact narrates about the recent events of the XIV-XVI cc. It was edited with a sprinkled patina of 'ancient dust'. As a result this enormous material is perceived in an ambiguous way. On one hand – with a lot of respect, which is entirely fair. On the other hand – very few have read this Epic from the beginning to the end. It seems boring. To be precise, it was 'presented' to be boring.
However, it is clear now that we were intentionally conditioned to have a 'disinterested' perception! We were forced to think that Mahabharata itself is the sole source of the thousands of events described within it. And as the editors 'presented a fairy-tale' it is not surprising, that such a lukewarm attitude arises towards it. Like, hazy myths, unknown heroes, fire breathing dragons etc. Thousands of obscure (at a first glance) names, a great number of allegedly forgotten events… Ask your friends whether many of them have read at least one of the volumes of Mahabharata. You will not find many of them. Very few. Even amongst the admirers of 'ancient' Indian history. But now, after the restoration of the correct chronology of this Epic, the interest towards it rises sharply. Reading Mahabharata becomes captivating. As soon as we begin to understand that here unfold the events of the Great Empire of the XIV-XVI cc., it is impossible to pry oneself away from most of its pages. As it is from these pages that arise the biblical events, from the history of Russia Horde, The Battle of Kulikovo, etc.
Comparing different viewpoints – Aryan-Indian (from India, from the East), Russian (from the Empire metropoly), Western-European (from the Western countries) – OF THE SAME EVENTS, captivates the unbiased reader. Besides, the exposure of 'Scaligerian trickery' – is an investigation of a serious crime of the XVII-XVIII cc. in the face of science and mankind in general. It turns out the reformers didn't cover up all their tracks. On the whole, they did an excellent job. But they missed quite a lot. They failed to notice everything. And today their alibi, convincing on the surface, crumbles on closer inspection.
35. THIRTY REFLECTIONS OF THE BATTLE OF KULIKOVO DISCOVERED BY US IN THE 'ANCIENT' HISTORY.
We will list 30 reflections of the Battle of Kulikovo, which we discovered on the pages of various chronicles both in the 'antiquity' and in the Middle Ages. We also indicate in our books, where these duplicates were presented and studied.
So: the Battle of Kulikovo of the year 1380 [4v1], ch.6. Considered to be just about the main military event of the Mediaeval Russian history. Here are its phantom reflections.
IN RUSSIAN HISTORY:
1) Khan Tokhtamysh = Dmitry Donskoy siege of Moscow allegedly two years later, in 1382 [4v1], ch.6.
2) Crushing defeat of Khan Mamai by Khan Tokhtamush – Dmitry Donskoy in 1380 [4v1], ch.6.
3) The Battle on Kalka River allegedly in 1223, where the 'Mongols' fought the allied forces of the Cumans (Polovtsy) and the Russians [4v1], ch.6.
4) The Battle of Sergiy Radonezhsky with the 'devils in the Lithuanian style hats', ended in the victory of the Holy Man. Is described in the Life of Sergiy [���], ch.3.
5) In the history of India: the famous 'battle on the Kuru field '. The battle supposedly took place in the 'ancient' India of allegedly the IV-III cc. BC or in the even more ancient epoch. This battle is the central event of the colossal 'ancient' Indian Epic 'Mahabharata' [���], [���].
6) In the history of the East: The Battle of Kulikovo was described by the Venetian traveller Marco Polo, allegedly the years 1254-1323 [4v1], ch.6:10 and [5v2], ch.2:12.8.
7) In the history of Europe: the Battle of Kulikovo was known to the Western chroniclers, for example, to the German chroniclers, as the great battle of Sempach allegedly in 138. It supposedly took place in Western Europe [7v1], ch.3:11.
8) In the history of the Balkans: the Battle in the Kosovo field allegedly in 1389; it is considered to have taken place in Serbia. The story of Sultan Murad = Dmitry Donskoy. We will talk about it in our future publications.
9) In the history of Byzantine: the battle of the emperor Heraclius and the Persian king Khosrau [����], ch.1.
IN THE HISTORY OF 'ANCIENT' ROME:
10) The battle of the 'ancient' emperor Constantine I The Great = Dmitry Donskoy with the emperor Maxentius or Maximinus – khan Mamai – Ivan Velyaminov allegedly in year 312 [��].
11) The battle of the emperor Constantine (Dmitry Donskoy) with Licinius allegedly in the year 323 [��]. Here Licinius is the reflection of khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov.
12) The Gallic War allegedly of the year 361 BC. The Romans fought with the Gauls, who invaded their country. The outcome of the battle was decided in the fight of a young military tribune Titus Manlius = Dmitry Donskoy with a giant Gaul = Khan Mamai [����], ch.4. See fig.42.
13) Another Gallic War allegedly of the year 348 BC, in which Marcus Valerius Corvus won the fight with a mighty Gaul [����], ch.5 and fig.42.
14) The Second Latin War allegedly of the years 341-340 BC, in which both Titus Manlius-father and Titus Manlius-son took part [����], ch.6.
15) The first Latin War allegedly of the year 499 BC [����], ch.7.
16) The Battle of the dictator-ploughman (Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus) allegedly of the year 458 BC [����], ch.7.
17) The Battle of the Romans of Sentinum and Clusium allegedly of year 295 BC [����], ch.6.
IN THE BIBLE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:
18) The famous battle between David and Goliath (1 Kings 17), allegedly in the epoch of 1015-1055 BC [��]. Here David is a reflection of Dmitry Donskoy and Goliath is a reflection of Khan Mamai.
19) The battle between King Saul and the Philistines in which Saul was killed (1 Kings 29-31) allegedly in the XI century BC [��].
20) David and Absalom story. Absalom dies in the battle (2 Kings 18) allegedly in the middle of the XI century BC [����], ch.6.
21) The battle between David and the Philistines (2 Kings 5) allegedly of the XI century BC [����], ch.6.
22) The rebellion of Sheba ben Bichri against David (2 Kings 20) allegedly in the XI century BC. [����], ch.6. Here David = Dmitry Donskoy and Sheba = Ivan Veliyaminov or Veniyaminov.
23) The battle between the Judge Gideon and the Midianites (Judges 6-8) allegedly circa 1245 BC [����], ch.7. Here Gideon is a reflection of Dmitry Donskoy.
24) In the history of 'Ancient' Greece: the famous battle of Marathon allegedly the year 490 BC [��] ch.1.
25) In 'ancient' mythology: the famous 'most ancient' victory of Zeus over the titans with the help of Cyclops, so called Gigantomachy [��] ch.2. Today this myth is dated to the deepest history, identifying it as the very first and the most significant 'Olympian myth of creation'. THE WORLD BEGINS STARTING WITH THIS MYTH, the universe is conceived. In those allegedly dark ages there were supposedly no people yet. Only the mighty gods were soaring in the nebulous celestial spheres, who themselves only recently had emerged into the world and were fiercely fighting each other. Poets and writers, sculptors, painters and film directors, being inspired by these powerful legends, have created hundreds of wonderful works of art. Sincerely believing that with their artistic intuition they penetrated many thousands of years into the past, unveiling the mystery…
We will slightly disappoint the poets. The 'most ancient Olympian myth of creation' in fact tells us about the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. For some, it may be that such a conclusion means the 'dilution of the pathos' of the legends about the Creation of the World. But not for us. In fact this fact enhances the value of the Battle of Kulikovo in the history of mankind. The 'ancient' tradition raised this event to a high pedestal, establishing it as the basis of the entire history. That is why the 'poetic frisson' remains. Only the dating changes. The important event becomes significantly closer to our times, appearing to be at the end of the XIV century. Zeus defeated the Titans with the help of the mighty Cyclops (i.e. cannons!) 'only' approximately six hundred and twenty years ago. In the New Chronology this event is exceptionally ancient. As the written history of mankind on the whole goes back not more than a thousand years. And emerges from the darkness only at the beginning of the X-XI cc.
We have repeatedly came across the fact that the famous 'ancient' TARTAR is a reflection of TARTARIA = TATARIA, i.e. Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc., on the pages of the 'ancient' classics. Russia-Horde inspired both respect and fear in some Western-Europeans. That is why in the epoch of the Reformation the distant Tartar was painted in sombre tones. Purporting that it is situated somewhere far away. It is difficult to reach. Tartar is a gloomy underworld, situated at the same distance from the earth as the earth is from the skies. Tartar is surrounded by the tall brass walls and a ring of fire. There the storms are raging permanently. Even the gods are scared of Tartar. The entrance to Tartar is guarded by ruthless monsters, the sinister hellhound Cerberus = Kerberos.
And so on. Many shock and 'horror stories' about Russia-Horde started to circulate in the Western Europe of the late XVI – XVII cc. Tartar-Tartaria was described as an 'infernal' place, threatening everything that is progressive and cultured in humankind. Purporting that it is the empire of evil. The prison of nations. This tradition of fear firmly took root and from time to time emerges under all kinds of circumstances.
26) In the history of 'ancient' Greece: the famous Sicilian battle allegedly of 415-413 BC [��] ch.3. It appears that in the 'ancient' description of the Sicilian War the two layers have become closely intertwined. The first – from the XII century and consists of the events connected with the Emperor Andronicus-Christ. The second – is the Battle of Kulikovo of 1380. The reason for the confusion between the XII and XIV centuries (cc) is clear. The chroniclers confused the two Baptisms of Russia. The first – by Andronicus-Christ himself in the end of the XII century. The Second Baptism – at the end of the XIV century by Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great – the Biblical Judge Gideon – the Biblical King David. The chroniclers confused these two baptisms and the events connected to them. That is why the Biblical image of David absorbed the data of Andronicus-Christ [���]
27) In the history of 'ancient' Greece: Decelean War allegedly the end of the year 413 BC. It is considered that it took place immediately after the Sicilian Battle [��] ch.3.
28) In the history of Conquista – America's conquests allegedly in the beginning of the XVI century: the battle of the Spanish with allegedly Indian king Cotubanam [��] ch.9.
29) In the ancient history of Iran (Persia): the battle of the king Takhmurup with the 'demonic hordes' [���], ch.2.
30) In the ancient history of Iran (Persia): the battle of the king Fereydun with the king Zahhak [���], ch.3.
Hence it can be seen what a strong impression the Battle of Kulikovo made on the nations of the Great Empire. It was written about, talked about, the legends were made about it, the songs were sung, the heroic epic ballads were passed on to the future generations.
The duplicates of the Battle of Kulikovo see. Fig.43. In Fig.44. the same list is depicted in a different way. It shows which epochs the phantom reflections of the Battle of Kulikovo were erroneously dated to. To reconstruct the correct history it is necessary to 'lift' all the duplicates found by us up the timeline and identify them with the battle of 1380. As a result the number of various stories in the written history substantially decreases, but the illumination of the events noticeably increases. We get an opportunity to look at the Battle of Kulikovo through the eyes of 30 various chroniclers. Each of them communicates something peculiarly their own, sometimes unnoticed by the others. As a result the story of the battle between Dmitry Donskoy and Khan Mamai becomes noticeably richer.
36. TWENTY FIVE REFLECTIONS OF DMITRY DONSKOY.1) KARL IV HABSBURG – 'Western-European' emperor (1347-1378) is the reflection of both DMITRY SUZDALSKY (1359-1363 according to  or 1360-1363) and DMITRY IVANOVICH DONSKOY (1363-1389 according to ). The chroniclers could have combined them into one ruler as they had the same name: DMITRY. Some of the facts of Dmitry Donskoy's biography found their way into the story of WENCESLAS Habsburg, who followed Karl IV [2v1], [7v1].
2) SVYATOSLAV IGOREVICH, allegedly 945-972, a Russian Prince [1v].
3) DMITRY OF PERESLAVL, a Russian Prince, allegedly the XIII century.
4) KHAN TOKHTA, allegedly the XIII century.
5) KHAN TOKHTAMYSH, the XIV century.
6) CONSTANTINE I THE GREAT, the famous 'ancient' Roman emperor, who defeated Licinius and Maxentius (these are the two reflections of khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov or Venyaminov, allegedly the IV century [���] [��].
7) DAVID (partial), the famous biblical king, who defeated the giant Goliath and Saul (both are the reflections of khan Mamai) [���] [����].
8) PERSEUS, the 'ancient' hero who cut off Medusa Gorgon's head [��], ch.3.
9) MURAD I (partial) – the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire who died in 1389 in the battle of Kosovo Field [��], ch.3.
10) ARJUNA – the 'ancient' Indian demigod, who defeated in the battle the demigod Duryodhana = (Evil Khan) (the duplicate of khan Mamai). He is described in the Indian epic Mahabharata [���], ch.1.
11) ROMULUS (partial) – the first 'ancient' Roman king. Some chroniclers confused the epoch of Andronicus-Christ (the XII century) and the epoch of Dmitry Donskoy (the XIV century) [����].
12) JEROBOAM I (partial) – the 'ancient' biblical king [1v], [2v].
13) HERACLIUS (partial) – Byzantine Emperor, who defeated the Persian Shah Khosrau (the duplicate of khan Mamai) [����], ch.1.
14) TITUS MANLIUS TORQUATUS - the 'ancient' Roman who defeated the mighty Gaul (= Golaith = khan Mamai). He was described, in particular, by Titus Levy [����], ch.4.
15) MARCUS VALERIUS CORVINUS – the 'ancient' Roman, who defeated the mighty Gaul (khan Mamai) in battle. Was described by Titus Levy [����], ch.5.
16) TITUS MANLIUS-SON – the 'ancient' Roman who struck the Latin khan Mamai during the Second Roman-Latin War [����], ch.6.
17) QUINTUS FABIUS – the 'ancient' Roman council, who lead the Romans in the Battle of Clusium and Sentinum, allegedly in the III century BC [����], ch.6.
18) GIDEON – the Old Testament commander, leading the army of Israelites in the war against the Midianites. He is described in the Book of Judges [����], ch.7.
19) TITUS QUINCTIUS, THE FARMER-DICTATOR (PLOW-MAN) – the 'ancient' Roman hero, the victor in the war with the Sabines [����], ch.7
20) MILTIADES (partial) – the 'ancient' supreme commander of the Athenian army in the Battle of Marathon [��] ch.1.
21) HERMOCRATES, the son of Hermon – the 'ancient' Sicilian commander in the Sicilian Battle (Syracusan general during the Athenians' Sicilian Expedition) of allegedly the V century BC [��] ch.3.
22) JUAN DE ESQUIVEL – a Spanish chief-conquistador, winning the battle of the early XVI century allegedly during the conquest of America. Described by Bartolomé de las Casas [��] ch.9.
23) ARTHUR (partial) – the English king, who defeated a 'fierce giant', and also a Roman tribune Frollo (khan Mamai) [��], ch.7.
24) TAKHMOURES – an 'ancient' Iranian shah, who destroyed the 'demons' in a fierce battle [���], ch.1.
25) FEREYDUN (partial) – 'ancient'-Iranian shah, defeating the evil Zahhak [���], ch.2, 3.
37. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW CHRONOLOGY.
1. (Years 1308 or 1071 or 1189) CONCISE ZODIAC KZ. Stone bas-relief on the ceiling of the temple in the city of Erment. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact – the first variant: 15-16 May 1071; the second variant: 30-31 May 1189; the third variant: 6-8 May 1308 [���]
2. (Years 1325 or 1146) ZODIAC RC FROM THE TOMB OF PHARAOH RAMESSES IV (also written Ramses or Rameses). An image on the ceiling of the burial chamber. 'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, Valley of the Kings, allegedly 'antiquity'. In reality – the first variant: 15-16 April 1146; the second variant: 10-17 April 1325 [���]
3. (Years 1345 or 1285) ZODIAC NB WITH 'CLOTHED NUT'. Possibly, painted on the lid of a wooden coffin. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact – the first variant: the 31st January – the 1st February 1285; the second variant: the 29th -31st January 1345 [����]
4. (Year 1394) ZODIAC EB FROM THE BIG TEMPLE OF ESNA. Depicted on the stone slabs, on the temple's ceiling, bas-relief. 'Ancient' Egypt, Esna, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: 31st March – 3rd April 1394 [���]
5. Here is an important result of the New Chronology. The star catalogue of the famous Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy (containing 1025 stars) was created, as it happens, in the interval between the years 600 and 1300. Thereby the Scaligerian dating of the 'Almagest' catalogue as of the II century appears to be a serious error [3v2].