G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko

In 1995 in the name of the book "New chronology and concept of the ancient history of Russia, England and Rome" (Moscow, MSU, 1995) we for the first time introduced a term "New Chronology" (without our last names) to indicate an improved version of the global chronology of the Ancient Time, built on the base of wide use of modern natural science methods. For a long time this term was used only relatively to our works, and also sometimes (with hindsight) relatively to the works of our predecessors: N.A.Morozov , Edwin Johnson, Jean Hardouin, Isaac Newton and others. At the same time in English-language literature a term "New Chronology" since 2001 was used for the works of Egyptologist David Roll, who in his book "A Test of Time", published in 1995, proposed to do small (around three hundred years) changes in the chronology of the Ancient Egypt. On one of the pictures in published by him book he casually called his version "New chronology" – not in the sense of new term and new occurrence, but in the sense of the difference of his version from the others, which were many in Egyptology. Just in several years, with hindsight, "creation of new chronology" was assigned to David Roll. In our opinion this step was made by historians consciously, in order to "cut from under our feet" introduced by us term, filling it with absolutely different meaning and connecting it with other authors' names. It is rather difficult to struggle with such "scientific methods" and we are not going to do this. That's why probably there is sense to call our theory not just "New Chronology", but "New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovskiy".

In general the history of New Chronology at the West could be described with the following words: struggle of historians against the attempts to puzzle out chronology and turn it from demagogy into science. In this struggle one of the main modes was (and is) substitution of notions and substitution of authors with the purpose to lead the thoughts of a reader into a wrong course. What do we mean? Here is a bright example. At the beginning of the XX century in Russia the works of N.A.Morozov on chronology were published (one of his books, an introductory, not the main one, was in its time translated into German, but was published with a negligible edition). A serious critical analysis of the Scaligerian chronology was given in them and scientific methods of its improvement were proposed. We underline, that methodology of N.A.Morozov was exactly scientific, not pseudoscientific. It was not based on fantasies. Morozov for the first time found out "repeats" in the Scaligerian version of history and stated, that some dynasties of "antique" governors represented reflections (on the pages of different chronicles) of the same real, but much later dynasty. And in order to restore correct chronology it is necessary to identify, "glue" some phantom governors. This thought was principally new, nobody from the predecessors of Morozov had it (neither Hardouin, neither Isaac Newton, nor others).

Western scientists pretended (and this is not our supposition, as we had a possibility to assure ourselves in it on different occasions), that they "didn't read" the works of N.A.Morozov . On the same way, as now some of them pretend, that they "don't read" our works. And just "by chance" put into circulation the term New Chronology while in Russia it already loudly sounded for a long time. Instead of translation of the books of N.A.Morozov and their study on the West other books on the equal topic were written and published. But compared to N.A.Morozov , these were not scientific, but pseudoscientific books, which were easy to criticize. But as their conclusions slightly reminded conclusions of Morozov, western reader got abruption to the name of Morozov: "Oh, this is one more representative of catastrophism, insisting that the Earth axis has moved one day and for some reason (not clear, when and why) and something happened in history because of this. Let's not spend our time for reading this trifle". This is natural human reaction. Everything is aimed at this.

What exactly has happened? At the West even a "scientific" stream, connected with the name of Russian emigrant Immanuil Velikovskiy, appeared. Due to this NOTHING HAS BEEN TOLD about Morozov.

I.VELIKOVSKIY (1895-1979) – an outstanding doctor-psychoanalyst. Was born in Russia, lived and worked in Russia, England, Palestine, Germany and USA. Considerably resting upon earlier works of N.A.Morozov , BUT NOT MENTIONING THEM ANYWHERE, he wrote a number of books about ancient history, where, following N.A.Morozov listed several contradictions in the ancient history. I.Velikovskiy borrowed from Morozov an important idea of identification of several ancient dynasties, from which came out a need to cut (in time) the written history. For example, I.Velikovskiy in his book "Ramses II and his time" states, that the dynasty of Hittite doubles the dynasty of Chaldeans.

I.Velikovskiy made an attempt "to explain" discovered by Morozov contradictions (we will repeat, without any links on him) using "a theory of catastrophism". At the West I.Velikovskiy is considered to be a founder of critical school in chronology. But in fact he tried to defend the chronology of Scaliger from too big transformations. Replacing radical ideas of N.A.Morozov with their "weak substitute". The fact that in Western Europe the works of I.Velikovskiy on history were known much better, than considerably earlier and much more substantial works of N.A.Morozov served a significant brake for the development of new chronology in Western Europe in the XX century.

Why for the struggle with ideas of N.A.Morozov exactly the catastrophism was taken on board? Except the listed above reasons there seemed to be the following consideration. Many ideas of Morozov were based on astronomical calculations, in particular on the datings of ancient eclipses, described in chronicles. When dating these eclipses not looking on the Scaligerian chronology, he got not ancient, proposed by historians, but much later medieval dates. How to struggle with this? – historians asked themselves. There are no scientific arguments. They decided to turn to demagogy and fraud. They did like this. First, based on Morozov (but not mentioning a word about him), they retold some found by them contradictions in the "ancient" history and also found by them identifications of some "ancient" phantom dynasties. But with this, what is interesting, they borrowed only his most "smooth" statements that lead first just to insignificant shifts in the chronology. Silence was accurately kept about bigger Morozov's changes in the Scaligerian history. (Besides, our results showed that even N.A.Morozov didn't fully realize the scale of the required reconstruction of chronology. Our concept differs from Morozov's one with cutting of the ancient chronology at least for one thousand, and for many chronicles even for one and a half – two thousand years).

Then based on nothing "theory" was created, that IN THE MIDDLE AGES there was some CATASTROPHE in a solar system. Allegedly it considerably moved the Earth axis, after what the axis started to move according to different laws, than it has been before. According to which ones - "the catastrophists" don't clarify. And this is not important for them. The main result, which they "receive" and which they immediately start to use (in order to diminish the impression from astronomical results of Morozov) –is that it is impossible to calculate based on modern astronomical theory moon and sun eclipses, which were for epochs earlier than "the year of catastrophe". With that they every time intelligently place "the year of catastrophe" where they need. For example, in the last time, probably, already after our works, it was placed in the XIV-XV centuries in order to exclude a critical discussion not only about the Ancient times, but even about the Middle Ages. It is clear, that the placement of the Earth axe really influences, and rather considerably, on the fact of visibility of the eclipses in one or another region. If desired, it is possible to announce, that "the terrible catastrophe" changed even the movement pattern of the Moon in the space, what of course fully changes the "timetable of eclipses". After this it is very convenient to announce, that calculations of Morozov (and later ours), couldn't be continued deep into the centuries. So the Scaligerian chronology gets a "reliable defense" from astronomical method of Morozov.

It is worth saying, that after publication of our work on dating of star catalogue "Almagest", "the catastrophists" (in particular, Christopher Marks – a patriarch of catastrophism and a former employee of I.Velikovskiy), being absolutely sure in the reality of his "method", in triumph announced us that all our astronomical calculations lost sense in the light of their remarkable "theory of catastrophism". As in the XIV-XV centuries a "catastrophe has happened" and the Earth axis has moved, the Solar system changed and it is impossible to calculate anything with astronomical method for epochs earlier than the XIV century.

It was very unpleasant for them to realize, that natural movements of the stars, on which our analysis is based, were not subject to catastrophes in the Solar system. No matter of what scale they were. Even if the Earth exchanged places with Jove, this would not influence natural movement of far stars (moving on motionless background of more far stars). The same result would be from Jove.
Worry of "catastrophists" is understandable. Received by us dating of star catalogue of "Almagest" – in the interval from 600 to 1300 years A.D. – undermines one of the most important foundations of the Scaligerian chronology and in point of fact destroys it. Moreover our scientific articles on this subject appeared not only in Russian, but also in English language print. Starting from 1988 they were published in several scientific magazines. And in 1993 our book on this subject in English was published in the USA in a scientific publishing house CRC-Press. And nevertheless Western historians fiercely pretend that they didn't read our works and New Chronology for them is not more than thoughts of David Rohl about three hundred years inconsistencies in the "ancient" history of Egypt allegedly of the second millennium B.C. It is clear that discussions about such small mistakes are not dangerous for the Scaligerian chronology. That's why they take place and even are encouraged, as they just distract attention from really serious problems in chronology.

It is worth saying, that David Rohl in reality acts in the same spirit like his predecessors, who tried (and try) to blank off and distort the works of Morozov and now also our studies on this subject. David Rohl, for example, talks about necessity to "glue together" some ancient Egyptian governors, as they are duplicates. Moreover, he presents this idea like his own one.

This is absolutely wrong. First of all, let's repeat that AT THE BEFINNING OF THE XX CENTURY all this was opened by N.A.Morozov (and in much bigger volume and with much more serious scientific grounds than David Rohl ventured on). Second, these "original" thoughts of David Rohl were published by him in 1995 that is in fifteen years after our first studies on chronology were issued in 1980. It was shown in them that identification of discovered by us "historical duplicates" lead to the fact that a written history of the mankind radically shortened on several thousand years and became well known to us only starting from the X-XI centuries A.D. (and closer to us). Our scientific works on this subject were published in Russian and in English. A notable discussion started around them. And not only in Russian, but also in English speaking press – both in scientific and in popular one (even in newspapers and on television). But David Rohl and some other authors pretend that they don't know anything, like they didn't read anything. At the same time, some results of N.A.Morozov and ours are actually retold (but carefully choosing from collected by us huge amount of materials only the "softest" statements, trying to blank off much bigger results, which were the most dangerous for the Scaligerian version). And starting from 2001, when our works got noticeable popularity, they specially try to promote the term New Chronology, cunningly connecting it with David Rohl.

The idea is simple and intelligent: to vaccinate readers against the ideas of the New Chronology. In medicine it is done like this: first a small dose of poison is injected in order an organism became slightly seek and developed immunity against future probably bigger doses. So it is in history: they "injected" a small dose of the ideas of Morozov and our New Chronology in a distorted light (and under different last names) in order to breed in the society an immunity against the idea about necessity in review of the ancient history.

One more fact is interesting. It was Morozov who for the first time proposed to date "ancient" Egyptian zodiacs according to their astronomical content, not looking back on the Scaligerian chronology. Researchers, who worked in this direction before Morozov, made much efforts to get a solution, lying in the given time interval – around the beginning of Common Era. They DIDN'T MANAGE to do this. Or probably they managed to do this very badly. They had to fall back to different straining and fitting means.

Was it by chance or not, but sincere attempts of Egyptologists to apply astronomy in dating of Egyptian zodiacs actually STOPPED AFTER THE WORKS OF MOROZOV. With this Egyptologists and many historians of astronomy pretend that they "didn't read" the works of Morozov. It is clear, why Morozov proved that astronomical dating of Egyptian zodiacs couldn't give necessary for Egyptologists "ancient" dates – it gave only the Middle Ages. This goes in conflict with the generally accepted chronology of Egypt.

It is worth saying that in the works of N.A.Morozov on astronomical dating of zodiacs there were some small strains. We tell in details about them in our book "New chronology of Egypt". But Morozov had much less of these strains than there were in all the previous works, the authors of which tried at all costs to get datings, agreed with the Scaligerian chronology of Egypt. After the works of Morozov it became clear: strains are put away and astronomical dates of zodiacs immediately "hopelessly" go up to the Middle Ages.

That's why we ask once again: was it by chance, that exactly after the works of N.A.Morozov Egyptologists bitterly diminished their activity in astronomical dating of the Egyptian zodiacs? Today they in every way try to go away from astronomy when discussing ancient Egyptian zodiacs. A conversation is quickly turned into a different plane. Solution of a definite task – decoding of astronomical content of zodiacs and their strict dating, - is substituted with diffuse and safe for the Scaligerian chronology discussions about religion of the ancient Egyptians. They try to present the issue so that the symbols of Egyptian zodiacs have rather naive and fantastic relation to astronomy. In such a bit veiled form one more direction of struggle against New Chronology develops.

In the last years our works on New Chronology not just attracted interest, but also caused other studies, based on our results in the field of chronology and on our reconstruction of the global history.
Let's note first of all the books of such authors as V.A.Nikerov, Y.Tabov, E.Ya.Gabovich, N.I.Khodakovskiy, N.A.Milyakh, L.I.Bocharov, N.N.Yefimov, I.M.Chachukh, I.Yu.Chernyshov. An interesting Appendix to the book of Y.Tabov was written by I.R.Musina. In the works of the listed authors the ideas of New Chronology are stated and a number of new ideas and additions are given.
On the site chronologia.org an electronic collection of the articles on New Chronology is published under our edition. At the moment two volumes were already issued. There are many interesting works in the collection. The authors: Y.Tabov, N.Tomov, D.Dimkova, A.N.Tyurin, A.B.Verevkin, S.V.Chesnokov, N.D.Gostev and others.

At the same time our works caused many different imitations and "reconstructions", often absolutely groundless. Although in some of them there are separate not bad ideas. For example, A.M.Zhabinskiy writes his books following our works. Some of them are interesting, but attention should be paid to strange attempts of A.M.Zhabinskiy to show himself as a creator of allegedly new method in chronology under an advertising name "sinusoid of Zhabinskiy ". Actually the issue is just about application of our results to the history of arts, accompanied by some their graphical presentation (which is passed off as an "opening"). In the last time A.M.Zhabinskiy addressed to the genre of historical novels inspired by New Chronology. This probably is not so bad.

The books of Uve Topper could be addressed to the type of critical works, not containing serious attempts to improve the chronology, but indicating separate mistakes and inconsistencies of the Scaligerian version. Such books are also useful, although this is a closed chapter for us.
Also attention should be paid to the works of S.I.Valyanskiy and D.V.Kalyuzhniy on so called "Chronotronics" (a strange pseudoscientific term, created by S.I.Valyanskiy and D.V.Kalyuzhniy themselves). We consider their "activity" more harmful than useful for the New Chronology. The first books of S.I.Valyanskiy and D.V.Kalyuzhniy are actually not more than free (and not always correct) retelling of the ideas of N.A.Morozov . But S.I.Valyanskiy and D.V.Kalyuzhniy positioned their works as new openings, promoting forward the theory of Morozov. This probably disoriented some people. It is much more useful to read Morozov himself, than such "retelling". Of course the books of Morozov are not popular. They are designated first of all for researchers, not for audience. Not a bad retailing of Morozov, adapted for an average reader, was given in his time by a famous mathematician, professor M.M.Postnikov in the book "Critical research of the chronology of the ancient world".
At the last time S.I.Valyanskiy and D.V.Kalyuzhniy, probably having used all the possibilities of plagiarism, actually departed from the topic of ancient chronology and turned to modern journalism.

We will mention a number of books, the authors of which probably really think that they wrote about New Chronology, but in reality have minimal relation to scientific chronology or don't have any at all. In this connection we will mention the books on so called "multivariate history". The term is introduced by their author - mathematician, professor A.K.Gutz . In our opinion there is no any deep sense in the "theory of multivariancy". This is a clean mind play, which relates more to philosophy, definitely not to chronology.

We will also tell some words about the author of a number of books and propagandist of New Chronology professor of geologic-mineralogical sciences I.V.Davidenko. He is an author of a number of valuable observations, which we used by us (with links on it). It was he who paid our attention to the idea of use of concrete in the ancient Egyptian construction and also on the works of J.Davidovich on this topic. But in the books and speeches of V.Davidenko together with valuable thoughts and ideas there were also absolutely unreasonable statements. As an example let's provide his idea about flood, which allegedly in the Late Middle Ages descended on Eurasia and had flooded it nearly fully. It is actually a variant of the same "catastrophism". And on the same way as its western example, "Russian catastrophism" is demagocically used in the struggle against the New Chronology. We don't mean I.V.Davidenko himself, who probably was sincere. Nevertheless such his statements damage New Chronology.

We will express our point of view regarding contemporary state of the site newchrono.ru, which is now included into the project "Civilization", a director of which is professor, doctor of chemical sciences Ya.А.Kesler . The history of newchrono.ru is like this. Initially it was made by us for discussion of the issues of chronology in Internet. From here is the name of the site newchrono (abbreviation from "New Chronology "). But in one-two years the site fully went out of our control and was captured by people, the purposes of whom were absolutely different: hidden struggle against New Chronology, propaganda of ideas, which have no any relation to chronology or to science in general, change of the sense of the term New Chronology and filling it with absolutely strange for us thoughts. And also insistent attempts "to head the New Chronology ". That is to ascribe luxurious titles of the "leading new chronologists" to a number of people, who actually don't understand anything in chronology, and everything they know on this issue they got from fluent look at our works.

Here we can't not mark activity of Ya.А.Kesler . His books, filled with a mix of many hidden quotes from our works (of course without links to us) and his own thoughts (usually damp and foggy), are presented not just like the last word of New Chronology, but like much wider and more important project named "Civilization". Actually in the core of this project there is nothing but bare demagogy. In our opinion project "Civilization" is not scientific and is aimed to lead people aside from the chronological problem. Today it also serves as a "trap" for those, who honestly want to participate in the studies on chronology. Their efforts are being redeemed and interest is being directed to the "required channel". It is worth saying that compared to S.I.Valyanskiy and D.V.Kalyuzhniy and some others, the activity of Ya.А.Kesler and project "Civilisation" is much better organized and much more sophisticated. This is really a big project, directed against New Chronology under the mask of its "friends".

Having understood this we requested from the management of the project "Civilization" to change the name newchrono.ru, in order not to put people in confuse. But despite our persistent requirements, it is still not done. In our opinion management of the project "Civilization" consciously struggles against the ideas of New Chronology.

In the last time some our ideas bit by bit reached some "especially advanced" historians. Here is a funny circumstance. After understanding our idea some of them started to consider it theirs and publish books, where they abuse us and at the same time ascribe themselves our results. Let's give an example.
At the end of 2000 a book of professional archeologists A.A.Bushkov , A.Yu.Nizovskiy and P.Yu.Chernosvistov "Mysteries of the Ancient Russia" was published in Moscow publishing house "Veche". One third of the book is devoted to the Battle of Kulikovo. The authors in detail describe archeology of the place in Tula region, which historians today call "Kulikovo field". It is told that there was no one archeological discovery, confirming that the Battle of Kulikovo or another big medieval battle took place here.

As a result A.A.Bushkov , A.Yu.Nizovskiy and P.Yu.Chernosvistov came to the conclusion that Kulikovo Field was absolutely in a different place. Further they mention our reconstruction, that the Battle of Kulikovo took place on the territory of Moscow. After this they "authoritatively" state that our reconstruction is "inconclusive" AND AT THE SAME TIME provide "their own reconstruction" where Kulikovo field is placed on the territory of Mocow (!?).. This is a version of A.A.Bushkov – one of the authors of the book. Let's repeat: historians abuse us with the last words or, for example, like A.A.Bychkov shamelessly ascribe themselves our results. Moreover sometimes they intelligently do both things.
It is worth saying that in the books of A.A.Bushkov some interesting material is really included: extracts from ancient sources etc. But when A.A.Bushkov tried to understand, what was going in the history, to propose his own reconstruction, he didn't get to anything but misty and inconclusive discussions.

Based on this example it is clear that some historians and especially archeologists (who work directly with authentic materials of diggings) sometimes realize incorrectness of the Scaligerian version and feel the fairness of our reconstruction. They can't recognize this out loud due to "shop floor" considerations. As a result they start attempts to propose something other, what doesn't agree with our reconstruction and with the Scaligerian version. But they don't manage to do this. The issue is that there is one historical truth and likely it is mainly placed in our works.

One of the directions of struggle against New Chronology is attempts to fill the books market with low-grade literature on this topic. Such are, for example, some books of a popular author of modern detectives A.A.Bushkov . Pretending to be an "independent researcher", he rewrote fragments from our books and at the same time convinced readers that in general we were not right. Here, as we think, there is not only desire "to skip over" interesting for many people topic, but also an absolutely conscious struggle against New Chronology, desire to change its run.

Another important and rather serious direction of struggle against New Chronology which becomes bigger and bigger in the last time is intentional distortion of the main ideas of New Chronology and their presentation actually in a caricature, but externally solid academic form. Most painful for understanding for some our opponents was discovered by us existence of the Great Medieval Russian Empire of the XIII-XVI centuries. This is our key opening for understanding history of the past. It turns over many ideas, which took deeply roots in the mind of a modern person. Some people are wounded by this. This is well felt in a number of books which appeared in sale in 2004-2005. The issue is about masked parodies on our reconstruction, the authors of which permanently go back to hot for them topic of the Great Empire. They in all ways try to distort, replace, to fill it with absolutely different content (probably more pleasant for them). Such is for example a book of V.V.Makarenko "Where Russia appeared? New geography of the Ancient world". This is a huge volume of 650 pages, filled with many tables and other pseudoscientific material. It is obvious that the book is written according to our works with a provocative purpose to embarrass a reader, proposing him a reconstruction of history that at first view looks like our one, but actually has nothing to do with ours. Much is told about the Empire. With this our terminology is used, but the meaning is absolutely distorted. Look, for example, at the "general map of the Ancient World", which is placed on page 35 of this book, where all the ancient and medieval geography is moved to the desert on the both banks of the Red Sea. Of course we appreciate that such efforts are put on the struggle against New Chronology. It seemed to be not so easy to publish such book, filled with trifle on six hundred fifty pages. Seems we bitterly touched somebody. Our advice – don't be concerned so much.

In the list of books, distorting our reconstruction of the history of the Great Empire there is also a recent work of A.Z.Sinelnikov under an advertising name "Medieval empire of Jewish". The name coincides with the name of our book "The Empire" not by chance. The author begins with announcement that he is our follower and even pretends that he defends New Chronology from the attacks of historians-traditionalists. But then he starts to "develop" some stated by us ideas (mainly the idea about financial class of the Empire) "in the proper way". From our point of view proposed by A.Z.Sinelnikov ideas are misty and actually come down to a collection of quotes. Of course A.Z.Sinelnikov has a right to express his own thoughts, but he should accurately separate his thoughts from New Chronology. Mixture with our ideas and terms creates a wrong impression that the book was written within the framework of New Chronology on its frontline. In our opinion the book is weak.

We will not enumerate other smaller attempts to struggle in one or another way with the New Chronology using frauds, substitutions, leading readers aside, different "idea vaccines" or just writing muddy texts allegedly on New Chronology (V.T.Polyakovskiy and others).

G.V.Nosovskiy, A.T.Fomenko.
June 2005. Moscow.