HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? ● BOOK 8

The Horde from Pacific

to Atlantic

Anatoly Fomenko

Gleb Nosovskiy

THE HORDE FROM PACIFIC TO ATLANTIC

By Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskiy

Book 8 of History: Fiction or Science? series.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the publisher. Critics are welcome, of course, to quote brief passages by way of criticism and review.

Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskiy assert the moral right to be identified as the authors of this work.

Translated from Russian by Mikhail Yagupov

Design & layout: Paul Bondarovski

Project management: Franck Tamdhu

On the cover: Vasiliy Surikov. “Yermak’s conquest of Siberia” (1895).

The State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg.

Copyright © 2003-2017 Delamere Resources LLC

Published by Delamere Resources LLC

Publisher’s website

2017 print edition

Volume 1:

Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics, eclipses and zodiacs

Volume 2:

The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts

Volume 3:

Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs

Volume 4:

Russia. Britain. Byzantinium. Rome

Video from Wikipedia

Overview of the e-Series

History: Fiction or Science?

by Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskiy

Book 1:

The Issue with Chronology

Book 2:

Astronomy vs. History

Book 3:

The Apocalypse Seen by Astronomy

Book 4:

The Issue with Dark Ages

Book 5:

The Issue with Antiquity

Book 6:

The Issue with Troy

Book 7:

The Issue with Russian History

Book 8:

The Horde From Pacific to Atlantic

Book 9:

The Issue with Mongols

Book 10:

The Issue with Ivan the Terrible

Book 11:

The Issue with Tamerlane

Book 12:

USA Has Issues with Maps of 18th Century

Book 13:

The Issue with Czar’s Helmet

Book 14:

The Issue with Russian Tartary

Book 15:

The Issue with British History

Book 16:

Crusades and Exoduses

Book 17:

Maps and Coins vs. History

Book 18:

Swords and Mantles Tell History

Book 19:

The Testament of Peter the Great

Book 20:

The Issue with Baptism of Russia

Book 21:

The Issue with Chinese Astronomy

Book 22:

The Great Wall Of China Hoax

About the authors

- Fomenko, Anatoly Timofeevich (b. 1945). Full Member (Academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Full Member of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor, Head of the Moscow State University Section of Mathematics of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics. Solved Plateau’s Problem from the theory of minimal spectral surfaces. Author of the theory of invariants and topological classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamic systems. Laureate of the 1996 National Premium of the Russian Federation (in Mathematics) for a cycle of works on the Hamiltonian dynamical systems and manifolds’ invariants theory. Author of 200 scientific publications, 28 monographs and textbooks on mathematics, a specialist in geometry and topology, calculus of variations, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry. Author of a number of books on the development of new empirico-statistical methods and their application to the analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chronology of antiquity and the Middle Ages.

- Nosovskiy, Gleb Vladimirovich (b. 1958). Candidate of Physics and Mathematics (MSU,Moscow, 1988), specialist in theory of probability, mathematical statistics, theory of probabilistic processes, theory of optimization, stochastic differential equations, computer modelling of stochastic processes, computer simulation.Worked as researcher of computer geometry in Moscow Space Research Institute, in Moscow Machine Tools and Instruments Institute, in Aizu University in Japan. Faculty member of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics MSU.

From the publisher

The Evil Empire of Eurasia Timeline

The periods, the turning points, the key breakthroughs of the Evil Empire or civilization of homo sapiens according to New Chronology:

First Epoch: 500–800 A.D.

Human hunter-gatherers form clans and tribes the proto-states in the deltas of the rivers of the Northern Hemisphere propitious for the survival of species. This is our pre-history.

Key Step: Polytheism becomes the dominant religion. Populations practice fluvial agriculture, hunting, and fishing. Breakthrough: We invent and use simple instruments, weapons. Breakthrough: We have started basic writing with hieroglyphs and cuneiforms.

Key Step: proto-states in the Deltas of Nile and Euphrates grow into the Kingdoms and expand, i.e., to Mare Nostrum shores and to Mesopotamia. Breakthrough: Hieroglyphs and cuneiforms on papyri, plaster, textile, clay, stone supports make a centralized rule in the proto-states possible.

The hieroglyphic and cuneiform writing is descriptive and unsuitable for the composition of complicated phrases and long texts. Writing is difficult to learn, to teach and to use.

Second Epoch: 800–1000 A.D.

The Kingdom expands further to the North and coastal Mediterranean. It transforms into Judea-Izrael proto-Empire with capital Yoros on Bosphorus. It is reflected in consensual history as placeholders – Jerusalem, Babylon, Troy, Constantinople, Czargrad. (See: The Issue with Troy.)

Key Step: Monotheism develops. Breakthroughs: We learn to use iron, steel, copper, bronze and invent the wheel. We create alphabetical writing and parchment as a support thereof. The cost of parchment is prohibitive for wide application and the spread of literacy.

All supports we use for fixing information are expensive and difficult for writing, teaching, and everyday use. The composition of complicated phrases and texts is still staying difficult. Literature is impossible as yet. The spread of knowledge, technologies, and know-how is complicated.

Alleged consensual characters of history: Priam, Helene, Achilles, Hector, Alexander the Great, Darius, Nebuchadnezzar, Euclid, Dionysius, Julius Caesar, Nero, A.D.rian, Caligula, Constantine, Ptolemy, Pharaoh, Cleopatra, etc.

Alleged consensual placeholders of the antiquity: Ancient Egypt, Greece, Persia, Babylon, Assyria. The Ancient Kingdom of Rome, Republic of Rome, Roman Empire. Alleged consensual key events: Troy War, Spartan wars, Roman wars, etc.

Third Epoch: 1000–1200 A.D.

Proto-Empire Judea-Izrael rules from the capital Yoros, situated on Bosphorus, and expands into Western, Central and Eastern Europe divided in thems (fiefdoms). Medieval Warm Period of 950–1250 A.D. has facilitated both agriculture and construction in Europe.

The proto-Empire Judea-Izrael is reflected in manuscripts of XIII–XVcentury A.D. as Jerusalem, Rome, Troy, Constantinople, Czargrad. Consensual history characters: Attila, Charlemagne, Clovis, King Arthur, Wilhelm the Conqueror, Prince Vladimir, Prince Oleg, Constantine, King Richard, etc. (See: The Issue with Antiquity.)

Key step: Polytheism transforms into pre-Christian monotheism. Breakthrough: We come to the invention of the steel instruments and armor, paper, stirrups, primitive and composite concretes, mathematics, astrology, and alchemy. Note the importance of the invention of stirrups for cavalry, military formations.

Breakthroughs: The invention of cheap paper leads to the spread of the alphabetic writing and religious literacy. The primitive and composite concrete, mathematics, astrology and alchemy are invented.

Breakthroughs: We start the Construction of Big Projects, Wonders of the World, i.e., pyramids, Sphinxes, temples, obelisks in Egypt, aqueducts, Coliseums, roads in Europe.

Hieroglyphic writing is used for religious purposes and for the description of important events and/or religious notions on the walls and columns of temples and palaces in Egypt.

We create a vocabulary of astrological and astronomical symbols which allows the recording of dates of significant events. Dates of crucial events are recorded in zodiacs and horoscopes painted in the palaces and temples of Egypt.

Jesus Christ Epoch: Oriental Orthodox Catholic Christian Empire of 1200–1300 A.D.

Pre-Christian monotheism transforms into militant Orthodox Catholic Christianity. Christian Crusades are organized to Constantinople, idem Troy, idem Czargrad.

Orthodox Catholic Christianity expands into Western, Central and Eastern Europe. Christian Empire forms in Russia and by XIV century colonizes Central and Western Europe.

Religious literacy, improvement of mathematics, astrology, and alchemy develop. Dozens of religious universities spring across Western and Central Europe.

Key Breakthroughs: Monotheism transforms into Abrahamic pre-Christianity. The invention of cheap paper as information support makes the dissemination of ideas and proto-sciences across Europe and Minor Asia possible.

Writing with vowels makes texts easily readable. Recording information by writing becomes simple. The composition of complicated phrases is simple. Long complicated texts and literature are feasible.

Teaching to write and read is easier. Dissemination of knowledge is facilitated. The speed of proliferation of ideas increases. Conflicts based on different ideas take place.

Key Breakthroughs: Christianity becomes the prime mover of civilization. Following a mutiny caused by a conflict of religious ideas, Byzantine Emperor Andronicus (allegedly born in 1152 A.D. in Crimea) is killed (crucified) in 1185 A.D. in Jerusalem, idem Constantinople, and buried on the mountain of Beikos.

Pre-Christianity transforms into Oriental Orthodox Catholic Christianity with Emperor Andronicus as the prototype of Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

Key Breakthroughs: Crusades. Crusade of 1189–1192 A.D. and Crusade in 1199–1204 A.D. to Jerusalem-Constantinople were military operations under the banner of Christianity by the subordinates and relatives of the late Emperor Andronicus. Sack of Constantinople in 1204. (See: Crusades and Exoduses.)

Key Breakthroughs: Religious education expands. Due to the powerful societal potential of ideas of Christianity, due to the increased speed of proliferation and dissemination of writing and reading, religious literacy and education become possible and spread. Hundreds of Christian monasteries, dozens of sects, schools, universities spring across Minor Asia and Europe.

Key Breakthroughs: Orthodox Catholic Christian Empire. XIII–XIV century A.D. – Slavic and Turkic Princes of Israel, blood relatives, and subordinates of Byzantine Emperor Andronicus recreate an Orthodox Catholic Christian Empire with Great Novgorod as its center.

Great Novgorod consists of Vladimir–Suzdal–Yaroslavl–Kostroma–Moscow Golden Ring cities. Rem: Russian Czars are shown as direct heirs of Jesus on their family tree in Annunciation Cathedral of Kremlin. (See: The Issue with Czar’s Helmet, The Issue with Russian History.)

Empire of Eurasia Epoch: 1300–1500 A.D.

Orthodox Catholic Christianity splits into Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Judaic and Islam currents.

Key Breakthroughs: Colonisation of Europe in XIII century. Orthodox Catholic Christian Empire colonizes and baptizes Central and Western Europe. Rem: the swords, armor, decorations with Turkic, Slavonic, Arabic and allegedly illegible inscriptions are kept in European museums.

Rem: manuscript Orthodox Slavonic Bibles used in royal coronation rituals are still kept in the cathedral of Reims, France and Niköping, Sweden. Rem: Helmets and armor of Russian Czars kept in Kremlin Armory bear Quran quotes. (See: The Issue with Czar’s Helmet).

Key Breakthroughs: Orthodox Catholic Christian Empire grows XIII–XV centuries into a multi-confessional, multilingual centralized and ruthless Evil Empire of Eurasia with citizens strictly divided into hereditary castes: governing, civil, military nobles (Caucasians), transportation and equine relay network (Gypsies), taxation (Jews, origin of anti-Semitism), Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim clergy of common Abrahamic root. (See: The Issue with Great Tartary.)

Key Breakthroughs: Military superiority of Evil Empire of Eurasia. Due to the overwhelming superiority and mobility of cavalry troops, strict discipline, superior administration, organization and communication in Evil Empire, the colonization and control of tribal territories or proto-states was very rapid. Equine relay network run by the caste of Gypsies and taxation system run by the caste of Jews is set up. ‘Blood tax’, i.e., conscription of population is enforced. (See: The Issue with Tamerlane.)

The disintegration of Evil Empire of Eurasia. 1500–1700 A.D.

Key Breakthroughs: Empire of Eurasia rules the lands. The eventual resistance is ruthlessly crushed. The refusal to pay taxes due to the Emperor, alias Czar, alias Caesar, alias Khan, is punished by the ‘Tartar-Mongol invasions’.

Evil Empire of Eurasia builds castles, fortresses and road networks for troops, a long distance equine relay system with transportation speed up to 30 km/h for governance and trade (horse and horseman are changed in relays). The Empire establishes provincial capitals in the key points of the road network.

Key Breakthroughs: Islam. Ottoman Empire. The network of roads and trade between formerly isolated populations across the Evil Empire Eurasia leads to the spread of infectious disease and plagues.

Evil Empire carries through large scale of sanitary and ethnic cleansing military operations and splits into Ottoman and Russ-Horde branches to contain the spread of infectious diseases. Islam splits from Christianity completely. (See: The Issue with Tamerlane.)

Key Breakthroughs: Rapid development in Europe. The warlords of the conquering armies of Evil Empire often stayed as rulers in the colonized countries and made their rights hereditary. The heavy taxation by faraway ‘Mongol’ Caesar, alias Khan, inspired separatist ideas to the heirs of the warlords.

Key Breakthroughs: European Aristocracy. The split of Christianity into Orthodox and Catholic currents prepares the ground for the separation of Europe from Evil Empire. The heirs of Imperial warlords become English, German, French, Spanish kings and form a class of European high aristocracy, fight dynastic wars.

Court historians invent ‘ancient’ dynasties for the heirs of warlords. Clergy duly explains the divine origin of royal power. Astrologists find abundant confirmations thereof in the sky. Rem: all solar eclipses of the alleged Antiquity described in ‘ancient’ manuscripts turn out to be medieval. (See: Astronomy vs. History.)

Key Breakthroughs: Gutenberg printing press. Propaganda becomes a major weapon. The invention of printing press makes the production of the cheap multiple copies of documents and charts possible.

Key Breakthroughs: The speed of information proliferation and dissemination of the art of writing, teaching, reading, and education increases by the order of magnitude. European provinces develop arts, science and technology considerably faster than ‘Mongolian’ Center too busy with expansion in and control of Eurasia.

Hundreds of monasteries, thousands of schools spread literacy and dozens of universities that spread science appear across Minor Asia and Europe. Propaganda becomes a powerful weapon for/in Europe. (See: The Apocalypse as Seen by Astronomy.)

Key Breakthroughs: ‘Re-Naissance’. To confirm the divine rights of the new ‘ancient’ ruling class of Europe, learned people of Renaissance invent in the XIV–XVI century A.D. the history of the Ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome, and manufacture their paraphernalia.

Thousands of learned monks of different orders, white and black clergy, a new class of learned people toil for three centuries to elaborate ‘ancient’ languages, compose literature, philosophy masterpieces under resounding pseudonyms. Rem: artists and sculptors produce ‘ancient’ artifacts. (See: The Issue with Antiquity.)

Key Breakthrough: Development of Science. For their own security, scientists made their discoveries public under fictitious glorious names of ‘ancient’ astronomers and ‘ancient’ philosophers, and under the cover of allegedly pre-diluvian scientific treaties. Astrology turns into astronomy, religion into philosophy, alchemy into chemistry.

Fearful of inquisition, scientists work under pseudonyms. The groundwork of Science is laid. To turn witchcraft into medicine, corpses are stolen and dissected. Anatomy theaters open in universities. Rem: at last Italian sculptors can make anatomically correct beautiful ‘ancient’ Greek and Roman sculptures. (See: The Issue with Dark Ages.)

Key Breakthrough: Separatism in Europe. After two centuries of ‘Mongol’ yoke, separatism takes hold in Western Europe, which by then has already invented clocks, powder, guns, paper, printing, telescope and the microscope. The concerted effort of Europe to escape the control of the Evil Empire with its crushing military superiority was inevitable. (See: The Issue with Mongols.)

Key Breakthrough: Protestantism. Heirs of ‘Mongol’ warlords in Germany support Martin Luther’s reform of pro-Imperial Catholic Church into Protestantism. The Bible is translated into native languages. Massive pogroms of the Jewish caste of Imperial taxation, the sack of numerous Catholic cathedrals and monasteries take place in Germany.

Key Breakthrough: The Council of Trent of 1545–1563. Black and white Catholic clergy transform the pro-Imperial Orthodox Catholic Church into the Roman Catholic Church. The Julian Calendar is replaced by the Gregorian calendar. A list of forbidden books is established, books are found and burnt. Jesuit set up the Order of Jesus and run the Inquisition.

Key Breakthroughs: War of Evil Empire Dynasties. Czar Ivan the Terrible (1530–1584) was actually a fictitious character that stood for four consecutive competing contenders to the throne of Empire. European troops assure victories over Judea Kazan Khan and Tartar Khan of Crimea in the dynastic civil war.

The intestine struggle of dynasties that decimated over 10,000 high-ranking officers of the Russian Horde armies made the re-conquest of rebellious Europe by the Evil Empire unfeasible and the ensuing Great Strife in it inevitable. (See: The Issue with Ivan the Terrible.)

Key Breakthrough: A collective memory of Evil Empire of Eurasia is erased. Once the disintegration objective reached, Europe makes a concerted effort to erase the former Evil Empire and its very existence from the people’s memory. This effort is supported by the high nobility of Europe who already had their brand new ‘ancient’ history ready.

Rem: Jesuit Chronology, which served for 300 years as the immutable basis of world history, is in fact composed by Kabbalist Joseph Scaliger (1585) and perfected by the Jesuit Dionysius Petavius (1627). (See: The Issue with Chronology.)

Key Breakthrough: A list of forbidden authors is established by Roman Curia and ancient heretic and/or manuscripts are burnt all over Europe. Writings of ‘ancient’ Roman, Greek authors are mass-produced by the Benedictine order, whereby the originals are never found.

Rem: Multi-volume collections of ancient Greek and Roman authors appear before original masterpieces of the ‘ancients’ are found, if found at all.

Key Breakthrough: A Great Strife begins in the Empire of Eurasia. German princes helped pro-European Romanov dynasty to usurp the throne of the Evil Empire of Eurasia in 1613. The dynasty of Eurasian Czars is replaced by pro-European one.

The former provinces of the Evil Empire – China, Japan, Iran and Ottoman Empires – become independent, but stay fiercely anti-European and anti-Romanov. The Ottoman Empire tries to re-conquer Western Europe in 1529 and again in 1689, but fails dismally both times. (See: The Issue with Ivan the Terrible.)

Russian Empire of Eurasia Epoch. 1700–1917

Peter the Great starts to build the New Russian Empire, modernizes his part of the former Evil Empire up to the Urals, moves the capital from Moscow to St. Petersburg. He beats under Poltava, in 1709, the King of Sweden Karl XII – yet another clear pretender to the Russian throne.

In 1725, Peter the Great leaves a Testament ordering his heirs to make Russian Empire ‘great again’. The reign of Empress Elisabeth followed by Empress Catherine the Great is a travesty of the dynasty Peter the Great wanted to found. In 1762, the Romanovs become the Holstein–Gottorp–Romanov German dynasty.

In 1773–1775, the Russian Empire crushes the Great Tartary headed by Pougatchev, the last pretender to the throne of the Evil Empire. In 1776–1796, the Russian Empire takes over the lands of the Muscovite Tartary and expands to Siberia, Alaska and North Western America, which it can’t control for a long time due to enormous distances and absence of fleet. (See: The Testament of Peter the Great.)

Contents

Overview of the e-Series

About the authors

From the publisher

PART 1. Our hypothesis

1. Russia and the Horde

1.1. Different points of view

1.2. Our hypothesis formulated in brief

2. The origins of the Mongols and the Tartars

2.1. Ethnic composition of the Mongolian troops

2.2. How many Mongols were there? Mongols as seen by contemporaries. Mongolian and Russian attire of the epoch under study

3. The “Tartar and Mongol conquest” and the Orthodox Church

4. Cossacks and the Horde

4.1. The Cossacks were the regular army of Russia (Horde)

4.2. Why the Muscovite rulers were accompanied by the “Tartars” rather then armies in military campaigns. The Tartars from Poland and Lithuania

5. The real identity of the Horde

6. On the conquest of Siberia

7. A general remark concerning the word “Cossack”

8. Tartar names and Russian names in old Russia

8.1. Tartar nicknames

8.2. The “strange” effect of the Mongolian conquest on the Russian culture

8.3. Russian and Tartar names illustrated by the Verderevskiy family tree

9. The real identity of the Mongolian language

9.1. How many Mongolian texts are there in existence?

9.2.What language were the famous Khan’s yarlyks (decrees, in particular – documents certifying the Princes’ rights to their domains) written in?

9.3. In re the Russian and the Tartar letters

9.4. History of the Mongols and the chronology of its creation

10. Gog and Magog. Chief Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. Russia-Horde and Moscow Russia on the pages of the Bible

11. The real location of Novgorod the Great

11.1.What we know about the city of Novgorod (the Great)

11.2. Our hypothesis about Yaroslavl being the historical Novgorod the Great

11.2.1. Why the traditional identification of the Old Russian capital (Novgorod the Great) as the modern town of Novgorod on the Volkhov is seen as dubious

11.2.2. Yaroslavl as an ancient trading centre. The Molozhskaya fair

11.2.3. Novgorod and Holmgrad

11.2.4. Yaroslav’s Court as the court of a Great Prince

11.2.5. How Nizhniy Novgorod had received its name

11.2.6. The Yaroslavl Region as the domain of the Great Prince

11.2.7. “Gospodin Velikiy Novgorod” (“Lord Novgorod the Great”) as the agglomeration of towns and cities in the Yaroslavl region

11.2.8. The famous Icon of Novgorod and the Icon of Yaroslavl

12. The falsification of history and archaeology of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov

12.1. The real chronology implied by the “layer section” of the pavements in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov

12.2. Novgorod-upon-Volkhov had also been known as “okolotok” (Russian word used for a parochial settlement)

12.3. The tourist sights presented as the famous “Sovereign’s Court”, where the Archbishop of Novgorod the Great had resided

12.4. Novgorod-upon-Volkhov: oddities in occupation layer datings

12.5. Birch bark documents had been used by the “ancient” Romans, and therefore cannot predate the XIV century

12.6. In re the “Novgorod Datings” of A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin. How the abovementioned Academicians date late XVIII century birch bark documents to the XI century

12.7. Historians’ response to our article on the Novgorod datings of A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin

13. A hypothesis about the etymology of the word “Russia” (“Rouss”)

PART 2. Ancient Russia as seen by contemporaries

14. Abul-Feda claimed the Russians to be “a people of Turkish origin”

15. Russia and Turkey

16. What one sees on the famous Arab map by Al-Idrisi from mediaeval Spain

17. Greater Russia as the Golden Horde, Lesser Russia as the Blue Horde, and Byelorussia as the White Horde

18. The beginning of the Tartar and Mongol invasion as described by contemporaries

19. Amazons in the XVII century Russia. Russian women wearing yashmaks

What mainstream historians say about the New Chronology?

Overview of the seven-volume print edition

Also by Analoly T. Fomenko

Also by Gleb V. Nosovskiy

Bibliography

History is a pack of lies about events that never happened

told by people who weren’t there.

George Santayana,

American philosopher

(1863-1952)

Be wary of mathematiciens, particularly when they speak the truth.

St. Augustine

History repeats itself; that’s one of the things that’s wrong with history.

Clarence Darrow

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

George Orwell, 1984

Part One

Our hypothesis

1. Russia and the Horde

1.1. Different points of view

Let us remind the reader that there are two different viewpoints that concern the interactions between Russia and the Horde.

The first one was introduced by the XVIII century historians (Miller, Bayer and Schlezer); that is the very version that is taught in schools nowadays. According to this version, the entire state of Russia, originally populated by the Slavs, fell into the hands of foreign invaders (the Mongols and the Tartars) in the first half of the XIII century; they presumably came from the faraway steppes where one finds Mongolia nowadays. Let us remind the readers right away that the state of Mongolia was formed as late as in the XX century. Its level of technical and military development remains rather low to this very day. This can hardly be regarded as solid argumentation, but these days one finds it next to impossible to imagine that this country had been one of the most powerful aggressors in the Middle Ages, an empire that had conquered “half of the world”, whose influence had reached as far as Egypt and Western Europe. One can only assume that this powerful empire had degraded in some strange way. Scaligerian history offers us lots of similar examples: kingdom of Babylon fallen into oblivion, the decline of the Roman Empire, mediaeval Europe sliding into barbarism and ignorance in the dark Middle Ages and so on.

However, there is another point of view. The matter is that the consensual theory about the Mongolian conquest and the Mongolian yoke isn’t supported by any Russian source whatsoever, which doesn’t preclude anyone from teaching it in schools and refer to Russian chronicles for support. Some historians were of the opinion that Russia and the Horde had been two independent states that co-existed around the same time as empires equal in their power, whose balance of forces would shift one way or another over the course of time. The famous historian L. N. Gumilev, for instance, used to write about it ([211]).

We find it needless to cite Gumilev’s argumentation herein – interested readers can study his works themselves. We must however note that we strongly disagree with his so-called “passionarity theory”. His opinion is that this mysterious passionarity results in cyclic recurrence of historical events. However, this “cyclic recurrence” is of a phantom nature and results from the errors inherent in the Scaligerian chronology. Nevertheless, Gumilev must be credited with having been the first one to declare openly that the theory of the Mongol and Tartar yoke in Russia in its consensual Millerian version isn’t based on any documental information whatsoever, since neither Russian, nor foreign historical sources confirm it in any way at all. In particular, Gumilev made a very reasonable observation in one of his public lectures that were read in the USSR AS Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy in particular and attended by one of the authors in the early 80’s, namely, that the entire theory of the Mongol and Tartar yoke in Russia dates to the XVIII century; its authors had been foreign (Bayer, Miller and Schlezer), and they tailored their theory to fit the popular theories about the alleged “slavish origins of the Russians”.

History of the Cossacks by A. A. Gordeyev ([183]) can also be regarded as an important contribution into the analysis of the relations between Russia and the Horde. Gordeyev demonstrated that the predecessors of the Russian Cossacks had once been part of the “Tartar and Mongol” army, basing his research on the Western European descriptions of Mongolia and on a number of Russian sources.

Our own study of historical sources, Russian as well as foreign, has brought us to the conclusion that both Gumilev and Gordeyev were on the right track; however, they didn’t manage to comprehend the issue in question in its entirety.

1.2. Our hypothesis formulated in brief

The key to the mysteries of Russian history is the simple fact that the Mediaeval Mongolia and Russia were really the same state. In particular, we are referring to the following hypothesis of ours.

1) The mediaeval Mongolia was a multinational state whose borders had initially been the same as those of the Russian Empire. Russia has never been conquered by any foreign invaders. The original population of Russia consisted of the same ethnic groups as one finds inhabiting its territory to this day – the Russians, the Tartars etc.

2) The very name “Mongolia” (or “Mogolia”) is likely to be a derivative of the Russian word for “many” (mnogo), which is also related to such Russian words as mnogo, moshch, mog and mnozhestvo (“many”, “might”, a past tense form of the verb “can” and “multitude”, respectively). Alternatively, it may be a derivative of the Greek word megalion, or “the great”, according to N. M. Karamzin and a number of other authors; however, it is possible that the word megalion also derives from the Slavic word mnogo. We don’t find the names “Mongolia” or “Mogolia” in any Russian historical sources – however, said sources often mention “The Great Russia”. It is a known fact that foreigners had used the word “Mongolia” for referring to Russia. We are of the opinion that this name is merely a translation of the Russian word for “great”.

Linguists consider the term “Velikorossiya” (or “Velikaya Rossiya”) to be a carbon copy of the Greek formula “Mega Rossiya”. The Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language by M. Fasmer, for instance, tells us that the term “The Great Russia” (“Μεγαη Ρωσσια”) was coined by the Constantinople patriarchy ([866], Volume 1, page 289). However, the origins of the word may just as well be Russian. At any rate, what we see is that the old Greek name for Russia used to begin with the word “Mega” – a possible derivative of the Russian words mog, moshch and mnogo as mentioned above. They may have transformed into “Mogolia” and then “Mongolia” over the course of time.

3) The so-called “yoke of the Tartars and the Mongols” is a wrong definition of a specific period in Russian history when the entire population of the country was separated into two primary strata – the civil population ruled by the Princes, and the Horde (or the regular army) ruled by military commanders (Russians, Tartars etc). The Horde had obeyed the power of the Czar, or the Khan, who was also the head of the state. There were therefore two active administrations in Russia during that period: military (functioning within the Horde), and civil (local).

4) It is a commonly known fact that Russia had once paid tribute to the Horde – a tenth of all property and a tenth of all populace. Nowadays it is presumed to prove Russia’s dependent position under the yoke of the Tartars. We are of the opinion that this tribute should really be called a tax paid by the people in order to keep a regular army, aka the Horde, twined with the obligatory recruitment of young people. Cossacks would get drafted in childhood and never return home; this recruitment was the very “tribute of blood” that had allegedly been paid to the Tartars by the Russians. This practice had also existed in Turkey up until the XVII century, being a far cry from the “tribute paid to the conqueror by an enslaved nation”. The Empire used to keep a regular army in this manner; refusal to pay would naturally ensue punitive expeditions sent to the rebellious regions. These expeditions are what historians present as “Tartar raids” nowadays; they would obviously lead to violent excesses and executions at times.

5) The so-called “conquest of Russia by the Mongols and the Tartars” is of a figmental nature. Nobody had conquered Russia – the phenomenon known under the name of the “yoke” nowadays had really been an internal process that involved the consolidation of Russian principalities and the aggrandizement of the Khans’ (Czars’) power. We shall discuss this “conquest”, or unification, of Russia that took place in the XIV century below.

6) The remnants of the regular Russian army (Horde) have survived until our day, still known under the name of the Cossacks. The opinion of certain historians that the Cossack troops consisted of serfs who either ran away or were deported to the Don region in the XVI-XVII century quite simply doesn’t hold water. In the XVII century the Cossacks lived all across Russia – the sources that date to the epoch in question mention Cossacks from the regions of Yaik, Don, Volga ([183], Volume 2, pages 53 and 80), then Terek, Dnepr, Zaporozhye and Meshchera ([183], Volume 2, page 76), Pskov ([84], page 73), Ryazan ([362], Volume 5, Chapter 4, page 230; also [363], Volume 5, page 215), as well as city Cossacks, or ones residing in cities ([183] and [436]). One also finds mentions of Cossacks from the Horde, the Azov region, the Nogai Steppe etc ([362], Volume 5, page 231).

We must inform the reader that, according to The Cossack Dictionary and Handbook ([347], see under “The Zaporozhye Cossacks”), the Dnepr or Zaporozhye Cossacks were known as the Horde Cossacks before the XVI century. Furthermore, “the Lower Zaporozhye was known as the yurt (homeland) of the Crimean Cossacks” ([347], page 257). This once again confirms our hypothesis that the Cossacks (whose actual name might derive of the Russian word “skakat”, “to ride”) were the regular army of the Mongolian Horde. Also, the word yurt translates as “dwelling”, “homeland” etc; Cossacks frequently used the word in the names of their settlements and encampments. The Mongolian word yurt may a possible derivative of “orda” or “rod” (“horde” and “clan” or “genus”, respectively); it is a Cossack term. One sees the it in such sentences as “the Zaporozhye Cossacks didn’t let their former interamnian yurt between Dnepr and Bug fall into the hands of the Turks … apparently, the governorship of Crimea didn’t consider the severance of official duty bond with its Cossacks in the Horde to be a sufficient reason for depriving them of their old yurt” ([347], page 256).

We could also try to find out about the Cossacks mentioned by N. M. Karamzin. It would be expedient to use the name index compiled by P. M. Stroyev for this purpose ([362], Volume 4, page 323). We find the following:

Cossacks from Dnepr, the Cherkasses from Kanev, Cossacks from the Lesser Russia, the Zaporozhye, Don, Volga, Meshchera, Gorodetsk (also known as Kasimovtsy), the Horde, the Azov Region, the Nogai Steppe, Terek, Yaik and Perekop ([347], page 254), Belgorod (ibid.) and the cities. Nowadays there are Tartars in the Nogai and the Kasim regions – could Karamzin have called them Cossacks? Apparently, the two words were synonymous in the Middle Ages, by and large.

It appears that “as late as in the end of the XVI century, the Zaporozhye Cossacks had still seen no reason to be hostile towards their neighbours and past allies. The Cossacks had left the Khans, since the latter had been falling under the Turkish influence. The two parties had initially coexisted peacefully; the Cossacks would even take part in the competition between the political parties at the Crimean court … however, the influence of the Turks over the Khans had become too great, and the former kinship with the Cossacks was forgotten … the Cossacks were finding it more difficult with the year to deal with the Khans; however, the final severance wouldn’t follow until much later” ([347], page 256).

7) The royal dynasty of Ivan Kalita (Caliph) regnant in the XIV-XVI century is the dynasty of the Horde’s Czar Khans, and can therefore be called the Horde dynasty. This is the term used by the authors of the present book; we must however reiterate that it had been a Russian dynasty and not a foreign one.

8) The unique Horde period in history of Russia spans the XIII-XVI century, ending with the Great Strife of the early XVII century. The last ruler of this dynasty had been the Czar-Khan Boris “Godunov”.

9) The Great Strife and the civil war of the early XVII century ended with the ascension of a principally new dynasty – the Romanovs, who came from the West of Russia – allegedly, from Pskov. The old dynasty had been defeated in the civil war of the XVII century; this signifies the end of the Horde epoch. However, some remnants of the Horde had existed as independent states up until the XVIII century. The last one had been conquered by the Romanovs in the war with “Pougachev”. A new epoch began in the XVII century; the one that had preceded it became declared the “famous Great Yoke of the Mongols and the Tartars”. Scaligerian-Millerian history misdates this change of epochs to the end of the XV century.

10) The new dynasty of the Romanovs needed to strengthen its authority, since other descendants of the old Horde dynasty had still existed and made claims for the thron. The Khans of Crimea and other surviving descendants of the Horde Czars from the Cossack clans must have been among them. The Romanovian dynasty was therefore faced with the necessity of presenting the Khans as the historical enemies of Russia; this resulted in the creation of the historical theory about the military opposition between Russia and the Horde, or the Russians and the Tartars. Romanovs and their tame historians have declared the Horde dynasty of the Russian Czars alien and “Tartar”. This has changed the entire concept of the Horde epoch in ancient Russian history; the Romanovs have planted the “enemy figure” – a foe that needed to be crushed. Thus, having altered no actual historical facts, they have greatly distorted the role of the Horde in Russian history.

11) The Tartars have naturally been one of the ethnic groups living in Russia, as is the case today. However, the contraposition of the Russians and the Tartars as two opposing forces, the latter the victors and the former, the defeated party, is an “invention” of later historians introduced in the XVII-XVIII century. They were the ones who had distorted Russian history and thought up the scenario of “Slavic Russia” conquered by the “Tartar Horde”.

12) The famous White Horde can be identified as the White Russia, or Byelorussia. A propos, this name had implied a much greater territory than that of the modern Byelorussia; the entire Moscovia was known as the White Russia in the XV-XVI century, for example ([758], page 64). This might be the reason why the Czar in Moscow had been known as the White Czar. The Volga region had been the domain of the Golden Horde; it had also been known as Siberia in those days, hence the name of Simbirsk, a town on the Volga. The third most important Horde was known as the Blue Horde; its territories had included the modern Ukraine and the Crimea. The toponymy of the name might have something to do with “Blue Waters”, cf. the name of river Sinyukha (“The Blue”), a tributary of the Southern Bug ([347], page 257).

13) The distortion of the old Russian history had led to several geographical shifts that concerned a number of well-known mediaeval names. In particular, Mongolia had travelled a long way to the East, and the peoples inhabiting the territory in question were “designated to be Mongolian”. Historians remain convinced about the fact that modern Mongolians descended from the very same Mongols that had conquered the entire Europe and Egypt in the Middle Ages. However, insofar as we know, there wasn’t a single ancient chronicle found anywhere in Mongolia that would mention the expansion campaign of the Great Batu-Khan and his conquest of a land called Russia far in the West. The name of Siberia had followed Mongolia eastwards.

The readers must become accustomed to the uncommon concept that geographical names would drift from place to place in the Middle Ages; this process had only stopped with the invention of the printing press and the mass production of uniform books and maps, which had naturally led to the “solidification” of the names used for nations, cities, rivers and mountains. This process had more or less finished by the XVII-XVIII century, when the prototypes of the modern textbooks were published.

We shall stop here for a short while; the key elements of our hypothesis about Mongolia and Russia-Horde being a single state in the XIII-XVI century. Let us turn to the documents now.

2. The origins of the Mongols and the Tartars

2.1. Ethnic composition of the Mongolian troops

Western documents contain direct indications that the name “Tartars” had once been used for referring to the Russians. For instance:

“Roussillon’s documents often mention ‘White Tartars’ alongside the ‘Yellow Tartars’. The names of the ‘White Tartars’ (Loukiya, Marfa, Maria, Katerina and so forth) betray their Slavic origins” ([674], page 40).

We find out that even before the “conquest” of Russia, “the Mongolian troops contained a number of Russians led by their chieftain Plaskinya” ([183], Volume 1, page 22).

“Rashed ad-Din mentions that Tokhta-Khan’s army had included ‘Russian, Cherkassian, Kipchakian, Majarian and other regiments’. The same author tells us that it was a Russian horseman from Tokhta-Khan’s army who had wounded Nogai in the battle of 1300… Al-Omari, the Arabic author, reports that ‘the sultans of this country have armies of Cherkasses, Russians and Yasses’” ([674], pages 40-41).

It is known that the Russian Princes accompanied by their troops used to be part of the Tartar army, no less ([674], page 42). “A. N. Nasonov had been of the opinion that already in the first years of the Great Yoke, the darougi (“Mongolian” troop leaders) had been recruiting Russians from the ranks of the populace governed by a local baskak (governor-general)” ([674], page 42).

Let us point out the obvious similarity between the words “darougi” and “drougi” or “drouzhinniki” – this is how the elite troops of the Princes were called in the Russian army. They would obviously be in charge of recruiting new soldiers – which makes them likely to be identified as the “Mongolian” darougi.

Historians are of the opinion that the participation of the Russians in the Tartar army had been of a compulsory character – however, they still admit that “the obligatory service in the Tartar army must have happened at the initial phase; further on, Russians participated as mercenaries” ([674], page 43).

Ibn-Batouta tells us “there were many Russians in Saray Berk” ([674], page 45). Furthermore, “Russians had constituted the majority of the Golden Horde’s military personnel and workforce in general” ([183], Volume 1, page 39).

Let us reflect for a moment and imagine just how nonsensical the entire situation is. The Mongolian victors arm their “Russian slaves”, who serve in the army of the invaders without any qualms whatsoever, and “constitute its majority” on top of that. Bear in mind that the Russians had presumably just been defeated in an open battle. Even in Scaligerian history we don’t see any examples of masters arming slaves; the victorious party would, on the contrary, seize all the weapons of the defeated enemy. In all known cases of former enemies serving in the armies of their conquerors, the former had been a puny minority, which would naturally be considered untrustworthy.

What do we learn about the composition of Batu-Khan’s troops? Let us quote:

“Batu-Khan’s army was described in the reminiscences of the Hungarian king and his letter to the Pope… The king had written the following: ‘When the entire land of Hungary was devastated after the plague-like invasion of the Mongols, all sorts of infidel tribes had gathered round it like wolves around a sheep-fold – Russians, Brodniki from the East [a Slavic tribe from the Azov region – Transl.], Bulgarians and other heretics from the South’” ([183], Volume 1, page 31).

Let us ask a simple question: where are the Mongols? The king mentions Slavic tribes exclusively – the Russians, the Brodniki and the Bulgarians. If we are to translate the word “Mongol” from the King’s missive, we shall end up with the invasion of “the great (Mongol = Megalion) tribes from the East” as mentioned above. We can therefore recommend the readers to translate the word “Mongol” into “the great” upon encounter, which shall leave us with a reasonable and understandable text with no mention of faraway invaders from a distant land near the Chinese border. A propos, none of the documents contain a single reference to China.

“The borders [of Mongolia – Auth.] needed to be guarded against Poland, Lithuania and Hungary in the West. Batu-Khan had founded military settlements for the observation and protection of borders; the settlers had formerly been residents of Russian principalities… These settlements had guarded the entire territory of the Horde from the West. More military settlements were founded in the neighbouring Mongolian uluses (principalities) of the Great Khan and the Khan of Central Asia; they were located along the banks of Terek and Yaik … among the Terek settlers there were Russians, tribes from the Northern Caucasus, Cherkasses from Pyatigorsk and the Alanians… The strongest line of defence … was needed to be built on the west bank of the Don … and in the North-Western principalities, the so-called Chervonniy Yar … this region became the new homeland of a large group of ethnic Russians… There were lines of postal communication between Saray, the capital, and faraway provinces in every direction, their length reaching thousands and thousands of miles … there were yamy [courier stations – Transl.] every 25 verst [1 verst = 3500 ft. – Transl.] … there were boat and ferry services on every river, run by the Russians … the Mongols had no historians of their own” ([183], Volume 1, pages 41-42).

The word yama gave birth to the word yamshchik (courier). This postal communication system had existed until the end of the XIX century, and only became obsolete with the introduction of railroads.

One can therefore see that the Russians had occupied key positions everywhere in the Golden Horde, or the Mongolian state, controlling roads and communications. Where were the Mongols? Giving orders, as historians are telling us? In that case, why weren’t they overthrown by their armed slaves, who had also constituted the majority of the Mongolian army, controlled roads, ferries and so on? This appears very odd indeed. Wouldn’t it make more sense to assume that the description in question relates the state of affairs in Russia, which hadn’t been conquered by any invaders whatsoever?

Plano Carpini doesn’t mention a single Mongolian governor in the account of his visit to Kiev, presumably recently conquered by the Mongols. Vladimir Yeikovich remained the local military commander, which is the position that he had occupied before Batu-Khan’s conquest ([183], Volume 1, page 42). The first Tartars were seen by Carpini when he had already passed Kanev. We learn of Russians occupying positions of power as well; Mongolians transform into ephemeral apparitions that no one ever sees.

2.2. How many Mongols were there? Mongols as seen by contemporaries. Mongolian and Russian attire of the epoch under study

History textbooks as used in schools are trying to convince us that the Mongols and the Tartars had been wild nomadic peoples with no literacy, who have swarmed the entire Russia and arrived from somewhere near the Chinese border on horses. It is presumed that there were “lots and lots” of these invaders. On the other hand, modern historians report things that contradict this point of view totally. The Tartars and the Mongols only occupy the top governing positions in their army; besides, there are “few of them” – the majority is Russian, qv above. It becomes perfectly unclear just how a handful of savages on horses could have conquered large civilized countries up to Egypt and made the inhabitants of said countries part of their army.

Let us turn to the records left by the contemporaries of the Mongols. Gordeyev gives a good overview of references to Mongols from the Western sources in [183].

“In 1252-1253 William Rubricus, envoy of Louis IX, was passing through Crimea accompanied by his entourage, on his way from Constantinople. He had paid a visit to Batu-Khan’s camp and proceeded onwards into Mongolia. He recorded the following impressions of the Lower Don region: ‘Russian settlements permeate the entire Tartaria; the Russians have mixed with the Tartars and taken to their customs, likewise garments and lifestyle… The kind of headdress worn by the local women is similar to what the French women wear; the hems of dresses are decorated with fur – ermine, squirrel and otter. Men wear kaftans and other short-skirted attire, with lambskin hats on their heads; … all the communications in this vast country are served by the Russians, they are at every river ferry’ ” ([183], Volume 1, pages 52-53).

We must point it out to the reader that Rubricus visited Russia a mere 15 years after it was conquered by the Mongols. Weren’t the Russians a little too quick in mixing with the Mongols and adopting their way of clothing, which they preserved until the very beginning of the XX century, likewise the customs and the way of life in general? One mustn’t think that this “Tartar attire” was much different from what the Westerners wore. According to Rubricus, who hails from the Western Europe, “Russian women wear jewellery on their heads, just like ours, and adorn the hems of their dresses with ermine and other kinds of fur” ([363], Volume 5, Chapter 4, comment 400). N. M. Karamzin tells us directly that “the XIII century travellers couldn’t even distinguish between the clothes worn in Russia and in the West” ([363], Volume 5, Chapter 4, page 210).

3. The “Tartar and Mongol conquest” and the Orthodox Church

As we mentioned in the Introduction, historians report the following:

“At the very dawn of the Horde’s existence, an Orthodox church was built in the Khan’s headquarters. As military settlements were founded, Orthodox churches were built everywhere, all across the territory governed by the Horde, with the clergy called thereto and Metropolitan Cyril relocated to Kiev from Novgorod, thus completing the restoration of the pan-Russian ecclesiastical hierarchy… Russian Princes were divided into Great Princes, Princes and Vice-Princes; there were also the Ulus Prince [Urus = Russia? – Auth.], the Horde Prince, the Tartar Prince, the Prince of Roads and the Prince of Folk… The Metropolitan had been given a great many privileges by the Mongolians – while the power of a prince was limited to his principality, the Metropolitan’s had been recognized in every Russian principality, including the tribes living in the steppes, or the actual domains of the nomadic uluses” ([183], Volume 1, page 37).

Our commentary is as follows: such actions from the part of the Mongol invaders, pagans to the very core, according to Scaligerian-Millerian history, is most bizarre indeed. The position of the Orthodox Church is even harder to understand, since it has always urged the people to resist the invaders, which is a known fact insofar as the veracious historical period is concerned. The Mongols are the single exception – they have received the support of the Orthodox church from the very beginning of the conquest. Metropolitan Cyril comes to join Batu-Khan in occupied Kiev from Novgorod, which had not even been conquered at that time, according to historians. Our opponents will definitely start telling us about the corruption that reigned in the Russian church, and that the entire nation, princes, common folk and all, were either bought or broken. Basically, this is the core of the concept introduced by the XVIII century historians and shared by their successors. We think this highly unlikely.

We suggest a different approach to Russian history. It suffices to translate the word “Mongol” as “the great” – this instantly eliminates all absurdities, leaving us with quotidian realities of a normal state (and a great one, at that).

Fig. 3.1. Russian prisoners taken to the Horde. Old miniature from a Hungarian chronicle dated to 1488. One can instantly notice that the Mongols who take the prisoners away to the Horde are wearing Cossack hats. They also have distinctly Slavic faces and long bears. Apart from that, they are also wearing Russian clothes – long kaftans, boots and so on. The prisoners are wearing Western European clothes – knee-long clothes, shoes etc; we see no beards on their faces. Had this miniature been painted today, the Mongols would be depicted as typical Asians, and the Russian would look just like the “Mongols” from this miniature. However, the old artist had not yet known the Romanovian version about the “Tartar and Mongol yoke” in Russia, and simple-mindedly drawn whatever he say in reality. Taken from [89], inset after page 128.

The hypothesis about the Mongols originating from the borderlands of the faraway China appears to be a rather late one. The mediaeval Hungarian author of the miniature one sees in fig. 3.1, for instance, draws the “Mongols” that lead captives to the Horde as Slavic characters dressed in Russian clothes, whereas their captives look distinctly European. The “Mongolian” conquerors have only been drawn “in the Chinese fashion” since the introduction of the theory about the “Mongol and Tartar Yoke” (qv in the XVIII century drawing shown in fig. 3.2).

Fig. 3.2. A Mongolian warrior as imagined by the historians of today who reconstruct the image from Chinese artwork. Old Chinese miniature; taken from [89], inset after page 128.

According to N. M. Karamzin, “the Tartar supremacy resulted in the … ascension of the Russian clergy into prominence, the multiplication of monasteries and church lands – the latter neither paid taxes to the Prince, nor to the Horde, and flourished” ([363], Volume 5, Chapter 4, page 208; also [362], Volume 5, Chapter 4, page 223). Furthermore, “only a few of the monasteries that exist until this day have been founded before or after the Tartars; most of them date to their epoch” ([363], Volume 5, Chapter 4).

We see that most Russian monasteries were founded in the epoch of the “Mongolian” conquest. This is understandable; many Cossacks would take the vows after discharge from military service. This has been customary as recently as in the XVII century ([183]). Since the Cossacks were the military power of the Horde, the construction of many monasteries in the epoch of the Horde is perfectly natural from the point of the view of the state as well; the veterans needed and deserved rest. The monasteries were therefore very wealthy and exempt from taxes ([363], Volume 5, columns 208-209; also [362], Volume 5, Chapter 4, column 223). They even had the right of tax-free trade (ibid.).

4. Cossacks and the Horde

4.1. The Cossacks were the regular army of Russia (Horde)

Let us reiterate: the Cossacks had constituted the armed force of the Horde, or the “Mongolian” (Great) Empire. As we demonstrate herein, it is for this very reason that the Cossacks had lived all across the country and not just in the borderlands; the latter has been the case from the XVIII century and on. As the civil polity changed, the Cossack lands that lay adjacent to the border of the empire had kept their initial military character to a greater extent. Hence the frontier geography of the Cossack settlements, which marked the borders of the Russian Empire in the XIX-XX century. As for the Cossacks who had lived in the country, those have either lost their martial culture eventually, or been edged out towards the borderlands, blending themselves with the inhabitants of the frontier settlements. This process must have started around the time of the Great Strife and the wars of the XVII-XVIII century, in particular – the ones fought against Razin and Pougachov, when the Horde dynasty, whose power relied on the Cossack troops, was deposed. Nevertheless, certain representatives of the old Horde dynasty had still remained amidst the Cossacks, with claims for the throne to make.

The wars with Razin and Pougachov had really been attempts to restore the former Horde dynasty in Russia (see Chron4, Chapter 12 for more on the war with Pougachov). The documents that we have at our disposal nowadays imply that Stepan Timofeyevich Razin is likely to have been a person of noble birth and not a simple Cossack. The very fact that his name as written in documents contains a patronymic with a “-vich” is a hint all by itself – this form had been reserved for the most distinguished people in that epoch. There is foreign documental evidence in existence that refers to Razin as to the king of Astrakhan and Kazan ([101], page 329). In figs. 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 one sees a German engraving of 1671 depicting Razin. We see a turban on his head, no less (see fig. 3.4). And this is by no means a blunder from the part of the artist or a fashion of the “simple Cossacks” – Great Princes of Russia and their courtiers used to wear turbans as well, qv in the two mediaeval engravings in figs. 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 depicting the reception of foreign envoys in Russia. We see the Great Prince and his entourage in large turbans – likewise the Turkish sultans and their servitors (see fig. 3.9, for instance).

Fig. 3.3. Old German engraving of 1671 depicting Stepan Timofeyevich Razin wearing a ceremonial turban. The custom of wearing a turban had been shared by Russia and Turkey. An engraving from the annex to the “Hamburger Zeitung” of 1671. Taken from [550], page 134.

Fig. 3.4. A fragment of an engraving dating to 1671. Turban on the head of S. T. Razin. Taken from [550], page 134.

Fig. 3.5. German inscription underneath the engraving of 1671 depicting S. T. Razin. Taken from [550], page 134.

Fig. 3.6. The reception of a foreign envoy in Russia. Old engraving from an edition of S. Herberstein’s “Notes on Moscovia” allegedly dating from 1576 (in reality, this edition of the book is more likely to date from the XVII century). Pay attention to the clothes worn by the Russian official, especially the huge turban with a feather on his head. At the background in the left we see Russian Cossack warriors wearing fur hats with feathers or turbans. Taken from [161], page 50.

Fig. 3.7. Another old engraving from Herberstein’s “Notes on Moscovia” allegedly dating from 1576. We see the Great Prince of Russia receiving gifts. He is sitting on a dais and has a turban over his head. We see the boyar on his left wear a turban as well. We can see that turbans had once been common Russian headdress; however, the Turks have managed to preserve it for longer. Taken from [161], page 354.

Fig. 3.8. A close-in of a fragment of the previous engraving. Turban on the head of the Russian Great Prince. Taken from [161], page 354.

Fig. 3.9. A ceremony participated by Sultan Selim III. The sultan and his entourage all wear large turbans. The turbans worn by some of the Ottoman aristocrats resemble the tall headdress of the Russian boyars. Taken from [1465], page 29.

All the Russians portrayed in the old XVII century engraving as seen in figs. 3.10 and 3.11 wear turbans on their heads. The picture is from a “rare French edition entitled ‘Description of the Universe with Different Schemes of the World Attached’” ([105]). We see an old plan of Moscow with some Muscovites drawn below – six of them altogether, all wearing turbans.

Fig. 3.10. An old map of Moscow from a rare book published by Alain Malais in Paris in 1683. The mediaeval artist put the word “Moscou” right above the city on the engraving. Above we see a panorama of Moscow as seen from across River Moskva. The two fragments in the middle depict parts of the Kremlin near the Nikolskiy and Arkhangelkiy cathedrals ([105]). At the bottom we see Muscovites wearing turbans. Taken from [105].

Fig. 3.11. A close-in depicting the mediaeval Muscovites wearing turbans and long Russian kaftans; they are armed with scimitars, bows and muskets. Taken from [105].

More Russians in turbans can be seen in figs. 3.12 and 3.13.

Fig. 3.12. Fragment of an old Russian icon dating from the XVI century entitled “Ksenia and her hagiography”. The icon was given to the Troitse-Sergiev monastery by Princess Kilikia Ushakova, and dates from 1551. We see three noble youths wearing the clothes of the Russian princes; their heads are covered with turbans with feathers. This is yet another proof of the fact that turbans were worn in Russia a long time ago – the custom only ceased to exist in the XVII century. Taken from [48], illustration 239.

Fig. 3.13. A close-in of a fragment of the icon. Russian youths in turbans. Taken from [48], illustration 239.

Apparently, turbans had once been fashionable in Russia-Horde and were adopted in the Orient – Turkey and other countries; however, the Russians must have forgotten about them (or made forget after the Romanovian reforms), unlike the Eastern countries. One must point out that the Russian word for turban is chalma, and it derives from the Russian word chelo (“forehead”) – a very logical name for a headdress item.

It appears that the military remains of the Horde, or the Cossacks, were partially pushed back towards the borders of the empire after the military routs of the XVII and the XVIII century as non grata troublemakers. The military reforms of Peter the Great must have served the same purpose - namely, the introduction of mandatory draft and the reformation of the army.

If we open Kostomarov’s Bogdan Khmelnitskiy ([437]), we shall see that the Cossacks had fought alongside the Tartars, and the Tartars exclusively, since the latter are mentioned throughout the book as the allies of the former, the two being parts of the same army. Furthermore, the Cossacks and the Tartars were present in the Polish troops as well; one is under the impression that the entire Ukraine was filled with the Tartars in the middle of the XVII century. According to our hypothesis, the Tartars were the Cossacks that came from the South of Russia and elsewhere to aid their brethren from Zaporozhye.

Let us however point out that the actual word “Tartar” isn’t present anywhere in the official papers of the XVII century as cited by Kostomarov; however, we see the word Horde used gratuitously. The implication is that the remnants of the Russian “Mongol and Tartar Horde” had still been active on the territory of Russia in the XVII century. If we study the “Belozertsovskiy Traktat”, which is a pact signed between the Poles and the Cossacks cited by Kostomarov in [437], pages 545-548, we shall see the word Horde in the text – without any references to the Tartars anywhere. It is perfectly clear that any historian will associate the Horde with the Tartars – however, it may be that the people in question had in fact been Cossacks, since the Horde (“Orda” in Russian) translates as “army” and is a derivative of the old Russian word for “army”, namely, “rat”.

We must also point out that Kostomarov’s book leaves one with the impression that all the Tartars spoke excellent Russian (either that, or all the Ukrainians, Russians and Poles were fluent Tartar speakers). No translators of any kind are mentioned anywhere.

We may encounter counter-argumentation along the lines of “how can historical documents possibly call Russians Tartars, when it is common knowledge that there is a nation by that name that exists to this day?” – If the word had once been used for referring to the Russians in general and Cossacks in particular, how did it change its meaning, and when did that happen?

The key to this is given in the “Chronicle of the Envoys Grigoriy Mikoulin, Nobleman, and Ivan Zinoviev, Clerk, and their Legation to England. 1600, May, 13-14 June 1601” published by Prince M. A. Obolenskiy in [759].This chronicle contains a detailed account of the legation sent to England by Czar Boris in 1601-1602. In particular, it quotes the following dialogue between the Russian envoy Grigoriy Mikoulin and the Scottish ambassador in London:

“The [Scottish – Auth.] ambassador enquired of Grigoriy: ‘How is your Great Prince faring, and what about his relations with the Tartars?’ Grigoriy and Ivashko [diminutive variant of the name Ivan – Transl.] replied: ‘Which Tartars are you asking about? His Great Imperial Majesty has many men in his service – foreign Kings and Princes galore, and there are many Tartars, from the Kingdoms of Kazan and Astrakhan and Siberia, likewise hordes of Cossacks, Kolmats, and many more Hordes – the Nagais from beyond the Volga, and others from the lands of Kaziy, his servants them all’” ([759], Volume IV, page 31).

One plainly sees that in the beginning of the XVII century the Russian envoy couldn’t even understand the foreigner asking him about the interactions between the Tartars and Moscow. The Scotsman is using the term for some nation that is foreign to the state of the Muscovites, as it is used nowadays; however, the Russian ambassador uses it for referring to the subjects of the Russian Czar, naming several nations or communities that comprised Moscovia. Furthermore, he explicitly mentions the Cossacks among the Tartars, and calls their troops hordes – armies, in other words, uses an old Russian word for referring to them.

Au contraire, when the Russian envoy was speaking about Crimea, which is called a “Tartar” land by the modern historians, he didn’t mention any Tartars. Apparently, Tartars had been Russian subjects to him. Let us quote another passage from his dialogue with the Scotsman where the Russian envoy tells him about the war with Crimea: “Our Great Monarch, Czar and Great Prince Boris Fyodorovich, Ruler of entire Russia, had asked the Lord for mercy and set forth against him [the king of Crimea – Auth.] with his royal hordes of the Russians and the Tartars, and many men from other countries as well” ([759], Volume IV, page 32).

Once again we see the Russians and the Tartars mentioned as subjects of the Russian Czar; there were foreigners in his troops as well, but this term isn’t used for the Tartars. The inhabitants of Crimea weren’t Tartars to the Russian ambassador.

Thus, the modern meaning of the word Tartar must date back to the Western European tradition; in the pre-XVII century Russia the term had meant the military communities of the Cossacks, the Kalmyks and the Tartars from Volga (in the modern meaning of the word). All of them had lived on the Russian territory; however, in the XVII century Europeans have started to use the term for the Muslims exclusively, and erroneously at that. This may have been done intentionally, when the Russian history in general was being distorted under the first Romanovs. German historians of the late XIX century write that: “The origins of the Cossacks are Tartar, the name and the institution as well … the Cherkes Cossacks were known so well that ‘Cherkes’ became a synonym of ‘Cossack’” ([336], Volume 5, page 543).

4.2. Why the Muscovite rulers were accompanied by the “Tartars” rather then armies in military campaigns. The Tartars from Poland and Lithuania

Mediaeval Western Europeans often used the formula: “Such-and-such Muscovite ruler set forth on such-and-such campaign accompanied by his Tartars”.

Let us quote the following passage from a XVI century book by Sigismund Herberstein: “In 1527 they [the Muscovites – Auth.] set forth with their Tartars (?) (mit den Tartaren angezogen), which resulted in the famous battle of Kanev (?) (bei Carionen) in Lithuania” ([161], page 78). Question marks were put here by the modern commentators, who are obviously infuriated about the whole thing.

Another similar example is as follows. A mediaeval German chronological table published in 1725 in Braunschweig (Deutsche Chronologische Tabellen. Braunschweig, Berleget von Friedrich Wilhelm Mener, 1725) tells us the following about Ivan the Terrible:

“Iohannes Basilowiz, Erzersiel mit denen Tartarn, und brachte an sein Reich Casan und Astracan” (Chronological Tables, 1533, page 159). The translation is as follows: “Ivan Vassilyevich had set forth and conquered Kazan and Astrakhan accompanied by his Tartars.”

Modern commentators are rather unnerved by this strange custom of the Muscovite rulers who are accompanied by some mysterious Tartars instead of an army. Our opinion is that the Tartars had been the very Cossack army (or Horde) of the Muscovite Czars. This instantly makes things a lot more logical.

Let us mention a rather curious book entitled The Tartars of Poland and Lithuania (Successors of the Golden Horde) ([206]). It is a collection of interesting facts that concern the large-scale involvement of the Tartars in the life of Poland and Lithuania – not only in the XVI century, but the XVII-XIX as well. It is significant that “in the early XIX century Tadeusz Czacki, one of the most prominent Polish historians, discovered an appeal of some sort in the archive, where the Polish and Lithuanian Tartars distinguish the representatives of the Jagiellonian by the name of the ‘White Khans’” ([206], page 17). Further also: “up until the middle of the XIX century, the Tartar populace living in Poland and Lithuania could be separated into three categories … the first and most privileged group was constituted by the offspring of the sultans and the murzas from the Horde. The title of the sultan was worn by members of just two clans of the Tartars in Rzecz Pospolita – the Ostrynskis and the Punskis. The eldest representative of each clan wore the title of Czarevich (normally worn by the heir to the throne); other Tartar clans were the descendants of the murzas, and their leaders wore the titles of Princes. Among the most distinguished princely clans we can name the Assanczukoviczes, the Bargynskis, the Juszynskis, the Kadyszeviczes, the Koryzkis, the Kryczinskis, the Lostaiskis, the Lovczyckis, the Smolskis, the Szyrinskis, the Talkovskis, the Taraszvyckis, the Ulans and the Zavickis … all of them were equal to the regnant nobility in rights” ([206], page 19).

One might wonder about the language spoken by the Tartars in Poland and Lithuania. It turns out that the Tartars had “coexisted with the Christians peacefully. They spoke Russian and Polish and dressed just like the local populace. Marriages with Christians were rather common” ([206], page 28). Also: “Mosques with crescents of tin and gold were nothing out of the ordinary in the Eastern regions of Rzecz Pospolita … some of them resembled village churches” ([206], page 61). “Another interesting and long forgotten custom is the use of Tartar regimental gonfalons for the decoration of mosques … the Tartars used written sources of religious knowledge known to us as handwritten qitabs and chamails … the qitabs were written in Arabic, but the texts were in Polish or Byelorussian” ([206], page 72). “After the deposition of the Romanovs, the Committee of Polish, Lithuanian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian Tartars is formed in Petrograd” ([206], page 87).

Let us cite a number of old illustrations taken from [206]. In fig. 3.14 we see some soldiers from a Polish Tartar regiment as they looked in the first half of the XVIII century.

Fig. 3.14. “Warriors from a Tartar regiment in the first half of the XVIII century”. Taken from [206], page 35.

In fig. 3.15 we see the soldiers from a Tartar regiment dating to the epoch of Stanislaw August (the late XVIII century). In fig. 3.16 we see the headdress of a Polish Tartar soldier of the Napoleonic epoch. This headdress (with a crescent and a star) was worn by “the soldiers of the Tartar regiment in Napoleon’s army [sic! – Auth.]” ([206], page 45). In fig. 3.17 we see the coats of arms (the so-called tamgas) of the Lithuanian Tartars.

Fig. 3.15. “Warriors from a Tartar regiment in the epoch of Stanislaus Augustus (late XVIII century)”. Taken from [206], page 39.

Fig. 3.16. “Headdress of a Tartar warrior of the Napoleonic epoch”. Taken from [206], page 43.

Fig. 3.17. “The crests (or the tamgas) of the Lithuanian Tartars”. Taken from [206], page 156.

In fig. 3.18 one sees the Polish-Lithuanian national emblem of Leliw city as it was in the XVI-XVII century. Upon it we see two crescents with stars – a larger one below and a smaller one above. This emblem is cited in the foreword to Michalonis Lituanus’s book entitled On the Customs of the Tartars, the Lithuanians and the Muscovites ([487]).

Fig. 3.18. Ancient Polish and Lithuanian crest of Leliv with two Ottoman crescents and a star. Taken from [487].

5. The real identity of the Horde

The Horde is the old word that has once been the name of the Russian army. This explains the existence of such passages as “Prince such-and-such left the Horde to become enthroned”, or “Prince such-and-such had served the Czar in the Horde, and returned to rule over his domain after the death of his father” – nowadays we would say “nobleman such-and-such had served the king in the army and returned to govern his estate afterwards”.

There were no domains or fiefs left in the XIX century; however, in earlier epochs the princely offspring used to serve in the army (the Horde) and then return to their fiefs.

Western Europe had a similar custom of sending the young noblemen to serve the king until the death of their fathers, upon which they would inherit their ancient demesnes.

Another example is as follows.

A testament ascribed to Ivan Kalita tells us the following: “Knowing not what fate the Lord may prepare for me in the Horde where I am headed, I am leaving the present testament… I leave the city of Moscow to my children in case of my death” ([362], Volume 4, pages 9-10).

The meaning of the testament is perfectly clear. Ivan was preparing for a lengthy military campaign and wrote a testament. Historians are trying to convince us that similar testaments were written every time the Princes prepared to visit the “vicious khans of the Horde”, which could presumably execute them at a whim.

This is very odd indeed – a ruler could naturally have the right to execute his subject; however, this practice of writing testaments before going away to see the monarch didn’t exist in any other country. Yet we are told that such testaments used to be written all the time, despite the fact that the execution of a prince had been anything but a common event in the Horde.

We offer a simple explanation. These testaments were written before military campaigns by people who had obviously known about the risk of being killed on the battlefield; such testaments are very common indeed.

6. On the conquest of Siberia

Vasiliy Surikov. “Yermak’s conquest of Siberia” (1895). Canvas, oil. 5.99×2.85 m. The State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg.

The consensual opinion is that Siberia had first been conquered by the Russians in the XVI century as a result of Yermak’s campaign. It had presumably been inhabited by other ethnic groups before that time. The influence of Moscow is said to have reached Ural and Siberia around the same epoch. However, this turns out to be untrue. The governorship of Moscow used to be recognized in Siberia long before the campaign of Yermak – see evidence to confirm this below. Yermak’s campaign was really a result of a palace revolution and the refusal to pay tribute to Moscow from the part of the new Khan. Therefore, this campaign is likely to have been a punitive expedition aimed at the restoration of order in this part of the Empire. Let us note that the inhabitants of Siberia used to be called Ostyaki – the name is still used in order to distinguish the Russian populace of Siberia.

Indeed:

“In the XII century the Eastern and Central Asia was populated by independent tribes, which called themselves ‘Cossack Hordes’. The most important of these Hordes had resided near the headwaters of the Yenissey, between Lake Baikal in the East and the Angara in the West. Chinese chronicles call this horde ‘Khakassy’; European researchers deem the term to be a synonym of the word “Cossack”. According to the records left by their contemporaries, the Khakassy belonged to the Indo-Iranian (Caucasian) race and were fair, tall, green- or blue-eyed, courageous and proud. They used to wear earrings” (Richter, German historian of 1763-1825, Joachim and Essays about Mongolia; see [183], Volume 1, page 16).

It turns out that the Russians had inhabited the Kingdom of Siberia prior to its conquest by Yermak.

“The Siberian Kingdom was ruled by the descendants of the Mongolian Khans … the Russians had reached the River Ob as early as in the XV century and made the local populace pay them tribute. Muscovite Princes were recognized as rulers. In 1553 Yedigey, King of Siberia, sent two officials to Moscow with presents and a promise to pay tribute to the Czar … however, in 1553 Kouchoum had … killed him and proclaimed himself monarch of Siberia and all the lands adjacent to the rivers Irtysh and Tobol, as well as the domains of the Tartars and the Ostyaki. Kouchoum had initially paid tribute to the Muscovite Czar … but as his lands had reached Perm, he began to demonstrate hostility towards Moscow and raid the lands around Perm” ([183], Volume 2, page 59).

The Stroganovs had appealed to send the punitive expedition of Yermak in order to deal with the rebels ([183], Volume 2, page 53). So Yermak doesn’t deserve to be credited as “the first conqueror of Siberia” – it had been Russian long before his time. We shall cover Yermak’s campaign in more detail in our book entitled “The conquest of America by Yermak aka Cortez and the Reformation mutiny as seen by the ‘ancient’ Greeks”.

7. A general remark concerning the word “Cossack”

Let us add the following in re the origins of the word Cossack (the root of the word being “guz” or “kaz”). O. Suleimanov mentions in his book entitled Az and Ya ([823]) that the word Cossack (Coss-ack) translates as “white goose” or “white swan” from Turkic.

We may add that the name may have once been used for referring to people who bread white geese (goose = guz?). Bear in mind that the white goose remains a favourite and well-known folk symbol used by many Germanic peoples – one encounters it in ornaments, shop windows and coats of arms. Could this indicate a historical relation between the Cossacks and the Germans? One may note similarities in the self-discipline, the love for order and the military prowess characteristic for both nations.

Furthermore, the Cossacks are military cavalry – riders, in other words. It is possible that the word Cossack is related to the Russian word “skakat” (or “skok”) that translates as “ride” or “gallop”. One finds shops called “Ross und Reiter” in Germany to this day; they sell accessories for horseback riding and grooming. The word “Ross” is the old German word for “horse”; the modern one used commonly is “Pferd”.

One instantly thinks about the association between the words “Ross” and “Russian”. The Russians = people on horses, riders or Cossacks!

One might also mention the Prussians in this relation, as well as a multitude of details – similarities between the dress of a Cossack woman and the folk dress of the German women with its wide volants. The blouses are tailored, fitted and decorated with a basque or some detail resembling one. Cossack songs often resemble German folk songs melodics-wise; some parts of Germany are inhabited by people who look similar to the Cossacks – large people with long pronounced eyebrows.

All of the above may imply historical kinship and result from the interactions between the Horde and the Western Europe in the Middle Ages. A research of this possible kinship would be of great utility to us.

8. Tartar names and Russian names in old Russia

8.1. Tartar nicknames

The readers may be of the opinion that the names used in Mediaeval Russia were the same as they are nowadays. Modern Russian names are Greek or Biblical in origin for the most part: Ivan, Maria, Alexander, Tatiana etc. These are the so-called Christian names present in the Orthodox canon and given at baptism. These very names have been used in everyday life and official documentation ever since the XVIII century. However, this hasn’t always been the case.

It turns out that people used to have aliases apart from the Christian names mentioned above before the XVII century, used in official documents as well as everyday life. Many of these names were Tartar in origin, or, rather, sound Tartar (in the modern sense of the word) nowadays. Yet these very Tartar names were habitually given to Russian people in the Middle Ages. The famous oeuvre by Y. P. Karnovich entitled Patrimonial Names and Titles in Russia ([367]) tells us the following: “In Moscow, Christian names would often become replaced by other Christian names as well as Tartar names, such as Boulat, Mourat, Akhmat etc; these aliases would transform into semi-patronymics that later became surnames of people whose origins were purely Russian” ([367], page 51).

Gordeyev reports the following: “There were many ethnic Tartars among the Don Cossacks. Many of their atamans who had lived in the epoch of Vassily III were known under Mongol and Tartar names. According to the historian S. Solovyov, there was a particularly large proportion of atamans with Tartar names among the cavalry… With the beginning of Ivan Vassilyevich’s reign, the names of the famous atamans (from the cavalry as well as the infantry) become purely Slavic – Fyodorov, Zabolotskiy, Yanov, Cherkashin, Yermak Timofeyevich etc.” ([183], Volume 2, pages 5-6).

It is of course possible that some of the Cossacks were ethnic Tartars. Yet we are told that ethnic Russians used to have “Tartar” names as well. If this was the case in Moscow, could it be true for the Don atamans as well? We see the Tartar names disappear from Moscow towards the end of the XVI century. The same appears to happen in the Don region; the modern custom of using Christian names as first names must date to this epoch.

For instance, “Yermak” is a name as well as an alias; it had once been considered Russian, qv above, but one might mistake it for a Tartar name nowadays. Nevertheless, it is likely to be a derivative of the name Herman (Yermak’s Christian name). The name may have had several variants – Herman, Yerman and Yermak ([183], Volume 2, page 62). There is no clear borderline between Tartar and Russian nicknames; this was noticed by N. A. Morozov, who writes: “The excerpts from Chechoulin’s brochure are rather interesting… This is based on different archive records. The only modern historical name we see here is Yaroslav … other historical names are limited to Mamay and Yermak. The rest of the old Russian names is constituted of animal names (Kobyla, Koshka, Kot, Lisitsa and Moukha – the names translate as “mare”, “tabby”, “tom”, “fox” and “fly”, respectively), names of rivers, such as Volga, Dunai (Danube) and Pechora … likewise numbers (Perviy, Vtoroi, Desyatiy – “the first”, “the second” and “the tenth”) … the only ecclesiastical names we find are Dyak (“deacon”), Krestina (a variant of the name Christine) and Papa (“pope”); moreover, there isn’t a single Greek name anywhere!” ([547]).

We feel obliged to add that many of the abovementioned names and nicknames sound purely Tartar, and they’re used just as frequently as Russian names at least – for instance, Murza, Saltanko, Tatarinko, Sutorma, Yepancha, Vandysh, Smoga, Sougonyai, Saltyr, Souleisha, Soumgour, Sounboul, Souryan, Tashlyk, Temir, Tenbyak, Toursoulok, Shaban, Koudiyar, Mourad, Nevruy (! – see above) etc. Let us reiterate that Batu must be a form of the word batya (father) – the leaders of the Cossacks were also called batkas etc. Mamay is most likely to be a derivative of the word mamin (“mother’s”). The name was used by the Cossacks of Zaporozhye in particular. In fig. 3.19 we see an ancient picture entitled “A Short Bait of Mamay the Cossack” ([169], inset between pages 240 and 241). Unfortunately, we weren’t capable of making out the minute letters underneath the picture. Another old portrait of Mamay the Cossack can be seen in fig. 3.20, accompanied by the following commentary: “The canons of the Ukrainian Cossack Mamay and Buddha Gautama from India. In the middle we see an Indian Brahman, whose earring and hairstyle resemble the Ukrainian Cossacks of the XIII-XVIII century” ([975], page 737).

Fig. 3.19. Old picture entitled “Mamai the Cossack Having a Rest” ([169], inset between pages 240 and 241). We see that the name Mamay had been popular among the Zaporozhye Cossacks. Taken from [169], inset between pages 240 and 241.

Fig. 3.20. The respective hairstyles of the Ukrainian Cossack Mamai (left) and Buddha (right).

One must also mention N. A. Baskakov’s book entitled Russian Names of Turkic Origin ([53]), which demonstrates many of the Russian first names and surnames to be Turkic in origin. A propos, Baskakov mentions that the surname of the historian N. M. Karamzin “is very obviously derived from the Crimean Tartar language or, possibly, from Turkish, namely, “qara mirsa”, qara being the word for ‘black’, and ‘mirsa’ – the title of a nobleman… Karamzin’s coat of arms also betrays the name’s Oriental origins – this is emphasised by the silver crescent set against a blue background, facing downwards, with two crossed golden swords above it [below it, as a matter of fact – Auth.] – those attributes are characteristic for people whose origins are Oriental ([53], page 178). The coat of arms of the Karamzins can be seen in fig. 3.21. We see the Ottoman crescent next to a Christian cross (or star) formed by two swords.

Fig. 3.21. The crest of the Karamzin family (which N. M. Karamzin, the famous historian, had belonged to). We see a crescent with a cross, or a star, at the bottom. Taken from [53], inset between pages 160 and 161.

Thus, we see that a “Tartar” name didn’t necessarily mean that its owner was a Tartar. Furthermore, many Russians could have had Tartar nicknames in the Middle Ages. Many of these nicknames have no meaning in either Russian or the modern Tartar language (cannot be translated adequately, in other words). The issue of Tartar and Russian names, their meanings and their origins is a very convoluted and contentious one; we are by no means suggesting that we have found anything resembling an exhaustive explanation. All we must emphasise is that Russian people had often used nicknames that sound Tartar nowadays; it is also known quite well that there are many Turkic words in Russian.

Modern historians may attribute the above to the Mongolian conquest. Our hypothesis is different. The Turkic influence is explained by the fact that the populace of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire consisted of Russians as well as people of Turkic origins, who had naturally mingled together and lived side by side for centuries. We witness this to be the case nowadays; therefore, the two languages have obviously borrowed heavily from one another. Let us however mention that the official decrees that have reached our age are written in Russian or Slavonic exclusively.

8.2. The “strange” effect of the Mongolian conquest on the Russian culture

How did the invasion of the Tartars and the Mongols affect the Russian language? It is quite clear that a horde of barbarians that had presumably swarmed the country would distort and deface the purity of the Russian language, make the populace more ignorant as a whole, burning down cities, libraries, monasteries, ancient volumes et al, pillaging, looting and so forth. Historians are convinced that the Tartar invasion had set the development of the Russian culture back by several centuries.

Let us see whether this is indeed the case. One of the best gauges one can use for estimating the cultural level in general is the standard use of an acrolect for a written language – correct Classical Latin, correct Latin, Barbaric Latin and so forth. The times when Classical Latin was commonly used for writing are considered to be the golden age of culture when the immortal classical works were created. The use of Vulgar Latin or regional dialects is obviously a sign that the culture is in decline. Let us see whether this criterion applies to the ancient Russia “in the times of the Mongol yoke” between the XIII and the XV century – three hundred years are a long enough period, after all. What do we see?

According to N. M. Karamzin, “our language became a great deal more refined in the XIII-XV century” ([363], Volume 5, Chapter 4, page 224). He proceeds to tell us that under the Tartars and the Mongols “the writers followed the grammatical canons of ecclesiastical books or Old Serbian (as opposed to Vulgar Russian) most vehemently indeed … not just in conjugation and declination, but also in pronunciation” ([363], Volume 5, Chapter 4, page 224. Thus, we see correct Latin nascent in the West, and Church Slavonic in its classical form in the East. If we are to apply the same standards to Russia as we do to the West, the Mongolian invasion marks the golden age of Russian culture. These Mongols were rather odd invaders, weren’t they?

8.3. Russian and Tartar names illustrated by the Verderevskiy family tree

We find interesting evidence concerning the names commonly used by the Tartars in the Horde before their baptism in the “Verderevskiy Family Tree” compiled in 1686, qv in the “Archive Almanac of the Moscow Ministry of Justice” published in 1913 (pages 57-58). It tells us how Oleg Ivanovich, the Great Prince of Ryazan, had “summoned the Tartar Solokhmir from the Great Horde accompanied by a force of armed men”. This Solokhmir was later baptised and married the Great Prince’s daughter, founding the famous Russian boyar family of the Verderevskiys. His Christian name was Ivan. The Christian names of his children sound familiar to a Slavic ear as well: “Ivan Miroslavich [the new name of the baptised Tartar – Auth.] had a son called Grigoriy… Grigoriy Ivanovich Solokhmirov had four sons: Grigoriy and Mikhailo, also known as Aboumailo, Ivan, alias Kanchey, and Konstantin, alias Divnoi”.

All of the above is really quite fascinating. A Tartar pagan who had just arrived from the Great Horde is known under a purely Russian name (Solokhmir), likewise his Tartar father Miroslav. It gets even more interesting – this character was baptised and given a Christian name from the ecclesiastical canon, likewise his offspring. However, as we already mentioned, Christian names weren’t used on a daily basis; therefore, children would also receive aliases at baptism. The aliases of boyar names at the court of a Russian prince from Ryazan are Aboumailo, Kanchey and Divnoi; the former two sound “purely Tartar” nowadays, whereas the third is purely Slavic.

How could one possibly come to the educated conclusion about the “Turkic origins” of the people mentioned in Russian chronicles with names like Kanchei, Aboumailo etc? How did a Miroslav wind up in the Great Horde? Our conclusion is as follows. There were many Slavs in the Horde, whose names were both Slavic and Pagan. Their “Tartar names” are but aliases for quotidian use.

It becomes clear why the Church Slavonic language was introduced in the epoch of the Horde – the latter was governed by the Russians who had lived in a multinational empire together with the Tartars and other nations, as is the case today.

Another interesting detail is as follows. Some of the chronicles use the word “poganye” for referring to the Tartars – pagans, in other words. There is nothing surprising about this fact. It is possible that the term was used for referring to the Russians who weren’t baptised; there must have been quite a few of those in the early days of the Horde.

By the way, certain Swedish sources are telling us that in the epoch of the wars between Russia and Sweden (the XVIII century), “the Russian Cossacks had been good shooters as a rule, armed with long-barrelled rifled weapons called ‘Turks’ ” ([987:1], page 22).

9. The Real Identity of the Mongolian Language

9.1. How many Mongolian texts are there in existence?

What is the Mongolian language really? We are being told that the gigantic Mongolian empire hardly left any written sources in the “Mongolian” language over the centuries of its existence. This is what O. M. Kovalevskiy, a Professor of the Kazan University, wrote in the late XIX century: “Mongolian artefacts of a graphical nature are more than scarce – the only ones known to us being the inscription on a stone that presumably dates from the epoch of Genghis-Khan and the epistles of the Persian kings Argoun and Ouldzeitu to the French king … later interpreted by Mr. Schmitt in the brochure that he published in St. Petersburg in 1824… There are more manuscripts in Europe, written in the Tartar language with Mongolian letters – the translation of the Persian novel by Bakhtiyar-Name, for instance. These writing had remained unidentified for a long time, and therefore nameless; some specialists in Oriental studies suggested to use the names Turk oriental and Ouighour… anyone who knows the Turkestan Ouighours will mistake them for Turks … but could they have been a Mongolian tribe in the days of yore?” ([759], Volume 1, pages 21-23).

What do we see ultimately?

1. The cyclopean Mongolian Empire didn’t leave any written documents behind, apart from an inscription in stone, two letters and a novel. Not much by any account; furthermore, the novel is in fact in the Tartar language – the only “Mongolian” thing about it is the kind of writing used, and that according to what historians are telling us.

2. These few texts were translated and deciphered by a single person – a certain Schmitt.

3. The “descendants of the Mongolian conquerors” who have survived until our day turn out to be Turks. Modern historians are the only ones who know for certain that these Turks have once been Mongols; the Turks themselves are of a different opinion.

9.2. What language were the famous Khan’s (decrees, in particular – documents certifying the Princes’ rights to their domains) written in?

Everyone who knows Russian history shall recollect that the Mongol Khans had issued a great many decrees known as yarlyks, and every chronicle suggests there must be a multitude of those in existence. Those are presumably the authentic written records of the great Mongolian Empire. Let us recollect all that we know about them nowadays. It is presumed that a great many documents have survived since the time of the “Great Mongolian Yoke” in Russia, all of them written in Russian – pacts signed between princes, testaments etc. One might think that must be just as many Mongolian texts at least, since the decrees issued in Mongolian would be coming from the very government of the Empire and thus preserved with special care. What do we have in reality? Two or three decrees maximum; those were discovered in the XIX century among private papers of individual historians and not in any archive of any sort.

The famous yarlyk of Tokhtamysh, for instance, was found as late as in 1834 “among the papers that had once been kept in the Crown Archive of Krakow and were subsequently discovered in the possession of Naruszevic, the Polish historian” ([759], Volume 1, pages 4-5). It takes some historian to borrow documents from the state archive without bothering to return them, doesn’t it? Prince M. A. Obolenskiy wrote the following about this yarlyk: “It [the decree of Tokhtamysh – Auth.] allows us to solve the question [sic! – Auth.] about the letters and language that were used in the yarlyks sent by the Khans to the Russian Princes … this is the second such decree known to date” (ibid., page 28). It also turns out that this yarlyk is written in “odd Mongolian characters, of which there are multitudes; they are completely different from the yarlyk of Timur-Kutluk dating from 1397 that has already been published by Mr. Hammer” (ibid.).

Let us sum up. There are just two “Mongolian” yarlyks left in existence – the rest of them date to later epochs. The latter (issued by the Crimean Khans) were written in Russian, Tartar, Italian, Arabic etc. As for the two “Mongolian” yarlyks (which must date from the same time, seeing as how Tokhtamysh and Timur-Kutluk are presumed to have been contemporaries), we see that they were written in two manifestly different scripts. This is very odd indeed – one finds it highly unlikely that the letters of the hypothetical “Mongolian” language could have changed so drastically over a mere decade. This process usually takes centuries.

Both “Mongolian” yarlyks were found in the West. Where are their counterparts from the Russian archives? This question was asked by Prince Obolenskiy after the discovery of the abovementioned yarlyk: “The fortunate discovery of the text by Tokhtamysh had led me to applying every effort to the discovery of other original yarlyks issued by the Khans of the Golden Horde, thus triumphing over the frustrating nescience of our historians and Oriental scholars about the presence of such originals in the main archive of the Foreign Office in Moscow. Alack and alas, the only result of these searches was an even deeper conviction that all the other originals, possibly of an even more interesting nature … must have perished in fire” (ibid.).

If we are to encapsulate the above, we shall come up with the following postulations:

1. There isn’t a single trace of a single Mongolian yarlyk anywhere in the Russian official archives.

2. The two or three yarlyks that we have at our disposal were found in the West under conspicuous circumstances – in private archives of historians and not in archives, and set in different kinds of writing to boot. This brings us to the assumption that we’re dealing with forgeries, hence the different letters – the hoaxers didn’t synchronise their actions.

A propos, there’s a Russian version of the yarlyk by Tokhtamysh in existence: “whereby there are discrepancies between the Tartar yarlyk and the respective decree in Russian … one can however be certain about the fact that the Russian version also originated in the chancery of Tokhtamysh” (ibid., page 3-4).

It is very egregious that the “Mongolian yarlyk of Tokhtamysh” is written on paper with the same kind of watermark with the “oxen head”, just like the copies of the Povest Vremennyh Let presumed ancient by modern historians (as we demonstrate above, these are most likely to have been manufactured in Königsberg around the XVII-XVIII century). This means that the yarlyk of Tokhtamysh dates from the same epoch, and may have come from the same workshop. The above would explain why this document was found in the private archive of Naruszevic and not the state chancery.

The pages of the “Mongolian yarlyks” are numbered with Arabic numerals: “The reverse of the second page … bears the figure of two, which must stand for ‘page two’ ” (ibid., page 14). The notes on the reverse of page one are in Latin, and the handwriting “must date from the XVI or the XVII century” (ibid., page 10).

Our hypothesis is as follows. This “famous Mongolian yarlyk” was written in the XVIII century. Its Russian version may have predated it somewhat, and served as the original for its own “ancient Mongolian prototype”.

Unlike these two extremely disputable “Mongolian yarlyks”, authentic Tartar yarlyks dating from the epoch of the Crimean Khans look completely different (the letter missive of the Crimean Khan Gazi-Girey sent to Boris Fyodorovich Godunov in 1588-1589, for instance). The latter has got an official seal as well as formal notes on the reverse (“translated in the year 7099”) etc (see ibid., page 46). The missive is set in standard and easily readable Arabic script. Some of the letter missives of the Crimean Khans were in Italian – such as the one sent by Mengli-Girey to Sigismund I, King of Poland.

On the other hand, there are a great many documents that can indeed be dated to the epoch of the so-called “Great Yoke” – all of them in Russian, such as the letter missives of the Great Princes, ordinary Princes, testaments and ecclesiastical records. There is therefore a “Mongolian archive” in existence; however, this archive is in Russian – this is hardly surprising, since the “Mongolian” Empire = The Great Russian Empire whose official language had of course been Russian.

It has to be noted that all such documents exist as XVII-XVIII century copies, with the Romanovian corrections introduced. Real documents of the pre-Romanovian epoch were sought out diligently and destroyed by the clerks who had worked for the Romanovs. There are hardly any such documents left nowadays. The apologists of the Millerian version might counter with the presumption that the decline of the Horde was followed by the destruction of all Mongolian documents, whereby the Mongols had instantly transformed into Turks and forgotten about their origins. Should this be the case, one must enquire about the proof of the “Great Yoke’s” actual existence in the form insisted upon by the consensual version. The Romanovian theory of the “Mongolian” conquest is a very serious one consequence-wise; it should obviously be based on a ferroconcrete foundation of scientific proof. This isn’t the case. The actual theory must have been introduced with the works of the XVIII century historians. Nobody had possessed so much as an iota of knowledge about the “Mongolian Yoke” previously. The few chronicles that contain renditions of this theory are also unlikely to predate the XVII-XVIII century, qv above. One needs official documentation as proof of theories as fundamental as this one – sealed, signed and proven, rather than chronicles of a literary character, easily copied and edited tendentiously. Furthermore, some of the vestiges we discover tell us about attempts to fabricate the official documents themselves.

9.3. In re the Russian and the Tartar letters

It is a known fact that Old Russian coins often have inscriptions made in a strange script, which looks very unfamiliar to us nowadays. These inscriptions are often declared “Tartar”, with the implication that the Russian Princes were forced to write in the language of the conquerors. None of the researchers are capable of reading these “Tartar” writings, and declare them void of meaning for this reason. The situation with the Old Russian seals is the same – one finds unfamiliar scripts and unidentifiable sentences (see [794], pages 149-150, for instance, and the illustrations cited therein).

“In 1929 M. N. Speranskiy, a well-known Russian linguist, had published a mysterious inscription – nine lines of text that he discovered on the endpaper of a XVII century book. The scientist had considered the inscription to be ‘beyond decipherment’, since it had contained Cyrillic letters interspersed with unidentifiable symbols” ([425]).

Apparently, “one finds mysterious signs in the cipher used for the Russian diplomatic documents, likewise the inscription of 425 symbols on the bell from Zvenigorod cast under Aleksey Mikhailovich in the XVII century, the Novgorod cryptograms of the XIV century and the secret script of the Serbs… The parallel combinations of the mysterious monograms and Greek writing on the coins dating from an earlier epoch are particularly noteworthy … many such inscriptions were found among the ruins of the ancient Greek colonies in the Black Sea region… Excavations demonstrated that two scripts were used commonly in all of these centres, one of them Greek and the other defying identification” ([425]). A good example of such writing can be seen in fig. 3.22 – it is the famous inscription from the Zvenigorod bell; we shall discuss it at length in Chron4, Chapter 13.

Fig. 3.22. The lettering on the bell of Zvenigorod. Dates from the XVI-XVII century. Taken from [808].

Ergo, the “Tartar” language is of no relevance here; mysterious signs could be found alongside the familiar Cyrillic characters in other ancient texts besides the ones written in Russian – Greek, Serbian, Cyprian etc. This mystery alphabet often dominated over the Cyrillic text proportion-wise – there are 77 per cent of them in the abovementioned inscription taken from a XVII century book, Cyrillic characters being a 23% minority ([425]). Old Russian coins and seals have a similar ratio of the two scripts.

The reader might think these characters to be a cryptographic system of some sort. Historians and archaeologists are of this very opinion – the signs aren’t Cyrillic, so they should be a secret script ([425]). But how could a secret script be used on coins? One finds this very odd indeed – coins are used by the general public, which cannot be expected to know cryptographic writing.

The most amazing fact that the interpretation of these “secret characters” often proves an easy task. For instance, the inscription on the book considered “perfectly beyond decipherment” by the famous linguist M. N. Speranskiy was translated by two amateurs independently ([425]). Both came up with the exact same result, which is hardly surprising, seeing as how there was no cipher used for this inscription – just a different alphabet. The author wrote the following: “this book belongs to Prince Mikhail Fyodorovich Boryatinskiy” ([425]). See fig. 3.23.

Fig. 3.23. Russian lettering discovered in an ancient book. It dates from the XVII century, and the alphabet used strikes us as odd nowadays. The table for converting the symbols of the lettering into Cyrillic characters was compiled by N. Konstantinov. Taken from [425].

We see the Cyrillic script to have been adopted by the Russians, the Greeks, the Serbs etc relatively recently, since another alphabet was still used in the XVII century (on seals and coins, for engravings on bells and even inscriptions inside books).

Thus, the mysterious “Tartar” letters from the Golden Horde found on Russian coins prove to be other versions of familiar Russian letters. A table of correspondences for some of them can be found in [425]. See more about this in the section of the Annexes entitled “Russian Literacy before the XVII century”.

9.4. History of the Mongols and the chronology of its creation

The theory of the “Great Yoke of the Tartars and the Mongols” has lead to a great many false assumptions. We therefore feel obliged to tell the readers about the naissance of the “Tartar and Mongol theory”.

It turns out that the history of the Mongols and the Mongolian conquest in its consensual version doesn’t date any further back as the XVIII century; moreover, it had still been in formation as recently as in the XIX-XX century.

“In 1826 the Russian Academy of Sciences had approached the Russian and the Western European scientists with the offer of a 100-chervontsi grant for the writer of a scientific oeuvre on the consequences of the Mongolian conquest, the deadline being set for three years. The work that did meet the deadline was rejected … six years after the first baffle, the Academy of Sciences made a similar suggestion once again … formulating the objective as ‘the necessity to write the history … of the so-called Golden Horde … using chronicles from the Orient, ancient Russia, Poland, Hungary etc’ … they received a gigantic oeuvre as a response, written by Hammer-Purgstall, a German specialist in Oriental studies. The Academy declared itself incapable of awarding him with any premium. After the second “failure”, the Academy had ceased with the tender … the very historiography of the Golden Horde, [according to B. Grekov and A. Yakoubovskiy, who wrote this in 1937 – Auth.] which hasn’t been compiled as to yet, would be a useful topic, and the scholarly inability to delve deep enough into it is edificatory all by itself… Not a single Russian specialist in Oriental studies has written a comprehensive work on the history of the Golden Horde to date, be it scientific or popular” ([197], pages 3-5). L.

N. Gumilev wrote that “although the problem of naissance and decline of Genghis-Khan’s empire has been studied by many historians, no one managed to solve it in a satisfactory manner” ([212], page 293).

We have two XIII century sources on Mongolian history presumed authentic, one of them being The Secret History of the Mongols. However, the prominent specialists “V. V. Barthold and G. E. Grumm-Grzymajlo raise the question of just how far this source is to be trusted” ([212], page 294).

The second source is called The Golden Book; it is based on the collected works of Rashed ad-Din, the Arabic historian. However, I. Berezin, the first Russian translator of this oeuvre in the middle of the XIX century, tells us the following: “The three copies of the History of the Mongols that had been at my disposal belonged to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, the… St. Petersburg Public Library, and the third partial copy had once belonged to our former envoy in Persia. The best of these copies is the one from the Public Library; unfortunately, people’s names are often left without any diacritic marks [used for vocalizations – Auth.], and occasionally altogether absent” ([724], pages XII-XIII).

Berezin admits to having been forced to insert names arbitrarily, guided by his “knowledge” of the true chronological and geographical coordinates of their epochs ([724], page XV).

History of the next historical period (the Golden Horde and its Khans) also contains many unclear places. V. V. Grigoryev, the famous specialist in Mongolian studies who had lived in the XIX century, wrote that “the history of the Khans who had ruled in the Golden Horde demonstrates an odd paucity of names and events; despite having destroyed the most important literary relics … they also obliterated nearly every trace of the Horde’s existence. The once flourishing cities ruled over by the Khans now lay in ruins … as for the famous Saray, which had been the Horde’s capital – we don’t even know the ruins that we could attribute this name to” ([202], page 3).

Grigoryev tells us further that “Our chronicles should by rights contain definite indications concerning the epoch of Saray’s foundation – yet they frustrate our hopes, since, when they tell us about Princes and their voyages to the Horde, they don’t specify the Horde’s location in any way, simply stating that ‘Prince such-and-such went to the Horde’, or ‘returned from the Horde’” ([202], pages 30-31).

10. Gog and Magog. Chief Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. Russia-Horde and Moscow Russia on the pages of the Bible

The book of Ezekiel contains a passage that is still regarded as highly contentious. The Synodal translation used by the Russian Orthodox Church gives it as follows:

“Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the Great Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the Great Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal… Gog shall come against the land of Israel” (Ezekiel 38:2-3, 38:18 ff).

Rosh is also mentioned in the Book of Genesis (46:21), likewise the Horde (as Ard – see Genesis 46:21). Gog and Magog are also mentioned in the Book of Revelation (20:7).

According to some mediaeval chroniclers, Gog and Magog were the names of the Goths and the Mongols (the XIII century Hungarians had been convinced about the Tartar identity of these two Biblical nations, qv in [517], page 174). N. M. Karamzin reports that certain historians had used the names Gog and Magog for referring to the Khazars ([362], Annotation 90 to Volume 1). Cossacks, in other words, qv below.

On the other hand, mediaeval Byzantines had been certain that this passage from Ezekiel referred to the Russians, writing “Prince of Ross” instead of “Rosh” – Leo the Deacon, for instance, describing the campaign of Great Prince Svyatoslav against Byzantium at the end of the alleged X century, writes the following about the Russians:

“Many can testify to the fact that these people are valiant, brave, militant and mighty, likewise the fact that they attack all the neighbouring tribes; divine Ezekiel also mentions this when he says ‘Here, I send against thee Gog and Magog, Prince of Ross’” ([465], page 79).

Leo says “Ross” instead of “Rosh”. The same text in the famous Ostrog Bible (qv in figs. 3.24 and 3.25) contains the formula “Prince of the Rosses”, no less!

Fig. 3.24. A fragment of the Ostrog Bible (Ezekiel 38:2-3), where the Prince of Ross is explicitly referred to as “Knyaz Rosska”, or “Russian Prince”. Taken from [621].

Fig. 3.25. A drawn copy of the fragment of the Ostrog Bible (Ezekiel 38:2-3) referring to the Russian Prince made by M. I. Grinchouk (MSU) for better readability.

Our reconstruction offers a very simple explanation.

1. The word “Rosh” or “Ros” (also “Rash” and “Ras”) is used for referring to Russia (cf. with the English pronunciation of the country’s name).

2. The names Gog and Magog (as well as Mgog, Goog and Mgoog) apply to the same nations of the Russian and the Tartars who had founded the empire of Magog (The Great Empire).

3. The name Meshech (MHCH or MSKH) stands for Mosokh – a legendary personality; according to many mediaeval authors, the city of Moscow received its name after this very Mosokh.

4. The word Tubal (TBL or TVL) is a reference to the Tobol region in Western Siberia, which remains an important centre of the Cossack culture. We encounter it in the Authorised Version as well: “Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, (Ezekiel 38:2), and also “O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 38:3). Gog is called “chief prince” of Meshech and Tubal, or Tobol – the title is identical to that of the Great Prince!

One cannot fail to notice the following circumstance. As we can see, the name Rosh is absent from the Authorised Version of the Bible as published by the British and Foreign Bible Society (cf. with the Russian Synodal translation).

What could be the matter here? It appears that the politically correct translator of the Bible had felt uncomfortable about the presence of this dangerous word in the Biblical context. Having understood its meaning, our interpreter decided to write the “Russians” right out of the canonical text of the Bible so as to keep the pious XIX Britons from asking unwanted questions about the activities of Russian a long time before Christ.

Let us point out that, despite his laudable vigilance insofar as the name Rosh was concerned, the translator left the equally dangerous word Tubal in the text, which is hardly surprising – the XIX century translators were unlikely to have known anything about Russian Siberia. Had the opposite been the case, this name would never have made it past their censorship.

It is, however, possible that the Biblical T-Bal is a reference to T-BAL, or T used as a definite article before the word Bal, or “white” (Babylon) – possibly a reference to the White Russia, or Byelorussia; the name Baltic must have the same root.

The place from Deacon’s book that we quoted above (where he uses the term “Ross” instead of “Rosh” infuriates modern commentators a great deal; they write the following:

“The word Rosh got into the text due to the error contained in the Greek translation; however, the Byzantines had always interpreted it as the name of a nation, and had used it for referring to a number of barbaric peoples from the fifth century and on … when the Rosses made their presence known to history in the IX century, the eschatological mindset of the Byzantines immediately linked them to the Biblical ‘Rosh’… The first time that we see Ezekiel’s text applied to Russians is in the hagiography of Vassily Novy: ‘A barbaric nation shall come, by the name of Ros, and Og and Mog’ (The New Basil, pages 88-89) … the Biblical text is also distorted here, likewise in the work of Leo Deacon … this is how the word Russia (Rossiya) was coined. As for Gog and Magog, they were referred to as nations in the Book of Revelations (20:7-8). They have been associated with hostile tribes ever since Eusebius. The most widespread opinion had identified them as the Scythians, which had lent more validity to the scholastic parallel with Russia” ([465], pages 211-212).

The passage from the Slavic Ostrog Bible quoted above, where this reference is more than explicit (“Prince of the Rossians”, or the Russian Prince) is never even mentioned by historians – they are highly unlikely to have anything to say about it.

The name Magog had also been used in the form Mog, or Mogol, which was also the name used by the early adepts of the historical science for the Mongols. This is yet another indication that the term was used for the Russian state (Ross), also known as the Empire of the Mongols and the Tartars and Megalion (The Great). Cf. the Russian words mog, moshch etc (“power” and derivatives thereof) as mentioned in detail above.

Apparently, the famous Assyria (also described in the Bible), or Syria (Ashur) is also identified as Russia (Horde) in a number of chronicles. Reverse unvocalized readings (Aramaic or Arabic) transform Syria into Ross, and Assyria (or Ashur) into Russia.

The Russian identification of the Biblical Assyria had still been remembered in the XVIII century, during the wars between Sweden and Russia. Peter Englund, a modern Swedish historian who had studied the ancient Swedish documents of the XVIII century and used them as basis for his book Poltava. How an Army Perished ([987:1]), reports the following:

“Clergymen such as Westerman had been forced to proclaim from every pulpit and at every battlefield that the Swedes were the chosen nation and the instrument of the Lord, who supported them. This wasn’t a mere ploy aimed at impressing the hoi polloi; the King himself had been certain this were the truth. Likewise the sons of Israel, the Swedish warriors were sent to earth in order to punish the heretics and the sinners… Bizarre tricks with words were cited as proof; one of the priests addressed a squadron with allegations that the Swedes had been the Israelites of their time, since if one were to read Assur (Assyria, or the foe of Israel) backwards, one would get… Russa!” ([987:1]), pages 19-20.

Modern historians comment this ancient testimony rather ironically, qv in Azarov’s article entitled “The Battle of Poltava in the Eyes of the Swedes”, Literaturnaya Rossiya, 11.07.1997, No. 28 (1796), page 14). Nowadays commentators treat such reports as anecdotes telling us about the horrendous scholastic ignorance of the Swedes, with gratuitous use of sarcastic omission points and exclamation marks.

Peter Englund assures us that the Assyrian references are a result of the priest’s “games with words” – however, it is possible that the Swedish troops have resurrected an old Reformist slogan of the XVI-XVII century, something along the lines of “Let’s crush the Assyrians!”, since the memory about the Biblical Assyria being the same country as Russia must have still been rather fresh in the Western Europe. We deem it unlikely that the Swedish priests would read linguistic lectures to the soldiers who were about to go into battle and possibly die. It was somewhat later that the XVIII-XIX century historians started to ascribe their own linguistic theories to XVIII century characters in order to justify the freshly-forged Scaligerian chronology.

By the way, the Finnish word suuri also means “great” – it is therefore possible that the Great Empire had possessed several “external” names: The Great = Megalion = Mongolia, as well as Suuri = Assur = Assyria. Let us get back to what we were saying in the beginning of this section and enquire about the date when the Biblical book of Ezekiel had really been created – could it really have been an epoch preceding the new era by a couple of centuries, as Scaligerian history is trying to convince us? As we already understand, the words of Leo Deacon imply that it couldn’t have been written earlier than the XI century of the New Era. Otherwise one must admit that the question of Russian invasion from the North had been discussed with great interest several centuries before Christ.

11. The real location of Novgorod the Great

11.1. What we know about the city of Novgorod (the Great)

Novgorod the Great has played a great part in the history of Kiev Russia, likewise Russia in the Vladimir-Suzdal period. Many of the renowned Great Princes have originated from Novgorod. For the sake of convenience, we shall be using the formula “historical Novgorod” or “chronicle Novgorod” for the time being in order to refrain from making an explicit geographical localization for the time being; the matter is that the town identified as its descendant today, Novgorod on the Volkhov, is very unlikely to have anything to do with its historical namesake. We shall therefore be calling it “Novgorod-upon-Volkhov”, or “modern Novgorod”, hereinafter – our discussion of its origins included.

Ryurik, the first Great Prince of Russia, is presumed to have come from Novgorod. Therefore, the ruling dynasty originates from Novgorod; such characters as Vladimir the Holy, Yaroslav the Great, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, Alexander Nevskiy etc have all borne the title of a “Great Prince of Novgorod”, whilst the Great Princes of Moscow had retained the title of a “Great Prince of Novgorod and Vladimir” up until the XVI century. The Archbishop of the historical Novgorod had occupied a special position in Russian ecclesiastical hierarchy – he had been the only one with the right to wear a white hood (still worn by the Russian patriarchs) up until the middle of the XVI century; starting with the XVII century, however, there has been no archbishop in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov.

Historical, or chronicle Novgorod, occupies the position of the old Russian capital in pre-XVII century Russian history. First and foremost, it is known as a trade centre and an important river port. Russia had traded with Europe by proxy of Novgorod the Great, which is supposed to have been at the crossroads of important trade routes. However, the excavations that have been going on in modern Novgorod for many years, demonstrate it rather plainly that Novgorod-upon-Volkhov has never been an important trade centre. One also wonders about the nature of the trade routes that intersected here. It would be hard to find another town whose location would be quite as inconvenient for trade; it is distanced from every known mediaeval trade route, and its geographical location was hopeless from the commercial point of view.

The Novgorod veche, or assembly, is rather famous in history. It had congregated at the so-called Yaroslav’s Court in Novgorod. The Novgorod chronicles tell us about people of Novgorod making decisions “assembling a veche at Yaroslav’s Court” ([8], Volume 1; also [759], p. 59). In the XVI century Ivan the Terrible had stayed at Yaroslav’s Court during his visit to Novgorod ([775], p. 474). Historians are of the opinion that Ivan had even thought of transferring the capital to Novgorod. Oddly enough, modern historians still haven’t managed to find so much as a trace of this famous place in modern Novgorod. Great Princes had visited Novgorod constantly, in Kiev and Vladimir-Suzdal Russia. The city is known to have been connected to Moscow by “The Great Route” ([776], p. 13). Let us consider the possible location of this route, assuming that the chronicle Novgorod is the town on the Volkhov River. It is still surrounded by marshes and next-to-impassable terrain, qv in the maps of European Russia as presented in figs. 3.26 and 3.27.

Fig. 3.26-3.27. Our reconstruction of the geography of Russia in the Middle Ages. Novgorod the Great as described in the chronicles identifies as the Vladimir and Suzdal Russia with its centre in Yaroslavl on the Volga. It was known as “Yaroslav’s Court” of Novgorod the Great. The arrows indicate the transfer of the Russian capital in the XIV-XVI century.

In 1259, for instance, the Vasilkovich brothers had celebrated the arrival of Alexander Nevskiy in Rostov en route from Novgorod to Vladimir (CCRC, Volume 1, pages 203 and 226; also Volume 15, page 401). “En route” implies that Rostov lies between Novgorod and Vladimir. Nothing odd about it so far; despite the fact that Alexander had to make a diversion, it hadn’t been that great, qv on the map.

However, we also learn that Great Prince Vassily Vassilyevich had been defeated by Prince Youri under Rostov in 1434, and then fled to Novgorod the Great, making his further escape to Kostroma and Nizhniy Novgorod (Lower Novgorod) – see [36], page 85. A short while later (the same year), Prince Vassily Yourievich “Kossoi” (“Cross-Eyed”) had “travelled [from Moscow – Auth.] to Novgorod the Great, and thence to Kostroma, and started to gather his troops” ([36], page 85).

We therefore find out that Novgorod the Great had been located between Moscow and Kostroma, and also between Kostroma and Rostov. A study of the map tells us that anyone who would decide to get from Moscow to Kostroma via the modern Novgorod nowadays would be considered eccentric nowadays to say the least – it is all but a journey there and back again. Historians are trying to convince us that Prince Vassily Vassilyevich, who had been defeated near Rostov, had covered 500 kilometres of marshland from Rostov to Novgorod, and then headed back with equal pace, right across the marshland, in order to reach Kostroma as soon as possible.

He may naturally have visited Novgorod en route due to special circumstances – but how can we explain the fact that a few months later his foe takes the same absurd route in order to get from Moscow to Kostroma as soon as possible? Even today, the distance between Moscow and Novgorod-upon-Volkhov would be impossible to cover without the earth-fill railroad and the motorway that connects them. There is a 120-kilometre road between Rostov and Kostroma, which had been solid enough even in the Middle Ages. Another famous mediaeval route connects Moscow and Kostroma; its length equals about 270 kilometres. There are several well-known towns and cities along the way – Sergiev Posad, Pereyaslavl Zalesskiy, Rostov and Yaroslavl. The distance between Moscow and Novgorod-upon-Volkhov equals about 500 kilometres, most of the terrain being marshland. Modern earth-fill roads with hard surface had not existed in the Middle Ages; therefore, the prince who was fleeing makes a gigantic diversion through the northern marshes (one of 1000 kilometres, no less), and then repeats it on his way back, instead of using a decent road. Wouldn’t it be easier to reach Kostroma directly from Moscow via Yaroslavl?

All of the above naturally makes one very suspicious about the fact that it is correct to identify the historical Novgorod the Great as the modern city on river Volkhov, which clearly does not satisfy to conditions specified in the ancient chronicles.

11.2. Our hypothesis about Yaroslavl being the historical Novgorod the Great

11.2.1. Why the traditional identification of the Old Russian capital (Novgorod the Great) as the modern town of Novgorod on the Volkhov is seen as dubious

Once we identify the historical city of Novgorod the Great as Yaroslavl and not Novgorod-upon-Volkhov, we shall eliminate one of the greatest contradictions in Russian history. It is presumed that the Great Princes of Kiev, Vladimir and Moscow had constantly travelled to Novgorod, and that the Great Principality of Kiev and later Moscow had constantly been in touch with Novgorod.

This presumes the existence of roads and old towns and cities in between Moscow and the chronicle Novgorod.

However, this is not the case; Novgorod-upon-Volkhov is a completely isolated town. There are no old historical centres in the direction of either Moscow (about 500 km away) or Kiev (at a distance of more than 1.000 km). There is a great number of old monasteries in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov, which is hardly surprising – monasteries were often built in remote and desolate places, and the modern town of Novgorod had been exactly this in the days of yore, a remote and desolate place. The closest historical Russian cities (apart from the neighbouring Pskov) are Vologda, Yaroslavl and Tver; however, all of them are at least 500 kilometres away.

Historians consider Novgorod one of the most important trade centres in the Middle Ages that had been active before the foundation of St. Petersburg, yet they tell us nothing about the seaport it had used for trading with Europe. Yaroslavl, for instance, had been located at the crossroads of the Northern Dvina and Volga, both of them navigable waterways, and traded with Europe by proxy of Archangelsk and Kholmogory, whereas Pskov had traded through Ivangorod and Narva. But what about the modern Novgorod on river Volkhov?

11.2.2. Yaroslavl as an ancient trading centre. The Molozhskaya fair

Yaroslavl is the greatest trading centre on the Volga.

“Yaroslavl’s location placed it in between Moscow and the White Sea, and also right next to the Volga route. In the second part of the XVI century, there had been a residence of English trade delegates in the city, and many foreign goods were bought and sold… Yaroslavl had played a major part in Russian foreign commerce, and its large warehouses had made the city a trade centre of paramount importance… In the early XVIII century the primary trade route has moved to St. Petersburg from Archangelsk, and Yaroslavl had ceased to be of any importance in matters of foreign commerce … however, it has remained a prominent domestic centre of trade” ([994], pages 16, 17 and 24).

A whole chapter of the book ([994]) that deals with the history of Yaroslavl in the XVII century is entitled “The Third Most Important Trade Centre of the Country”.

According to N. M. Karamzin, the period of active trade with the Germans began under Ivan Kalita. Historians are of the opinion that the key figure of this trade had been the modern town known as Novgorod, telling us that “Novgorod had been an ally of the Hanse and sent the produce of the German manufacturers to Moscow and other regions of the country”. One wonders about just how and where Novgorod had procured German wares in the first place before sending them to Moscow. Apparently, Karamzin directly refers to the fact that the main marketplace of the country had been located near Yaroslavl, in the Mologa estuary ([362], Volume 4, page 149).

Deacon Timofei Kamenevich-Rvovskiy, a XVII century historian, writes the following in his essay entitled On Russian Antiquities: “In the mouth of the glorious Mologa river there have been great fairs since times immemorial, even before the great and fearsome king Vassily Vassilyevich Tyomniy [“The Dark”]… Many foreign merchants came to trade – from Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Greece and Rome, likewise Persia and other lands, as it is told” ([362], Volume 4, comment 323).

One also learns that the amount of ships collected in the Mologa estuary had been so great that people could cross the estuary, and even river Volga itself, no less, without a bridge, moving from one ship to another. The marketplace had been at the Molozhskiy meadow: “great and beautiful, seven by seven verst. The treasury of the Great Prince would collect 180 and more poods of silver [1 pood = 16.38 kilos – Transl.] in duty fees alone” ([362], Volume 4, page 323). The famous Old Russian marketplace must have been located here up until the XVI century, if its memory had been quite as fresh and vivid in the XVII century. This must have been the famous “Novgorod fair”, whence the goods would get to all the other Russian towns and cities.

Deacon Timofei proceeds to report the fragmentation of the enormous historical marketplace into several smaller ones – namely, the famous Fair of Yaroslavl (Yaroslavskaya) gave birth to the following most important fairs of the XVI-XVII century, known as Arkhangelskaya, Svinskaya, Zheltovodskaya (aka Makaryevskaya – in the vicinity of Nizhniy Novgorod, which is to be duly noted), Yekhonskaya, Tikhvinskaya of Novgorod (!) etc.

Thus, the Fair of Yaroslavl had not only been the first and most important; it can also be regarded as the progenitor of all the Russian fairs and marketplaces, including the Tikhvinskaya fair in the vicinity of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov – a mere splinter of the oldest and greatest Russian fair in Yaroslavl.

11.2.3. Novgorod and Holmgrad

It is common knowledge that the Scandinavians who had traded with the chronicle Novgorod used to call it Holmgrad (qv in [758], for instance). This name instantly associates with Kholmogory near Archangelsk. Old sources specifically refer to Kholmogory and not Archangelsk as an old port on the White Sea, the initial point of the famous Northern Dvina trade route, which had retained its importance for commerce until the foundation of St. Petersburg. Yaroslavl had been at the intersection of the Northern Dvina and the Volga trade routes; therefore, the merchants who traded through the port in Kholmogory had been from Yaroslavl, qv above in section 11.2.2. Bear in mind that the Northern Dvina trade route that had led from the White Sea to Vladimir, Suzdal and Moscow passed through Arkhangelsk (Kholmogory), then Velikiy Oustyug and Vologda, approaching Volga right next to Yaroslavl; the great fair had been right here, in the estuary of Mologa. Therefore, the Scandinavians would associate Russian tradesmen with the name Kholmogory, the latter being the closest seaport on the way to Yaroslavl. As for Novgorod-upon-Volkhov, it is withdrawn from all possible trading routes, and couldn’t have traded with anyone in the Middle Ages.

11.2.4. Yaroslav’s Court as the court of a Great Prince

One needn’t look for too long in order to find Yaroslav’s Court in Yaroslavl – it is apparently the famous Yaroslavl Kremlin. A propos, modern historians are of the opinion that the term “Kremlin”, which is used by everyone including the inhabitants of Yaroslavl, is “incorrect”, and that one should call it a “monastery”, since “no princes have ever occupied the premises” – this is what they teach in Yaroslavl schools nowadays. We must note that the Yaroslavl Kremlin is made of white stone, just like its counterpart in Moscow is presumed to have once been. The word “court” was apparently used for referring to the court of the prince, or the Kremlin.

11.2.5. How Nizhniy Novgorod had received its name

Once we return the true name of Novgorod the Great to Yaroslavl, we instantly understand why Nizhniy Novgorod is called “Nizhniy”, or “Lower” – it is indeed located lower on the Volga than Yaroslavl, qv on the map.

11.2.6. The Yaroslavl Region as the domain of the Great Prince

Usual mediaeval dynastic practice would make old capitals residences of the rulers’ second sons. Indeed, Sigismund Herberstein wrote in the XVI century that “the city and the fortress of Yaroslavl on the banks of the Volga are 12 miles away from Rostov, straight along the road to Moscow. Likewise Rostov … this territory had been hereditary property of the rulers’ second sons (or brothers)” ([161], page 154). This is another indirect proof that Yaroslavl is the old capital of the state. Indeed, it is known that before the XVI century, under Ivan Kalita and his successors, the entire region of Yaroslavl, Rostov and Kostroma had not been hereditary property, but rather considered the domain of the Great Prince, or a capital area. It had belonged to the regnant Great Prince. When N. M. Karamzin tells us about the testament of Ivan Kalita, he points out that “there isn’t a single word about either Vladimir, Kostroma, Pereyaslavl or any other town that had belonged to whoever was titled Great Prince” ([362], Volume 4, Chapter 9, page 151). The cities named by Karamzin outline the region of Yaroslavl and Rostov. Ivan III had already mentioned Yaroslavl as his domain ([759], page 62). Then this region became the domain of the rulers’ second sons, since the capital had been transferred to Moscow. Don’t forget that, according to our hypothesis, Moscow only became capital in the XVI century.

11.2.7. “Gospodin Velikiy Novgorod” (“Lord Novgorod the Great”) as the agglomeration of towns and cities in the Yaroslavl region

Our hypothesis is as follows. The term “Lord Novgorod the Great”, or “Gospodin Velikiy Novgorod” had been used for referring to a whole agglomeration of cities and not just Yaroslavl – the region in question had been a Great Principality up until the transfer of the capital to Moscow; the latter took place in the XVI century, according to our hypothesis.

The Great Principality, or the agglomeration of towns and cities that had formed the capital of Russia between Ivan Kalita (Caliph) and Ivan III consisted of the following cities and their environs: Yaroslavl, Rostov, Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, Mologa, Vladimir and Suzdal ([362], Volume 4, Chapter 9, page 15; also [362], Volume 5, Chapter 1, page 21).

It is known that Scandinavian sources used to call Novgorod the Great a “land of cities” ([523], page 47) – in other word, considered it to be an agglomeration of towns; see Chron5 for a more in-depth discussion of this issue. Russian sources also tell us about independent ends of Novgorod, which even rose against one another occasionally. All of these ends were independent from each other, and each had a leader and a seal of its own. The entire Novgorod region had been shared between them; one must also note that all official documents from Novgorod used to have several seals, one for each end – there are eight of them on one of the oldest edicts from Novgorod ([8], Volume 1; also [759], page 59). The representatives of ends used to meet for the discussion and solution of important issues; these meetings were known as veches, and there were two of them at least – at the “Court of Yaroslav”, qv above, and the “Veche of Sophia”. The former is presumed to have been the most important. Apparently, the representatives of all the cities that had been part of the Great Prince’s domain used to congregate in Yaroslavl and issue edicts from “Lord Novgorod the Great” thence.

The “Veche of Sophia” must have taken place in Vologda, which is located near Yaroslavl. The gigantic Cathedral of Sophia exists in Vologda to this day ([85]). It is dated to the XVI century, and must be the famous Cathedral of Sophia from Novgorod the Great. It is most likely to have been rebuilt in the XVII century.

11.2.8. The famous Icon of Novgorod and the Icon of Yaroslavl

The famous Russian icon known as “The Omen Given to Our Lady in Novgorod” is usually associated with the historical Novgorod the Great. This is a very characteristic representation of Our Lady – bust with two raised hands, with a circle on her breast. We see baby Jesus in the circle; his hands are also raised upwards. The disposition of both characters is different from all the other icons. It turns out that there’s another version of this icon, full-length – the Icon of Yaroslavl, also known as “Our Lady the Great Panhagia”, qv in fig. 3.28, [142], page 11, and also [255]. There is no name on the actual icon – it must be a later invention, since ecclesiastical sources tell us nothing of the kind. This must be a version of the same “Omen” icon, which had been revered in Russia – there has even been a special ecclesiastical feast in its honour. The obvious relation between the two icons led to the introduction of a different name, otherwise the chronicle Novgorod would become mysteriously associated with Yaroslavl.

Fig. 3.28. The Yaroslavl icon known as “Our Lady of Yaroslavl, the Great Panhagia”, or the “Horanta of Yaroslavl”. From the Spaso-Preobrazhenskiy Cathedral of the Spasskiy Monastery, the 1320’s ([142], page 11). The city of Yaroslavl. Taken from [142], page 11.

The famous historical Great Novgorod School of art is very close to the Moscow school, which is perfectly natural and explained by the geographical proximity of the two cities. Modern Novgorod on the Volkhov is at a great distance from Moscow, but rather close to Pskov. The style of iconography prevalent in Pskov is considerably different from the above; one must hardly be surprised about the fact that the old churches of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov are decorated in the Pskov style and don’t resemble those of Novgorod the Great and Moscow. Novgorod-upon-Volkhov had been a satellite town of Pskov; we see more indications telling us that the historical Novgorod the Great has got nothing in common with the modern town of Novgorod on the Volkhov; one must also bear in mind the distance between the two.

12. The falsification of history and archaeology of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov

12.1. The real chronology implied by the “layer section” of the pavements in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov

The information collected in the present section is based on the observations concerning the dendrochronology of Novgorod made by Y. A. Yeliseyev.

We are told that Novgorod-upon-Volkhov, which historians identify as Novgorod the Great as described in the chronicles, possesses a unique means of absolute dating – different layers of the allegedly ancient Novgorod pavements. All the objects found in these layers are confidently dated by modern historians and archaeologists with the precision rate of 10-15 years ([993]); also, the datings in question are presented as independent from consensual Russian history according to Scaliger and Miller. The dendrochronology of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov is considered to prove the Romanovian version of Russian history independently. In fig. 3.29 we present a photograph of an excavation with all 28 layers of old Novgorod pavements visible; they are in excellent condition. Thus, 28 is the maximal number of pavement layers found in the town ([993], page 16). Academician V. L. Yanin tells us that “over the 550 years that the formation of this ancient occupation layer has taken … one sees here … 28 pavement layers – a gigantic stack of pine floorings in excellent condition” ([993], page 16). V. L. Yanin writes further that “the [presumably – Auth.] 800-year logs … can still be used for construction purposes” ([993], page 15).

Fig. 3.29. Photograph of an excavation where one can see all 28 layers of the old paved streets of “Novgorod” on River Volkhov. Taken from [993], page 21.

Why is Yanin referring to 550 years above? The matter is that the time intervals between pavement layers can be estimated through a comparison of annual ring width distribution. The concept is simple and clear enough. We haven’t checked the practical implementation of this method – however, even assuming this estimation to be correct, one is instantly confronted with the following issue.

The streets of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov must have been paved with wood up until the XX century and the introduction of asphalt; one sees no reason why the inhabitants of the town would want to cease with the practice and wallow in dirt. Novgorod pavements are typical log-roads that have been a sine qua non element of human life in marshlands, used constantly. This gives us an excellent opportunity to estimate the date of the modern Novgorod’s foundation. A subtraction of 550 years from an arbitrary XX century date such as 1940 shall leave us with the approximate dating of 1400.

How could this be true? Let us regard the issue from the viewpoint of a Scaligerite historian, who would insist upon the foundation of the chronicle Novgorod in the X century A.D., and the identification of the city as the modern Novgorod-upon-Volkhov (and not Yaroslavl on the Volga implied by our reconstruction). The implication is that the construction of the log-roads would have to coincide with the foundation of any kind of settlement in these parts; historians agree with this as well. The ideal condition of the lowest layer makes it the first; had there been earlier ones that decomposed completely, the lowest layer would have been semi-decomposed. We see nothing of the kind. Therefore, the layers are telling us that the first settlement in these marshes must be dated to the XV century and not the X.

The “dendrochronologists” headed by Academician V. L. Yanin suggest to shift the chronology of Novgorod backwards by 500 years, and claim that all the pavement layers need to be dated to the epoch of the X-XV century ([993], page 16). Let us quote from V. L. Yanin:

“And so, the formation of the ancient occupation layer took place between the middle of the X century and the end of the XV; the process had taken 28 pavement years and lasted for longer than 550 years” ([993], page 16).

In other words, we are being told that the top layer of Novgorod pavements dates from the XV century. In this case, what happened to the numerous layers of log-roads paved in the next 500 years (the XV-XX century)? These are said to have “rotted and decayed completely”, which appears extremely bizarre. “Ancient” pavements remain intact, whilst the newer ones (from the XVI century and on) have all disappeared without a trace.

Yanin tells us that “organic matter remains in excellent condition due to the high humidity prevalent in the bottom layers of Novgorod ground” ([993], page 16). In other words, marshes preserve organic matter from decay; this is a widely known fact. Since the town of “Novgorod” on the Volkhov has been founded among marshes, there have really been no problems with the preservation of organic matter – however, one has to enquire about the reasons this should have stopped being the case in the XV century. Yanin writes that “no organic matter from later layers has reached our day (the second half of the XV century and on)” ([993], page 46). What cataclysm has befallen the Volkhov region in the XVI century, and why has the preservation of organic matter stopped? The “Volkhov archaeologists” can give us no intelligible answer. In other words, one sees that all the findings from the Volkhov area are arbitrarily dated to pre-XV century epochs. This has led to a strange gap in the “archaeology and chronology of the Volkhov region” – one of 400 years, no less. This gap obliterated every historical event that took place in this region between the XV and the XX century.

The archaeologists have apparently noticed this chronological gap, and become rather alarmed on this account. Yanin mentions a gap of 400 years in the dendrochronology of the Volkhov region in the new edition of his book ([993]). He claims the gap to have been filled, but doesn’t care to divulge any details or explain how it was done.

Let us return to the issue of finding an absolute dating for the pavement layers from the Volkhov region. Why have they been dated to the X-XV century epoch? Yanin’s book contains the following answer: “We have first … managed to construct a relative dendrochronological scale … and then came up with the absolute datings. We have studied the logs from the foundations of Novgorod churches; the dates when the latter were founded are known to us from chronicles” ([993], page 20). Yanin repeats this claim in the 1998 re-edition of his book.

Everything becomes perfectly clear – Yanin tells us explicitly that the entire dendrochronology of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov is based on the Scaligerian-Millerian chronology of Russian chronicles, which have been used as the source for the dates of several churches’ construction. The logs from their foundations were ipso facto “dated”, and the datings of the pavement layers were calculated further on. However, we already know the chronicles in question to be forgeries or editions of the XVII-XVIII century, qv in Chron4, Chapter 1. Independent “dendrochronological” dating of objects excavated in the region of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov is therefore right out of the question.

V. L. Yanin has apparently been aware of this, since we find the following passage in the 1965 edition of his book: “B. A. Kolchin is currently collecting specimens of logs dating from the XVI, XVII and XVIII century in order to complete the scale and make it reach the present day, and then go back to front for absolute certainty” ([993], pages 20-21).

Unfortunately, the 1998 edition is dead silent about the details of this “verification” – it would be very interesting to learn how B. A. Kolchin has managed to fill the 400-year gap in the dendrochronology of “Novgorod”. The important circumstance that the entire history and chronology of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov are based on nothing but chronicles, or written sources, is recognized by historians themselves. M. Karger, a historian, tells us “these reports … have remained the sole source for the reconstruction of the city’s ancient history until very recently” ([365], page 8).

Our reconstruction of the real chronology of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov is as follows. Some kind of settlement was founded here in the XV century, possibly later. In the XVII century, during the war with Sweden, a small fortress had to be built here. Due to the marshy character of the terrain, the streets of the settlement required paving; these wooden pavements eventually sank, and new layers of planks were required. This activity must have continued until the XX century, since one sees no other reason but the advent of asphalt for its termination; the last layers of pavements must therefore date from the XIX or even the XX century ([365], page 8). Don’t forget that the “Novgorod excavations” have only started in the XX century ([365], page 8). One might well wonder about the reason why the XIX century archaeologists didn’t come up with the brilliant idea to excavate the famous “ancient pavements of Novgorod the Great”; could it be that these pavements have still been used actively in the XIX century? The top layer of the log-roads dated to the XV century nowadays had still been plainly visible to everyone in the XIX century and considered recent; dating it to the XV century would therefore prove impossible.

The excavations of the famous pavement layers only began in 1951, at the sites of the constructions destroyed in the war of 1941-1945. Yanin reports the following:

“In 1951, when the archaeologists were estimating the coordinates of future excavations, the territory had been a wasteland covered in rank burdock and elderberry bushes … rusted pieces of ferroconcrete armaments could be seen through the weeds, tufts of grass were growing amongst the debris of bricks and mortar – 1/250th of the dead wasteland the Nazis had left of a flourishing town. It had been the seventh year after the war; Novgorod was slowly recuperating, rising from the charred ruins and rebuilding itself” ([993], page 10).

Academician V. L. Yanin proceeds to tell us that the “occupation layer” of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov has risen by two metres since the end of the XV century ([993], page 16). In other words, the occupation layer comprised of log-road pavements had been at the depth of around two metres – this may well have been the pre-war XX century pavement, predating the excavations by a decade or so.

Our opponents may remind us that a number of “ancient” documents written on birch bark have been discovered in between the pavement logs; those are presumed to date from the XI-XV century. The idea that birch bark may have been used for writing in the XIX century is considered preposterous. We shall mention the contents of the “XI-XV century” birch bark records below; as we shall see, they contain nothing that couldn’t have been written in the XIX century. As for the very recent use of birch bark for writing, let us quote from V. L. Yanin himself:

“Many birch bark documents have survived, and are kept in museums and archives nowadays – among them, later chronicles dating from the XVII-XIX century, and entire books … in 1715, the Siberians used a book made of birch bark for keeping tax records… The ethnographer S. V. Maksimov, who had seen a book of birch bark in an old-believer settlement on the Mezen river had even voiced his fascination with this writing material, so uncommon to us … it is also known that the Swedes had used birch bark for writing in the XVII-XVIII century” ([993], page 27).

Further also: “the ethnographer A. A. Dounin-Gorchavich, who had seen the khanty [an indigenous ethnic group from the North of Russia – Transl.] prepare birch bark for writing in the beginning of this century [the XX – Auth.] reports that the material is boiled in water in order to make it fit for writing” ([993], page 29).

One of our readers, a geologist engineer from the Komi region of Russia (city of Oukhta) by the name of Vitaliy Vassilyevich Kozlov, has sent us information about the book on the history of publishing during WW II. The section on guerrilla publications (newspapers, flyers, brochures etc) tells us about the use of birch bark in printing, in particular by the guerrillas from the North-West, where Novgorod-upon-Volkhov is located. Birch bark has therefore been used as a material for writing as recently as in the middle of the XX century.

Therefore, the fact that there were birch bark documents found in the top layers of Novgorod pavements doesn’t necessarily imply these layers to be of a great age. They may just as well date from the XIX and even the XX century.

One might ask about the reasons for using birch bark as a writing material in the XIX century, after the invention of paper. The matter is that paper had remained rather expensive up until the XX century – birch bark was much cheaper, especially in the North. The writing material in question wasn’t mere pieces of bark peeled off a tree:

“Birch bark would be boiled in water to make it more elastic and fit for writing; coarse layers would be removed … sheets of birch bark were usually given a rectangular shape” ([993], page 33).

Therefore, birch bark may have competed with paper up until the XIX century, given its low cost.

V. L. Yanin tells us that “all the books and documents made of birch bark that had been known to scientist before 26 July 1951 were written in ink, with no exceptions” ([993], page 30). However, the famous birch bark documents from Novgorod-upon-Volkhov are scratched on pieces of bark, with no traces of ink anywhere. Why would that be? Marshy ground must have been so humid that the ink became washed away; the only pieces of birch bark with any text on them are the ones where the letters have been scratched. A typical document found in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov can be seen in fig. 3.30.

Fig. 3.30. Birch bark document #109 from Novgorod-upon-Volkhov. Arbitrarily dated to the alleged XII century; in reality, the documents dates from the XVI-XVII century. Let us point out the use of colons in punctuation. Taken from [993], page 172.

Let us return to the contents of the “ancient” documents found in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov. Nearly every such document mentioned in Yanin’s book entitled I Have Sent Thee a Birch Bark Epistle are of a quotidian nature; their text contains no signs of their “great antiquity”, although modern historians try to read them into the text of the documents. Yet these “signs” may well be those of the XIX century – as is the case with Document #288, for instance, dated to the alleged XIV century (the real dating is 400 years more recent, as we are beginning to understand, and pertains to the epoch of the XVIII-XIX century).

The document says the following: “khamu, three cubits … a zolotnik [1/96 of a pound – Transl.] of green silk thread, another of gilded silk, and one more, coloured yellow and green … a zolotnik of bleach for one bleaching, some Bulgarian soap for the same bleaching, and for another bleaching…” ([993], pages 45-46). Yanin comments this text in the following manner: “although this epistle has neither got a beginning nor an end, one can be certain that it was written by some embroider. The fabric (kham in Old Russian) needed to be bleached with bleach and soap” ([993], page 46). We are being told that this passage indubitably proves the “great antiquity” of the birch bark document, since the word khamovnik stood for “weaver” or “webber” in Old Russian ([223], [224] and [225]). Still, since the document in question is concerned with silk embroidery, wouldn’t it make more sense to assume that “khamu” is really a part of the word “barkhatu” (the genitive case of “barkhat”, the Russian word for “velvet”), with the letter T written in a special manner common for Russia, with three “stalks” at the bottom – it can easily be confused for the letter M. Silk would more often be used for embroidery on velvet, after all; in general, all the objects mentioned in the text – velvet, soap, bleach and coloured silk, have been common in the XIX century.

We witness the same to be the case with all other documents from Novgorod-upon-Volkhov.

Let us sum up. The entire situation looks very odd indeed – a mere 50 or 100 years after the wooden pavements cease to be used, historians and archaeologists rediscover them and make the proclamation that the logs used for paving date from times immemorial. This is a direct consequence of the fact that historical science still lacks the means of objective dating; consensual chronology is therefore a total chaos of subjective datings. We have witnessed this to be the case many a time; the excavations in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov are but another example.

12.2. Novgorod-upon-Volkhov had also been known as “okolotok” (Russian word used for a parochial settlement)

Let us remind the reader that, according to our research, Novgorod the Great as described in the chronicles has got nothing in common with the town in the marshlands of the Volkhov region known under the same name nowadays (apparently, this proud name only became associated with the town in question in the XVII century. It is most likely that the Russian chronicles have used the name “Novgorod the Great” for referring to the agglomeration of towns and cities located in the interfluve of Volga and Oka and not just a single city – in other words, the entire land known as the “Vladimir and Suzdal Russia” nowadays. The administrative centre of the agglomeration had been in the city of Yaroslavl on the Volga (the famous “Court of Yaroslav), according to our reconstruction.

Thus, one might well wonder about the old name of the modern Novgorod on the Volkhov – one that had been used before the XVII century, when this town had been misnamed “Novgorod the Great”. Seeing as how this has happened a mere 300 years ago, we have some hope of reconstructing the proper old name of the town on the Volkhov with the aid of historical sources.

This hope of ours isn’t vain – moreover, it is very easy to find out about the real name of “Novgorod” on the Volkhov. We learn the following from the guidebook entitled The Novgorod Citadel ([731]):

“Everything that was located outside the initial settlement of Novgorod had been known as okolotok. Even in the XIV-XVI century this name was used for referring to the entire territory of the citadel, apart from the Sovereign’s Court. Okolotok had come to replace the original name of Novgorod” ([731], page 9).

Under the “initial settlement” the authors of the book understand the rather diminutive citadel in the centre of the city:

“Novgorod (or its citadel, the two being the same thing in reality) had been the veche centre of the entire town that was built on the Volkhov river … the small princely court had initially spanned the entire town” ([731], page 9).

The details divulged about the “heroic” history of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov are therefore of the utmost interest – we are told that the name of Novgorod had only been used for referring to the small citadel in the centre of the town, while the rest of it had possessed a different name in the “deep antiquity”, as we can see now. In the XVI century even the Kremlin wasn’t known as Novgorod anymore, but rather as “okolotok”, qv above. There is a possibility that the sovereign’s court had still been known as Novgorod. Historians are therefore of the opinion that the inhabitants of the town on the Volkhov River had still remembered its chronicle name of “Novgorod”, using it for a single court in town; it is also admitted that the word “okolotok” had been used for the rest of the modern “Novgorod”. One might well wonder about the reasons why the name of “Novgorod the Great” could have become forgotten by the inhabitants of the town – a minor military or monastic settlement on the Volkhov river may have been known as “Novgorod” once, after all, since the name translates as “New City”, and the settlement had been freshly-built in the XV century. However, we are told that it has never been known as “The Great”.

We are of the opinion that the above implies the non-existence of a proper name for the small town on the Volkhov River in the XVI century, or the pre-Romanovian epoch – the name “okolotok” is of a very general and descriptive nature. It was still in use relatively recently for referring to a group of villages, a suburb or a parochial settlement ([224], Volume 2, page 1717). The police rank of the “okolotochniy nadziratel”, or “officer in charge of an okolotok”, had existed in Russia up until the XX century (ibid.).

The town of Novgorod on the Volkhov River had therefore been a recent settlement of minor importance in the XVI – early XVII century, without so much as a name of its own. There may have been a remote monastery there, or a small fort; the settlement that had appeared nearby became known as “okolotok”. This word is probably derived from the Russian word “okolo”, which stands for “near” – “the environs”, that is (of the military citadel, for instance). Somewhat later, in the XVII century, when the entire Russian history was being distorted to serve the interests of the Romanov dynasty, the hoaxers needed a Russian city that would play the part of Novgorod the Great as described in the chronicles in lieu of the original Novgorod, or Yaroslavl. The events related in the chronicles were thus transferred to the marshy banks of the Volkhov River in paper sources. New maps, likewise counterfeit “ancient” maps mass-produced in the XVIII-XIX century, have adopted the formula “Novgorod the Great”.

The locals have taken to the new name without much procrastination; one must think that their first acquaintance with the allegedly great history of “Great Novgorod” on the Volkhov River has really taken place some 100-200 years later, when they read N. M. Karamzin’s History, where the Volkhov localization of Novgorod the Great is already quite explicit. It must be said that Novgorod-upon-Volkhov became Novgorod the Great officially in the end of the 1990’s.

This explains the condition of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov in the XVII century, poor enough for the historian M. Karger to write about the “historical destiny of the city that has transformed into a backwater centre of the nondescript Novgorod province…” ([365], page 5). Everything is perfectly clear – the newly built settlement was only beginning to establish itself in the XVII century; there had been a stockade here. We learn that “the Moscow government was still taking care of maintaining the Novgorod stockade’s defensive capacity” ([365], page 12-13).

12.3. The tourist sights presented as the famous “Sovereign’s Court”, where the Archbishop of Novgorod the Great had resided

The chronicle history of Novgorod the Great tell us a great deal about the famous “Sovereign’s Court”, or the residence of the Archbishop of Novgorod. The archbishop was known as the Sovereign of Novgorod, and had ruled over the entire city, according to the chronicles. His influence had been immense – not just in Novgorod, but Russia in general, likewise his wealth. Is there anything left of his court, which must have been drowning in luxury and opulence? Chronicles tell us that the territory of the “Sovereign’s Court” had housed the Archbishop’s palace and a number of other buildings. Do we see so much as a trace of them anywhere in the modern Novgorod?

The guidebook by L. A. Rozhdestvenskaya entitled The Novgorod Citadel ([731]) is confident enough when it repeats the following after the chronicles: “the Archbishop, also known as the Sovereign, had been the only lord and master of the citadel and the court, which formed the centre of Novgorod in the earliest days of the city’s existence” ([731], page 9). Then Rozhdestvenskaya moves on from “ancient history” to the modern condition of the locale:

“The Sovereign’s Court of the Novgorod citadel is a remarkable civil construction complex that had housed administrative and economical services. The Archbishop of Novgorod had also lived here, known as the owner of a tremendous treasury; the Council of the Lords used to assemble at the citadel as well, deciding upon the domestic and the foreign policies of Novgorod the Great” ([731], page 24).

It turns out that historians do indeed demonstrate to us a “Sovereign’s Court” in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov, qv in fig. 3.31. One must say that the building we see is thoroughly unremarkable – we see the wall of a citadel and a simple two-story building, which is clearly anything but ancient. Let us enquire about the age of the buildings that form the ensemble of the alleged “Sovereign’s Court”, and also about their fate in the XVII-XIX century – reconstructions, renovations, general use etc.

Fig. 3.31. The alleged “Governor’s court of Novgorod the Great” in the modern town of Novgorod on River Volkhov. Taken from [731], pages 64-65, insets.

What we learn is that nearly every building from the “Sovereign’s Court” (with the single exception of the “faceted chamber”) was built in the XVII-XIX century ([731], pages 24-28) – postdating the epoch of the Archbishop’s alleged residence in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov by a few hundred years. We are of the opinion that there has never been an Archbishop of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov. It is known that “ever since the XVII century the citadel of Novgorod has been a stronghold where military leaders had resided” ([731], page 18). Military leaders, mind you, and not archbishops. The main building of the “Sovereign’s Court” is the so-called “Faceted Chamber”; we shall ponder it at length below.

Moreover, there are no signs to indicate the former residence of a sovereign, or an archbishop, at the “Sovereign’s Court”. Historians still haven’t reached any consensus in selecting a single building of the “Sovereign’s Court” and calling it the “Archbishop’s Palace”; apparently, it is a “serious scientific problem”, and there is no unanimity in the ranks of historians. For instance:

“According to the architect V. N. Zakharova, the archbishop’s palace is the building between the Likhoudov building and the Metropolitan’s Tower  … since the latter must be in the immediate vicinity of the palace” ([731], page 28).

We see that the building considered the “Archbishop’s Palace” traditionally is something entirely different in the opinion of the architects. Even modern guidebooks obliquely dub it “the so-called Archbishop’s Palace” ([731], page 28).

Historians are exceptionally proud of the so-called Faceted Chamber of the citadel in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov; the guidebook ([731]) allocates an entire chapter to this building. L. A. Rozhdestvenskaya writes:

“The Faceted Chamber, also known as the Sovereign’s Chamber, is one of the most remarkable buildings out of the entire ensemble of Sovereign’s Court, and the only such construction that has reached our age. A Novgorod chronicle dating from 1433 reports: ‘In the very same year did his Holy Highness Euphimei build a chamber in his court, one of 30 doors. The craftsmen of Novgorod were working alongside their German counterparts’” ([731], page 33).

A modern photograph of this “XV century masterpiece of Old Russian architecture with 30 doors”, whose construction required joint efforts of the Russian and the German craftsmen, can be seen in fig. 3.32. What we see is a very ordinary house of the XVII-XIX century – there is a great abundance of similar houses in many Russian cities. By the way, we only see a single door on the photograph (fig. 3.32). It is a mystery just how one could make 30 doors here. One might assume exaggeration from the part of the chronicler, or the inclusion of the building’s inner doors into the number. However, such “boasting” would look rather odd; we clearly see that the chronicler is referring that he had thought fascinating himself. There’s nothing surprising about 30 inner doors – nearly every large house will have that many or more. 30 entrances, on the other hand, imply a large size of the building and a certain eccentricity of its architecture. All of this appears to have existed in reality; however, it was in the enormous Yaroslavl, the historical Novgorod the Great, which had been dealt a great deal of harm in the “Novgorod massacre” of the XVI century, and not in the “backwater centre of the nondescript Novgorod province…” ([365], page 5).

Fig. 3.32. The small building inside the citadel of the modern Novgorod upon River Volkhov, which plays the part of the “faceted chamber” in the “Governor’s court of Novgorod the Great”. The construction of the building is therefore dated to the XV century. However, it is a typical construction of the XVII-XVIII century. It is unclear just why this particular building was dated to the XV century and called the “Faceted Chamber” – we see no facets anywhere upon it, whereas the very name suggests the walls to be decorated in a particular way. Taken from [731], pages 64-65, insets.

Let us return to the town on the Volkhov River. Where did the so-called “Faceted Chamber” get its name?

We all know what the famous Faceted Chamber of the Kremlin in Moscow looks like. Its façade is faced with tetrahedral blocks of stone with manifest facets, which make the Chamber quite unique (see figs. 3.33 and 3.34). The very name of the Chamber is derived from these blocks of stone, which is emphasized by the historians as well ([191], page 8).

Fig. 3.33. The Faceted Chamber of Kremlin in Moscow. We see the eastern front part of the chamber’s outer wall with faceted blocks of stone, hence the name. Taken from [191], inset.

Fig. 3.34. Close-in of a fragment of the Faceted Chamber’s front wall. The faceted blocks that it owes its name to are clearly visible. Taken from [191], inset.

Are there any faceted blocks anywhere on the “Faceted Chamber of Novgorod” (fig. 3.32)? None! The walls are perfectly ordinary, smooth and plastered. Not a sign of a facet anywhere. Our opponents might say that someone must have chiselled the facets off and replaced them by stucco. But when did that happen, and how? Neither the documents nor the guidebook ([731]) tell us a single word about this.

We are of the opinion that what we encounter here is but an attempt to find a solid foundation for the freshly introduced Romanovian version of Russian history, and a clumsy one, at that. The concept had been rather simple – one needed to prove a small settlement on the Volkhov to have once been Novgorod the Great as mentioned in the chronicles. The latter specified the existence of the famous Faceted Chamber in Novgorod the Great, and so the Romanovian historians apparently decided that a certain XVIII century house could serve as the famous Faceted Chamber, the memorial plaque saying “Sovereign’s Chambers. 1433 A.D.” that one finds attached thereto being the primary proof of this identification (qv in fig. 3.32). The memorial plaque secures the transformation of a simple building into a tourist sight – one that has been active in this capacity for many years.

Could it be that the interior of the rather unprepossessing “Faceted Chamber” in the Volkhov settlement is capable of surprising us with the lavishness of its decoration, leaving no doubt about the fact that the nondescript building one sees in fig. 3.32 had once been the famous Faceted Chamber of Novgorod the Great?

The same guidebook as we’ve been quoting from is telling us that there is a famous historical front hall in the so-called “Faceted Chamber”:

“The Sovereign’s Chamber has been the silent witness of many historical events. The envoys of the Great Prince of Moscow had been received here, likewise visitors from faraway lands; many a royal decree was read here. In 1478 it heard the edict of Ivan III about the annexation of the Novgorod lands by Moscow … and in 1570 it saw the grim feast of Ivan the Terrible” ([731], page 34).

We know what the royal front halls had looked like in the XV-XVI century, the best example being the buildings of the Kremlin in Moscow, dated to the same XV century as the Faceted Chamber of Novgorod the Great by historians. Some of them even claim certain fragments of the above to date from the XII century ([557], page 37); however, the date on the memorial plaque is that of 1433, qv in fig. 3.32.

Let us now consider the “front hall” of the building in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov, whose modern photograph can be seen in fig. 3.35. The interior of this “front hall” is in very poor correspondence with the architecture of the XV-XVI century; moreover, what we see here is typical XVIII-XIX century architecture with intentional anachronistic elements. The real front hall of the Faceted Chamber in Moscow is represented in fig. 3.36 for comparison (photograph), and in fig. 3.37 we see an old engraving of the XVIII century that depicts a feast in the Faceted Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin.

Fig. 3.35. The inside of the nondescript building that is claimed to be the “Faceted Chamber of Novgorod the Great”. Presumed to date from the XV century – however, the artwork is a mere imitation of the XV century style, and most likely dates from the XIX century. Taken from [731], pages 64-65, insets.

Fig. 3.36. Photograph of the ceremonial hall of the Faceted Chamber in Moscow. Taken from [191], inset.

Fig. 3.37. Ancient engraving of the XVIII century depicting a feast in the splendorous Faceted Chamber of the Muscovite Kremlin. Taken from [191], page 15.

One gets the impression that the front hall of the “faceted chamber from the town on the Volkhov” was constructed in the XVIII-XIX century in emulation of the Faceted Chamber in Moscow; however, this resulted in a severe disproportion, since the chamber needed to be fit into an already exiting building. The Romanovian architects ended up with low ceilings and a central column whose top widens in too drastic a manner, leaving a looming impression. The strange stripes on the ceiling look very conspicuous (see fig. 3.35). Historians suggest this building to be “the sole relic of the early Gothic style in Russia” ([557], page 22). We see nothing of the kind in truly old Russian buildings – these “Gothic stripes” must be emulating the relief facets of the original Faceted Chamber in Moscow, where they have an actual architectural function common for old Russian architecture (see figs. 3.36 and 3.38).

Fig. 3.38. Photograph of the Muscovite Kremlin’s Faceted Chamber. Taken by the authors in 2000.

It is peculiar that the guidebook ([731]) should dedicate a whole chapter to the “Faceted Chamber” in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov without uttering a single word about any reconstructions or renovations of the building, divulging a great many more details of this kind that concern other constructions in the citadel, and of a lesser fame at that – all the reparation works performed in the XVIII-XIX century are reported very meticulously, qv in [731], pages 24-31. Could historians be avoiding the topic deliberately so as not to attract any attention to the true date of this forgery’s creation. Apparently, no renovations have ever taken place – the chamber has been in its present condition ever since its construction in the XVIII-XIX century; however, the guidebook ([731]) tries to convince one that the “Faceted Chamber” in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov was built in the XV century ([731], page 33) – or even the XII century, according to [557], page 37, having reached us in its initial condition, more or less. This is not true, as it is becoming clear to us today.

Apparently, this dim “Gothic hall” in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov in its modern condition was prepared for exhibition rather recently – in the XIX century, during the preparations for the 1862 celebration of “Russia’s Millenarian Anniversary” in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov (a very lavish festivity attended by Czar Alexander II himself, as well as numerous guests from every corner of Russia ([731], pages 80 and 82). This is when the grandiose monument that one sees inside the citadel was erected (ibid.). Apparently, this was when the first necessity to demonstrate something “ancient” to the public had arisen; this had been accomplished successfully.

12.4. Novgorod-upon-Volkhov: oddities in occupation layer datings

As we have seen, historians are of the opinion that the occupation layer of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov has grown by a mere two metres over the last 400 years, starting with the end of the XV century ([993], page 16). However, it had grown twice faster in the previous 500 years ([993], page 16). We learn that “over the 550 years that had passed between the middle of the X century and the end of the XV it had grown by 5.5 metres” ([993], pages 15-16). This is truly bizarre; the growth of the occupation layer directly depends on human activities. Academician V. L. Yanin describes the process of occupation layer formation rather vividly:

“Human activity has the following side effect, which is very important for archaeology: the formation of the occupation layer in every area inhabited by humans for a more or less prolonged period of time. Someone … cuts down wood to build a house, with wood chips flying in every direction and falling on the ground. Then someone’s shoes tear, and an old shoe sole is thrown away; then a house burns down, and somebody levels the scene of conflagration and erects a new dwelling … this is how the occupation layer is formed wherever there are humans, year by year, slowly but steadily. The thickness of this layer depends on the intensity of human activity and the organic matter conservation capacity of local soil” ([993], page 15).

How are we supposed to relate to the situation with Novgorod-upon-Volkhov in this case, seeing as how over the first 550 years the occupation layer had grown at the rate of one metre per century, how could it have slowed down to 50 centimetres in the following 400 years? Could the intensity of human activity have diminished and dwindled? This seems very odd indeed; human activity has become a great deal more intense in the recent epoch, if anything. Should soil conservation capacity in the Volkhov region have changed drastically at some point in the XV century, one would certainly like to hear more about that.

All of the above must imply that the consensual dating of the occupation layer in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov is blatantly incorrect. It appears that the entire formation of the occupation layer must have taken place at a steady speed in the last 400-500 years, possibly with a slight acceleration, starting with the XV century, or the foundation of the settlement on River Volkhov. The considerable height of this layer is explained by the fact that “organic matter preserves well in the environs of Novgorod” and nothing else, according to archaeologists themselves ([993], page 15). Bear in mind that marshlands preserve organic matter very well indeed, and it hardly ever rots there.

Let us now observe the rate of the occupation layer’s growth around the Cathedral of St. Sophia in the Volkhov region, presumably one of the oldest buildings in Russia, and one which “has never been rebuilt since the XI century and preserved … its original shape until the present day”, as we are being told ([731], page 53). It turns out that “over the last nine centuries, the occupation layer has covered two metres of the building’s lower part” ([731], page 54). That is to say, the occupation layer that has formed around the principal cathedral of the Volkhov region over the last 900 years is presumed equal in height to the layer that has formed in the centre of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov over 400 years ([993], page 16). Even if one were to trust the consensual chronology of this occupation layer, the “extremely ancient” Cathedral of St. Sophia would have to be dated to the XV century and not the XI.

We are of the opinion that this cathedral was constructed even more recently – in the XVII century and not the XV. Therefore, the occupation layer around it has been growing by the factor of circa one metre per century.

It must be said that the speed of the occupation layer growth has been calculated by archaeologists from pavement layers, among other things – or concurs with the relative “dendrochronology of Novgorod” at the very least. Indeed, according to V. L. Yanin:

“The occupation layer in Novgorod wasn’t subject to putrefaction and had been growing by a factor of one centimetre per year in the Middle Ages. It had grown by 5.5 metres between the middle of the X and the end of the XV century … thus, the formation of the ancient occupation layer has taken 28 pavements and 550 years” ([993], pages 15-16).

The height of the pavement layers is therefore equal to 5 metres, and their formation has taken 550 years – roughly one metre per century, or one centimetre per year, just as we learn from historians.

We can therefore count approximately 500 years backwards from the XX century, and end up with the XV century as the dating of the town’s foundation. The Cathedral of St. Sophia must have been built in the XVII century, since it has submerged by 2 metres.

We must also point out the fact that traces of chiselled-off frescoes were found in the cathedral during excavations:

“Many chiselled-off fresco fragments have been discovered during the excavations of the Martiryevskaya parvis… The restoration of the dome artwork began in 1944 … it turned out that the Pantocrator and the top part of the archangel figures … were painted in the XVI century the earliest over fresh ground” ([731], page 62).

That is to say, the plaster was chiselled off in the XVI century the earliest, and the fresh ground must date from roughly the same epoch; therefore, the Cathedral of St. Sophia on the Volkhov bears distinct marks of later Romanovian reconstruction works (fresh ground and the chiselled-off frescoes).

However, the radical alterations of the original design did not stop there. According to M. V. Mouravyov:

“In 1688 and 1692 the floor of the cathedral was raised by 1.62 metres … the three round posts have been demolished, the original narrow windows widened and more windows cut in other walls. In 1837 the entire northern wall was reconstructed; in 1861 the small headstones over the persons buried in the cathedral were removed. Finally, in 1893-1904 the cathedral underwent a complete overhaul, which resulted in the replacement of the original works of Italian masters by the daubery of the decorators from the co-operative of contractor Safronov” ([557], page 15).

Has anything remained from the original XVI century cathedral? We see that even the XVIII century artwork has gone without a trace.

M. V. Mouravyov tells us about another rather characteristic occurrence:

“There had been a great deal of graffiti on the inner walls of St. Sophia (inscriptions scratched on the plaster) – some of them are in glagolitsa [pre-Cyrillic script – Transl.] … they can be regarded as the old temple’s stone chronicle of sorts… These graffiti were discovered by I. A. Shlyapkin during the last restoration, as the fresh layers of plaster were being chiselled off; however, when the Archaeological Commission had expressed a wish to carry on with the study of the graffiti, the walls were already covered with fresh stucco, which has deprived the scientists of the larger part of the research materials” ([557], page 17).

Verily, one calls the oddest activities “restoration” these days.

The information that we have about the “ancient” events, which have presumably taken place in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov, comes from Russian chronicles in their edition and interpretation of the XVII-XVIII century ([365]). As we are beginning to understand nowadays, the lost originals must have referred to Yaroslavl events. After the Romanovian reform of the XVII-XVIII century these events were transferred from the Volga to the Volkhov region. In the XIX-XX century the confused historians and archaeologists have started to make pilgrimages to the “backwater centre of the nondescript Novgorod province”, as M. Karger is correct enough to call it ([365], page 5). Events described in chronicles would eventually become tied to the Volkhov locale; some of them were vague enough to permit this, others weren’t. There were some complete fiascos – nevertheless, the churches of the Volkhov region are still stubbornly misidentified as “the Novgorod temples from the days of yore reflected in the chronicles”. One of the countless empty sites has been declared “the very square where the famous Novgorod veche used to assemble”. The notorious Novgorod massacre became associated with the Volkhov region instead of Yaroslavl, and a room where the “grim feast of Ivan the Terrible had taken place” ([731], page 34) was promptly found and has by now been photographed by countless tourists, awed and gullible. The list goes on.

None of the above is true; the events that we learn about from chronicles had all taken place elsewhere – in Yaroslavl on the Volga, according to our reconstruction. A propos, the very name Volkhov is a slightly corrupted version of the name Volga.

12.5. Birch bark documents had been used by the “ancient” Romans, and therefore cannot predate the XIV century

All the considerations voiced above give us a new perception of the fact that the allegedly ancient Romans have widely used birch bark for writing. As we are beginning to realise, the “ancient” Roman birch documents must also have been written in the XIV-XVIII century and not “deep antiquity”. The history of their discovery is as follows.

In 1973 Robert Burley, a British archaeologist, began his excavations near the famous Hadrian’s Wall [the Horde’s Wall?], which dates to the alleged II century A.D.

“He came across two thin slivers of wood. Burley reckons they had rather looked like wood-shavings … they were accurately unrolled with a penknife, and the archaeologists have fragments of messages in Latin inside. Burly himself recollects that ‘we were looking at the miniscule missive and refusing to believe our eyes’… Burley was holding the remnants of a letter that was written in ink and mentioned garments sent by someone to a soldier who had served in Vindolanda around 102 A.D.” ([726], page 124).

Let us emphasize that the letter was written in ink; had it remained underground for two millennia, the ink would have most probably been washed away by the time the birch bark was unearthed. Therefore, such messages must be a great deal less ancient than it occurs to the English archaeologists and historians.

“Burley had every reason to be fervent, although he hadn’t suspected it at the moment. He had unearthed the greatest cache of documents that has ever been found in the northern provinces of the Roman Empire. Over the next four years Burley and his assistants managed to find more than two hundred documents or fragments of documents with old inscriptions; by 1988 they have collected over a thousand of them, including two hundred pieces of bark with distinct Latin texts on them… Most of them were made of birch or alder white peeled off very young trees, and the inscriptions were made with ink and a reed. These freshly-gathered pieces of bark were so elastic that they were fashioned into scrolls rolled crosswise the fibres, which was equivalent to sealing a letter, and tied with a thread. The largest pieces of bark are 20 by 8 centimetres… This is how the oldest group of British historical documents was discovered; it turned out to be a unique source of information concerning the Roman garrisons in the north-west. After some 1900 years of oblivion the Romans quartered in Britain spoke to their descendants through this collection of epistles” ([726], pages 124-125).

According to our reconstruction, the documents in question are the birch bark epistles used by the Cossack troops in the XV-XVII century, including the ones quartered on the British isles after the Great = “Mongolian” conquest. Some chronicles had referred to them as to Roman troops, which is how they are known to Scaligerian history, which had dated them to a fictional ancient epoch.

Fig. 3.39. One of the Roman documents written on birch bark, discovered in England and presumed to date from times immemorial. These documents are most likely to date from the epoch of the XV-XVII century; they may have been written in one of the Russian garrisons, which were quartered in all parts of the gigantic Great = “Mongolian” Empire. Taken from [726], page 127.

One of such documents can be seen in fig. 3.39. Historians write the following in this regard:

“This letter has been preserved in one of the oldest layers of Vindolanda; it was written on wood with ink. The missive is a birthday party invitation sent to some military commander’s wife by the spouse of some other Roman troop leader … her writing is very similar to the demotic (non-hieroglyphic) script found on Egyptian papyri of the same epoch; it appears that the entire empire had used the same shorthand system” ([726], page 127; see also fig. 3.40).

Fig. 3.40. A close-in of a fragment of a “Roman” birch bark document misdated to the II century A.D. today. Historians point out that it is set in demotic writing, virtually identical to the Egyptian shorthand and used in every region of the Empire ([726], page 127). According to our reconstruction, the document in question dates from the epoch of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, or the XIV-XVII century. Taken from [726], page 127.

Everything is perfectly clear, and explained perfectly well by our reconstruction. We see that the entire Great = Mongolian Empire of the XIV-XVI century had used the same shorthand system – just the way a centralized state should, where the life of the imperial provinces, no matter how distant, is in sync with that of the centre, with similar customs and principles used in the town on River Volkhov, Horde garrisons in faraway Britain and Egypt in Africa (see Chron5 for more details).

12.6. In re the “Novgorod Datings” of A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin. How the abovementioned Academicians date late XVIII century birch bark documents to the XI century

We must say a few words about the article of the Academicians A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin entitled “The Novgorod Book of Psalms of the XI century as Russia’s Oldest Book” ([290:1]) published in the “Vestnik Rossiyskoi Akademii Nauk” (the official journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences) in March 2001. This is the article that opens the March issue; we are grateful to A. Y. Ryabtsev for drawing our attention to this publication, since it contains passages that are most bizarre from the point of view of chronology and dating methods.

The article of Zaliznyak and Yanin is concerned with the discoveries in the field of “Novgorod” archaeology, which have made quite a resonance as of late; firstly, the piece of birch bark with a drawing that depicts St. Barbara on one side, qv in fig. 3.41, and, secondly, the three waxed tablets with inscriptions scratched in wax that Zaliznyak and Yanin call “The Novgorod Book of Psalms” ([290:1], pages 202-203). Both objects were discovered during the excavations of 2000 in Novgorod-upon-Volkhov ([290:1]).

Fig. 3.41. A sheet of birch bark depicting St. Barbara. Found during excavations in Novgorod on River Volkhov; the layer it was discovered in was dated to “the first third of the XI century” by V. L. Yanin ([290:1], page 202). However, we see a date at the bottom of the sheet – 7282 “since Adam”, which converts to modern chronology as 1774 A.D., or the very end of the XVIII century. Photograph taken from [290:1], page 203.

The finding has enjoyed great publicity; on 27 March 2001 the Russian Academy of Sciences has held an extended session of its Presidium attended by Russian government officials. Academician Y. S. Osipov, President of the RAS, emphasized this finding in his report, having mentioned it first and foremost as he was speaking about the achievements of Russian history and archaeology. He has called it a stupendous discovery (see the text of his report in the Vestnik journal, 2001, Volume 71, Issue 8, page 682).

We shall withhold from judging the value of this findings for historical and linguistic science. The issue that interests us is of a formal nature. How were the ancient objects with inscriptions that Yanin and Zaliznyak mention in their article dated? The two authors are trying to date the findings to the beginning of the XI century ([290:1]). More precisely, they are dating the layer of ground whence the birch bark drawing in question was extracted to the first third of the XI century ([290:1], page 202). As for the layer where the three tablets comprising the “Book of Psalms” have been found, it is dated to the first quarter of the same XI century ([290:1], page 203). Thus, according to the opinion of Zaliznyak and Yanin, both objects hail from the “ancient Novgorod” and were made about a thousand years ago. This leads them to the conclusion that the two findings must be nothing else but truly ancient Russian texts. The three-plank “Book of Psalms”, for instance, is said to have been written by a representative of “the first generation of literate Russians”, who had “almost certainly been a witness of Russia’s baptism” ([290:1], page 206).

The “precision” of datings offered in [290:1] is impressive – Zaliznyak and Yanin reckon that the “Book of Psalms” must be dated to “the epoch between the early 990’s and the late 1010’s”, thus offering us a dating with the precision rate of 10 years; the same equals around 15 years in either direction for the “Novgorod” dating of the piece of birch mentioned earlier, which is dated to the “first third of the XI century” ([290:1], page 202).

We have put the word “Novgorod” in quotation marks for a good reason – according to our research, the town on the Volkhov known as Novgorod today has got nothing in common with Novgorod the Great that is known to us from Russian chronicles. Apparently, the modern “Novgorod” had only received this name under the first Romanovs in the XVII century, in the course of their campaign for the falsification of the Old Russian history. As recently as in the XVI century this town was known as “okolotok” (the word translates as “parochial settlement”, qv in [731], page 9, and in Chron4, Chapter 3:12.2. As we have discovered, the history of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov can hardly be traced any further backwards than the XV-XVI century A.D. Also, it is most certainly the history of a small settlement and not a large town – the Novgorod stronghold grandiloquently known as “The Citadel” or even “The Kremlin” nowadays is most likely to have been built in the XVII century and not any earlier – as a mere fortification settlement during the war with Sweden.

Let us reiterate that, according to the results of our research, the oldest objects found in the pavement layers of Novgorod-upon-Volkhov date from the XV-XVI century and not any earlier, since neither the town, nor the pavements, had existed back then. The XI century dating of the lowest pavement layer offered by V. L. Yanin appears erroneous to us. The correct dating is a much later one, qv in Chron4, Chapter 3:12.

How do Zaliznyak and Yanin date the first object (the drawing, whose photograph, as cited in their article, can be seen in fig. 3.41)?

The method of dating insisted upon in the article by A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin ([290:1]) is based on the dendrochronological dating of the old pavement layers buried deep in the ground. They write:

“The season of 2000 began with a pleasant surprise. A small piece of birch bark was found in the layer dated to the first third of the XI century, with sketches of human figures scratched on either side. One of the figures can be identified as Jesus Christ. The figure on the flip side is accompanied by the inscription that can be easily read as “Varvara” (Slavic version of the name Barbara) preceded by the letter A in a circle, which had been the usual abbreviation for the Greek word for “holy” (АГIОС). The image of St. Barbara corresponds to the canon completely – she is wearing a crown and holding the cross of a martyr in her hand” ([290:1], page 202). See fig. 3.41.

Thus, the piece of birch bark in question is dated by [290:1] in accordance with the dating of the soil layer where it has been discovered. The actual dendrochronological layers of “Novgorod”, in turn, depend on the dendrochronology of wooden pavements that were unearthed as late as in the XX century. The group of architects that had conducted the excavations was led by V. L. Yanin for the most part; his scale of “Novgorod” datings was developed rather recently. Although the concept of dendrochronological dating makes sense theoretically, its implementation suggested by V. L. Yanin in case of the “Novgorod dendrochronology” strikes us as dubious. We have explained our position with the utmost caution to detail in Chron4, Chapter 3:12. The abovementioned piece of birch bark shall confirm the validity of our doubts.

The matter is that the bark piece in question contains a rather explicit dating, which is well visible and in excellent condition. Ergo, we get an excellent opportunity of verifying the dendrochronological datings of V. L. Yanin. Does the date from the drawing correspond to the XI century A.D., or Yanin’s dating of the pavement layer where it has been found? If the answer is in the positive, the dendrochronology of “Novgorod” shall receive some validation at least; otherwise we shall end up with Yanin’s datings of the findings contradicting the information contained in the findings themselves. In the latter case it would also be very interesting to learn the exact nature of this dating and whether it differs from the one suggested by Yanin for the respective layer of soil drastically (the alleged XI century A.D.).

By the way, the actual presence of a date underneath the drawing of St. Barbara is not disputed by either author: “Another noteworthy detail is that we find a date scratched on the tablet underneath the drawing of St. Barbara” ([290:1], page 203). The interpretation of this date by Yanin and Zaliznyak shall be discussed separately in a short while.

Let us turn to fig. 3.42, where one sees a close-in of the tablet with the date scratched thereupon – scratched and not written, mind you ([290:1], page 203). This explains the fact that the writing lacks the ease and the flowing curves of the quill; it is heavy, rigid and straight-lined.

Fig. 3.42. The dating on the birch bark underneath St. Barbara. A close-in of the photograph (top) and a drawn copy of the figures (bottom). We see typical XVIII century handwriting and the dating of 7282 (or 1774 A.D.) set in regular Arabic numerals. In the top right corner we see the Church Slavonic letter of з, which stands for 7. The figure in question corresponds to the so-called indiction, or the church year given according to a 15-year cycle, beginning in September. The indiction did in fact equal 7 in 1774. The added indiction makes the dating more ecclesiastical, in a way, since it corresponds to the style common for the old Russian church literature. It is quite natural that the archaic indiction date should be transcribed in the ancient Slavonic numerals and not their modern Arabic equivalent. The photograph is taken from [290:1], page 203 (a close-in).

The interpretation of the dating in question is hardly a difficult task – we see typical XVIII century writing and regular Arabic numerals saying 7282. It must be standing for the year according to the Russian ecclesiastical era “since Adam”, or the Byzantine era. The beginning of the new (A.D.) era falls over the year 5508 since Adam.

This chronology had been official in Russia until the reforms of Peter the Great. However, Russians have used it for many years to follow, especially for church needs. Even nowadays certain ecclesiastical publications use these datings, which might look archaic but are nonetheless still alive. It is easy enough to calculate that the year 7282 as specified on the document under study corresponds to the year 1774 A.D. in consensual chronology, since 7282 – 5508 = 1774. Late XVIII century, no less!

The handwriting of the author is typical for the XVIII century and none other. Indeed, take a look at how he wrote the numbers. First we see a figure of seven, which only differs from its modern counterpart by a single stroke (or a bend) typical for the late XVIII century and anachronistic nowadays, qv in fig. 3.42.

Let us turn to old documents that date from the same epoch for proof. In fig. 3.43 one sees a fragment of a handwritten plan of Moscow streets dating from 1776; we see a great many numbers, all of them in late XVIII century writing. One also sees the written name of the Dmitrovka street (fig. 3.43). This plan was taken from the book entitled History of Moscow in the Documents of the XII-XVIII Century ([330:1], page 218); it is marked “Plan of the site on Petrovskaya street allocated for the construction of the theatre”. This document is an XVIII century original ([330:1], page 218).

Fig. 3.43. A XVII century map used to provide a specimen of the handwriting typical for that epoch. Taken from a book entitled “History of Moscow in the Documents of the XII-XVIII Century”, wherein it figures as “A Draft of the Plot of Land on Petrovskaya Street Reserved for a Construction of a Theatre. 1776.” Taken from [330:1], page 218.

Close-ins of numerals used in the plan can be seen in fig. 3.44 – we see that the figure of seven has the very same “tail” at the bottom as its cousin from the birch bark document from “Novgorod”. Therefore, the first numeral of the “birch” date is a figure of seven.

Fig. 3.44. Specimens of handwritten numerals and the letter D (Д) similar to 2, Russian handwriting of the late XVIII century. Taken from [330:1], page 218.

The second and fourth numerals look exactly the same – two arcs with strokes at the bottom end, qv in fig. 3.42. It is quite obvious from the examples presented in fig. 3.44. By the way, the figure of two was identical to the Russian letter D in late XVIII century writing – possibly because of the fact that the Russian word for “two” (dva) begins with this very letter. The fact that the two were interchangeable is obvious from the inscription on another XVIII century illustration that one sees in fig. 3.45. It was also taken from History of Moscow in the Documents of the XII-XVIII Century, section entitled “Pedestrian Bridges over the Ponds of Presnya, XVIII century illustrations” ([330:1], page 210). A close-in of this illustration is presented in fig. 3.46; we see the letter and the numeral to be identical.

Fig. 3.45. At the end of the XVIII century the handwritten letter D was identical to the handwritten figure of 2. In other words, the two had been interchangeable. The picture is taken from a book entitled “History of Moscow in the Documents of the XII-XVIII Century”, wherein it is entitled “Bridges for Strollers at Presnya Ponds. XVIII Century Drawings”. Taken from [330:1], page 210.

Fig. 3.46. A close-in of the previous drawing with the lettering. Taken from [330:1], page 210.

In this case, one cannot help noticing that the letter D, also known as the figure of two, was occasionally written with no stroke at the bottom whatsoever; apparently, this detail had been optional. This is how we see this letter written in the beginning of the word “Dmitrovka” from the abovementioned plan of 1776, qv in figs. 3.43 and 3.44 – a mere arc without any strokes at the bottom; we see this figure treated in the exact same manner in the birch bark document – the bottom strokes are rudimentary, but present nevertheless, qv in fig. 3.42.

As for the third numeral – we recognise the figure of eight without any problems; it is written as two curved scratches, just as one would expect a figure of eight scratched on a piece of birch bark to look. Despite the complications arising from the writing method, the numeral is very clear, qv in fig. 3.42.

The date we come up with is the year 7282 – as we have mentioned above, it is in a different chronological system but understandable nonetheless, and converts into 1774 A.D. – late XVIII century, the reign of Catherine the Great.

In fig. 3.47 one sees the birch document dating of 7282 as compared to the same number written in XVIII century handwriting, with the numerals taken from the abovementioned plan of 1776. We see the same number, the sole difference being the writing materials used in either case (smooth paper and rougher birch bark). Scratched lines naturally tend to have fewer curves in comparison to the ones drawn with a quill.

Fig. 3.47. The dating on the birch bark: 7282 (Arabic numerals), [indiction] 7 (the Church Slavonic letter “zemlya”) as compared to the same date whose individual numerals were culled from specimens of the late XVIII century handwriting. This dating converts to the modern chronological scale as 1774 A.D. (7282 – 5508 = 1774).

Let us also mark the Church Slavonic letter з (standing for “7”) above the date and to the right (see fig. 3.42). It is easy to understand in the present case – the figure in question refers to the indiction, or the number of the year in a special cyclic chronology with a 15-year cycle. It must be emphasised that the indiction value for 1774 does indeed equal 7.

The fact that this date is accompanied by an indiction number makes it more “ecclesiastical”, in a way, or more congruent with the datings common for Old Russian church books. It is also perfectly natural that the archaic indiction number is transcribed in ancient Slavonic numerals and not the modern Arabic ones.

Let us finally pay attention that there is a small squiggle that follows the first figure of seven in the birch date, apparently in lieu of a dot, qv in fig. 3.42, since one cannot quite scratch a dot on a piece of birch bark the way one would draw it on paper. It is likely to separate the thousands place, and has been used in Arabic numeration very widely.

A propos, no such indication was ever used in Church Slavonic numeration; the thousands place was indicated by a special sign that used to stand before the corresponding numeral and not after it; this sign consists of straight lines and would be easy to scratch on a piece of birch bark. Its absence per se leads one to the conclusion that the numerals used aren’t Church Slavonic, as A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin happen to believe ([290:1]).

The interpretation of this date insisted upon by Zaliznyak and Yanin is very noteworthy, and quite edifying, in a way. Let us quote:

“Another curious [could that translate as “relatively unimportant”? – Auth.] detail is the date scribbled on the bark; this date reads as 6537 (since Genesis) and corresponds to 1029 A.D. The first, third and fourth numerals are in Church Slavonic indication, whereas the second is Roman, as S. G. Bolotov suggests. Therefore, St. Barbara was drawn by a person who had found it difficult to transcribe the date correctly in Church Slavonic numeration, being however aware of the correct Western transcription” ([290:1], page 203).

We shall refrain from extensive commentary concerning such an odd interpretation of a number transcribed in regular Arabic numerals used to this date. Let us merely inform the readers about the transcription of the dating 6537 (or 1029 A.D., since 6537 – 5508 = 1029) in Church Slavonic numeration. It is as follows:

S Ф Л З

“S” stands for the Church Slavonic letter “zelo”, which stands for 6000 (accompanied by a special sign),

“Ф” is the Church Slavonic letter “fert”, which stands for 500,

“Л” is the Church Slavonic letter “lyoudi”, which stands for 30, and

“З” is the Church Slavonic letter “zemlya”, which stands for 7.

There is nothing of the kind on the piece of birch bark that we have under study except a single letter – namely, “zemlya”. However, this letter alone doesn’t play any decisive part – firstly, because it pertains to unit digits, and therefore couldn’t have affected the dating substantially, even if it had been in any relation therewith; however, it does not relate to the primary date – it is plainly visible in fig. 3.42 that the letter “zemlya” is at a considerable distance from the primary date, and must therefore indicate something else by itself. As we have already mentioned, this numeral stands for the indiction of 1774, which had indeed equalled 7.

Let us turn to the first three numerals (fig. 3.42). If they represent the Church Slavonic number 6537, as the authors of [290:1] are claiming, these numerals must look like the Church Slavonic letters “zelo”, “fert” and “lyoudi”. Is there any chance of interpreting the document characters as those letters? Let us see for ourselves.

The first thing that needs to be mentioned is that the first letter “zelo” that stands for 6000 must be accompanied by a special sign in order to transform it into a thousands place – there is none such sign anywhere, qv in fig. 3.42.

However, there are more important observations to be made – after all, the sign could have been omitted. In general, the figure of 7 on the birch bark can be interpreted as the Church Slavonic letter “zelo” – we consider this interpretation to be strained, since one looks like a mirror reflection of the other, but many historians apply this method to Church Slavonic datings nonetheless. However, let us assume that Zaliznyak and Yanin have interpreted the first numeral correctly.

Let us turn to the most important numeral – the second. Why do we consider it the most important? The answer is simple – it is a hundred’s unit and therefore determines the approximate dating. Other figures are less important – the thousand’s unit is easy enough to guess, although certain “ancient” datings contain millenarian discrepancies, qv in Chron1 and Chron2. As for decades and years – they cannot shift any dating further than a 100 years in either direction, and also don’t affect the approximate dating all that much.

Thus, the critical numeral is the hundred’s unit. Let us see what it should look like in the unlikely case that the “Novgorod” dendrochronology is correct and enquire whether anything of the sort can be seen anywhere in the birch bark document (this turns out to be impossible). As one sees from the quotation given above, the authors of the article agree with this.

Bear in mind that the document was found in the layer dated to the first third of the XI century by V. L. Yanin’s method ([290:1], page 202). A simple arithmetical calculation demonstrates that the numeral in question must indicate 500 or 400 in order to make the year correspond to the dating suggested by Yanin.

In the first case we would come up with 6500, or 992 A.D. Decades and years would shift this date into the XI century A.D., as it is “required” – any number would do except for 90. This case would be ideal for a final XI century dating. The second case would be a great deal worse – should the second digit turn out to be 400, we would come up with the year 6400, or 892 A.D., without years or decades (6400 – 5508 = 892). This is much “worse” than the first case, since the only way of placing the final date in the XI century would be applying very rigid criteria to the decades digit – the only fitting figure would be 90, indicated by the letter Ч in Church Slavonic (known as “cherv”). It would take quite an effort to make anything found on the birch bark look like the letter in question, due to the simple fact that there’s no such thing there, qv in fig. 3.42.

Zaliznyak and Yanin insist on the former to be true; however, they did not dare to make an open declaration that the Church Slavonic symbol for 500, or the letter Ф (“fert”) was present in the document. As for the abovementioned presumption voiced in [290:1] about the numerals being Church Slavonic with the sole exception of the most important one, which turned out to be Roman for some reason, our commentary is as follows. Since the figure in question is of a decisive character, the assumption that it belongs to a different numeric system renders the entire “interpretation” of this date completely invalid. It is perfectly obvious that no matter any symbol can get some sort of a numeric interpretation in some foreign system; not an obvious one, perhaps, but a permissible one at the very least. Bear in mind that we’re talking about scratches on a piece of birch bark and not a calligraphically written dating.

One may wonder about whether the second figure (2) looks anything like the Roman numeral D used for 500 (see fig. 3.42)? Strictly speaking, it does not; however, one may yet come up with a rather far-fetched interpretation that will even make a certain sense – indeed, we see a figure of two here, which used to be transcribed in the exact same manner as the Russian letter Д by many XVIII century calligraphists. This is the very latter that corresponds to the Roman D; handwritten versions of both letters may have been similar.

But why did the pair of authors interpret the fourth numeral differently? It is an identical figure of two; however, this time they did not read it as the Roman D, or 500, but rather the Church Slavonic “lyoudi” (Л) with the numeric value of 30? The letter has always been written in its present manner, and the symbol on the birch bark consists of a great many more details, qv in fig. 3.42. But if one is to interpret symbols the way one wants them to be interpreted, any date can receive an a priori known “interpretation”.

Let us therefore ask the following question, a purely rhetorical one – is it possible to claim that a dating that explicitly says 1774 A.D. refers to the XI century? We do not think so – one would have to try very hard to validate such a claim, at the very least. However, anyone who reads the work of A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin can witness that it can be done with great ease, should such a need arise. We have seen an excellent example of how eager certain historians are to make datings found on ancient artefacts prove Scaligerian chronology, and what colossal efforts they are prepared to make for that end.

A propos, the XI century dating of the piece of birch bark did create a “problem” in historical science nevertheless:

“The finding had instantly led to a problem. Manor ‘E’, where it was found, is located on the old Chernitsyna Street, whose name translates as ‘Nun Street’ and received its name from the convent of St. Barbara that had once stood nearby. It is obvious that there could be no convent here in the first part of the XI century: the earliest Russian monasteries date to the second half of the XI century, and the Novgorod convent of St. Barbara had first been mentioned in a chronicle that was referring to 1138 A.D., which postdates our finding by over a century” ([290:1], page 202).

We learn that the convent of St. Barbara had once stood at the site where the piece of birch bark was found, and the drawing we find thereupon is one of St. Barbara and none other (see fig. 3.41). It is obvious that the drawing must have been lost or buried here when the convent had still existed. It must have still been around in 1774, when the inscriptions on the birch bark were made. This makes everything fall into place.

One might enquire about the actual dating of 1774 as well as the reasons why we should find this particular figure on the birch document, and why there should be one at all, for that matter, since it was anything but customary in ancient Russia to write datings under drawings of saints. There may be different opinions on this matter, but one cannot fail to point out that the year in question had been the year of Pougachev’s final defeat, with severe persecutions of the “rebel’s” supporters initiated all across Russia ([941], page 52; also [85], Volume 35, page 280). We are only beginning to realise the true scale of this event nowadays, as it is becoming clear that the defeat of Pougachev had not come as a result of a mere “suppression of a peasant rebellion”, as it is taught in schools, but rather the defeat of a gigantic Russian Siberian state with its capital in Tobolsk, which had been hostile towards the Romanovs. This state must have been known as the “Moscovian Tartaria” in the West, qv in the section that deals with our reconstruction of the “War with Pougachev” (Chron4, Chapter 12).

Therefore, 1774 must have been one of the most important years in the history of Russia and the world in general; it marks a breakpoint that had afflicted every stratum of the Russian society. This may be the reason why we see a date underneath the drawing of St. Barbara in the first place.

Let us conclude with a few words about the other item discussed in [290:1] – the three-tablet Novgorod Book of Psalms. Unfortunately, we find nothing in the way of an explicit dating thereupon (there aren’t any mentioned in [190], at least). However, the XI century A.D. dating of these tablets as suggested by [290:1] appears to be based on a mere fancy. The fact that it has been found in the layer dated to the “first quarter of the XI century” by V. L. Yanin ([290:1], page 203) doesn’t mean anything whatsoever, as we have already observed in case of the birch document that bore the dating of 1774. Therefore, these tablets may well be XVIII-century objects. All the individual words encountered upon them (as cited in [290:1], page 106) can also be seen in manuscripts that date from the XVIII century (those written by the old-believers, in particular). One can say the same about the writing style of the tablets as represented by the photograph published in [290:1], page 205 – it has no characteristics that suggest an earlier dating than the XVIII century.

A propos, it very name of these plaques is rather curious – they were known as tabellae cerae, whereas the instrument used for writing was called a stylus. Styli were small rods made of metal or bone used for writing on wax; such instruments … were necessarily equipped with a small trowel used for erasing” ([290:1], pages 202-203).

We therefore learn that the “ancient” Greek and Roman waxed tablets used for writing were called cerae, whereupon letters were written with styli. One cannot help noticing the similarity between the “ancient” Greek word cera and the Russian words for “scratching” and “draft” (tsarapat and chernovik, respectively). The trowel, which was a sine qua non attribute of every stylus, may well have been called a styorka in modern Russia; as for the flexion between R and L, it suffices to remind the reader of how the word Amsterdam used to be spelt in the Middle Ages – Amsteldam, Amstelredam etc (see Chron1, Chapter 1 etc).

Summary: The interpretation of the birch tablet dating suggested by Zaliznyak and Yanin (the alleged XI century) strikes us as profoundly erroneous. They are some seven hundred years off the mark; the above argumentation demonstrates the dating in question to stand for 1774, or the second half of the XVIII century.

12.7. Historians’ response to our article on the Novgorod datings of A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin

In February 2002 we published an article entitled “On the ‘Novgorod’ Datings of A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin” in the “Vestnik Rossiyskoi Akademii Nauk”. It was concerned with the interpretation of the dating on a recently discovered birch tablet from Novgorod-upon-Volkhov ([912:2]). We have discussed this in detail above.

The very same issue of the “Vestnik” contains commentary of the article written by the staff of the RAS Institute of Archaeology, published at the insistence of the editorial board. Namely, the editors ordered and published the following two articles: “The Dendrochronological Scale of Novgorod as the Most Reliable Scale in the Ancient World” by R. M Mounchayev and Y. N. Chyornykh ([912:2], pages 141-142) and “Awkward Palaeography” by A. A. Medyntseva ([912:2], pages 143-146). According to the editorial commentary, they contain a “perfectly objective estimation of the article from the editorial point of view”, allegedly also “exhausting the topic related therein completely” ([912:2], page 146).

However, our question to the historians remains unanswered: what is the date written on the birch? The negative estimation of our work given in the abovementioned articles is completely unfounded; their authors haven’t done anything in the way of analysing the problem. However, even this trinity lacked the nonchalance to confirm the XI century “interpretation” of the date suggested by Zaliznyak and Yanin; the issue of the correct dating is drowned in utter silence.

Let us give a brief account of the articles’ content. R. M Mounchayev and Y. N. Chyornykh, the authors of the article pretentiously entitled “The Dendrochronological Scale of Novgorod as the Most Reliable Scale of the Ancient World” ([912:2], pages 141-142) attempt to ruminate at length on the subject of “errant researchers of chronology” in general, leaving such trifles as the actual analysis of datings scribbled on birch tablets outside the scope of their venerable academic attention.

They begin in the following way: “The article of A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy seems to be concerned with a particular case; however, it is prudent and even mandatory to view it in a more general context…”

They carry on with general contexts all the way. For instance, Mounchayev and Chyornykh are of the opinion that before we may dare to interpret a dating found on a birch tablet, we should “convince the specialists … that all the dendrochronological scales of the Eastern Europe owe their existence to a conspiracy of the so-called specialists, or utter ignorance from the part of the latter” ([912:2], page 142). Otherwise, “the very discussion (or so much as a semblance thereof) concerning the issue of mediaeval relics and their antiquity is rendered thoroughly meaningless” ([912:2], page 142). All commentary is quite extraneous in this case, really.

Let us cite the only objection that Mounchayev and Chyornykh could make that is in some relation to the issue under discussion: “The approach of A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy to the study of the birch tablets can be classified as scholastic… Such “methods” have been rejected by academic science a long time ago. We consider it needless to carry on with the discussion of this topic”. In other words, the article is telling us that historical science has got an established system of taboos that concern certain approaches to the solution of historical and chronological problems. The label “scholastic” doesn’t really explain anything at all, being nothing but a desire to protect the erroneous chronology of Scaliger and Petavius safe from criticisms and attempts of revision.

Now let us turn to the “Awkward Palaeography” by A. A. Medyntseva ([912:2], pages 143-146). The author is trying to refute our interpretation of the dating on the birch bark; however, for some odd reason, she only discusses the first figure of the four (the thousands place), saying nothing about the hundred’s unit, which is of the greatest interest to us and happens to be decisive for dating. Could it be that the XI century “interpretation” of the remaining three figures suggested by Zaliznyak and Yanin is just too completely and obviously out on a limb.

As for the first figure, Medyntseva says that she prefers the interpretation of Yanin and Zaliznyak, who suggest it to stand for the Church Slavonic letter zelo. She cites a table with different versions of several Church Slavonic letters (see fig. 1 in her article). It is amazing that the very letter she is talking about (“zelo”) is altogether absent from the table. The reason is obvious – the Church Slavonic letter “zelo” looks nothing like the Arabic numeral supposed to represent it (a figure of seven). Apparently, this letter was excluded from the table in order to avoid “awkwardness” in the relation of facts.

Let us emphasise that despite the obvious wish to “defend” the interpretation of Yanin and Zaliznyak, Medyntseva lacks the self-confidence required for proclaiming the above to be correct. She only managed to agree with how they read the very first numeral without demanding proof, remaining tactfully taciturn about the other three.

13. A hypothesis about the etymology of the word “Russia” (“Rouss”)

It is a known fact that the Mongolian Empire was divided into a number of provinces – the so-called uluses. Bearing the frequent flexion of R and L in mind, one might suggest the words Ulus and Rouss, or Russia, to be of the same origin (also cf. the name of the famous Princes Urusov). We see an explicit phonetic parallel. However, in the latter case one wonders whether the very name Russia may be derived from the word “rus” (or “ulus” in its Turkic version), which used to stand for a province of the Great = Mongolian Empire?

A similar thing happened to the name “Ukraine” – this word used to mean “borderlands” (cf. the modern Russian word “okraina” that translates as “purlieu”). There were many territories known as “ukraina”; however, the name eventually became attached to a single region – namely, the modern Ukraine. The same thing could have happened to the word Russia; it may have meant a province initially, later becoming the name of the entire country. In this case, “Russian” must have meant “a representative of a certain Imperial province” at some point in time, and later became the name of an ethnic group.

Let us study the Sobornoye Ulozhenie of 1649 – a collection of Russian laws of the XVII century, which was the epoch of the first Romanovs. We shall see that even in the XVIII century official documents (and the source in question is as official a document as they get) used the word Russian for referring to a confession and not a nationality. We cite a photograph of one such law in fig. 3.48. The law begins with the words: “Whether the person is Russian, or belongs to a different faith”, which is quite self-explanatory.

Fig. 3.48. One of the laws contained in the Sobornoye Ulozhenie of 1649. We see the word “Russian” used in reference to a confession rather than an ethnic group – it is synonymous to “Orthodox” here. Photographed edition of the XVII century.

Part Two

Ancient Russia as seen by contemporaries

14. Abul-Feda claimed the Russians to be “a people of Turkish origin”

According to Abul-Feda, “the Russians are a people of the Turkish origin; their closest southern neighbours are the guzes [Guz = Kaz = Cossack – Auth.], also a related nation … in the XI century the guzes have conquered Persia and founded the Seljuk monarchy” ([175], page 391). The name of the Ottoman empire is most likely to be a slight variation of the word Ataman; therefore, we shall be using the formula Ottoman = Ataman henceforth.

The Turkish origins of the Russians might seem a preposterous concept at first – however, we advise the readers to refrain from becoming too surprised. The Russian dynasty is of a Mongolian origin, even according to the Scaligerian-Millerian history, since the princes often married the daughters of the Khans ([362]); many of the court customs are said to have been adopted from the Mongols by the Muscovites. The Turkish dynasty is of a Mongolian origin as well, since it was founded by “Tamerlane the Mongol” in the end of the XIV century. We shall discuss the real identity of the Mongolian Khans below; let us merely state that they were related to the Byzantine emperors so far, and were often married to Byzantine princesses. One should therefore refrain from thinking that the “Mongolian customs” in question were introduced by nomadic heathens, whose homeland was in the dusty deserts to the north from China.

The relations between Russia and Turkey must be a great deal deeper than it is assumed nowadays. The abovementioned Tartar names used in Russia may have simply been of an Ottoman = Ataman origin. Let us point out figs. 3.3-3.5 to the readers once again; we see Stepan Timofeyevich Razin wearing royal attire and an Ottoman turban on his head, just as the Ottoman = Ataman sultans used to wear! See also figs. 3.6-3.9.

One should also remember the famous janissaries from mediaeval Turkey, as well as the fact that many Grand Viziers and military commanders have often been Christians and even Slavs! Let us turn to the Lectures on Mediaeval History by the famous historian T. N. Granovskiy. He reports the following:

“The Sultan’s infantry is known to have been the best in Europe, yet the ranks of this infantry were very odd indeed [sic! – Auth.]. Around 1367 … the Turks started to recruit Christian boys as potential soldiers … every village would be visited by the Turkish officials every five years; the healthiest and strongest were chosen, taken away and sent to the sultan … at the age of twenty … they became janissaries … with no hope of ever settling down with a family… The janissaries … won all the key battles – at Varna, Kosovo and so on, and they were the ones who managed to take Constantinople. Thus, the Turkish Sultan’s power was supported by the Christians” ([192], page 48).

Let us instantly point out that this kind of recruitment is the very tagma, or “tax of blood” already known to us from the history of the “Mongol and Tartar yoke” in Russia; recruits were children who would serve in the army for the rest of their life. These recruits were known as Cossacks. This custom had existed in Russia until Peter the Great, and, apparently, a somewhat later epoch in Turkey.

It turns out that the people who took Constantinople in the middle of the XV century were Christian! By the way, the Sultan was supported by a strong Christian political party that was active in the besieged Constantinople ([455], page 191).

It is spectacular that the surviving Russian report of Constantinople taken in 1453 was written by a certain Nestor Iskander – an eyewitness of the siege and one of its participants. The fact that the report in question was written in Russian really makes one wonder about how a “prisoner of the Turks, who had been taken captive at a very early age and remained distanced from his native culture for his entire life” managed to “follow the rules of the [Russian, as we shall see below – Auth.] literary etiquette, observing them meticulously … what we have in front of us is doubtlessly a masterpiece written by an outstanding Russian writer of the XV century” ([636], page 602). The conclusion is extremely simple – the army of Mehmet II that had stormed Constantinople partially consisted of educated Russians.

Our opponents might start telling us that Russians and other Christians were used by the Turks as cannon fodder and nothing but – as privates at best. However, this is not so – Granovskiy proceeds to tell us that “they [Christian children – Auth.] didn’t just become janissaries – some of them were reared in a separate seraglio… Those were the best … they constituted the Sultan’s mounted guard… This is where the potential military commanders and Grand Viziers came from; all the Grand Viziers in the first half of the XVI century, who have brought glory to the Turkish army, were brought up in those elite seraglios” ([192], pages 48-49).

The fact that certain Russian princes had Turkic and Ottoman (Ataman) names and patronymics is very persistently presumed to confirm the existence of the horrendous “Tartar and Mongol yoke” in Russia, whilst the presence of the Russians in the Turkish army and the “dominancy of the Christians and the Slavs” in the top ranks of the Turkish army doesn’t lead to any comments in re “the Slavic and Christian yoke in Turkey” from the part of the same historians. Our opponents may want to claim that the Ottoman subjects of Slavic origin were Muslims; we agree with that (insofar as the post-XVI century epoch is concerned, at least). However, Russian Tartars have often been Christian, as it is known to us from many documents (the “Epistle to the Baskaks and all the Orthodox Christians” et al); one should also remember the baptised Tartars from Kasim.

The yoke is most likely to have been a fantasy – all the historical evidence that we find testifies to a normal course of affairs in a multinational state.

A very interesting piece of evidence can be found in the notes of the Englishman Jerome Gorsey, head of the Moscow office of the “Russian Society of English Traders” in the end of the XVI century. He wrote: “The Slavic language [Russian, that is, since the author of these words is referring to Russia explicitly – Auth.] can … also be of use in Turkey, Persia and even certain parts of India” ([314], page 97). That goes to say, some part of the Turkish, Persian and Indian populace spoke Russian as recently as in the end of the XVI century.

All such evidence completely fails to correspond with the picture of history that is usually drawn for us by historians. All the “uncomfortable” facts usually remain hidden from the sight of the general public, so as not to provoke any unwarranted questions. Yet it turns out that there is a lot of such “anti-historical” evidence in existence; some of it is cited in the present book.

15. Russia and Turkey

Let us formulate the following hypothesis which is vital for the understanding of our general conception. There was an epoch when both Russia and Turkey had constituted part of the same Empire.

Before the XVII century, the Russia and Turkey had been friendly nations, which is in perfect correspondence with our theory about their being part of the same Great = “Mongolian” Empire at some point. The estrangement between the two only began after this empire broke up in the XVII century.

Some Arabic chroniclers tell us directly that Russia was considered the Orthodox part of the Mongolian = Turkish empire ([547]). They noted that the Orthodox part of the Empire had possessed the greatest military potential, and expressed hope for future confessional unification. We consider these texts to have been written after the great religious schism of the XV-XVI century, when the formerly united Christianity divided into three parts – the Orthodox, the Latin and the Muslim. A political schism complemented the segregation.

It is known that the relations between Turkey and Russia were more than benevolent before the middle of the XVII century.

In 1613, “the Sultan signed a compact of ‘love and friendship’ with the Lord of the Muscovites, promising military assistance in the war with the King of Lithuania” ([183], Volume 2, page 161).

In 1619, “the Patriarch [Russian patriarch Filaret – Auth.] demanded that the Don Cossacks shouldn’t just maintain peaceful relations with Turkey, but must also join the Turkish army and obey the Turkish pashas” ([183], Volume 2, page 169).

In 1627, “the relations with Turkey were ratified in writing: ‘I hereby kiss the cross on behalf of Great Lord Murad, swearing friendship with Czar Mikhail Fyodorovich, and agreeing upon regular exchange of ambassadors, as well as promising military assistance against his enemies and the Polish king. The Crimean king, the Nogai and the Azov people are forbidden to wage war against the lands of the Muscovites” ([183], Volume 2, page 173).

A propos, the Turkish ambassador in Moscow had been none other Thomas Cantacusen the Greek – possibly, a descendant of the famous Byzantine emperor John Cantacusen ([183], Volume 2, page 170). Apparently, Byzantine nobility regarded the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmet II as another palace revolution and not a foreign invasion (Ottoman conquest, the fall of Byzantium and so on). All these terms that we’re accustomed to nowadays have apparently been introduced after Mohammed’s victory by the survivors from the defeated party that had fled to the West; they were the ones who had been persuading the European aristocracy to launch a crusade against Byzantium in order to liberate it from “Turkish tyranny”. The very concept of the “fall of Byzantium in 1453” is a brainchild of this propaganda campaign.

Traces of a former union between Turkey and Russia can be found in historical records telling us about the abovementioned siege of Constantinople that took place in 1453 – for instance, the mere fact that there were Russians taking part in the siege. Let us also dispute the suggestion that Nestor Iskander, the “outstanding Russian writer of the XV century”, had been a simple warrior in the army of Mehmet II – we are of the opinion that the character in question had been a prominent Ottoman warlord.

A propos, could the marriage between Ivan III and the Greek princess after the fall of Constantinople been his “war trophy”?

It is presumed that the ties between Russia and Byzantium were severed shortly before the fall of Constantinople, the motivations being religious. Russians are supposed to have started treating the Byzantine Church as heretical and allegedly leaning towards establishing a union with its Occidental counterpart. Modern historians are of the opinion that the Russians had refrained from taking part in the war between Byzantium and Turkey, considering both parties “unworthy of assistance”. However, let us consider the manner in which Nestor Iskander, an actual participant of the siege, describes the latter. His text was included in Russian chronicle compilations and served as the primary source of information about this event in Russia. As one should rightly expect, Nestor refers to Mehmet II, his master, in reverent tones.

Indeed, let us turn to the colour inset in [636]. This is a reproduction of a miniature from the Litsevoy Svod of the XVI century, depicting the siege of Czar-Grad by the Ottoman Turks. The text under the miniature is as follows:

“He [Mehmet II – Auth.] had approached the royal city armed with wondrous weapons, and made terrifying masses of people and ships congregate before her walls; this happened in December. And so he had ordered for the cannons and the harquebuses to fire at the walls of the city, and sent forth a host of battering-rams to crush her defences”.

As we can plainly see, the initial text is very benevolent towards Mehmet. Let us now consider the same fragment as rendered by a modern publication (see [636], page 222):

“This perfidious and wicked infidel had sent all the envoys away. And so he had ordered for the cannons and the harquebuses to fire at the walls of the city, and sent forth a host of battering-rams to crush her defences”.

This is obviously another edition of the same text – dating to the XVII century the earliest. We are of the opinion that the primary goal of this editing activity had been to introduce negative characteristics into the text that had initially treated the Ottomans benevolently (words like “perfidious”, “infidel” etc). Au contraire, positive characteristics (“wondrous” and so on) were removed. The author’s attitude towards the events he described was therefore inverted completely. This is how the Scaligerian-Millerian version of the Russian history had been created.

A propos, let us point out the obvious phonetic similarity between the words Ottoman (in another version – Osman, or Ross-Man?) and Ataman. The Turks used to call themselves Ottomans (and Osmans) in the 1453 century, when they stormed the walls of Constantinople – could it be Atamans and Ross-Men?

Let us conclude with an obvious question concerning the identity of this “prominent XV century writer” – could he be the same Nestor who is considered the author of the famous Povest Vremennyh Let nowadays? Bear in mind that this oeuvre is most likely to have been written in the XVIII century and then ascribed to an “ancient Russian author”. However, we have already seen that Nestor must have lived in the XV century.

16. What one sees on the famous Arab map by Al-Idrisi from Mediaeval Spain

Let us quote from the Book of Ways and Kingdoms by Abul Kasim Mohammed known as Ibn-Khaukal, dated to 967 nowadays. He wrote:

“There are three tribe of Russians, one of them is closer to the Bulgars than the other two. The king of this tribe lives in Quyaba [presumably Kiev – Auth.]… Another tribe is found further north and known as the Tribe of Slavia… The third tribe is called Arthania [The Horde – Auth.], and its king lives in Artha [also the Horde – Auth.]”. Quotation from [156] as cited in [547].

It is therefore perfectly obvious that the Arabs used to consider the Horde, or Artha, a Russian state, which is in perfect concurrence with our reconstruction.

The Arabs wrote about the Horde rather often – however, according to the historian B. A. Rybakov, “precious information about the Slavs and the Kiev Russia, collected by the Oriental geographers of the IX-XII century … is still in need of a meticulous study” ([753], page 174). In the description of the Arabs, Russia consists of three states populated by the Russians. We also learn of the three centres of the state, or the three Sarays. There is a “vast amount of literature” written about these three centres ([753], page 174). The Arabs have compiled very detailed maps of Russia, with each one of the three indicated explicitly. Different researchers would identify the three Sarays as different modern towns:

“The three Russian cities located on the same river, according to an early Persian geographer … can be identified as follows: Quyaba = Kiev… Slavia = Novgorod, and Arthania = Byeloozero and Rostov … this is the geographical framework developed by the Russian specialists in the field of Oriental studies in the 1960’s – 1970’s” ([753], pages 176-177).

However, we learn that other opinions had also existed.

One mustn’t forget about the famous mediaeval map by Abu Abdallah Mohammed Ibn-Mohammed Al-Idrisi, compiled in the alleged year 1154 A.D. in Palermo for King Roger II ([378]). In figs. 4.1-4.4 you can see the general view of the small map and some fragments of the large map compiled by Al-Idrisi. There are some 2500 names on the map in total. Al-Idrisi had studied in Spanish Cordoba – one of the mist illustrious cultural centres in the Western Europe; his book was written in Sicily ([753], page 178). What else could historians possibly need? Plenty of material that could be used for reconstructing the ancient history of Russia. However, oddly enough, “the specialists in Oriental studies that write about Kiev Russia, hardly ever refer to the Delights for The Traveller around the World of Abu Abdallah Mohammed Ibn-Mohammed Al-Idrisi and his famous map, two most reliable and respectable sources” ([753], page 178).

Fig. 4.1. A brief version of Al-Idrisi’s Arabic map. Taken from [378], inset between pages 32 and 33, Appendix 2.

Fig. 4.2. A fragment of Al-Idrisi’s large Arabic map. Taken from [378], inset between pages 36 and 37, Appendix 8.

Fig. 4.3. Another fragment of Al-Idrisi’s large Arabic map. Taken from [378], inset between pages 90 and 91, Appendix 16.

Fig. 4.4. Another version of the same fragment of Al-Idrisi’s large Arabic map. It differs from the one reproduced above. Taken from [378], inset between pages 90 and 91, Appendix 17.

Moreover, “Novoseltsev calls the passage in Al-Idrisi’s oeuvre that mentions the three Russian capital very convoluted, and recommends to treat Al-Idrisi’s version with the utmost caution” ([752], page 178). What is the matter here? Why do modern historians prefer to keep silent about the work of Al-Idrisi or to treat it with caution? The matter is that the ancient geography reported by this author is at odds with the modern concepts of the Kiev Russia. Various scientists have used Al-Idrisi’s map and book in their research and come to conclusions that their colleagues declared “absurd without a single doubt”.

P. P. Smirnov, for instance, “has used Al-Idrisi’s map for his perfectly unrealistic localization of the ‘three Russian capitals’ – Quyaba as Balakhna [a large town a little further up the Volga from Nizhniy Novgorod – Auth.], Slavia as Yaroslavl and Arthania as Ardatov [a town in the Nizhniy Novgorod region – Auth.]” ([753], page 178).

It goes without saying that modern readers shall find the Volga localization of Kiev quite preposterous. Moreover, the consensual identification of Slavia is Novgorod; however, we learn that Slavia might also refer to Yaroslavl. This leads us back to our hypothesis about Yaroslavl being the historical Novgorod the Great, concurring perfectly with our reconstruction.

Another “wild fancy” is that we see a similarity between the names Arthania and Ardatov; this brings us to the names Artha and Horde, implying once again that the Horde had been a Russian state in the Volga region.

One shouldn’t think that Smirnov’s “wild fancies” were anything out of the ordinary – B. A. Rybakov, for instance, is just as harsh on Konrad Miller, and his “verdict” is as follows:

“Smirnov’s book came out around the same time as the monumental work of Konrad Miller on Arabic cartography. The helplessness of the scientific methods that he uses and the absurdity of the conclusions that he makes when he attempts to trace out the geography of the Eastern Europe can compete with Smirnov’s theories. See for yourselves – the land of the Polovtsy covers the entire Eastern Europe [and can therefore be identified as Poland – Auth.]; the name ‘Cumania’ covers the entire area between Samara and the Crimea, ‘Inner Cumania’ being the territory between Gomel and Nizhniy Novgorod, and ‘Outer Cumania’ – the land between Western Dvina and Volga in the regions of Polotsk and Novgorod, all the way until Byeloozero…” ([753], page 178).

What could possibly make Smirnov and Miller “incorrect”? On the contrary – we are beginning to realise that their cautious attempts of finding new geographical identifications for the ancient names correspond to historical reality a great deal better than Rybakov’s opinion, which is based on nothing else but the crude Romanovian-Millerian version.

17. Greater Russia as the Golden Horde, Lesser Russia as the Blue Horde, and Byelorussia as the White Horde

A) As we have seen, Arabs refer to the three centres of Russia in their reports.

B) In their description of Mongolia, the very same Arabic authors mention the three Sarays – Saray-Batu, Saray-Berke and the New Saray.

C) The Bible tells us about the three centres of Russia as well – “Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Thubal”.

We have already formulated our point of view, according to which the Bible is referring to Russia, Moscovia and Tobol, or Siberia. Let us compare the three Sarays that are constantly mentioned in the documents to the separation of the Russian state into the following three large kingdoms in the XIV-XVI century:

1. The Severskaya Land (Chernigov land) – the approximate confines of the modern Ukraine.

2. Lithuania, or the White Russia (Byelorussia) – the North-West of Russia and the modern Byelorussia, with a capital in Smolensk.

3. The Volga Kingdom, also known as Siberia, or the Vladimir-Suzdal Russia. Its towns and cities (known as Sarays) were particularly abundant in the Volga region – Samara, Tsaritsyn, Ryazan, Tver and Novgorod the Great (Yaroslavl with Vladimir and Rostov).

All three parts of Russia were united when the Horde dynasty from the Volga region came to power; this unification marks the moment when the Great Princes of Moscow introduced the formula ‘Gosudar Vseya Rusi’ (‘Lord of the Entire Russia’) into their titles.

D) The very same triple title was also used by the first Romanovs (already in the XVII century) – “Lord of the Entire Russia, Greater, Lesser and White”.

Our hypothesis is as follows. All of the abovementioned divisions of Russia or Mongolia into three kingdom refer to one and the same phenomenon. This leads us to the following conclusions:

1. Greater Russia = Golden Horde = Tobol = Biblical Thubal = the Volga Kingdom = The Vladimir-Suzdal Russia, or “New Saray” in the “Mongolian” terminology, also identified as Novgorod the Great = Yaroslavl.

2. Lesser Russia = Blue Horde = Severskaya Territory = Malorossiya, or modern Ukraine = the Biblical Rosh, or Russia (Kiev Russia). Russian historians often mention its capital being Chernigov, or Novgorod Severskiy (Northern Novgorod, qv in [161], page 140), whereas their Western colleagues insist upon identifying it as Kiev. The name owes its existence to the area of Siniye Vody (“Blue Waters”, cf. the modern river Sinyukha, a tributary of the Southern Bug that was formerly known under the same name, qv in [347], page 257).

3. White Russia = White Horde = Lithuania = The Smolensk Principality = The North-West of Russia (Polotsk, Pskov, Smolensk and Minsk) = the Biblical Meshech. Modern Byelorussia is the former Western part of this mediaeval state, whereas the more recent Catholic Lithuania is a part of the old White Russia. Lithuanians as mentioned in the Russian chronicles are the so-called Latins, or Russian Catholics. This part of Russia appears to correspond to Saray-Berke (Byeliy = White Saray) in “Mongolian” terminology (bear in mind the frequent flexion of R and L).

The border between the Greater and the Lesser Russia must have roughly corresponded to the modern border between Russia and the Ukraine (known as Malorossiya, or “The Lesser Russia”). The border between White Russia = Lithuania and the Greater Russia must have been located a great deal further to the East in the Middle Ages – namely, between Moscow and Vladimir (in other words, Moscow had been part of the White Russia). It is possible that the watershed between the two primary rural dialects of Russia that one finds here may reflect the real political boundary between the White Horde and the Golden Horde that had existed in the days of yore.

Thus, Moscow had initially been part of the White Russia, or Lithuania. This fact had still been alive in popular memory in the XVII century, during the Great Strife (for instance, in the edicts of Minin and Pozharskiy dating from 1613 that the two were propagating from Yaroslavl. Those contain proclamations about the necessity to fight against Moscow; the word “Lithuanians” is used as a synonym of the word “Muscovites”:

“And they kissed the cross in Yaroslavl and swore to stand up against the Muscovite, and to set forth towards Moscow, and to fight until their last breath … for they gave an oath to fight the Lithuanians and kissed a cross” ([994], part 2, page 519; quoted according to [795], pages 97-98).

18. The beginning of the Tartar and Mongol invasion as described by contemporaries

Historians are telling us that “the inhabitants of Central Europe … soon found out about the Tartars invading Russia … this portentous news took a few months to reach the closest neighbours of Russia in the West, and then also various imperial centres and Rome itself” ([25], page 71). S. A. Anninskiy reports that the epistle of Julian, the Hungarian missionary, written in re the war with the Mongols, is one of the earliest European accounts of the events in Eastern Russia. What does Julian tell us?

“The land they [the Tartars – Auth.] originate from is known as Gotta [Anninskiy adds that other chronicles use the spelling versions Gothia and Gotha]. The first war with the Tartars started in the following manner. There was a chieftain named Gourgouta in the land of Gotta [Anninskiy: apparently, this is a reference to Genghis-Khan] … there was another chieftain named Vitut in the land of the Cumans [Anninskiy: other chronicles use the versions Vitov and Vrok] … and yet another one, from River Buz, named Goureg, who had attacked him [Vitut – Auth.] because of his riches, and defeated him. Vitut had fled to Sultan Ornakh, who received him … and hanged him … the two sons of Vitut … returned to the abovementioned Goureg, who had robbed them and their father earlier. Goureg … killed the elder son, having tied him to horses that tore him to pieces. The younger son fled to Gourgouta, the Tartar chieftain as mentioned above, and implored him to bring Goureg to justice… This was done, and after the victory … the youth had asked Gourgouta to launch a campaign against the Sultan Ornakh… Gourgouta had been happy to oblige, and crushed the Sultan’s troops completely… And so, with many a glorious victory to his name, Gourgouta, the Tartar Chieftain … set forth against the Persians, having put them to complete rout and conquered their kingdom. This victory made him even bolder … and so he started to wage wars against other kingdoms, plotting to conquer the whole world. He approached the land of the Cumans and … won over their entire land. The Tartars proceeded to move Westward, and it took them a year or slightly more than that to conquer five of the greatest pagan lands – Sascia, Fulgaria… Vedin, Merovia and Poidovia, likewise the kingdom of the Mordans … the army [of the “Tartars” – Auth.] is divided into four parts… One of them … has approached Suzdal, another – the borders of the Ryazan region … the third is on the Don river, opposite Castle Voronezh (Ovcheruch)… Gourgouta, the first chieftain who had started the war, is dead; the Tartars are ruled by his son Khan” ([25], page 71).

This text is packed with the daintiest morsels of information concerning the famous conquests of the ruler that historians present as Genghis-Khan and his offspring.

First corollary. Where do the Tartars and the Mongols come from? Their homeland is called Gothia = Gotta = Gotha. However, Gothia is a famous mediaeval country inhabited by the Goths, the terrifying conquerors of the mediaeval world. The Goths are known to have lived in Europe, which automatically makes the Tartars a European nation. The corollary isn’t ours – it is made in the very source that we quote. We dare any historian to try and identify Gothia as the geographical predecessor of the modern Mongolia.

Our opponents might say that the missionary Julian had made a mistake, and the identification of the Tartars as the Goths is a mere fancy of his; either that, a misprint, a mistake, or a single case of confusion. However, what is one supposed to do with the fact that virtually everyone identified the Tartars as the Goths in the Middle Ages? Herberstein reported that the Polovtsy nation was referred to as the Goths by the XVI century Muscovites: “ The Russians claim that the Polovtsy are the same nation as the Goths” ([161], page 165). Another well-known fact is that many Russian chronicles used the name Polovtsy for referring to the Tartars. Thus, the XVI century Muscovites were of the opinion that the Tartars were of a Gothic origin.

We have already acquainted ourselves with the mediaeval tradition that persistently identified the apocalyptic nations of Gog and Magog as the Goths and the Mongols, whereas certain English chronicles of the Middle Ages unite the two into a single nation of Goemagog, de facto identifying the Goths as the Mongols and the Tartars (see Part 2 of the present book for details and references concerning English history).

Herberstein reports that the Tartars were also known as the Taurimenes and the Pechenegi ([161]). Another historical fact is that the Byzantines had used the name Tauro-Scythians for referring to the Russians (see Leo Deacon in [465], for instance). Once again we see the Tartars and the Russians identified as a single nation.

Furthermore, it turns out that a Gothic archbishop had existed in the Russian Crimea up until the XVIII century at the very least. A. V. Kartashov, a famous expert in the history of the Russian Church, reports the following: “The current of Christianity had reached Russia-to-be via the Crimea, which had served Russia as a cultural bridge with Byzantium. The only Christian nations here had been the Greeks and the Goths” ([372], Volume 1, page 54). Kartashov proceeds to list the Greek dioceses (eparchies) in the Crimea area (around Sevastopol and Soudak). Then he tells us that “the rest of the Rome had fallen under the influence of the Goths, who had settled here for good, reluctant to follow their fellow tribesmen (those had gone to Italy with Theodoric in the middle of the V century” ([372], Volume 1, page 54).

The V century mentioned by Kartashov is obviously an arbitrary Scaligerian dating, since we already know that Theodoric couldn’t have lived before the XIII century A.D., qv in Chron1 and Chron2.

“The Crimean Goths … used to have an eparchy of their own… This Gothic region had an outlet to the sea between Aloushta and Balaklava… The Gothic Archdiocese in Dori … had even survived the Gothic nation itself, which had finally ceased to exist in the XVIII century, assimilated by the Greeks and the Turks. When it had fallen under the jurisdiction of the Russian Synod after the conquest of the Crimea by Catherine the Great, the only thing that had remained from the days of yore was its title of “Gotfic” – the hierarchy and the parish had already been Greek” ([372], page 55). Kartashov tells us further that the Goths had already founded the Tmutarakan eparchy. Thus, the Goths had lived in Russia until the XVIII century at least. Moreover, they were Orthodox Christians.

Second corollary. As we have seen, the ruler of the Goths was called Gourgouta. The assumption of the modern historians (S. A. Anninskiy, for instance) that the name in question is a corruption of Ougoudei, one of Genghis-Khan’s nicknames, seems rather far-fetched to us. Indeed, it is easy enough to recognize the old Russian forms of the name George (Georgiy) in the name Gourgouta – Gyurata, Gyurgiy and Gourgiy, as used most often in the Russian chronicles. See the alphabetical index to the fundamental oeuvre of N. M. Karamzin, for instance ([362]): “Gyurgiy (Gyuryata, see Georgiy)”. One should therefore bear in mind the parallel between Gourgouta, Georgiy (George) and Gourgiy.

Let us now remind the reader that Georgiy had been one of the aliases borne by Yaroslav the Wise, the founder of the Russian dynasty! Karamzin, for instance, uses the formula “Great Prince Yaroslav, or Georgiy” ([362], Volume 1, Chapter 2). Ivan the Terrible recollects his ancestor “Georgiy, or Yaroslav – the great Czar and outstanding ruler” in a letter to the Swedish king ([639], page 136).

According to our dynastic parallelism table, the very same character identifies as Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and Ivan Kalita = Caliph. He had been the instigator of the great invasion of “the Mongols and the Tartars”, qv below.

Third corollary. What does this George (Gourgouta) do? He uses the strife between the chieftain from the river Buz (Bug, bearing in mind the flexion between Z and G in Russian) and Vitof, or Vitovt (sic!), the Cuman chieftain. Georgiy conquers their domains. The chieftain from River Buz (Bug) is his namesake (Goureg = Gyurgiy), whereas his foe is called Vitovt, which is also a name known from chronicles (borne by the famous Lithuanian Prince Vitovt (1392-1430), for instance). It is possible that the Vitovt in question is an altogether different character; however, all that we want to point out about the text in question so far is the fact that every single Tartar name we encounter here was common for the XIV century Russians and Lithuanians.

Let us point out that the name Cuman, or Kuman (hence Cumania) is most likely to be a derivative of the word komon, or kon – the Russian for “horse” in its archaic form, as used in the famous Slovo o Polku Igoreve. Therefore, the land of the Cumans is most likely to translate as “the land of the horsemen” – another alias of the Horde, in other words.

Fourth corollary. Georgiy proceeds to defeat a certain Sultan Ornakh and launch a campaign against Persia, which he conquers successfully. Modern historians claim this Mongolian conquest of Persia to have taken place two decades after the death of Genghis-Khan – quite understandably so; they realise that the Mongols would need quite a bit of time to reach Volga from the faraway steppes of Northern China; they would also have to conquer Russia and found a state before they could move onward to Iran. However, the Hungarian missionary of the XIV century, a contemporary of these events, sees no such chronological complications – he ascribes the Persian campaign to Georgiy, or Genghis-Khan himself. Historians will hasten to accuse him of ignorance, since his observations contradict the consensual chronology.

Fifth corollary. Next Georgiy conquered Sascia, Fulgaria, Vedin, Merovia, Poidovia and the kingdom of the Mordvans. One easily recognises the following kingdoms:

- Bulgaria = Fulgaria,

- Merovia = Moravia (land of the Czechs),

- Poidovia = Podolia (Ukraine),

- The Mordvan kingdom = Mordovia (in the Volga region).

Sascia (or Sacia) had been the name used for the lands of the Saxons in the Middle Ages. Apart from the traditional Saxons in modern Germany, one should also mention the Saxins from River Yaik (they left their homeland in 1229, “chased by the Tartars and the Mongols”, qv in [362], Volume 3, Chapter 8, page 166). Furthermore, according to Karamzin’s rendition of Herodotus, “the Scythians, known to Persians as the Saks, had called themselves Skoloty” ([362], Volume 1, Chapter 1, Annotation 7). Let us add that the name Skoloty (“The Skolots”) sounds somewhat similar to the name of the Scots, whose origins can be traced back to the Saxon invasion – this shouldn’t surprise us; as we shall see in Part 2 of the present book, the name Scots was used by the English chronicles of the XIII-XVI century for referring to the Scythians, or Russians.

Let us reflect for a moment. We understand that the readers might well feel a certain irritation at this point due to the tremendous scope of alterations and identifications; however, we recommend to ponder this at greater length. To reiterate one of our main concepts: in the Middle Ages, before the invention of the printing press, names of nations and geographical locations would drift across the maps, following the migrations of documents and chronicles. Actual ethnic groups remained in pretty much the same areas as they inhabit nowadays – the migrant groups included armies and princes, accompanied by their entourage and their chroniclers. They couldn’t alter the ethnic compound of the places they passed along the way to any substantial extent; however, they had archives, books and documents with them, which is very important indeed. They were the ones who would later give names to the nations, the towns and cities, rivers, mountains and seas. Old names eventually got obliterated from memory. The ones known to us today come from the documents of the XV-XVII century, in the localization that had formed by the epoch of Gutenberg. Geographical names rigidified some extent with the propagation of printed maps.

Sixth corollary. And so, we learn of the Volga region conquered (Mordovia, Bulgaria-upon-Volga etc. After these victories, Georgiy directs his armies to the West and separates the troops into four main parts, which are to proceed in four primary directions. Which ones? Unfortunately, the text only mentions three, namely, Suzdal, Ryazan and Voronezh. We therefore learn that the lands to the West from the line of Suzdal/Ryazan/Voronezh hadn’t been conquered by that time. We can now begin to reconstruct the step-by-step military unification of Russia. Georgiy started from the East and turned his attention to the West. After his death, the conquest is continued by “his son Khan”. Next we have the Mongolian conquest of Western Russia and Hungary by Batu-Khan, known to us as the “great invasion of the Mongols and the Tartars” from school textbooks on history, also reflected as the conquest of Kiev by Yaroslav the Wise, Prince of Yaroslavl and the conquest of Kiev by Batu-Khan.

According to Karamzin, “Yaroslav had entered Kiev together with his valiant army wiping sweat from his brow, according to the chronicle” ([362]). The conquest of Kiev was anything but an easy feat, since Yaroslav (aka Batu-Khan) had been forced to crush the Polish army first.

Let us return to Julian’s text and read it once again, this time utilising the more usual versions of the Russian names it mentions. We shall also replace the word Tartar with the word Mongol, since the text in question is entitled “the War with the Mongols”. We shall come up with the following:

“The land the Mongols (= The Great Ones) originate from is known as Gothia. The first war with the Mongols started in the following manner. There was a chieftain named Georgiy in the land of Goths … there was another chieftain named Vitovt in the land of the horsemen (the Horde) … and yet another one, from River Bug, also named Georgiy, who had attacked Vitovt because of his riches, and defeated him. Vitovt had fled to Sultan Ornakh, who received him … and hanged him … the two sons of Vitovt … returned to the abovementioned Georgiy, who had robbed them and their father earlier. This Georgiy had … killed the elder son, having tied him to horses that tore him to pieces. The younger son fled to the other Georgiy, the Tartar chieftain as mentioned above, and implored him to bring the killer of his father justice… This was done, and after the victory … the youth had asked Georgiy to launch a campaign against the Sultan Ornakh… Georgiy had been happy to oblige, and crushed the Sultan’s troops completely… And so, with many a glorious victory to his name, Georgiy, Lord of the Mongols … had set forth against the Persians, having put them to complete rout and conquered their kingdom. This victory made him even bolder … and so he started to wage wars against other kingdoms, plotting to conquer the whole world. He approached the land of the Horsemen and … won over their entire land. The Mongols (= Great Ones) proceeded to move Westward, and it took them a year or slightly more than that to conquer five of the greatest pagan lands – Saxony, Bulgaria… Vedin, Moravia (the Czech kingdom) and Podolia, or the Ukraine, likewise the Mordovian kingdom … the army is divided into four parts… One of them … has approached Suzdal, another – the borders of the Ryazan region … the third is on the Don river, opposite Castle Voronezh (Ovcheruch)… Georgiy, the first chieftain who had started the war, is dead; the Mongols are ruled by his son Khan (Ivan – Batu-Khan)”.

What we have before us is an account of strife in Western Russia (Lithuania, Bug etc), which was used by the ruler of the Mongols, or the Great Ones (inhabitants of Velikorossiya, or Greater Russia) to his advantage. A war began; it ended with the unification of Russia under the rule of the Novgorod = Yaroslavl dynasty of Ivan Kalita = Batu-Khan. This unification was accompanied by the conquest of Kiev, the war with the Poles, the Persian and the Hungarian campaigns.

These events are traditionally dated to the XIII century; we place them in the XIV century, considering the discovered centenarian chronological shift. Batu-Khan becomes superimposed over Ivan Kalita = Caliph, and Genghis-Khan – over his elder brother Georgiy.

19. Amazons in the XVII century Russia. Russian women wearing yashmaks

Amazons are thought of as figmental creatures from the “ancient” Greek myths and nothing but (see fig. 4.5). Nevertheless, the Povest Vremennyh Let, for instance, mentions them as real characters, which might strike one as odd at first – indeed, where would the author of the chronicle learn of the amazons? However, there is nothing out of the ordinary here – as we have mentioned above, the Povest Vremennyh Let is of a relatively recent origin. As for mounted troops of female warriors – those did actually exist in Russia. For instance, it is known that mounted parties of armed women used to accompany the Czarinas of the Golden Horde as escort ([282], page 146).

Fig. 4.5. Drawing of Amazons from an “ancient” Greek vase allegedly dating from the V century B.C. (mounted and standing). Taken from [578], Book 1, page 23, illustration 12.

Amazingly enough, this Amazon convoy had existed at the court of the Muscovite kings until the early XVII century, and there are records of foreign travellers mentioning this custom. In 1602, for instance, John, Prince of Denmark and the fiancé of Princess Xenia Borisovna, visited Moscow. The scribe who had accompanied him tells us the following about the royal equipage of Czar Boris, his wife and his daughter Xenia:

“All the maids were riding horses, just like males. They wore headdress of dazzling white lined with beige taffeta and decorated with ribbons of yellow silk, golden buttons and tassels falling over their shoulders. Their faces were covered by white yashmaks with nothing but the mouth in sight; they wore long dresses and yellow boots. They rode in pairs, each of them upon a white horse; there were 24 of them altogether” ([282], pages 145-146).

I. E. Zabelin cannot help from making the following comparison, which is indeed a very obvious one: “The ceremonial party of female riders – amazons of sorts, leads one to the assumption that this custom was borrowed from the queens of the Golden Horde” ([282], page 146).

A propos, the fact that the customs of the Moscow court were “borrowed” from the Golden Horde is common knowledge; from the traditional point of view this seems very odd indeed – why would the Russian Great Princes adopt customs of a nation whose cultural level had been a great deal lower than that of the conquered Russia? Also – how could these savages from the dusty Mongolian steppes develop such complex ceremonial etiquette, if they were void of so much as basic literacy, as modern historians are assuring us?

Our explanation is simple. The Great Princes of Russia didn’t borrow their customs from any savages; the matter is that the Golden Horde had been none other but the Russian state of the XIV-XV century with a capital in Kostroma or in Yaroslavl (aka Novgorod the Great). The Moscow Russia of the XVI century had been a direct successor of this state; the customs of Moscovia and the Golden Horde would naturally be very similar to each other.

The luxurious map of Charles V and Ferdinand dating from the XVI century explicitly refers to Amazonia as to a Russian territory. Apparently, it had been located between Volga and Don, in the region of the Azov Sea and Tartaria, somewhat further to the South from the Volga-Don portage, qv in fig. 4.6. The map calls this land AMAZONVM, qv in figs. 4.7 and 4.8. As we know, these lands have belonged to the Cossacks (also known as the Tartars) since times immemorial.

Fig. 4.6. A fragment of the map of Charles V and Ferdinand (XVI century). “Potentiss, Acinvictiss, Principibvset Dominis D, Carolo Qvinto et Ferdinando Sacri Romani Imp, Monarchis Semper Avgvstis Etc, Dicavit Caspar Vopelivs.” Taken from the antique map calendar entitled “Antique Maps. Alte Karten. 2000” Te Neues Verlag, Kempen, Germany.

Fig. 4.7. A close-in of the above that indicates the existence of a land called Amazonia in Russia, between the Azov Sea, the Volga and the Don.

Fig. 4.8. The land of the Amazons in Russia, between Volga and Don, as represented on the map of Charles V and Ferdinand.

The Cossack women, or Amazons, became reflected in a great many “ancient” literary works. This is what historians are telling us:

“The Amazons have firmly settled in the ancient art and literature. We see them on countless Greek vases – mounted and battling against the Greeks… Archaeologists know about the armed women of the Scythians… Female warriors are also known … from the mediaeval history of the Alanians. However, the number of female burial mounds with weapons is the greatest in the areas that had once been populated by the Sauromatians and not the Scythians, reaching up to 20% of all burial mounds with weapons” ([792], page 86).

Let us also pay attention to the following fact – the abovementioned yashmaks worn by Russian women as recently as in the XVII century. There is a similar custom in the Middle East that exists to this day. Could it have originated from the Golden Horde, or Russia?

One should also bear in mind the similarity between some old Russian customs and the ones still alive in Iran, for instance – thus, the headdress of the Iranian women is worn in the exact same manner as they had once been worn in Russia; Iranians use samovars that are completely identical to their Russian counterparts, and so on, and so forth.

Bear in mind that Iran (or Persia) had been an ulus of the “Mongolian” Empire for a long time; it is therefore possible that some other customs that are considered “purely Muslim” nowadays had once existed in the Orthodox Russia and possibly even originate thence.

What mainstream historians say about the New Chronology?

The New Chronology is a fringe theory regarded by the academic community as pseudohistory, which argues that the conventional chronology of Middle Eastern and European history is fundamentally flawed, and that events attributed to the civilizations of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt actually occurred during the Middle Ages, more than a thousand years later. The central concepts of the New Chronology are derived from the ideas of Russian scholar Nikolai Morozov (1854-1946), although work by French scholar Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) can be viewed as an earlier predecessor. However, the New Chronology is most commonly associated with Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko (b. 1945), although published works on the subject are actually a collaboration between Fomenko and several other mathematicians. The concept is most fully explained in History: Fiction or Science? book series, originally published in Russian.

The New Chronology also contains a reconstruction, an alternative chronology, radically shorter than the standard historical timeline, because all ancient history is “folded” onto the Middle Ages. According to Fomenko’s claims, the written history of humankind goes only as far back as AD 800, there is almost no information about events between AD 800–1000, and most known historical events took place in AD 1000–1500.

The New Chronology is rejected by mainstream historians and is inconsistent with absolute and relative dating techniques used in the wider scholarly community. The majority of scientific commentators consider the New Chronology to be pseudoscientific.

History of New Chronology

The idea of chronologies that differ from the conventional chronology can be traced back to at least the early XVII century. Jean Hardouinthen suggested that many ancient historical documents were much younger than commonly believed to be. In 1685 he published a version of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History in which he claimed that most Greek and Roman texts had been forged by Benedictine monks. When later questioned on these results, Hardouin stated that he would reveal the monks’ reasons in a letter to be revealed only after his death. The executors of his estate were unable to find such a document among his posthumous papers. In the XVII century, Sir Isaac Newton, examining the current chronology of Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt and the Ancient Near East, expressed discontent with prevailing theories and proposed one of his own, which, basing its study on Apollonius of Rhodes’s Argonautica, changed the traditional dating of the Argonautic Expedition, the Trojan War, and the Founding of Rome.

In 1887, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely invented or corrupted in the II and III centuries.

In 1909, Otto Rank made note of duplications in literary history of a variety of cultures:

“… almost all important civilized peoples have early woven myths around and glorified in poetry their heroes, mythical kings and princes, founders of religions, of dynasties, empires and cities—in short, their national heroes. Especially the history of their birth and of their early years is furnished with phantastic [sic] traits; the amazing similarity, nay literal identity, of those tales, even if they refer to different, completely independent peoples, sometimes geographically far removed from one another, is well known and has struck many an investigator.” (Rank, Otto. Der Mythos von der Geburt des Helden.)

Fomenko became interested in Morozov’s theories in 1973. In 1980, together with a few colleagues from the mathematics department of Moscow State University, he published several articles on “new mathematical methods in history” in peer-reviewed journals. The articles stirred a lot of controversy, but ultimately Fomenko failed to win any respected historians to his side. By the early 1990s, Fomenko shifted his focus from trying to convince the scientific community via peer-reviewed publications to publishing books. Beam writes that Fomenko and his colleagues were discovered by the Soviet scientific press in the early 1980s, leading to “a brief period of renown”; a contemporary review from the journal Questions of History complained, “Their constructions have nothing in common with Marxist historical science.” (Alex Beam. “A shorter history of civilization.” Boston Globe, 16 September 1991.)

By 1996, his theory had grown to cover Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, and Egypt [Emp:1].

Fomenko’s claims

According to New Chronology, the traditional chronology consists of four overlapping copies of the “true” chronology shifted back in time by significant intervals with some further revisions. Fomenko claims all events and characters conventionally dated earlier than XI century are fictional, and represent “phantom reflections” of actual Middle Ages events and characters, brought about by intentional or accidental misdatings of historical documents. Before the invention of printing, accounts of the same events by different eyewitnesses were sometimes retold several times before being written down, then often went through multiple rounds of translating and copyediting. Names were translated, mispronounced and misspelled to the point where they bore little resemblance to originals.

According to Fomenko, this led early chronologists to believe or choose to believe that those accounts described different events and even different countries and time periods. Fomenko justifies this approach by the fact that, in many cases, the original documents are simply not available. Fomenko claims that all the history of the ancient world is known to us from manuscripts that date from the XV century to the XVIII century, but describe events that allegedly happened thousands of years before, the originals regrettably and conveniently lost.

For example, the oldest extant manuscripts of monumental treatises on Ancient Roman and Greek history, such as Annals and Histories, are conventionally dated c. AD 1100, more than a full millennium after the events they describe, and they did not come to scholars’ attention until the XV century. According to Fomenko, the XV century is probably when these documents were first written.

Central to Fomenko’s New Chronology is his claim of the existence of a vast Slav-Turk empire, which he called the “Russian Horde”, which he says played the dominant role in Eurasian history before the XVII century. The various peoples identified in ancient and medieval history, from the Scythians, Huns, Goths and Bulgars, through the Polyane, Duleby, Drevliane, Pechenegs, to in more recent times, the Cossacks, Ukrainians, and Belarusians, are nothing but elements of the single Russian Horde. For the New Chronologists, peoples such as the Ukrainians, Belarusians, Mongols, and others who assert their national independence from Russia, are suffering from a historical delusion.

Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 to 1185), the emperor of Byzantium, known for his failed reforms; his traits and deeds reflected in ‘biographies’ of many real and imaginary persons (A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. Czar of the Slavs (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Neva, 2004.). The historical Jesus is a composite figure and reflection of the Old Testament prophet Elisha (850-800 BC?), Pope Gregory VII (1020?-1085), Saint Basil of Caesarea (330-379), and even Li Yuanhao (also known as Emperor Jingzong, or “Son of Heaven”, emperor of Western Xia, who reigned in 1032-1048), Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and time frame of the authors of said accounts and biographies.

Fomenko also merges the cities and histories of Jerusalem, Rome and Troy into “New Rome” = Gospel Jerusalem (in the XII and XIII centuries) = Troy = Yoros Castle (A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. Forgotten Jerusalem: Istanbul in the light of New Chronology (in Russian). Мoscow: Astrel, AST, 2007). To the south of Yoros Castle is Joshua’s Hill which Fomenko alleges is the hill Calvary depicted in the Bible.

Fomenko claims the Hagia Sophia is actually the biblical Temple of Solomon. He identifies Solomon as sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494–1566). He claims that historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around AD 1185 on the hill overlooking the Bosphorus.

On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word “Rome” is a placeholder and can signify any one of several different cities and kingdoms. He claims the “First Rome”, or “Ancient Rome”, or “Mizraim”, is an ancient Egyptian kingdom in the delta of the Nile with its capital in Alexandria. The second and most famous “New Rome” is Constantinople. The third “Rome” is constituted by three different cities: Constantinople (again), Rome in Italy, and Moscow. According to his claims, Rome in Italy was founded around AD 1380 by Aeneas, and Moscow as the third Rome was the capital of the great “Russian Horde.” Similarly, the word “Jerusalem” is actually a placeholder rather than a physical location and can refer to different cities at different times and the word “Israel” did not define a state, even not a territory, but people fighting for God, for example, French St. Louis and English Elizabeth called themselves the King/Queen of Israel.

He claims that parallelism between John the Baptist, Jesus, and Old Testament prophets implies that the New Testament was written before the Old Testament. Fomenko claims that the Bible was being written until the Council of Trent (1545–1563), when the list of canonical books was established, and all apocryphal books were ordered to be destroyed. Fomenko also claims that Plato, Plotinus and Gemistus Pletho are one and the same person; according to him, some texts by or about Pletho were misdated and today believed to be texts by or about Plotinus or Plato. He claims similar duplicates Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and Dionysius Petavius. He claims Florence and the House of Medici bankrolled and played an important role in creation of the magnificent ‘Roman’ and ‘Greek’ past.

Specific claims

In volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 of History: Fiction or Science?, Fomenko and his colleagues make numerous claims:

- Historians and translators often “assign” different dates and locations to different accounts of the same historical events, creating multiple “phantom copies” of these events. These “phantom copies” are often misdated by centuries or even millennia and end up incorporated into conventional chronology.

- This chronology was largely manufactured by Joseph Justus Scaliger in Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606), and represents a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. The Jesuit Dionysius Petavius completed this chronology in De Doctrina Temporum, 1627 (v.1) and 1632 (v.2).

- Archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, numismatic dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional chronology.

- No single document in existence can be reliably dated earlier than the XI century. Most “ancient” artifacts may find other than consensual explanation.

- Histories of Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were crafted during the Renaissance by humanists and clergy - mostly on the basis of documents of their own making.

- The Old Testament represents a rendition of events of the XIV to XVI centuries AD in Europe and Byzantium, containing “prophecies” about “future” events related in the New Testament, a rendition of events of AD 1152 to 1185.

- The history of religions runs as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the XI century and the birth of Jesus), Bacchic Christianity (XI and XII centuries, before and after the life of Jesus), Christianity (XII to XVI centuries) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam.

- The Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy, traditionally dated to around AD 150 and considered the cornerstone of classical history, was compiled in XVI and XVII centuries from astronomical data of the IX to XVI centuries.

- 37 complete Egyptian horoscopes found in Denderah, Esna, and other temples have unique valid astronomical solutions with dates ranging from AD 1000 and up to as late as AD 1700.

- The Book of Revelation, as we know it, contains a horoscope, dated to 25 September - 10 October 1486, compiled by cabbalistJohannes Reuchlin.

- The horoscopes found in Sumerian/Babylonian tablets do not contain sufficient astronomical data; consequently, they have solutions every 30–50 years on the time axis and are therefore useless for purposes of dating.

- The Chinese tables of eclipses are useless for dating, as they contain too many eclipses that did not take place astronomically. Chinese tables of comets, even if true, cannot be used for dating.

- All major inventions like powder and guns, paper and print occurred in Europe in the period between the X and the XVI centuries.

- Ancient Roman and Greek statues, showing perfect command of the human anatomy, are fakes crafted in the Renaissance, when artists attained such command for the first time.

- There was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of yoke and slavery, because the so-called “Tartars and Mongols” were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a bilingual state with Turkic spoken as freely as Russian. So, Russia and Turkey once formed parts of the same empire. This ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities and the hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called “blood tax”). The Mongol “invasions” were punitive operations against the regions of the empire that attempted tax evasion. Tamerlane was probably a Russian warlord.

- Official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia to legitimize the usurpingRomanov dynasty (1613-1917).

- Moscow was founded as late as the mid-XIV century. The battle of Kulikovo took place in Moscow.

- The tsar Ivan the Terrible represents a collation of no fewer than four rulers, representing two rival dynasties: the legitimate Godunov rulers and the ambitious Romanov upstarts.

- English history of AD 640–1040 and Byzantine history of AD 378–830 are reflections of the same late-medieval original.

Fomenko’s methods

Statistical correlation of texts

One of Fomenko’s simplest methods is statistical correlation of texts. His basic assumption is that a text which describes a sequence of events will devote more space to more important events (for example, a period of war or an unrest will have much more space devoted to than a period of peaceful, non-eventful years), and that this irregularity will remain visible in other descriptions of the period. For each analysed text, a function is devised which maps each year mentioned in the text with the number of pages (lines, letters) devoted in the text to its description (which could be zero). The function of the two texts are then compared. (Chron1, pp. 187–194.)

For example, Fomenko compares the contemporary history of Rome written by Titus Livius with a modern history of Rome written by Russian historian V. S. Sergeev, calculating that the two have high correlation, and thus that they describe the same period of history, which is undisputed. (Chron1, pp. 194–196.) He also compares modern texts, which describe different periods, and calculates low correlation, as expected. (Chron1, pp. 194–196.) However, when he compares, for example, the ancient history of Rome and the medieval history of Rome, he calculates a high correlation, and concludes that ancient history of Rome is a copy of medieval history of Rome, thus clashing with mainstream accounts.

Statistical correlation of dynasties

In a somewhat similar manner, Fomenko compares two dynasties of rulers using statistical methods. First, he creates a database of rulers, containing relevant information on each of them. Then, he creates “survey codes” for each pair of the rulers, which contain a number which describes degree of the match of each considered property of two rulers. For example, one of the properties is the way of death: if two rulers were both poisoned, they get value of +1 in their property of the way of death; if one ruler was poisoned and another killed in combat, they get -1; and if one was poisoned, and another died of illness, they get 0 (Fomenko claims there is possibility that chroniclers were not impartial and that different descriptions nonetheless describe the same person). An important property is the length of the rule. (Chron1, pp. 215–223.)

Sample Fomenko parallelism.

Fomenko lists a number of pairs of unrelated dynasties – for example, dynasties of kings of Israeland emperors of late Western Roman Empire (AD 300-476) – and claims that this method demonstrates correlations between their reigns. (Graphs which show just the length of the rule in the two dynasties are the most widely known; however, Fomenko’s conclusions are also based on other parameters, as described above.) He also claims that the regnal history from the XVII to XX centuries never shows correlation of “dynastic flows” with each other, therefore Fomenko insists history was multiplied and outstretched into imaginary antiquity to justify this or other “royal” pretensions.

Fomenko uses for the demonstration of correlation between the reigns exclusively the data from the Chronological Tables of J. Blair (Moscow, 1808-1809). Fomenko says that Blair’s tables are all the more valuable to us since they were compiled in an epoch adjacent to the time of Scaligerian chronology. According to Fomenko these tables contain clearer signs of “Scaligerite activity” which were subsequently buried under layers of paint and plaster by historians of the XIX and XX centuries.

Astronomical evidence

Fomenko examines astronomical events described in ancient texts and claims that the chronology is actually medieval. For example:

- He says the mysterious drop in the value of the lunar acceleration parameter D” (“a linear combination of the [angular] accelerations of the Earth and Moon”) between the years AD 700–1300, which the American astronomer Robert Newton had explained in terms of “non-gravitational” (i.e., tidal) forces. By eliminating those anomalous early eclipses the New Chronology produces a constant value of D” beginning around AD 1000. (Chron1, pp. pp.93-94, 105-6.)

- He associates initially the Star of Bethlehem with the AD 1140 (±20) supernova (now Crab Nebula) and the Crucifixion Eclipse with the total solar eclipse of AD 1170 (±20). He also believes that Crab Nebula supernova could not have exploded in AD 1054, but probably in AD 1153. He connects it with total eclipse of AD 1186. Moreover he holds in strong doubt the veracity of ancient Chinese astronomical data.

- He argues that the star catalog in the Almagest, ascribed to the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, was compiled in the XV to XVI centuries AD. With this objective in sight he develops new methods of dating old stellar catalogues and claims that the Almagest is based on data collected between AD 600 and 1300, whereby the telluric obliquity is well taken into account.

- He refines and completes Morozov’s analysis of some ancient horoscopes, most notably, the so-called Dendera Zodiacs—two horoscopes drawn on the ceiling of the temple of Hathor—and comes to the conclusion that they correspond to either the XI or the XIII century AD. Moreover, in his History: Fiction or Science? series finale, he makes computer-aided dating of all 37 Egyptian horoscopes that contain sufficient astronomical data, and claims they all fit into XI to XIX century timeframe. Traditional history usually either interprets these horoscopes as belonging to the I century BC or suggests that they weren’t meant to match any date at all.

- In his final analysis of an eclipse triad described by the ancient Greek Thucydides in History of the Peloponnesian War, Fomenko dates the eclipses to AD 1039, 1046 and 1057. Because of the layered structure of the manuscript, he claims that Thucydides actually lived in medieval times and in describing the Peloponnesian War between the Spartans and Athenians he was actually describing the conflict between the medieval Navarrans and Catalans in Spain from AD 1374 to 1387.

- Fomenko claims that the abundance of dated astronomical records in cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia is of little use for dating of events, as the astronomical phenomena they describe recur cyclically every 30–40 years.

Rejection of common dating methods

On archaeological dating methods, Fomenko claims:

“Archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts are both non-exact and contradictory, therefore there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artifact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century.” (Chron1.)

Dendrochronology is rejected with a claim that, for dating of objects much older than the oldest still living trees, it isn’t an absolute, but arelative dating method, and thus dependent on traditional chronology. Fomenko specifically points to a break of dendrochronological scales around AD 1000.

Fomenko also cites a number of cases where carbon dating of a series of objects of known age gave significantly different dates. He also alleges undue cooperation between physicists and archaeologists in obtaining the dates, since most radiocarbon dating labs only accept samples with an age estimate suggested by historians or archaeologists. Fomenko also claims that carbon dating over the range of AD 1 to 2000 is inaccurate because it has too many sources of error that are either guessed at or completely ignored, and that calibration is done with a statistically meaningless number of samples. Consequently, Fomenko concludes that carbon dating is not accurate enough to be used on historical scale.

Fomenko rejects numismatic dating as circular, being based on the traditional chronology, and points to cases of similar coins being minted in distant periods, unexplained long periods with no coins minted and cases of mismatch of numismatic dating with historical accounts. (Chron1, pp. 90-92.)

He fully agrees with absolute dating methods for clay tablets or coins like thermoluminescence dating, optically stimulated luminescence dating, archaeomagnetic, metallographic dating, but claims that their precision does not allow for comprehensive pinpointing on the time axis either.

Fomenko also condemns the common archaeological practice of submitting samples for dating accompanied with an estimate of the expected age. He claims that convergence of uncertainty in archaeological dating methods proves strictly nothing per se. Even if the sum S of probabilities of the veracity of event produced by N dating methods exceeds 1.00 it does not mean that the event has taken place with 100% probability.

Reception

Fomenko’s historical ideas have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who brand them as pseudoscience, but were popularized by former world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Billington writes that the theory “might have quietly blown away in the wind tunnels of academia” if not for Kasparov’s writing in support of it in the magazine Ogoniok. Kasparov met Fomenko during the 1990s, and found that Fomenko’s conclusions concerning certain subjects were identical to his own regarding the popular view (which is not the view of academics) that art and culture died during the Dark Ages and were not revived until the Renaissance. Kasparov also felt it illogical that the Romans and the Greeks living under the banner of Byzantium could fail to use the mounds of scientific knowledge left them by Ancient Greece and Rome, especially when it was of urgent military use. However, Kasparov does not support the reconstruction part of the New Chronology. Russian critics tended to see Fomenko’s New Chronology as “an embarrassment and a potent symbol of the depths to which the Russian academy and society have generally sunk … since the fall of Communism.” Western critics see his views as part of a renewed Russian imperial ideology, “keeping alive an imperial consciousness and secular messianism in Russia.”

In 2004 Anatoly Fomenko with his coauthor Gleb Nosovsky were awarded for their books on “New Chronology” the anti-prize of the Moscow International Book Fair called “Abzatz” (literally ‘paragraph’, a euphemism for a vulgar Russian word meaning disaster or fiasco) in the category “Esteemed nonsense” (“Pochotnaya bezgramota”) awarded for the worst book published in Russia.

Critics have accused Fomenko of altering the data to improve the fit with his ideas and have noted that he violates a key rule of statistics by selecting matches from the historical record which support his chronology, while ignoring those which do not, creating artificial, better-than-chance correlations, and that these practices undermine Fomenko’s statistical arguments. The new chronology was given a comprehensive critical analysis in a round table on “The ‘Myths’ of New Chronology” chaired by the dean of the department of history of Moscow State University in December 1999. One of the participants in that round table, the distinguished Russian archaeologist, Valentin Yanin, compared Fomenko’s work to “the sleight of hand trickery of a David Copperfield.” Linguist Andrey Zaliznyak argued that by using the Fomenko’s approaches one can “prove” any historical correspondence, for example, between Ancient Egyptian pharaohs and French kings.

James Billington, formerly professor of Russian history at Harvard and Princeton and currently the Librarian of Congress placed Fomenko’s work within the context of the political movement of Eurasianism, which sought to tie Russian history closely to that of its Asian neighbors. Billington describes Fomenko as ascribing the belief in past hostility between Russia and the Mongols to the influence of Western historians. Thus, by Fomenko’s chronology, “Russia and Turkey are parts of a previously single empire.” A French reviewer of Billington’s book noted approvingly his concern with the phantasmagorical conceptions of Fomenko about the global “new chronology.”

H.G. van Bueren, professor emeritus of astronomy at the University of Utrecht, concluded his scathing review of Fomenko’s work on the application of mathematics and astronomy to historical data as follows:

“It is surprising, to say the least, that a well-known (Dutch) publisher could produce an expensive book of such doubtful intellectual value, of which the only good word that can be said is that it contains an enormous amount of factual historical material, untidily ordered, true; badly written, yes; mixed-up with conjectural nonsense, sure; but still, much useful stuff. For the rest of the book is absolutely worthless. It reminds one of the early Soviet attempts to produce tendentious science (Lysenko!), of polywater, of cold fusion, and of modern creationism. In brief: a useless and misleading book.” (H. G. van Bueren, Mathematics and Logic.)

Convergence of methods in archaeological dating

While Fomenko rejects commonly accepted dating methods, archaeologists, conservators and other scientists make extensive use of such techniques which have been rigorously examined and refined during decades of use.

In the specific case of dendrochronology, Fomenko claims that this fails as an absolute dating method because of gaps in the record. However, independent dendrochronological sequences beginning with living trees from various parts of North America and Europe extend back 12,400 years into the past. Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages. These and other data have provided a calibration curve for radiocarbon dating whose internal error does not exceed ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve.

In fact, archaeologists have developed a fully anchored dendrochronology series going back past 10,000 BCE. “The absolutely dated tree-ring chronology now extends back to 12,410 cal BP (10,461 BC).”

Misuse of historical sources and forced pattern matching

Critics of Fomenko’s theory claim that his use of historical sources is highly selective and ignores the basic principles of sound historical scholarship.

“Fomenko … provides no fair-minded review of the historical literature about a topic with which he deals, quotes only those sources that serve his purposes, uses evidence in ways that seem strange to professionally-trained historians and asserts the wildest speculation as if it has the same status as the information common to the conventional historical literature.”

They also note that his method of statistically correlating of texts is very rough, because it does not take into account the many possible sources of variation in length outside of “importance.” They maintain that differences in language, style, and scope, as well as the frequently differing views and focuses of historians, which are manifested in a different notion of “important events”, make quantifying historical writings a dubious proposition at best. What’s more, Fomenko’s critics allege that the parallelisms he reports are often derived by alleged forcing by Fomenko of the data – rearranging, merging, and removing monarchs as needed to fit the pattern.

For example, on the one hand Fomenko asserts that the vast majority of ancient sources are either irreparably distorted duplicate accounts of the same events or later forgeries. In his identification of Jesus with Pope Gregory VII (Chron2, p. 51) he ignores the otherwise vast dissimilarities between their reported lives and focuses on the similarity of their appointment to religious office by baptism. (The evangelical Jesus is traditionally believed to have lived for 33 years, and he was an adult at the time of his encounter with John the Baptist. In contrast, according to the available primary sources, Pope Gregory VII lived for at least 60 years and was born 8 years after the death of Fomenko’s John-the-Baptist equivalent John Crescentius.)

Critics allege that many of the supposed correlations of regnal durations are the product of the selective parsing and blending of the dates, events, and individuals mentioned in the original text. Another point raised by critics is that Fomenko does not explain his altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.) preventing a duplication of the effort and effectively making this whole theory an ad hoc hypothesis.

Selectivity in reference to astronomical phenomena

Critics point out that Fomenko’s discussion of astronomical phenomena tends to be selective, choosing isolated examples that support the New Chronology and ignoring the large bodies of data that provide statistically supported evidence for the conventional dating. For his dating of the Almagest star catalog, Fomenko arbitrarily selected eight stars from the more than 1000 stars in the catalog, one of which (Arcturus) has a large systematic error. This star has a dominant effect on Fomenko’s dating. Statistical analysis using the same method for all “fast” stars points to the antiquity of the Almagest star catalog. Rawlins points out further that Fomenko’s statistical analysis got the wrong date for the Almagest because he took as constant Earth’s obliquity when it is a variable that changes at a very slow, but known, rate.

Fomenko’s studies ignore the abundance of dated astronomical records in cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia. Among these texts is a series of Babylonian astronomical diaries, which records precise astronomical observations of the Moon and planets, often dated in terms of the reigns of known historical figures extending back to the VI century BCE. Astronomical retrocalculations for all these moving objects allow us to date these observations, and consequently the rulers’ reigns, to within a single day. The observations are sufficiently redundant that only a small portion of them are sufficient to date a text to a unique year in the period 750 BCE to 100 CE. The dates obtained agree with the accepted chronology. In addition, F. R. Stephenson has demonstrated through a systematic study of a large number of Babylonian, Ancient and Medieval European, and Chinese records of eclipse observations that they can be dated consistently with conventional chronology at least as far back as 600 BCE. In contrast to Fomenko’s missing centuries, Stephenson’s studies of eclipse observations find an accumulated uncertainty in the timing of the rotation of the earth of 420 seconds at 400 BCE, and only 80 seconds at 1000 CE.

Magnitude and consistency of conspiracy theory

Fomenko claims that world history prior to 1600 was deliberately falsified for political reasons. The consequences of this conspiracy theory are twofold. Documents that conflict with New Chronology are said to have been edited or fabricated by conspirators (mostly Western European historians and humanists of late XVI to XVII centuries). The lack of documents directly supporting New Chronology and conflicting traditional history is said to be thanks to the majority of such documents being destroyed by the same conspirators.

Consequently, there are many thousands of documents that are considered authentic in traditional history, but not in New Chronology. Fomenko often uses “falsified” documents, which he dismisses in other contexts, to prove a point. For example, he analyzes the Tartar Relation and arrives at the conclusion that Mongolian capital of Karakorum was located in Central Russia (equated with present-day Yaroslavl). However, the Tartar Relation makes several statements that are at odds with New Chronology (such as that Batu Khan and Russian duke Yaroslav are two distinct people). Those are said by Fomenko to have been introduced into the original text by later editors.

Many of the rulers that Fomenko claims are medieval doppelgangers moved in the imaginary past have left behind vast numbers of coins. Numismatists have made innumerable identifications of coins to rulers known from ancient sources. For instance, several Roman emperors issued coinage featuring at least three of their names, consistent with those found in written sources, and there are frequent examples of joint coinage between known royal family members, as well as overstrikes by kings who were known enemies.

Ancient coins in Greek and Latin are unearthed to this day in vast quantities from Britain to India. For Fomenko’s theories to be correct, this could only be explained by counterfeit on a very grand and consistent scale, as well as a complete dismissal of all numismatic analyses of hoard findings, coin styles etc.

Popularity in forums and amongst Russian imperialists

Despite criticism, Fomenko has published and sold over one million copies of his books in his native Russia. Many internet forums have appeared which aim to supplement his work with additional amateur research. His critics have suggested that Fomenko’s version of history appealed to the Russian reading public by keeping alive an imperial consciousness to replace their disillusionment with the failures of Communism and post-Communist corporate oligarchies.

Alexander Zinoviev called the New Chronology “one of the major scientific breakthroughs of the XX century.”

(Wikipedia text retrieved on 2nd August, 2015)

Afterword from the publisher

Dr. Fomenko et al as scientists are ready to recognize their mistakes, to repent and to retract on the condition that:

- radiocarbon dating methods pass the black box tests, or

- astronomy refutes their results on ancient eclipses, or

- US astrophysicist Robert Newton was proved wrong to accuse Ptolemy of his crime.

At present, historians do not, can not, and will not comply. The radiocarbon dating labs run their very costly tests only if the sample to be dated is accompanied with an idea of age pronounced by historians on basis of … subjective … mmm … gutfeeling … and the history books they have been writing for the last 400 years. Radiocarbon labs politely bill for their fiddling and finetuning to get the dates “to order” of historians. Circulus vitiosus is perfect.

Overview of the seven-volume print edition

History: Fiction or Science?

Chronology 1

A. T. Fomenko

Introducing the problem.

A criticism of the Scaligerian chronology.

Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics.

Eclipses and zodiacs.

Chronology 2

A. T. Fomenko

The dynastic parallelism method.

Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible.

Chronological shifts.

Chronology 3

A. T. Fomenko, T. N. Fomenko, V. V. Kalashnikov, G. V. Nosovskiy

Astronomical methods as applied to chronology.

Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus.

The Egyptian zodiacs.

Chronology 4

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy

Russia. Britain. Byzantium. Rome.

Chronology 5

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy

Russia = Horde. Ottomans = Atamans.

Europe. China. Japan.

The Etruscans. Egypt. Scandinavia.

Chronology 6

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy

The Horde-Ataman Empire.

The Bible. The Reformation.

America. Passover and the calendar.

Chronology 7

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy

A reconstruction of global history.

The Khans of Novgorod = The Habsburgs.

Miscellaneous information.

The legacy of the Great Empire in the history and culture of Eurasia and America.

This seven-volume edition is based on a number of our books that came out over the last couple of years and were concerned with the subject in question. All this gigantic body of material was revised and categorized; finally, its current form does not contain any of the repetitions that are inevitable in the publication of separate books. All of this resulted in the inclusion of a great number of additional material in the current edition – including previously unpublished data. The reader shall find a systematic rendition of detailed criticisms of the consensual (Scaligerian) chronology, the descriptions of the methods offered by mathematical statistics and natural sciences that the authors have discovered and researched, as well as the new hypothetical reconstruction of global history up until the XVIII century. Our previous books on the subject of chronology were created in the period of naissance and rather turbulent infancy of the new paradigm, full of complications and involved issues, which often resulted in the formulation of multi-optional hypotheses. The present edition pioneers in formulating a consecutive unified concept of the reconstruction of ancient history – one that apparently is supported by a truly immense body of evidence. Nevertheless, it is understandable that its elements may occasionally be in need of revision or elaboration.

A. T. Fomenko

Also by Anatoly T. Fomenko

(List non-exhaustive)

A. T. Fomenko. Differential Geometry and Topology. Plenum Publishing Corp., 1987. New York and London: Consultants Bureau.

A. T. Fomenko. Variational Principles of Topology. Multidimensional Minimal Surface Theory. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.

A. T. Fomenko. Topological variational problems. Gordon and Breach, 1991.

A. T. Fomenko. Integrability and Nonintegrability in Geometry and Mechanics. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.

A. T. Fomenko. The Plateau Problem. Vols. 1, 2. Gordon and Breach, 1990. (Studies in the Development of Modern Mathematics.)

A. T. Fomenko. Symplectic Geometry. Methods and Applications. Gordon and Breach, 1988. Second edition 1995.

A. T. Fomenko, Dao Chong Thi. Minimal Surfaces and Plateau Problem. American Mathematical Society, 1991.

A. T. Fomenko, V. V. Trofimov. Integrable Systems on Lie Algebras and Symmetric Spaces. Gordon and Breach, 1987.

A. T. Fomenko, A. A. Tuzhilin. Geometry of Minimal Surfaces in Three-Dimensional Space. (In: Translation of Mathematical Monographs, vol. 93. American Mathematical Society, 1991.

A. T. Fomenko. Topological Classification of Integrable Systems. Advances in Soviet Mathematics, vol. 6. American Mathematical Society, 1991.

A. T. Fomenko. Tensor and Vector Analysis: Geometry, Mechanics and Physics. Taylor and Francis, 1988.

A. T. Fomenko, S. V. Matveev. Algorithmic and Computer Methods for Three-Manifolds. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.

A. T. Fomenko, T. L. Kunii. Topological Modeling for Visualization. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

A. T. Fomenko, B. A. Dubrovin, S. P. Novikov. Modern Geometry. Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, GTM 93, Part 1, 1984; GTM 104, Part 2, 1985, GTM 124, Part 3, 1990.

A. T. Fomenko, S. P. Novikov. The basic elements of differential geometry and topology. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.

A. T. Fomenko, A. V. Bolsinov. Integrable Hamiltonian Systems: Geometry, Topology, Classification. Taylor and Francis, 2003.

A. T. Fomenko. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and Its Applications to Historical Dating. (Vol. 1: The Development of the Statistical Tools. Vol. 2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records.) The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.

A. T. Fomenko, V. V Kalashnikov, G. V. Nosovsky.Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s Almagest. USA: CRC Press, 1993.

A. T. Fomenko. New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Greek and Bible History. Vols. 1, 2, 3. USA, Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999.

A. T. Fomenko. Mathematical Impressions. American Mathematical Society, 1990.

Also by Gleb V. Nosovskiy

(List non-exhaustive)

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. On Calculating the Parent Structures in Shuffled Sequences. Vector and Tensor Analysis Seminar Works, Issue 22. Moscow: Moscow State University Publications, 1985.

G. V. Nosovskiy. Controlling the Diffusion Processes on an Edgeless Manifold. Science Candidate of Physics and Mathematics Dissertation. Moscow: Moscow University, 1988.

A. T. Fomenko, V. V. Kalashnikov, G. V. Nosovskiy. Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s Almagest. CRC Press, 1993. 300 pages.

G. V. Nosovskiy. Nonlinear Potentials Construction for Degenerate Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman Equations in Rd. In: Almanac Statistics and Control of Random Processes, Volume 5. Moscow: TVP, 1994.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology and Conception of the Ancient History of Russia, Britain and Rome. Facts. Statistics. Hypotheses. Volumes 1 and 2. Moscow: Moscow State University Didactic and Scientific Centre of Pre-University Education, 1995.

A. T. Fomenko, V. V. Kalashnikov, G. V. Nosovskiy. Dating the Almagest Star Catalogue. Moscow: Faktorial, 1995.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. The Empire. A New Mathematical Chronology of the Antiquity. Faktorial, Moscow, 1996.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. Mathematico-Statistical Models of Information Distribution in Historical Chronicles. In: Mathematical Issues of Cybernetics, issue 6. Moscow: Nauka, Fizmatlit, 1996.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. Mathematical Chronology of Biblical Events. Moscow: Nauka, 1997. 408 pages.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. Biblical Russia. Russian Empire, or the Horde, and the Bible. A New Mathematical Chronology of the Antiquity. Volumes 1 and 2. Moscow: Faktorial, 1998.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. An Introduction to the New Chronology. Moscow: Kraft, 1999.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History. New Chronology. Moscow: Delovoi Express, 1999.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History. The research of 1999-2000. Moscow: Delovoi Express, 2000.

A. T. Fomenko, V. V. Kalashnikov, G. V. Nosovskiy. Astronomical Analysis of Chronology. Moscow: Delovoi Express, 2000.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. A New Chronology of Egypt. Astronomical Dating of Egyptian Zodiacs. Moscow: Veche, 2002 and 2003.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. King of the Slavs. St. Petersburg: Neva, 2004.

A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. A New Chronology of Russia: Russia, Britain, Byzantium and Rome. Moscow: RIMIS, 2004.

A. T. Fomenko, A. A. Golovanov, D. P. Ilyutko, G. V. Nosovskiy. Computer Geometry: A Textbook for University Students. Moscow: Akademiya Publishing Centre, 2006.

Bibliography

Separate books on the New Chronology

Prior to the publication of the seven-volume Chronology, we published a number of books on the same topic. If we are to disregard the paperbacks and the concise versions, as well as new re-editions, there are seven such books. Shortened versions of their names appear below:

1. Introduction.

2. Methods 1-2.

3. Methods 3.

4. The New Chronology of Russia, Britain and Rome.

5. The Empire.

6. The Biblical Russia.

7. Reconstruction.

• Book one. Introduction.

[Intro]:1. Fomenko, A. T. New Experimental Statistical Methods of Dating Ancient Events and their Application to the Global Classical and Mediaeval Chronology. Pre-print. Moscow, The State Television and Radio Broadcast Committee, 1981. Order #3672. Lit. 9/XI-81. No. BO7201, 100 p.

[Intro]:2. Fomenko, A. T. Some New Empirico-Statistical Methods of Dating and the Analysis of Present Global Chronology. London, The British Library, Department of Printed Books, 1981. Cup. 918/87. 100 p.

[Intro]3. Fomenko, A. T. A Criticism of the Traditional Chronology of the Classical Age and the Middle Ages (What Century Is It Now?). Essay. Moscow, Publishing House of the Moscow State University Department of Mechanical Mathematics, 1993. 204 p.

[Intro]:4. 2nd edition, revised and expanded. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Criticism of the Traditional Chronology of the Classical Age and the Middle Ages (What Century Is It Now?). Moscow, Kraft-Lean, 1999. 757 p. Kraft Publications released a concise version of this book in 2001. 487 p.

[Intro]:5. Another revision. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. What Century Is It Now? Moscow, AIF-Print Publications, 2002. 511 p.

• Book two, part one: Methods-1.

[Meth1]:1. Fomenko, A. T. The Methods of Statistical Analysis of Narrative Texts and their Chronological Applications. (The identification and dating of dependent texts, statistical chronology of the antiquity, as well as the statistics of ancient astronomical accounts.) Moscow, The MSU Publishing House, 1990. 439 p.

[Meth1]:2. 2nd revised edition came out in 1996 as The Methods Of Mathematical Analysis of Historical Texts. Chronological applications. Moscow, Nauka Publications, 1996. 475 p.

[Meth1]:3. Several chapters of the book came out in 1996, revised and extended, as a separate book: Fomenko, A. T. The New Chronology of Greece. Antiquity in the Middle Ages, Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, MSU Centre of Research and Pre-University Education, 1996. 914 p.

[Meth1]:4. The English translation of the book, extended and revised to a large extent, was released under the following title: Fomenko, A. T. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating. Vol. 1, The Development of the Statistical Tools. Vol. 2, The Analysis of Ancient and Mediaeval Records. The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994. Vol. 1: 211 p. Vol. 2: 462 p.

[Meth1]:5. A Serbian translation titled Фоменко А. Т. Статистичка хронологиjа. Математички поглед на историjу. У ком смо веку? was published in 1997. Belgrade, Margo-Art, 1997. 450 p.

[Meth1]:6. The book was published in a revised and substantially extended version in 1999 as Volume 1 in a series of two: Fomenko, A. T. The Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Chronological Applications. Vol. 1. Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 1999. 801 p.

[Meth1]:7. A revised version of the book was published as two volumes (the first two in a series of three) in 1999 in the USA (in Russian) by the Edwin Mellen Press. Fomenko, A. T. New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology, Vols. 1 and 2. The publication is part of the series titled Scholarly Monographs in the Russian Language, Vols. 6-7. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999. Vol. 1: 588 p. Vol. 2: 564 p.

• Book two, part two: Methods-2.

[Meth2]:1. Fomenko, A. T. Global Chronology. (A Research of the Classical and Mediaeval History. Mathematical Methods of Source Analysis. Global Chronology.) Moscow, MSU Publications, 1993. 408 p.

[Meth2]:2. A revised and substantially extended version of the book as the second volume in a series of two: Fomenko, A. T. The Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Chronological Applications, Vol. 2. Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 1999. 907 p.

[Meth2]:3. A revised version of the book was published as the last volume in a series of three in the USA (in Russian) under the title: Fomenko A. T. Antiquity in the Middle Ages (Greek and Bible History), the trilogy bearing the general name: Fomenko A. T. New Methods of the Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts and their Chronological Application. The publication is part of the series titled Scholarly Monographs in the Russian Language. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999. 578 p.

• Book three: Methods-3.

[Meth3]:1. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s Almagest. USA: CRC Press, 1993. 300 p.

[Meth3]:2. The Russian version of the book was published in 1995 in Moscow by the Faktorial Publications under the title: Kalashnikov V. V., Nosovskiy G. V., Fomenko A. T. The Dating of the Almagest Star Catalogue. Statistical and Geometrical Analysis. 286 p.

[Meth3]:3. A substantially extended and revised version of the book: Kalashnikov, V. V., G. V. Nosovskiy, and A. T. Fomenko. The Astronomical Analysis of Chronology. The Almagest. Zodiacs. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial Publications, 2000. 895 p.

[Meth3]:4. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Egypt. The Astronomical Dating of Ancient Egyptian Monuments. Research of 2000-2002. Moscow, Veche Press, 2002. 463 p.

• Book four: Russia, Britain and Rome.

[RBR]:1. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology and Conception of the Ancient History of Russia, Britain, and Rome. Facts, Statistics, Hypotheses. Vol. 1, Russia. Vol. 2, Britain and Rome. Moscow, MSU Centre of Research and Pre-University Education. Two editions, 1995 and 1996. 672 p.

[RBR]:2. A somewhat adapted and revised version of the book came out in 1997: Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Russia and Rome. How correct is our understanding of Eurasian history? Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Olymp Publications, 1997. 2nd edition 1999. The next three volumes from this series of five were published in 2001. Vol. 1: 606 p. Vol. 2: 621 p. Vol. 3: 540 p. Vol. 4: 490 p. Vol. 5: 394 p.

[RBR]:3. A revised version of the first volume was published in 1997 as a separate book: Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Russia. Moscow, Faktorial Publications, 1997. Re-editions 1998 and 1999. 255 p.

[RBR]:4. A new, substantially extended and revised version of the first two-volume edition as a single volume: Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Russia, Britain and Rome. Moscow, Anvik, 1999. 540 p.

[RBR]:5. A new revised version of this book came out as a single volume: Fomenko A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial Publications, 2001. 1015 p.

• Book five: The Empire.

[Emp]:1. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Empire (Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, Egypt. The New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity). Moscow, Faktorial, 1996. Re-editions 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 and 2002. 752 p.

• Book six: The Biblical Russia.

[BR]:1. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Mathematical Chronology of the Biblical Events. Moscow, Nauka Publications, 1997. 407 p.

[BR]:2. A substantially revised and extended version: Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. The Empire of Horde-Russia and the Bible. The New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Faktorial, 1998. Vol. 1: 687 p. Vol. 2: 582 p.

[BR]:3. A somewhat condensed version, which nevertheless contained some important new material: Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Horde-Russia on the Pages of the Biblical Books. Moscow, Anvik Publications, 1998. 430 p.

[BR]:4. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. Selected Chapters I (The Empire of Horde-Russia and the Bible. The New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity. History of the Manuscripts and Editions of the Bible. The Events of the XI-XII Century A.D. in the New Testament. The Pentateuch.). Moscow, Faktorial, 1999. 173 p.

[BR]:5. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. Selected Chapters II (The Empire of Horde-Russia and the Bible. The New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity. History of the XIV-XVI Century in the Last Books of the Kings. The History of the XV-XVI Century in the Last Chapters of the Books of the Kings. History of the XV-XVI Century in the Books of Esther and Judith. The Reformation Epoch of the XVI-XVII Century). Moscow, Faktorial Press, 2000. 223 p.

• Book seven: Reconstruction.

[Rec]:1. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History (The New Chronology). Book 1. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial Publishers, 1999. 735 p.

[Rec]:2. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History. The Research of 1999-2000 (The New Chronology). Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial Publishers, 1999. 615 p.

[Rec]:3. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History. Joan of Arc, Samson, and the History of Russia. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial Publishers, 2002.

We have to point out that the publication of our books on the New Chronology has influenced a number of authors and their works where the new chronological concepts are discussed or developed. Some of these are: L. I. Bocharov, N. N. Yefimov, I. M. Chachukh, and I. Y. Chernyshov ([93]), Jordan Tabov ([827], [828]), A. Goutz ([220]), M. M. Postnikov ([680]), V. A. Nikerov ([579:1]), Heribert Illig ([1208]), Christian Blöss and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz ([1038], [1039]), Gunnar Heinsohn ([1185]), Gunnar Heinsohn and Heribert Illig ([1186]), Uwe Topper ([1462], [1463]).

Our research attracted sufficient attention to chronological issues for the Muscovite publishing house Kraft to print a new edition of the fundamental work of N. A. Morozov titled Christ, first published in 1924-1932.

Sources in Russian

[1]. Abalakin, V. K. The Essential Ephemeris Astronomy. Moscow, 1979.

[2]. Abbas, Shalabi. The Entire Egypt, from Cairo to Abu-Simbel and Sinai. 2nd extended Russian edition. Florence, Bonechi, 1996.

[2:1]. Avadyaeva, E., and L. Zdanovich. The Hundred Great Afflictions. Moscow, Veche, 1999.

[3]. Agathius. The Reign of Justinian. Moscow-Leningrad, USSR Academy of Sciences Publications, 1953. See also Agathius, Scholasticus. Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinque. Berolini, 1967.

[4]. Mez, Adam. The Muslim Renaissance. Moscow, Nauka, 1966. German edition: Mez, A. Die Renaissance des Islams. Heidelberg, 1922.

[5]. Azarevich, D. I. The History of the Byzantine Law. Yaroslavl, 1876-1877.

[6]. Aydarova-Volkova, G. The Priceless Experience. A Cultural Dialogue. Looking Across the Centuries. The Kazan magazine, Issue 9-10 (1999): 13-21.

[7]. Acropolite, George. The Chronicle of the Great Logothete George Acropolite. St. Petersburg, 1863.

[8]. The Historical Acts Compiled and Published by the Archaeographical Commission. St. Petersburg, The State Document Preparation Expedition Typography. Vols. 1 and 2. 1841.

[9]. Nazarov, V. D., ed. The Acts of the State of Russia. Archives of the Muscovite Monasteries and Cathedrals. The XV – early XVII century. Moscow, The Ladomir Research and Publication Centre, 1998.

[10]. Alexandria. A Novel about Alexander the Great Based on a Russian Chronicle of the XV century. Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1966.

[11]. Petrukhno, A. S., N. I. Shirinya, S. A. Gleybman, and O. V. Zavgorodniaya. Alexander’s Village (Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, or, literally, “The Freemen’s Village of Alexander”). An Album. The Russian Federation Ministry of Culture. City of Alexandrov. The State Museum of Art, History, and Architecture of Alexander’s Village. The City Council of the City of Alexandrov. 1996.

[12]. Alexander’s Village (Alexandrovskaya Sloboda). The materials of a scientific and practical conference. Vladimir, Golden Gate Publications, 1995.

[13]. Alexandrovsky, M. I. A Historical Reference Book for the Churches of Moscow. Moscow, The State Museum of History, Department of Visual Arts, the Architectural Graphics Fund, 1917 (with an additional written before 1942).

[14]. Alexeyev, M. P. On the Anglo-Russian Relations in the Time of Yaroslav the Wise. The Scientific Bulletin of the Leningrad State University (4, 1945): 31.

[15]. Alexeyev, Y. My Monarch Sent Me to the Sultan. The Rodina magazine, No. 2 (1997): 31-36.

[16]. Alessandro, Angelini. Piero della Francesca. The Great Italian Masters series. Moscow, Slovo, 1997. The Italian edition: Italy, Scala, Instituto Fotografico Editoriale, 1995.

[16:1]. [Altarpieces] Caterina Limentani Virdis and Mari Pietrogiovanna. Altarpieces. The Art of the Early Renaissance. Translated from Italian. Byely Gorod, 2002. Arsenale editrice, Italy, 2001.

[17]. The Alphabetic Syntagm of Matthew Vlastar. Translated from Greek by Rev. Nikolai Ilyinsky, a teacher from the Seminary School of Tauris. Simpheropol, 1892. A new edition: Moscow, Galaxy Publications, 1996.

[18]. Alberti, L. Leon Battista Alberti. A collection of essays. Moscow, the USSR Academy of Sciences, Nauka, 1977. Complete ed. Oxford, Phaidon, 1977.

[19]. Amalrik, A. S., and A. L. Mongayt. The Essential Archaeology. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1963.

[19:0]. [Amartoles, George]. Matveyenko, V., and L. Shchegoleva. The Chronicle of George the Monk. Russian text, comments, indications. Moscow, Bogorodskiy Pechatnik, 2000.

[19:1]. The catalogue of the exhibition 500 Years Since the Discovery of America. The Hermitage. Russian National Library. St. Petersburg, Slavia-Interbook, Inc., 1993.

[20]. Amousin, I. D. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Moscow, Nauka, 1960.

[21]. Amphitheatrov, A. Collected Works in 8 Volumes. Vol. 4. St. Petersburg, Prosveshchenie, 1911.

[22]. Anastasov, L. A New Direction in Science? Be careful! The Science and Technology magazine (Moscow), No. 8 (1983): 28-30.

[23]. Müller, V. K., comp. The English-Russian Dictionary. 70,000 words. Moscow, The State National and Foreign Dictionary Publishing House, 1961.

[24]. Andreyeva, V., V. Kuklev, and A. Rovner. An Encyclopedia of Symbols, Signs, and Emblems. Moscow, Lokid/Myth/Ad Marginem, 1999.

[25]. Anninskiy, S. A. The News of the Tartars in Europe Brought by the Hungarian Missionaries. Included in The Historical Archive, 71-112. Moscow-Leningrad, The RAS Institute of History, RAS Publications, 1940.

[26]. Antwerp and its Sights. Antwerp, Editions THILL S.A. Brussels, 1999. In Russian.

[27]. Antonov, A. V. Genealogical Murals of Late XVII Century. The Archaeographical Centre. The Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. The Russian Historical Research, No. 6. Moscow, the Archaeographical Centre Publications.

[28]. Antonova, V. I., and N. E. Mneva. The Catalogue of Ancient Russian Art from the Tretyakov Gallery. Moscow, 1963. Vol. 1: p. 256; Vol 2: pp. 413 and 421.

[29]. The Apocryphal Jesus, Holy Family, and Christ Witness Legendry. Sventsitskaya, I. S., and A. P. Skogorev, comp. Moscow, Kogelet, 1999.

[30]. Apollodorus. The Mythological Library. Leningrad, Nauka, 1972. English edition: Apollodorus. The Library. London-New York: Loeb Classical Library, 1921.

[30:1]. Arago, F. The Biographies of the Famous Astronomers, Physicists, and Geometricians. Books 1 and 2 (Vols. 1-3). Translated by D. Perevoshchikov. Moscow-Izhevsk, The Scientific Research Centre for Regular and Chaotic Dynamics, 2000.

[31]. Arenkova, Y. I., and G. I. Mekhova. The Don Monastery. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1970.

[32]. Aristaenetus. The Love Epistles. Eustathius, Macrembolites. The Story of Ismene and Istmenias. Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1965. Also see Aristaenetus. The Love Epistles. In W. Kelley. Erotica. London, Bohn’s Classical Library, G. Bell & Sons, 1848. Eustathius, Macrembolites. Ismene and Istmenias. London, 1788.

[33]. Zdanovich, G. B., ed. Arkaim. Research. Prospects. Findings. A collection of essays. From the series titled The Historical Pages of Southern Ural. The Arkaim Reserve works, State University of Chelyabinsk, the Specialized Arkaim Nature and Landscape Centre of History and Archaeology. The State Reserve of Ilmen. Chelyabinsk, the Kamenny Poyas Creative Group, 1995.

[34]. Arnold, Y. El Señor Kon-Tiki. Moscow, Mysl, 1970.

[35]. Aronov, V. The Elseviers (A History of Literary Art). Moscow, Kniga, 1975.

[36]. The Chronicler of Archangelsk. A complete collection of Russian chronicles, Vol. 37. Leningrad, Nauka, 1982.

[37]. Archangelskiy, Leonid. The Samurai Steel. An article for the magazine called Magnum. The New Magazine on Arms (November-December 1998): 18-21.

[38]. Avdousina, T. D., and T. D. Panov. Archaeological Antiquities: The Muscovite Kremlin. The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture. Moscow, 1996.

[39]. Serge, Archbishop. The Complete Oriental Menology. Vols. 1-3. Vladimir, Typography & Lithography of V. A. Parkov in Vladimir, 1901. Reprinted Moscow, Orthodox Encyclopaedia Centre of Ecclesiastic Research, Palomnik Publications, 1997.

[40]. Archimedes. The Works. Moscow, Fizmatgiz, 1962. English edition: Archimedes, The Works of Archimedes. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1912.

[40:0]. Asov, A. I. The Book of Veles. Moscow, Menedzher, 1995, 2nd edition.

[40:00]. Asov, A. I., Konovalov, M. Y. The Ancient Aryans. The Slavs. Russia. Moscow, Veche, 2002.

[40:1]. Gentili, Augusto, William Barcham, and Linda Whiteley. The National Gallery of London. From the The Great Museums of the World series. Moscow, Slovo, 2001. A translation of the Italian edition Udine: Magnus Edizioni, 2000.

[41]. Nikitin, Afanasiy. Voyage over the Three Sees. Published in the Literary Monuments of Old Russia. 2nd Half of the XV Century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1982.

[42]. Nikitin, Afanasiy. Afanasiy Nikitin’s Voyage over the Three Sees. 1466-1472. Foreword, translation, text preparation and commentary by N. I. Prokofiev. Moscow, Sovietskaya Rossiya, 1980.

[43]. Akhmanova, O. S., and others. Precise Methods of Language Study. Moscow, 1961.

[44]. Bayev, K. L. Copernicus. From the Celebrity Biographies series, Issue 7 (55). Moscow, The Magazine and Newspaper Consociation, 1935.

[45]. Beyer, Rolf. The Queen of Sheba. From the Mark In History series. Rostov-on-Don, Fenix Publications, 1998. A translation from the German original by Beyer, Rolf. Die Königin von Saba. The Question Mark series, Gustav Lübbe Verlag GmbH, Bergisch Gladbach. 1987.

[46]. Balandin, R. K. A Miracle or a Scientific Enigma? Science and Religion Discussing the Shroud of Turin. Moscow, Znaniye, 1989. The Question Mark series, Issue 1, 1989.

[47]. Balandin, R., and L. Bondarev. Nature and Civilization. Moscow, Mysl, 1988.

[48]. Baldin, V. I., and T. P. Manushkina. The Laura of Serge and The Trinity. The Architectural Set and the Collections of Ancient Russian Art of the XIV-XVII Century. Moscow, Nauka, 1996.

[49]. Baranov, V. Logic Isn’t Facts. The Science & Technology magazine (Moscow), No. 4 (1983): 24-28.

[50]. Baronius, C. The Ecclesial and Secular Annals from the Birth of Christ and until the Year 1198. Typography of P. P. Ryabushinsky, from Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici a Christo nato ad annum 1198. Moscow, 1913.

[51]. Bartenev, S. The Moscow Kremlin in the Antiquity and Nowadays. Moscow, Synodal Typography, 1912.

[52]. de las Casas, Bartólome. History of the Indias. Leningrad, Nauka, 1968.

[53]. Baskakov, N. A. Russian Names of Turkic Origin. Moscow, Nauka, The Main Oriental Literature Editing Board, 1979.

[54]. Magarichev, Y. M., ed. and comp. The Cultural and Historical Reserve of Bakhchisaray. Simferopol, Tavria, 1995.

[55]. Bakhshi, Iman. Jagfar Tarikhy. A Collection of Bulgarian Manuscripts from 1680. Russian translation of the Bulgarian text by I. M. K. Nigmatoullin. Orenburg, The Orenburg Press Contact, KOPF, editorial board of the Bulgaria Courier, 1993.

[56]. Bashmakova, I. G., and G. S. Smirnova. The Naissance and the Development of Algebra. Published in the Aperçus on the History of Mathematics edited by B. V. Gnedenko. Moscow, MSU Publications, 1997.

[57]. Belenkiy, M. S. Judaism. Moscow, Gospolitizdat, 1966.

[58]. Bellosi, Luciano. Giotto. Moscow, Slovo Press, 1996. Translated from the 1995 Italian edition by Scala, Istituto Fotografico Editoriale.

[59]. Belova, A. G. The Historical Morphology of the Arabic Language. Moscow, 1994.

[59:0]. Belova G. A, Sherkova T. A. Russians in the Land of Pyramids. Travellers, Scientists, Collectioners. Moscow, Aleteya, 2003.

[59:1]. Belyavsky, V. A. Legendary and Historical Babylon. Moscow, Mysl, 1971.

[60]. Belyavsky, M. T. M. V. Lomonosov and the Foundation of the Moscow University (1755-1955). Edited by M. N. Tikhomirov. Moscow, MSU Publications, 1955.

[61]. Belyaev, D. V. Byzantine. Essays, Materials and Notes concerning Byzantine Antiquity. Book III. St. Petersburg, 1891-1906.

[62]. Belyaev, L. A. The Ancient Monasteries of Moscow According to Archaeological Data. Moscow, The Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology. Research and materials concerning the archaeology of Moscow. Vol. 6. 1995.

[63]. Belyaev, Y. 100 Monsters of Antiquity. An illustrated encyclopaedia of mythology. Moscow, Raritet, 1997.

[64]. Bémont, C., and G. Monod. The Mediaeval History of Europe. Petrograd, 1915. French edition: Bémont, C., and G. Monod. Histoire de l’Europe au Moyen Âge. Paris, 1921.

[64:1]. Berg, L. S. The Discovery of Kamchatka and Bering’s Expedition. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR Academy of Sciences Press, 1946.

[64:2]. Berg, L. S. Essays on the History of Russian Geographical Discoveries. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR Academy of Sciences Press, 1946.

[65]. Berry, A. Concise History of Astronomy. Translated by S. Zaimovskiy. Moscow-Leningrad, GITTL, 1946.

[66]. Archimandrite Nicephor. The Biblical Encyclopedia (The Full Illustrated Biblical Encyclopedia). Moscow, The A. I. Snegiryova Typography, 1891. A modern reprint was published by the Laura of St. Serge and the Holy Trinity in 1990.

[67]. The Bible. 10th edition. St. Petersburg, 1912.

[68]. The Bible. Books from the Old and the New Covenant in Russian Translation with Anagoges and Appendices. Moscow, Moscow Patriarchy Press, 1968. There are numerous re-editions in existence, for instance, the one published by the Russian Biblical Society in Moscow, 1995.

[69]. The Bible. Books of the Holy Writ from the Old and the New Covenant. Russian translation with appendices. 4th edition. Brussels, Life with God Press, 1989.

[70]. The Bible, or the Books of the Holy Writ from the Old and the New Covenant with Anagoges. 2nd edition. St. Petersburg, Synodal Typography, 1900. Reprinted by the Russian Biblical Society in Moscow, 1993. (This version of the Bible dates to the 1st half of the XVIII century and is therefore occasionally called Elizabethan.)

[71]. Scorina’s Bible. A facsimile edition of the Bible published by Francisco Scorina in 1517-1519. Volumes 1-3. Minsk, The Petrus Brovka Byelorussian Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia Press, 1990.

[72]. Bickerman, E. Chronology of the Ancient World. Moscow, Nauka, 1975. Translated from the English edition published in London by Thames & Hudson, 1968-1969.

[73]. Biroulia, Y. N. Russian Naval Charts of 1701-1750. Copies from originals (Atlas). St. Petersburg, The Military Navy Publications, 1993.

[74]. The Book of Good Tidings. Interpretations of the Holy Gospel by St. Theophilactus, the Archbishop of Bulgaria. The Gospel According to Mark Interpreted. St. Petersburg, P. P. Soykin’s Publications. Reprinted St. Petersburg, Satis Press, 1993.

[75]. Blazhko, S. N. A Course of Practical Astronomy. Moscow, Nauka, 1979.

[76]. Blair, G. Chronological Tables Spanning the Entire Global History, Containing Every Year since the Genesis and until the XIX Century, Published in English by G. Blair, a Member of the Royal Society, London. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow University Press, 1808-1809. The English edition: Blair’s Chronological and Historical Tables, from the Creation to the Present Time, etc. London, G. Bell & Sons, 1882.

[77]. Bobrovnitskaya, T. A. The Royal Regalia of the Russian Rulers. The Kremlin in Moscow. Published to Commemorate the 500th Anniversary of the State Coat of Arms and the 450th Anniversary of the Inauguration of the First Russian Czar Ivan the Terrible. Moscow, The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture, 1997.

[78]. Bobrovnitsky. The Origins and the Process of the Roman Catholic Liturgy. Kiev, 1873.

[79]. Bogdanov, Ivan. Name Lists of the Bulgarian Khans. Sofia, Otechestvenia Front Press, 1981.

[80]. Gousseva, E., A. Lukashov, and others. Our Lady of Vladimir. A collection of materials. Exhibition catalogue. The State Tretyakovskaya Gallery, The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture. Moscow, Avangard Press, 1995.

[80:1]. Boguslavskiy, V. V. The Slavic Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, OLMA-Press, 2001.

[81]. Bozhilov, Ivan. The Asen Dynasty (1186-1460). Genealogy and Prosopography. Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Press, 1994.

[82]. Bolingbroke. Epistles on Historical Studies and their Utility. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[83]. Bolotov, V. V. Lectures on Ancient Ecclesial History. Vols. 1-4. Published posthumously under the editorship of Prof. A. Brilliantov. St. Petersburg, 1907. Reprinted Moscow, Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery of Valaam, 1994.

[84]. Bolkhovitinov, E. A. (Metropolitan Eugene). The Concise Chronicle of Pskov. Pskov, Otchina Press, 1993.

[85]. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1-51. 2nd edition. Moscow, The Soviet Encyclopaedia Press, 1949-1957.

[85:1]. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1-30. 3rd edition. Moscow, 1969-1978. (Electronic version on 5 CD-ROMs.)

[86]. The Great Catechism. Moscow, 7135 (1627 ad). Reprinted by the Royal Grodno typography in 7291 (1683 AD).

[87]. The Great German-Russian Dictionary. 2nd edition, Stereotyped. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1980.

[87:1]. The Great Turkish-Russian Dictionary. 20,000 words and word groups. The RAS Institute for Oriental Studies. 2nd edition. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1998.

[88]. The Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow, The Great Russian Encyclopaedia Press, 1998.

[89]. Borisov, N. S. Ivan Kalita. The Celebrity Biographies series. Moscow, Molodaya Gvardia, 1995.

[90]. Borisovskaya, N. Engraved Ancient Maps and Plans of the XV-XVIII century. Cosmography, Maps, Star Charts, City and Battle Plans. From the Pushkin State Museum of Art Collection. Moscow, Galaktika Press, 1995.

[91]. Bosch, Hieronymus. Self-titled album of reproductions. Moscow, Uniserv, 1995.

[91:1]. Botticelli. An album from the Masters of Art series. Text by Elena Carpetti. 1997, Giunti Gruppo Editoriale, Florence, 2002. Russian edition by Byely Gorod, Moscow, 2001.

[92]. Beaufort, Louis de. Dissertation sur l’incertitude des cinq premiers siècles de l’histoire Romaine. Utrecht, 1738. Republished Paris, Blot, 1886.

[93]. Bocharov, L. I., N. N. Yefimov, I. M. Chachoukh, and I. Y. Chernyshev. The Conspiracy Against Russian History. (Facts, Mysteries, Versions). Moscow, Anvik, 1998.

[93:1]. Brant, Sebastian. Ship of Fools. Part of the The World Literature Bibliothèque series (Series 1, Vol. 33). Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1971.

[94]. Brownley, C. A. Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Technology. Moscow, Nauka, 1977.

[95]. Brashinskiy, I. B. Looking for the Scythian Treasures. Leningrad, The USSR Academy of Sciences, Nauka, 1979.

[96]. Brodsky, B. Kremlin – The Heart of the Fatherland. Moscow, Izobrazitelnoye Iskusstvo, 1996.

[97]. Bronstein, I. N., and K. A. Semendyaev. A Reference Book on Mathematics. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[98]. Bronsten, V. A. Claudius Ptolemy. Moscow, Nauka, 1988.

[99]. Brugsch, Heinrich. History of the Pharaohs. Translated by G. K. Vlastov. Published in the series titled The Chronicles and the Monuments of the Ancient Egypt. St. Petersburg, I. I. Glazounov’s Typography, 1880. English edition: Egypt under the Pharaohs. A History Derived Entirely from the Monuments. London, J. Murray, 1891.

[99:1]. Bruges: its Sights and Delights. City Plan. (Russian version). E.E.C., Editions Thill S. A., Brussels, 1997.

[100]. Bryusova, V. G. Andrei Rublev. Moscow, Izobrazitelnoye Iskusstvo, 1995.

[101]. Bouganov, V. I. Razin and his Followers. Documents, Accounts of the Contemporaries. Moscow, Nauka, 1995.

[102]. Bouganov, S. I. Native Historiography of Russian Chronicles. Moscow, Nauka, 1975.

[103]. Bouzeskoul, V. P. An Introduction into Greek History. Lectures. Vol. 1. Petrograd, 1915.

[104]. Boukreyeva, T. N. The Basel Museum of Arts. Moscow, Izobrazitelnoye Iskusstvo, 1987.

[105]. Boulatov, A. M. The Historical Plans of Moscow. Release III. Moscow, Zhiraf, 2000.

[106]. Burian, Y., and B. Moukhova. The Enigmatic Etruscans. Moscow, Nauka, 1970.

[107]. Bouseva-Davydova, I. L. The Temples of the Muscovite Kremlin: Holy Relics and other Antiquities. Moscow, The Nauka Int’l Academic Publishing Co., 1997.

[108]. Boutkevich, T. I. An Overview of Russian Sects. Kharkov, 1910.

[109]. Boutkov, P. Defending the Russian Chronicle of Nestor from the Vituperation of the Sceptics. St. Petersburg, 1840.

[110]. Boutomo, S. I. Radionuclear Datings and the Construction of an Absolute Chronological Scale of Archaeological Monuments. In Archaeology and Natural Sciences. Moscow, Nauka, 1965. 35-45.

[111]. Boutromeyev, V. Global History in Individual Personalities. Late Middle Ages. Moscow, Olma, 1999.

[112]. Kalougin, V. I., comp. Folk Tales and Legends. Moscow, Sovremennik, 1991.

[113]. Bychkov, A. A., A. Y. Nizovsky, and P. Y. Chernosvitov. The Conundrums of Ancient Russia. Moscow, Veche, 2000.

[114]. Bychkov, V. V. The Mediaeval Aesthetics of Russia. XI-XVII century. Moscow, Mysl, 1992.

[114:1]. Bauval, Robert, and Adrian Gilbert. The Orion Mystery. Unlocking the Secrets of the Pyramids. Russian translation. Moscow, Veche, 1996.

[115]. Bulgaria. A Traveller’s Map. Scale: 1:530000. Sofia, Datamap Revue, 1997.

[116]. Wagner, G. K. Soviet Union and its Famous Works of Art. Old Cities of Russia. A traveller’s guide. Moscow, Iskusstvo, Edizion Leipzig, 1980.

[116:1]. Weinstein S., and M.Kryukov. The Saddle and the Stirrup. The Znaniye-Sila (Knowledge is Power) magazine (Moscow), August 1985, 24-26.

[117]. Valishevsky, K. Ivan the Terrible. Moscow, IKPA-press, 1989. Reprinted from Moscow, Obshchestvennaya Polza Typography, 1912.

[118]. Valishevsky, K. Ivan the Terrible. Moscow, Svarog, 1993.

[119]. Valishevsky, K. The First Romanovs. Moscow, Kvadrat, 1993.

[120]. Vasiliev, A. A. The History of Byzantium. The Fall of Byzantium. The Palaeiologi Epoch (1261-1453). Leningrad, Academia, 1925.

[121]. An Introduction into Special Historical Disciplines. Moscow, MSU Publications, 1990.

[122]. Weber, George. Universal History. Moscow, 1892. English edition: Weber, G. Outline of Universal History from the Creation of the World to the Present Time. London, 1851.

[122:1]. Hungarian-Russian Dictionary. 40,000 words. Moscow-Budapest, Russkiy Yazyk, The Hungarian Academy of Sciences Publishing House, 1974.

[123]. Weisman, A. D. Greek-Russian Dictionary. 5th edition. St. Petersburg, published by the author, 1899. Reprinted Moscow, Graeco-Latin Department of Y. A. Shichalin, 1991.

[124]. Weisman, A. D. Latin-Russian Dictionary. St. Petersburg: published by the author, 1899. Reprinted Moscow, Graeco-Latin Department of Y. A. Shichalin, 1991.

[125]. Venelin, Y. News of the Varangians as Related by Arab Scribes; their Alleged Crimes as Seen by the Latter. The Imperial Moscow University Society for History and Russian Antiquities Readings, Book IV, Section V: 1-18. 1870.

[125:1]. Vereshchagin V. V. Vereschagin, the Artist. Napoleon I in Russia, 1812. Tver, the Sozvezdie Agency of Tver, 1993.

[125:2]. Vermoush, G. Diamonds in World History and Stories about Diamonds. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 1988.

[126]. Veselovsky, A. N. Russians and Veltins in the Saga of Tidrec of Berne (Verona). St. Petersburg, Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1906. A separate engraving from the Russian Language and Belles Lettres Department Courier, Vol. XI (1906), Book 3: 1-190.

[127]. Veselovsky, I. N. Aristarchus of Samos – The Copernicus of the Antiquity. Historical and astronomical research. Issue 7: 44. Moscow, Nauka, 1961.

[128]. Veselovsky, S. B. A Research into the History of Oprichnina. Moscow, 1963.

[129]. The Russia Academy of Sciences Courier, Vol. 68, No. 10 (October 1998). Moscow, Nauka.

[129:1]. Palaudirias, S. A., Editorial Escudo de Oro. The Entire Antwerp. In The Entire Europe Collection. Antwerp, published in Russian. Barcelona, 1998.

[129:2]. Bersnev, P. V., comp. The Old Testament Apocrypha. The Book of the Jubilees. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Translated by A. V. Smirnov. Published in the Alexandrian Library series. St. Petersburg, Amphora, 2000.

[129:3]. Vzdornov, G. I. Book Art in Old Russia. Handwritten Books in the North-Eastern Russia in the XII – Early XV century. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1980.

[130]. Widukind of Corvea. The Deeds of the Saxons. Moscow, Nauka, 1975. See also Widukind. Sächsische Geschichten. Translated by R. Schottin, foreword by W. Wattenbach. GV. Leipzig, 1882. Also see: Widukind. Sächsische Geschichten. New revision by Paul Hirsch. GV, Bd. 33, Leipzig, 1931.

[131]. The Byzantine Book of the Eparch. Moscow, Oriental Literature Publications, 1962. Also see The Book of the Eparch. Le livre du préfet, with an introduction by Prof. Ivan Dulcev. “Reprint of … the publication (by Jules Nicole) of the Book of the Eparch, to which is added … a facsimile of the complete manuscript and Freshfield’s English translation.” 1970.

[132]. Byzantine Historians. Dexippos, Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Malchus, Peter the Patrician, Menander, Candides, Nonnos, Theophanes the Byzantine. St. Petersburg, 1858.

[133]. Byzantine Legends. Leningrad, Nauka, 1972.

[134]. Vilinbakhov, G. V. The State Coat of Arms of Russia. 500 Years. St. Petersburg, Slavia. The State Hermitage. The Presidential State Heraldry Commission. The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture, 1997.

[135]. Vilinbakhov, G., and T. Vilinbakhova. St. George and his Image as Used in Russia. St. Petersburg, Iskusstvo, 1995.

[136]. de Villehardouin, Geoffroy. The Conquest of Constantinople. Moscow, Nauka, 1993.

[137]. Vinogradov, V. K. Theodosia. A Historical Aperçu. Yekaterinodar, Kilius & Co Typography, 1902. (A reprint of the first part of the book is given in the historical and literary almanac titled Okoyem [Horizon], No. 2 for 1992, Theodosia.)

[138]. Vittorio, Serra. The Entire Rome. (Flowers. Churches. Museums. Monuments. Fountains. The Vatican. The Sistine Chapel. Tivoli. Ostia Antica). Bonechi Edizioni “Il Turismo.” Florence, 1994.

[139]. Vladimirov, L. I. The Omnified Literary History. Moscow, Kniga, 1988.

[140]. Vlasov, Sergei. The Deeds of Constantine the Great. First Experimental Typography of the State Committee of Russian Federation, Eleemosynary Institution “The Order of Constantine the Great”, 1999.

[141]. Vnouchkov, B. C. The Prisoner of Schliesselburg. Yaroslavl, the Upper Volga Publications, 1988.

[142]. Voyekova, I. N., and V. P. Mitrofanov. Yaroslavl. From the series titled Museum Cities. Leningrad, Avrora, 1973.

[143]. The Military Topographic Map of Moscow and its Environs (1860). The map was published in the Rarities of Russian Cartography series. Moscow, Kartair, the scientific and editorial publishing house of I. R. Anokhin, 1998.

[144]. Around the Coliseum. The Izvestiya newspaper, 18 May 1977.

[145]. The Vologda Chronicle. The Anthology of Ancient Russian Literature, Vol. 37. Leningrad, Nauka, 1982.

[145:1]. The Land of Volokolamsk. Dedicated to 400 Years of Glorifying the Most Reverend Joseph of Volotsk. Under the general editorship of Pitirim, the Metropolitan of Volokolamsk and Yurievsk. Moscow, Prosvetitel, 1994.

[146]. Volfkovich, S. I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov as a Chemist (1854-1946). The Journal of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Department of Chemistry, No. 5 (1947).

[147]. Volfkovich, S. I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov. His Life and Works on Chemistry. The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 11 (1947).

[148]. Voronikhina, L. N. Edinburgh. The Cities and Museums of the World series. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1974.

[149]. Vostokov, A. A Description of the Russian and the Slovenian Manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum as Compiled by Alexander Vostokov. St. Petersburg, Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1842.

[150]. The Chronicle of Ivan Timofeyev. Prepared for printing, translated and commented by O. A. Derzhavina. Moscow-Leningrad, 1951.

[151]. Global History. 10 volumes. Moscow, USSR Academy of Sciences, The Socio-Economic Literature Department Publications, 1958.

[152]. The Unified Library of Russia, or the Book Catalogue for an Exhaustive and Detailed Description of our Fatherland. 2nd extended edition. Moscow, 1845.

[153]. Maggi, G. and Valdes, G. The Entire Turkey. Florence, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1995.

[154]. Wooley, L. Ur of the Chaldees. Moscow, Oriental Literary, 1961 (1972). English edition: Wooley, L. Ur of the Chaldees. London, Benn, 1950. See also: Wooley, L. Excavations at Ur. A Record of Twelve Years. London, Benn, 1955.

[155]. Galfridus Monmutensis. History of the Brits. The Life of Merlin. Moscow, Nauka, 1984. English edition: Histories of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Translated by L. A. Paton. London-New York, 1912. See also: Giles, J. A., ed. Six Old English Chronicles. London, 1848.

[156]. Garkavi, A. Y. The Accounts of the Slavs and the Russians as Given by Muslim Authors (from mid-VII century until the End of the X century AD). St. Petersburg, 1870 (1872).

[157]. Genova, E., and L. Vlakhova. 24 Church Plates from the Rila Monastery. Sofia, Bulgarsky Khudozhnik, 1988.

[158]. GEO. A monthly magazine. No. 1 (January, 2000). Moscow, Gruner and Yar Ltd.

[159]. Geographical Atlas. Moscow, The General Council of Ministers, Department of Geodetics and Cartography. 1968.

[160]. Herberstein. Baron Sigismund Herberstein. Notes on the Affairs of the Muscovires. St. Petersburg, A. S. Souvorin’s Press, 1908. Rerum moscoviticarum commentarii. Wien, S. l. et d., 1549. Rerum moscoviticarum commentarii. Basiliae, 1551. Rerum moscoviticarum commentarii. Basiliae, 1556. Moscovia, der Hauptstat in Reissen. Wien, 1557. Major, R. H., ed. Notes upon Russia. 2nd edition. New York, London Hakluite Society, 1963. Vol. 10: 1-116; Vol. 12: 3-174.

[161]. Herberstein, Sigismund. Notes on Moscovia. Moscow, MSU Publications, 1988.

[161:1]. Herberstein. Ziga Herberstein. Sigismund Herberstein – the Warrior, Statesman, Diplomat and Peacemaker. An edition of the Dr. F. Preshern Society for Contact Development between Slovenia and Russia.Moscow Byelye Alvy Press, Bilio, Humar Press, 2000.

[162]. von Winkler, P. P., comp. Coats of Arms of Cities, Provinces, Regions and Towns of the Russian Empire Included into the Complete Collection of Laws and Regulations between 1649 and 1900. St. Petersburg: published by the book salesman Iv. Iv. Ivanov, 1899. New edition: Moscow, Planeta, 1990.

[163]. Herodotus. History. Leningrad, Nauka, 1972. English edition: The History of Herodotus. From the series Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 5. Chicago, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., The University of Chicago, 1952 (2nd edition 1990). See also: Herodotus. The Histories of Herodotus, etc. London and New York, Everyman’s Library, 1964.

[164]. Herzen, A. G., and Y. M. Mogarichev. The Fortress of Gems. Kyrk-Or, Chufut-Kale. Published as part of the series The Archaeological Monuments of the Crimea. Simferopol, Tavria, 1993.

[165]. Herzen, A. G., and Y. M. Mogarichev. Salachik. The Ouspensky Monastery. Bakhchisaray. The State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture of Bakhchisaray. 1991.

[165:1]. Hertzman, Yevgeni. The Lost Centuries of Byzantine Music. The XX International Congress of Byzantine Scholars. St. Petersburg, The Humanitarian Academy Publishing Centre, 2001.

[166]. Gerchouk, Y. Y. History of Drawing and Book Art. Moscow, Aspect, 2000.

[167]. Gililov, I. A Passion Play of William Shakespeare, or the Mystery of the Great Phoenix. Moscow, “Artist. Rezhissyor. Teatr” Publications, 1997.

[168]. Glazounov, I. Russia Crucified. The Our Contemporary magazine, Issues 1-5, 7-9, 11 (1996). This material was subsequently published as a book.

[169]. Gnedenko, A. M., and V. M. Gnedenko. For One’s Comrades, or Everything about the Cossacks. Moscow, The Int’l Fund of Slavic Writing and Culture. ARP Int. Co., 1993.

[170]. The A. V. Shchusev Museum of Architecture, archive 1246/1-13.

[171]. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, I. N. The Mediaeval Latin Literature of Italy. Moscow, Nauka, 1972.

[172]. Golitsyn, N. S. The Great Warlords of History. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1878.

[173]. Golovanov, Y. Etudes on Scientists. Moscow, Molodaya Gvardiya, 1976.

[174]. Golovin, B. N. Language and Statistics. Moscow, 1971.

[175]. Goloubovsky, P. V. The Pechenegs, the Torks, and the Polovtsy before the Tartar Invasion. Kiev, 1884.

[176]. Goloubtsov, A. P. Selected Readings on Ecclesial Archaeology and Liturgy. St. Petersburg, Statis, 1995.

[177]. Goloubtsova, E. S., and V. M. Smirin. “On the Attempts of Using the ‘New Methods’ of Statistical Analysis to Ancient Historical Material.” The Courier of Ancient History, 1982, No. 1: 171-195.

[178]. Goloubtsova, E. S., and G. A. Koshelenko. Ancient History and the “New Methods.” Historical Issues, No. 8 (1982).

[179]. Goloubtsova, E. S., and Y. A. Zavenyagin. Another Account of the New Methods and the Chronology of Antiquity. Historical Issues, No. 12 (1983): 68-83.

[180]. Homer. Iliad. Translated by N. I. Gnedich. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1969. See also: Homer, The Iliad of Homer. Chicago University Press, London, 1962.

[180:1]. Homer. The Odyssey of Homer. New York, Harper & Row, 1967.

[181]. Goneim, M. The Lost Pyramid. Moscow, Geographiz, 1959. English edition: Goneim, M. The Lost Pyramid. New York, Rinehart, 1956.

[182]. Gorbachevsky, B. Crosses, Fires, and Books. Moscow, Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1965.

[183]. Gordeyev, A. A. History of the Cossacks. Vol. 1-4. Moscow, Strastnoi Boulevard, 1992.

[184]. Gordeyev, N. V. The Czar Cannon. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1969.

[185]. The Towns and Cities of Russia. An Encyclopaedia. Moscow, The Great Russian Encyclopaedia Publications, 1994.

[186]. Gorsey, Gerome. Notes on Russia. XVI – Early XVII century. Moscow, MSU Press, 1990.

[187]. The State Armoury. Album. Moscow, Sovetskiy Khudozhnik, 1988. A new edition by Galart Press, Moscow, 1990.

[188]. The A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of paintings. Moscow, 1995, Mazzotta. Printed in Italy.

[189]. The Ruler is a Friend of his Subjects, or Political Court Hortatives and Moralistic Speculations of Kan-Shi, Khan of Manchuria and China. Collected by his son, Khan Yun-Jin. St. Petersburg, 1795.

[190]. Goulianitsky, N. F., ed. The Urbanism of the Muscovite State of the XVI-XVII centuries. Moscow, The Russian Academy of Architecture. Stroyizdat, 1994.

[191]. The Faceted Chamber in the Moscow Kremlin. Leningrad, Aurora, 1982.

[192]. Granovsky, T. N. Lectures on Mediaeval History. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[193]. Grebelsky, Peter K., and Alexander B. Mirvis. The House of the Romanovs. Biographical Information about the Members of the Reigning House, their Predecessors and Relations. St. Petersburg, LIO Redaktor, 1992.

[194]. Mina, Gregory. Uffizi and Pitti. The Art of the Florentine Galleries. Album. From the Great Museums of the World series. Moscow, Slovo, 1999. A translation of the Italian edition by Magnus Edizioni, Udine, Italy, 1994, 1996.

[195]. Gregorovius, F. Mediaeval History of Athens. St. Petersburg, 1900. German edition: Gregorovius, F. Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter. Stuttgart, 1889.

[196]. Gregorovius, F. Mediaeval History of Rome. The V-XVI century. Vols. 1-5. St. Petersburg, 1902-1912. English edition: Gregorovius, F. History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages. London, G. Bell & Sons, 1900-1909.

[197]. Grekov, B. D., and A. Y. Yakubovsky. The Golden Horde and its Decline. Moscow-Leningrad, USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950.

[198]. Greece: Temples, Sepulchres and Treasures. The Lost Civilizations Encyclopaedia. Translated from English by N. Belov. Moscow, Terra Publishing Centre, 1997. Original edition, Time-Life Books BV, 1994.

[199]. Gribanov, E. D., and D. A. Balalykin. Medicine of Moscow on the Medals of Imperial Russia. Moscow, Triada-X, 1999.

[200]. Nicephor, Gregoras. Roman History, beginning from the Conquest of Constantinople by the Latins. St. Petersburg, 1862.

[201]. Grigorovich, V. An Account of Travelling through European Russia. Moscow, 1877.

[202]. Grigoriev, V. V. Saray: The Capital of the Golden Horde, and the Issue of its Location. St. Petersburg, 1845.

[203]. Grigoriev, G. L. Who was Ivan the Terrible Really Afraid of? On the Origins of the Oprichnina. Moscow, Intergraph Service, 1998.

[204]. Grigoulevich, I. R. The History of the Inquisition. Moscow, Nauka, 1970.

[205]. Grigoulevich, I. R. The Inquisition. Moscow, Politizdat, 1985.

[206]. Grishin, Yakov. The Tartars of Poland and Lithuania (the Heirs of the Golden Horde). Kazan, The Tartar Publishing House, 1995.

[207]. Groslie, B. Borobudur. The Greatest Collection of Buddhist Sculpture in the World is being Destroyed by Erosion. The UNESCO Courier, No. 6 (1968): 23-27.

[208]. Gudzy, N. K. History of Early Russian Literature. Moscow, Uchpedgiz, 1938. English edition: New York, Macmillan & Co, 1949.

[209]. Gouliaev, V. I. Pre-Columbian Voyages to America. Myths and Reality. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenia, 1991.

[210]. Gouliaev, V. I. America and the Old World in the Pre-Columbian Epoch. Moscow, Nauka, 1968.

[210:1]. Gouliaev, V. I. Following the Conquistadors. Moscow, The USSR Academy of Sciences, Nauka, 1976.

[211]. Gumilev, L. N. Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe. Moscow, Mysl, 1992.

[212]. Gumilev, L. N. In Search of the Figmental Kingdom (the Legend of the Kingdom of Presbyter Johannes. Moscow, Tanais, 1994.

[213]. Gumilev, L. N. Hunnu. St. Petersburg: Time-Out-Compass, 1993.

[214]. Gumilev, L. N. The Black Legend. Moscow, Ekopros, 1994.

[215]. Gumilev L. N. The Huns in China. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[216]. Gumilev, L. N. From Rus’ to Russia. Moscow, Ekopros, 1992.

[217]. Gourevich, A. Y. The Mediaeval Cultural Categories. Moscow, Kultura, 1972.

[218]. Gourevich, V. B. An Introduction into Spherical Astronomy. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[219]. Gouter, R. S., and Y. L. Polounov. Girolamo Cardano. From the Founding Fathers of Science and Technology series. Moscow, Znaniye, 1980.

[220]. Goutz, Alexander K. The True History of Russia. Omsk, Omsk State University Press, 1999.

[221]. D. The Stirrup of Quiet Don: the Enigmas of the Novel. Paris, YMCA Press, 1974.

[222]. Davidenko, I. V. The Word Was, The Word Is, The Word Shall Always Be… A Philological Fantasy. Moscow, Russkiy Dvor Press, 1999.

[223]. Dal, V. An Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Russian Language. St. Petersburg-Moscow, The M. O. Wolf Society Press, 1912.

[224]. Dal, V. An Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Russian Language. St. Petersburg-Moscow, The M. O. Wolf Society Press, 1914. Reprinted Moscow, Citadel, 1998.

[225]. Dal, Vladimir. An Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Russian Language. Moscow, State National and Foreign Dictionary Publishing House, 1956.

[226]. Damascene, John. Dialectic. Moscow, 1862. See also: John of Damascus. Dialectica. New York, St. Bonaventure Franciscan Institute, 1953.

[227]. Damascene, John. Three Apologies against the Detractors of the Holy Icons or Effigies. St. Petersburg, 1893. English edition: Baker, T. John Damascene on Holy Images Followed by Three Sermons of the Assumption. London, 1898.

[228]. Dantas, G. Parthenon in Peril. The UNESCO Courier, No. 6 (1968): 16-18, 34.

[229]. Dante, Alighieri. Minor Œuvres. Moscow, Nauka, 1968. Also see: Dante, Alighieri. Opere Minori. Florence, 1856.

[230]. Dante, Alighieri. The Divine Comedy. Translated from the Italian by A. A. Ilushin. Moscow, Philological Department of the M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, 1995.

[231]. Darethes of Phrygia. The History of the Destruction of Troy. St. Petersburg, Aleteya, 1997.

[232]. Darkevich, V. P. The Secular Art of Byzantium. Works of Byzantine Art in the Eastern Europe of the X-XIII century. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1975.

[233]. Darkevich, V. P. The Argonauts of the Middle Ages. Moscow, Nauka, 1976.

[233:1]. The Gifts of the Magi – a Source of Bliss until Our Day. Translated from modern Greek by M. Klimenko. The Holy Mount Athon, the Monastery of St. Paul the Apostle. Information about this book was obtained from the Holy Lamp newspaper published by the Preobrazhensky Temple in the Bolshie Vyazyomy village, No. 1 (1996).

[234]. The Gifts Made by the Imperial House of Russia to the Museum of History. Catalogue of an exhibition. Moscow, The State Museum of History, Publishing Department. 1993.

[235]. Dowley, Tim. The Biblical Atlas. Three’s Company & Angus Hudson Ltd., 1989. Russian translation: Moscow, The Russian Biblical Society, 1994.

[236]. Cameniata, Johannes. Two Byzantine Chronicles of the X century. The Psamathian Chronicle; The Conquest of Thessalonica. Moscow, Oriental Literature Publications, 1962. Also see: Cameniata, Joannes. De Exicidio Thessalonicae. In: Clugnet, L. Bibliothèque hagiographique orientale. Paris, 1901-1905.

[237]. Dvoretsky, I. K. Latin-Russian Dictionary. 50,000 words. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1976.

[237:1]. Deveuze, Lily. Carcassonne. The Golden Book series (in Russian). Florence, Bonechi, Central Typography, 2000.

[238]. Dementyeva, V. V. “The Roman History of Charles Rollen” as Read by a Russian Nobleman. The Ancient History Courier, No. 4 (1991): 117-122.

[239]. Denisov, L. I. The Orthodox Monasteries of the Russian Empire. Moscow, 1908. 389-393.

[240]. Jalal, Assad. Constantinople. From Byzantium to Istanbul. Moscow, M. & S. Sabashnikov, 1919. French edition: Jalâl, A. Constantinople de Byzance à Stamboul. Paris, 1909.

[241]. Jivelegov, A. K. Dante Alighieri. From the Celebrity Biographies series. Moscow, OGIZ, The Magazine and Newspaper Trust, 1933.

[242]. Jivelegov, A. K. Leonardo da Vinci. From the Celebrity Biographies series. Moscow, OGIZ, The Magazine and Newspaper Trust, 1935.

[243]. Giovanni, Villani. The New Chronicle, or the History of Florence. Moscow, Nauka, 1997. Italian edition: Cronica di Giovanni Villani a miglior lezione redotta coll’aiuto detesti a penna. Florence, Magheri, 1823; Rome, Multigrafica, 1980. Vols. 1-8.

[244]. Giovanni, Novelli. The Shroud of Turin: The Issue Remains Open. Translated from Italian. Moscow, Franciscan Press, 1998.

[245]. Giua, Michele. The History of Chemistry. Moscow, Mir, 1975. Italian original: Giua, Michele. Storia della chimica, dell’alchimia alle dottrine moderne. Chiantore, Turin, 1946; Union Tipografiko-Editrice Torinese, 1962.

[246]. Digests of Justinian. Selected fragments translated by I. S. Peretersky. Moscow, Nauka, 1984.

[247]. Diehl, Ch. History of the Byzantine Empire. Moscow, IL, 1948. English edition: Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1925.

[248]. Diehl, Ch. Chief Problems of the Byzantine History. Moscow, 1947. French edition: Diehl, Ch. Les Grands Problèmes de l’Histoire Byzantine. Paris, Armand Diehl Library, A. Colin, 1947.

[249]. Diels, H. Ancient Technology. Moscow-Leningrad, ONTI-GTTI, 1934.

[250]. Diophantes. Arithmetics. Moscow, Nauka, 1974. See also: Diophantus, Alexandrinus. Diophanti Alexandrini Opera Omnia, cum graecis commentaries. Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubner, 1893-1895.

[251]. Diringer, D. The Alphabet. Moscow, IL, 1963. English edition: London, Hutchinson & Co., 1968.

[252]. Dietmar, A. B. Ancient Geography. Moscow, Nauka, 1980.

[253]. Yankov, V. P., comp. Following the Roads of the Millennia. A collection of historical articles and essays. Book four. Moscow, Molodaya Gvardia, 1991.

[254]. Drboglav, D. A. Mysteries of Ancient Latin Hallmarks of IX-XIV century Swords. Moscow, MSU Press, 1984.

[255]. Ancient Russian Icon Art. Moscow, Kedr, 1993. From the collection of the Tretyakovskaya Gallery.

[256]. Ancient Russian Literature. Depictions of Society. Moscow, Nauka, 1991.

[257]. Bonhard-Levin, G. M., ed. Ancient Civilizations. A collection of essays. Moscow, Mysl, 1989.

[258]. Struve, V. V., and D. P. Kallistov., eds. Ancient Greece. Moscow, USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956.

[259]. Drews, Arthur. The Christ Myth. Vol. 2. Moscow, Krasnaya Nov’, 1924. English edition by T. Fisher Unwin. London and Leipzig, 1910.

[260]. Drews, Arthur. Did St. Peter the Apostle Really Exist? Moscow, Atheist, 1924. See also: A. Drews. Die Petrus-le-gende. Jena, E. Diederichs, 1924.

[261]. Drümel, Johann Heinrich. An Attempt of Proving the Ararat Origins of the Russians Historically as those of the First Nation after the Deluge. St. Petersburg, 1785. A Russian translation of a German book published in Nuremberg in 1744.

[262]. Douboshin, G. N. A Reference Book for Celestial Mechanics and Astrodynamics. Moscow, Nauka, 1976.

[263]. Doubrovsky, A. S., N. N. Nepeyvoda, and Y. A. Chikanov. On the Chronology of Ptolemy’s Almagest. A Secondary Mathematical and Methodological Analysis. The Samoobrazovanie (Self-Education) magazine (Moscow), No. 1 1999.

[263:1]. Duby, Georges. The Middle Ages (987-1460). From Hugo Capet to Joan of Arc. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 2000. French original: Duby, Georges. Le Moyen Âge. De Hugues Capet à Jeanne d’Arc (987-1460). Collection Pluriel. Hachette, 1987.

[264]. Dupuy, R. Ernest, and Trevor N. Dupuy. The Harper Encyclopaedia of Military History. From 3500 BC to the Present. Commentary by the Polygon Press. Vol. 1: 3500 bc-1400 ad. Vol. 2: 1400–1800. St. Petersburg-Moscow, Polygon-AST, 1997. English original published by Harper Collins.

[265]. Dürer, Albrecht. Tractates. Diaries. Letters. St. Petersburg, Azbuka, 2000.

[265:1]. [Dürer] Albrecht Dürer. Engravings. Moscow, Magma Ltd., 2001. First published in 1980 by Hubschmidt et Bouret.

[265:2]. The Jewish Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1-16. A reprint of the Brockhaus-Efron edition for the Society for Scientific Judaic Publications, St. Petersburg. Moscow, Terra-Terra, 1991.

[266]. The Hebraic Text of the Old Testament (The Tanach). London, the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1977.

[267]. Eusebius Pamphilus. Ecclesial History. St. Petersburg, 1848. English edition: Eusebius Pamphilus. History of the Church. London, 1890.

[268]. Eusebius Pamphilus. Eusebius Pamphilus, Bischop of the Palestinian Caesarea, on the Toponymy of the Holy Writ. St. Jerome of Strydon on the Hebraic Locations and Names. Translated by I. Pomyalovsky. St. Petersburg, 1894. Latin edition: Eusebius Pamphilus. Eusebii Pamphili Episcopi Caesariensis Onomasticon Urbium et Locorum Sacrae Scripturae. Berolini, 1862.

[269]. Eutropius. A Concise History Starting with the City’s Creation. From the Roman Historians of the IV century series. Moscow, Russian Political Encyclopaedia, 1997.

[270]. Yegorov, D. N. An Introduction into the Mediaeval Studies. The Historiography and the Source Studies. Vols. 1-2. Moscow, High Courses of Female Education, Department of History and Philosophy, Publishing Society.

[271]. Yermolayev, G. Mystery of the “Quiet flows the Don.” Slavic and European Journal, 18, 3 (1974).

[272]. Yermolayev, G. The True Authorship of the “Quiet flows the Don.” Slavic and European Journal, 20, 3 (1976).

[273]. Yefremov, Y. N., and E. D. Pavlovskaya. Dating the “Almagest” by the Actual Stellar Movements. The USSR Academy of Sciences Archive, Vol. 294, No. 2: 310-313.

[274]. Yefremov, Y. N., and E. D. Pavlovskaya. Determining the Epoch of the Almagest Star Catalogue’s Creation by the Analysis of the Actual Stellar Movements. (On the Problem of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue Authorship). The Historical and Astronomical Research. Moscow, Nauka, 1989. 175-192.

[275]. Jambus, M. The Hierarchical Cluster Analysis and Related Correspondences. Moscow, Finances and Statistics, 1988. Also see: Kendall, M., and A. Stewart. The Advanced Theory of Statistics (4th edition). London, C. Griffin, 1977.

[275:1]. Living History of the Orient. Collected works. Moscow, Znanie, 1998.

[276]. Zivkovic, Branislav. Les monuments de la Peinture Serbe Médiévale. Zivkovic, Branislav. Zica. Les dessins des fresques. Belgrade, Institut pour la protection des monuments historiques de la Republique de Serbie, 1985.

[277]. The Art of Ancient Russia. XI – early XIII century. Inlays, Frescoes, Icons. Leningrad, Khudozhnik RSFSR, 1982.

[278]. Cellini, Benvenuto. The Life of Benvenuto Cellini, the Son of Maestro Giovanni Cellini, a Florentine, Written in Florence by Himself. Moscow, 1958. The English edition was published by Edito-Service in Geneva, 1968.

[278:1]. The Hagiography of Reverend Sergiy (The Life and the Great Deeds of the Most Reverend and Blessed Father Sergiy the Thaumaturge, the Hegumen of Radonezh and the Entire Russia). Compiled by Hieromonk Nikon (subsequently an Archimandrite). 5th edition. The Laura of Serge and The Holy Trinity. Own typography. 1904.

[279]. The Life of Savva Storozhevsky. Reprinted after an old XVII century edition. Published in the Zvenigorod Region History Materials, Issue 3. Moscow, The Archaeographical Centre, 1994.

[280]. Zhitomirsky, S. V. The Astronomical Works of Archimedes. Historical and Astronomical Research, Issue 13. Moscow, Nauka, 1977.

[281]. Zholkovsky, A. V. Pasternak’s Book of Books. The Zvezda (Star) magazine, No. 12 (1997).

[282]. Zabelin, I. E. Quotidian Life of Russian Czarinas in the XVI and XVII centuries. Novosibirsk, Nauka, 1992.

[283]. Zabelin, I. E. The History of Moscow. Moscow, Svarog, 1996.

[284]. Zabelin, I. E. The History of Moscow. Moscow, Stolitsa, 1990.

[285]. Zabelin, I. E. The Historical Description of the Stauropigial Monastery of Moscow. 2nd edition. Moscow, 1893.

[286]. Zaborov, M. A. History of the Crusades in Documents and Materials. Moscow, Vyshchaya Shkola, 1977.

[287]. Zaborov, M. A. Crusaders in the East. Moscow, Nauka, Chief Editing Board of Oriental Literature, 1980.

[288]. Zavelskiy, F. S. Time and its Keeping. Moscow, Nauka, 1987.

[289]. Porfiriev, G., ed. The Mysteries and Conundrums of the “Quiet flows the Don.” Collected works. Samara, P.S., 1996.

[290]. The Gospel Teachings. Jordanville, the Rev. Job. Pogayevsky Typography, 1987.

[290:1]. Zaliznyak, A. A., and V. L. Yanin. The XI century Psalm Book of Novgorod as the Oldest Book in Russia. The RAS Courier, Vol. 71, No. 3 (2001): 202-209.

[291]. Zamarovsky, V. Mysteries of the Hittites. Moscow, Nauka, 1968. Also see: Zamarovsky, V. Za tajemstvism rise Chetitu. Prague, 1964.

[291:1]. Zamkova, M. V. Louvre. (The Masterpieces of World Art in your Home). Album. Moscow, Olma-Obrazovanie, 2002.

[292]. Notes of the Russian and Slavic Archaeology Department of the Russian Archaeological Society. Vol. XII. Petrograd, Typography of Y. Bashmakov & Co, 1918.

[293]. Star Charts of the Norhern and the Southern Hemisphere. Edition: Maru severni a jizni hvezdne oblohy. Czechoslovakia, Kartografie Praha, 1971.

[294]. Kondrashina, V. A., and L. A. Timoshina, eds. Zvenigorod Over Six Centuries. A collection of articles. To the 600th anniversary of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery. The Moscow Oblast Administration Culture Committee. The Zvenigorod Museum of History, Arts, and Architecture. The Federal Archive Service of Russia. Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. Moscow, URSS Press, 1998.

[294:1]. Zgura, V. V. Kolomenskoye. An Aperçu of its Cultural History and Monuments. Moscow, O.I.R.U., 1928.

[295]. Zelinskiy, A. N. Constructive Principles of the Ancient Russian Calendar. The Context 1978 collection. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[296]. Zelinskiy, F. Selected Biographies of Ideas. Vols. I-IV. St. Petersburg, 1905-1922.

[297]. Zenin, D. The Ancient Artillery: Truth and Fiction. The Science and Technology magazine, No. 5 (1982): 25-29.

[298]. Zenkovsky, S. A. Old Ritualists of Russia. The XVII century Religious Movements. Moscow, Tserkov, 1995.

[299]. Zima, D., and N. Zima. Nostradamus Deciphered. Moscow, Ripol Klassik, 1998.

[299:1]. The Banner of Reverend Serge (Sergiy) of Radonezh. Psaltyr, 1934. Reprinted by RIO Dennitsa, Moscow, 1991.

[300]. Zoubov, V. P. Aristotle. Moscow, The USSR Academy of Sciences Press, 1963.

[301]. Ivan IV The Terrible. Essays. St. Petersburg, Azbuka, 2000.

[301:1]. Ivanov, O. The Zamoskvorechye: Chronicle Pages. Moscow, V. Shevchouk Publications, Inc., 2000.

[302]. Idelson, N. History of the Calendar. Leningrad, Scientific Publications, 1925.

[303]. Idries, Shah. Sufism. Moscow, 1993.

[304]. Ieger, Oscar. Global History. Vols. 1-4. St. Petersburg, A. F. Marx, 1894-1904.

[304:1]. Ieger, Oscar. Global History. Vols. 1-4. St. Petersburg, A. F. Marx, 1904. Amended and expanded. Faximile reprint: Moscow, AST, 2000.

[304:2]. Ieger, Oscar. Global History. Vols. 1-4. St. Petersburg, A. F. Marx, 1904. 3rd ed., amended and expanded. Faximile reprint: Moscow, AST, 2001; St Petersburg, Polygon, 2001.

[305]. Jerusalem in Russian Culture. Collected essays. Moscow, Nauka, 1994.

[306]. Selected Letters of A. N. Roudnev to V. N. Leonova. Frankfurt-am-Main, Nadezhda, 1981.

[306:1]. A Representation of the Terrestrial Globe. Russian map from the Rarities of Russian Cartography series. (There is no compilation date anywhere on the map. The publishers date it to mid-XVIII century, q.v. in the annotation). Moscow, the Kartair Cartographical Association, 1996.

[307]. Derevenskiy, B. G., comp. Jesus Christ in Historical Documents. From the Ancient Christianity series, Sources section. St. Petersburg, Aleteya, 1998.

[308]. Ouspensky, L. A. Icon Art of Ancient Russia. Album. Foreword by S. S. Averintsev, compiled by N. I. Bednik. St. Petersburg, Khudozhnik Rossii, 1993.

[309]. Ilyin, A. A. The Classification of Russian Provincial Coins. Issue 1. Leningrad, The State Hermitage, 1940.

[310]. Ilyin, M., and T. Moiseyeva. Moscow and its Environs. Moscow, 1979.

[311]. Ilyin, M. The Ways and the Quests of an Arts Historian. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publications, 1970.

[312]. Illarion. On the Law and the Bliss. Moscow, Stolitsa and Skriptoriy, 1994.

[312:1]. The Names of Moscow Streets (multiple authors). Under the general editorship of A. M. Pegov. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1972.

[313]. de la Vega, Inca Garcilazo. History of the State of the Incas. Leningrad, Nauka, 1974.

[314]. Foreigners on Ancient Moscow. Moscow of the XV-XVII centuries. Collected texts. Moscow, Stolitsa, 1991.

[315]. of Hildesheim, Johann. A Legend of the Three Holy Kings. Translated from German. Moscow, Enigma-Aleteya, 1998. German edition: von Hildesheim, Johan. Die Legende von den Heiligen Drei Königen. Berlin, 1925.

[316]. The Art of the Countries and the Peoples of the World. A Brief Scientific Encyclopaedia. Vol. 1. Moscow, Soviet Encyclopaedia Publications, 1962.

[317]. Islam: an Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow, Nauka, General Editing Board for Oriental Literature, 1991.

[318]. Martzyshevskaya, K. A., B. J. Sordo-Peña, and S. Mariñero. Spanish-Russian and Russian-Spanish Dictionary. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1990.

[319]. Historical and Astronomical Research. Moscow, Fizmatgiz, 1955.

[320]. Historical and Astronomical Research. Issue 8. Moscow, Fizmatgiz, 1962.

[321]. Historical and Astronomical Research. Issue 1. Moscow-Leningrad, 1948.

[322]. Historical Notes of Nicephorus Vriennius. St. Petersburg, 1858.

[323]. History of Byzantium. Vol. 1. Moscow, Nauka, 1967.

[324]. History of Byzantium. Vols. 2-3. Moscow, Nauka, 1967.

[325]. History of the Orient. Vol. 2. Mediaeval Orient. Russian Academy of Sciences, the Department of Oriental Sciences. Moscow, Vostochnaya Literatura, RAS, 1995.

[326]. Kouzishchin, V. I., ed. History of the Ancient Orient. Moscow, 1979.

[327]. Kouzishchin, V. I., and A. G. Bokshchanin., eds. History of the Ancient Rome. Moscow, 1971.

[328]. History of Europe. Published in Europe as an initiative of Frederic Delouche. A Collective of 12 European Historians. Minsk, Vysheyshaya Shkola; Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1996. Translated from Histoire de l’Europe. Hachette, 1992.

[328:1]. History of Europe. The Renaissance. Moscow, Minsk, Harvest, AST, Inc., 2000.

[329]. Melnik, A. G., ed. History and Culture of the Land of Rostov. 1998. Collected essays. Rostov, The Rostov Kremlin State Museum and Reserve, 1999.

[330]. History of the Inquisition in Three Volumes. Vols. 1 and 2: Lee, Henry Charles. History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages. A reprint of the F. A. Efron, I. A. Brockhaus edition. 1911-1912. Vol. 3: Lozinsky, S. G. History of the Spanish Inquisition. A reprint of the F. A. Efron, I. A. Brockhaus edition. 1914. Moscow, The Ladomir Scientific and Publishing Centre, 1994.

[330:1]. History of Moscow in the Documents of the XII-XVIII century from the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. The Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts, Moscow Municipal Archive Association. Moscow, Mosgorarkhiv, 1997.

[331]. Sakharov, A. N., ed. History of Moscow. From the Earliest Days until Our Time. Three volumes. Moscow, the RAS Institute of Russian History, the Moscow Municipal Association, Mosgorarkhiv Press. Vol. 1: XII-XVII century. Vol. 2: XIX century. 1997.

[332]. Russian History. From the Ancient Slavs to Peter the Great. Encyclopaedia for Children. Vol. 5. Moscow, Avanta, 1995.

[333]. Udaltsov, A. D., E. A. Kosminsky, O. L. Weinstein, eds. Mediaeval History. Moscow, OGIZ, 1941.

[334]. Skazkin, S. D., ed. Mediaeval History. Volumes 1-2. Moscow, 1977.

[335]. History of French Literature. Collected essays. St. Petersburg, 1887. English edition: Demogeot, J., History of French Literature. London, Rivingstons, 1884 (1883).

[336]. Helmolt, H., ed. The History of Humanity. Global History. Vols. 1-9. Translated from German. St. Petersburg: Prosveshchenie, 1896.

[337]. Istrin, V. M. I-IV Editions of the Explanatory Paleya. St. Petersburg, The Imperial Academic Typography, 1907.

[338]. Istrin, V. M. The Chronicle of John Malalas in Slavic Translation. A reprint of V. M. Istrin’s materials. Moscow, John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

[339]. Pouchkov, P. I., ed. Extinct Nations. Collected essays. Moscow, Nauka, 1988.

[340]. Itogi (The Resume). Weekly magazine. No. 37 (223) (12 September 2000). Moscow, Sem Dney Press.

[341]. Duchich, Jovan. Duke Sava Vladislavich. The First Serbian Diplomat at the court of Peter the Great and Catherine I. Belgrade, Dereta, 1999.

[342]. Kazhdan, A. P. The Origins and the Purport of Christianity. Moscow, 1962.

[343]. Kazhdan, A. P. The Social Compound of the Byzantine Ruling Class of the XI-XII century. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[344]. Kazakova, N. A. Western Europe in Russian Written Sources of the XV-XVI century. Leningrad, Nauka, 1980.

[345]. Kazamanova, A. N. An Introduction to Ancient Numismatics. Moscow, Moscow University Press, 1969.

[346]. The Cossack Circle. Quiet flows the Don. Special edition 1. Moscow, Russkoye Slovo, 1991.

[347]. Skrylov, A. I., and G. V. Gubarev. The Cossack Dictionary and Handbook. Cleveland, 1966. Reprinted Moscow, Sozidanie Ltd., 1992.

[348]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Geometry of Mobile Star Configurations and the Dating of the Almagest. Problems of stochastic model stability. Seminar works. The National System Research Institute, 1988. 59-78.

[349]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Statistical Analysis and Dating of the Observations that the Almagest Star Catalogue is Based upon. Report theses of the 5th Int’l Probability Theory Conference in Vilnius, the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Institute of Mathematics and Cybernetics, Vol. 3 (1989): 271-272.

[350]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. Dating the Almagest by Variable Star Configurations. The USSR AS Reports, Vol. 307, No. 4 (1989): 829-832. English translation published in Soviet Phys. Dokl., Vol. 34, No. 8 (1989): 666-668.

[351]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Retrospective Analysis of the Almagest Star Catalogue and the Problem of its Dating. Preprint. Moscow, National System Research Institute, 1990. 60 p.

[352]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Quantitative Analysis of the Almagest Star Catalogue. Pre-print. Moscow, National System Research Institute, 1990. 62 p.

[353]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. Dating the Almagest Star Catalogue. Preprint. Moscow, National System Research Institute, 1990. 58 p.

[354]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue Dated by Mathematicians. Hypotheses, Predictions, and the Future of Science. The Int’l Annual Journal. No. 23 (1990): 78-92. Moscow, Znaniye.

[355]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Statistical Analysis of the Almagest Star Catalogue. The USSR AS Reports. Vol. 313, No. 6 (1990): 1315-1320.

[356]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. Dating the Almagest Star Catalogue. A Statistical and Geometric Analysis. Moscow, Faktorial, 1995.

[356:1]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. An Astronomical Analysis of Chronology. The Almagest. Zodiacs. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial, 2000.

[357]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and S. T. Rachev. New Methods of Comparing Volume Functions of Historical Texts. Seminar works. Moscow, National System Research Institute, 1986. 33-45.

[358]. Kaleda, G. The Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ. To the Centenary of the Manifestation of the Holiest of Relics, 1898-1998. 4th edition. Moscow, Zakatyevsky Monastery Press, 1998.

[358:1]. Russia and the World on Russian Maps. Moscow, published by Vneshtorgbank and the State Museum of History in 2001. Compiled by B. Sergeyev and A. Zaitsev. Maps from the collection of the State Museum of History, 16, Kuznetskiy Most, 103301, Moscow.

[359]. The Stonework Chronicle of the old Moscow. Moscow, Sovremennnik, 1985.

[360]. Kamensky, A. B. The Life and the Fate of the Empress Catherine the Great. Moscow, Znanie, 1997.

[361]. Kaneva, Katerina, Alessandro Cechi, and Antonio Natali. Uffizi. A Guide and a Catalogue of the Art Gallery. Scala/ Becocci, 1997. Moscow, Izobrazitelnoye Iskusstvo, 1997.

[362]. Karamzin, N. M. History of the State of Russia. St. Petersburg, 1842. A reprint of the fifth edition that came out as 3 books with P. M. Stroyev’s Key attached. Books I, II, III, IV. Moscow, Kniga, 1988, 1989.

[363]. Karamzin, N. M. History of the State of Russia (Academic edition). Moscow, Nauka. Vol. 1: 1989. Vols. 2-3: 1991. Vol. 4: 1992. Vol. 5: 1993.

[364]. Karger, M. K. Ancient Kiev. Essays on the History of the Material Culture of this Ancient Russian City. Vol. 1. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR AS Press, 1958.

[365]. Karger, M. Novgorod the Great. Moscow, The USSR Academy of Architecture. The Architectural History and Theory Institute. 1946.

[366]. Karelin Andrei Osipovich. Legacy of an Artist. Nizhni Novgorod, Arnika, 1994.

[367]. Karnovich, E. P. Patrimonial Names and Titles in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1886. Reprinted in Moscow, Bimpa Press, 1991.

[368]. Valcanover, Francesco. Carpaccio. Album. Moscow, Slovo, 1996. The Italian edition was published in the Great Masters of Italian Art series. Florence, Scala, Istituto Fotografico Editoriale, Antella, 1989.

[369]. Karpenko. V. V. The Names on the Sky at Night. Moscow, Nauka, 1981.

[370]. Carpiceci, Alberto Carlo. The Art and History of Egypt. 5000 Years of Civilization. Russian edition. Florence, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1997.

[371]. Carpiceci, Alberto Carlo. The Art and History of Egypt. 5000 Years of Civilization. Florence, Bonechi, 1999.

[372]. Kartashev, A. V. Essays on the History of Russian Church. Vols. 1, 2. Moscow, Nauka, 1991.

[373]. Kartashev, A. V. Essays on the History of Russian Church. Moscow, Terra, 1992.

[374]. Carter, H. The Tomb of Tutankhamen. Moscow, Oriental Literature, 1959.

[375]. Quintus Curtius Rufus. The Story of Alexander the Great. Moscow, MSU Press, 1993.

[376]. Denisenko, D. V., and N. S. Kellin. When Were the Famous Dendera Zodiacs Really Created? An appendix to Fomenko, A. T. Criticism of Traditional Chronology of Antiquity and the Middle Ages (What Century is it Now?). Moscow, MSU Publications, the MSU Department of Mechanical Mathematics, 1993. 156-166.

[377]. Fomenko, A. T., N. S. Kellin, and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Issue of the Veracity of the “Ancient” History of Russia by M. V. Lomonosov. Lomonosov or Miller? The Moscow University Courier, Series 9: Philology, No. 1 (1991): 116-125.

[378]. Kenderova, Stoyanka, and Beshevliev, Boyan. The Balkan Peninsula on AlIdrisi’s Map. Palaeographic, Historical and Geographical Research. Part 1. Sofia, 1990.

[379]. Ceram, C. Gods, Graves and Scholars. Moscow, Inostrannaya Literatura, 1960. English original: London, Victor Gollancz in association with Sidgwick & Jackson, 1971.

[380]. Ceram, C. Gods, Graves and Scholars. St. Petersburg, Nizhegorodskaya Yarmarka, KEM, 1994.

[381]. Kibalova, L., O. Gerbenova, and M. Lamarova. An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Fashion. Prague, Artia, 1966.

[382]. Kinnam, Johann. A Brief Review of the Reigns of John and Manuel Comneni. St. Petersburg, 1859.

[383]. Kinzhalov, R. V. The Ancient Mayan Culture. Leningrad, Nauka, 1971.

[384]. Kiriaku, Georgios P. Cyprus in Colours. Limassol, Cyprus, K. P. Kiriaku (Books & Office Requisites) Ltd., 1987.

[385]. Kirpichnikov, A. N. The Pages of the “Iron Book.” Nauka I Zhizn (Science and Life) magazine, No. 6 (1966): 49-55.

[385:1]. Kiselyova L. I. What do the Mediaeval Chronicles Tell Us? Leningrad, Nauka, 1978.

[386]. Kyetsaa, H. The Battle for the “Quiet flows the Don.” Seanado-Statica, 22, 1976.

[387]. Kyetsaa, H. The Battle for the “Quiet flows the Don.” USA, Pergamon Press, 1977.

[388]. Klassen, E. I. New Materials for the Studies of the Historical Dawn of Slavs in General, and pre-Ryurik Russo-Slavs in Particular, with an Aperçu of the BC History of Russia. Issues 1-3. With the Descriptions of the Monuments Explaining the History of the Slavs and the Russians Compiled by Fadey Volansky and Translated by E. Klassen. Moscow University Press, 1854. Reprinted by Andreyev i Soglasie, St. Petersburg, 1995.

[389]. Klassovsky, V. A Systematic Description of Pompeii and the Artefacts Discovered There. St. Petersburg, 1848.

[390]. Klein, L. S. Archaeology Controverts Physics. The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 2 (1966): 51-62.

[391]. Klein, L. S. Archaeology Controverts Physics (continued). The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 3 (1966): 94-107.

[391:1]. Klengel-Brandt, E. A Journey into the Old Babylon. Moscow, Nauka, General Editing Board for Oriental Literature, the USSR AS, Institute of Oriental Studies, 1979. Translated from German: Klengel-Brandt, E. Reise in das alte Babylon. Leipzig, 1971.

[392]. Kligene N., and L. Telxnis. Methods of Determining Change Points in Random Processes. Avtomatika i Telemekhanika (Automatics and Telemechanics), No. 10 (1983): 5-56.

[393]. Klimishin, I. A. Chronology and the Calendar. Moscow, Nauka, 2nd edition, 1985.

[394]. Klimishin, I. A. Chronology and the Calendar. Moscow, Nauka, 3rd edition, 1990.

[395]. Klimishin, I. A. The Discovery of the Universe. Moscow, Nauka, 1987.

[396]. Klyuchevsky, V. O. Unreleased Works. Moscow, Nauka, 1983.

[397]. The Book of the Mormon. Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun. Salt Lake City, The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, 1991. (Quoting the Russian translation of 1988).

[398]. The Book of Cosmas Indicopleustes. Published by V. S. Golyshenko and V. F. Doubrovina. RAS, the V. V. Vinogradov Institute of the Russian Language. Moscow, Indrik, 1997.

[399]. Loparev, H. M., ed. The Book of the Pilgrim. Holy Places in Czar-Grad Described by Anthony, the Archbishop of Novgorod in 1200. “The Orthodox Palestinian Collection,” Vol. 17, 3rd edition. St. Petersburg, 1899.

[400]. Literary Centres of the Ancient Russia in the XI-XVI century. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1991.

[401]. Knorina, L. V. Linguistic Aspects of the Hebraic Commentary Tradition. Voprosy Yazykoznania (Linguistic Issues), No. 1 (1997): 97-108.

[402]. Kowalski, Jan Wierusz. Papacy and the Popes. Moscow, Political Literature Publications, 1991. A translation of the Polish book Poczet Papiezy. Warsaw, 1985.

[403]. Kovalchenko, I. D. The Use of Quantitative Methods and Computers in Historical Research. The Voprosy Istorii (Historical Issues) journal, No. 9 (1984): 61-73.

[404]. Kogan, V. M. The History of the House of Ryurikovichi. St. Petersburg, Belvedere, 1993.

[405]. Kozlov, V. A Case of Church Robbery. The Moskovskiy Zhurnal (Moscow Magazine), No. 7 (1991).

[406]. Kozlov, V. Under the Flag of Nihilism. The Moskovskiy Zhurnal (Moscow Magazine), No. 6 (1991).

[407]. Kozlov, V. P. Falsification Mysteries. An Analysis of Historical Source Forgeries of the XVIII-XIX centuries. Moscow, Aspekt, 1996.

[407:1]. Kozlov, V. T. The 30-Year War. European Splendour. The Renaissance. Humanism. The Enlightenment. Moscow, The V. T. Kozlov Regional Public Fund for the Support and Development of Arts and Culture, 2001. 44.

[408]. Kozlov, P. Yaroslavl. Yaroslavl, The Upper Volga Publishing House, 1972.

[409]. Kozlov, P. I., and V. F. Marov. Yaroslavl. A Guide and a Reference Book. Yaroslavl, The Upper Volga, 1988.

[410]. Kokkinoftas, Kostis and Theocharidis, Ioannis. “Enkolpion”. A Brief Description of St. Kykkos Monastery. Nicosia, The St. Kykkos Monastery Research Centre, 1995.

[411]. Kolodny, L. “Turbulence over the ‘Quiet flows the Don.’ Fragments of the Past: the Sources used for a Certain XX century Animad version. Moskovskaya Pravda (5 and 7 March, 1989).

[412]. Rauschenbach, B .V., ed. Bells. History and Contemporaneity. Compiled by Y. V. Pukhnachev. The Scientific Counsel for World Culture History, the USSR AS. Moscow, Nauka, 1985.

[413]. Kolosov, Vassily. Perambulations in the Environs of the Simonov Monastery. Moscow, 1806.

[414]. Kolchin, B. A., and Y. A. Sher. Absolute Archaeological Datings and their Problems. Moscow, Nauka, 1972.

[415]. Kohlrausch, F. History of Germany. Vols. I, II. Moscow, 1860. English edition: Kohlrausch, F. A History of Germany, from the Earliest Period to the Present Time. New York, D. Appelton & Co, 1896.

[415:1]. Kolyazin, V. F. From The Passion Play Mystery to the Carnival. The Histrionics of the German Religious and Popular Stage of the Early and the Late Middle Ages. Moscow, Nauka, 2002.

[416]. Archimandrite Palladius Kafarov Commentary on Marco Polo’s Voyage through Northern China. St. Petersburg, 1902.

[417]. Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. Moscow, Nauka, 1965. English edition: Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1969.

[418]. Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. St. Petersburg. Aleteya, 1996.

[419]. Comnena, Anna. A Brief Account of the Deeds of King Alexis Comnenus. St. Petersburg, 1859.

[420]. Kondakov, N. P. The Iconography of Our Lady. 3 volumes. Moscow, Palomnik. Vols. 1 and 2, 1998. Vol. 3, 1999.

[420:1]. Kondratov, Alexander. The Mysteries of the Three Oceans. Leningrad, Gidrometeoizdat, 1971.

[421]. Kondratyev, I. K. The Ancient Moscow. A Historical Review and a Full List of the City’s Monuments. Moscow, Voyenizdat, 1996.

[422]. Kondrashina, V. A. The Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery. 600 Years since the Foundation of the Coenoby of Rev. Savva. An album of photographs. Moscow, Leto, 1998.

[423]. Koniskiy, G. (The Archbishop of Byelorussia). The History of Russians, or the Lesser Russia. The Moscow University Typography, 1846.

[424]. Konstantin Mikhailovich from Ostrovitsa. The Notes of a Janissary. Introduction, translation, and commentary by A. I. Rogov. Published in the Monuments of Mediaeval History of the Nations of Central and Eastern Europe series. The USSR AS, Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[425]. Konstantinov, N. The Secret Alphabet of Stolnik Baryatinsky. The Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life) magazine, No. 10 (1972): 118-119.

[426]. Context 1978. Collected works. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[427]. The Koran. Moscow, Oriental Literature, 1963.

[428]. The Koran. Translated by I. Y. Krachkovsky. Moscow, Raritet, 1990.

[429]. Al Rosha, Dr. Mohammed Said., ed. The Koran. 2nd edition, revised and enlarged by Valeria Prokhorova. Damascus-Moscow, The Al-Furkan Centre and Mikhar Corp., 2553, 10.2.95, 1996.

[430]. The Ecclesial Law Book (Kormchaya) of 1620. 256/238, The Manuscript Fund of the Russian National Library (Moscow).

[430:1]. Kornilov N. I., Solodova Y. P. Jewels and gems. Moscow, Nedra, 1983.

[431]. Korkh, A. S. Mikhail Illarionovich Koutouzov. The Moscow State Museum of History. n.d.

[432]. Korsh, M. A Brief Dictionary of Mythology and Antiquities. St. Petersburg, A. S. Souvorin, 1894. Reprinted: Kaluga, Amata, Golden Alley, 1993.

[433]. Kosambi, D. The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India. Moscow, Progress, 1968. English edition: Kosambi D. The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965.

[434]. Kosidowski, Z. When the Sun was God. Moscow, Nauka, 1968. Polish edition: Kosidowsky Z. Gdy Slonce Bylo Bogiem. Warsaw, 1962.

[435]. Kostomarov, N. I. The Reign of the House of St. Vladimir. Moscow, Voyenizdat, 1993.

[436]. Kostomarov, N. I. The Age of Turmoil in Early XVII century Moscovia (1604-1613). Moscow, Charli, 1994.

[437]. Kostomarov, N. I. Bogdan Khmelnitsky. Moscow, Charlie, 1994.

[437:1]. Kochergina, V. A. Sanskrit-Russian Dictionary. About 30.000 words. Moscow, Filologia, 1996.

[438]. Golubev, A. A., comp. The Kostroma Region. Moscow, Planeta, 1988.

[439]. Cramer, C. Mathematical Methods of Statistics. Moscow, Mir, 1975. English original: Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1958.

[440]. The Concise Geographical Encyclopaedia. Vol. 1, Moscow, State Academic Soviet Encyclopaedia Publications, 1960.

[440:1]. Krekshin, P. N. A Criticism of the Freshly-Printed Book of 1761 about the Origins of Rome and the Actions of its People and Monarchs. The reverse of the last sheet says: “Criticism by the Nobleman of the Great New Town Peter of Nicephor, son of Kreksha, in 1762, on the 30th day of September, St. Petersburg.” The manuscript is kept in the State Archive of the Yaroslavl Oblast as Manuscript #43 (431).

[441]. The Peasant War in Russia Led by Stepan Razin. Collected documents. Vols. 1-4. Moscow, Academy of Sciences, 1954-1970.

[442]. Luchinat, Christina Acidini. Benozzo Gozzoli. Published in the Great Masters of Italian Art series. Moscow, Slovo, 1996. Italian edition: Scala, Istituto Fotografico Editoriale, 1995.

[443]. Kriesh, Elli G. The Treasure of Troy and its History. Moscow, Raduga, 1996. German original: Kriesh, Elli G. Der Schatz von Troja und seine Geschichte. Carlsen, 1994.

[444]. Kryvelev, I. A. The Excavations in the “Biblical” Countries. Moscow, Sovietskaya Rossia, 1965.

[445]. Kryvelev, I. A. A Book about the Bible. Moscow, Sotsekgiz, 1958.

[446]. Krylov, A. N. Newton and his Role in Global Science. 1643-1943. The USSR Academy of Sciences. Moscow-Leningrad, USSR AS Publications, 1943.

[447]. Xenophon. History of the Hellenes. Leningrad, Ogiz, 1935. English edition: Xenophon. Hellenica. In: W. Briggs, Tutorial Series, Books III, IV. London, 1894.

[448]. Koublanov, M. M. The New Testament. Research and Discoveries. Moscow, Nauka, 1968.

[449]. Koudriavtsev, M. P. Moscow the Third Rome. A Historical and Urbanistic Research. Moscow, Sol System, 1994.

[450]. Koudriavtsev, O. F., comp. Russia in the First Half of the XVI century. A European View. The Russian AS, Global History Institute. Moscow, Russkiy Mir, 1997.

[451]. Kouznetsov, V. G. Newton. Moscow, Mysl, 1982.

[452]. Koulakovsky, Y. A. Byzantine History. Vols. 1, 2. St. Petersburg, Aleteya, 1996.

[453]. Koulikovsky, P. G. Stellar Astronomy. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[454]. Koun, N. A. The Predecessors of Christianity. Moscow, 1922.

[455]. Kourbatov, L. G. Byzantine History. Moscow, Vyshaya Shkola, 1984.

[456]. The UNESCO Courier magazine, No. 12 (1968).

[457]. Koutouzov, B. The Church Reform of the XVII century. The Tserkov (Church) magazine (Moscow), Issue 1 (1992).

[457:1]. Koutsenko, G., and Y. Novikov. Make Yourself A Present of Health. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1988.

[458]. Cimpan, F. The History of the Pi Number. Moscow, Nauka, 1971 (1984). Romanian original: Cipman, F. Istoria Numarului pi. Bucharest, Tineret Press, 1965.

[458:1]. Cumont, Franz. The Mysteries of Mithras. Magicum. St. Petersburg, Eurasia, 2000. Original edition: Franz Cumont. Les Mystères de Mithra. Magicum. Brussels, H. Lamertin, 1913.

[459]. Lavisse, E., and A. Rambaud. History of the Crusades. Vols. I and II. Moscow, 1914. French original: Histoire générale du IVe siècle à nos jours. L’Europe féodale, les croisades, 1095-1270. Paris, A. Colin & Cie, 1893-1901.

[460]. The Lavrenty Chronicle. (A complete compilation of Russian chronicles). V. 1. Moscow, Yazyki Russkoi Kulturi, 1997.

[461]. Lavrov, N. F. A Guide to the Churches of Uglich. Uglich, the Municipal Museum of Arts and History, 1994. A re-print from an 1869 original, Yaroslavl, the Province Typography.

[462]. Lazarev, V. N. The Icon Art of Novgorod. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1969.

[462:1]. Lombroso. C. Genius and Madness. Moscow, Respublika, 1995.

[463]. Lann, E. A Literary Mystification. Moscow, 1930.

[464]. Lauer, Jean-Philippe. The Mystery of the Egyptian Pyramids. Moscow, Nauka, 1966. French edition: Le Mystère des Pyramides. Paris, Presses de la Cité, 1974.

[465]. Deacon, Leon. History. Moscow, Nauka, 1988. See also: Leonis Diaconi Caloensis Historiae libri decem. E recensione C. B. Hasii. Bonnae, 1828.

[466]. Levandovsky, A. P. Charlemagne. From the Empire towards Europe. Moscow, Soratnik, 1995.

[467]. Levitan, E., and N. Mamouna. The Star of Bethlehem. The Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life) magazine, No. 11 (1989).

[468]. Levchenko, M. V. Byzantine History. Moscow-Leningrad, Ogiz, Sotsekgiz, 1940.

[469]. The Legend of Dr. Faustus. Moscow, Nauka, 1978. Also see: The History of the Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Doctor John Faustus. London, G. Routledge; New York, E. P. Duttom, 1925.

[470]. Lehmann. An Illustrated History of Superstition and Sorcery from the Antiquity to Our Days. Moscow, Knizhnoe Delo, 1900. Also see: Lehmann, A. Overto og trolddom fra de aeldste til vore dage. Copenhagen, J. Frimodt, 1893-1896.

[471]. Lentsman, Y. A. The Origins of Christianity. Moscow, USSR AS Press, 1958.

[471:1]. The Life and Art of Leonardo. Moscow, Byely Gorod, 2001. Giunti Gruppo Editoriale, Florence, 2000.

[472]. Leonid. A Systematic Description of A. S. Ouvarov’s Russo-Slavic Manuscripts. Moscow, 1894.

[473]. Leontyeva, G. A., Shorin, P. A. and Kobrin, V. B. The Keys to the Mysteries of Clio. Palaeography, Metrology, Chronology, Heraldic Studies, Numismatics, Onomatology and Genealogy. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1994.

[473:1]. Leskov, A. M. Burial Mounds: Findings and Problems. Leningrad, Nauka, 1981.

[474]. Lesna, Ivan. On the Ails of the Great. Prague, Grafit, 1990.

[475]. Lesnoy, Sergei. History of the Slavs Revised. Melbourne, 1956.

[476]. Lesnoy, Sergei. A Non-Distorted History of the Russians. Vols. 1-10. Paris, 1957.

[477]. Lesnoy, Sergei. Russia, where are you from? Winnipeg, 1964.

[477:0]. Lesnoy, Sergei. The Book of Veles. Moscow, Zakharov, 2002.

[477:1]. A Chronicler of Hellas and Rome. Vol. 1. The RAS Institute of Russian Literature (The House of Pushkin). St. Petersburg, Dmitry Boulanin, 1999.

[478]. Libby, W. F. Carbon-14: a Nuclear Chronometer of Archaeology. The UNESCO Courier, No. 7 (No. 139)(1968).

[479]. Libby, W. F. The Radiocarbon Dating Method. The International Peaceful Nuclear Energy Conference materials (Geneva), Vol. 16 (1987): 41-64.

[480]. Libby, W. F. Radiocarbon: an Atomic Clock. The annual Nauka i Chelovechestvo (Science and Humanity) journal (1962): 190-200. Moscow, Znaniye.

[481]. Libman, M., and G. Ostrovskiy. Counterfeit Masterpieces. Moscow, Sovetskiy Khudozhnik, 1966.

[482]. Livy, Titus. Roman History since the Foundation of the City. 6 volumes. Translation and general editorship by P. Adrianov. Moscow, E. Herbeck Typography, 1897-1899.

[483]. Livy, Titus. Roman History since the Foundation of the City. Vols. 1, 2 and 3. Moscow, Nauka, Vol. 1 (1989), Vol. 2 (1991), Vol. 3 (1993). English edition: Livy, Titus. Works. Cambridge, Mass; London, Heinemann, 1914.

[484]. Livraga, Jorge A. Thebe. Moscow, New Acropolis, 1995.

[485]. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow, Soviet Encyclopedia Publications, 1990.

[486]. Lipinskaya, Y., and M. Martsinyak. Ancient Egyptian Mythology. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1983.

[487]. Lituanus, Michalonis. On the Customs of the Tartars, the Lithuanians and the Muscovites. Moscow, MSU Publications, 1994. See also: Michalonis Lituani. De moribus tartarorum, lituanorum et moschorum fragmina X, multiplici historia referta et Johannis Lascii poloni De diis samagitarum, caeterorumque sarmatarum et falsorum christianorum. Item de religione armeniorum et de initio regiminus Stephani Batori. Nunc primum per J. Jac. Grasserum, C. P. ex manuscriptio authentico edita. Basileae, apud Conradum Waldkirchium, MDCXV, 1-41.

[488]. Literary legacy. V. I. Lenin and A. V. Lunacharsky. Correspondence, Reports, Documents. Moscow, Nauka, 1971.

[489]. Lifshitz, G. M. Essays on Early Christianity and Biblical Historiography. Minsk: Vysheyshaya Shkola, 1970.

[490]. Likhachev, N. P. The Artistic Manner of Andrei Rublev. St. Petersburg, 1907.

[490:1]. Likhacheva, E. A. The Seven Hills of Moscow. Moscow, Nauka, 1990.

[491]. Lozinsky, S. G. History of the Spanish Inquisition. St. Petersburg, Brockhaus and Efron, 1914.

[492]. Lozinsky, S. G. History of the Papacy. Vols. I and II. Moscow, The Central TsS SWB Publications of USSR, 1934.

[493]. Lomonosov, M. V. Selected Works. Vol. 2. History, philology, poetry. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[493:1]. Gowing, Sir Lawrence. Paintings in the Louvre. Introduction by Michel Laclotte. Russian Translation by MK-Import, Ltd., Moscow, Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga, 1987. English edition: Stewart, Tabori & Chang, Inc., 1987.

[493:2]. Loades, D. Henry VIII and his Queens. The Mark in History series. Moscow, Feniks.

[494]. Pardi, J., comp. The Pilot Chart of the Gibraltar and the Mediterranean. Translated by I. Shestakov. Moscow, 1846.

[495]. Lourie, F. M. Russian and Global History in Tables. Synchrony tables (XXX century BC – XIX Century). World Governors. Genealogical Tables. Glossary. St. Petersburg, Karavella, 1995.

[496]. Louchin, A. A. The Slavs and History. An appendix to the Molodaya Gvardia (Young Guard) magazine, No. 9 (1997): 260-351.

[497]. Lyzlov, Andrei. History of the Scythians. Moscow, Nauka, 1990.

[497:1]. Liozzi, Mario. History of Physics. Moscow, Mir, 1970.

[498]. Lewis, G. C. A Research of Ancient Roman History and its Veracity. Hannover, 1852. German edition: Untersuchungen über die Glaubwürdigkeit der altrömischen Geschichte, Hannover, 1858.

[499]. Magi, Giovanna. Luxor. The Valleys of the Kings, Queens, Noblemen and Craftsmen. Memnon’s colossi. Deir-el-Bakhari – Medinet-Abu – Ramesseum. Florence, Casa Editrice Bonechi via Cairoli, 1999.

[500]. Makariy (Boulgakov), the Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. History of the Russian Church. Books 1-7. Moscow, The Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery of Valaam Publications, 1994-1996.

[500:1]. Makariy, Archimandrite. Ancient Ecclesial Monuments. History of the Hierarchy of Nizhniy Novgorod. The True Tales of Nizhniy Novgorod series. Nizhniy Novgorod, Nizhegorodskaya Yarmarka, 1999.

[501]. Makarov, A. G., and S. E. Makarova. The Scotch Thistle Blossom. Towards the Sources of the “Quiet flows the Don.” Moscow, Photocopied by the General Research Institute of Gas Industry, 1991.

[502]. Makarov, A. G., and S. E. Makarova. Around the ”Quiet flows the Don.” From Myth Creation to a Search for Truth. Moscow, Probel, 2000.

[502:1]. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Ruminations in re the First Decade of Titus Livy. – St. Petersburg, Azbuka, 2002.

[502:2]. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The History of Florence. – Leningrad, Nauka, 1973.

[503]. Malalas, John. The Chronicle. Published by O. V. Tvorogov according to The Chronographer of Sofia in the Works of the Ancient Russian Literature Department, Vol. 37, pp. 192-221. Moscow, Nauka. English edition: The Chronicle of John Malalas. Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1940.

[504]. Kantor, A. M., ed. A Concise History of Fine Arts. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1981; Dresden, VEB Verlag der Kunst, 1981.

[504:1]. The Compact Soviet Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1-10. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, Inc., 1928.

[505]. Malinovskaya, L. N. The Graveyard of the Khans (Mezarlyk). Bakhchisaray, the State Historical and Cultural Reserve, 1991.

[506]. Malinovskiy, A. F. A Review of Moscow. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1992.

[507]. A Concise Atlas of the World. Moscow, General Department of Geodetics and Cartography of the USSR Council of Ministers. 1979.

[508]. Malver, A. Science and Religion. Russian translation by L. and E. Kroukovsky. N.p., 1925.

[509]. Marijnissen, R. H., and P. Ruyffelaere. Hieronymus Bosch. Commentated album. Antwerp, Mercatorfonds, 1987, 1995. Russian translation by Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga. Moscow, 1998.

[510]. Marco Polo. A Book on the Diversity of the World. The Personal Library of Borges. St. Petersburg, Amphora, 1999.

[511]. Markov, A. A. One of the Uses of the Statistical Method. The Academy of Sciences News, Series 6, Vol. X, Issue 4 (1916).

[512]. Martynov, G. On the Origins of Roman Chronicles. Moscow University Press, 1903.

[513]. Massa, Isaac. A Brief Report of the Beginning and the Origins of Modern Muscovite Wars and Unrest that Occurred Before 1610 in the Brief Time when Several Rulers Reigned. Moscow, The Sergei Doubnov Fund, Rita-Print, 1997.

[514]. Massa, Isaac. A Brief Report on Moscovia. Moscow, 1937.

[514:1]. Matveyenko, V. A., and L. I. Shchegoleva. The Chronicle of George the Coenobite. Russian text, comments, indications. Moscow, Bogorodskiy Pechatnik, 2000.

[515]. Matvievskaya, G. P. Albrecht Dürer the Scientist. 1471-1528. A series of scientist biographies. Moscow, The USSR AS, Nauka, 1987.

[516]. Matvievskaya, G. P. As-Sufi. In Historical and Astronomical Research (Moscow, Nauka), Issue 16 (1983): 93-138.

[517]. Matuzova, V. I. Mediaeval English Sources. Moscow, Nauka, 1979.

[518]. Vlastar, Matthew. Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers. Balakhna, P. A. Ovchinnikov, The F. P. Volkov typography, 1908.

[519]. Smirnov B. L., editor and translator. The Mahabharata. Vols. 1-8. Tashkent, the Turkmenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1955-1972. Vol. 1: two poems from the III book – Nala and Savitri (The Greatness of Marital Virtue) (2nd edition 1959); Vol. 2 – The Bhagavad Gita (1956); Vol. 3: The Highlander (1957); Vol. 4: The Conversation of Markandhea (1958); Vol. 5: Mokshadharma (1961); Vol. 6: A Journey Through the Treasuries (1962); Vol. 7: The Book of Bheeshma and the Book of the Battle of Maces (1963); Vol. 8: Attacking the Sleeping Ones (1972). English edition: Chicago-London, Chicago University Press, 1973. Also see the edition by the Jaico Publishing House, Bombay, 1976.

[519:1]. The Mahabharata. Narayana. Issue V, book 2. 2nd edition. Translated and edited by Academician B. L. Smirnov of the Turkmenian SSR Academy of Sciences. The TSSR AS, Ashkhabad, Ylym, 1984.

[519:2]. The Mahabharata. The Four Tales. Translated from Sanskrit by S. Lipkin. Interlineary by O. Volkova. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1969.

[520]. The Mahabharata. The Ramayana. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1974. Also see: The Ramayana. Madras, Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, 1972.

[520:1]. The Mahabharata. Book 2. Sabhaparva, or the Book of the Congregation. Translated from Sanskrit by V. I. Kalyanov. The Literary Monuments series. Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1962.

[520:2]. The Mahabharata. Book 4. Virataparva, or the Book of Virata. Translated from Sanskrit by V. I. Kalyanov. The Literary Monuments series. Leningrad, Nauka, 1967.

[520:3]. The Mahabharata. Book 5. Udhiyogaparva, or the Book of Diligence. Translated from Sanskrit by V. I. Kalyanov. The Literary Monuments series. Leningrad, Nauka, 1976.

[520:4]. The Bhagavad Gita as it is. Complete edition with authentic Sanskrit texts, Russian transliteration, word-for-word and literary translation, and extensive commentaries. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Moscow-Leningrad-Calcutta-Bombay-New Delhi, 1984. The first English edition of the Bhagavad Gita: Wilkins. The Bhagavad Gita, or dialogs of Kreeshna and Arjoon. London, 1785. See also: Etgerton, F. Bhagavad Gita, Vols. 1-2. Harvard University Press, 1946 (with transcr. of the text).

[520:5]. The Mahabharata. Book 7. Dronaparva, or the Book of Drona. Translated from Sanskrit by V. I. Kalyanov. The Literary Monuments series. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1993.

[520:6]. The Mahabharata. Book 3. The Book of the Woods (Aryanyakaparva). Translated from Sanskrit by A. V. Vasilkov and S. L. Neveleva. The Monuments of Oriental Literature series. LXXX, 1987.

[520:7]. The Burning of the Snakes. A Tale from the Indian Epic, the Mahabharata. Translated by V. I. Kalyanov. Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1958.

[521]. Mezentsev, M. T. The Fate of Novels (Concerning the Discussion on the “Quiet flows the Don” Authorship Problem). Samara, P. S. Press, 1994.

[522]. Medvedev, R. Who Wrote the “Quiet flows the Don”? Paris, Christian Bourg, 1975.

[522:1]. Meyer, M. S., A. F. Deribas, and N. B. Shuvalova. Turkey. The Book of Wanderings. A historical guidebook. Project author S. M. Bourygin. Moscow, Veche, Khartia, 2000.

[523]. Melnikova, E. A. Ancient Scandinavian Geographical Works. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[524]. Memoirs of Margaret de Valois. Translated by I. V. Shevlyagina. Introduction and comments by S. L. Pleshkova. French original: Mémoires de Marguerite de Valois. Paris, The Library of P. Jannet, MDCCCLVIII. Moscow University Press, 1995.

[525]. Methods of Studying the Oldest Sources on the History of the USSR Nations. Collected articles. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[526]. Methodical Research of Absolute Geochronology. Report Theses of the 3rd Methodical Symposium of 1976. Moscow, USSR AS Press, 1976.

[527]. Meshchersky, N. A. History of the Literary Russian Language. Leningrad, 1981.

[528]. Miceletti, Emma. Domenico Ghirlandio. Moscow, Slovo, 1996. Italian original: Italy, Scala, Istituto Fotografico Editoriale, 1995.

[529]. Miller, G. F. Selected Oeuvres on Russian History. The Monuments of Historical Thought series. Moscow, Nauka, RAS, 1996.

[530]. The World of the Bible. Magazine. 1993/1(1). Published by the Russian Society of Bible Studies.

[531]. The World of Geography. Geography and the Geographers. The Environment. Moscow, Mysl, 1984.

[532]. Meletinsky, E. M., ed. Dictionary of Mythology. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, 1991.

[533]. Myths of the World. An Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, 1980 (Vol. 1) and 1981 (Vol. 2).

[534]. Mikhailov, A. A. The Eclipse Theory. Moscow, Gostekhteoretizdat, 1954.

[535]. Mikhailov, A. A. This Peculiar Radiocarbon Method. In Science and Technology, No. 8 (1983): 31-32.

[536]. Mokeyev, G. A. Mozhaysk – A Holy Town for the Russians. Moscow, Kedr, 1992.

[537]. Mokretsova, I. P., and V. L. Romanova. French Miniature Illustrations of the XIII century in Soviet Publications. 1270-1300. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1984.

[537:1]. Moleva, N. M. True Muscovite Stories. A Hundred Addresses of Russian History and Culture. To the 850-year anniversary of Moscow. Moscow, Znaniye, 1997.

[538]. Mommsen, T. The History of Rome. Moscow, 1936.

[539]. Mommsen, T. The History of Rome. Vol. 3. Moscow, Ogiz, 1941. English edition: London, Macmillan & Co, 1913.

[540]. Mongayt, A. L. The Writing upon the Stone. Moscow, Znanie, 1969.

[541]. Mongolian Sources Related to Dayan-Khan. A compilation. Moscow, Nauka, 1986

[541:1]. Mordovtsev, D. L. Collected works. Vols. 1-14. Moscow, Terra, 1995.

[542]. Morozov, N. A. The Revelation in Thunder and Storm. History of the Apocalypse. Moscow, 1907. 2nd edition Moscow, 1910. English translation: Northfield, Minnesota, 1941.

[543]. Morozov, N. A. The History of the Biblical Prophecies and their Literary Characteristics. The Prophets. Moscow, the I. D. Sytin Society Typography, 1914.

[544]. Morozov, N. A. Christ. History of Humanity in the Light of Natural Scientific Studies. Vols. 1-7. Moscow-Leningrad, Gosizdat, 1924-1932. Vol. 1: 1924 (2nd edition 1927), Vol. 2: 1926, Vol. 3: 1927, Vol. 4: 1928, Vol. 5: 1929, Vol. 6: 1930, Vol. 7: 1932. The first volume was published twice: in 1924 and 1927. Kraft Publications in Moscow made a reprint of all seven volumes in 1998.

[545]. Morozov, N. A. An Astronomical Revolution in Historical Science. The Novy Mir (New World) magazine, No. 4 (1925): 133-143. In reference to the article by Prof. N. M. Nikolsky.

[546]. Morozov, N. A. Linguistic Ranges. The AS Newsletter, Department of Russian Language and Literature. Books 1-4, Vol. XX, 1915.

[547]. Morozov, N. A. On Russian History. The manuscript of the 8th volume of the work Christ. Moscow, the RAS Archive. Published in Moscow by Kraft and Lean in the end of the year 2000, as A New Point of View on Russian History.

[547:1]. Morozov, N.A. The Asian Christs. (History of Humanity in the Light of Natural Scientific Studies). Vol. 9 of the work titled Christ. Moscow, Kraft+ Ltd., 2003.

[547:2]. Morozov, N.A. The Mirages of Historical Wastelands between Tigris and Euphrates. (History of Humanity in the Light of Natural Scientific Studies). Vol. 10 of the work titled Christ. Moscow, Kraft+ Ltd., 2002.

[548]. Fomenko A. T., and L. E. Morozova. Quantitative Methods in Macro-Textology (with Artefacts of the XVI-XVII “Age of Troubles” Used as Examples). Complex methods in the study of historical processes. Moscow, the USSR Institute of History, Academy of Sciences, 1987. 163-181.

[549]. Moscow. An album. Moscow, Avrora Press; St. Petersburg, 1996.

[550]. Illustrated History of Moscow. Vol. 1. From the dawn of time until 1917. Moscow, Mysl, 1985.

[551]. Moscow and the Moscow Oblast. City Plan. Topographical Map. 1:200000. 3rd edition. Moscow, The Military Typography Headquarters Department, 1998.

[552]. The Moscow Kremlin. Arkhangelsky Cathedral. Moscow, The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture, 1995.

[553]. The Moscow Kremlin. Ouspensky Cathedral. Moscow, The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture, 1995.

[554]. The Moscow Chronicler. Compilation. Issue 1. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1988.

[555]. The Moscow Oblast Museum of History in Istra. A Guide-book. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1989.

[556]. The Andrei Rublev Museum. A brochure. Published by the Central Andrei Rublev Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art in Moscow, 10, Andronyevskaya Square. n.d.

[557]. Mouravyev, M. V. Novgorod the Great. A Historical Account and Guidebook. Leningrad: The State Historical Material Culture Academy Art Edition Popularization Committee, n.d.

[558]. Mouravyev, S. History of the First Four Centuries of Christianity. St. Petersburg, 1866.

[559]. Murad, Aji. The Polovtsy Field Wormwood. Moscow, Pik-Kontekst, 1994

[560]. Murad, Aji. Europe, the Turkomans and the Great Steppe. Moscow, Mysl, 1998

[561]. Mouratov, K. I. Peasant War Led by E. I. Pougachev. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1980.

[562]. Mylnikov, A. S. A Picture of a Slavic World as Viewed from the Eastern Europe. Ethnogenetic Legends, Conjectures, and Proto-Hypotheses of the XVI – Early XVIII century. St. Petersburg, The Petersburg Oriental Studies Centre, 1996.

[563]. Mylnikov, A. S. The Legend of the Russian Prince (Russo-Slavic Relations of the XVIII century in the World of Folk Culture). Leningrad, Nauka, 1987.

[564]. Malory, Thomas. Le Morte d’Arthure. Moscow, Nauka, 1974. English original taken from The Works of Sir Thomas Malory edited by E. Vinaver, Oxford, 1947.

[565]. Najip, E. N. A Comparative Historical Dictionary of the XIV century Turkic Languages. Book I. Moscow, 1979.

[566]. The Land of Smolensk. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1971.

[567]. Takeshi, Nagata. The Magnetic Field of the Earth in the Past. In Nauka i Chelovechestvo (Science and Humanity). 1965 annual edition. Moscow, Znaniye. 169-175.

[568]. Nazarevskiy, V. V. Selected Fragments of Muscovite History. 1147-1913. Moscow, Svarog, 1996.

[569]. Vyacheslav (Savinykh). Concise History of the Andronicus Monastery. Moscow, The Sudarium Temple of the Andronicus Monastery, 1999.

[570]. The Scientific Research Museum of Architecture. Moscow, 1962.

[571]. Neugebauer, O. The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. Moscow, Nauka, 1968. English edition in the series Acta Historica Scientiarum Naturalism et Medicinalium. Vol. 9. Copenhagen, 1957. New York, Harper & Bros., 1962.

[572]. Neuhardt, A. A., and I. A. Shishova. The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The USSR AS, the Leningrad Department of the History Institute. Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1966.

[573]. Leping, A. A., and N. P. Strakhova, eds. German-Russian Dictionary. 80,000 words. Moscow, The State National and International Dictionary Publications, 1958.

[574]. Nemirovskiy, A. I. The Etruscans. From Myth to History. Moscow, Nauka, 1983.

[575]. Nemirovskiy, E. L. The Literary World from the Dawn of History until the Early XX century. Moscow, Kniga, 1986.

[576]. Nemoyevskiy, Andrei. Jesus the God. Petersburg, State Publishing House, 1920.

[577]. Nennius. History of the Brits. From: Geoffrey of Monmouth. History of the Brits. The Life of Merlin. Moscow, Nauka, 1984. English edition: Nennius. Historia Brittonum. Galfridus Monemutensis (Geoffrey of Monmouth). Historia Britonum. Vita Merlini. Six old English Chronicles. Edited by J.A.Giles. London, 1848.

[577:1]. Nersesyan, L. V. Dionysius the Icon Master and the Murals of the Feropontov Monastery. Moscow, Severniy Palomnik, 2002.

[578]. Nechvolodov, A. Tales of the Russian Land. Books 1 and 2. Moscow, Svarog, 1997. A new edition of the books published by the State Typography of St. Petersburg in 1913.

[579]. Niese, B. A Description of the Roman History and Source Studies. German edition: Grundriss der römischen Geschichte nebst Quellenkunde. St. Petersburg, 1908. German edition: Munich, 1923.

[579:1]. Nikerov, V. A. History as an Exact Science. (Based on the materials of A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology). Moscow, Ecmo-Press, Yauza, 2002.

[580]. Nikolayev, D. The Weapon that Failed to Save Byzantium. In Tekhnika i Nauka (Science and Technology), No. 9 (1983): 29-36.

[581]. Nikolayeva, T. V. The Ancient Zvenigorod. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1978.

[582]. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov. In Bibliography of the Scientists of the USSR. Moscow, Nauka, 1981.

[583]. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov, the Encyclopaedist Scientist. A collection of articles. Moscow, Nauka, 1982.

[584]. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov. Biographical Stages and Activities. The USSR AS Courier, Nos. 7 and 8 (1944).

[585]. Nikolskiy, N. M. An Astronomical Revolution in Historical Science. The Novy Mir (New World) magazine, Vol. 1 (1925): 157-175. (In re. N. Morozov’s œuvre Christ. Leningrad, 1924.)

[586]. Nikonov, V. A. Name and Society. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[586:1]. A Collection of Chronicles titled the Patriarchal, or the Nikon Chronicle. The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (CCRC), Vols. IX-XIV. Moscow, Yazyki Russkoi Kultury, 2000.

[587]. Novellino. Literary monuments. Moscow, Nauka, 1984.

[588]. Novozhilov, N. I. The Meteorological Works of N. A. Morozov. The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 10 (1954).

[589]. The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Brussels, Life with God, 1965.

[590]. Nosovskiy, G. V. Certain Statistical Methods of Researching Historical Sources, and Examples of their Application. Source study methods of Russian social thinking; historical studies of the feudal epoch. A collection of academic publications. Moscow, The USSR History Institute, AS, 1989. 181-196.

[591]. Nosovskiy, G. V. The Beginning of Our Era and the Julian Calendar. Information processes and systems. Scientific and technological information, Series 2. Moscow, the National Science and Technology Information Institute, No. 5 (1992): 7-18.

[592]. Nosovskiy, G. V. The True Dating of the Famous First Oecumenical Counsel and the Real Beginning of the AD Era. An appendix of A. T. Fomenko’s Global Chronology. Moscow, The MSU Mathematical Mechanics Department, 1993. 288-394.

[593]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Determination of Original Structures in Intermixed Sequences. Works of a vector and tensor analysis seminar. Moscow, MSU Press, Issue 22 (1985): 119-131.

[594]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Some Methods and Results of Intermixed Sequence Analysis. Works of a vector and tensor analysis seminar. Moscow, MSU Press, Issue 23 (1988): 104-121.

[595]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Determining the Propinquity Quotient and Duplicate Identification in Chronological Lists. Report theses of the 5th International Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics Conference. Vilnius, The Lithuanian AS Institute of Mathematics and Cybernetics, Vol. 4 (1989): 111-112.

[596]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Statistical Duplicates in Ordered Lists with Subdivisions. Cybernetic Issues. Semiotic research. Moscow, Scientific Counsel for the Study of the General Problem of Cybernetics. The USSR AS, 1989. 138-148.

[597]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Duplicate Identification in Chronological Lists (The Histogram Method of Related Name Distribution Frequencies). Problems of stochastic model stability. Seminar works. Moscow, The National System Research Institute, 1989. 112-125.

[598]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Statistical Research of Parallel Occurrences and Biographies in British Chronological and Historical Materials. Semiotics and Informatics. Moscow, The National System Research Institute, Issue 34 (1994): 205-233.

[599]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology and the Concept of the Ancient History of Russia, Britain and Rome. (Facts. Statistics. Hypotheses.) Vol. 1: Russia. Vol. 2: England, Rome. Moscow, the MSU Centre of Research and Pre-University Education, 1995. 2nd edition: 1996.

[600]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Mathematical and Statistical Models of Information Distribution in Historical Chronicles. The Mathematical Issues of Cybernetics. Physical and Mathematical Literature (Moscow, Nauka), Issue 6 (1996): 71-116.

[601]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Empire (Russia, Turkey, China, Europe and Egypt. New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity). Moscow, Faktorial, 1996. Re-editions: 1997, 1998 and 1999.

[602]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Russia and Rome. The Correctness of Our Understanding of Eurasian History. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Olimp, 1997. 2nd edition: 1999.

[603]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Russia. Moscow, Faktorial, 1997. Re-editions: 1998 and 1999.

[604]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Mathematical Chronology of Biblical Events. Moscow, Nauka, 1997.

[605]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Faktorial, 1998.

[606]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Horde-Russia as Reflected in Biblical Books. Moscow, Anvik, 1998.

[607]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. An Introduction to the New Chronology (Which Century is it Now?). Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 1999.

[608]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Russia, Britain and Rome. Moscow, Anvik, 1999. A substantially revised and enlarged single-volume edition.

[608:1]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Russia, Britain and Rome. Moscow, Delovoi Express Financial, 2001.

[609]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. Selected Chapters I. (The Empire of Horde-Russia and the Bible. The New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity. A History of Biblical Editions and Manuscripts. XI-XII century Events in the New Testament. The Pentateuch). Moscow, Faktorial, 1999.

[610]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History (The New Chronology). Moscow, Delovoi Express Financial, 1999.

[611]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Old Criticisms and the New Chronology. The Neva magazine (St. Petersburg), No. 2 (1999): 143158.

[612]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. Selected Chapters II. (The Empire of Horde-Russia and the Bible. History of the XIV-XVI century in the Final Chapters of the Books of Kings. XV-XVI century History of the Pages of the Books of Esther and Judith. Reformation Epoch of the XVI-XVII century). Moscow, Faktorial, 2000.

[613]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History. The Research of 1999-2000 (The New Chronology). Moscow, Delovoi Express Financial, 2000.

[613:1]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Egypt. The Astronomical Dating of the Ancient Egyptian Monuments. The Research of 2000-2002. Moscow, Veche, 2002.

[613:2]. Fomenko, A. T., and Nosovskiy, G. V. The New Chronology of Egypt. The Astronomical Dating of the Ancient Egyptian Monuments. 2nd edition, re-worked and expanded. Moscow, Veche, 2003.

[614]. Newton, Robert. The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy. Moscow, Nauka, 1985. English original: Baltimore-London, John Hopkins University Press, 1977.

[615]. Olearius, Adam. A Detailed Account of the Moscovian and Persian Journey of the Holstein Ambassadors in 1633, 1636 and 1639. Translated from German by P. Barsov. Moscow, 1870.

[616]. Oleynikov, A. The Geological Clock. Leningrad, Nedra, 1975.

[617]. Orbini, Mavro. A Historiographical Book on the Origins of the Names, the Glory and the Expansion of the Slavs. Compiled from many Historical Books through the Office of Marourbin, the Archimandrite of Raguzha. Translated into Russian from Italian. Typography of St. Petersburg, 1722.

[618]. Orbini, Mavro. Kingdom of the Slavs. Sofia, Nauka i Izkustvo, 1983.

[618:1]. Oreshnikov, A. V. Pre-1547 Russian Coins. A reprint of the 1896 edition by the State Museum of History. Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. Moscow, The Archaeographical Centre, 1996.

[619]. Orlenko, M. I. Sir Isaac Newton. A Biographical Aperçu. Donetsk, 1927.

[620]. Orlov, A. S. Certain Style Characteristics of Russian History Fiction of the XVI-XVII century. In Russian Philological News, Vol. 13, Book 4 (1908): 344-379.

[621]. The Ostrog Bible (The Bible, or the Books of the Old and the New Covenant, in the Language of the Slavs). Ostrog, 1581. Reprinted as The Ostrog Bible. The Soviet Culture Fund Commission for the Publication of Literary Artefacts. Moscow-Leningrad, Slovo-Art, 1988. “The phototypic copy of the 1581 text was supervised by I. V. Dergacheva with references to the copies from the Scientific Library of A. M. Gorky Moscow State University.”

[622]. National History from the Earliest Days and until 1917. Encyclopaedia, Vol. 1. Moscow, The Great Russian Encyclopaedia Publications, 1994.

[623]. Bavin, S. P., and G. V. Popov. The Revelation of St. John as Reflected in the Global Literary Tradition. The catalogue of an exhibition organized in Moscow by the Greek Embassy in 1994. A joint publication of the Greek Embassy and the State Library of Russia. Moscow, Indrik, 1995.

[623:1]. A postcard with an Egyptian zodiac. The Creation Scene. Egypt, El-Faraana Advertising & Printing, 2000.

[624]. Historical and Folk Tale Aperçus. From Cheops to Christ. A compilation. Translated from German. Moscow, 1890. Reprinted by the Moscow Int’l Translator School in 1993.

[625]. Pausanius. A Description of Hellas, or a Voyage through Greece in II century AD. Moscow, 1880. English edition: Pausanius. Guide to Greece. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1979.

[626]. Makarevich, G. V., ed. The Architectural Monuments of Moscow. The Earthenware Town. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1989-1990.

[627]. Posokhin, M. V., ed. The Architectural Monuments of Moscow. KitaiGorod. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1982.

[628]. Makarevich, G. V., ed. The Architectural Monuments of Moscow. White Town. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1989.

[629]. Makarevich, G. V., ed. The Architectural Monuments of Moscow. Zamoskvorechye. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1994.

[630]. Artefacts of Diplomatic Relations with the Roman Empire. Vol. 1. St Petersburg, 1851.

[631]. Rybakov, B. A., ed. Artefacts of the Kulikovo Cycle. St. Petersburg, RAS, The Institute of Russian History. Blitz, the Russo-Baltic Information Centre, 1998.

[632]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. The XI – Early XII century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1978.

[633]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. The XII century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1980.

[634]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. The XIII century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1981.

[635]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. The XIV – mid-XV century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1981.

[636]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. Second Half of the XV century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1982.

[637]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. Late XV – Early XVI century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1984.

[638]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. Mid-XVI century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1985.

[639]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. Second Half of the XVI century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1986.

[640]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. Late XVI – Early XVII century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1987.

[641]. Significant Works in Russian Law. Issue 2. Moscow, 1954.

[642]. Significant Works in Russian Law. Issue 3. Moscow, 1955.

[643]. Pannekuk, A. The History of Astronomy. Moscow, Nauka, 1966.

[644]. Parandowski, J. Petrarch. The Inostrannaya Literatura (Foreign Literature) magazine, No. 6 (1974). Also see: Parandowski, J. Petrarca. Warsaw, 1957.

[645]. Paradisis, Alexander. The Life and Labours of Balthazar Cossas (Pope John XXIII). Minsk, Belarus, 1980.

[646]. Pasek. A Historical Description of Simon’s Monastery in Moscow. Moscow, 1843.

[647]. Romanenko, A. The Patriarch Chambers of the Moscow Kremlin. Moscow, The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture, 1994.

[648]. Pahimer, George. The Story of Michael and Andronicus Palaeologi. The Reign of Michael Palaiologos. St. Petersburg, 1862.

[648:1]. Pashkov, B. G. Holy Russia – Russia – The Russian Empire. The Genealogical Tree of the Principal Russian Clans (862-1917). Moscow, TsentrKom, 1996.

[649]. The First Muscovite Princes. In Historical Portraits series. Moscow, Ganna, 1992.

[650]. Perepyolkin, Y. A. The Coup of Amenkhotep IV. Part 1. Books 1 and 2. Moscow, Nauka, 1967.

[651]. The Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbskiy. In Literary Landmarks series. Leningrad, Nauka, 1979. 2nd edition: Moscow, Nauka, 1993.

[652]. The Song of Roland. International Literature Collection. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1976. English edition by J. M. Dent & Sons, 1972.

[653]. Petrov, A. M. The Great Silk Route. The Simplest, but Largely Unknown Facts. Moscow, Vostochnaya Literatura, RAS, 1995.

[654]. Petruchenko, O. Latin-Russian Dictionary. Moscow, published by the V. V. Dumnov and the Heirs of Silayev Brothers, 1914. Reprinted by the Graeco-Latin Department of Y. A. Shichalin, 1994.

[654:1]. The Maritime Voyage of St. Brendan (Navigation Sancti Brendani Abbatis saec X AD). St. Petersburg, Azbuka-Klassika, 2002. English translation: Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis from Early Latin Manuscripts. Ed., introd. and notes: C. Selmer, Notre Dame, 1959.

[655]. Plan of the Imperial Capital City of Moscow, Created under the Supervision of Ivan Michurin, the Architect, in 1739. The First Geodetic Plan of Moscow. The General Council of Ministers, Department of Geodetics and Cartography (the Cartographer Cooperative). Published together with a calendar for 1989.

[656]. Plano Carpini, G. del. History of the Mongols. William of Rubruck. The Journey to the Oriental Countries. The Book of Marco Polo. Moscow, Mysl, 1997. See also: The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the World, 1253-55. Prepared by W. W. Rockhill. 1900.

[657]. Plato. Collected Works. Vol. 3. Moscow, Mysl, 1972. English edition: The Works of Plato. Bohn’s Classical Library, 1848.

[658]. Pletnyova, S. A. The Khazars. Moscow, Nauka, 1976.

[659]. Pleshkova, S. L. Catherine of Medici. The Black Queen. Moscow, Moscow University Press, 1994.

[660]. Plutarch. Comparative Biographies. Vol. 1: Moscow, USSR AN Press, 1961; Vol. 2: Moscow, USSR AN Press, 1963; Vol. 3: Moscow, Nauka, 1964. English edition: Plutarch. The Lives of the Noble Graecians and Romans. In Great Books of the Western World series. Vol. 13. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, University of Chicago, 1952 (2nd edition 1990). See also: Plutarch. Plutarch’s Lives. London, Dilly, 1792.

[661]. Plyukhanova, M. B. Subjects and Symbols of the Muscovite Kingdom. St. Petersburg, Akropol, 1995.

[662]. Kremlin. A Brief Guide. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1960.

[663]. The Yearly Chronicle. Part 1. Text and translation. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR AN Press, 1950.

[664]. The Yearly Chronicle. Published in the Dawn of the Russian Literature series (XI – early XII century). Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1978. 23-277.

[665]. The Tale of Varlaam and Ioasaph. Leningrad, Nauka, 1985.

[666]. Likhachev, D. S., ed. The Tale of the Kulikovo Battle. The Text and the Miniatures of the Authorized Compilation of the XVI century. Published by the XVI century manuscript kept in the USSR Academy of Sciences Library (The Authorized Compilation of Chronicles, Osterman’s Vol. II, sheet 3 – 126 reverse). Leningrad, Aurora, 1984.

[666:1]. Podosinov, A. V., and A. M. Belov. Lingua Latina. Latin-Russian Dictionary. About 15,000 words. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka, 2000.

[667]. Pokrovskiy, N. N. A Voyage in Search of Rare Books. Moscow, Kniga. 2nd edition, 1988.

[668]. Polak, I. F. A Course of General Astronomy. Moscow, Gonti, 1938.

[669]. Polybius. History in 40 Volumes. Moscow, 1899.

[670]. The Complete Symphony of the Canonical Books of the Holy Writ. St. Petersburg, The Bible For Everybody, 1996.

[671]. The Complete Collection of Russian Chonicles. Vol. 33. Leningrad, Nauka, 1977.

[672]. The Complete Collection of Russian Chonicles. Vol. 35. Moscow, Nauka, 1980.

[673]. Polo, M. The Journey. Translated from French. Leningrad, 1940.

[674]. Poluboyarinova, M. D. Russians in the Golden Horde. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[674:1]. [Pompeii]. Pompeii. Album. Authors: Filippo Coarelli, Emilio de Albentiis, Maria Paola Guidobaldi, Fabricio Pesando, and Antonio Varone. Moscow, Slovo, 2002. Printed in Italy.

[674:2]. [Pompeii]. Nappo, Salvatore. Pompeii. Album. From the World Wonder Atlas series. Moscow, Bertelsmann Media Moskau, 2001. English original: Salvatore Ciro Nappo. Pompeii. White Star, 1998, Vercelli, Italy.

[675]. Popovskiy, M. A. Time Conquered. A Tale of Nikolai Morozov. Moscow, Political Literature, 1975.

[676]. The Portuguese-Russian and Russian-Portuguese Dictionary. Kiev, Perun, 1999.

[677]. The Successors of Marco Polo. Voyages of the Westerners into the Countries of the Three Indias. Moscow, Nauka, 1968.

[678]. Pospelov, M. The Benediction of Reverend Sergei. The Moskva magazine, 1990

[679]. Postnikov, A. V. Maps of the Russian Lands: A Brief Review of the History of Geographical Studies and Cartography of Our Fatherland. Moscow, Nash Dom – L’Age d’Homme, 1996.

[680]. Postnikov, M. M. A Critical Research of the Chronology of the Ancient World. Vols. 1-3. Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 2000. [A. T. Fomenko’s remark: This book is a publication of a manuscript of more than 1000 pages written by Doctors of Physics and Mathematics A. S. Mishchenko and A. T. Fomenko. It was edited by M. M. Postnikov, and came out signed with his name. He acknowledges this fact in the preface to Vol. 1, on page 6, albeit cagily.]

[681]. Fomenko A. T., and M. M. Postnikov. New Methods of Statistical Analysis of the Narrative and Digital Material of Ancient History. Moscow, Scientific Counsel for the Study of the General Problem of Cybernetics, USSR AS, 1980. 1-36.

[682]. Fomenko A. T., and M. M. Postnikov. New Methods of Statistical Analysis of the Narrative and Digital Material of Ancient History. Scientific note of the Tartu University, works related to sign symbols. XV, Cultural Typology, Cultural Influence Feedback. Tartu University Press, Release 576 (1982): 24-43.

[683]. Postnikov, M. M. The Greatest Mystification in the World? In Tekhnika i Nauka (Science & Technology), 1982, No. 7, pp. 28-33.

[684]. Potin, V. M. Coins. Treasures. Collections. Numismatic essays. St. Petersburg, Iskusstvo-SPb, 1993.

[685]. Potin, V. M. Ancient Russia and the European States of the X-XIII century. Leningrad, Sovetskiy Khudozhnik, 1968.

[685:1]. Pope-Hennessy, John. Fra Angelico. Album. Moscow, Slovo, 1996. Scala, 1995, Istituto Fotografico Editoriale.

[686]. Pokhlyobkin, V. V. The Foreign Affairs of the Holy Russia, Russia and the USSR over the 1000 Years in Names, Dates and Facts. A Reference Book. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenya, 1992.

[687]. Merited Academician N. A. Morozov. Memoirs. Vols. 1 and 2. The USSR Academy of Sciences. Moscow, USSR AS Press, 1962.

[688]. Orthodox Art and the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery. Materials of scientific conferences dedicated to the 600th anniversary of the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, 17 December 1997 and 22 September 1998. The Zvenigorod Museum of Architecture, History, and Arts. Zvenigorod, Savva Plus M, 1998.

[689]. Malinovskaya, N., ed. Prado. Paintings. Album. Translated from Spanish. Lunwerg Editores. Barcelona-Madrid, 1994. Russian translation: Moscow, MK-Import, 1999.

[690]. Reverend Joseph Volotsky. The Illuminator. Published by the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery of Valaam. Blessed by the Holiest Patriarch of Moscow and the Entire Russia, Alexiy II. Moscow, 1993.

[691]. Priester, E. A Brief History of Austria. Moscow, IL, 1952. German edition: Kurze Geschichte Österreichs. Vienna, Globus, 1946.

[692]. Prishchepenko, V. N. The Pages of Russian History. Vol. 1: 1988. Vol. 2: 2000. Moscow, Profizdat.

[693]. Problems of Museum Collection Formation and Studies of the State Museum of Religious History. Leningrad, The RSFSR Ministry of Culture, publised by the State Museum of History of Religions, 1990.

[694]. Procopius of Caesarea. On the Buildings. The Vestnik Drevnei Istorii (Courier of Ancient History) magazine, No. 4 (1939): 201-298. See also: Procopius of Caesarea. On the Buildings of Justinian. London, Palestine Piligrim Society, 1888.

[695]. Procopius. The Gothic War. Moscow, The USSR AS Press, 1950.

[696]. Procopius. The Gothic War. On the Buildings. Moscow, Arktos, Vika-Press, 1996. See also: Procopius of Caesarea. Procopius. Vol. 7. London, William Heinemann; New York, Macmillan & Co. 1914-1940.

[697]. Procopius of Caesarea. The Persian War. The War with the Vandals. Arcane History. St. Petersburg, Aleteya, 1998.

[698]. Proskouriakov, V. M. Johannes Gutenberg. The Celebrity Biographies series. Moscow, the Literary Magazine Union, 1933.

[699]. Prokhorov, G. M. The Tale of Batu-Khan’s Invasion in Lavrenty’s Chronicle. Published as part of The Russian Literary History Research. XI-XVII centuries. Leningrad, Nauka, 1974.

[700]. Book of Psalms. Moscow, 1657. (Private collection.)

[701]. The book of Psalms with Appendices. Published in the Great City of Moscow in the Year 7160 [1652 AD], in the Month of October, on the 1st Day. New edition: Moscow, The Vvedenskaya Church of St. Trinity Coreligionist Typography, 1867.

[702]. Psellus, Michael. Chronography. Moscow, Nauka, 1978. English edition: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953.

[703]. Pskovskiy, Y. P. Novae and Supernovae. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[704]. Ptolemy, Claudius. Almagest, or the Mathematical Tractate in Thirteen Volumes. Translated by I. N. Veselovskiy. Moscow, Nauka, Fizmatlit, 1998.

[705]. Poisson, A., N. A. Morozov, F. Schwarz, M. Eliade, and K. G. Jung. The Theory and Symbols of Alchemy. The Great Work. Kiev, Novy Akropol, Bront Ltd., 1995.

[706]. Mashkov, I. P., ed. A Guide to Moscow. Moscow, The Muscovite Architectural Society for the Members of the V Convention of Architects in Moscow, 1913.

[707]. The Voyage of Columbus. Diaries, Letters, Documents. Moscow, The State Geographical Literature Press, 1952.

[708]. Putilov, Boris. Ancient Russia in Personae. Gods, Heroes, People. St. Petersburg, Azbuka, 1999.

[709]. Pushkin, A. Collected Works. Leningrad, The State Fiction Publishers, 1935.

[710]. Pushkin A. in the Recollections of Contemporaries. Two volumes. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1974.

[711]. Pushkin’s Memorial Places in Russia. A Guidebook. Moscow, Profizdat, 1894.

[711:1]. Pylyaev, M. I. The Old Petersburg. Accounts of the Capital’s Past. A reprint of A. S. Souvorov’s 1889 St. Petersburg edition. Moscow, IKPA, 1990.

[712]. Lukovich-Pyanovich, Olga. The Serbs . . . The Oldest of Nations. Vols. 1-3. Belgrade, Miroslav, 1993-1994.

[713]. Pietrangeli, Carlo. Vatican. From the Great Museums of the World series. Moscow, Slovo, 1998. A translation of the Italian edition by Magnus Editioni, Udine, 1996.

[714]. Five Centuries of European Drawings. The drawings of old masters from the former collection of Franz König. The 1.10.1995-21.01.1996 exhibition catalogue. The Russian Federation Ministry of Culture, The State A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Art. Moscow-Milan, Leonardo Arte (versions in Russian and in English).

[715]. The Radzivillovskaya Chronicle. The text. The research. A description of the miniatures. St. Petersburg, Glagol; Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1994.

[716]. The Radzivillovskaya Chronicle. The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, Vol. 38. Leningrad, Nauka, 1989.

[717]. Radiocarbon. Collected articles. Vilnius, 1971.

[718]. The Imprecision of Radiocarbon Datings. The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 3 (1990): 117. (New Scientist, Vol. 123, No. 1684 (1989): 26).

[719]. Radzig, N. The Origins of Roman Chronicles. Moscow University Press, 1903.

[720]. The Book of Rank. 1457-1598. Moscow, Nauka, 1966.

[721]. Razoumov, G. A., and M. F. Khasin. The Drowning cities. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[722]. Wright, J. K. The Geographical Lore of the Time of the Crusades. A Study in the History of Medieval Science and Tradition in Western Europe. Moscow, Nauka, 1988. English original published in New York in 1925.

[722:1]. Reizer, V. I. The Process of Joan of Arc. Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1964.

[723]. Fomenko, A. T., and S. T. Rachev. Volume Functions of Historical Texts and the Amplitude Correlation Principle. Source study methods of Russian social thinking historical studies of the feudal epoch. A collection of academic publications. Moscow, The USSR History Institute, AS, 1989. 161-180.

[724]. Rashid ad-Din. History of the Mongols. St. Petersburg, 1858.

[725]. Renan, J. The Antichrist. St. Petersburg, 1907. English edition: Renan’s Antichrist. The Scott Library, 1899.

[726]. Rome: Echoes of the Imperial Glory. Translated from English by T. Azarkovich. The Extinct Civilizations series. Moscow, Terra, 1997. Original by Time-Life Books, 1994.

[727]. Rich, V. Was there a Dark Age? The Khimia i Zhizn (Chemistry and Life) magazine, No. 9 (1983): 84.

[728]. Riesterer, Peter P., and Roswitha Lambelet. The Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Cairo, Lehnert & Landrock, Orient Art Publishers, 1980. Russian edition, 1996.

[729]. Robert of Clari. The Conquest of Constantinople. Moscow, Nauka, 1986. English edition: McNeal, E. H. The Conquest of Constantinople of Robert of Clari. Translated with introduction and notes by E. Holmes McNeal. New York, 1936. Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies. Vol. XXIII. Reprint: New York, 1964, 1969.

[730]. Rogozina, Z. A. The Earliest Days of Egyptian History. Issue 2. Petrograd, A. F. Marx Typography, n.d.

[731]. Rozhdestvenskaya, L. A. The Novgorod Kremlin. A Guide-book. Lenizdat, 1980.

[732]. Rozhitsyn, V. S., and M. P. Zhakov. The Origins of the Holy Books. Leningrad, 1925.

[733]. Rozhkov, M. N. A. Morozov – The Founding Father of the Dimension Number Analysis. The Successes of the Physical Sciences, Vol. 49, Issue 1 (1953).

[734]. Rozanov, N. History of the Temple of Our Lady’s Birth in Staroye Simonovo, Moscow, Dedicated to its 500th Anniversary (1370-1870). Moscow, Synodal Typography on Nikolskaya Street, 1870.

[735]. Romanyuk, S. From the History of Small Muscovite Streets. Moscow, 1988.

[735:1]. Romanyuk, S. From the History of Small Muscovite Streets. Moscow, Svarog, 2000.

[735:2]. Romanyuk, S. The Lands of the Muscovite Villages. Part I. Moscow, Svarog, 2001.

[735:3]. Romanyuk, S. The Lands of the Muscovite Villages. Part II. Moscow, Svarog, 1999.

[736]. The Russian Academy of Sciences. Personae. Three books. Book 1: 1724-1917. Book 2: 1918-1973. Book 3: 1974-1999. Moscow, Nauka, 1999.

[737]. Rossovskaya, V. A. The Calendarian Distance of Ages. Moscow, Ogiz, 1930.

[738]. A Guide to the Paschalia for the Seminary Schools. Moscow, The V. Gautier Typography, 1853. Reprinted in Moscow by Grad Kitezh in 1991.

[739]. Bleskina, O. N., comp. An Illustrated book of Manuscripts of the USSR AS Library. Catalogue for an exhibition of illustrated chronicles of the XI-XIX century written with roman letters. Leningrad, The USSR AS Library, 1991.

[740]. Handwritten and Typeset Books. Collected Articles. Moscow, Nauka, 1975.

[741]. Manuscripts of the Late XV – early XVI century. The Kirillo-Belozersk Collection, 275/532. The M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library, St. Petersburg.

[742]. Roumyantsev, A. A. Methods of Historical Analysis in the Works of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov. The Scientific Institute of P. F. Lesgaft Notes, Vol. 10. Leningrad, 1924.

[743]. Roumyantsev, A. A. The Death and the Resurrection of the Saviour. Moscow, Atheist, 1930.

[744]. Roumyantsev, N. V. Orthodox Feasts. Moscow, Ogiz, 1936.

[745]. The Russian Bible. The Bible of 1499 and the Synodal Translation of the Bible. Illustrated. 10 Vols. The Biblical Museum, 1992. Publishing department of the Muscovite Patriarchy, Moscow, 1992 (The Gennadievskaya Bible). Only the following volumes came out before the beginning of 2002: Vol. 4 (Book of Psalms), Vols. 7 and 8 (The New Testament), and Vol. 9 (Appendices, scientific descriptions). Vols. 7 and 8 were published by the Moscow Patriarchy in 1992; Vols. 4 and 9 published by the Novospassky Monastery, Moscow, 1997 (Vol. 4), 1998 (Vol. 9).

[746]. The Pioneer of Russian Printing. A Brief Biography. Ivan Fedorov’s “Alphabet” Published in 1578. In collaboration with Translesizdat Ltd. Blessed by the Editing Board of the Muscovite Patriarchy. Moscow, Spolokhi, 2000.

[747]. Russian Chronographer of 1512. The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, Vol. 22. St. Petersburg, 1911.

[748]. Knyazevskaya, T. B., comp. Russian Spiritual Chivalry. Collected articles. Moscow, Nauka, 1996.

[749]. Leyn, K., ed. Russian-German Dictionary. 11th stereotype edition. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1991.

[750]. Dmitriev, N. K., ed. Russian-Tartarian Dictionary. The USSR AS, Kazan Affiliate of the Language, Literature and History Institute. Kazan, Tatknigoizdat, 1955.

[750:1]. Mustaioki, A., and E. Nikkilä. Russian-Finnish Didactic Dictionary. Abt. 12,500 words. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1982.

[751]. Shcherba, L. V., and M. R. Matousevich. Russian-French Dictionary. 9th stereotype edition. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, 1969.

[752]. Rybakov, B. A. From the History of Ancient Russia and Its Culture. Moscow, MSU Press, 1984.

[753]. Rybakov, B. A. The Kiev Russia and Russian Principalities. The XII-XIII century. Moscow, Nauka, 1982, 1988.

[754]. Rybakov, B. A. The Kiev Russia and Russian Principalities. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[755]. Rybnikov, K. A. History of Mathematics. Moscow, MSU Press, 1974.

[756]. Ryabtsevitch, V. N. What the Coins Tell Us. Minsk, Narodnaya Asveta, 1977.

[757]. Savelyev, E. P. Cossacks and their History. Vols. 1 and 2. Vladikavkaz, 1991. A reprint of E. Savelyev’s Ancient History of the Cossacks. Novocherkassk, 1915.

[758]. Savelyeva, E. A. Olaus Magnus and his “History of the Northern Peoples.” Leningrad, Nauka, 1983. [Olaus Magnus. Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, 1555].

[759]. Prince Obolensky’s Almanach. Part 1, Sections 1-7. N.p., 1866.

[760]. Suetonius Caius Tranquillius. History of the Twelve Caesars. Moscow, Nauka, 1966. See also the English edition: New York, AMS Press, 1967; as well as the one titled The Twelve Caesars. London, Folio Society, 1964.

[760:1]. Collected Historical and Cultural Monuments of the Tatarstan Republic. Vol. 1. Administrative regions. Kazan, Master Line, 1999.

[761]. The General Catalogue of Slavic and Russian Handwritten Books Kept in USSR: The XI-XIII century. Moscow, 1984.

[762]. St. Stephen of Perm. The Old Russian Tales of Famous People, Places and Events series. Article, text, translation from Old Russian, commentary. St. Petersburg, Glagol, 1995.

[763]. Holy Relics of Old Moscow. Russian National Art Library. Moscow, Nikos, Kontakt, 1993.

[763:1]. Stogov, Ilya, comp. Holy Writings of the Mayans: Popol-Vukh, Rabinal-Achi. Translated by R. V. Kinzhalov. With The Report of Yucatan Affairs by Brother Diego de Landa attached, translated by Y. V. Knorozov. The Alexandrian Library series. St. Petersburg, Amphora, 2000.

[764]. Semashko, I. I. 100 Great Women. Moscow, Veche, 1999.

[765]. Sunderland, I. T. Holy Books as Regarded by Science. Gomel, Gomelskiy Rabochiy Western Regional, 1925.

[766]. Sergeyev, V. S. The History of Ancient Greece. Moscow-Leningrad, Ogiz, 1934.

[767]. Sergeyev, V. S. Essays on the History of the Ancient Rome. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Ogiz, 1938.

[768]. Sizov, S. Another Account of the Three “Unidentified” Sepulchres of the Arkhangelsky Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Materials and Research. Iskusstvo (Moscow), No. 1 (1973).

[768:1]. Shevchenko, V. F., ed. Simbirsk and its Past. An Anthology of Texts on Local History. Oulianovsk, Culture Studies Lab, 1993. The compilation includes the book by M. F. Superanskiy titled Simbirsk and its Past (1648-1898). A Historical Account, among others. Simbirsk, The Simbirsk Regional Scientific Archive Commission, The O. V. Mourakhovskaya Typography, 1899.

[769]. Sinelnikov, Vyacheslav (Rev. V. Sinelnikov). The Shroud of Turin at Dawn of the New Era. Moscow, Sretensky Friary, 2000.

[769:1]. Sinha, N. K., Banerjee, A. C. History of India. Moscow, Inostrannaya Literatura, 1954. English original: Calcutta, 1952.

[770]. Sipovskiy, V. D. Native Antiquity: History of Russia in Accounts and Pictures. Vol. 1: IX-XVI century. St. Petersburg, The V. F. Demakov Typography, 1879, 1888. Vol. 2: XIV-XVII century. St. Petersburg, D. D. Poluboyarinov Publishing House, 1904. Reprinted: Moscow, Sovremennik, 1993.

[771]. The Tale of the Mamay Battle. Facsimile edition. Moscow, Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1980.

[772]. A Tale of the Lord’s Passion. Part of the Russian handwritten collection of Christian works in Church Slavonic. Private collection. The XVIII-XIX century.

[772:1]. The Scythians, the Khazars and the Slavs. Ancient Russia. To the Centennary since the Birth of M. I. Artamonov. Report theses for the international scientific conference. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, the State University of St. Petersburg, the RAS Institute of Material Culture History.

[773]. Skornyakova, Natalya. Old Moscow. Engravings and Lithographs of the XVI-XIX Century from the Collection of the State Museum of History. Moscow, Galart, 1996.

[774]. Skromnenko, S. (Stroev, S. M.) The Inveracity of the Ancient Russian History and the Error of the Opinions Deeming Russian Chronicles Ancient. St. Petersburg, 1834.

[775]. Skrynnikov, R. G. The Reign of Terror. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1992.

[776]. Skrynnikov, R. G. Ivan the Terrible. Moscow, Nauka, 1975. The 2nd edition came out in 1983.

[777]. Skrynnikov, R. G. Boris Godunov. Moscow, Nauka, 1983.

[778]. Skrynnikov, R. G. The State and the Church in Russia. The XIV-XVI Century. Eminent Figures in the Russian Church. Novosibirsk, Nauka, Siberian Affiliate, 1991.

[779]. Skrynnikov, R. G. The Tragedy of Novgorod. Moscow, Sabashnikov, 1994.

[780]. Skrynnikov, R. G. Russia before the “Age of Turmoil.” Moscow, Mysl, 1981.

[781]. The Slavic Mythology. An Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow, Ellis Luck, 1995.

[781:0]. Tsepkov, A., comp. The Slavic Chronicles. St. Petersburg, Glagol,1996.

[781:1]. A Dictionary of Russian Don Dialects, Vols. 1 and 2. Rostov-on-Don, Rostov University Press, 1991.

[782]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 1. Moscow, Nauka, 1975.

[783]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 2. Moscow, Nauka.

[784]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 3. Moscow, Nauka.

[785]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 5. Moscow, Nauka.

[786]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 6. Moscow, Nauka, 1979.

[787]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 7. Moscow, Nauka, 1980.

[788]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 8. Moscow, Nauka.

[789]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 11. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[790]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 13. Moscow, Nauka, 1987.

[791]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 19. Moscow, Nauka.

[792]. Smirnov, A. P. The Scythians. The USSR AS Institute of Archaeology. Moscow, Nauka, 1966.

[793]. Smirnov, F. Christian Liturgy in the First Three Centuries. Kiev, 1874.

[794]. Soboleva, N. A. Russian Seals. Moscow, Nauka, 1991.

[795]. A Collection of State Edicts and Covenants. Moscow, 1894.

[796]. The Soviet Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, 1979.

[797]. The Soviet Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, 1984.

[797:1]. The Great Treasures of the World. Gianni Guadalupi, ed. Moscow, Astrel, AST, 2001. Italian original: I grandi tresori – l’arte orafa dall’ antico egitto all XX secolo. Edizioni White Star, 1998.

[798]. Solovyov, V. Collected Works. Vol. 6. St. Petersburg, 1898.

[799]. Solovyov, S. M. Collected Works. Book 4, Vols. 7-8. Moscow, Mysl, 1989.

[800]. Solovyov, S. M. Collected Works. Book 6. Moscow, Mysl, 1991.

[800:1]. Solovyov, S. M. The History of the Ancient Russia. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1992.

[801]. Solonar, P. Most Probably Fiction… The Tekhnika i Nauka magazine, No. 4 (1983): 28-32.

[802]. The Reports of the Imperial Orthodox Society of Palestine. April 1894. St. Petersburg, 1894.

[803]. Palamarchuk, Pyotr, comp. Fourty Times Fourty. A Concise Illustrated History of All the Churches in Moscow. 4 volumes. Moscow, Kniga i Biznes Ltd., Krom Ltd., 1995.

[804]. Sotnikova, M. P. The Oldest Russian Coins of the X-XI century. Catalogue and Study. Moscow, Banki i Birzhi, 1995.

[805]. The Spaso-Andronikov Monastery. A scheme. The Central Andrey Roublyov Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art. Moscow, MO Sintez, 1989.

[806]. Spasskiy, I. G. The Russian Monetary System. Leningrad, Avrora, 1970.

[807]. Spasskiy, I. G. The Russian “Yefimki.” A Study and a Catalogue. Novosibirsk, Nauka, Siberian Affiliation, 1988.

[808]. Speranskiy, M. N. Cryptography in Southern Slavic and Russian Literary Artefacts. Published in the Encyclopaedia of Slavic Philology series. Leningrad, 1929.

[808:1]. Spiridonov, A. M., and O. A. Yarovoy. The Valaam Monastery: from Apostle Andrew to Hegumen Innocent (Historical Essays of the Valaam Monastery). Moscow, Prometei, 1991.

[809]. Spirina, L. M. The Treasures of the Sergiev Posad State Reserve Museum of Art and History. Ancient Russian Arts and Crafts. Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhpoligraf, n.d.

[810]. Contentious Issues of Native History of the XI-XVIII century. Report theses and speeches of the first readings dedicated to the memory of A. A. Zimin. 13-18 May, 1990. Moscow, The USSR AS, Moscow State Institute of Historical and Archival Science, 1990.

[811]. Brouyevich, N. G., ed. 220 Years of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1725-1945. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR AS Press, 1945.

[812]. Mediaeval Decorative Stitching. Byzantium, the Balkans, Russia. Catalogue of an exhibition. The XVIII Int’l Congress of Byzantine Scholars. Moscow, 8-15 August, 1991. Moscow, The USSR Ministry of Culture. State Museums of the Moscow Kremlin, 1991.

[813]. Sobolev, N. N., ed. The Old Moscow. Published by the Commission for the Studies of Old Moscow of the Imperial Archaeological Society of Russia. Issues 1, 2. Moscow, 1914 (Reprinted: Moscow, Stolitsa, 1993).

[814]. A Dictionary of Old Slavic (by the X-XI century Manuscripts). Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1994.

[815]. Starostin, E. V. Russian History in Foreign Archives. Moscow, Vysshaya Shkola, 1994.

[815:1]. Stelletsky, I. Y. In Search of the Library of Ivan the Terrible. The Mysteries of Russian History series. Moscow, Sampo, 1999.

[816]. Stepanov, N. V. The New Style and the Orthodox Paschalia. Moscow, 1907.

[817]. Stepanov, N. V. The Calendarian and Chronological Reference Book (for the Solution of Chronographical Time Problems). Moscow, Synodal typography, 1915.

[817:1]. Pletneva, S. A., volume ed. The Eurasian Steppes in the Middle Ages. Collected works. In the USSR Archaeology series. B. A. Rybakov, general ed. Moscow, Nauka, 1981.

[818]. Stingl, Miloslav. Mysteries of the Indian Pyramids. Transl. from Czech by I. O. Malevich. Moscow, Progress, 1982.

[819]. Strabo. Geography. Moscow, Ladomir, 1994. English edition: Jones, H.L. The Geography of Strabo. With an English translation. I-VIII. London, 1917-1932.

[820]. Builders of the Burial Mounds and Dwellers of the Caves. The Extinct Civilizations encyclopaedia. Moscow, Terra, 1998. Translated from English by E. Krasoulin. Original edition: Time-Life Books BV, 1992.

[821]. Struyck, D. J. A Brief Account of the History of Mathematics. Moscow, Nauka, 1969.

[821:1]. Suzdalev, V. E. Kolomenskoye – “Memory for Ages.” Moscow, Praktik-A, 1993.

[822]. Sukina, L. B. History of Esther in the Russian Cultrure of the Second Half of the XVII century. Part of the compilation: Melnik, A. G., ed. History and Culture of the land of Rostov. 1998. Collected essays. Rostov, The Rostov Kremlin State Museum and Reserve, 1999.

[823]. Suleimanov, Olzhas. Az and Ya. Alma-Ata, Zhazushy, 1975.

[823:1]. Sukhoroukov, Alexander. From the History of Cards. The Cards Don’t Lie! The Bridge in Russia magazine, No. 1 (18) (2002), pp. 78-80. Moscow, Minuvsheye.

[824]. Sytin, P. V. From the History of Russian Streets. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1958.

[825]. Sytin, P. V. The Toponymy of Russian Streets. Moscow, 1959.

[826]. Samuels, Ruth. Following the Paths of Hebraic History. Moscow, Art-Business-Centre, 1993.

[827]. Tabov, Jordan. The Decline of Old Bulgaria. Sofia, Morang, 1997. Russian transl.: Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 2000.

[828]. Tabov, Jordan. The New Chronology of the Balkans. The Old Bulgaria. Sofia, PCM-1, 2000.

[828:1]. Tabov, Jordan. When did the Kiev Russia Become Baptized? St. Petersburg, Neva. Moscow, Olma, 2003.

[829]. Rakhmanliev, R., comp. Tamerlane. The Epoch. The Person. The Actions. Collected works. Moscow, Gourash, 1992.

[830]. Tantlevskiy, I. R. History and Ideology of the Qumran Community. St. Petersburg, the RAS Institute of Oriental Studies, 1994.

[830:1]. Tate, Georges. The Crusades. Moscow, Olimp, Astrel, Ast, 2003.

[831]. Tartarian-Russian Didactic Dictionary. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1992.

[832]. Tatishchev, V. N. Collected Works in Eight Volumes. Moscow, Ladomir, 1994-1996.

[833]. Tacitus, Cornelius. Collected Works. Vols. I, II. Leningrad, Nauka, 1969. English ed.: The Works of Tacitus. London, Cornelii Taciti Historiarum libri qui supersunt. Published by Dr. Carl Heraeus. 4th ed.: Leipzig, G. Teubner, 1885.

[834]. The Works of Maxim the Confessor. The œuvres of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Vol. 69. The Moscow Seminary Academy, 1915.

[835]. The Works of Nicephor, the Archbischop of Constantinople. Moscow, 1904.

[836]. The Works of Nile, the Holy Pilgrim of Sinai. The œuvres of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Vols. 31-33. The Moscow Seminary Academy, 1858-1859.

[837]. The Works of St. Isidore the Pelusiote. The œuvres of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Vols. 34-36. The Moscow Seminary Academy, 1859-1860.

[838]. Tvorogov, O. V. Ancient Russia: Events and People. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1994.

[839]. Tvorogov, O. V. The Ryurikovichi Princes. Short Biographies. Moscow, Russkiy Mir, 1992.

[840]. Tereshchenko, Alexander. A Final Study of the Saray Region, with a Description of the Relics of the Desht-Kipchak Kingdom. Scientific Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, the 1st and 3rd Department. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1854. 89-105.

[841]. Tikhomirov, M. N. Old Moscow. The XII-XV century. Mediaeval Russia as the International Crossroads. XIV-XV century. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1992.

[842]. Tikhomirov, M. N. Russian Culture of the X-XIII century. Moscow, 1968.

[843]. Tikhomirov, M. N. Mediaeval Moscow in the XIV-XV century. Moscow, 1957.

[844]. Tokmakov, I. F. A Historical and Archaeological Description of the Moscow Stauropigial Monastery of St. Simon. Issues 1 and 2, Moscow, 1892-1896.

[845]. Lopukhin, A. P., ed. Explanatory Bible, or the Commentary to all of the Books of the Holy Writ, from both the Old and the New Covenant. Vols. 1-12. Petersburg, published by the heirs of A. P. Lopukhin, 1904-1913. (2nd edition: Stockholm, the Bible Translation Institute, 1987).

[846]. Toll, N. P. The Saviour’s Icon from K. T. Soldatenkov’s Collection. Moscow, 1933.

[847]. Tolochko, P. P. The Ancient Kiev. Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1976.

[848]. Tolstaya, Tatyana. The River Okkerville. Short Stories. Moscow, Podkova, 1999.

[849]. Troels-Lund, T. The Sky and the Weltanschauung in the Flux of Time. Odessa, 1912. German edition: Troels-Lund, T. Himmelsbild und Weltanschauung im Wandel der Zeiten. Leipzig, B. G. Teubner, 1929.

[850]. Tronskiy, I. M. The History of Ancient Literature. Leningrad, Uchpedgiz, 1947.

[850:1]. Trofimov, Zhores. The N. M. Karamzin Memorial in Simbirsk. Known and Unknown Facts. Moscow, Rossia Molodaya, 1992.

[851]. Trojan Tales. Mediaeval Courteous Novels on the Trojan War by the Russian Chronicles of the XVI and XVII century. Leningrad: Nauka, 1972.

[851:1]. Thulsi Das. The Ramayana, or Ramacharitamanasa. The Multitude of Rama’s Heroic Deeds. Translated from Hindi by Academician A. P. Barannikov. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR AS, Institute of Oriental Studies. Published by the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1948.

[852]. Tunmann. The Khans of Crimea. Simferopol, Tavria, 1991.

[853]. Turaev, B. A. The History of the Ancient Orient. Moscow, Ogiz, 1936.

[854]. Shcheka, Y. V. The Turkish-Russian Dictionary. Abt. 18,000 words. 3rd stereotype edition. Moscow, Citadel, 2000.

[855]. Turkhan, Gian. Istanbul. Gate to the Orient. Istanbul, Orient, 1996 (in Russian).

[855:1]. Turkey. The Book of Wanderings. A Historical Guide-book. Moscow, Veche, Khartia, 2000.

[856]. A Millennium since the Baptism of Russia. The materials of the International Ecclesian and Historical Conference (Kiev, 21-28 July, 1986). Moscow, Moscow Patriarchy, 1988.

[857]. Ouzdennikov, V. V. Russian Coins. 1700-1917. Moscow, Finances and Statistics, 1986.

[857:1]. The Ukrainian Books Printed in Cyrillics in the XVI-XVII century. A catalogue of editions kept in the V. I. Lenin State Library of USSR. Issue I. 1574 – 2nd half of the XVII century. Moscow, The State V. I. Lenin Library of the Lenin Order. Rare books department. 1976.

[858]. The Streets of Moscow. A Reference Book. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1980.

[859]. The Ural Meridian. Topical Itineraries. A Reference Guide-book. Chelyabinsk, The Southern Ural Press, 1986.

[860]. Ousanovich, M. I. The Scientific Foresight of N. A. Morozov. The Successes of Chemistry, Vol. 16, Issue 3 (1947).

[861]. Ouspensky, D. N. Modern Problems of Orthodox Theology. The Moscow Patriarchy magazine, No. 9 (1962): 64-70.

[862]. The Writ. The Pentateuch of Moses (from the Genesis to the Revelation). Translation, introduction, and comments by I. S. Shifman. Moscow, Respublika, 1993.

[863]. Fyson, Nance. The Greatest Treasures of the World. An Atlas of the World’s Wonders. Moscow, Bertelsmann Media Moskau, 1996. Mondruck Graphische Betriebe GmbH, Güntherslau (Germany), 1996. Translated from the English edition published by AA Publishing (a trading name of Automobile Association Development Limited, whose registred office is Norfolk House, Priestly Road, Basing-stoke, Hampshire RG24 9NY).

[864]. Falkovich, S. I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov, His Life and Works on Chemistry. The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 11 (1947).

[865]. Falkovich, S. I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov as a Chemist (1854-1946). The USSR AS Courier, Chemical Studies Department, No. 5 (1947).

[866]. Fasmer, M. An Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language. Vols. 1-4. Translated from German. Moscow, Progress, 1986-1987.

[867]. [Fedorov]. Ivan Fedorov [The Alphabet]. A facsimile edition. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1974.

[868]. Fedorov, V. V., and A. T. Fomenko. Statistical Estimation of Chronological Nearness of Historical Texts. A collection of articles for the Problems of stochastic model stability magazine. Seminar works. The National System Research Institute, 1983. 101-107. English translation published in the Journal of Soviet Mathematics, Vol. 32, No. 6 (1986): 668-675.

[869]. Fedorov-Davydov, G. A. The Coins of the Muscovite Russia. Moscow, MSU Press, 1981.

[870]. Fedorov-Davydov, G. A. The Coins of the Nizhny Novgorod Principality. Moscow, MSU Press, 1989.

[870:1]. Fedorov-Davydov, G. A. Burial Mounds, Idols and Coins. Moscow, Nauka, 1968.

[871]. Fedorov-Davydov, G. A. Eight Centuries of Taciturnity. The Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life) magazine, No. 9 (1966): 74-76.

[872]. Fedorova, E. V. Latin Epigraphics. Moscow University Press, 1969.

[873]. Fedorova, E. V. Latin Graffiti. Moscow University Press, 1976.

[874]. Fedorova, E. V. Imperial Rome in Faces. Moscow University Press, 1979.

[875]. Fedorova, E. V. Rome, Florence, Venice. Historical and Cultural Monuments. Moscow University Press, 1985.

[876]. Theophilactus Simocattas. History. Moscow, Arktos, 1996.

[876:1]. Fersman, A. E. Tales of Gemstones. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[877]. Flavius, Joseph. The Judean War. Minsk, Belarus, 1991.

[878]. Flavius, Joseph. Judean Antiquities. Vols. 1, 2. Minsk, Belarus, 1994.

[879]. Florentine Readings: The Life and Culture of Italy. Summer Lightnings. Collected essays, translated by I. A. Mayevsky. Moscow, 1914.

[880]. Florinsky, V. M. Primeval Slavs according to the Monuments of their Pre-Historic Life. Tomsk, 1894.

[881]. Voigt, G. The Renaissance of the Classical Literature. Vols. I and II. Moscow, 1885. German edition: Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Altertums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus. Berlin, G. Reimer, 1893.

[882]. Foley, John. The Guinness Encyclopaedia of Signs and Symbols. Moscow, Veche, 1996. Original by Guinness Publishing Ltd., 1993.

[883]. Fomenko, A. T. “On the Calculations of the Second Derivative of Lunar Elongation.” The problems of the mechanics of navigated movement. Hierarchic systems. The Inter-University Collection of Scientific Works. Perm, 1980. 161-166.

[884]. Fomenko, A. T. “Several Statistical Regularities of Information Density Disribution in Texts with Scales.” Semiotics and Informatics. Moscow, The National Scientific and Technical Information Institute Publication, Issue 15 (1980): 99-124.

[885]. Fomenko, A. T. Informative Functions and Related Statistical Regularities. Report theses of the 3rd International Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics Conference in Vilnius, the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Institute of Mathematics and Cybernetics, 1981, Volume 2, pages 211-212.

[886]. Fomenko, A. T. Duplicate Identification Methods and some of their Applications. In Doklady AN SSSR (The USSR Academy of Sciences), Vol. 256, No. 6 (1981): 1326-1330.

[887]. Fomenko, A. T. On the Qualities of the Second Derivative of Lunar Elongation and Related Statistical Regularities. The Issues of Computational and Applied Mathematics. A collection of academic works. The Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, Issue 63 (1981): 136-150.

[888]. Fomenko, A. T. New Experimental Statistical Methods of Dating the Ancient Events and their Applications to the Global Chronology of the Ancient and Mediaeval World. Pre-print. Order No. 3672, No. BO7201. Moscow, State Committee for Radio and TV Broadcasting, 1981. 1-100. English translation: Fomenko, A. T. Some new empirical-statistical methods of dating and the analysis of present global chronology. London, The British Library, Department of Printed Books. 1981. Cup. 918/87.

[889]. Fomenko, A. T. Calculating the Second Derivative of Lunar Elongation and Related Statistical Regularities in the Distribution of Some Astronomical Data. In Operational and Automatic System Research, Issue 20 (1982): 98-113. Kiev University Press.

[890]. Fomenko, A. T. Concerning the Mystification Issue. In Science and Technology, No. 11 (1982): 26-29.

[891]. Fomenko, A. T. New Empirico-Statistical Method of Ordering Texts and Applications to Dating Problems. In Doklady AN SSSR (The USSR Academy of Sciences Publications), Vol. 268, No. 6 (1983): 1322-1327.

[892]. Fomenko, A. T. Distribution Geometry for Entire Points in Hyperregions. The Vector and Tensor Analysis Seminar works (Moscow, MSU Press), Issue 21 (1983): 106-152.

[893]. Fomenko, A. T. The Author’s Invariant of Russian Literary Texts. Methods of Qualitative Analysis of Narrative Source Texts. Moscow, The USSR History Institute (The USSR Academy of Sciences), 1983. 86-109.

[894]. Fomenko, A. T. The Global Chronological Map. In Chemistry and Life, No. 11 (1983): 85-92.

[895]. Fomenko, A. T. New Methods of the Chronologically Correct Ordering of Texts and their Applications to the Problems of Dating the Ancient Events. Operational and Automatic System Research (Kiev University Press), Issue 21 (1983): 40-59.

[896]. Fomenko, A. T. Methods of Statistical Processing of Parallels in Chronological Text and the Global Chronological Map. Operational and Automatic System Research (Kiev University Press), Issue 22 (1983): 40-55.

[897]. Fomenko, A. T. Statistical Frequency Damping Analysis of Chronological Texts and Global Chronological Applications. Operational and Automatic System Research (Kiev University Press), Issue 24 (1984): 49-66.

[898]. Fomenko, A. T. New Empirico-Statistical Method of Parallelism Determination and Duplicate Dating. Problems of stochastic model stability. Seminar works. The National System Research Institute, Moscow, 1984. 154-177.

[899]. Fomenko, A. T. Frequency Matrices and their Applications to Statistical Processing of Narrative Sources. Report theses of the “Complex Methods of Historical Studies from Antiquity to Contemporaneity” conference. The Commission for Applying Natural Scientific Methods to Archaeology. Moscow, The USSR History Institute (The USSR Academy of Sciences), 1984. 135-136.

[900]. Fomenko, A. T. Informative Functions and Related Statistical Regularities. Statistics. Probability. Economics. The Academic Statistical Notes series. Vol. 49. Moscow, Nauka, 1985. 335-342.

[901]. Fomenko, A. T. Duplicates in Mixed Sequences and the Frequency Damping Principle. Report theses of the 4th Int’l Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics Conference in Vilnius, the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Institute of Mathematics and Cybernetics, Vol. 3. 1985. 246-248.

[902]. Fomenko, A. T., and L. E. Morozova. Several Issues of Statistical Annual Account Source Processing Methods. Mathematics in mediaeval narrative source studies. Moscow, Nauka, 1986. 107-129.

[903]. Fomenko, A. T. Identifying Dependencies and Layered Structures in Narrative Texts. Problems of stochastic model stability. Seminar works. The National System Research Institute, 1987. 33-45.

[904]. Fomenko, A. T. Methods of Statistical Analysis of Narrative Texts and Chronological Applications. (The Identification and the Dating of Derivative Texts, Statistical Ancient Chronology, Statistics of the Ancient Astronomical Reports). Moscow, Moscow University Press, 1990.

[905]. Fomenko, A. T. Statistical Chronology. New facts in life, science and technology. The Mathematics and Cybernetics” series, No. 7. Moscow, Znanie, 1990.

[906]. Fomenko, A. T. Global Chronology. (A Research of Classical and Mediaeval History. Mathematical Methods of Source Analysis.) Moscow, MSU Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, 1993.

[907]. Fomenko, A. T. A Criticism of the Traditional Chronology of Antiquity and the Middle Ages (What Century is it Now?). A précis. Moscow, MSU Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, 1993.

[908]. Fomenko, A. T. Methods of Mathematical Analysis of Historical Texts. Chronological Applications. Moscow, Nauka, 1996.

[909]. Fomenko, A. T. The New Chronology of Greece. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, MSU Centre of Research and Pre-University Education, 1996.

[910]. Fomenko, A. T. Statistical Chronology. A Mathematical View of History. What Century is it Now? Belgrade, Margo-Art, 1997.

[911]. Fomenko, A. T. Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Chronological Applications. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 1999.

[912]. Fomenko, A. T. New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology. Vol. 1, Vol. 2. Vol. 3: Fomenko, A. T. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. (Greek and Bible History). Published in the series Russian Studies in Mathematics and Sciences. Scholary Monographs in Russian. Vol. 6-7. Lewiston-Queenston-Lampeter, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999.

[912:1]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Demagogism instead of Scientific Analysis. The RAS Courier, Vol. 9, No. 9 (2000): 797-800.

[912:2]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. In Re the “Novgorod Datings” of A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin. The RAS Courier, Vol. 72, No. 2 (2002): 134-140.

[912:3]. Fomenko, T. N. The Astronomical Datings of the “Ancient” Egyptian Zodiacs of Dendera and Esne (Latopolis). In: Kalashnikov, V. V., G. V. Nosovskiy, and A. T. Fomenko. The Astronomical Analysis of Chronology. The Almagest. Zodiacs. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial, 2000. 635-810.

[913]. The Epistle of Photius, the Holy Patriarch of Constantinople, to Michael, Prince of Bulgaria, on the Princely Incumbencies. Moscow, 1779. See also: Photius. Patriarch of Constantinople, Epistola ad Michaelem Bulgarorum Regem. In: Roman Spicilegium. Rome, 1839-1844.

[914]. Cardini, Franco. Origins of the Mediaeval Knightage. A condensed translation from Italian by V. P. Gaiduk. La Nuova Italia, 1982. Moscow, Progress Publications, 1987.

[914:1]. France, Anatole. Selected Short Stories. Leningrad, Lenizdat, 1959.

[915]. Pototskaya, V. V., and N. P. Pototskaya. French-Russian Dictionary. 12th stereotype edition. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia. 1967.

[916]. Godfrey, Fr. O. F. M. Following Christ. Israel, Palphot Ltd., Millennium 2000, 2000.

[917]. Frazer, J. Attis. Moscow, Novaya Moskva, 1924. English ed.: Adonis, Attis, Osiris. London, Macmillan & Co, 1907.

[918]. Frazer, J. Golden Bough. Release 1. Moscow-Leningrad, Ogiz, 1931.

[919]. Frazer, J. Golden Bough. Releases 3, 4. Moscow, Atheist, 1928.

[920]. Frazer, J. The Folklore in the Old Testament. Studies in Comparative Religion. Moscow-Leningrad, Ogiz, The State Social Economics, 1931. English original: London, Macmillan & Co., 1918.

[921]. Fren, H. M. Coins of the Khans of Juchiev Ulus of the Golden Horde. St. Petersburg, 1832.

[922]. Frumkina, R. M. Statistical Methods of Lexical Studies. Moscow, 1964.

[923]. Thucydides. The History of the Peloponnesian War. Eight books. Translated by F. G. Mishchenko. Vols. 1, 2. Vol. 1: books 1-4. Vol. 2: books 5-8. Moscow, 1887-1888. English edition published in the series “Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 5. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, The University of Chicago, 1952 (2nd edition 1990). See also the Penguin Books edition. London, 1954.

[924]. Thucydides. History. Leningrad, Nauka, 1981.

[925]. von Senger, Harro. Stratagems. On the Chinese Art of Life and Survival. Moscow, Progress, 1995.

[926]. Herrmann, D. The Pioneers of the Skies. Translated from German by K. B. Shingareva and A. A. Konopikhin. Moscow, Mir, 1981. German edition: Herrmann, Dieter B. Entdecker des Himmels. Leipzig-Jena-Berlin, Urania-Verlag, 1979.

[927]. Chlodowski, R. I. Francesco Petrarch. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[928]. The Pilgrimage of Hegumen Daniel. Literary Monuments of Ancient Russia. XII Century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1980. 25-115.

[929]. Afanasy Nikitin’s Voyage over the Three Seas. 1466-1472. Moscow-Leningrad, the Academy of Sciences, Literary Masterpieces, The USSR AS Publications, 1948.

[930]. Hollingsworth, Mary. Art in the History of Humanity. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1989. Russian translation of the edition titled L’Arte Nella Storia Dell’Uomo. Saggio introduttivo di Giulio Carlo Argan. Firenze, Giunti Gruppo Editoriale, 1989.

[931]. The Kholmogory Chronicle. The Dvina Chronicler. The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, Vol. 33. Leningrad, Nauka, 1977.

[932]. Khomyakov, A. S. Collected Works in Two Volumes. A supplement to the Issues of Philosophy. Vol. 1. Works on historiosophy. Moscow, the Moscow Fund of Philosophy, Medium Press, 1994.

[933]. Aconiatus, Nicetas. History Beginning with the Reign of John Comnenus. St. Petersburg, 1860. Also see the Historia by Nicetas Aconiatus in J. P. Migne’s Patrologiae cursus completes. Series graeca. Vol. 140. Paris, 1857-1886.

[934]. Aconiatus, Nicetas. History Beginning with the Reign of John Comnenus (1186-1206). The Byzantine Historians series, Vol. 5. St. Petersburg, 1862. Also see the Historia by Nicetas Aconiatus in J. P. Migne’s Patrologiae cursus completes. Series graeca. Vol. 140. Paris, 1857-1886

[935]. Hogue, John. Nostradamus. The Complete Prophecies. First published in Great Britain in 1996 by Element Books Ltd., Shaftesbury, Dorset. Moscow, Fair-Press, The Grand Publishing and Trading House, 1999.

[935:1]. Boutenev, Khreptovich. Florence and Rome in Relation to Two XV-century Events in Russian History. A Concise Illustrated Account Compiled by Khreptovich Boutenev, Esq. Moscow, 1909.

[936]. Christianity. An Encyclopaedic Dictionary. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron. New Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron. The Orthodox Encyclopaedia of Theology. Vols. 1-3. Moscow, The Great Russian Encyclopaedia, 1993.

[937]. Pokrovskiy, N. N., ed. Christianity and the Russian Church of the Feudal Period (Materials). Novosibirsk, Nauka, Siberian Affiliation, 1989.

[938]. Istrin, V. M., ed. The Chronicle of John Malalas (A Slavic Translation). St. Petersburg, 1911.

[939]. The Chronographer. Russian National Library, the Manuscript Section. Rumyantsevsky Fund, 457.

[940]. The Lutheran Chronographer. Private collection, 1680.

[941]. Rantsov, V. L., comp. The Chronology of Global and Russian History. St. Petersburg, Brockhaus-Efron, 1905. Reprinted in Kaliningrad: Argument, Yantarny Skaz, 1995.

[942]. The Chronology of Russian History. An Encyclopaedic Reference Book. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 1994.

[943]. Prakhov, Adrian, ed. The Treasures of Russian Art. A Monthly Almanac of the Imperial Society for Supporting Fine Arts. Year IV, No. 2-4, No. 5 (1904). Issue 5: The Relics of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery. Historical review by Alexander Ouspensky. Reprinted in Moscow, Severo-Print Typography, 1998. To the 600th anniversary of the Savvino-Storozhevsky stauropigial friary.

[944]. Khoudyakov, M. G. Accounts of the History of the Kazan Khanate. Kazan, State Publishing House, 1923. Reprinted in: On the Junction of Continents and Civilizations. Moscow, Insan, 1996. Published separately: Moscow, Insan, SFK, 1991.

[945]. Kjetsaa, G., S. Gustavsson, B. Beckman, and S. Gil. The Problems of the “Quiet flows the Don’s” Authorship. Who Wrote the “Quiet flows the Don”? Moscow, Kniga, 1989. Translated from the Solum Forlag edition. Oslo-New Jersey, Humanities Press.

[946]. Zeitlin, Z. Galileo. The Celebrity Biographies series, Issue 5-6. The Literary Magazine Association, Moscow, 1935.

[947]. Petrov, Leonid, comp. The Dictionary of Ecclesial History. (A Referential Theological Dictionary, Predominantly Oriented At Ecclesial History). St. Petersburg, the Province Department Typography, 1889. Reprinted: the Sretenskiy Monastery, 1996.

[948]. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Dialogues. On the State. On the Laws. Moscow, Nauka, 1966. English edition: Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Works. Cambridge, Mass; Harvard University Press; London, Heinemann, 1977.

[949]. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Three Tractates on the Art of Rhetoric. Moscow, Nauka, 1972. English edition: Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Works. Cambridge, Mass; Harvard University Press; London, Heinemann, 1977.

[950]. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. On the Old Age. On Friendship. On Responsibilities. Moscow, Nauka, 1972. English edition: Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Old Age and Friendship… London, Cassel’s National Library, 1889.

[951]. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Philosophical Tractates. Moscow, Nauka, 1985. English edition: Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Works. Cambridge, Mass; Harvard University Press; London, Heinemann, 1977.

[952]. Chagin, G. N. The Ancient Land of Perm. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1988.

[953]. Chekin, L. S. The Cartography of the Christian Middle Ages in the VIII-XIII century. Moscow, Oriental Literature, RAS, 1999.

[953:1]. Chernetsov, A. V. The Gilded Doors of the XVI century. The Cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin and the Trinity Cathedral of the Ipatyevsky Monastery in Kostroma. Moscow, The RAS, Nauka, 1992.

[954]. Chernin, A. D. The Physics of Time. Moscow, Nauka, 1987.

[955]. Chernykh, P. Y. A Historical and Etymological Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language. Vols. 1, 2. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1993.

[955:1]. Chernyak, E. B. The Mysteries of France. Conspiracy, Intrigue, Mystification. Moscow, Ostozhye Press, 1996.

[955:2]. Chernyak, E. B. The Time of the Conspiracies Long Forgotten. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 1994.

[956]. Chertkov, A. D. On the Language of the Pelasgians that used to Inhabit Italy, and its Comparison to Ancient Slavic. The periodical edition of the Moscow Society for the Historical Studies of Russian Antiquities, Book 23. Moscow, 1855.

[957]. Chertkov, A. D. A Description of Ancient Russian Coins. Moscow, Selivanovsky Typography, 1834.

[958]. Cinzia, Valigi. Rome and the Vatican. Narni-Terni, Italy, Plurigraf, 1995.

[959]. Chistovich, I. Textual Corrections of the Slavic Bible Before the 1751 Edition. (Article 2). The Orthodox Review, Vol. 2 (May Book, 1860): 41-72.

[960]. Chistyakov, A. S. The Story of Peter the Great. Reprint. Moscow, Buklet, Dvoinaya Raduga, 1992.

[961]. Chistyakova, N. A., and N. V. Voulikh. The History of Ancient Literature. Moscow, Vyshaya Shkola, 1972.

[962]. Imperial Society for History and Russian Antiquities Readings. Book I, Part 5. 1858.

[963]. The Miraculous Icons of Our Lady. Sisterhood of the Holy Martyr Elizabeth, the Great Princess. 103287. Moscow, 40, 2nd Khutorskaya St., 1998.

[964]. [Champollion] J. F. Champollion and Egyptian Hieroglyphs Deciphered. Collected works under the general editorship of I. S. Katznelson. Moscow, Nauka, 1979.

[965]. Chantepie de la Saussaye, D. P. Illustrated History of Religions. Moscow, 1899. English edition: Manual of the Science of Religion. London-New York, Longmans, Green and Co., 1891.

[966]. Chantepie de la Saussaye, D. P. Illustrated History of Religions. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Spaso-Preobrazhensky Stauropigial Monastery of Valaam, reprinted in 1992.

[967]. Shakhmatov, A. A. Manuscript Description. The Radzivilovskaya Chronicle, or the Chronicle of Königsberg. Vol. 2. Articles on the text and the miniatures of the manuscript. St. Petersburg, Imperial Antiquarian Bibliophile Society, CXVIII, 1902.

[968]. Shevchenko, M. Y. The Star Catalogue of Claudius Ptolemy: Special Characteristics of Ancient Astronomical Observations. Historico-Astronomical Research. Issue 17. Moscow, Nauka, 1988. 167-186.

[969]. Masterpieces among the Paintings in the Museums of the USSR. The Art of Ancient Russia. The Renaissance Art. Issue 1. Moscow, Goznak, 1974.

[970]. Sheynman, M. M. Belief in the Devil in the History of Religion. Moscow, Nauka, 1977.

[971]. Shakespeare. Collected Works in Five Volumes. From the Library of Great Writers series under the editorship of S. A. Vengerov. St. Petersburg, Brockhaus-Efron, 1902-1904.

[972]. Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works in Eight Volumes. Under the editorship of A. Smirnov and A. Anixt. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1960.

[973]. Shakespeare, William. King Richard III. Tragedy in Five Acts. Translated by Georgy Ben. St. Petersburg, Zvezda, 1997.

[974]. 600th Anniversary of the Kulikovo Battle. Brochure. Vneshtorgizdat, Moscow State Museum of History. 1980.

[975]. Shilov, Y. A. The Proto-Homeland of the Aryans. History, Tradition, Mythology. Kiev, Sinto, 1995.

[976]. Shiryaev, A. N. Consecutive Statistical Analysis. Moscow, Nauka, 1976.

[977]. Shiryaev, E. E. Belarus: White Russia, Black Russia and Lithuania on the Maps. Minsk, Science & Technology, 1991.

[978]. Shklovsky, I. S. Supernovae. Moscow, 1968 (1st edition). Moscow, Nauka, 1976 (2nd edition). English edition: London-New York, Wiley, 1968.

[979]. Schlezer, A. L. Public and Private Life of Augustus Ludwig Schlezer as Related by Himself. In the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Russian Language and Literature Department series, Vol. 13. St. Petersburg, 1875.

[980]. Shlyapkin I. A. Description of the Manuscripts of the Spaso-Yefimiev Monastery in Suzdal. The Masterpieces of Ancient Literature, Issue 4, No. 16. St. Petersburg, 1881.

[981]. Spilevskiy A. V. The Almagest and Chronology. The Ancient History Courier, No. 3 (1988): 134-160.

[982]. Schulmann, Eliezer. The Sequence of Biblical Events. Translated from Hebrew. Moscow, the Ministry of Defence Publications, 1990.

[983]. Shchepkin, V. N. Russian Palaeography. Moscow, Nauka, 1967.

[984]. Shcherbatov, M. M. Russian History from the Dawn of Time. St. Petersburg, 1901.

[985]. Eulia, Chelebi. The Book of Travels. Campaigns of the Tatars and Voyages through the Crimea (1641-1667). Simferopol, Tavria, 1996.

[985:1]. Eisler, Colin (Leman, Robert). The Museums of Berlin. Moscow, Colin Eisler and Little, Brown and Company, Inc. Compilation. Slovo, the World’s Greatest Museums series, 2002 (1996).

[985:2]. Eisler, Colin. The Art of the Hermitage. Moscow, Biblion, 2001.

[986]. Aitken, M. J. Physics and Archaeology. Moscow, IL, 1964. English original: New York, Interscience Publishers, 1961.

[987]. Ehlebracht, Peter. Tragedy of the Pyramids. Egyptian Shrines Plundered for 5000 Years. Moscow, Progress, 1984. German original: Haltet die Pyramiden Fest! 5000 Jahre Grabraub in Ägypten. Düsseldorf-Vienna, Econ, 1980.

[987:1]. Englund, Peter. Poltava. How an Army Perished. Moscow, Novoye Literaturnoye Obozrenie, 1995. Original: Stockholm, Bokförgalet Atlantis, 1988.

[988]. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Vols. 1-82; supplementary volumes 1-4. St. Petersburg, Brockhaus and Efron, 1890-1907.

[988:0]. Brockhaus, F. A., and I. A. Efron. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1898. Reprinted: St. Petersburg, Polradis, 1994.

[988:1]. Encyclopaedia for Children. Vol. 7: Art. Moscow, Avanta-plus, 1997.

[989]. The Encyclopaedia of Elementary Mathematics. Book 1. Arithmetics. Moscow-Leningrad, the State Publishing House of Theoretical Technical Literature, 1951.

[990]. Artamonov, M. I., ed. The Hermitage. Album. Leningrad, Sovetskiy Khudozhnik, 1964.

[991]. Ern, V. The Revelation in Thunder and Storm. Anatomy of N. A. Morozov’s Book. Moscow, 1907.

[991:1]. The Art of Goldsmithery in Russia. Album. Moscow, Interbook-Business, Yural Ltd, 2002.

[992]. Yuvalova, E. P. German Sculpture of 1200-1270. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1983.

[993]. Yanin, V. L. I Sent You a Birch-Rind Epistle. Moscow, MSU Press, 1965. A revised edition: Moscow, 1998.

[993:1]. Jannella, Cecilia. Simone Martini. Album. Moscow, Slovo, 1996. Scala, 1995, Istituto Forografico Editoriale.

[994]. Ponomaryov, A. M., ed. Yaroslavl. History of the City in Documents and First-Hand Materials from First References to 1917. Yaroslavl, Upper Volga Publications, 1990.

[995]. Yaroslavl. Map 0-37 (1:1,000,000). The General Council of Ministers, Department of Geodetics and Cartography, 1980.

[996]. Yaroslavl. Monuments of Art and Architecture. Yaroslavl: Upper Volga Publications, 1994.

Sources in foriegn languages

[997]. Chrysostomos, Abbot. The Holy Royal Monastery of Kykko Founded with a Cross. Limassol, Cyprus, Kykko Monastery, printed by D. Couvas & Sons, Ltd., 1969.

[998]. ABC kulturnich pamatek Ceskoslovenska. Prague, Panorama, 1985.

[999]. Abulafia, David. Frederick II. A Medieval Emperor. New York-Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1988.

[1000]. Abu Mashar. De magnis coinctiombus. Augsburg, Erhard Ratdolt (The Pulkovo Observatory Library), 1489.

[1001]. Adam, L. North-West American Indian Art and its Early Chinese Parallels. Man, Volume 36, No. 2-3 (1936): 45.

[1002]. Puech, Aime. St. Jean Chrisostome et les mœurs de son temps. Paris, 1891.

[1003]. Albright, W. F. From the Stone Age to Christianity. 7th edition. New York, 1957.

[1004]. Albumasar. De Astrú Scientia. 1515. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1005]. Alibert, Louis. Dictionnaire Occitan-Francais. Selon les parles languedociens. Toulouse, Institut d’études Occitanes, 1996.

[1006]. A List of Books on the History of Science. 2nd supplement, Part 3. Astronomy. Chicago, The J. Crerar Library, 1944.

[1007]. Allen, Phillip. L’Atlas des Atlas. Le monde vu par les cartographes. Brepols, 1993.

[1008]. Almagestu Cl. Ptolemaei Phelusiensis Alexandrini. Anno Virginei Partus, 1515.

[1009]. America. Das frühe Bild der Neuen Welt. Ausstellung der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München. Munich, Prestel Verlag, 1992.

[1009:1]. Silverman, David P., ed. Ancient Egypt. New York, Oxford University Press, 1977.

[1010]. Thorpe, B., ed. Ancient Laws and Institutes of England… Volume 1. London, 1840. 198.

[1011]. Anke, Victor. The Life of Charlemagne. Aachen, Einhard Verlag, 1995.

[1012]. Annales de la Société Royale d’Archéologie de Bruxelles. Fondée a Bruxelles en 1887. Mémoires, rapports et documents. Publication périodique. Tome 41e. Secrétariat Général. Musée de la Porte de Hal Bruxelles. 1937.

[1013]. Apianus, P. Cosmographicus Liber Petri Apiani mathematici studiose collectus. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). Landshutae, impensis P. Apiani, 1524.

[1013:1]. Arellano, Alexandra. All Cuzco. Peru. Fisa Escudo de Oro. Centre of Regional Studies of the Andes Bartolomé de las Casas, Lima, Peru. Instituto de Investigacion de la Facultad de Turismo y Hotelria, Universidad San Martin de Porres. 1999.

[1014]. Arnim, H. Sprachliche Forschungen zur Chronologie der platonischen Dialoge. Volume 269. Appendix 3. Sitzungen Wiener Akademie, 1912.

[1015]. Wolff, Arnold. Cologne Cathedral. Its history – Its Works of Art. Greven Verlag Köln GmbH, 1995.

[1016]. Wolff, Arnold, Rainer Gaertner, and Karl-Heinz Schmitz. Cologne on the Rhine with City Map. Cologne, Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH, 1995.

[1017]. Wolff, Arnold. The Cologne Cathedral. Cologne, Vista Point Verlag, 1990.

[1017:0]. Sachs, Abraham J. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Compiled and edited by Hermann Hunger. Volume 1: Diaries from 652 BC to 262 BC. Volume 2: Diaries from 261 BC to 165 BC. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften, 195. Bad. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vienna, 1988.

[1017:1]. Walker, Christopher, ed. Astronomy before the Telescope. Foreword by P. Moore. British Museum Press, 1996.

[1018]. Palairet, Jean. Atlas Méthodique, Composé pour l’usage de son altesse sérénissime monseigneur le prince d’Orange et de Nassau stadhouder des sept provinces unies, etc. etc. etc. Se trouve à Londres, chez Mess. J. Nourse & P. Vaillant dans le Strand; J. Neaulme à Amsterdam & à Berlin; & P. Gosse à La Haye. 1755.

[1019]. Atlas Minor sive Geographia compendiosa in qva Orbis Terrarum pavcis attamen novissimis Tabvlis ostenditvr. // Atlas Nouveau, contenant toutes les parties du monde, Où font Exactement Remarquees les Empires Monarchies, Royaumes, Etats, Republiques, &c, &c, &c. Receuillies des Meilleurs Auteurs. Amsterdam: Regner & Josue Ottens, n.d.

[1020]. Auè, Michèlé. Discover Cathar country. Le Pays Cathare. Toulouse, MSM, 1992.

[1021]. Bacharach. Astronomia. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library), 1545.

[1022]. Bailly, J. S. Histoire de l’astronomie ancienne depuis son origine jusqu’à l’établissement de l’école d’Alexandrie. Paris, 1st edition 1775, 2nd edition 1781.

[1023]. Baily, F. An account of the life of Sir John Flaemsteed. London, 1835.

[1024]. Baily, F. The Catalogues of Ptolemy, Ulugh Beigh, Tycho Brahe, Halley and Hevelins, deduced from the best authorities. Royal Astr. Soc. Memoirs, XIII (1843): 1-248.

[1025]. Bakker, I., I. Vogel, and T. Wislanski. TRB and other C-14 Dates from Poland. Helinium, IX, 1969.

[1025:1]. Baldauf, Robert. Historie und Kritik. (Einige kritische Bemerkungen.). Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, Universitäts-buchdruckerei, 1902.

[1026]. Bartholomaeus, Angicus. De proprietatibus rerum. lib. XV, cap. CXXXI. Apud A. Koburger. Nurenbergi, 1492,

[1027]. Barron, Roderick. Decorative Maps. With Forty Full Colour Plates. London, Bracken Books, 1989.

[1028]. Basilica, Sainte Cécile. Albi. As de Cœur Collection. Guided Visit. Albi, France: Apa-Poux S. A. Albi, 1992.

[1028:1]. Bély, Lucien. Discovering the Cathars. France, Éditions Sud Ouest, 2001.

[1029]. Bennet, J.A. The Divided Circle. A History of Instruments for Astronomy Navigation and Surveying. Christie’s, Oxford, Phaidon, 1987.

[1030]. de Sainte-Maure, Benoit. Chronique des ducs de Normandie par Benoit. Publee... par C. Fahlin, t. I. In: Bibliotheca Ekmaniana universitatis regiae Upsaliensis, Uppsala, 1951. 8-11.

[1031]. del Castillo, Conquistador Bernal Días. The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico. New Introduction by Hugh Thomas. New York, Da Capo Press. 1996.

[1032]. Bernard, Lewis. The Middle East. A brief History of the Last 2000 Years. New York, Simon & Schuster, 1997.

[1033]. Bibliography of books and papers published in 1963 on the History of Astronomy. Moscow: Nauka, 1964.

[1034]. Binding, Rudolf G. Der Goldene Schrein. Bilder deutschen Meister auf Goldgrund. Leipzig, 1934.

[1035]. Blaeu, Joan. Novus Atlas Sinensis, 1655. Faksimiles nach der Prachtausgabe der Herzog von der August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel. Herausgegeben von der Stiftung Volkswagenwerk Hannover. Mit Beiträgen von Hans Kauffmann und Yorck Alexander Haase, und einem Geleitwort von Gotthard Gambke. Verlag Müller und Schindler, 1973.

[1036]. Le Grand Atlas de Blaeu. Le Monde au XVIIe siècle. Introduction, descriptions et choix des cartes par John Goss. Ancient conseiller-expert cartographe chez Sotheby’s. Avant-propos de Peter Clark. Conservateur à la Royal Geographical Society. Adaptation Française de Irmina Spinner. Publié avec le concours de la Royal Geographical Society. Paris: Gründ, 1992. Les cartes originales de Grand Atlas de Blaeu. Le monde au XVIIe siècle ont été publiées par Blaeu dans son Atlas Major publié à Amsterdam en 1662. L’édition originale 1990 par Studio Editions sous le titre original Blaeu’s Grand Atlas of the 17th Century World. Première édition francaise 1992 par Librairie Gründ, Paris.

[1037]. Bloch, M. La societe féodale. Paris, 1968.

[1038]. Blöss, Christian, and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz. C14-Crash. (Das Ende der Illusion mit Radiokarbonmethode und Dendrochronologie datieren zu können). Gräfelfing, Mantis Verlag, 1997.

[1039]. Blöss, Christian, and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz. The Self-Deception of the C14 Method and Dendrochronology. Zeitensprünge 8 (1996) 3 361-389. Mantis Verlag, January 1997.

[1040]. Bode, J.E. Claudius Ptolemäeus, Astronom zu Alexandrien im zweyten Jahrhundert. Beobachtung und Beschreibung der Gestirne und der Bewegung. Vergleichnungen der neuern Beobachtungen von J.E.Bode. With a historical review and commentary. Berlin und Stettin, 1795.

[1041]. Boll, F. Studien über Claudius Ptolemäus. Leipzig, 1894.

[1042]. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Das Geheimnis der Heiligen Nacht. Kiefel Verlag, Wuppertal/Gütersloh, Germany, 1995.

[1043]. Bonnet, C. Geneva in Early Christian times. Geneva, Foundation des Clefs de Saint-Pierre, 1986.

[1044]. Boquet, F. J. C. J. Historie de l’Astronomie. Paris, Payot, 1925.

[1045]. Borman, Z. Astra. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). 1596.

[1045:1]. [Bosch] Tout l’œuvre peint de Jerôme Bosch. Introduction par Max J.Friedländer. Documentation par Mia Cinotti. Paris, Flammarion, 1967.

1045:2 [Bosch] Fraenger, Wilhelm. Hieronymus Bosch. VEB Verlag der Kunst Dresden, 1975.

[1046]. Boszkowska, Anna. Tryumf Luni i Wenus. Pasja Hieronima Boscha. Wydawnictwo Literacklie, Krakow, 1980.

[1047]. Bourbon, Fabio. Lithographien von Frederick Catherwood. Die Mayas. Auf den Spuren einer versunkenen Kultur. White Star, Via Candido Sassone, 22/24 13100, Vercelli, Italien, 1999. Deutschsprachige Ausgabe: Karl Mükker Verlag, Danziger Strasse 6, 91052 Erlangen.

[1048]. Brahe, T. Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera omnia. Ed. J. L. E. Dreyer. 15 Volumes. Copenhagen, 1913-1929.

[1049]. Brahe, T. Equitis Dani Astronomorum Coryhaei Vita. Authore Petro Gassendo. Regio ex Typographia Adriani Vlac. MDCLV.

[1049:1]. Lehane, Brendan (texte), Richard Novitz (photographies). Irlande. London, Flint River, 1997; Paris, Booking Int’l, 1997.

[1050]. Brenon, Anne. Le vrai visage du Catharisme. Toulouse, Ed. Loubatières, 1988.

[1050:1]. British Museum. A Guide to the First, Second and Third Egyptian Rooms. Predynastic Human Remains, Mummies, Wooden Sarcophagi, Coffins and Cartonnage Mummy Cases, Chests and Coffers, and other Objects connected with the Funerary Rites of the Ancient Egyptians. Third Edition, Revised and Enlarged. With 3 coloured and 32 half-tone plates. British Museum, 1924.

[1050:2]. British Museum. A Guide to the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Egyptian Rooms and the Coptic Room. A series of Collections of Small Egyptian Antiquities, which illustrate the Manners and Customs, the Arts and Crafts, the Religion and Literature, and the Funeral Rites and Ceremonies of the Ancient Egyptians and their Descendants, the Copts, from about B.C. 4500 to A.D. 1000. With 7 plates and 157 illustrations in the text. British Museum, 1922.

[1050:3]. British Museum. A Guide to the Egyptian Collections in the British Museum. With 53 plates and 180 illustrations in the text. British Museum, 1909.

[1051]. Brodsky, B. E., and B. S. Darkhovsky. Nonparametric Methods in Change-Point Problems. The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

[1051:1]. Brodrick, M., and A. A. Morton. A Concise Dictionary of Egyptian Archaeology. A handbook for students and travellers. London, 1902. 2nd edition 1923, 3rd edition 1924. Reprint: Chicago, Aries, 1980.

[1052]. Brooke, Christopher. From Alfred to Henry III. 871-1272. The Norton Library History of England. New York, London, W. W. Norton & Company, 1961, 1968, 1969.

[1053]. Broughton, T. R. S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Volumes 1, 2. London, 1951-1960.

[1053:1]. [Bruegel] Gerhard W. Menzel. Pieter Bruegel der Ältere. Leipzig, VEB E. A. Seemann, Buch- und Kunstverlag, 1966; 2 Auflage, 1974.

[1053:2]. Bovi, Arturo. Bruegel. The life and work of the artist illustrated with 80 colour plates. A Dolphin Art Book. London, Thames and Hudson, 1971. Reprinted 1974.

[1054]. Brugsch, H. Recueil de Monuments Egyptiens, dessinés sur lieux. Leipzig, 1862-1865.

[1055]. Buck, C. E., W. G. Gavanagh, and C. D. Litton. Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Series: Statistics in Practice. John Wiley & Sons, 1996.

[1056]. Bustos, Gerardo. Yucatan and its Archaeological Sites. Mexico, Monclem; Florence, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1992.

[1057]. Cagnat, R. Cours d’épigraphie latine. 4e éd. Paris, 1914.

[1058]. Campbell, Tony. Early Maps. New York, Abbeville Press Publishers, 1981.

[1059]. Campos, José Guerra, and Jesús Precedo Lafuente. Guide to the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. Spain, Aldeasa, División Palacios y Museos, 1993.

[1060]. Cantacuzeny, Ioannis. Opera Omnia. Patrologiae curcus completus. Series graeca. T. CLIII, CLIV. J.-P. Migne, 1866.

[1060:1]. Carcassonne (The City of Carcassonne. Cathar Castles). Production Leconte. Editions Estel-Blois. B. P. 45 - 41260 La Chaussée-Saint-Victor. Printed in E.E.C.

[1060:2]. Cathares. Les ombres de l’Histoire. Carcassone: Histoire d’une Cité unique. In: Pyrénées (Magazine). Une publication de Milan Presse. 2001. Éditions Milan et les auteurs. Ariège Pyrenées. (A special edition of the magazine dedicated to Cathar history).

[1061]. Cathedral and Metropolitan Church of St. Stephen in Vienna. Germany, Verlag Schnell & Steiner Regensburg, 1995.

[1061:1]. Cathédrale de l’Annonciation. Le Kremlin de Moscou. Les Musées d’Etat du Kremlin de Moscou, 1990.

[1062]. Cauville, S. Le Zodiaque d’Osiris. Peeters, Uitgeverij Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven.

[1062:1]. Cauville, S. Dendara. Les chapelles osiriennes. (5 vols.) Institut francais d’archeologie orientale du Caire, 1977.

[1063]. Chabas, F. Mélanges égyptologiques. Deuxième série. Ägyptolog. Zeitschrift. 1868. S. 49.

[1064]. Champfleury. Historie de la Caricature au Moyen Age. Paris, 1867-1871.

[1064:0]. Chapront-Touze, M., and J. Chapront. Lunar ephemere des computation software. (Program ELP2000-85, version 1.0, Fortran 77). Bureau des Longitudes, URA 707. 1988. Available online.

[1064:1]. Château de Chillon. Booklet. Château de Chillon, Veytaux (www.chillon.ch), 2000.

[1065]. Childress, David Hatcher. Lost Cities of Atlantis, Ancient Europe & the Mediterranean. Stelle, Illinois 60919 USA, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1996.

[1066]. Chirikov, B. V., and V. V. Vecheslavov. Chaotic dynamics of comet Halley. Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 221, No. 1 (1989): 146-154.

[1067]. Chmelarz, Eduard. Die Ehrepforte des Kaisers Maximilian I. Unterscheidheim 1972. Verlag Walter Uhl. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Herausgegeben unter Leitung des Oberstakämmerers seiner Kaiserlichen und Königlichen Apostolischen Majestät. Ferdinand Grafen zu Trauttmansdorff-Weinsberg vom K. K. Oberstkämmerer-Amte. Vierter Band. Mit 39 Kupfertafeln in Heliogravure und Radierung, 100 Holzschnittafeln und 56 Text-Illustrationen in Heliogravure, Holzschnitt und Zinkographie. Als Beilage: 16 Holzschnitte der Ehrenpforte des Kaisers Maximilian I. Wien, Druck und Verlag von Adolf Holzhausen, K. K. Hofbuchdrucker, 1886.

[1068]. Stubbs, W., ed. Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houedone. RS, N 51, Volume II. London, 1869, page 236. English translation: The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, comprising the history of England and of other countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201. Tr. H. T. Riley, Volumes 1-2. London, Bohn’s Antiquarian Library, 1853.

[1069]. Pestman, P.W. Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques. Papyrologia Lugduno-Batava edidit Institutum Papyrologicum Universitatis Lugduno-Batavae Moderantibus M.David et B. A. von Groningen. Volume 15. Lugdunum Batavorum, 1967.

[1070]. Cipolla, Carlo M. Money, Prices and Civilization in the Mediterranean World. 5-17 century. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 1956.

[1071]. Claudii Ptolemaei Magnae Constructionis, id est perfectae coelestium motuum pertractationis. Lib. XIII. Theonis Alexanrini in eosdem Commentariorum Libri XI; Basileal apud Ioannem Waledrum. C. priv. Caes. ad Quinquennium. 1538.

[1072]. Claudii Ptolemaei Phelusiensis Alexandrini. Anno Salutis, 1528.

[1073]. Claudii Ptolemaei Pelusiensis Alexandrini omnia quac extant opera. 1551.

[1074]. Clemens, Jöcle. Speyer Cathedral. Regensburg, Verlag Scgnell & Steiner GmBH Regensburg, 1997.

[1075]. Clinton, H.F. Fasti Hellenici, a Civil and Literary Chronology from the Earliest Times to the Death of Augustus. Oxford, 1830-1841.

[1076]. Copernici, N. Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium. Lib. VI. Ed. by G. Loachimi. Thoruni, 1873.

[1077]. Corbinianus. Firmamentum Firmianum. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). 1731.

[1078]. Cordier, H. Marco Polo and His Book. Introductory notices. In: The Travels of Marco Polo. The complete Yule-Cordier. Volumes 1 and 2. New York, Dover, 1993.

[1078:1]. Wytfliet, Cornelius. Descriptionis Ptolemaicae Augmentum sive Occidentis notitia brevis commentario. Louvain 1597. With an introduction by R. A. Skelton. Theatrvm Orbis Terrarvm. A Series of Atlases in Facsimile. 1st Series, Vol. V. Amsterdam, N. Israel, Meridian, 1964.

[1079]. Costard, G. The History of Astronomy with its Application to Geography, History and Chronology. London, J. Lister, 1967.

[1080]. Harmon, Craig. The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxides between Atmosphere and Sea. Volume 9. Tellus. 1957. 1-17.

[1081]. Harmon, Craig. Carbon-13 in Plants and the Relationships between Carbon-13 and Carbon-14 Variations in Nature. J. Geol., 62 (1954): 115-149.

[1081:1]. El Mahdy, Christine. Mummies, Myths and Magic in Ancient Egypt. Thames and Hudson, 1989.

[1082]. Crowe, C. Carbon-14 activity during the past 5000 years. Nature, Volume 182 (1958): 470.

[1083]. Danit Hadary-Salomon, ed. 2000 Years of Pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Israel, AC Alfa Communication Ltd., 1999.

[1084]. Das Münster zu Bonn. The Bonn Minster. Former Collegiate Church of SS. Cassius and Florentius. Series: Kleine Kunstfürer. Achnell, Art Guide No. 593 (of 1954). Second English edition 1997. Regensburg, Germany, Verlag Schnell & Steiner GmbH Regensburg, 1997.

[1085]. David, Daniel. Let There be Light. William Tyndale and the Making of the English Bible. A British Library Exhibition at The Huntington. 19 November, 1996 - 7 February, 1997. London, The British Library, 1994.

[1086]. Davidovits, Joseph. Alchemy and Pyramids. The Book of Stone. Vol. 1. France-USA, Geopolymer Institute, 1983.

[1087]. Davidovits, Joseph. Alchemy and Pyramids. Translated from French by A. C. James and J. James. Rev. ed. Que le Khnoum protège Khéops constructeur de pyramide. Saint Quentin, France, 1983; Miami Shores, Fla., USA, Institute for Applied Archaeological Science, Barry University, 1984.

[1088]. Davidovits, Joseph. Amenhotep, Joseph and Solomon. 1st ed. Miami Shores, Fla., U.S.A., Geopolymer Institute, Institute for Applied Archaeological Science, Barry University, 1984.

[1089]. Davidovits, Joseph. Que le dieu Khnoum protège Khéops constructeur de pyramide: histoire de la civilisation Égyptienne de 3500 é 1500 ans avant J.-C. Saint-Quentin, 1978.

[1090]. Davidovits, Joseph. Le calcaire des pierres des Grandes Pyramides d’Égypte serait un béton géopolymére vieux de 4.600 ans. Résumé des cours-conférences tenus en 1983 et 1984. Revue des Questions Scientifiques, Volume 156(2) (1986): 199-225.

[1091]. Davidovits, Joseph. No more than 1,400 workers to build the Pyramid of Cheops with manmade stone. 3rd Int. Congress of Egyptologists. Toronto, Canada: paper AA-126, publié dans Appendix 3 de Davidovits, 1983.

[1092]. Davidovits, Joseph, and Margie Morris. The Pyramids: an Enigma Solved. New York, Hippocrene Books, 1988. New York, Dorset Press, 1989, 1990.

[1093]. Davidovits J., J. Thodez, and Gaber M Hisham. Pyramids of Egypt Made of Man-Made Stone, Myth or Fact? Symposium on Archeometry 1984, Smithsonian Institution, abstract 26-27. Washington, D.C., USA, 1984.

[1094]. Davies, Nartin. The Gutenberg Bible. London, The British Library, 1996.

[1095]. Degrassi, A. Fasti Capitolini. 1954; I Fasti consolari dell’impero romano, 1952.

[1096]. Delambre, J. B. Histoire de l’Astronomie. 2 Volumes. Paris, 1817.

[1097]. Delambre, J. Histoire de l’Astronomie moderne. 2 Volumes. Paris, 1821.

[1098]. Della origine et ruccessi degli Slavi, oratione di M. V. Pribevo, Dalmatino da Lesena, etc. et hora tradotta della lingua Latina nell’Italiana da Bellisario Malaspalli, da Spalato. Venetia, 1595.

[1099]. Der Marienschrein im Dom zu Aachen. Die Publikation dieses Sonderheftes erfolgt durch die Grünenthal GmbH, Aachen. Domkapitel, 2000.

[1100]. Description de l’Égypte. Publiée sous les ordes de Napoléon de Bonaparte. Description de l’Égypte ou recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Égypte pendant l’expédition de l’Armée francaise publié sous les ordes de Napoléon Bonaparte. Bibliothèque de l’Image. Inter-Livres. 1995.

[1101]. Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane. Life and Death of Pharaoh Tutankhamen. London, Penguin Books, 1963.

[1101:1]. Deutschland. Germany. Allemagne. Germania. Euro Map. Halwag AG, Bern, Printed in Switzerland-Germany 4-26 AK.

[1102]. Dheily, J. Dictionaire Biblique. Ed. Desclec. Tournai, 1964. 193.

[1103]. Dialogus Historicus Palladii episcopi Helenopolis cum Theodoro. Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Patrologiae Graecae. T. LVII. J.-P. Migne, 1858.

[1104]. Die Bibel. Oder die Ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten and Neuen Testaments. Nach der Überzetzung Martin Luthers. Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart. 1967.

1105. Die Weihnachtsgeschichte. Nacherzählt in Bildern aus der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Stuttgart, Zürich, Belser Verlag, 1993.

[1106]. Dom Betrachtung. Die Hochgräber im Kölner Dom. 4. Herausgeber, Dompfarramt – Dompfarrer Rolf Breitenbruch, Domkloster 3, 50667, Köln.

[1107]. Douais, C. L’Inquisition, ses origines, sa procédure. Paris, 1906.

[1108]. Dreyer, J. L. E. On the Origin of Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, No. 77 (1917): 528-539.

[1109]. Dreyer, J. L. E. On the Origin of Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars. Second Paper. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, No. 78 (1918): 343-349.

[1110]. Duden. Ethymologie: Herkunfswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim, Wien; Dudenverlag, Zürich, 1989.

[1111]. Duncan, A.J. Quality Control and Industrial Statistics. NY, Irwin, 1974.

[1112]. Dupont-Sommer, A. Les écrits essentiens decouverts près de la Mer Morte. Paris, 1957.

[1113]. Dupuis, C. The Origin of All Religious Worship. New Orleans, 1872.

[1114]. Duvernoy, Jean. Le catharisme. Volume I: La religion des Cathares. Volume II: Histoire des Cathares. Toulouse, Private, 1976 and 1979. Re-published 1986.

[1115]. Duvernoy, Jean, Paul Labal, Robert Lafont, Philippe Martell, and Michel Roquebert. Les Cathares en Occitanie. Fayard, 1981.

[1116]. Van Ermen, Eduard. The United States in Old Maps and Prints. Wilmington USA, Atomium Books, 1990.

[1116:1]. Égypte. Large album with photographs. Paris, Molière, Art Image, 1998.

[1117]. Eichler, Anja-Franziska. Albrecht Dürer. 1471-1528. Cologne, Könemann Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH, 1999.

[1118]. Encyclopaedia Britannica; or, a Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, compiled upon a new Plan. In which the different Sciences and Arts are digested into distinct Treatises or Systems; and the various Technical Terms, etc. are explained as they occur in the order of the Alphabet. Illustrated with one hundred and sixty copperplates. By a Society of Gentlemen in Scotland. In 3 volumes. Edinburgh, A. Bell and C. Macfarquhar, 1771.

[1118:1]. Encyclopaedia Britannica. On-line version, 2001.

[1119]. Evans, James. On the Origin of the Ptolemaic Star Catalogue. Part 1. Journal for the History of Astronomy, Volume 18, Part 3, No. 54 (August 1987): 155-172.

[1120]. Evans, James. On the Origin of the Ptolemaic Star Catalogue. Part 2. Journal for the History of Astronomy, Volume 18, Part 4, No. 55 (November 1987): 235-277.

[1121]. Liebermann, F., and R. Pauli, Eds. Ex Annalibus Melrosensibus. MGH SS, T.XXVII. Hannoverae, 1885. 439.

[1121:1]. Winship, Betsy, and Sheila Stoneham, eds. Explosives and Rock Blasting. Field Technical Operations. Atlas Rowder Company. Dallas, Texas, Marple Press, 1987.

[1122]. Fatih, Cimok. Hagia Sophia. Istanbul, A turizm yayinlari, 1995.

[1123]. Fatih, Cimok. Hagia Sophia. Istanbul, A turizm yayinlari, 1985.

[1124]. Fergusson, G. I. Reduction of Atmospheric Radiocarbon Concentration by Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide and the Mean Life of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere. London, Proc. Royal Soc., 243 A, pages 561-574. 1958.

[1125]. Filarete, Antonio Averlino. Tractat über die Baukunst. Vienna, 1890.

[1126]. Fischer, Fr. Thucydidus reliquiae in papyris et membranis aigiptiacis servatae. Lipsiae, 1913.

[1127]. Verlag, Dr. Ludwig Reichert. Flüsse im Herzen Europas. Rhein-Elbe-Donau. Kartenabteilung der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Wiesbaden, 1993.

[1128]. Fomenko, A.T. The Jump of the Second Derivative of the Moon’s Elongation. Celestial Mechanics, Volume 29 (1981): 33-40.

[1129]. Fomenko, A. T. Some New Empirico-Statistical Methods of Dating and the Analysis of Present Global Chronology. The British Library. Department of Printed Books. Cup. 918/87. 1981.

[1130]. Fomenko, A.T. New Empirico-Statistical Dating Methods and Statistics of Certain Astronomical Data. The theses of the First International Congress of the International Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability Theory. Volume 2. Moscow, Nauka, 1986. 892.

[1131]. Fomenko, A.T. Duplicates in Mixed Sequences and a Frequency Duplication Principle. Methods and Applications. Probability theory and mathematical statistics. Proceeding of the 4th Vilnius Conference (24-29 June 1985). Volume 16. Utrecht, Netherlands, VNU Science, 1987. 439-465.

[1132]. Fomenko, A.T. Empirico-Statistical Methods in Ordering Narrative Texts. International Statistical Review, Volume 566, No. 3 (1988): 279-301.

[1133]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G.V. Nosovskiy. When was Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue in “Almagest” Compiled in Reality? Preprint. No. 1989-04, ISSN 0347-2809. Dept. of Math., Chalmers Univ. of Technology, The University of Goteborg. Sweden.

[1134]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G.V. Nosovskiy. When was Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue in “Almagest” Compiled in Reality? Statistical Analysis. Acta Applicandae Mathematical. Volume 17. 1989. 203-229.

[1135]. Fomenko, A. T. Mathematical Statistics and Problems of Ancient Chronology. A New Approach. Acta Applicandae Mathematical. Volume 17. 1989. 231-256.

[1136]. Fomenko, A. T., Kalashnikov V. V., Nosovskiy G. V. Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s Almagest. USA, CRC Press, 1993.

[1137]. Fomenko, A. T. 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. The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.

[1138]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G.V. Nosovskiy. The dating of Ptolemy’s Almagest based on the coverings of the stars and on lunar eclipses. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae. Volume 29. 1992. 281-298.

[1139]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G.V. Nosovskiy. Statistical analysis and dating of the observations on which Ptolemy’s “Almagest” star catalogue is based. In: Probability theory and mathematical statistics. Proc. of the Fifth Vilnius Conference. Volume 1. Moklas, Vilnius, Lithuania. VSP, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1990. 360-374.

[1140]. Fomenko, A. T., and S. T. Rachev. Volume Functions of Historical Texts and the Amplitude Correlation Principle. Computers and the Humanities. Vol. 24. 1990. 187-206.

[1141]. Manuel, Frank E. Isaac Newton, the Historian. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Belknap Press, 1963.

[1142]. Franke, Peter Robert, and Ilse Paar. Die Antiken Münzen der Sammlung Heynen. Katalog mit Historischen Erläuterungen. Landschaftsmuseum Krefeld-Burglinn. Rheinland-Verlag, Köln, in Kommission bei Rudolf Habelt Verlag, Bonn. 1976.

[1143]. de Landa, Friar Diego. Yucatan before and after the Conquest. Translated with notes by William Gates. San Fernando, Atrio de San Francisco, 1993.

[1144]. Fricke, W., and A. Koff FK4. No.10. Heidelberg, Veröf. Astr. Inst., 1963.

[1145]. Fuchs, W. Nach allen Regeln der Kunst. Diagnosen über Literatur, Musik, bildende Kunst. Die Werke, ihre Autoren und Schöpfer. Stuttgart, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt., 1968.

[1146]. Fuchs, W. Mathematical Theory of Word-Formation. London, 1955.

[1147]. Fulton, Alexander. Scotland and her Tartans. The Romantic Heritage of the Scottish Clans and Families. Colour Library Books Ltd., Sandbach, Cheshire; Godalming, Surrey, 1991.

[1148]. Fussbroich, Helmut. St. Maria Lyskirchen in Köln. Rheinische Kunststätten. Heft 60. Rheinischer Verein für Denkmalpflege und Landschaftsschutz. Köln, Neusser Druckerei und Verlag GmbH, 1992.

[1149]. Gabovitsch, Eugen. Newton als geistiger Vater der Chronologiekritik und Geschishtsrekonstruktion (neben Hardoin). Bemerkungen zum Artikel von Uwe Topper in Synesis Nr. 4/1999. Efodon-Synesis (Germany) Nov/Dez. 1999, Nr. 6/1999, S. 29-33.

[1150]. Gabovitsch. Eugen. Die Grosse Mauer als ein Mythos: Die Errichtungsgeschichte der Chinesischen Mauer und ihre Mythologisierung. Efodon-Synesis (Germany), Nov/Dez. 1999, Nr.6/1999, S. 9-21.

[1151]. Gadol, J. Leon Battista Alberti. Chicago, London, 1969.

[1152]. Gassendi. Nicolai Coppernici vita. A supplement to the edition titled Tychonis Brahei, equitis Mani, astronomorum copyrhaei vita. XDCLV.

[1152:1]. El Gayar, El Sayed, and M. P. Jones. Metallurgical Investigation of the Iron plate found in 1837 in the Great Pyramid at Gizeh, Egypt. In: Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society, Volume 1 (1989): 75-83.

[1153]. Gingerich, O. Ptolemy Revisited: A Reply to R. R. Newton. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, No.22 (1981): 40-44.

[1154]. Ginzel, F. K. Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse für das Ländergebiet der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften und den Zeitraum von 900 vor Chr. bis 600 nach Chr. Berlin, Mayer & Müller, 1899.

[1155]. Ginzel, F.K. Handbuch der Mathematischen und Technischen Chronologie. Bd. I-III. Leipzig, 1906, 1911, 1914.

[1156]. Ginzel, F. K., and A. Wilkens. Theorie der Finsternisse. Encykl. der Wissenschaftten. Bd. VI, 2. S. 335. 1908.

[1157]. Girou, Jean. Simon de Monfort. Paris: La Colombe, 1953.

[1158]. Della Fina, Giuseppe M., Luoghi e tempi Etruschi schede di ricerca. Firenze: Fatatrac, 1989.

[1159]. Gladwin, H. Men out of Asia. NY, 1949.

[1160]. Goss, John. Kartenkunst: Die Geschichte der Kartographie. Deutsche Asgabe: Georg Westermann Verlag, Braunschweig, 1994. German translation of the English edition: Goss, John. The Mapmaker’s Art. A History of Cartography. London, Studio Editions Ltd.

[1160:1]. Granier, J., and S. Gagnière. Avignon. (The city at Sunset. The Popes’ Palace. The Saint Benezet bridge). English edition. Éditions du Boumian, Monaco.

[1161]. Grasshoff, Gerd. The History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue. New York, Springer Verlag, 1990.

[1162]. Grienberger, C. Catalogus Veteres affixarum longitudiues et latitudines cum novis conferens. Romae apud B. Zannetum, 1612. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1163]. Grierson, Philip. Coinage and Money in Byzantine Empire. Spoleto, 1961.

[1164]. Grierson, Philip. Monnaies du Moyen Âge. Fribourg, 1976.

[1165]. Grimme, Ernst Günther. Der Dom zu Aachen. Architektur und Ausstattung. Aachen, Einhard-Verlag, 1994.

[1166]. Grollenberg, L. N. Atlas of the Bible. NY, 1956.

[1167]. Gualberto, Zapata Alonzo. An Overview of the Mayan World. With a Synthesis of the Olmec, Totonac Zapotec, Mixtec, Teotihuacan, Toltec and Aztec Civilizations. Mexico, Merida, 1993.

[1167:1]. Guide to Edo-Tokyo Museum (English edition). Edited by Edo-Tokyo Museum. Japan Broadcast Publishing Co., Ltd. Printed in Japan by Toppan Printing Co., Ltd.

[1168]. Gutenberg-Bibel. Geschichtliche Bücher des Alten Testaments. Die bibliophilen Taschenbücher. Dortmund, Harenberg Kommunikation, 1977.

[1169]. Gutenberg Bibel (1452-1455). Reprinted 1968 by Verlag Konrad Köbl. 8022 Grünwald bei München, Huberttusstrasse 13. Firma Elektra, Reprografischer Betrieb, Kjeld Höjring, Niedernhausen/Ts. Printed in Germany.

[1170]. Schneider, Dr. Cornelia. Gutenberg-Dokumentation. Information Mittelalter. Das Buch vor Gutenberg (I). Gutenberg-Museum Mainz, 1990.

[1171]. Schneider, Dr. Cornelia. Gutenberg-Dokumentation. Information Mittelalter. Das Buch vor Gutenberg (II). Gutenberg-Museum Mainz, 1990.

[1172]. Haack Geographisch-Kartographischer Kalender. Germany, Haack Gotha, VEB Hermann Haack Geographisch-Kartographische Anstalt Gotha, 1983.

[1172:1]. Haack Geographisch-Kartographischer Kalender. Germany, Haack Gotha, VEB Hermann Haack Geographisch-Kartographische Anstalt Gotha, 1988.

[1173]. Hagek, W. Kronyka Czeska. Prague, 1541.

[1174]. Hans, Peter. Der Dom zu Köln. 1248-1948. Düsseldorf, Verlag L. Schwann, 1948.

[1175]. Hansen, P. Ecliptische Tafeln für die Konjunktionen des Mondes und der Sonne. Leipzig, 1857.

[1176]. Hansen, P. Theorie der Sonnenfinsternisse und verwandten Erscheinungen. Leipzig, 1859.

[1177]. Harley, J. B., and David Woodward. The History of Cartography. Volume 1. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean. Chicago & London, The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

[1178]. Harvey, Arden. Who Owns Our Past? National Geographic, Volume 175, No.3 (March 1989): 376-393.

[1179]. Hauvette, A. Herodote historien des guerres midiques. Paris, 1894.

[1180]. Haveta, E. La modernité des prophètes. Paris, 1891.

[1181]. Hazirlayan, H. H. Aliy Yalcin (Hz. Yusa Camii Imam-Hatibi). Hazreti Yusa (Aleyhisselam). Istanbul. Brochure written by the prior of the temple at the grave of St. Iusha at the outskirts of Istanbul.

[1182]. Hearnshaw, J .B., and D. Khan. An Analysis of the Magnitude Data in Ptolemy’s Almagest. Southern Stars. Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand (Wellington), Volume 36, Nos. 5-6 (December 1955): 169-177.

[1183]. Heath, T. L. Aristarchus of Samos, the Ancient Copernicus; a History of Greek Astronomy to Aristarchus, together with Aristarchus’ Treatise on the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1913.

[1184]. Heine-Geldern, R., and G.Ekholm. Significant parallels in the symbolic arts of Southern Asia and Middle America. In: Selected Papers of the 29th International Congress of Americanists, Volume 1. Chicago, 1951. 306.

[1185]. Heinsohn, Gunnar. Assyrerkönige gleich Perserherrscher! (Die Assyrienfunde bestätigen das Achämenidenreach). Gräfelfing, Mantis Verlag, 1996.

[1186]. Heinsohn, Gunnar, and Heribert Illig. Wann lebten die Pharaonen? (Archäologische and technologische Grundlagen für eine Neuschreibung der Geschichte Ägyptens and der übrigen Welt.) Gräfelfing, Mantis Verlag, 1997.

[1187]. Heintze, C. Objects rituels, croyances et dieux de la Chine antique et de l’Amérique. Antwerpen, 1936.

[1188]. Heis. Die Finsternisse während des pelop. Krieges. Progr. d. Fried. Wilh. Gimn. Köln, 1834.

[1189]. Herbert, Ewe. Abbild oder Phantasie? Schiffe auf historischen Karten. Rostock, VEB Hinstorff Verlag, 1978.

[1190]. [Herodotus]. The History of Herodotus. London, 1858.

[1191]. Hignett, C. Xerxes Invasion of Greece. Oxford, 1963.

[1192]. Hincks, E. The Egyptian Dynasties of Manetho. The Journal of Sacred Literature. London, 1864.

[1193]. Hipparchus. Hipparchi in Arati et Eudoxi Phenomena Commentarium. Ed. and German trans. C. Manitius. Leipzig, 1894.

[1194]. Historiae bysantinae scriptores post Theophanem. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca posterior. T.CIX. J.-P. Migne, 1863.

[1195]. Hochart. De l’authenticité des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite. Paris, 1890.

[1196]. Hodge, K.C., and G.W.A. Newton. Radiocarbon Dating. Manchester Museum Mummy Project. Multidisciplinary Research on Ancient Egyptian Mummified Remains. Edited by A. Rosalie David. Published by Manchester Museum. Manchester, England, 1979. 137-147.

[1197]. Hofflit, D. The Bright Star Catalogue. New Haven Connecticut, USA, Yale Univ. Obs., 1982.

[1198]. Hoffman. Sämtliche bei griechishen und lateinschen Schriftstellern des Altertums erwähnte Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse. Trieste, 1885.

[1199]. Horster, M. Brunelleschi und Alberti in ihrer Stellung zur römischen Antike. Florence, 1973.

[1200]. Horus. The Enigma Surrounding the Sphinx. An Egyptian Magazine, April/June 1999.

[1201]. Hoster, Joseph. Der Dom zu Köln. Köln, Greven Verlag, 1965.

[1202]. Huddleston, L.E. Origin of the American Indian. European Concepts, 1492-1729. Austin, 1967.

[1203]. Hütt, Wolfgang. Altdorfer. Maler und Werk. Eine Kunstheftreihe aus dem VEB Verlag der Kunst. Dresden, 1976.

[1204]. Hugot, Leo. Aachen Cathedral. Aachen, Germany, Einhard Verlag, 1988.

[1205]. Ideler, L. Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie. Band 1-2. Berlin, 1825-1826.

[1206]. Ilhan Aksit. The Topkapi Palace. Istanbul, Aksit Kultur Turism Sanat Ajans Ltd., 1995.

[1207]. Ilhan Aksit. The Museum of Chora. Mosaics and Frescoes. Istanbul, Aksit Kultur Turism Sanat Ajans Ltd., 1995.

[1208]. Illig, Heribert. Hat Karl der Große je gelebt? (Bauten, Funde und Schriften im Widerstreit). Gräfelfing, Mantis Verlag, 1996.

[1208:1]. Irish Dictionary. Collins Gem. English-Irish. Irish-English. Seamus Mac Mathuna and O Corrain (University of Ulster). Harper Collins, 1999.

[1209]. Isidori Junioris. Hispalensis episcopi: De responsione mundi. 1472. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1210]. Islam. Kunst und Architektur. Herausgegeben von Markus Hattstein und Peter Delis. Köln, Könemann, 2000.

[1211]. Istanbul and the Marmara Region. A Tale of two Continents. Turkey, The Ministry of Tourism, Istanbul, 1994.

[1212]. Janin, R. Constantinople Byzantine. Paris, 1950.

[1213]. Jirku, A. (Jurku, A.) Ausgrabungen in Palästina-Syrien. Halle, 1956.

[1214]. Johnson, Edwin. The Rise of English Culture. Williams and Norgate. London-New York, Putnam, 1904.

[1215]. Johnson, Edwin. The Rise of Christendom. London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co. Ltd., 1890.

[1215:1]. Johnson, Paul. The civilization of Ancient Egypt. London, Seven Dials, Cassel & Co., 2000.

[1216]. Joubert, Pierre. L’Heraldique. Les guides practiques. Editions Ouest-France, 1984.

[1217]. Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. New York, Vintage Books, 1994.

[1218]. Katalog dawnych map Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w kolekcji Emeryka Hutten Czapskiego i w innych zbiorach. Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow, Gdansk: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, Wyd. Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania. Ossolineum. N.1. Mapy XV-XVI wieku. 1978.

[1219]. Keller, W. Und die Bibel hat doch Recht. Düsseldorf, 1958.

[1220]. Kenyon, K. M. Digging in Jericho. London, 1957.

[1221]. Kings & Queens of England. A set of picture cards. Great Britain, Fax Pax Ltd., 1988.

[1222]. Kinoshita, H. Formulas for Precession. Smithsonian Inst. Astrophys. Observatory. Cambridge, Massachussets, 1975.

[1223]. Sale, Kirkpatrick. The Conquest of Paradise. Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy. New York, Penguin Books, 1990.

[1224]. Knobel, E.B. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. London, 1908.

[1225]. Knobel, E.B. The Chronology of Star Catalogues. Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society. No.43 (1877): 1-74.

[1226]. Kobold, H. Finsternisse. Handwörterbuch der Astronomie. Herausg. von W. Valentiner. Bd. I. Breslau, 1897.

[1227]. Koeva, Margarita. Rila Monastery. Sofia, Borina, 1995.

[1228]. Köln in historischen Stadtplänen. Die Entwicklung der Stadt seit dem XVI Jahrhundert. Berlin, Argon, 1995.

[1229]. Kostbarkeiten der Buchkunst. Illuminationen klassischer Werke von Archimedes bis Vergil. Herausgegeben von Giovanni Morello. Stuttgart-Zürich, Belser Verlag, 1997.

[1230]. Krishnaiah, P. and B. Miao. Review about Estimation of Change-Points. In: Handbook of Statistics, Volume 7. 1988. 375-402.

[1231]. Krönungen, Könige in Aachen. Geschichte und Mythos. Vom 12. Juni bis 3.Oktober 2000 in Rathaus, Domschatzkammer und Dom, Aachen. (Annette Fusenig M. A. und Barbara Jacobs M. A.). From 12th of June to 3rd October 2000 in Town Hall, Cathedral Treasury and Cathedral, Aachen. Kurzführer zur Ausstellung. Guide to the exhibition. Printed in Germany by Verein Aachener Krönungsgeschichte e. V.

[1232]. Mittelstädt, Kuno. Albrecht Dürer. Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft. Arkady, Warszawa-Berlin, 1977.

[1232:1]. Kunst des Mittelalters in Armenien. Burchard Brentjes, Stepan Mnazakanjan, Nina Stepanjan. (Kultur. Architektur. Plastik. Wandmalerei. Buchmalerei. Angewandte Kunst). Union Verlag, Berlin, 1981

[1233]. Lafuente, Jesús Precedo. Visitor’s Guide. The Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. Spain: Aldeasa, División Palacios y Museos, Estudios Gra’ficos Europeos, 1998.

[1234]. Kurth, Willi. The Complete Woodcuts of Albrecht Dürer. With an introduction by Campbell Dodgson, M.A., C.B.E. New York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1963.

[1235]. Lajta, Edit. Malarstwo Francuskie od Gotyku do Renesansu. Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe-Warszawa. Drukowano na Wegrezech, 1979. Drukarnia Kossuth, Budapeszt. Wspolne wydanie wydawnictw Corvina, Budapest i WAiF, Warszawa.

[1236]. L’art de vérifier les dates faites historiques. Ed. par des Bénédictines. 1 ed., Paris, 1750; 2 ed., Paris, 1770; 3 ed., Paris, 1783, 1784, 1787.

[1237]. Laclotte, Michel (Director, Musée du Louvre). Treasures of the Louvre. New York, London-Paris, Abbeville, 1993.

[1238]. Langeteau, C. Tables pour le calcul des syzygies ecliptiques, Connaissanse des Temps pour 1846. Paris, 1843, 1850.

[1239]. Layamon. Brut, or the Chronicle of Britain. Ed. F. Madden. Volume II. London, 1847. 525-526, vv. 22589-22602.

[1240]. Stegena, Lajos, ed. Lazarus Secretarius. The First Hungarian Mapmaker and His Work. Budapest, Akademiai Kiado, 1982.

[1240:1]. Lecoq-Ramond, Sylvie, and Béguerie Pantxika. Le Musée d’Unterlinden de Colmar. Musées et Monuments de France. Paris, Schongauer & Albin Michel, 1991.

[1241]. Leland, C. Fusang or discovery of America by Chinese Buddhist priests in the 5th century. London, 1875.

[1242]. Dal Maso, Leonardo B.. Rome of the Caesars. Firenze, Bonechi Editioni Il Turismo, 1974, 1992.

[1243]. Le Saint voyage de Jérusalem de seigneur d’Anglure. Paris, F. Bonnardot and A. Longnon, 1878.

[1244]. Le Wallraf-Richartz Museum de Cologne. Munich, Scala, C. H. Becksche Verlagbuchhandlung (Oscar Beck), 1992.

[1245]. Lehmann, P. Tafeln zur Berechnung der Mondphasen und Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse. Berlin, 1882.

[1245:1]. Les Grandes Civilisations Disparues. Sélection du Reader’s Digest. Paris-Bruxelles-Montréal-Zurich, 1980.

[1246]. Les Manuscripts de la Mer Morte. Aux origines du christianisme. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie, No. 189 (Janv. 1994).

[1247]. de Austria, Leupoldus. Compilatio de Astrorum Scientia, cuts. 1489. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1248]. Lhotsky, A. Auf Satze und Vortrage. Halle, 1970-1972.

[1249]. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volumes 1-3. USA, University of California Press, 1975.

[1250]. Libby, W.F. Radiocarbon dating. 2nd edition. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1955.

[1251]. Lilly, W. An Introduction to Astrology. London, G. Bell, 1939.

[1252]. Linde, A. v. d. Gutenberg. Geschichte und Erdichtung. Stuttgart, 1878.

[1253]. Linde, A. v. d. Geschichte der Buchdruckerkunst. Berlin, 1886.

[1254]. Lokotsch, K. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der europäischen Wörter. Heidelberg, 1927.

[1255]. Longhi, Roberto. Caravaggio. Die Italienische Malerei. Dresden: Editori Riuniti Rom, VEB Verlag der Kunst, 1968

[1256]. Lubienietski, S. Theatrum Cometicum, etc. Amstelodami, 1666-1668. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1257]. Lubienietski, S. Historia universalis omnium Cometarum. Lugduni Batavorum, 1681. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1258]. Lucas Cranach d. Ä. Herausgegeben von Heinz Lüdecke. Welt der Kunst. Henschelvarlag Kunst und Gesellschaft. Berlin, 1972.

[1259]. Magi, Giovanna, and Giuliano Valdes. All of Turkey. Firenze, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1990.

[1260]. Manuel, Chrisoloras. Manuels Chrisolorae Vita et scripta. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca posterior. T.CLVI. J.-P. Migne, 1866.

[1261]. Manuel II Palaeologus. Laudatio funebris fratris sui Theodori Palaeologi Despotae. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca posterior. T. CLVI. J.-P. Migne, 1866.

[1261:1]. Maps of the Ancient World. 2002 Calendar. From The Huntington Library. Avalanche Publishing, Inc., 2001.

[1262]. Mapy severni a jizni hvezdne oblohy. Praha, Kartografie Praha, 1971.

[1263]. Marco Polo. Le Livre des Merveilles. La Renaissance du Livre. Collection Références. Extrait du Livre des Merveilles du Monde (Ms. fr. 2810) de la Bibliotheque nationale de France. 1999 Ultreya srl, Milan. 1996 Faksimile Verlag Luzern pour les textes et les images. 1999 La Renaissance du Livre, Tournai pour l’edition francaise. Belgique.

[1264]. Marco Polo. The Travels of Marco Polo. The Complete Yule-Cordier Edition. With a Total of 198 Illustrations and 32 Maps and Site Plans. Three Volumes Bound as Two. Volumes 1,2. Including the unabridged third edition (1903) of Henry Yule’s annotated translation, as revised by Henry Cordier; together with Cordier’s later volume of notes and addenda (1920). New York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1993.

[1265]. Maria Da Villa Urbani. Basilica of San Marco. Milan, Editions KINA, 1993.

[1266]. Martin Behaim’s 1492 Erdapfel. A paper version of our earliest surviving terrestrial Globe. First made in Nuremberg in 1492. Follow Marco Polo and the quest for spice on this unique medieval relic. Greaves & Thomas, London, England. Registered design & Patents Pending. Artwork & Globe Gores, 1997. (A selection of facsimile globes from the Greaves & Thomas collection. Spanning cartographic history from 1492 to the present day.)

[1267]. Maso Finiguerra. A Florentine Picture-Chronicle. Reproduced from the originals in the British Museum by the Imperial Press, Berlin. A critical and descriptive text by Sidney Colvin, M. A. Keeper of the prints and drawings of the British Museum. New York, Benjamin Blom, 1970.

[1268]. [Paris, Matthew] The Illustrated Chronicles of Matthew Paris. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 1993.

[1268:1]. McKenzie, John L., S. J. Dictionary of the Bible. G. Chapman, London, 1985 (1965 by Macmillan Publishing).

[1269]. Meier, H. Deutsche Sprachstatistik. Hildesheim, 1964.

[1270]. de la Garza, Mercedes. The Mayas. 3000 years of civilization. Mexico, Monclem Ediciones; Florence, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1994.

[1271]. Germany. Michelin et Cie, 1996.

[1272]. Paris. Michelin et Cie, 1996.

[1273]. Michell, J. A. Little History of Astro-Archaeology: Stages in the Transformation of a Heresy. London, 1977.

[1273:0]. Michov, H. Weitere Beiträge zur älteren Kartographie Russlands. Mit 1 Textabbildung und 5 Karten. Sonderabzug aus den Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft in Hamburg, Band XXII. Hamburg: L.Friederichsen & Co. Inhaber: Dr. L. Friederichsen, 1907.

[1273:1]. Migne, J.-P. Patrologiae Cursus Completus etc. Paris: Petit-Montrouge, 1800-1875.

[1274]. Miller, W. The Latins in the Levant. A History of Frankish Greece in 1204-1566. London, 1908.

[1275]. Mommsen, T. Die Römische Chronologie bis auf Caesar. Berlin, 1859, 2 Aufl.

[1276]. Montucla, J. E. Histoire des Mathématiques. T.IV. Paris, 1802.

[1277]. Montucla, J. E. Histoire des Mathématiques. 4 vols. Paris. 1799-1802.

[1278]. Musée Royal de Naples: Peintures, bronzes et statues érotiques du cabinet secret, avec les explanations de M. C. F. (César Famin). Paris, 1857.

[1279]. Museum. Gutenberg Museum Mainz. Braunschweig, Georg Westermann Verlag, 1980. (3 Auflage 1994.)

[1280]. Myres, J. Herodotus. Father of History. Oxford, 1953.

[1281]. Ahmed Kardy. Finding a Pharaoh’s Funeral Bark. National Geographic, Vol. 173, No. 4 (April 1988): 513-546.

[1282]. Peter Miller. Riddle of the Pyramid Boats. National Geographic, Vol. 173, No. 4 (April 1988): 534-546.

[1282:1]. Rick Gore. The Eternal Etruscans. National Geographic, Volume 173, No. 6 (June 1988): 696-743.

[1283]. National Geographic, Volume 176, No. 4 (October 1989).

[1284]. Nelli René. Ecritures cathares. Complete Cathar writings translated into French. Planete, 1968.

[1285]. Neugebauer, O. Astronomische Chronologie. Berlin and Leipzig, 1929.

[1286]. Neugebauer, O. Specieller Kanon der Sonnenfinsternisse. Ergänzungsheft, Astron. Nachr. 8, 4. Kiel, Verlag der Astronomischen Nachrichten, 1931.

[1287]. Neugebauer, O. A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy. 3 Vols. New York-Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1975.

[1288]. Neugebauer, O. The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. 2nd edition. Providence, Rhode Island, Brown University Press, 1957.

[1289]. Neugebauer, Otto and Richard A. Parker. Egyptian Astronomical Texts. 3 vols. Providence and London: Lund Humphries for Brown University Press, 1960-1969.

[1290]. Neugebauer, O., and H. B. Van Hoesen. Greek Horoscopes. Philadelphia, The American Philosophical Society, 1959.

[1290:1]. Neugebauer, O., and R. A. Parker. Egyptian Astronomical Texts. Vols. 1-3. London, Brown University Press, 1964.

[1291]. Neugebauer, O., R. A. Parker, and D.Pingree. The Zodiac Ceilings of Petosiris and Petubastis. Denkmäler der Oase Dachla. Aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry. Bearbeitet von J. Osing, M. Moursi, Do. Arnold, O. Neugebauer, R. A. Parker, D. Pengree und M. A. Nur-el-Din. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 28 Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Abteilung Kairo. Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1982.

[1292]. Neugebauer, P. V. Tafeln zur astronomischen Chronologie. 3 Volumes. Leipzig, 1912.

[1293]. Neugebauer, P. V. Abgekürzte Tafeln der Sonne und großen Planeten. Berlin, 1904.

[1294]. Newcomb, S. On the reccurence of solar eclipses with tables of eclipses. Astronomical Papers (Washington). Vol. 1, No. 1 (1882).

[1295]. Newcomb, S. Tables of the Motion of the Earth on its Axis and around the Sun. Astronomical Paper. V.VI, Pt.1. 1898.

[1296]. Newmann, Dianne. The Pergamon Altar. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 1993.

[1297]. Newton, Isaac. Abregé de la chronologie de I. Newton fait par lui-mème, et traduit sur le manuscript Angloise [par Nicolas Freret]. Paris: Gavelier, 1725.

[1298]. Newton, Isaac. The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. To which is Prefix’d, A Short Chronicle from the First Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great. London: J. Tonson, 1728. Re-edited in 1988 by Histories and Mysteries of Man Ltd.

[1299]. Newton, Isaac. La Chronologie des Ancien Royalmes Corrigée, Martin u.a. Translation F. Granet. Paris, 1728.

[1300]. Newton, Isaac. Kurzer Auszug aus der weltberühmten Isaac Newtons Chronologie derer alten Königreiche: worinnen 4 Haupt-Periodi veste gestellt u. aus d. Antiquität eruiert werden...; wobei zugl. gezeiget wird, wie d. dunckle Histoire d. alten verfallenen Königreiche... in e. richtige chronolog. Ordnung zu bringen sei... Aus d. Engl. Von Philipp Georg Hübner. Meiningen, 1741.

[1301]. Newton, Isaac. Abrégé de la chronologie des ancien royaumes. Trad. Deel Anglois de Mr. [Andrew] Reid. Geneve, 1743.

[1302]. Newton, Isaac. Kurzer Auszug aus der I.Newtons Chronologie. Von Pf. Georg Hübner, Hilburgshausen u. a. 1745.

[1303]. Newton, R. R. “Astronomical evidence concerning non-gravitational forces in the Earth-Moon system.” Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 16 (1972): 179-200.

[1304]. Newton, R. “Two Uses of Ancient Astronomy.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A., 276 (2 May 1974): 99-115. DOI: 10.1098/rsta.1974.0012.

[1305]. Newton, Robert R. The Origins of Ptolemy’s Astronomical Tables. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. The Center for Archaeoastronomy, University of Maryland. USA, 1985.

[1306]. Newton, R. R. Ancient Astronomical Observations and the Accelerations of the Earth and Moon. Baltimore and London, John Hopkins University Press, 1970.

[1306:1]. Newton, R. R. The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origin. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1979.

[1307]. Newton, Robert R. On the fractions of degrees in an ancient star catalogue. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume XX (1979): 383-394.

[1308]. Newton, Robert R. The origins of Ptolemy’s planetary parameters. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. The Center for Archaeoastronomy. 1982. 86-90.

[1309]. Nicolai Copernici Thorunensis de Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium Libri VI. Ex. auctoris autographio recudi curavit Societas Copernicana Thorunensis. Berolini, 1873.

[1310]. Nikulin, N. Lucas Cranach. Masters of World Painting. Leningrad, Aurora Art, 1976.

[1311]. Nilsson, M. P. Primitive Time-Reckoning. A Study in the Origins and the First Development of the Art of Counting Time among the Primitive and Early Culture Peoples. Lund, Gleerup, 1920.

[1312]. Noth, M. Die Welt des Alten Testaments. Berlin, 1957.

[1313]. Oertel, F. Herodots ägyptischen Logos und die Glaubwürdigkeit Herodots. Berlin, 1970.

[1314]. Olston, A. B. The Story of Time. Chicago, Jarvis Universal Clock Co., 1915.

[1315]. Oppolzer, Th. Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse. Wien: K. K.Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1887.

[1316]. Oppolzer, Th. Tafeln zur Berechnung der Mondfinsternisse. Wien, 1883.

[1317]. Oppolzer, Th. Syzygientafeln für den Mond. Leipzig, Astronomische Gesellschaft, 1881.

[1318]. Orbini, Mauro. Origine de gli Slavi & progresso dell’Imperio loro. Pesaro, 1606.

[1319]. Orontij, Finai Delphinatus. Canonum Astronomicum. 1553. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1320]. Orontii, Finaei Delphinatis. Fine Oronce, etc. 1551. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1321]. Orr, M. A. Dante and the Early Astronomers. London, Gall and Inglis, 1913.

[1321:1]. Otero, Gloria. El Arte Romanico en España. Romanesque Art in Spain. Subdireccion General de Promocion Exterior del Turismo. Turespaña, Spain, 1995.

[1322]. Otero, José Carro. Santiago de Compostela. Second edition. Leon, Spain, Editorial Everest S.A., 1999.

[1323]. Ostrowski, W. The ancient names and early cartography of Byelorussia. London, 1971.

[1324]. Owen, G. F. Archaeology and the Bible. NY, 1961.

[1325]. Page, E. S. Continuous inspection schemes. Biometrika, Volume 41, No.1 (1954): 100-115.

[1326]. Page, E. S. A test for a change in a parameter occurring at an unknown point. Biometrica, Vol. 42, No.4 (1955): 523-527.

[1327]. Paladilhe, Dominique. Simon de Monfort et le Drame Cathare. France: Librairie Académique Perrin, 1997.

[1328]. Pannekoek, A. A History of Astronomy. New York, 1961.

[1329]. Paris. Tourist Guide. Paris: Guide Michelin, 1992.

[1330]. Parker, Richard A. Ancient Egyptian Astronomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Ser. A, 276 (1974): 51-65.

[1331]. Pastoureau, Michel. Traité d’Héraldique. Bibliothèque de la Sauvegarde de l’Art Francais. 3e éd. Paris, Grands manuels Picard, 1997.

[1332]. Venetus, Paulus. Philisiphiae naturalis compendium clarissimi philosophi Pauli Veneti: una libro de compositione mundi, etc. Paris, J. Lambert (s. d.), n.d.

[1333]. Pearce, A. The science of the stars. London, Glen & Co., 1898.

[1334]. Pearce, A. The text-book of Astrology. London, Glen & Co., 1911.

[1335]. Pedersen, O. A survey of the Almagest. Odence, 1974.

[1335:1]. Pelloutier, S. Histoire des Celtes. Paris: Quillan, 1771.

[1336]. Perrier, Jacques. Notre-Dame de Paris. Association Maurice de Sully, Paris, 1996.

[1337]. Petavius, D. De doctrina temporum. Vol. 1. Paris, 1627. (Petau, D. Opus de doctrina temporum, etc. Volume 1. Antwerpiae, M. DCCV.)

[1338]. Petavius, D. Petavii Avrelianensis e Societate Iesu, Rationarium Temporum in Partes Dvas, Libros tredecim distributum. Editio Ultima. Parisiis, Apud Sebastianum Cramoisy, Regis, & Reginae Architypographum: Gabrielem Cramoisy. M.DC.LII. Cvm Pivilegio Regis.

[1339]. Peters, C. H. F., and E. B. Knobel Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars. A Revision of the Almagest. Publ. No. 86. Washington, The Carnegie Inst. of Washington, 1915.

[1340]. Petrarca, Francesco. Familiarum rerum libri. Editione critica per cura di Vittorio Rossi. Firenze, 1968.

[1340:1]. Petrie, Flinders W. M. Athribi Mem. of British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Volume 14. 1902.

[1340:2]. Petrie, Flinders. Wisdom of the Egyptians. London, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch Ltd., 1940.

[1341]. Pfeil, Ulrich. Trier. A tour of the most famous sights. Kunstverlag Weick. Passau, 1996.

[1342]. Philip, A. The Calendar: Its History, Structure and Improvement. Cambridge University Press, 1921.

[1343]. Philipp Apian und die Kartographie der Renaissance. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. Anton H. München, Konrad Verlag, 1989.

[1344]. [Phrantzae, Georgius] De Vita et Acriptus Georgii Phrantzae. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca posterior. T. CLVI. J.-P. Migne, 1866.

[1345]. Pingre, A. Chronologie des eclipses qui ont été visibles depuis le pole boréal jusque vers l’equateur pendant les dix siècles qui ont précedé l’ére Chrétienne. Paris, 1787.

[1346]. Pogo, A. Additions and corrections to Oppolzer’s Kanon der Mondfinsternisse. Astron. Journal, V. 43 (1937): 45-48.

[1347]. Pokorny, J. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. In 2 Bd. Tübingen. Basel: Francke Verlag, 1994 (3. Aufl.).

[1348]. Goetz, Delia and Sylvanus G. Morley. Popol Vuh. The Sacred Book of the Ancient Quiché Maya. From the translation of Adrian Recinos. Volume 29 in the “Civilization of the American Indian” series. Norman and London, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1950. (13th edition in 1991).

[1349]. Portal, Charles. Histoire de la ville de Cordes (Tarn), 1222-1799. Toulouse, 1902.

[1350]. Priese, Karl-Heinz. The Gold of Meroe. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1993.

[1351]. Prowe, L. Nicolaus Copernicus. 3 Bde. Berlin, 1883-1884.

[1352]. [Ptolemaeus, Claudius]. Phelusiensis Alexandrini philosophi et matematici excellentissimi Phaenomena stellarum 1022 fixarum ad hanc aetatem reducta, atque seorsum in studiosorum gratiam. Nunc primum edita, Interprete Georgio Trapezuntio. Excessum Coloniai Agrippinae. Anno 1537, octavo Calendas 5 Septembers.

[1353]. [Ptolemaeus, Claudius]. Geographia. Ed. Sebastian Münster. Basel, 1540. Reprint: Series of Atlases in Facsimile. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., 1966.

[1354]. [Ptolemaeus, Claudius]. Clavdii Ptolemaei Pelusiensis Alexandrini omnia quae extant opera, praeter Geographiam, etc. Baseliae, 1551.

[1355]. Ptolemy. The Almagest. (Great Books of Western World, V. 16). Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952.

[1356]. Ptolemy, C. Claudii Ptolemaei opera quae exstant omnia. Ed. J. L.Heiberg et al. 3 volumes. Leipzig, 1898-1903,.

[1357]. Ptolemy. Tetrabiblos. Ed. and trans. F. E. Robbins. Harvard, 1940.

[1358]. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Transl. and annot. by G. J. Toomer. London, 1984.

[1359]. Putnam, James. Mummy. London, New York, Eyewitness Books. 1993.

[1360]. Putnam, James. Pyramid. London, New York, Eyewitness Books. 1994.

[1361]. Radini (Radinus), Tedeschi. Sideralis abyssus. Luteciae, Impressum opa T. Kees. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). 1514 (1511 ?).

[1362]. Ramet, Henri. Histoire de Toulouse. Toulouse, Le Pérégrinateur Editeur, Queray, 1994.

[1363]. Ranson, C. L. A Late Egyptian Sarcophagus. Bulletin of the Metropolitian Museum of Art. 9 (1914): 112-120.

[1364]. Raska. Chronologie der Bibel. Berlin, 1878.

[1365]. Rawlins, Dennis. An investigation of the ancient star catalog. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Volume XCIV. 1982. 359-373.

[1365:1]. Reade, Julian. Assyrian Sculpture. British Museum. British Museum Press, London, 1983, 1988.

[1366]. Reeves, Nicholas. The Complete Tutankhamun. The King. The Tomb. The Royal Treasure. New York, Thames and Hudson, 1990, 1995.

[1367]. Reeves, Nicholas, and Nan Froman. Into the Mummy’s Tomb. The Real-Life Discovery of Tutankhamun’s Treasures. Toronto: A Scholastic/Madison Press Book, 1993, 1994. 1st published in the United States by Scholastic, 1992.

[1368]. Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn. Tableaux dans les musées de l’Union Soviétique. Leningrad, Aurora, 1981, 1987.

[1369]. Robert, C. Archäologische Hermeneutik. Berlin, 1919.

[1370]. Roberts, J. M. The Pelican History of the World. England, Penguin Books, 1984.

[1371]. Robertson, J. M. Pagan christs; studies in comparative hierology. London, Watts & Co, 1911.

[1372]. Roche, Déodar. Le Catharisme. 2 Volumes. Narbonne, Cahiers d’Études Cathares, 1973 and 1976.

[1373]. Rogov, Alexander. Alexandrov. (Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, or, literally, “The Freemen’s Village of Alexander”). Museum Cities. Leningrad, Avrora, 1979.

[1374]. Grafton, Anthony, ed. Rome Reborn. The Vatican Library and Renaissance Culture. Washington: Library of Congress; New Haven, London: Yale University Press; Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1993.

[1375]. Romero, Anne-Marie. Saint-Denis. La montée des pouvours. Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques et des Sites. Paris, CNRS, 1992, 1993.

[1376]. Roquebert, Michel. Cathar Religion. Toulouse, Editions Loubatières, 1994.

[1377]. Roquebert, Michel. L’épopée Cathare, 1209-1229. (On the Crusade against the Albigeois). 3 volumes. Toulouse: Private, 1970, 1977 and 1986.

[1378]. Rosalba, Manzo. New Castle Museum. Naples City Hall. Joint to the major for culture. D. E. C. Artistical and Museums Patrimony Service. Naples, n.d.

[1378:1]. Rose-Marie, Rainer Hagen. Egypt. People, Gods, Pharaohs. Köln: Benedikt Taschen Verlag GmbH, 1999.

[1379]. Ross. Tacitus and Bracciolini. The Annals forged in the XVth century. London, 1878.

[1380]. Rostovzeff, M. Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Paris, 1957.

[1381]. Rowley, H. H. The Old Testament and Modern Study. Oxford, 1961.

[1382]. Rundsicht der Stadt Wien zur Zeit der Türkenbelagerung, 1529, Niklas Meldemann, Nürnberg 1530. HM Inv. Nr. 48068. Faksimile 1994, Museen der Stadt Wien Druckerei Gert Herzig, Wien. (Mediaeval plan of Vienna of the XVI c. depicting the siege of Vienna by the Turks in 1529.)

[1383]. Sacro, Bosco J. de. Opusculum Johannis de Sacro busto spericum, cu figuris optimus ei novis textu in se, sive ambiguitate declarantibus. Leipzig, 1494. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1384]. Sacro, Bosco J. de. Sphera materialis. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). Nürnberg, Gedruckt durch J. Getkneckt, 1516.

[1385]. Sacro, Bosco J. de. Opusculu de Sphaera . . . clarissimi philosophi Ioannis de Sacro busto. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). Viennae Pannoniae, 1518.

[1386]. Sayce. Herodotus I-III. The ancient empire of the East. London, 1883.

[1387]. Scaliger, I. Opus novum de emendatione temporum. Lutetiac. Paris, 1583. (Thesaurum temporum, 1606).

[1388]. Schaarschmidt, K. Die Sammlung der Platos Schriften zur Schreidung der echten von den unechten untersucht. Bonn, 1866.

[1389]. Schäfer, Heinrich. Ägyptische und heutige Kunst und Weltgebäude der alten Ägypter. Zwei Aufsätze. Berlin, Walter de Greyter, 1928.

[1390]. Schlafke, Jakob. La Cattedrale di Colonia. Editione Italiana. Bonechi Verlag Styria, Casa Editrice Bonechi, Graz, Lahn Verlag, Limburg/Lahn, 1990.

[1391]. Schliemann, Heinrich. Ilios. Stadt und Land der Trojaner. Forschungen und Entdeckungen in der Trojas und besonders auf der Baustelle von Troja. Leipzig, 1881.

[1392]. Schliemann, Heinrich. Troja. Ergebnisse meiner neuesten Ausgrabungen auf der Baustelle von Troja, in der Heldengräbern Bunarbaschi and an anderen Orten in der Trojas im Jahre 1882. Leipzig, 1884.

[1393]. Schilgen, Jost, and Martina Wengierek. So schön ist Trier. Grasberg, Sachbuchverlag Karin Mader, 1994.

[1394]. Schjellerup, H. C. F. G. Description des étoiles fixes composée au milieu du Xe siècle de notre ère par l’astronome persan abd-Al-Rahman Al-Sufi. St. Petersburg, 1874.

[1395]. Schram, R. Tafeln zur Berechning der naheren Umstände der Sonnenfinsternisse. Wien, 1886.

[1396]. Schram, R. Reductionstafeln für den Oppolzerischen Finsternis Kanon zum Übergang auf die Ginzelschen Correctionen. Wien, 1889.

[1396:1]. Schedel, Hartmann. La chronique universelle de Nuremberg. L’édition de Nuremberg, colorée et commentée. (L’édition 1493, colorée et commentée). Introduction et Appendice par Stephan Füssel. Taschen GmbH. (Köln). Köln, London, Madrid, New York, Paris, Tokyo, 2001.

[1397]. Schram, R. Kalendariographische und chronologische Tafeln. Leipzig, 1908.

1398 Schroter, J. Spezieller Kanon der zentralen Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse. Kristiania, 1923.

[1399]. Schulten, Walter. Der Schrein der Heiligen drei Könige im Kölner Dom. Luthe-Druck Köln, 1995.

[1400]. Schwahn, P. Mathematische Theorie der astronomischen Finsternisse. Leipzig, 1910.

[1401]. Schwegler, T. Die Biblische Urgeschichte. München, 1960.

[1402]. Serrus, Georges. Montségur. Toulouse, Editions Loubatières, 1994.

[1403]. Serrus, Georges, and Michel Roquebert. Cathare Castles. Toulouse, Editions Loubatières, 1993.

[1404]. Severy, Merle. The world of Suleyman the Magnificent. National Geographic, Volume 172, No.5 (1987): 552-601.

[1405]. Siebeck, H. Zur Chronologie der platonischen Dialoge. Halle, 1873.

[1405:1]. Simon, J. L., P. Bretagnon, J. Chapront, M.,Chapront-Touze, G. Francou, and J. Laskar. Software for the calculation of heliocentric coordinates, radial vectors and immediate speeds for the 8 main planets of the Solar System (the PLANETAP program, Fortran 77) Astron. Astrophys., 282, 663 (1994).

1405:2 Sivaramamurti, Calambur. The Art of India. India Book House, Bombay, 1977. Published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York.

[1406]. Shaban, S. Change-point problem and two-phase regression: annotated bibliography. International Statistical Review, Volume 48 (1980): 83-86.

[1407]. Speyer. Die Kaiserstadt am Rhein. KINA Italia Mailand, Kaiserdom-Pavillon Renate Hahn am Domplatz, ATD Mailand, 1994.

[1408]. Speyer Cathedral. Regensburg, Verlag Schnell & Steiner GmbH Regensburg, 1997.

[1409]. Spielberg, W. Die Glaubwürdigkeit von Herodots Bericht über Ägypten. Berlin, 1926.

[1410]. Staccioli, Romolo A. Storia e cività degli Etruschi. Origine apogeo decadenza di un grande popolo dell’Italia antica. Rome, Newton Compton editori, 1981.

[1411]. Stancheva, Magdalina. Veliki Preslav. Sofia, Zlatostrouy, 1993.

[1412]. Steeb, J. Coelum sephiroticum Hebraeorum, etc. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). Mainz, 1679.

[1413]. Stephan, Beissel S. J. Kunstschätze des Aachener Kaiserdomes. Werke der Goldschmiedekunst, Elfenbeinschnitzerei und Textilkunst. M. Gladbach. Druck und Verlag von B. Kühlen. Anstalt für Christliche Kunst. 1904.

[1414]. Stevens, Henry N. Ptolemy’s Geography. A brief account of all printed editions down to 1730. Amsterdam, Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd. Meridian Publishing Company, 1972.

[1415]. Stierlin, Henri. The Pharaohs Master-Builders. Paris, Finest S.A./Éditions Pierre Terrail, 1992.

[1416]. St. Lorenz. Sagen + Geschichten. 73. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E.V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. Nr. 15/3, unveränderte Auflage, 1998.

[1417]. St.Lorenz. Türme + Glocken. 81. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. Nr.25/2, verbessterte Auflage, 1998.

[1418]. St. Lorenz. Wappen in Fülle. Wappenkunde. Wappenkunst und Wappenrecht. 86. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenz-kirche in Nürnberg (E.V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF.Nr.31, 1986.

[1419]. St. Lorenz. Ich bin das Licht der Welt. Grosse und kleine Lichter. 90. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E.V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF.Nr.35, 1990.

[1420]. St. Lorenz. Sand-Sandstein. Steinsand-Sand. 91. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 36, 1991.

[1421]. St. Lorenz. Behelmt, behütet und bedacht. 92. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 37, 1992.

[1422]. St. Lorenz. Mein Auge schauet was Gott gebauet. 93. Was Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 38, 1993.

[1423]. St. Lorenz. Ecce Panis Angelorum. Das Sakramentshaus des Adam Kraft. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 39, 1994.

[1424]. St. Lorenz. 500 Jahre Sakramentshaus: Erklärung – Verklärung, Deutung – Umdeutung. 96. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 41, 1996.

[1425]. St. Lorenz. Türen. Tore. Portale. 97. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E.V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 41, 1997.

[1426]. St. Lorenz. Wandfresken. Bestand. Restaurierung. Erhaltung. 98. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 43, 1998.

[1427]. St. Lorenz. Im Blickpunkt das Kreuz. Kruzifix-Darstellungen. 99. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenz-kirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 44, 1999.

[1428]. Struve, O. Libroram in biblioteca Speculae Pulcovensis catalogus systematicus. Petropoli, 1860.

[1429]. Stryjkowski, Maciej. O Poczatkach, wywodach.... Of the Beginnings, Sources, the Deeds of the Knights and the Home Affairs of the Glorious Peoples of Lithuania, Zhmuda, and Russia, an Original Tale Inspired by the Lord and the Author’s Own Experience. Warszawa, 1978.

[1430]. Suckow, Hähel. Stadtführer Halle. Sehenswertes in Halle. Halle, Druckhaus Schütze, 1998.

[1431]. Suess, H. Secular variations. Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 70, No. 23 (1965).

[1432]. Suess, H. Bristlecone Pine. Radioactive Dating and Methods. Vienna, 1968.

[1433]. Suess, H. Bristlecone Pine Calibration of the Radiocarbon. XII Nobel Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology. Uppsala, 1969.

[1434]. Sueton. Die zwölf Caesaren, nach der Übersetzung v. A. Stahr neu hrsg. München, Leipzig, 1912.

[1435]. Suhle, A. Mittelalteriche Brakteaten. Leipzig, 1965.

[1436]. Swerdlow, N. M., and O. Neugebauer. Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus. 2 vols. Berlin, 1984.

[1437]. Sztuka Egipska. Piramidy i mastaby. Mala Encyklopedia Sztuki. 23. Warszawa, Arkady, 1976.

[1438]. Sztuka Egipska. Luksor. Opracowal Kazimierz Michalowski. Mala Encyklopedia Sztuki. 25. Warszawa, Arkady, 1976.

[1438:1]. Tabov, Jordan. Chronological Distribution of Information in Historical Texts. Computers and the Humanities, 2003, Volume 37, pages 235-240.

[1439]. Targuebayre, Claire. Cordes en Albigeois. Toulouse, Editions Privat, 1988.

[1440]. Tesnierio, Ioanne. Opus Matematicum octolibrum. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.) Coloniae Agrippinae, apud J. Birckmannum & W. Richwinum, 1562.

[1441]. Teutsch Astronomei. Astronomia. Woodcuts, 1545. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1442]. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: Everyman’s library, J. M. Dent. Sons Ltd., 1990.

[1443]. Wright, G. E., ed. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honour of W.F.Albright. NY, 1961.

[1444]. The Cambridge medieval history. IV. The Byzantine Empire. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966-1967.

[1445]. The Cathedral of St.Stephen in Vienna. Graz, Verlag Styria, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1992.

[1446]. Gransden, A., ed. The Chronicle of Bury St. Edmunds, 1212-1301. London-Edinburgh, 1964.

[1447]. The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. USA, Columbia University Press, 1983.

[1448]. The Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Book of Going Forth by Day. The first authentic presentation of the complete papyrus of Ani. Featuring full color images. Transl. by Dr. R. Faulkner. San Francisco, Chronicle Books, 1994.

[1449]. The English version of the polyglot Bible with a copies and original selection of references to parallel and illustrative passages. London, S. Bagster and Sons.

[1450]. The Holy Bible, containing Old and New Testaments: Translated out of the original tongues; and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty’s special command. Appointed to be read in Churches. London, British and Foreign Bible Society, Instituted in London in the Year 1804.

[1451]. The Holy Bible, containing Old and New Testaments: Translated out of the original tongues; and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty’s special command. Authorized King James version. Salt Lake City, Utah, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1992.

[1452]. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. Volume 16. 1987.

[1453]. The place of astronomy in the ancient world. A discussion organized jointly for the Royal Society and the British Academy. Philos. Trans. of the Royal. Soc. of London, Ser. A., Volume 276 (1974): 1-276.

[1454]. Farid, Shafik, ed. The Pyramids of Giza. Book 1. Simpkins Splendor of Egypt. Salt Lake City, Utah, Simpkins Souvenirs, 1982.

[1455]. The R. C. Church of St. Karl. Vienna. Salzburg, Christiche Kunststätten Österreichs, Nr.20 E. Verlag St. Peter, 1994.

[1456]. Werber, Eugen. The Sarajevo Haggadah. Svjetlost, Sarajevo. Printed by Mladinska Knjiga, Ljubljiana, 1999.

[1457]. The Shrine of Torreciudad. Guide. Oficina de Información, 22391 Torreciudad (Huesca), España.

[1458]. Farid, Shafik, ed. The Temple of Luxor. Book 3. Simpkins Splendor of Egypt. Salt Lake City, Utah, Simpkins Souvenirs, 1982.

[1458:1]. The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings. Tombs and Temples of the Theban West Bank in Luxor. Edited by Kent R.Weeks. The American University in Cairo Press. Cairo, Egypt, 2001. White Star, S. r. l. Vercelli, Italy.

[1459]. The World Encompassed. An exhibition of the history of maps held at the Baltimore Museum of Art October 1 to November 23, 1952. Baltimore, Maryland, The Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery, 1952.

[1460]. Thierry, Amedee. St. Jean Chrysostome et l’impératrice Eudoxie. Paris, 1872.

[1460:1]. Thoren, Victor E. The Lord of Uraniborg. A Biography of Tycho Brahe. With contributions by John R. Christianson. Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney, Cambridge University Press (1994 ?).

[1461]. Thorndike, L. H. D. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. (During the first thirteen centuries of our era). Volumes 1,2. NY, 1923., New York, Columbia University Press, 1943, 1947, 1958.

[1462]. Topper, Uwe. Die Große Aktion. Europas Erfundene Geschichte. Die planmäßige Fälschung unserer Vergangenheit von der Antike bis zur Aufklärung. Tübingen, Grabert-Verlag, n.d.

[1463]. Topper, Uwe. Erfundene Geschichte. Unsere Zeitrechnung ist falsch. Leben wir im Jahr 1702? München, F. A. Herbig Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH, 1999.

[1464]. Turhan, Can. Istanbul, Gate to the Orient. Istanbul, Orient, 1995.

[1465]. Turhan, Can. Topkapi Palace. Istanbul, Orient, 1995.

[1466]. Eco, Umberto. Serendipities. Language and Lunacy. Weidenfeld & Nicolson (UK). NY, Orion/Columbia Univ. Press. 1999.

[1467]. Venice. Venezia, Storti Edizioni, 1993.

[1468]. Vesconte, Pietro. Seekarten. Mit einem Geleitwort von Otto Mazal. Einfürung von Lelio Pagani. Edition Georg Popp Würzburg. 1978. Grafica Gutenberg, Bergamo, 1977.

[1469]. Vidal-Quadras, José A. Torreciudad. Imprenta Moises Barbasto, Spain, 1987.

[1470]. Vidal-Quadras, José A. Torreciudad. A shrine to Our Lady. Office of Information Torreciudad, Spain, n.d.

[1471]. Villehardouin, Geoffroy de. La conquète de Constantinople. Historiens et chroniqueurs du Moyen Âge. Ed. A. Pauphilet. Paris, 1963.

[1472]. Virgil, Mocanu. Tintoretto. Clasicii Picturii Universale. Bucuresti, Editura Meridiane, 1977.

[1473]. Vries, Hesselde. Variation in concentration of radiocarbon with time and location on Earth. Koninkl. Nederlandse Akad. Wetensch. Proc. 1958, ser. B. 61, pages 1-9.

[1474]. Wallraf-Rischartz-Museum der Stadt Köln. Vollständliges Verzeichnis der Gemäldesammlung. Köln/Mailand, 1986.

[1475]. Waterfield, R. L. A Hundred Years of Astronomy. NY, Macmillan, 1938.

[1476]. Wehli, Tünde. A Középkori Spanyolország Festészete. Budapest, Corvina Kiadó, 1980.

[1477]. Wenzler, Claude. L’Héraldique. Rennes, Editions Ouest-France, 1997.

[1478]. Werner, H., and F. Schmeidler. Synopsis der Nomenklatur der Fixsterne. Wissensch. Stuttgart, Verlags-Gesellschaft 1986.

[1478:1]. Wigal, Donald. Anciennes Cartes Marines. A la Découverte des Nouveaux Mondes. 1290-1699. New York, Parkstone Press, 2000.

[1479]. Williams, John. Observations of Comets from B.C.611 A.D. to 1640, extracted from the Chinese Annals. 1871.

[1480]. Willis, E. H., H. Tauber, and K. O. Münnich. Variations in the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration over the past 1300 years. Radiocarbon, Volume 2 (1960): 1.

[1481]. Wissowa, Pauly. Real-Encyclopädie der Klassischen Altertumwissenschaft in alphabetischer Ordnung. Hrsg. von Kroll. Stuttgart, 1839-1852.

[1482]. Wittkower, R. Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism. Paris, 1960.

[1483]. Wolf, R. Handbuch der Astronomie, ihrer Geschichte und Literatur. Bd. II. Zürich, 1892.

[1484]. Wooley, L. Excavation at Ur. NY, 1955.

[1485]. Woronowa, Tamara, and Andrej Sterligov. Westeuropäische Buchmalerei des 8. bis 16. Jahrhunderts in der Russischen Nationalbibliothek, Sankt Petersburg. (Frankreich. Spanien. England. Deutschland. Italien. Niederlande). Augsburg: Bechtermünz. Genehmigte Lizenzausgabe für Weltbild Verlag, 2000. England, Parkstone/Aurora, 1996.

[1486]. Wright, G. E. Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia, London, 1957.

[1487]. Altet, Xavier Barral. Compostelle de Grand Chemin. Découvertes Gallimard Réligions. Gallimard, 1993.

[1488]. Zadkiel. The Grammar of Astrology. London, J. Cornish, 1849.

[1489]. Zarnecki, George, Florence Deucher, and Irmgard Hutter. Neue Belser Stilgeschichte. Band IV. Romantik, Gotik, Byzanz. Stuttgard, Zürich, Belser Verlag, 1986.

[1490]. Zech, J. Astronomische Untersuchungen über die wichtigeren Finsternisse, welche von den Schriftstellern des klassischen Altertums erwähnt werden. Leipzig, 1853.

[1491]. Zeitensprünge. Interdisziplinäres Bulletin. Sonderdruck. September 1996. Thema Absolutdatierung. Mantis Verlag, Germany.

[1492]. Zevi, B., E. Battisti, E. Garin, and L. Malle. Alberti. Enciclopedia universale dell’arte. Vol. I. Venezia, Roma, 1958.