HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? ● BOOK 9

The Issue

with Mongols

Anatoly Fomenko

Gleb Nosovskiy

THE ISSUE WITH MONGOLS

By Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskiy

Book 9 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: Mikhail Avilov. “The Duel of Peresvet and Chelubey at the Kulikovo Field” (1943; fragment).

The State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg.

Copyright © 2003-2015 Delamere Resources LLC

Published by Delamere Resources LLC

2016 print edition

20% discount for purchase directly from Publisher’s website:

http://history.mithec.com

Your promotional code: new chronology

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

Contents

About the authors

From the publisher

PART ONE: Our reconstruction of the Russian history before the Battle of Kulikovo

1. The origins of the Russian history

2. The invasion of the Tartars and the Mongols as the unification of Russia under the rule of the Novgorod = Yaroslavl dynasty of Georgiy = Genghis-Khan and then his brother Yaroslav = Batu-Khan = Ivan Kalita

2.1. Genghis-Khan = Georgiy = Ryurik

2.1.1. His original in the XIV century is Youri = Georgiy Danilovich of Moscow

2.1.2. The identity of Ryurik, the founder of the royal dynasty of the Russian princes, the dating of his lifetime and the localization of his endeavours

2.1.3. The fastest and most comfortable way from Greece to Rome, and the location of the famous “Graeco-Varangian Route”

2.1.4. The three brothers: Ryurik, Sineus and Truvor. The division of the Russo-Mongolian Horde into the Golden Horde, the White Horde and the Blue Horde in the XIV century

2.1.5. The hypothesis about the origins of the Muslim era of Hegira

2.2. Batu-Khan identified as Yaroslav, his XIV century original being Ivan Danilovich Kalita = Caliph

2.2.1. A brief biography

2.2.2. An attempt of transferring the capital to Kiev

2.2.3. The battle between Batu-Khan and the Hungarian king with his allies

2.2.4. The Battle of Kalka fought between the “Mongols”, or the Russians, and the “Russians”, or the Poles

2.3. The “Mongol and Tartar invasion” according to the Russian chronicles: Russians fighting Russians

3. The Tartar and Mongol Yoke in Russia as the period of military rule in the united Russian Empire

3.1. The difference between our version and the Millerian-Romanovian

3.2. Alexander Nevskiy = Berke-Khan. His original: Simeon the Proud or Chanibek-Khan (the XIV century)

3.3. The Sarays as the headquarters of the Great Princes, or Khans

3.4. Imperial communications

3.5. The Mongols as participants of the XIV century crusades

PART TWO: The Battle of Kulikovo

4. The strife of the late XIV century in the Horde. Dmitriy Donskoi as Tokhtamysh-Khan. The Battle of Kulikovo and the “conquest of Moscow.” A general overview

5. The Battle of Kulikovo

5.1. The actual location of the Kulikovo field

5.2. Kulishki in Moscow and the Church of All Saints built in honour of the warriors slain in the Battle of Kulikovo on the Slavyanskaya Square in Moscow

5.3. The information about the Battle of Kulikovo: origins and present condition

5.4. Mamai’s headquarters on the Krasniy Kholm (Red Hill) near the Kulikovo Field vs. the Krasniy Kholm, Krasnokholmskiy Bridge and Krasnokholmskaya Embankment in Moscow

5.5. Kuzmina Gat in the Battle of Kulikovo and the neighbourhood of Kuzminki in Moscow

5.6. The identification of Kolomna as the starting point of Dmitriy’s march towards the Kulikovo Field

5.7. The Kotly from the Kulikovo Battle and the Kotly in Moscow

5.8. The inspection before the battle at the Devichye Field, near the Devichiy Monastery, and the Novodevichiy Monastery on the Devichye Field in Russia

5.9. The Devichiy Monastery, the Babiy Gorodok and the Polyanka on the right bank of the Moskva and the possibility of identifying them as the Devichye Field and the place where Dmitriy Donskoi had inspected his troops

5.10. The crossing of the Moskva

5.11. The Berezouy and the Bersenyevskaya Embankment in Moscow

5.12. The River Don and its relation to the Battle of Kulikovo. The Podonskoye Yard in Moscow

5.13. River Mecha on the Kulikovo Field as the Moskva River (or, alternatively, one of its tributaries called Mocha)

5.14. River Nepryadva on the Kulikovo Field and the Naprudnaya River on the Kulishki field in Moscow. River Neglinka in Moscow

5.15. The ambush of Vladimir Andreyevich on the Kulikovo Field and the Vladimirskaya Church in Moscow

5.16. “River Chura at Mikhailov” next to the Kulikovo Field vs. River Chura and the eight Mikhailovskiy Lanes in Moscow

5.17. River Sosna and the Brasheva (Borovitskaya) Road to the Kulikovo Field identified as the Sosenka River and the Old Borovskaya Road leading towards the centre of Moscow

5.18. Yaroslav and Alexander in the description of the Kulikovo Battle

5.19. Who had fought whom upon the Kulikovo field?

5.20. A brief digression and a comparison of the Russian and Tartar architecture

6. The communal grave of the heroes slain in the Battle of Kulikovo in the Old Simonov Monastery, Moscow

6.1. Where are the graves of the warriors who had fallen in the battle of Kulikovo?

6.2. The Old Simonov Monastery presently. The discovery of an ancient communal grave in 1994

6.3. The location of the Rozhestveno village that Dmitriy Donskoi had granted to the Old Simonov monastery after the Battle of Kulikovo

6.4. The battle between Mamai and Tokhtamysh in 1380 as yet another reflection of the Kulikovo Battle of 1380

7. The Battle of Kulikovo and our geographical reconstruction thereof

8. Apparently, Moscow was founded around 1382. The “Battle of Moscow” allegedly fought between the Russians and the Tartars in 1382 as yet another reflection of the Kulikovo Battle

9. Tokhta-Khan and the military leader Nogai as duplicates of Tokhtamysh-Khan and the warlord Mamai

10. The capital of Dmitriy Donskoi = Tokhtamysh-Khan and its location before the Battle of Kulikovo

11. On the history of the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity, which is part of the Old Simonov Monastery

12. Mamai the Temnik is also known to us as Ivan Velyaminov the Tysyatskiy. Both titles correspond to the rank of army commander, and translate as “leader of thousands”

13. The Battle of Kulikovo recorded in the famous book of Marco Polo

14. Other places in Moscow related to the Battle of Kulikovo in one way or another

14.1. Seven churches on the Kulikovo Field, or the Kulishki in Moscow

14.2. Mass burials at Kulishki in the centre of Moscow

14.3. The Andronikov Monastery and the Battle of Kulikovo

14.4. The modern Dmitriy Donskoi memorial at the foot of the Red (Krasniy) or Taganskiy Hill in Moscow

15. The Battle of Kulikovo on a XVII century icon

16. A brief history of coinage in Moscow

17. The history of the Donskoi Monastery in Moscow and the parallels with the Battle of Kulikovo on the territory of modern Moscow

17.1. The battle against the “Tartar” Kazy-Girey in the XVI century, the Donskoi Monastery and the icon of Our Lady of Don

17.2. The true datings of the presumably ancient plans of Moscow that are said to date from the XVI-XVII century nowadays

17.3. Additional remarks in re the Battle of Kulikovo

17.4. The origins of the name Mikhailovo at River Chura in Moscow

17.5. The Grebnyovskaya Icon given to Dmitriy Donskoi, and River Chura in Moscow

PART THREE: From the Battle of Kulikovo to Ivan the Terrible

18. The capture of Moscow by Dmitriy = Tokhtamysh in 1382 and the naissance of Moscovia as a state

19. The identity of Lithuania and the location of Siberia

20. The parallel between Russian and Lithuanian history

21. Russia (aka the Horde) in the first half of the XV century. Epoch of strife and embroilment

22. Ivan III

22.1. Russian principalities united under the rule of Moscow during the reign of Ivan III. The end of the strife

22.2. The Turks and the Russians seizing Constantinople in 1453. Moscow and its alias of “The Third Rome”

22.3. The marriage between Ivan III and Sophia Palaiologos and a change of customs at the court of Moscow

23. Vassily III as the Sovereign of All Russia

24. The seals of the Great Princes (or Khans) in the XV-XVII century

What mainstream historians say about the New Chronology?

Overview of the e-Series

Overview of the seven-volume print edition

Also by Analoly T. Fomenko

Also by Gleb V. Nosovskiy

Bibliography

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 Mongolian Horde was merely the Russian army

According to the official version of history, Russia remained under the political and military yoke of the Mongols for many centuries on end. The term “Mongol” is usually assumed to have always meant the same thing – however, this turns out to be incorrect; the modern interpretation is of a relatively recent origin. Bear in mind that Mongolia didn’t exist as an independent state until the early XX century! The word “Mongol” simply meant “Great One” – its association with the nomadic tribes hailing from the steppes north of China is a later invention. But why did it have to be invented?

The reason is simple: the actual “Mongol conquerors of Russia” never existed. The yoke theory was created by the court German historians of the new Russian dynasty, the Romanovs. It has served the end of justifying the Romanovs’ claims for the throne and demonising their longtime adversaries – the Horde, or the professional Russian army, which remained fiercely loyal to the old Russian dynasty, deposed and finally destroyed by the Romanovs as a result of a conspiracy. The savage invaders and torturers of the Russian land that we read about in history textbooks were the protectors of the state in reality – and ethnic Slavs for the most part. Small wonder historians still cannot find a single trace of the mythical Mongol capital – no such capital ever existed anywhere near the Gobi Desert.

The Mongol Horde identified as the Russian army are extremely hard to swallow for any Russian, yet they are just the tip of the iceberg called New Chronology, which is a radical reconstruction of world history in general and a brainchild of Anatoly Fomenko, one of today’s leading mathematicians and by all means a scientist to be taken seriously. His sensational fundamental work entitled History: Fiction or Science? is finally available in English – the ice-cold facts and the rock-hard scientific evidence concealed underneath that glossy cover portraying Jesus pinioned to the Big Ben can, and eventually will, sink the entire paper fleet of consensual history.

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 reconstruction of the Russian history before the Battle of Kulikovo

1.

The origins of the Russian history

According to our hypothesis, the more or less documented period in Russian history (that is to say, Russian history that relies upon written sources that have survived until the present day) only begins with the XIV century A.D. Unfortunately, we can only give a very general outline of the pre-XIV century Russian history; apparently, there are no surviving documents in existence that could assist one here.

Let us turn to the Povest Vremennyh Let, which follows Russian historical events up until 1204 – the fall of Constantinople after the fourth crusade. Morozov reports his study of this chronicle’s various copies in [547] and shares his opinion that the Povest Vremennyh Let is most likely to relate Byzantine events and have little in common with the Russian history. For instance, Morozov mentions frequent references to earthquakes, which never happen on the territory of historical Russia. Morozov had also studied all the references made to solar and lunar eclipses in the Russian chronicle, and made the following corollary:

Not a single eclipse predating the end of the XI century and mentioned in the Povest Vremennyh Let can be verified by astronomical calculations; the first solar eclipse that was confirmed by calculations, one that took place on 8 April 1065, could not have been observed from Kiev, unlike Egypt and Northern Africa.

All the astronomical data contained in Russian chronicles can only be confirmed starting with the XIV century and on.

Our hypothesis is as follows: the Povest Vremennyh Let has absorbed events from Byzantine chronicles, coated by a layer of later Russian events, primarily dating from the XVI century. We shall cite plenty of examples below.

Thus, we find no traces of documented Russian history that predate the XIII century; it is possible that no historians had existed outside Byzantium back then.

The power of Byzantium, even if regarded as a purely formal or a wholly religious institution, covered enormous territories, which were often at a great distance from the capital. The dominant role of Byzantium in the epoch of the XII-XIII century is explained by the fact that, according to our reconstruction, the historical character known as Jesus Christ lived (and was crucified) in the XII century Czar-Grad = Jerusalem = Troy. Conquered regions, or themae, as they were called in Byzantium, comprised the entire world that was known to Byzantine chroniclers, beyond which lay bizarre regions that they failed to comprehend and called “deserts”, populating them with fictional characters – giants, people with canine heads etc.

After the dissolution of the Byzantine Empire in 1204, its parts became independent, complete with nascent statehood and new historians. This didn’t happen at once, and so the old Byzantine chronicles were used as the ground layer for the Russian history. This is also natural, since the countries that were formed from shards of the Byzantine Empire had all been governed by former governor-generals, or members of Byzantine aristocracy. They eventually became independent rulers, keeping the old Byzantine chronicles in their possession all the while. Their offspring had deemed these chronicles to be the “beginning of the local history”, and would start with them.

This situation is typical for virtually every country – for instance, the same happened to the old English history, q.v. in Part 2; once again, old Byzantine chronicles of the XI-XIII century were subsequently included into the ancient English history by the historians from the British Isles. The same process took place in Russia and in Italian Rome, whose old “chronicles” reflect the real XI-XIII century history of Byzantium transferred to Italy and woven into the Italian chronology.

Therefore, the XIII century marks a break point in Russian history; we know next to nothing about the epochs that had preceded it. The dawn of Russian history as we know it falls on the period when there’s a large number of principalities or Hordes scattered all across the territory of Russia; they must have been built upon the ruins of the former Byzantine Empire of the Romean Greeks.

Let us briefly list the most important horders: The Greater Horde, the Lesser Horde, the White Horde and the Blue Horde. Novgorod the Great = Yaroslavl, as well as Suzdal, Ryazan, Smolensk, Kiev (or Chernigov), Tver, Azov, Astrakhan and an number of others had still been independent capitals, whereas Moscow simply didn’t exist. These Hordes had not yet unified into a single state and kept fighting against each other.

These independent states were governed by distant offspring of the Byzantine governor-generals from aristocratic clans, all of which used to trace their ancestry back to Augustus and were perfectly correct in doing so, no matter how much sarcasm and vitriol this notion might provoke from the part of a learned historian.

The ties with the Byzantine court had remained functional and active for many years; Kartashev reports that some of the “Mongolian” = “Great” Khans (or the Slavic rulers of Russia, as we are beginning to realise) occasionally married the daughters of the Byzantine emperors.

For instance, Abaka-Khan was married to the daughter of the Byzantine emperor Michael Palaiologos ([372], page 281); Nogai-Khan, a famous character in Russian history, was married to Euphrosinia, the daughter of a Byzantine emperor ([372], page 282). Tokhta-Khan, the predecessor of Uzbek-Khan, was married to the daughter of Andronicus the Elder, also a Byzantine emperor; Uzbek-Khan himself was married to the daughter of Emperor Andronicus the Younger; however, it is assumed that Uzbek had already been converted into Islam.

Below we shall be discussing the fact that when one reads mediaeval Western sources, one finds it very hard to understand whether the authors refer to the Muslims or to the Orthodox Christians, since they often proved reluctant to distinguish between the two, using the term “infidels” for referring to both – therefore, the “infidels” one might encounter in such texts may well have adhered to the Orthodox faith, depending on the persuasion of the author.

2.

The invasion of the Tartars and the Mongols as the unification of Russia under the rule of the Novgorod = Yaroslavl dynasty of Georgiy = Genghis-Khan and then his brother Yaroslav = Batu-Khan = Ivan Kalita

Above we have already referred to the “invasion of the Tartars and the Mongols” as to the unification of Russia (see our analysis of the report written by a Hungarian missionary and a contemporary of the events in question). This epoch (the first half of the XIV century) is the furthest we can trace documented history of Russia to (bear in mind that the epoch of the Great = “Mongolian” conquest falls over the XIV century after the compensation of the centenarian chronological shift inherent in Russian history and discovered by the authors.

The situation in Russia had largely resembled the chaos of independent principalities that had reigned over the entire Western Europe, with larger stately structures emerging therefrom. This process began in Russia; the first centre to unite all the other Russian principalities around it had been Rostov the Great. Let us relate our reconstruction in more detail.

2.1. Genghis-Khan = Georgiy = Ryurik

2.1.1. His original in the XIV century is Youri = Georgiy Danilovich of Moscow

In 1318 the Great Prince Georgiy Danilovich = Genghis-Khan ascended to the Rostov throne in the territory that would later become the Vladimir and Suzdal Russia. His phantom duplicates are Prince Georgiy Vsevolodovich from the alleged XIII century, Youri Dolgoroukiy of Rostov in the alleged XII century, Mstislav Oudaloi (“The Daring”), brother and co-ruler of Yaroslav the Wise in the alleged XI century.

Georgiy (Youri) Danilovich = Genghis-Khan initiates the unification of Russia. He captures the Volga region first, and proceeds to move to the West step by step. The details of this conquest aren’t known to us all that well, but their significance isn’t all that great. Romanovian historians have stretc.hed this period of conquest over several decades; it had been a great deal shorter in reality. The abovementioned evidence from the part of the Hungarian observer is a lot more realistic chronologically, and makes more sense in general ([25]). The unification process in question is known to us nowadays as the “invasion of the Mongols and the Tartars from the East” – however, it must have looked like that to the chroniclers from Western Russia. Apparently, the Russian chronicles that had served as originals for the ones that have reached our age were of Polish or Ukrainian origin (after all, the Radzivilovskaya Chronicle was found in Königsberg). It is a known fact in general that many Russian chronicles demonstrate distinct signs of the South-Western Russian dialect.

One must pay attention to the fact that the old Russian coat of arms used to depict St. George the Conqueror – hardly surprising, considering how George (Georgiy), aka Genghis-Khan, had indeed been the founder of the Great = “Mongolian” Russian Empire.

Indications that the first Russian capital had been in Rostov survive in many sources – let us quote Karamzin’s “History”, which contains the following passage about Rostov:

“The towns competed in antiquity, just like old aristocratic clans would. The inhabitants of Rostov were proud of just how ancient their city had been, calling Vladimir a suburb and its inhabitants, masons, builders and servants. The former implied that the latter weren’t even worthy of having a Prince of their own and suggested to send them a governor-general” ([363], Volume 3, Chapter 2, page 375).

Historians date this dispute between Rostov and Vladimir to the end of the XII century, when Vladimir had already been capital of the Russian state according to the Romanovian-Millerian chronology. Rostov had tried to regain its status of a capital.

2.1.2. The identity of Ryurik, the founder of the royal dynasty of the Russian princes, the dating of his lifetime and the localization of his endeavours

The historical personality of the famous Ryurik turns out to consist of two layers, being a sum of two reflections, in a way. The first layer is the biography of the famed Trojan king Aeneas, who fled from the burning Troy, or Czar-Grad, in the early XIII century and went to Russia, the ancient homeland of his ancestors. We report this in our book entitled The Origins of Russia as the Horde. The second layer is the “biography” of Prince Georgiy Danilovich “the Muscovite”, also known as Genghis-Khan. We shall discuss the second layer in detail in the present book.

1) What does the chronicle tell us?

The name of the legendary Ryurik, who was summoned to Russia in order to “help restore order”, is known to every Russian from a very early age. Many scientific works have been written about this legend, and disputes about its real meaning take place to date. Some claim this legend to be proof of the “slavish nature of all Russians”, who had been perfectly helpless and unable to organise a state of their own, and forced to summon Ryurik the “Varangian” to rule over them. Nowadays the Varangians are identified as the Normans, and certain scientists claim Ryurik and the very sources of the Russian statehood to be of a foreign (Norman) origin. The opponents of this theory (the Slavophils of the XVIII-XX century in particular) have argued against it back then, and keep at it to date. It is perfectly obvious that we shall inevitably be confronted with this rather contentious issue; however, we don’t intend to avoid it, since we are interested in the topic and have got some related considerations that we would like to share.

Let us look into the Povest Vremennyh Let. We shall quote Karamzin’s rendition of the respective passage first: “the Novgorod Slavs and the tribes of Krivichi, Ves and Choud sent envoys to cross the sea and tell the Russo-Varangians: ‘Our land is great and abundant, but lacks order: we invite you to govern over us’ … Ryurik came to Novgorod, Sineus to Byeloozero … and Truvor to Izborsk, the city of the Krivichi” ([362], Volume 1, Chapter 4, page 69).

This is what the original chronicle tells us:

“In the year 6370 [the alleged year 862 A.D. – Auth.] … there was no peace between them, with one clan rising against another, and ceaseless strife everywhere, and so they decided to look for a Prince to govern them. And they fared across the sea to the Varangian tribe of the Russians … all the other Russian tribes – the Choud, the Krivichi, all the Slavs, and the rest of them, and they said unto the Varangians: ‘Our land is great and abundant, yet we can find no peace between ourselves. Come now, and reign over us.’ And three brothers set forth to govern over the entire Russia, together with their families; the first came to the Slavs from the Ladoga; the eldest brother was Ryurik, and he became Prince of Ladoga; the second came to rule over us here in Byeloozero, and the third, Truvor, had gone to Izborsk. And those Varangians baptised Russia the land of Novgorod, since their ancestors had come thence; in the second year, both Sineus and Truvor died, and Ryurik became the sole ruler. And it came to pass that he had founded a town upon River Volkhov, and called it Novgorod, making it his capital. He had divided the entire land between his people as fiefs – Poltesk, Rostov and Byeloozero. All those towns were inhabited by the Varangians; the dwellers of Novgorod were Slavs, the Krivichi lived in Polotsk, the Meryane in Rostov, the Ves in Byeloozero and the Muroma in Murom. Ryurik had been their liege … and two of his men set forth … and went along the Dnepr [having conquered Kiev on their way – Auth.] … and became rulers of the Polish land, while Ryurik had remained their sole ruler regnant in Novgorod” (The Radzivilovskaya Chronicle, [716], page 16).

According to our reconstruction, this passage describes the unification of Russia by Georgiy the Great in the beginning of the XIV century (this historical character is also known as Genghis-Khan). In particular, we learn about the foundation of Novgorod upon Volkhov (Volga) = Yaroslavl.

2) Ryurik = Youri = Gyurgiy = Georgiy (George)

The name Georgiy = Gyurgiy (Youri) is derived from the famous name of Ryurik as found in the chronicles, the latter being the archaic version of the former. A propos, the name Ryurik does not exist in Russia as such, and it is also absent from the ecclesiastical canon. One shouldn’t think that this name was forgotten – it is used in its two modern forms, Youri and Georgiy. The two have only become independent names recently; one discovers them to be the same name when one looks into the ancient chronicles.

3) Ryurik = Youri = Georgiy Danilovich in the XIV century

The original of Ryurik is the Great Prince Youri = Georgiy Danilovich of Moscow, who had lived in the early XIV century.

4) The “summoning of the Princes” as the unification of Russia by Youri = Genghis-Khan

As we have witnessed, the chronicle begins the legend of Ryurik with the description of a great embroilment, or a war between the various parts of the Slavic lands, which is a mirror reflection of the XIV century strife that had ended with the unification of Russia by the dynasty of Ivan Kalita and Genghis Khan = Youri = Ryurik after the plea to “come and govern.” The chronicle is perfectly correct to point out that a new and larger state was founded as a result.

5) On the origins of the Varangians

The chronicle explicitly identifies the Varangians as Russians: “And those Varangians baptised Russia the land of Novgorod” ([716], page 16). Some historians try to convince us that Russia had once been the name of an “ancient” Scandinavian tribe, that had heeded to the desperate call of their neighbours from Novgorod and come to the rescue, having abandoned their ancient homeland and settled on the territory of the modern Russia, baptising it by the name of their old birthplace. This “Scandinavian tribe of Russians” had left no mark in the old Scandinavian history whatsoever – no Scandinavian source that dates from the epoch in question mentions the conquest of Russia from the territory of the modern Scandinavia.

According to our reconstruction, Ryurik = Youri Danilovich had been a Russian prince. His troops did invade Scandinavia on their way from Russia (the Horde) to the West and the North-West. Ryurik had originally governed over Rostov, Yaroslavl and the rest of the town agglomeration known as Novgorod the Great. Bear in mind that the chronicle uses the word for referring to the entire Russian land and not just one city ([716], page 16). This is in perfect concurrence with our hypothesis that Novgorod the Great had once been the name for the entire region of Yaroslavl, and all the towns and cities it comprised.

Furthermore – historians themselves tell us that ancient Byzantine documents often used the term “Russo-Varangians”, or simply the Varangian Russians ([804], page 246). Historians hasten to explicate that the name in question is a result of “assimilation” and nothing but:

“The term ‘Russo-Varangians’ (rôssobaraggoi) as used in the Byzantine political terminology of the XI century is a direct consequence of the assimilation of the Normans among the Slavs. The term was used for referring to the Russian troops … It is noteworthy that an Icelandic poet did not distinguish between the Slavs and the Greeks back in the day” ([804], page 246, comment 25).

6) Did the name of the Varangians survive on any maps?

Assuming that the Varangians were of Slavic origin, where did they live in Russia? Let us study the map of the world in order to locate places whose toponymy is related to the word “Varangian” in one way or another. We find only one such name in the entire geographical atlas, a rather extensive one ([159]), as one can plainly see from its name index. It is the town of Varegovo (or simply “Varyagovo”, the Russian word for “Varangian” being “Varyag”). It is located at the distance of a mere 30-40 kilometres from Yaroslavl.

This name is the only one whose origins can be traced to the word “Varangian.” The atlas ([159]) contains no similarly-named locations anywhere, be it Scandinavia, America or Australia.

According to N. M. Karamzin, there is a “Varangian Church” in Novgorod, and also a “Varangian Street.” Karamzin is of the opinion that the Baltic Sea identifies as the Varangian Sea ([362], Volume 4, P. Stroyev’s index). There is nothing surprising about it – the Russians (or the Varangians) used to trade with the West, using the ports in the Baltic sea for this purpose in particular, hence the name: Varangian = Russian. Let us reiterate that, according to the chronicle ([716], page 16), the Varangians and the Russians were two names of the same nation. However, the hypothesis of Karamzin about the Varangian Sea being solely the Baltic Sea is rather flimsy, as we shall demonstrate below.

7) The Varangians as another word for “enemy”

Let us once again ponder the true identity of the Varangians. Our hypothesis about the origins of the name is as follows: the Varangians translate as “enemies” (“vorogi” or “vragi” in Russian, cf. “Varyagi”). In other words, the name doesn’t mean any particular nationality, but rather refers to the hostile nature of the nation referred to in this manner – namely, the hostile forces that came to power in the unified Russia. Bear in mind that we’re discussing the epoch of the early XIV century, which is the time when the gigantic Empire of Genghis-Khan = Georgiy was founded. From the viewpoint of a scribe from the Western Slavic territories (the author of the first chapters in the Povest Vremennyh Let), the successful merging and military empowerment of the Eastern lands (Yaroslavl et al) under Genghis-Khan and Batu-Khan = Ivan Kalita had been an invasion of the enemy, or a “Varangian invasion.” This would serve as a pretext for declaring “the Mongols and the Tartars” enemies of Russia in some of the documents.

Our summary is as follows: the beginning of the Povest Vremennyh Let reflects the position of the Western Russian (or Western Slavic) principalities and their dwellers, who said: “our foe Ryurik (the Varangian) came to power in Russia”).

These sentiments could only be expressed by the defeated Western party, whose political merging with the Empire must have come as a result of an annexation. This might be the very reason why the Eastern Russian dynasty of George = Genghis-Khan (the Horde) was declared foreign and maligned in general by some of the scribes – the defeated Westerners were naturally very vocal in the expression of displeasure, and their irate voice was heeded by their successors. It is easy to understand the defeated party – the unification of the Empire must have been accompanied by massacres of opposition. Even today we often witness how the voice of a defeated party rings louder than that of the victor; a defeated party finds consolation and sympathy easily, and has good chances to be treated benevolently by future scribes.

8) The opposition between the Western Slavs with the Russians, or the foes from the East

The above concept can easily be proved by historical documents; indeed, the Radzivilovskaya chronicle is telling us about the Varangian Russians, or the Russian foes, q.v. in [716], page 16. Furthermore, the chronicle claims that “those Varangians [or enemies – Auth.] had given the Russian land its name” ([716], page 16). Everything is perfectly clear – the word “Russian” refers to an ethnic group, but in a rather general sense of the word, insofar as it is applicable to ancient nations of the XIII-XIV century at all. The word “Varangian” is nothing but an emotional characteristic of the nation by the Westerners. Quite naturally, the Western Slavs initially try to oppose the Eastern foes (the Russians). Indeed, Russian chronicles tell us so directly:

1. The people of Novgorod have to pay tribute to the Varangians (or the enemies): “paying tribute to the Varangians from across the sea” ([716], page 56).

2. We learn of the violence wrought upon the Slavic tribes (the Krivichi and the rest) by the Varangian foes: “the Varangians that live there wreak violence upon the Slavs – the Krivichi, the Meryane and the Choud” ([36], page 56). A hostile and violent nation would naturally be classified as a foe; hence “Varangians.”

3. Some of the cities had initially united and tried to banish the Varangian foes and rule autonomously: “And so the Slavs did rise, the Krivichi, and the Meryane, likewise the Choud, agaist the Varangians, and banished them, and made them flee over the sea; and so they had founded towns and cities, and started to rule over their own lands” ([36], page 56).

4. All these efforts were in vain – what ensued was a period of civil wars and anarchy: “and town rose against town, and there was violence and bloodshed galore” ([36], page 56). The warring nations finally invited the Varangian Russians to govern them: “And they fared across the sea to the Varangians … all the other Russian tribes – the Choud, the Krivichi, all the Slavs, and the rest of them, and they said unto the Varangians: ‘Our land is great and abundant, yet we can find no peace between ourselves. Come now, and reign over us’” ([36], page 56).

Russia was united by Genghis-Khan – Georgiy, or Youri, and then Batu-Khan = Ivan Kalita. Chronicles tell us that Russia received its name from those rulers ([36], page 56).

9) Apart from the Varangian foes, chronicles also mention allies

However, if the Varangians were the foes of the scribe’s nation, he must also mention allies. We do indeed find them reflected in the chronicle, which tells us about the allies right after it finishes with its foes, the Russians. The allies of the scribe’s nation are the Goths and two other nations called Ouremyane and Inglyane (see [716], page 16).

Bear in mind that the Russian words for “other” and “friend” are very similar – “drougoi” and “droug”, respectively. The word “drouzie” used in the original is most likely to be the latter and not the former – it would be an obvious thing to do for the chronicler to mention friendly nations alongside enemy nations. We consider this interpretation of the text to make perfect sense.

Thus, the chronicle in question tells us about the friends and the foes of the Western Slavic scribe’s nation.

10) “Fryagi” and “Fryazi” as two other forms of the word “vragi” (“enemies”). The identity of the “Fryagi” who stormed Constantinople in 1204

Nowadays it is presumed that the Varangians (the foes) are also mentioned in the ancient chronicles under the alias Fryagi, or Fryazi. Some historians (M. N. Tikhomirov, for instance; see [841]) are of the opinion that the nation known as Fryagi, Fryazi and Fryaziny can be identified as the Italians – not even all Italians, but the Genoese in particular. One cannot help mentioning that a great many texts speak of the Fryagi and no other nation, be it Italians or Western Europeans in general; this leaves one with the opinion that the entire Western world had been populated by the Genoese in the eyes of the Russian scribes, who wrote of no other nation but the Fryagi.

This is possible; however, one must by all means note that the Russian word for enemy (“vrag”) has the dialect form “vrazhina” – same as “frazhina” or “fryazina”, bearing in mind the flexion of the sounds Zh and Z.

Our hypothesis is as follows. Italians, among others, could indeed be referred to as Fryazi or Fryagi – however, this name has got nothing in common with any mythical nations that had disappeared without a trace. Therefore, some part of Russians may have perceived them as enemies at some point in time, and called them respectively. This is hardly surprising – there have been many Roman Catholics among the Italians starting with the XVI-XVII century, and Orthodox Christians may have treated them as a hostile power during certain historical epochs.

There used to be villages of Fryazino and Fryazevo to the North of Moscow; they still exist as satellite towns. These villages were presumably populated by Italian immigrants. Could those have been regarded as foes? See [841], pages 116-117 for further reference. The fact that the Fryagi (or the Fryazi) aren’t an actual nationality, but rather a form of the word vrag (enemy) becomes obvious from the ancient Russian account that tells about the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 (see the Almanac entitled “Old Russian Tales”, Moscow, 1986). It is common knowledge that the crusaders were of the utmost ethnical diversity; however, the chronicle uses the word “fryagi” for referring to the invaders, without using the term “crusader” once. If we are to follow the Scaligerian-Millerian point of view, we shall have to think that the author had considered all of the crusaders to have come from Genoa. We are of the opinion that everything was a great deal simpler in reality – the scribe calls the invaders “enemies”, and that is hardly a term that anyone could apply to a single nationality. Therefore, our interpretation of these references makes everything fall into place – the capital was taken by some hostile power referred to as “fryagi” or “the foes.”

11) The city of Novgorod founded by Ryurik and its true identity

Ryurik, or Youri, had founded the city of Novgorod upon River Volkhov. Everything is quite correct – apparently, the city in question is Yaroslavl on River Volga, Volkhov being an early version of the latter’s name. It wasn’t until the migration of the name “Novgorod” to its current location due to some historical sleight of hand that the original name of Volga had moved to the northwest and became identified with the river that runs through the modern Novgorod, known as Volkhov to date.

Geographical names were subject to migration and multiplication, as we have demonstrated many a time. However, it is also possible that the modern Novgorod had once been founded by the natives of the original Novgorod, or Yaroslavl, who had baptised the local river with the familiar name of Volkhov, or Volga - a possible derivative of “vlaga” (water, moisture etc.), whereas the town became known as Novgorod (cf. Moscow, St. Petersburg and Odessa in the USA).

12) The meaning of the word Ilmer

Ryurik (Youri) founds Novgorod next to Ilmer. What could this word possibly mean? The chronicle mentions the nation of Mer, whose capital had once been in Rostov – right next to Yaroslavl.

13) The real location of Ryurik’s capital

We have thus found virtually all of the geographical names mentioned in the tale about “the summoning of Ryurik.” All of them pertain to the region of Yaroslavl; this is also confirmed by the fact that all the towns and cities mentioned in the chronicle are located in the same area – Polotsk, Belozersk, Rostov and Murom. The geographical location of Ryurik’s capital is therefore indicated perfectly unequivocally – it could have been Rostov or Yaroslavl, but certainly not the modern town of Novgorod upon the modern River Volkhov.

14) The foundation of Kiev

The “Archangelsk Cronograph” dates the very dawn of Russian history to the alleged year 852 A.D., telling us that “there were three brothers – Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv. Kiy had founded the city of Kiev” ([36], page 56).

We are of the opinion that the passage in question refers to the Western Slavs – the name Shcheck sounds similar to “Czech”, whereas “Khoriv” could be a reference to Croatia or the Croatioans. We have already cited Morozov’s opinion about the first chapters of the Povest Vremennyh Let containing a significant layer of Byzantine events, with Byzantium given priority over Russia. One must also remember that the mediaeval English sources had used the word Chyo for Kiev, as well as the names Cleva and Riona ([517], page 262). However, Chyo is most likely to be another name of Isle Chyos (Khios) in the Aegean Sea right next to Greece. Could the Povest Vremennyh Let be telling us about the foundation of the Czech and Croatian kingdoms, likewise the kingdom of Chyo (Chyos). This is perfectly natural for a Byzantine-influenced source.

2.1.3. The fastest and most comfortable way from Greece to Rome, and the location of the famous “Graeco-Varangian Route”

Since both Greece and Italy are Mediterranean countries, common sense suggests sailing westward across the Mediterranean – it would take one about two days to get to Rome from Greece. However, we are being told that ancient seafarers were accustomed to taking an altogether different route. They would set sail from Greece, their ships loaded with weapons, livestock, grain, textiles and building materials, and head towards the Bosporus in order to get to Rome – opposite direction, no less. Having passed through the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, they would reach the Black Sea, sail towards its northern coast, and enter the Dnepr estuary. Upon reaching the source of Dnepr, the seafarers would unload the ships and drag their ships and their wares across the strip of dry land between Dnepr and the river Lovat, which amounts to 150 kilometres, no less. They would have to cross the Western Dvina on their way – a large navigable river flowing towards the Baltic Sea, right where they had to get; it is much wider than the Lovat to boot. However, instead of using the Western Dvina for sailing towards the Baltic Sea, they would cross the river, unload their ships once again and carry on towards the Lovat. A few dozen kilometres further on they would reach Lovat and sail on to Lake Ilmen then towards the modern Volkhov, Lake Ladoga, and, finally, the Baltic sea with its storms and the perils of Kattegat and Skagerrak. Having crossed it, the seafarers would reach the North Sea, the foggy coast of Britain, pass the English channel, the coastline of Portugal, France and Spain, and then the Gibraltar, returning to the Mediterranean that they had left many months ago for some unfathomable reason.

We are told that the traders circumnavigated the entire continent of Europe, and this isn’t a fancy of ours! This is the very route insisted upon by the modern historians who identify the Varangian Sea as the Baltic Sea. The Povest Vremennyh Let tells us the following: “From the Varangians to the Greeks, then further north along the Dnepr, dragging the ships towards the Lovot, and then to the Great Lake of Ilmer; from that lake they went to the Great Lake of Nevo via Volkhov and then to the Varangian Sea, making their way toward Rome, and then to Czar-Grad through the very same sea” ([716], page 12).

We have been quoting the Academic Moscow Copy of the Radzivilovskaya Chronicle; however, since the chronicle claims that the last part of the itinerary lay through one and the same Varangian sea, up until Constantinople, which makes it the same sea for Rome, Constantinople and the modern St. Petersburg. The Varangian Sea can therefore just as easily be identified as the Mediterranean, and indeed the whole Atlantic.

The clumsiness of this interpretation (which is nonetheless considered “traditional”) becomes instantly obvious. This is why Academician B. A. Rybakov, for instance, declares this entire fragment with the description of the itinerary to be of an apocryphal nature, written by some scribe who needed to find “a route that would lead from the Black Sea to Rome through the Russian lands” ([753], page 127). Therefore, the hypothetical identification of the Varangian Sea as the Baltic rests upon the extremely convoluted and a priori distorted description of the Graeco-Varangian trading route.

Had the itinerary in question coincided with the reconstruction suggested by the modern historians, one should expect an abundance of trade-related findings in this region, even despite the fact that a large part of the “route” had presumably led through marshland wilderness. However, specialists in numismatic history tell us the following in this respect:

“The intensity of the economical and political relations between Russia and Byzantium notwithstanding, the coins of the latter are all but absent from the Eastern European hoardings of the IX-X century. This is all the more bizarre considering the activity of the traders on the Graeco-Varangian trading route starting with the middle of the IX century and on – one should expect to find the production of the Constantinople mints all across this region” ([756], page 59).

It is perfectly obvious that the real route had been elsewhere.

Our hypothesis is as follows: the name “Varangian” could be applied to different seas – the Baltic, the White and the Mediterranean; possibly, others as well. If the Russo-Varangians can be identified as the Russians who had traded with many foreign countries, some of the main seafaring routes could have been dubbed Varangian, or Russian (bear in mind that the Black Sea had once been known as the Russian Sea, for instance).

The correctness of this theory is confirmed by the comments from N. M. Karamzin’s History (see the “Baltic Sea” entry in the alphabetical index of geographical names in [362], Book 4). Indeed, N. M. Karamzin is forced to identify the numerous seas mentioned in the chronicles as the Baltic Sea, following the Scaligerian-Millerian historical geography (the White Sea, the Venetian Sea, the Varangian Sea, the Eastern Sea and the Great Sea). The White Sea is known quite well, and it is definitely not the Baltic Sea. The Venetian Sea is clearly the Mediterranean. We see numerous traces of the extensive “Varangian geography.” Let us reiterate – the only geographical name related to the word “Varangian” found on the modern atlas ([159]) belongs to the town of Varegovo in the Yaroslavl region.

2.1.4. The three brothers: Ryurik, Sineus and Truvor. The division of the Russo-Mongolian Horde into the Golden Horde, the White Horde and the Blue Horde in the XIV century

The legend about “the summoning of the princes” also reflects the division of the “Mongolian” (Great) Russia into three parts – the Golden Horde, the Blue Horde and the White Horde. The legend in question relates this event as the division of the state between the three brothers – Ryurik (the elder), Sineus and Truvor. A propos, could the name Sineus be a reflection of the Blue Horde, seeing as how the Russian word for “blue” is “siniy”?

2.1.5. The hypothesis about the origins of the Muslim era of Hegira

The beginning of the Hegira era in Scaligerian history falls over 622 A.D. Morozov voiced a number of considerations in [547] that speak in favour of the following bold hypothesis: the Hegira era really begain in 1318 A.D. and not 622.

Let us add that in this case the beginning of the Hegira era coincides with the beginning of Georgiy’s (Genghis-Khan’s) reign. If we linger upon this, we shall notice the similarity between the word Hegira and the name Georgiy (as well as its variants – Gourgiy, Gourgouta etc.). The word Hegira can also be a compound derivative of the two words, Gog and Era – the Era of Gog, the Era of the Goths or the Era of Mongols.

2.2. Batu-Khan identified as Yaroslav, his XIV century original being Ivan Danilovich Kalita = Caliph

2.2.1. A brief biography

Georgiy = Genghis-Khan was killed in a battle at River Sitt, which was nonetheless won by his “Tartar” troops. His brother, Batu-Khan, or Ivan Kalita = Caliph, carried on with Georgiy’s cause. The name Batu must be a derivative of the word “batka” – “father.” The word “batka” is used by the Cossacks for their atamans; also consider the usual way of addressing the Czar in Russia: “Tsar-Batyushka”, which translates as “Our Father the Czar.” The name Kalita is most likely to be a distorted version of the word Caliph.

Phantom duplicates of Ivan Kalita = Batu-Khan include Yaroslav the Wise in the alleged XI century and Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, the legendary founder of Yaroslavl, or Novgorod the Great, in the alleged XIII century (see [994], pages 8-9). The latter character is also credited with the conquest of Kiev around 1330; this dating can hardly be estimated with any degree of precision worth speaking of. Batu-Khan = Ivan Kalita continued with waging wars against his neighbours in the West. It is presumed that he had reached Italy. The unification of Russia and the formation of the cyclopean Empire reached completion during his reign. He had divided Russia between his children shortly before his death. The chronicle mentions this when it tells us about Yaroslav the Wise: “Yaroslav’s children divided the state between themselves, following the will of their father” ([363], Volume 2, Chapter 4, page 45). This is the famous division of Russia between the sons of Yaroslav the Wise. According to our reconstruction, this very division had led to the existence of three states on the territory of Russia; it took place in the middle of the XIV century. Russia became separated into the Greater Russia, the Lesser Russia and the White Russia (also known as the three Hordes – Golden, Blue (the modern Ukraine and Poland) and White. Ivan Kalita is said to have died in 1340.

It is rather noteworthy that the mediaeval authors consider modern Hungary an area conquered by the natives of the Greater Hungary, or the Volga Region ([25]). Herberstein, for instance, reports the same as he describes the region of Yugra in Russia, calling it “the very Yugra that the Hungarians hail from; they settled in Pannonia, and conquered many European countries led by Attila. The Muscovites are very proud of this name [Attila – Auth.], since their alleged subjects had once laid most of Europe waste” ([161], page 163). We hope that the readers paid attention to the most noteworthy mention of the famous Attila in the context of Russian history. We shall refrain from delving deeper into the subject for the time being, and simply remind the reader that, according to the Scaligerian chronology, Attila had died in “times immemorial” – namely, the alleged V century A.D. Thus, Sigismund Herberstein tells us that Attila used to be a Russian military leader.

Also bear in mind that the Hungarians are one of the few linguistically isolated European nations – other Ugro-Finnic European languages include Finnish and related languages in Scandinavia, and the Udmurtian language spoken to the East of Volga, closer to the Ural. Bear in mind that Batu-Khan had sent three armies to Europe; could the ancestors of the present day Hungarians have been one of them?

2.2.2. An attempt of transferring the capital to Kiev

Apparently, Yaroslav the Wise = Batu-Khan = Ivan Kalita had attempted to transfer the capital of the state to Kiev. According to the chronicle, he had “founded a great city [in Kiev – Auth.] … likewise the Church of St. Sophia, having thus transferred the Metropolitan’s diocese here” ([716], year 6545 (1037)). The same event became reflected in the “Tartar” version as the invitation sent by Batu-Khan to Metropolitan Cyril, who travelled from Novgorod to Kiev, as we already mentioned. A propos, the “tomb of Yaroslav” still exists in Kiev. Apparently, Yaroslav the Wise = Batu-Khan had intended to carry on with his military expansion westward and move the capital further west, closer to the front line. Indeed, it is known that he moved towards Hungary next.

2.2.3. The battle between Batu-Khan and the Hungarian king with his allies

“Having captured Kiev, Batu-Khan had moved three armies towards Europe – the first to Poland, the second towards Silesia, and the third to Hungary. The Mongols [= The Great Ones – Auth.] destroyed Vladimir-Volynskiy, Cholm, Sandomir and Krakow on their way, crushed the Teutonic knights as well as the German and Polish troops, and invaded Moravia. They encountered resistance from the part of the Bohemian king’s army, and even stronger resistance in the lands of the Czechs, where they were met and defeated by the united army of the Austrian and Caringian dukes … the Horde turned back and proceeded to join the main forces in Hungary. By that time the country had already been invaded by Batu-Khan, who had crushed the troops of Bela, King of Hungary. The latter brought a large army to Pest that consisted of Hungarian, Croatian and Austrian troops, as well as French knights and numerous armed parties of various princes. The Mongols [= The Great Ones – Auth.] had approached Pest and stood there for two months. Then they started to retreat, and the allied forces marched onwards in hot pursuit. For six days they have been on the march, meeting no one but solitary riders here and there. On the seventh day the allies decided to camp in a valley surrounded by hills covered in vineyards, and in the morning they found themselves surrounded by the Mongolian army. The allies tried to attack the Mongols, but were met by a swarm of arrows and stones from catapults. Allies began their retreat towards the Danube in face of heavy casualties. Most of the allied troops were destroyed in the six days that followed, and the Mongols [= The Great Ones – Auth.] captured Pest.

King Bela’s army fled towards Dalmatia pursued by the Mongols [= The Great Ones – Auth.], who kept destroying European cities; they turned back after having marched through Slavonia, Croatia and Serbia … Then Batu-Khan had turned the troops backwards to Lower Volga and Don, having thus concluded his conquest of the Western lands” ([183], Volume 1, pages 30-31).

We have cited a quotation this large with a purpose. The above information is of paramount importance, since the description of this battle between Batu-Khan’s Russian troops and the Hungarian king accompanied by his allies is very similar to the account of the famous Battle of Kalka between the Tartars and the Polovtsy (or the Russians and the Poles, according to our reconstruction).

Let us make a small observation before we carry on with our account of the Battle of Kalka. The capital of Hungary is called Budapest; however, according to the chronicle that we have just quoted, it used to be known as Pest back in the day. Could the prefix “Buda” have come into being after the conquest of Hungary by Batu-Khan and the ancestors of today’s Hungarians? After all, “Buda” and “Batu” are similar enough to each other.

2.2.4. The Battle of Kalka fought between the “Mongols”, or the Russians, and the “Russians”, or the Poles

The Battle of Kalka was fought in the alleged year 1223 by the following two parties: the “Mongols” (or the Russian troops that came from the Vladimir-Suzdal Russia) and the united army of “the Russians and the Polovtsy” ([634], page 149). The Western Russian troops came to aid the Polovtsy (the Poles), although the “Mongols” (Great Ones) recommended them to withhold from taking part in the battle: “We have heard that you are about to come against us at the insistence of the Polovtsy; pray refrain, for we do not mean to take your land, nor your cities, nor the villages, and you are no foes to us” ([643], page 155). However, the Western Russian princes decided to fight on the side of the Polovtsy, or the Poles. The battle ended with a complete rout of the allies.

The Battle of Kalka was preceded by an 8-day retreat of the “Mongols” from the Dnepr (presumably). After a long march, they brought the pursuers to a place called Kalki, or Kalka (a river, according to some reports). The allied forces were ambushed here, and suffered a bitter and crushing defeat. The “Tartars” had chased them all the way back to the Dnepr. The scenario is the same as we remember from the battle between Batu-Khan and the Hungarian king. It would be expedient to carry on with the comparison in a more meticulous manner.

The only difference between the descriptions of the two respective battles is that in the first case the alleged “retreat” of the Mongols began from the Dnepr, and in the second the river in question had been the Danube. In case of the Battle of Kalka, it is presumed that the “Mongols” had retreated until they reached a certain River Kalka that is supposed to flow into the Azov sea ([634], page 552). However, one must instantly note that there is no such river anywhere in the vicinity, nor are there any records of its existence anywhere in the world (see the alphabetical index of the Global Geographical Atlas, Moscow, 1968). Another river where the “Tartars” defeated the Russian princes from the North-East (River Sit) still exists under the very same name as a tributary of River Mologa. Other rivers mentioned in the chronicles retained their former names as well, and exist until the present day.

Our opinion is that “Kalka” or “Kalki” is a corrupted version of the name Kulikovo (field). In Chapter 6 below we shall demonstrate that the Kulikovo Field is most likely to identify as Kulishki, a well-known part of Moscow. According to our reconstruction, Moscow had neither been a capital nor indeed a city at all in the epoch under study, q.v. in Chapter 6. This place had indeed once been surrounded by hills with orchards (the mention of vineyards in the Hungarian sources, q.v. above, does not necessarily imply grapes – this would naturally be an impossibility in these latitudes). However, the Slavic word for “grape” (“vinograd”) had originally meant “orchard” or “a cultivated piece of land” ([782]-[790]). There were many orchards in this part of Moscow, and the toponymy of the local streets and churches, many of which have the root “SAD” (“orchard”) in their names, testifies to that. Old names such as “StaroSADskiy Lane”, “Church of Vladimir in the Orchards” etc. are still encountered on and around the slope of the hill descending towards the Kulishki. Not that we insist that the Battle of Kulikovo took place here; we are merely trying to point out the fact that the name Kalka (Kalki) is very characteristic for Moscow and the area around Moscow (cf. the town of Kaluga etc.).

A propos, the word “vinograd” may have meant “voin-grad” at some point – “warrior town”, in other words, or “military settlement” – it would be more natural to expect the description of a battle to refer to a military settlement and not a vineyard, after all.

Our opinion is that we have two accounts of the same battle before us – they only separated in chronicles, on paper, being reflections of one and the same event.

As for the exact geographical localization of the false retreat of the “Mongols” (Dnepr or Danube), all we can say is that this issue requires additional research. The distance between the Azov and Dnepr roughly equals that between Dnepr and Moscow or Kaluga; it would hardly make any difference to the “Mongols” whether to retreat towards Azov or Moscow (or Kaluga). The Azov region is the localization insisted upon by the modern historians, although there are no signs of any Kalka anywhere near Azov, unlike Moscow. In this case, our reconstruction suggests that the “Mongols” have lured their enemies into following them to the borders of their own Greater Russian principality of Rostov, Vladimir and Suzdal, also known as Novgorod. Moscow had then been located on the borderlands, q.v. in Chapter 6.

One must also mention that the chronicle hardly mentions any “Tartar” chieftains anywhere; all that we learn is that the Tartars were accompanied by “the Brodniki and their leader Ploskinya” ([634], page 159). The only “Tartar” warlord mentioned in the chronicle had therefore been an ethnical Slav – could he have been Russian?

2.3. The “Mongol and Tartar invasion” according to the Russian chronicles: Russians fighting Russians

The very description of the Mongol and Tartar conquest found in the Russian chronicles suggests that the Tartars can be identified as Russian troops led by Russian commanders. Let us open the Lavrentyevskaya Chronicle, for instance, which is the primary Russian source concerned with the epoch of Genghis-Khan and Batu-Khan. This text is presumed to be “a compilation from Vladimir and Rostov chronicles” ([634], page 547). The text contains a great number of literary passages, which are presumed to have been introduced during a later epoch ([634], page 548).

Let us remove obvious stylistic embellishments and consider the remaining skeleton of the chronicle. It appears that the Lavrentyevskaya Chronicle describes the unification of the Russian principalities that took place in the alleged years 1223-1238, the centre being in Rostov, and the main instigator, Georgiy Vsevolodovich, Prince of Rostov. If we compensate for the centenarian shift that we’re already aware of, we shall come up with the beginning of the XIV century. The chronicle relates Russian events, telling us about Russian princes, Russian troops and so on. “Tartars” are mentioned quite often, but we don’t learn of a single “Tartar” leader’s name. All the Tartar victories appear to benefit none other but the Russian princes of Rostov – namely, Georgiy Vsevolodovich, and his brother Yaroslav Vsevolodovich after his death. If we are to replace “Tartar” with “Rostovian”, we shall get a very plausible account of Russian princes unifying Russia.

Indeed – the first victory of the “Tartars” over the Russian princes near Kiev is described as follows. Immediately after this event, when “there was weeping all across the Russian land”, Vassilko, a Russian prince sent to those parts by Georgiy Vsevolodovich (in order to “aid the Russians”, as we’re being told nowadays) turns back from Chernigov and “returns to Rostov, praising the Lord and Our Lady” ([634], page 135). Why would a Russian prince be so overjoyed with a Tartar victory? His praises to the Lord testify to the fact that the victory he expresses gratitude for had been his own; he returned to Rostov triumphant. This identifies the “Tartars” as Russians, making this conflict a mere internecine dissention.

After a brief account of the Rostov events, the chronicle carries on with a grandiloquent description of the wars with the Tartars, who take Kolomna, Moscow, besiege Vladimir (referred to as “Novgorod”, for some reason), and head towards River Syt, which exists to this day (it is a tributary of the Mologa). This is where the battle takes place; Great Prince Youri (Georgiy = Gyurgiy) is killed. Having told us about his death, the scribe appears to forget about the “wicked Tartars” and proceeds to tell us at length about how the body of Prince Georgiy had been brought to Rostov with plenty of ceremony. After the description of Georgiy’s luxurious funeral and a brief panegyric to Price Vassilko, the scribe tells us how “in the year 1238 Yaroslav, son of Vsevolod the Great, was enthroned in Vladimir, and there was much rejoicing among the Christians, who were protected from the Tartar infidels by the hand of Lord Almighty himself” ([634], page 145).

The result of the Tartar victories is therefore as follows. The Tartars have defeated the Russians in a series of battles and seized several key cities of Russia. Then the Russian troops are put to rout in the decisive Battle of Syt. The Russian forces were bled dry by this defeat. Historians are trying to convince us that this defeat had marked the beginning of the horrendous “Mongolian” yoke, with fields covered in bodies of warriors and cruel foreigners ruling over the land. The independent existence of Russia ceases, and the country is immersed into darkness.

The readers may well expect an account of how the surviving Russian princes, unable to provide any kind of military resistance, were forced to go and negotiate with the Khan. Actually, where was the Khan located? Since the Russian troops of Georgiy are supposed to have been crushed, one should expect his capital to be taken by a truculent Tartar invader – the new ruler of the country.

What does the chronicle tell us? It instantly forgets about the Tartars, telling us about the Russian court in Rostov and the ceremonial burial of the Great Prince who had perished in battle. His body is taken to the capital – however, we find no Tartar Khan there, but rather the Russian brother and heir of the deceased Georgiy – Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. Where did the evil Tartar khan go, then, and why should the Christians in Rostov rejoice in so strange and inappropriate a manner? It turns out that there has never been any Tartar khan – Yaroslav is the next Great Prince who takes the power in his hands, while the Tartars disappear without a trace. All is peaceful; the scribe tells us about the birth of Yaroslav’s daughter and makes a passing reference to the Tartars taking Kiev and moving onward towards Hungary ([634], page 148).

Our opinion is that what we see described here is the unification of the Vladimir and Suzdal Russia by the Great Princes of Rostov, who had won the decisive Battle of Syt. However, Great Prince Georgiy (aka Genghis-Khan) dies in battle; his brother Yaroslav is the next Great Prince, also known as Ivan Kalita = Caliph. Yaroslav (or Ivan) transfers the capital from Rostov to Vladimir or to the city of Yaroslavl that he had founded, also known as Novgorod the Great ([634], page 145).

The above chronicle already uses the name Novgorod for referring to Vladimir, which demonstrates that there had already been some confusion between the two in that epoch ([634], page 138). Let us remind the reader of our hypothesis that Lord Novgorod the Great had been the name of the entire domain of the Great Prince comprising Vladimir, Yaroslavl, Rostov etc., and not a single city. Therefore, the conquest of Novgorod as mentioned in the Lavrentyevskaya chronicle may mean the initial conquest of this region by the Prince of Rostov.

By the way, we are also beginning to realise why Novgorod was called Novgorod, or the “New City” – apparently, Rostov was known as the “Old Town” ([839], page 36). Thus, the capital was transferred from the old capital (Rostov) to the New City, or Novgorod (Vladimir or Yaroslavl).

The Lavrentyevskaya chronicle tells us further about the “Tartars” taking Kiev and crushing the Hungarians in the reign of the Great Prince Yaroslav ([634], page 148).

3.

The Tartar and Mongol Yoke in Russia as the period of military rule in the united Russian Empire

3.1. The difference between our version and the Millerian-Romanovian

The Millerian and Romanovian history considers the epoch of the XIII-XV century to have been a dark age when Russia had been ruled by foreign invaders. On the one hand, we are told that the crushed and defeated Russia languishes in the miserable state of an imperial province, with the centre of the empire located in the faraway, mysterious and mythical Orient. On the other hand, both Russian chronicles and foreign reports describe the Mongolian Empire as a country populated by the Russians for the most part, governed by the Great Princes and the Mongol Khans. It is likely that the word “Mongol” means “The Great” and is a shorter form of the full title of the Great Prince. Russian chronicles simply call the Khan Czar. Below we shall relate our concept of this period in Russian history, which differs from the traditional version in the interpretation of known facts primarily – we aren’t presenting any new historical facts, yet we suggest an altogether different approach to the history of Russia. Apart from that, the dynastic parallelism between different epoch of Russian history and the resulting compression of the latter has been discovered by the authors and can definitely be regarded as a new scientific fact.

3.2. Alexander Nevskiy = Berke-Khan. His original: Simeon the Proud or Chanibek-Khan (the XIV century)

After the death of Ivan Kalita = Batu-Khan = Yaroslav in the XIV century, Russia (or the Horde) became divided between his children – the Khans. N. M. Karamzin tells us the following:

“The Children of Yaroslav [the Wise – the double of Ivan Kalita – Auth.] divided the State between themselves, following the will of their father. Izyaslav’s region included Novgorod, Poland and Lithuania, spanning the huge area between Kiev and the Carpathians in the South-West. Prince of Chernigov also took the faraway Tmutarakan, Ryazan, Murom and the lad of the Vyatichi; as for Vsevolod, his domain in Pereyaslavl became complemented with Rostov, Suzdal, Beloozero and the Volga region [or the Kingdom of Volga, as the Golden Horde was often called in chronicles – Auth.]. The Smolensk region included the modern Smolensk province, as well as parts of the Vitebsk, Pskov, Kaluga and Moscow regions” ([363], Volume 2, Chapter 4, page 45).

The last principality mentioned by Karamzin is White Russia or the White Horde, a mediaeval Russian principality whose capital had been in Smolensk initially; it had included Moscow as well.

The title of the Great Prince or the Great Khan went to the son of Ivan Kalita = Batu-Khan, Simeon the Proud, whose phantom duplicate in the XIII century is Alexander Yaroslavich Nevskiy. We shall be using the latter name for the most part, since it is known to virtually everyone. Other duplicates of the same historical figure are Chanibek-Khan in the XIV century and Berke-Khan in the XIII.

The expansion of the Horde was frozen during the reign of Alexander, and the principal focus of attention shifted towards the internal affairs of the Empire. Having become the Great Prince (Berke-Khan), Alexander Nevskiy “didn’t go to his domain in Kiev, but headed towards Novgorod instead” ([435], page 193). The capital wasn’t transferred to Kiev, although Alexander’s father, Batu-Khan = Ivan Kalita, had intended to implement this, q.v. above. However, Kiev became the centre of the Severskaya Land (Ukraine-to-be). Another principality whose formation dates to this epoch is the White Russia or the White Horde, which later became known as Lithuania. The principal position was occupied by the Golden Horde, or the Volga Region, whose centre had been in Novgorod, or the Vladimir-Suzdal Russia (Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vladimir, Rostov and Suzdal). This is where the Khan, or the Great Prince, had lived.

We are now entering an epoch of state construction and organization. A double civil and military governing system was introduced. Supreme power had been in the hands of the warlords known as Khans and ruled by the Great Khan = The Great Prince. Local princes governed over towns and cities; their responsibilities included tax collection (one tenth of all property and every tenth citizen) for the benefit of the Horde, or the army. The domains of the Great Princes were exempt from this taxation ([435], page 189).

3.3. The Sarays as the headquarters of the Great Princes, or Khans

We shall proceed with a more detailed relation of the concept that was first voiced in the Introduction to the present book.

The army of the Russian “Mongolian” = Great Empire had been numerous, with cavalry comprising the majority. This army had been professional – the soldiers, or Cossacks, were recruited as children and didn’t marry. Agriculture had been strictly forbidden for them ([183], page 36). Such an army required depots and storage facilities in general, as well as winter camps. These places were called Sarays – the word saray is still used in the Russian language and stands for a storage facility. The main military potential of the Horde was apparently concentrated in the Volga region and the Golden Horde, which was given priority. This is why we see the so many cities in the Volga region and Russia in general whose names include the root SAR – SARatov, TSARitsyn, ChebokSARy, SARansk, ZARaisk, SARay, SARapoul, SARny etc. Actually, the very word Czar (Tsar) consists of the very same root, which was pointed out by Morozov. We see the name Saray in a great many places up to the Balkans – the city of Sarayevo, for instance. It is supposed that the Mongols had reached those parts as well.

3.4. Imperial communications

As we mentioned in the Introduction, this is also the epoch of communication construction; the issue had been vital for the enormous Empire:

“There were lines of postal communication that connected Saray, the centre of the Golden Horde, with every province; they reached for thousands of verst, and were served by up to 400 thousand horses and a whole army of attendants. Travellers moved along these highways with the speed of up to 250 verst per day. Missives delivered by mounted couriers were also doubled by foot couriers, who could run up to 25 verst [1 verst = 3500 ft. – Transl.] in a day” ([183], Volume 1, page 42).

The Empire had thrived on trade as well:

“The territory of the Golden Horde occupied the intersection of old trading routes that went from the Black Sea coasts to the North and the West via the steppes adjacent to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea … Most of the territory adjacent to the actual River Volga had been in the hands of the Tartars and the Mongols, and this river had been a very important trading route indeed, which became especially vital in the XIV century, when the relations with Russia stabilized in some way … another important trading route of the XIV-XV century had been the Don, also controlled by the Tartars, who had ruled over the city of Azak (Azov) in the Don estuary. This city had been a prominent trade terminal and a connexion between the sea and river traders, and also the caravans that went northward and eastward” ([674], pages 43-44).

Let us remind the reader that the Don Cossacks are certain that the Azov region had once belonged to them ([183], Volume 2). Therefore, the “Tartar control” over the Azov region serves as yet another evidence to the fact that the Tartars and the Cossacks are the same:

“The Don route was closely related to the Volga route; there had been a portage between the two where the channels of the two rivers are close to each other … The Golden Horde had traded with Central Asia, Italian colonies near the Black Sea, Byzantium and Egypt; this made Saray an international trading centre, where one could find any Oriental ware as well as Russian furs, leathers etc. … the Khans of the Golden Horde benefited from this trade tremendously, since they collected the numerous taxes paid by the traders … the Mongol Khans introduced security garrisons that guarded the caravan routes in Persia, and the caravans paid special fees for passing through the guarded territory” ([674], page 45).

At the same time, Arab authors of the XIII-XIV century wrote that the Volga was filled with Russian ships ([674], page 45). We see that trade had been one of the primary activities of the Russians in this epoch, hence the numerous references to the Russian traders in the Horde. Foreigners didn’t distinguish between them and the Mongol traders, which is quite natural, seeing as how “Mongol” translates as “the great.”

It is presumed that the “Mongolian” Empire had sold “Russian slaves”, which would be perfectly natural, had the Scaligerian-Millerian version of history been correct – evil invaders selling the conquered nation off as slaves to faraway countries. However, documents leave us with a different impression – there were just as many Tartars among the slaves coming from Russia as there were Russians ([674], pages 34-40). Slave trade had indeed been very common in the XIV century; however, slaves were people of all nationalities and ethnic groups – Russians, Tartars etc.

Thus, the Great = “Mongolian” conquest had led to the formation of the Empire, whose centre was in Russia, playing a key part in international trade; one could find goods from everywhere in the world here. Modern archaeologists occasionally find relics testifying to the splendour of the period, and naturally misdate them to the “pre-Mongolian” period. An example testifying to this can be found below.

In fig. 5.1. we see a golden princely necklace with four golden medallions about 10 centimetres in diameter. The medallions are held together by openwork beads; this luxurious necklace was found on the old site of Ryazan in 1822 and is presumed to represent the XII century Ryazan school of jewellery. One can only imagine the jewellery worn by the Great Princes and their courtiers. Scaligerian history makes it perfectly unclear how this level of luxury could be characteristic for a provincial Russian town – a massive golden necklace covered with filigree and gemstones could hardly be purchased for the proceedings from selling local wares on international markets.

Fig. 5.1. Golden necklace of a prince with golden medallions equalling 10 centimetres in diameter. Presumably, a masterpiece of the Ryazan school of jewellers dating from the early XII century; in reality, the princes of Ryazan couldn’t have afforded such jewellery until the Great = “Mongolian” Conquest, which had placed their lands at the very centre of a worldwide empire, right next to its capital, Novgorod the Great. Postcard published in Moscow by Izobrazitelnoye Iskusstvo Publishers in 1988.

3.5. The Mongols as participants of the XIV century crusades

All the successful XIV century crusades took place with the active participation of the Mongols – Western countries tried to form a union with the Mongols in order to conquer Syria and Egypt. There were many papal envoys sent to Mongolia, likewise envoys of the French king. It turns out that the Mongols had supported the idea of crusades into the Palestine:

“Catholic envoys sent to Mongolia were seeking a union with the Mongols in order to fight against Islam together. The idea of uniting the crusaders and the Mongols against the Muslims, who had seized Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre, had been voiced in the West ever since the conquest of the Muslim Khoresm by Genghis-Khan. Furthermore, the Westerners believed in the legend that there was a Christian state somewhere within the confines of Mongolia ruled by a priest, or Pope John” ([183], Volume 1, page 54).

We plainly see the following:

1. Mongolia had been Christian to a great extent. Below we shall discuss the fact that Khoresm is but the Arabic version of the name Kostroma (a town located near Yaroslavl). Kostroma had been one of the headquarters used by the Great Khan. Let us point out that historians still cannot find the “lost Khoresm.”

2. The Christian Mongolia was ruled by Pope John – this is doubtlessly Ivan Kalita the “batya”, or “father”, also known as Batu-Khan. Apart from that, Genghis-Khan was known as Presbyter Johannes (see the alphabetic index of Matuzova’s book [517]). Also bear in mind the fact that Georgiy and Ivan were brothers.

3. From the traditional point of view, a “state ruled by Pope John” is a total absurdity, which is exactly the way in which the modern historians refer to in. Nevertheless, the Westerners had been convinced that such a state did exist up until the XVII century, no less:

“Papal envoys were welcome guests in Mongolian headquarters, and held many negotiations with the Mongols, who spared the Christian population of Asia Minor and Central Asia [during the crusades! – Auth.]; Christians were promised the return of all the lands seized by the Turks; however, the Mongols demanded that the king of France and other kings swear fealty to Genghis-Khan [aka Great Prince Georgiy – Auth.]” ([183], Volume 1, page 55).

“Khulagu-Khan [another version of Georgiy – Gourgou, a name worn by a great many descendants of Genghis-Khan – Auth.] … had conquered the lands of Asia Minor up to India, and the conquered lands in the West reached Damascus. Baghdad was taken by his troops, the Caliph killed, the city destroyed and the Muslim populace massacred. The same happened in Damascus – the Mongols killed Muslims and protected the Christians. The wife of Khulagu [George – Auth.] had been Christian and a granddaughter of Van-Khan [aka Pope John, or the same old Ivan Kalita = Georgiy = Genghis-Khan – Auth.] … his military commander Kitbok had been a Christian; even Khulagu himself was greatly affected by the Christian creed, and always had a field church near his headquarters … in the same year [the alleged year 1257, or 1357 after the compensation of the centenarian shift – Auth.] Khulagu turned his troops towards Egypt.

The successful campaigns of the Mongols in Asia Minor made all the Christians mirthful [historians are of the opinion that the Christian Russians did not rejoice at the news of the Mongolian conquest – Auth.] – the Mongols were seen as ‘yellow crusaders’ of sorts, who had fought against the infidel Muslims. Khulagu’s headquarters were visited by envoys of the Armenian king, the Prince of Antiochia and Louis IX, King of France” ([183], Volume 1, pages 62-64).

Historians are trying to make us believe that the Muslim pogroms take place around the time that the Mongols decided to accept Islam as their official religion; oddly enough, this “conversion to Islam” resulted in a “better organization” of the ecclesiastical Orthodox hierarchy in the Mongolian Empire and the foundation of the Saray Eparchy in the headquarters of the Khan. Gordeyev reports the following:

“Accepting Islam as the official religion did not affect the attitude towards the Christians – on the contrary, the hierarchy of the Christian Church was re-organised to be more efficient. In 1261 an eparchy was founded in the Khan’s headquarters in the Golden Horde … Metropolitan Cyril … was present at the foundation of the eparchy in Saray” ([183], Volume 1, page 64).

Our opinion is as follows. Islam did not exist as a separate religion back then – the schism between Islam, Orthodox Christianity and the Latin Church took place later, in the XV-XVI century. This is why we see the crusaders as a joint force of the Catholics (Western Europeans), the Orthodox Christians (Russians) and the Muslims (Mongols). It was only in the XVI-XVII century that the Western historians decided to present the old crusades as battles against Islam, since the West had already been at war with the Muslim countries in the XVI-XVII century.

In the second part of the XIV century, “Christianity in Asia was spread by the sect of the Nestorians, who were banished from Byzantium … the sect was named after the Bishop of Constantinople … who had founded it in Mosul; they obeyed a patriarch of their own” ([183], Volume 1, page 54).

This is where the name Muslim comes from – derived from the name of Mosul, a town in Asia Minor. The first Muslims had been the Nestorian Christians. It was only later, when all of the above had already been forgotten by nearly everyone, the schism between the Muslim and the Christian creeds was backdated by circa 600 years.

Part Two

The Battle of Kulikovo

4.

The strife of the late XIV century in the Horde. Dmitriy Donskoi as Tokhtamysh-Khan. The Battle of Kulikovo and the “conquest of Moscow.” A general overview

“H. Fren managed to read the following on the coins of the Great Prince Vassily Dmitrievich

and his father (Dmitriy Donskoi): ‘Sultan Tokhtamysh-Khan, may his years last long’.”

– A. D. Chertkov, Ancient Russian Coins: A Description. Moscow, 1834, page 6).

The present chapter is largely based on many important observations made by T. N. Fomenko, as well as a number of her concepts. Apart from that, the section on the history of the Donskoi Monastery and its connexions with the Battle of Kulikovo.

After the formation of the Great Empire in the first half of the XIV century as a result of Batu-Khan’s conquests (the same historical personality is also known to us as Ivan Kalita = Caliph), the state became divided into the following three parts:

- the Volga Kingdom, or the Golden Horde,

- White Russia, or the White Horde, and

- the Severskaya Zemlya = Ukraine.

Let us say the following about the word “severskaya” – it is related to the words Siberia and sever (“North”) – however, the word in question isn’t necessarily referring to the northern direction (also bear in mind that many mediaeval maps were inverted in relation to their modern counterparts, with the North in the bottom and the South on top (see Chron1 for more examples)).

Towards the end of the XIV century there was a great strife in the Golden Horde, or the Volga Kingdom. About 25 Khans have ruled the country over the 20 years that passed between 1359 and 1380. The strife ends with the famous Battle of Kulikovo, where Dmitriy Donskoi (also known as Tokhtamysh-Khan, according to our reconstruction) had crushed the troops of Mamai, a military leader and the de facto governor of the Horde. We shall withhold from getting into the intricate details of the power struggle in the Horde that had preceded the Battle of Kulikovo.

In Chron5 we shall converse at length about the book of the mediaeval historian Mauro Orbini entitled On the Glory of the Slavs…, published in 1601 and translated into Russian in 1722. Orbini writes the following in his description of the Kulikovo battle: “In the year 6886 since Genesis (accoding to the Russian chronology), Dmitriy, the Great Prince of Russia, had defeated Mamai, King of the Tartars. Three years later he put the troops of this king to complete rout once again – Herberstein is telling us that the bodies of the slain were covering the earth for 13 miles around the battlefield” ([1318], page 90; also [617]). It is however known that the troops of Mamai were crushed by Tokhtamysh three years after the Battle of Kulikovo. This concurs well with our reconstruction, which identifies Dmitriy Donskoi and Tokhtamysh-Khan as the same historical personality.

Let us turn to the famous Battle of Kulikovo. First and foremost, it has to be noted that, according to the Russian chronicles, the reason for the battle had been a borderland dispute between Prince Dmitriy Donskoi of Novgorod the Great, and the Ryazan and Lithuanian princes Oleg and Holgerd. The latter conspired to drive Dmitriy away from the lands of Moscow, Kolomna, Vladimir and Murom, convinced that Moscow was Lithuanian by rights, whereas Kolomna, Vladimir and Murom belonged to the Ryazan principality. They invited Czar Mamai in order to implement this plan (see the “Tale of the Battle with Mamai” ([635], pages 136-137)).

Thus, the chronicles describe the Battle of Kulikovo as a territory dispute for Moscow, Kolomna, Murom and Vladimir. The princes (or the khans) were planning to drive Dmitriy Donskoi away “either to Novgorod the Great, Byeloozero or the Dvina” ([635], pages 134-135). As you may remember, Novgorod the Great identifies as Yaroslavl, according to our hypothesis, while the regions of Byeloozero and the Dvina are the northern neighbours of Yaroslavl. Our reconstruction also suggests that the capital of Dmitriy had been in Kostroma, which is a neighbour of Yaroslavl, q.v. below. Everything becomes perfectly clear – the two princes plotted to drive Dmitriy back to his old capital.

As we know, the battle was won by Dmitriy Donskoi, who had conquered the Ryazan Principality and the eastern parts of Lithuania as a result, establishing himself in Moscow permanently.

5.

The Battle of Kulikovo

5.1. The actual location of the Kulikovo field

Let us consider the historical reports of the famous battle that took place on the Kulikovo field in 1380. Nowadays it is presumed that the Kulikovo field is located between the rivers Nepryadva and Don (presently the Kurkinskiy region of the Tulskaya province, q.v. in [797], page 667) – some 300 kilometres to the south of Moscow, that is. The most famous battle in Russian history is supposed to have taken place here, when the troops of Dmitriy Donskoi met the Tartar and Mongol army led by Mamai.

However, it is common knowledge that no traces of the famous battle were found anywhere on this “Kulikovo” field near Tula. One may well wonder about its real location – after all, there weren’t any weapons or burial mounds found anywhere in the vicinity of Tula – this, in turn, also makes one wonder about whether modern historians and archaeologists have indeed chosen the correct site for excavations.

On 6 July 1995 the “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” published an article by Nikolai Kireyev entitled “Where Are You, Kulikovo Field?” wherein he relates the long and futile history of excavations in the Tula region conducted by the archaeologists in search for the relics of the famous battle misplaced to these parts by the Romanovian historians. Let us cite the conclusions the author of the article arrives to:

“The members of the Tula Archaeological Expedition together with the colleagues from the State Museum of History have been conducting excavations on the Kulikovo field since 1982. More than 350 archaeological relics have been discovered and studied. The general view of the field as it has been over the last two thousand years was reconstructed [? – Auth] … the flora and the fauna of the region, as well as the soil … the 70-kilometre patch was studied by the specialists … who had used geomagnetic photography for this purpose, as well as numerous other methods. A great many trenches were dug; the area was literally combed by soldiers and schoolchildren. There were even a number of attempts to use ESP for the search of the artefacts. However, years and years of research didn’t leave us with a single object that would allow us the claim that the battle in question was fought in the northern part of the field, between river Smolka and the village of Khvorostyanka … However, this time the archaeologists were equipped with state-of-the-art metal detectors manufactured by the Fisher Research Laboratory in the USA. These instruments can find metal on the depth of up to 30 centimetres and detect its type. The results didn’t take long – the very first week brought an arrowhead in the region of Zelyonaya Doubrava, and a few more arrowheads were found near the village of Khvorostyanka, one of them from an armour-piercing arrow, and several belt strands, which used to be a standard ammunition item. The excavations carry on.”

Thus, we learn of a few arrowheads and several belt strands found on the site – too few artefacts for a huge battlefield.

Many of the books written about the Battle of Kulikovo contain photographs of the chain mail that was allegedly found on the Kulikovo field in the Tula region, q.v. in fig. 6.1. However, its excellent condition is highly suspicious for a 600-year old artefact. We are being told that this chain mail, made of very fine metallic rings, had spent 600 years buried in the ground only to be found, unfolded and taken to the museum, with pieces of wet ground gently removed. However, over so many years it would have transformed into a lump of rock and metal that wouldn’t permit so much as to separate individual rings from the caked mass. We are of the opinion that the chain mail in question is of a relatively recent origin and presented as “ancient” in order to provide a single military artefact allegedly found on the “Kulikovo field” near Tula.

Fig. 6.1. Chain mail allegedly found upon the Kulikovo Field in the Tulskaya Oblast. Historians are trying to convince us that this chain mail is some six hundred years old, which is highly doubtful – six hundred years underground would have transformed it into a solid mass of rusty metal with its original shape well beyond reconstruction. Taken from [974].

5.2. Kulishki in Moscow and the Church of All Saints built in honour of the warriors slain in the Battle of Kulikovo on the Slavyanskaya Square in Moscow

Let us begin with the observation that some chronicles tell us directly that the Kulikovo Field used to be in Moscow.

For instance, the famous “Arkhangelogorodskiy Letopisets” describes the reception of the famous icon (Our Lady of Vladimir) in Moscow, during the invasion of Timur in 1402, and tells us that the icon was received in Moscow, “upon the Kulichkovo field.” The full text of the quotation is as follows: “And the icon was brought forth, and Metropolitan Cyprian gathered a great mass of people upon the Kulichkovo field, where today we see a church of stone, the Church of Candlemas, in August, on the 26th day” ([36], p. 81).

The church in question is on the Sretenka street; nearby we find the part of Moscow that is still known under its ancient name of Kulishki.

The opinion that Kulishki had once been a synonym of the Kulikovo Field was popular in Moscow as recently as in the XIX century! For instance, the almanac entitled “Old Moscow” and published by the Commission for the Study of City History gathered by the Imperial Archaeological Society of Moscow ([813]) mentions an “erroneous notion that the name of Kulishki in Moscow is derived from the name of the Kulikovo field” ([813], page 69). The very same page contains the passage that tells us about Kulishki having existed before Moscow.

The Church of All Saints exists in the region of Kulichki to this day: “according to ancient tradition, it was built by Dmitriy Donskoi in commemoration of the soldiers that had died on the Kulikovo field” ([841], page 143). It is referred to in the following manner: “the stone church of All Saints at Kulishki, as mentioned in a written source dating to 1488. The building has survived until the present day” (ibid). Its name has remained the same – “Church of All Saints at Kulishki” (see fig. 6.2); the church stands right in front of the lower exit from the Kitai-Gorod underground station in Moscow, on the square known as Slavyanskaya today, nearby the Moskva River and Solyanka Street, which had once been known as “Kulizhki”, or “Kulishki” ([284], page 53).

Fig. 6.2. The Church of All Saints at Kulishki. According to our reconstruction, the troops of Dmitriy Donskoi had stood here before the Battle of Kulikovo. Photograph taken in 1995.

It is presumed that “the word Kulizhki had stood for “boglands” ([284], page 62). Apart from that, the word “kulizhka” translates as “deforested land cleared for tillage”, according to V. Dahl’s dictionary ([223]). We also learn that “most of the Kulishki area in Moscow had been covered by orchards” ([841], page 143).

The Kulishki region had also included the Pokrovskiye Gate Square; the gate in question had once been known as Kulishskiye.

According to our conception, the famous Battle of Kulikovo has taken place in this part of Moscow; it had resulted in the defeat of Mamai’s troops that came from Western Russia, Ryazan and Poland by Dmitriy Donskoi, also known as Tokhtamysh-Khan. The presence of Polish soldiers in the “Mongolian” troops of Mamai might strike the readers as surprising; however, this is stated in the chronicles quite explicitly, q.v. in CCRC, Volume 25, Moscow & Leningrad, 1949, page 201; see also [363], Volume 5, page 462.

The consensual version claims that Mamai’s troops were put to rout twice in the same year of 1380, the first time by Dmitriy Donskoi and the second by Tokhtamysh-Khan. Our hypothesis identifies the two of them as one and the same historical personality, which makes the second “defeat” a mere ghost duplicate. The “second defeat” of Mamai took place “at Kalki.” As we have already mentioned, “kalki” or “kuliki” are yet another version of the same name Kulishki, or the Kulikovo Field. The etymology of the word can be traced to the words kulachki, kulak and kulachniy boy – fists, fist and fistfight, respectively; it used to mean “place for fist-fighting tournaments.” A propos, Mamai-Khan is called Tetyak in the “Tale of the Kulikovo Battle”: “The godless King Tetyak, who was called devil in the flesh, started to tremble in terror” ([666], page 300). Tetyak might be a variation of the name Tokhta. Later compilers of the “Tale” must have already confused Dmitriy Donskoi = Tokhta-Mysh = Tokhta Meshech, or Tokhta of Moscow, for his foe, and used the name Tokhta for referring to Mamai.

Another little known fact that we must point out is that the name Mamai is a Christian name and can be found in the ecclesiastical calendar to this day. It appears to be a slight corruption of the word mama (mother) or mamin (mother’s); ancient Russians must have had two names of a similar origin – Batiy (Batu) derived from batka (father) and Mamiy or Mamai – “mother’s son.” In fig. 6.3 we see a Georgian embossment of the alleged XI century depicting the Christian Saint Mamai.

Fig. 6.3. St. Mamai. Mediaeval Georgian embossing. Photograph from the article of Prof. V. Beridze in the Nauka i Zhizn magazine, Issue 12, 1966.

The above translates as follows: Dmitriy Donskoi fights against a military leader with a Christian name!

Finally, we must also mention that the name “Kulichkovo”, q.v. above, is persistently read as “Kuchkovo Field” by Romanovian historians (see [284], for instance – or page 143 of [841], where we read that “the Kuchkovo field had been located near the modern Sretenskiye Gate.”

What could possibly be the matter here? Why cannot historians give us a verbatim quotation from the chronicle that calls the field in question Kulichkovo, and very blatantly so? The possible explanation might be their reluctance to provide the readers with so much as an opportunity to trace the obvious connexion between the Kulichkovo Field and the famous Kulikovo Field, the battleground of Dmitriy Donskoi. This reluctance may be of a subconscious nature; however, we consider it to be done in absolute awareness of the purpose and the consequences – in the XVII-XVIII century, at least, when the false interpretation of Russian history came to existence. This also resulted in new geographical localizations of several important events in Russian history.

5.3. The information about the Battle of Kulikovo: origins and present condition

The primary source of data related to the history of the Kulikovo battle in one way or another is the Zadonshchina. According to the Scaligerites, “one has every reason to believe that the Zadonshchina was created in the 1480’s, soon after the Battle of Kulikovo, when Dmitriy Donskoi had still been alive” ([635], page 544).

A later source is the “Tale of the Battle with Mamai”, which “is most likely to have been written in the first quarter of the XV century” ([635], page 552). It is allegedly based on the Zadonshchina; we also learn that “the Tale of the Battle with Mamai contains passages from the Zadonshchina; they were inserted into the original text of this oeuvre, as well as later editions” ([635], page 545). There is also the “Tale of the Kulikovo Battle” as encountered in a number of chronicles. However, historians are of the opinion that it was “created in the middle of the XV century the earliest and pertains to the journalistic genre” ([635], pages 549-550).

The implication is that the Zadonshchina is the primary source. Let us study its actual text.

There are six copies of the Zadonshchina that have survived until our day; the earliest is in fact a condensed rendition of the first half of the book. As for the rest, “the text of the other copies was mangled by the scribes rather severely … Each individual copy of the Zadonshchina contains a tremendous number of defects and distortions, rendering the publication based on a single copy unable to give the readers an impression of the work’s full text, hence the old tradition of reconstructing the text of the Zadonshchina after a comparative analysis of all existing copies” ([635], page 545).

All the copies date from the XVI-XVII century, the sole exception being the earliest one, which contains a mere half of the Zadonshchina and dates from the end of the XV century ([635], page 545).

The fundamental edition of the Zadonshchina ([635]) instantly attracts our attention by its propensity to use italics for a great many geographical locations, indicating that all such fragments were reconstructed by later historians from a comparison of different copies, as it is openly stated on page 545 of [635]. It also turns out that original geographical names were frequently replaced by something entirely different. We often see the names Don and Nepryadva in italics, and this leads us to the following questions: what were the original names as given in the sources, and why were they replaced by Don and Nepryadva?

5.4. Mamai’s headquarters on the Krasniy Kholm (Red Hill) near the Kulikovo Field vs. the Krasniy Kholm, Krasnokholmskiy Bridge and Krasnokholmskaya Embankment in Moscow

It would be expedient for the readers to procure a map of Moscow and use it for further reference. According to the Russian sources, Mamai’s headquarters during the Battle of Kulikovo had been located on a certain Red Hill (Krasniy Kholm), q.v. in [183], Volume 1, pages 98 and 101. Several days before the battle, the Russian “guards of Melik were driven towards Nepryadva and the Red Hill, which gave a unique view of the entire surrounding area, by the Tartar troops” ([183], Volume 2, page 98). During the battle, “Mamai was giving orders to his soldiers from his headquarters on the Krasniy Kholm, accompanied by three princes” ([183], Volume 1, page 101). “Czar Mamai and three evil princes came to the top of a tall hill and stood there in order to observe the bloodshed” ([362], Comment 76 to Volume 1, page 29). Seeing as how there was a Red Hill near the Kulikovo Field, it would make sense to look for a similar name in the vicinity of Kulishki in Moscow. Can we find one?

As a matter of fact, we can. There is a very tall hill right next to the Kulishki; it had once been known as Krasniy Kholm. Its top is the famous Taganskaya square, near the Yaouzskiye Gate. Could Mamai’s headquarters have been located here? Moreover, the famous Krasnokholmskaya Embankment of the Moskva River and the Krasnokholmskiy Bridge can still be found in this very area. The actual Krasniy Kholm isn’t indicated on any maps formally; however, there is a Krasnaya Gorka (another Russian word for “hill”) near the Kremlin, where the old building of the Moscow State University is located ([284], page 52).

The Kulishki field in Moscow is surrounded by several hills, one of them housing the Red Square and the Kremlin; this hill may well have been known as “Krasniy Kholm.” It is possible that the headquarters of Mamai was located on this very hill during the Battle of Kulikovo.

5.5. Kuzmina Gat in the Battle of Kulikovo and the neighbourhood of Kuzminki in Moscow

Mamai’s troops stopped at Kuzmina Gat before the actual battle, q.v. in [635], page 163.

Any Muscovite will instantly recognize the place as the neighbourhood of Kuzminki in Moscow. Across the Moskva river we one finds the large district of Nagatino, whose toponymy hails from the Russian words na gati, or “on the hurdle”, a marshy place with log-roads that would be impossible to navigate otherwise.

Our reconstruction is as follows. Mamai was approaching Kulishki, or the centre of the modern Moscow, from the east, standing on the left bank of the Moskva river – the one where the battle was supposed to be fought.

Dmitriy was approaching the battlefield from the south, being on the right bank of the Moskva. He had to force a crossing before the battle.

The two armies met at the very centre of modern Moscow – at Kulishki, near Slavyanskaya Square and Sretenka Street, q.v. in the map (figs. 6.4 and 6.5).

Fig. 6.4. The route taken by Dmitriy Donskoi’s army to the battlefield. This area is now part of central Moscow, still known as Kulishki. Our reconstruction.

Fig. 6.5. The site of the Kulikovo Battle, or Kulishki in Moscow. We still see a great many monuments related to the Battle of Kulikovo, Dmitriy Donskoi and the name Kulishki.

Another detail to complement the picture is the fact that the troops of Dmitriy spent the night before the battle “on Berezouy” – the name can be translated as “bank” (whereas Mamai’s troops camped at Kuzmina Gat, q.v. in [635], pages 160-161).

It must be said that historians can’t find any traces of the Kuzmina Gat anywhere in the Don region; every single version they suggest contradicts the chronicle data. Historians end up accusing scribes of ignorance and inability to interpret history, writing things like: “one runs into several serious contradictions … Apparently, the identification of the Kuzmina Gat suggested by the researchers is incorrect, or, alternatively, the author of the ‘Tale’ had a very vague notion of both armies’ itineraries” ([631], page 215). The text we quote comes from a voluminous research paper ([631]) under the general editorship of Academician B. A. Rybakov.

5.6. The identification of Kolomna as the starting point of Dmitriy’s march towards the Kulikovo Field

According to the chronicle, Dmitriy’s army set forth from Kolomna, where he went to meet his allies. Nowadays the location in question is identified as the town of Kolomna, some 100 kilometres away from Moscow. This is possible; however, we mustn’t reject another possibility, namely, that the Kolomna in question identifies as the well-known town of Kolomenskoye, which is a part of Moscow nowadays. Let us remind the reader that there had once been a gigantic wooden palace of the Czars on this site.

This hypothesis is also confirmed by the following evidence gathered from the “Tale of the Battle with Mamai.” When Dmitriy had found out about the battle to come, he had ordered his allies to head towards Moscow, which is where they promptly arrived ([635], pages 140-141).

The same chronicle reports a perfectly identical order given by Dmitriy, naming Kolomna as the meeting point this time ([635], pages 142-143). Apparently, what we see two duplicate reports of the same order: the allies of Dmitriy were to congregate in Kolomenskoye, which is in Moscow. The same fragment got into the chronicle twice.

The chronicle keeps superimposing Kolomna over Moscow all the time – for instance, having just told us about the troops gathering in Kolomna, the scribe proceeds to report that Dmitriy’s army set forth from Moscow ([635], pages 144-145). We see yet another identification of Kolomna as the famous Kolomenskoye in Moscow. Furthermore, Tikhomirov reports that “Moscow had been the centre where the troops used to gather from other regions of Russia: ‘… a great many armies headed towards Moscow, heeding the Prince’s call.’ There were troops from Byeloozero, Yaroslavl, Rostov and Oustyug. The Muscovites constituted the majority of the Russian army, as one sees from the report about the regiment disposition in Kolomna and at the Kulikovo Field” ([841], page 47).

We are therefore of the opinion that Dmitriy Donskoi set forth from this very spot, which is the Kolomenskiy district of Moscow nowadays. Where did his army go?

5.7. The Kotly from the Kulikovo Battle and the Kotly in Moscow

According to the chronicle, Dmitriy set forth to march towards “Kotyol” ([635], pages 150-151). Can we find this name anywhere in Moscow? Have a look at the map, and you will instantly see the river Kotlovka near Kolomenskoye in Moscow, as well as the railway station of Nizhniye Kotly, which is also located nearby. A propos, if Dmitriy was marching in this direction indeed, he should have arrived to the vicinity of the Novodevichiy monastery, which is on the other bank of the Moskva river. Let us see whether the chronicle can confirm this.

5.8. The inspection before the battle at the Devichye Field, near the Devichiy Monastery, and the Novodevichiy Monastery on the Devichye Field in Russia

Dmitriy arranged an inspection of his troops “on the Devichye Field.” The following is reported: “more than 150 thousand cavalrymen and infantrymen stood in formation, and Dmitriy rejoiced to see an army this great as he rode out to the vast Devichye Field” ([362], Volume 5, Chapter 1, page 37; also [635], pages 154-155). Furthermore, “The Tale of the Battle with Mamai” tells us explicitly that “in the morning the Great Prince ordered for all the troops to converge upon the field near the Devichiy Monastery” ([635], page 155).

Our reconstruction implies that we should find the Devichye Field somewhere on the territory of modern Moscow. It doesn’t take us too long – one can identify them instantly as the large field in the bight of the Moskva River and the Novodevichiy Monastery located thereupon. This field is quite vast, and had once been officially known as the Devichye Field, q.v. in [554], page 246. Some of the old names have survived until the present day – Devichye Field Drive, formerly just Devichye Field, the Novodevichya embankment and the Novodevichiy Lane. We see the Devichiy Monastery on an old drawing of Moscow dating from circa 1707 entitled “A View of the Zamoskvorechye with the Kamenniy Bridge” ([550], page 163, q.v. in figs. 6.6 and 6.7). In fig. 6.8 one sees an old engraving that dates from 1702 with a view of the Novodevichiy Monastery and its environs as they were at the beginning of the XVIII century ([9], page 407). We can plainly see a large field; it had remained free of any constructions up until the early XVIII century.

Fig. 6.6. A view from Zamoskvorechye with the Kamenniy Bridge. A fragment of P. Picart’s engraving dating from circa 1707. Taken from [550], pages 162-163.

Fig. 6.7. A close-in of a fragment of the above engraving with “Devichiy Monastery.” Taken from [550], pages 162-163.

Fig. 6.8. An engraving dating from 1702 with a view of the Novodevichiy Monastery and its environs. Taken from [9], page 407).

We can therefore see how Dmitriy Donskoi had set forth from Kolomenskoye, crossed the Moskva and came to the Devichye Field, where he had held the inspection of his troops. The chronicle calls this crossing of the river the “passage over the Don”; one gets the obvious idea that the name Don had once been a mere synonym of the word “river.” Let us remind the reader that, according to our reconstruction, Moscow had not yet been founded; therefore, the river may have also been called differently, which makes Don the old name of the Moskva, or simply a synonym of “river.” See more about this below.

It is spectacular that the Zadonshchina is obviously referring to the Moskva River by the name of Don: “Princess Marya had stood atop the walls of Moscow, lamenting: ‘O Don, thou swiftly-flowing river … bring my lord and husband Mikoula Vassilyevich back to me’” ([635], page 105). Therefore, the river Don as mentioned in the chronicle had once run through Moscow, and can therefore be identified as the Moskva River; our hypothesis is confirmed by chronicle data.

5.9. The Devichiy Monastery, the Babiy Gorodok and the Polyanka on the right bank of the Moskva and the possibility of identifying them as the Devichye Field and the place where Dmitriy Donskoi had inspected his troops

Nowadays the Devichye Field is located on the left bank of the Moskva River. However, it is more likely that Dmitriy had inspected his troops as they had stood on the right bank of the river, before crossing it (this is how the “Tale of the Battle with Mamai” reports this event, q.v. in [635], page 155, and fig. 6.4. In this case, the inspection took place in the vicinity of the modern Polyanka, opposite the Kremlin, which had not yet existed in the epoch of Dmitriy Donskoi. The Kremlin was only built in the XVI century, q.v. below and also in Chron6. It appears that the so-called Babiy Gorodok (“maiden town”) had been located on this very site ([803], Volume 2, page 587). It may have been known as Devichiy Gorodok as well (the first word also means “maiden” in Russia). The Babyegorodskiye Lanes were also located in this vicinity. The toponymy of this old Muscovite name is considered nebulous today:

“The Babyegorodskiye Lanes were called after the Babiy Gorodok, a place known since the XVII century … the word “gorodok” [which translates as “small town” nowadays – Transl.] had stood for “fortification” in those days. The legend about the battle between the Tartars and the women who have presumably built the fortification in 1382 is not confirmed by any documental data.”

Quotation given according to [825], page 65. Thus, the place in question is in some relation to the legend of the battle with the Tartars in 1382, around the same time as the Battle of Kulikovo took place – this shouldn’t surprise us, since this legend must be reflecting either the Kulikovo Battle itself, or a phantom duplicate thereof that wound up in 1382 (see more about it below).

V. V. Nazarevskiy reports the following about the “battle with the Tartars” in 1382 and the possible toponymy of the Babiy Gorodok: “there was a legend about several hundred peasant women, who were fleeing from the Tartars and begged to be let into the Kremlin. They were refused entry into the fortress due to fears of famine, so they built a wooden fortification on the right bank of the Moskva and stood fast in defence; the name of the locale is allegedly derived therefrom” ([568], page 68). This report is most probably referring to a military encampment and not a mere wooden fortification.

Modern historians have come up with a great many theoretical explanations of the name; however, the official point of view is that “the exact toponymy of the name [Babiy Gorodok – Auth.] remains unknown – one version suggests that there had once been a fortification here, built by women who sought to defend themselves from enemies; another ponders the possibility that the Tartars may have chosen female slaves on the banks of the Moskva … the most popular explanation is that the river bank was fortified (fortify = “gorodit” in Russian) by piles driven with the aid of hammers known as ‘baby’” (quotation given according to [735], pages 298-301. We are of the opinion that the name in question has got nothing to do with hammers of any sort, and is more likely to reflect the participation of female warriors (amazons) in the Battle of Kulikovo.

Fig. 6.9. Solyanka Street and the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity at Kulishki, located on this street. We see the Kulikovo Field from the same perspective as the troops of Dmitriy Donskoi. The Taganskiy Hill (Red Hill), where Mamai’s headquarters had stood, can be seen in the distance. On the left we see the steep foot of the hill, where the ambush of Vladimir Andreyevich was hidden. The Church of Our Lady’s Nativity at Kulishki stands right where the ambush party engaged in battle with Mamai. The Battle of Kulikovo took place on the Day of Our Lady’s Nativity, which is why the church was built here to commemorate this particular holy day. Photograph taken in 1997.

We also find the Monastery of Our Lady’s Nativity nearby; let us remind the reader that the Battle of Kulikovo took place on the day of Our Lady’s Nativity, and could well have been commemorated by the construction of a monastery with such a name, likewise the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity upon the actual Kulikovo Field (Kulishki in Moscow), according to our reconstruction (see fig. 6.9).

“There is a 1472 chronicle entry that mentions the location of the Goloutvinskiy Yard in this vicinity; it had belonged to the Monastery of Our Lady’s Nativity at Goloutvino, where one finds the famed confessional of Ivan III dating from 1504. The Parish Church of Our Lady’s Nativity is known to have existed since 1625.” Quoting according to [13], #107.

The fact that the Goloutvino monastery was founded to commemorate the Battle of Kulikovo is mentioned by V. G. Bryussova, for instance: “It is a known fact that Dmitriy Donskoi has built several churches to commemorate his victory on the Kulikovo Field – the monasteries at Doubenka, Goloutvino and Stromynka, and brought the construction of the church in Kolomna to completion [it is most likely that the church in question was built in the Kolomenskoye area of Moscow and not the town of Kolomna – Auth.]; the Church of All Saints at Kulishki was built in honour of all the warriors slain in the battle” ([100], page 121).

One has to say that the vicinity of the Babiy Gorodok had been ideal for holding a military inspection; nowadays we find the Oktyabrskaya Square here, as well as the streets Polyanka and Bolshaya Polyanka, whose names imply the existence of a large field in this region.

Let us recollect that the military inspection in question had taken place upon the Devichye Field. Above we already suggested that this field can be identified as the environs of the Novodevichiy Monastery’ however, the monastery in question is somewhat further up the current of the Moskva River, and so Dmitriy would have to make a diversion in order to cross the river here, q.v. in fig. 6.4. It is most likely that Dmitriy had used the Krymskiy Ford, which we find right next to the modern Kremlin – there used to be a ford here, which made it a lot easier to cross the Moskva River. It turns out that the first nunnery in Moscow had once been located right here, near the place where the river Chertoriy used to flow into the Moskva (see [62], page 187). The old way of referring to a nunnery is “devichiy monastyr”, or “monastery for the maidens.” The place in question identifies as the area around the Kropotkinskaya underground station in Moscow. L. A. Belyaev reports the following:

“We see a ‘Church of St. Alexei, the Revered Servant of Our Lord, in the maiden monastery near Chertoriy’ mentioned in the 1514 list of buildings compiled by Aleviz Noviy … One of the candidates for the election held at the Council of 1551 came from ‘Chertoriy, the convent of Alexei’ … a new monastery by the name of Zachatyevskiy was built on this site in 1584” ([62], pages 187-188). See also [331], Volume 1, Annex to Volume 1, Comment 93.

We can therefore see that the first nunnery (devichiy monastyr) in Moscow was located right next to the Devichye Field, where Dmitriy Donskoi had held a military inspection of his troops.

5.10. The crossing of the Moskva

The troops of Dmitriy Donskoi have most probably crossed the Moskva, referred to as “Don” in the chronicles, in the exact same place as we find the modern Krymskiy Bridge nowadays, where there had once been a ford called Stariy (Old) or Krimskiy (Crimean), q.v. in [803], Volume 2, page 407. Historians are of the opinion that there had once been a high road here, one that connected Kiev and Smolensk with Vladimir, Suzdal and Rostov the Great. It had crossed the Moskva where one sees the Krymskiy Bridge nowadays, and went towards the Kremlin, past the villages and meadows on the Moskva bank and further on to the north-west ([803], Volume 2, page 407). This may be the very same ford as Dmitriy Donskoi had used in order to cross the Don, or the Moskva River.

5.11. The Berezouy and the Bersenyevskaya Embankment in Moscow

Before crossing the river, Dmitriy Donskoi and his army had stood at a place called Berezouy ([635], pages 160-161). It is most noteworthy that the embankment of the Moskva River near the Bolshoi Kamenniy Bridge, right next to the Kremlin, which appears to be the place where Dmitriy’s army had crossed the river, has been called Bersenyevskaya since times immemorial. Bersenyevka is a very old Muscovite name; it is presumed to date from the XIV century: “these are the marshlands where the Nikolskiy Monastery of Bersenyevka had once stood, also known as ‘The Old Nikola.’ It is mentioned in chronicle entries dating from 1390 and 1404.” Quotation given according to [13], #24 and 76.

It is easy enough to notice that the words Berezouy and Bersen (Berzen) may easily be different versions of the same name observed in different chronicles.

One must also note that the Romanovian historians cannot find any similarly-called place anywhere in the region of the modern Don; each of their suggestions contradicts the data contained in the chronicles and the “tale.” See more on this lengthy and fruitless discussion in [631], page 214.

5.12. The River Don and its relation to the Battle of Kulikovo. The Podonskoye Yard in Moscow

According to the chronicles, Russian troops had crossed the Don on their way to the Kulikovo Field, q.v. in the CCRC, Volume 37, page 76. Dmitriy, the victor, as well as his brother, had called themselves “Donskoi.”

Nowadays it is presumed that the river in question is the one that we know under the same name today; however, this modern river Don had most often been called Tanais in the Middle Ages – this is how foreign authors of the XV-XVII century had called it when they wrote about Moscovia (see Foreigners on Ancient Moscow. Moscow of the XV-XVII Century ([314]). Most of the Russian towns, cities rivers etc. as mentioned in these traveller notes must have been known to the authors from their Russian interlocutors, since they figure under their Russian names that have remained the same until the present day (however, one may observe a certain similarity between the names Don and Tanais). Apparently, Tanais had been the word used by the Russians when they spoke to foreigners, q.v. in [314], pages 23 and 59, and so on). A propos, River Volga had also been given an alias – Ra ([314], page 23).

The obvious question to ask is as follows: what about the mediaeval location of the Russian river Don? Nowadays this name is associated with just one river; however, we learn that this name had once been a synonym of the word “river” in Russian, and remains one in several other languages to this very day.

The above is a known fact. M. Fasmer’s Etymological Dictionary ([866], Volume 1, page 553) reports that the names Don and Dunai (Danube) had stood for “river” in many ancient languages – not just the Slavonic, but also Turkish, ancient Indian, Zend et al. The word Dunai, which is the Russian name of the Danube, still means “creek” in certain Russian dialects, whereas in Polish it means “deep river with steep banks.” In Latvian, dunavas stands for a spring or a small river ([866], Volume 1, page 553).

Moreover, the names of two other large European rivers, Dnepr and Dniester, are derived from the word “Don” as well, since we see the unvocalized root DN at their beginning. As for Dunai (Danube), one plainly sees it to be another version of the name Don ([866], Volume 1, page 518).

Therefore, “Don” stands for “river”; therefore, any river could be referred to by this name. Since our hypothesis claims the Kulikovo field to have been located on the territory of the modern Moscow, one might well enquire about the location of the river Don – obviously, it can be identified as the Moskva. M. B. Plyukhanova also tells us that “the word Dunai was widely used in Slavic folklore for referring to large rivers – the Don, the Dnepr, the Moskva etc.” ([661], page 18). This fact was eventually forgotten.

5.13. River Mecha on the Kulikovo Field as the Moskva River (or, alternatively, one of its tributaries called Mocha)

According to the chronicle, the Battle of Kulikovo had raged on for an entire day, at the end of which the troops of Mamai started to flee, and were driven towards River Mecha, “where many of the Tartars had drowned” (CCRC, Volume 37, page 76). Mamai himself survived, accompanied by several warriors. Therefore, River Mecha must be large enough for a human to drown there, located next to the battlefield, since all of the events took place on the same day. Where could this river possibly be? Nowadays one can find a small river called Krasivaya Mecha in the Tula region, where the battle is presumed to have taken place. However, one must bear in mind that no traces of the battle were found anywhere in this area; the very name could have appeared here a great deal later, when the omniscient historians decided that the Battle of Kulikovo was fought in the Tula region. This resulted in the construction of a monument to the heroes of Kulikovo in 1848-1850 and the foundation of a museum in these parts ([797], page 667). The name Krasivaya Mecha may well have been coined around the same time, so that the tourists would have sights to see.

However, if the Battle of Kulikovo was fought on the territory of the modern Moscow, where can we find River Mecha? The answer is simple – it is either the Moskva, or Mocha, its 52-kilometer-long tributary ([841], page 8). The names Mecha and Mocha are all but identical. However, the tributary in question flows into River Pakhra first, which, in turn, flows into the Moskva; the modern Mocha is located at some distance from Moscow.

Still the chronicle is most likely to be referring to the Moskva itself – a large river next to the Kulishki Field. The defeated troops of Mamai were driven towards the Moskva, and a large number of warriors could have drowned there. The name Mecha might also be a variation of the word Moskva. The matter is that the name Moskva stems from the name Mosokh, or Meshech, q.v. above – MSCH unvocalized. Also bear in mind that many Russian chronicles came from Poland – Königsberg etc. (see above).

5.14. River Nepryadva on the Kulikovo Field and the Naprudnaya River on the Kulishki field in Moscow. River Neglinka in Moscow

The Battle of Kulikovo took place on River Nepryadva (CCRC, Volume 37, page 76). This river is mentioned in many chronicles that write about the Kulikovo battle; apparently, it was small, and ran right across the battlefield, and some of the warriors stood and fought in the river.

Can we locate a similarly-named river in Moscow? We can indeed – river Naproudnaya, also known as Samoteka – it runs right across the Kulishki Field ([284], page 54). One gets the distinct impression that the name Nepryadva is but a version of the name Naprudnaya (it is derived from the Russian na prudu or na prudakh, - “next to a pond” or “surrounded by ponds”, respectively).

Moreover, Naprudnaya River flows through the Kulishki in Moscow, or the Kulikovo Field itself. Indeed, we learn of the following: “The primary … elevated area follows … the flow of the river Naprudnaya (Samoteka), and then the river Neglinnaya, right into the Kremlin … then alongside the streets Sretenka and Lubyanka (the ancient Kuchkovo Field) and into Kitai-Gorod” ([284], page 54). All of the above comprise the greater Kulikovo Field in Moscow.

The name Naprudnaya (Nepryadva) is one that we expect to encounter here, since there have always been many ponds in Moscow. Related names that have survived until this day include the Naprudniye Streets (the 1st and the 2nd), the Naprudniy Lane, Prudovaya Street, Prudovoy Drive and so on ([858]).

Moreover, there used to be a village called Naprudskoye to the north from the Kremlin, upon river Yaouza ([841], page 125). The names Nepryadva and Naprudnaya are similar – the ease of the transformation is obvious from another pond-related name (Prudovaya Street). A river by the name of Naprudnaya could have eventually become Naprudovaya and then Nepryadva.

Bear in mind that the name Nepryadva is italicised in some modern editions of the Zadonshchina (although we see the name sans italics as well). The italics mean that the name was “reconstructed” by someone in this particular instance.

Another river that had once flown through the Kulishki in Moscow is the Neglinka, which used to flow into the Moskva. It is a small river. Another name of the Kulishki was “Kuchkovo Field at Neglinnaya” ([841], page 51). The prefix “NE” in the name of a river is a rare occurrence; the names of the two rivers may have become confused due to the former existence of a weir and a pond upon the Neglinnaya, right next to the Kremlin. This is how Sigismund Herberstein described the area in the XVI century: “the source of the Neglima (Neglinnaya) is lost in the marshes; there is a weir upon the river near the city, right next to the strongest citadel [the Kremlin – Auth.]; it forms a reservoir, fills the rows before the citadel … and flows into the Moskva close nearby” ([314], page 15).

5.15. The ambush of Vladimir Andreyevich on the Kulikovo Field and the Vladimirskaya Church in Moscow

The outcome of the Kulikovo Battle was decided by the ambush party led by Prince Vladimir Andreyevich and his military commander Dmitriy Bobrok. The battle was won due to their participation; their engagement in military action marks a break point in the course of the battle, and is related in detail in the “Tale of the Battle with Mamai” ([635], pages 177-179). It would be natural to expect some memory of the ambush party to survive in the vicinity of the battlefield. Indeed, we find the famous church of “St. Vladimir in the Orchards” on one of the hills nearby the Kulishki in Moscow; it exists until the present day on Starosadskiy Lane, q.v. in fig. 6.10. This must be where the ambush party of Vladimir Andreyevich had stood – it is the southern slope of the hill; it had once been covered in thick vegetation, and there were orchards on this site subsequently. Hence the name Starosadskiy, or Old Orchard Lane, likewise the orchards in the name of the church.

Fig. 6.10. The Church of St. Vladimir in the Orchards on top of the hill adjacent to the Kulikovo Field and the Kulishki in Moscow. The ambush of Vladimir Andreyevich, whose intervention had decided the whole outcome of the battle, was hiding among the trees on the southern slope of the hill. Photograph taken in 1995.

5.16. “River Chura at Mikhailov” next to the Kulikovo Field vs. River Chura and the eight Mikhailovskiy Lanes in Moscow

Let us use the Artefacts of the Kulikovo Cycle ([631]), a collection of different reports concerned with the Battle of Kulikovo. The “Tale of Dmitriy Ivanovich, the Righteous Prince, and the Infamous Mamai, King of the Hellenes” ([631], pages 137-194) tells us about a warrior called Foma who had stood guard near River Chura at Mikhailovo. He had a vision from above and addressed the prince as follows (quoting verbatim): “The very same night a warrior called Foma, who had been renowned for his valiance, received orders from the Great Prince to stand guard against the perfidious foes at River Chura in Mikhailovo” ([631], pages 172-173). In fig. 6.11 we cite an ancient illustration to this passage taken from the “Legend of the Kulikovo Battle” (the text and the miniatures are taken from the Litsevoy Svod of the XVI century, see [666]). River Chura can be seen in the bottom left miniature.

Fig. 6.11. Foma Katsibey standing guard at River Chura near Mikhailov. Taken from [666], page 155 (80).

Other versions of the legend tell us the same; some of them mention Foma’s nicknames (Katsibey, Khabycheyev and Khetsibeyev – see [631], pages 217, 242 and 359).

Therefore, the army of Dmitriy Donskoy had stood near River Chura at Mikhailovo before the very battle. Is there a river with such a name in Moscow? The answer is in the positive; moreover, it exists until the present day under the very same name (this fact was pointed out to us by I. B. Menshagin). In fig. 6.12 one sees a fragment of a modern map of Moscow with River Chura indicated thereupon; it neighbours with the Danilovskiy Monastery near the Leninskiy Avenue, and flows through the Muslim cemetery that had once been known as the Tartar Cemetery ([143]). The name Chura is a very old one, and we find it on the earliest maps of Moscow. Nearby we see Nizhniye Kotly, a place that Dmitriy’s army had passed on its way towards the enemy.

Fig. 6.12. River Chura and its environs. We see Nizhniye Kotly right nearby. Taken from [551], map 60.

Fig. 6.13. A close-in of the map of Moscow with River Chura upon it. This is where the army of Dmitriy Donskoi had stood on the night before the Battle of Kulikovo. Taken from [551], map 60.

Fig. 6.14. Fragment of the map of Moscow where we can clearly see an agglomeration of six Mikhailovskiy Drives right next to Chura, with two more (adding up to a total of eight) aren’t indicated on the map, but can be found in the reference book ([858], page 200). Therefore, this part of Moscow may well have been referred to as “Chura, at Mikhailov”, which is what the chronicle is telling us. Taken from an electronic map of Moscow.

Fig. 6.15. River Chura in Moscow. Photographed upstream, facing the modern Leninskiy Avenue. The Muslim cemetery is on the right. Photograph taken by T. N. Fomenko in January 2001.

Fig. 6.16. River Chura in Moscow. We see large-scale construction works in progress, with excavators on the left. A motorway is being built here; the entire territory shall soon look differently. The river will either disappear, or have to run through pipes. We have managed to photograph the river in the last months of its existence. Photograph taken in January 2001.

Fig. 6.17. A view over River Chura from the left bank and the foot of a large hill. On its slopes we find the Muslim (formerly Tartar) cemetery. Photograph taken in January 2001.

Fig. 6.18. A view over the hill and the Muslim cemetery from the right bank of River Chura. According to the ancient miniature as reproduced above, Foma Katsibey stood guard before the Battle of Kulikovo not far from here. Photograph taken in January 2001.

And now to the most interesting fact – why does the “Legend” emphasise that the army had stood “near River Chura at Mikhailovo”? The river must have passed a village called Mikhailovo on its way, or some similarly-named place. Do we find one anywhere in the area that interests us? We do. A cursory glance at the map of Moscow in fig. 6.12 reveals a whole agglomeration of streets and lanes sharing the name of Mikhailovskiy right next to River Chura and the Muslim cemetery; eight Upper Mikhailovskiy Drives crossed by the Transverse Mikhailovskiy Drive. Finally, there is also the 1st and the 2nd Lower Mikhailovskiy Drive ([858], page 200). The latter aren’t indicated on the map in question, but one finds them in the Streets of Moscow reference book ([858]). We think that there had once been a village called Mikhailov or Mikhailovo in these parts. Moreover, Chura is a very short river, and the double reference to Chura and Mikhailovo makes perfect sense.

This agglomeration is the only one of this kind in Moscow. The reference book ([858]) mentions nothing of the kind anywhere else. We have therefore just discovered some excellent factual proof for our reconstruction.

What can historians tell us about Mikhailovo and River Chura in the Tula region? It turns out that they run into many complications, since there is neither a Chura nor a Mikhailovo anywhere near; this might be why certain historians propose to look for traces of a village called Chur Mikhailov instead of a river (which doesn’t yield any results, either). They rather nebulously tell us that “according to K. V. Koudryashov’s opinion, Chur Mikhailov had stood near the place where river Kochura flows into the Don, some 50 kilometres downstream, next to Nepryadva estuary” ([631], page 106). They also admit the following about the chronicle passage that suggests to search for a village in lieu of a river: “the phrase is unclear due to errors and later misinterpretation of the text obscuring the meaning” ([631], pages 106 and 120).

We are of the opinion that venerable historians are simply looking in the wrong place.

5.17. River Sosna and the Brasheva (Borovitskaya) Road to the Kulikovo Field identified as the Sosenka River and the Old Borovskaya Road leading towards the centre of Moscow

The “Tale of Dmitriy Ivanovich, the Righteous Prince, and the Infamous Mamai, King of the Hellenes” ([631], pages 137-194) reports that Dmitriy Donskoi and Vladimir Andreyevich sent a small party of scouts to the region of River Sosna with orders to bring back a prisoner for interrogation. One of the versions calls the river Bystraya Sosna (see [631], page 147).

Dmitriy proceeded towards the Kulikovo Field, taking the Kotly route, while the army of Vladimir Andreyevich had approached the battlefield from another direction using the Brashev Way ([631], page 354). In another chronicle we read the following: “There was a great noise, loud like thunder, in the morning, when Prince Vladimir was crossing the Moskva on his way to Borovitz upon his gilded princely ferry” ([631], page 235). We see the chronicles refer to the same place under the names of Brashev and Borovitz; therefore, the Brashev Way is another name of the Borovitz Road.

Once again, we find both names characteristic for Muscovite toponymy – there is a river Sosenka (affectionate form of Sosna, literally “pine tree”) at the South-Eastern outskirts of Moscow, right next to Village Sosenki, q.v. in fig. 6.19 and 6.20, right next to the circular motorway around Moscow. We also find the former Borovskaya Road in this area, known as the Borovskoye Motorway nowadays, q.v. in fig. 6.19. The names of the roads all but coincide; the names Borovskaya and Brasheva are also similar, bearing in mind the frequent flexion of Sh and S (Ts). The name Sosenki is highlighted in figs. 6.19 and 6.20; the Borovskoye Motorway can be seen in fig. 6.19, in the top left corner. Let us also recollect the Borovitskiye Gate of the Kremlin.

Fig. 6.19. Fragment of a map of Moscow and its environs. This is where we find River Sosenka, right next to the village of Sosenki. Nearby we see the Borovskoye Motorway, formerly the Old Borovskaya Road. They must be reflected in the chronicle as River Sosna and Brasheva (Borovitskaya) Road. Taken from [551], map 20.

Fig. 6.20. A close-in of a map of Moscow depicting the river Sosenka and the village of Sosenki. Taken from [551], map 20.

It becomes perfectly clear why the chronicle should mention a party of scouts sent to River Sosna = Sosenka in the context of Prince Vladimir’s movement via the Borovskaya Road – this road is indeed adjacent to the river Sosenka, q.v. in fig. 6.19.

A propos, the chronicle name of “Sosna” may also have another relation to the Battle of Kulikovo – there had once been a tract called “Pod Sosenkami”, or (“underneath the pine trees”); nowadays there is a Podsosenskiy Lane there. The following is known from the history of Moscow: “The Podsosenskiy Lane … is located on the site of an old tract known as ‘Pod Sosenkami’” ([312:1], page 195). It is however unclear whether any river had ever existed anywhere in this vicinity.

According to our reconstruction, the army of Dmitriy Donskoi was moving in the following fashion (let us use the map called “Archaeological Artefacts from the Second Half of the XIII-XIV Century on the Territory of the Modern Moscow” as provided in [331], Volume 1, Annexes). Dmitriy’s army proceeded towards Kotyol following the Ordynskaya Way, also known as Kolomenskaya Road, q.v. in the map (fig. 6.21). The troops of Vladimir Andreyevich took the Borovskaya = Borovitskaya Road past River Sosenka, q.v. in fig. 6.21. Both lead towards the Kulikovo Field in the centre of Moscow. The scouts must have been sent towards Sosenka in order to make sure that the chosen route concealed no hindrances. Vladimir Andreyevich would indeed have to cross the Moskva, as mentioned in the chronicle quoted above. Mamai’s troops had stood to the left of the river, on the other bank.

Fig. 6.21. Fragment of a map entitled “Archaeological Relics of the Second Half of the XIII – XVI Century In Moscow” reproduced in [331], Volume 1 (Appendix). The arrows correspond to the route of the armies of Dmitriy Donskoi and Vladimir Andreyevich (in accordance with our reconstruction).

What can the learned historians tell us about the river Sosna and the Brashev Road as mentioned in the chronicles? Once again, they run into many a problem. They suggest the river Bystraya Sosna, a tributary of the Don; however, they admit it themselves that this version contradicts other indications provided in the chronicle: “The ‘Tale’s’ author must have had a very vague idea of the route chosen by Mamai … Therefore, the reference to the scouts sent to Bystraya Sosna, which is located a great deal further to the South than the Mecha, is erroneous” ([631], page 204).

As for the Brashev Way as mentioned in the chronicles, we learn of the following: “The reference to the troops setting forth from Kolomna and moving along the Brashev Way led by Vladimir of Serpukhov contradicts the information provided in other chronicles … one finds it hard to discuss the authenticity of the source in question and the veracity of the claims made therein” ([631], page 209).

Let us reiterate – the search was conducted in the wrong place.

We have therefore gone through all of the primary geographic names mentioned in the chronicles describing the Battle of Kulikovo. All of them were found in Moscow.

5.18. Yaroslav and Alexander in the description of the Kulikovo Battle

“The Tale of the Battle with Mamai” constantly refers to Yaroslav and Alexander, the famous warlords and the ancestors of Dmitriy Donskoi. However, no other famed predecessors of his are mentioned anywhere else in the chronicle, which is rather odd – two of the ancestors are mentioned all the time, whereas such famous figures as Vladimir Monomakh remain obscured by taciturnity. Modern historians presume that the characters in question can be identified as Yaroslav the Wise from the XI century and the great Alexander Nevskiy of the XII.

One can naturally presume that the chronicler had been particularly fond of these two Great Prince, whose had lived 300 and 100 years before the events in question, respectively. Our hypothesis makes things a lot simpler – Yaroslav is a phantom duplicate of Ivan Kalita, the father of Dmitriy, whereas Alexander is a reflection of Simeon the Proud, Dmitriy’s brother and predecessor. The chronicle is therefore referring to Dmitriy’s immediate predecessors and not distant ancestral figures.

5.19. Who had fought whom upon the Kulikovo field?

Modern historians are trying to convince us that the two parties that had fought each other on the field of Kulikovo had been the Russians and the Tartars, and the former defeated the latter. The original sources appear to be of a different opinion – we shall cite their brief overview made by Gumilev. Let us first regard the “Tartar” army of Mamai.

It turns out that “the Tartars from the Volga had been reluctant to serve Mamai, and there were very few of them in his army” ([216], page 160). Mamai’s troops consisted of the Poles, the Genoese (or the Fryagi), the Yases and the Kasogs. Mamai had been financed by the Genoese, no less!

Now let us have a look at the ethnic compound of the Russian army. “Moscow … demonstrated loyalty to the union with the legitimate heirs of the Golden Horde’s khans – Tokhtamysh, who had been the ruler of the Tartars in Siberia and the Volga region” ([216], page 160).

It becomes perfectly clear that we learn of a civil war within the Horde. The Tartars from the Volga and Siberia serve in the Russian army and fight against the Crimeans, the Poles and the Genoese led by Mamai. The Russian troops “consisted of infantry and cavalry squadrons, as well as militiamen … The cavalry … consisted of the Tartars who were converted into Christianity, Lithuanians who had swapped sides and the Russians trained to ride as part of the Tartar cavalry formation” ([216], page 162). Mamai had received assistance from Jagiello, the Lithuanian prince, whereas Dmitriy is said to have been aided by Tokhtamysh and his army of Siberian Tartars.

The fact that Mamai’s troops are referred to as the Horde doesn’t surprise anyone these days; however, it turns out that the Russian army had also been known as the Horde – in the famous Zadonshchina, of all places: “Mamai, thou foul foe, why have you come to the Russian land? Now thou shall be crushed by the Horde from Zalesye” ([635], page 108). Let us remind the reader that the Vladimir and Suzdal Russia had once been known as the Land of Zalesye; thus, the Russian troops are explicitly referred to as the Horde in said chronicle, likewise their “Mongol and Tartar” counterparts, which is in perfect concurrence with our reconstruction.

A propos, the Russians and the Tartars look the same in the ancient Russian miniatures depicting the Battle of Kulikovo – the clothes, the armaments, hats, accessories etc. – you can’t tell a “Russian” from a “Tartar” (see the miniatures from the XVI century Litsevoy Svod, for instance, as reproduced in [635]).

Therefore, even if we adhere to the traditional point of view, we cannot claim the Battle of Kulikovo to have been fought between the Russians and the Tartar invaders. Both are mixed to such an extent that you cannot really tell them apart. According to our hypothesis, the word Tartars referred to the cavalry and not an ethnic group, acting as a synonym of the term Cossacks. Apparently, it was introduced in lieu of the latter during subsequent tendentious editing.

Therefore, the Battle of Kulikovo had been fought between the Cossacks from Siberia and the Volga region led by Dmitriy Donskoi, and the Cossacks from Poland and Lithuania led by Mamai.

5.20. A brief digression and a comparison of the Russian and Tartar architecture

It is traditionally presumed that the Russian architecture differs from its Tartar counterpart to a great extent; however, one can simultaneously see the stunning similarities between the two. Let us cite just one example of many.

The Krutitskiy Tower still exists in Moscow as a relic of the Sarskaya and Podonskaya Eparchies: “This tower’s architectural shape makes it characteristic for the late XVII century; the tower one sees above the gates is embellished by ornaments; despite the fact that the tower is explicitly Russian shape-wise, particularly inasmuch as the windows are concerned, it leaves one with an impression of an Oriental building, resembling the enamelled walls of Persia and the minarets of Turkistan” (“Moskovskiy Letopisets”, [554], page 254). Our opponents might come up with the objection that the Mongolian invaders were forcing their Russian slaves to erect buildings in the Oriental fashion; however, we are of the opinion that several different styles had coexisted in Russian architecture up until the XVIII century, no less – one of them being what we would call Oriental today. The rigid allocation of individual styles to individual epochs only exists in the Scaligerian chronology; we see a very eclectic mixture of architectural styles in virtually every town and city nowadays – why should it have been radically different in the past?

6.

The communal grave of the heroes slain in the Battle of Kulikovo in the Old Simonov Monastery, Moscow

6.1. Where are the graves of the warriors who had fallen in the battle of Kulikovo?

According to the chronicles and the “Tale of the Battle with Mamai”, each party had suffered about 250 thousand casualties. This number is most likely to be a great exaggeration, since after the battle had ended “The Great Prince had stood at Don for eight days, inspecting the battlefield and separating the bodies of the Christians and the heathens … the former were buried in hallowed ground, the latter thrown to the birds and the beasts” ([635], pages 186-187).

The readers accustomed to the Scaligerian and Millerian version of history shall most probably think that all of the above had taken place in the Tula region – upper Don, where the Battle of Kulikovo is presumed to have been fought nowadays.

However, it turns out that the Russian warriors who had died in the Battle of Kulikovo are buried in Moscow and not in Tula – in the Old Simonov Monastery! This is where the most famous heroes of the battle are buried – Russian warrior friars Peresvet and Oslyabya, for instance (see [413] and [678]): “Peresvet and Oslyabya had been buried in the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity … the heroic monks that fell on the battlefield weren’t taken to the Troitskaya Friary, but rather buried at the walls of this church” ([678], page 136; see also [734]).

If we are to assume that the bodies of the heroes have indeed been taken from Tula to Moscow (and that’s some 300 kilometres), why couldn’t they have been taken to the Troitse-Sergiyeva Friary, which is relatively near? Also, Dmitriy had been burying the slain for 8 days; then his army started towards Moscow, which must have taken them a while. Could it be that the corpses of the heroes remained unburied for several weeks?

Since the battle had taken place on the Holy Feast of Our Lady’s Nativity, it is perfectly natural for a church of Our Lady’s Nativity to be erected at the battlefield. This is exactly what we see – this church is still part of the Simonov Monastery in Moscow (see [678], page 136), which was founded right after the Battle of Kulikovo. According to our hypothesis, the Simonov Monastery was built right on the Kulikovo Field as a last resting place of all the Russian soldiers who had been killed here.

“The Simonov Monastery, founded in 1379, had been one of the most important outposts in Moscow’s line of defence. Most of its buildings were demolished in the beginning of the 1930’s [sic! – Auth.], when the Likhachyov Factory’s Palace of Culture was built here. The southern wall and three towers exist until the present day” ([554], page 295, comment 269). Nowadays this monastery is located on the factory premises, although one can reach it via a long corridor.

Thus, the Millerian-Romanovian version does not dispute the fact that the Simonov monastery was found virtually simultaneously with the Battle of Kulikovo.

This monastery can be found on the bank of the Moskva, next to the Krasnokholmskaya Embankment that we mentioned earlier. Thus, all of the names and places that bear relation to the Battle of Kulikovo are concentrated in a single area of Moscow, whose boundaries are marked by the Church of All Saints built by Dmitriy to commemorate the battle, and the Simonov Monastery, where the slain soldiers had been buried. Chronicle reports begin to make more sense – the warriors that had died on the battlefield were buried closely nearby and not brought from the Tula region some 300 kilometres away.

One should also mention the following circumstance. It has taken us a great deal of effort in order to find a literary reference to the resting place of the heroes that died in the Battle of Kulikovo, one that one presumes to be famous – yet we haven’t found a single mention of the place in any of the modern fundamental historical publications that we have had at our disposal. The present day historians appear to be strangely reluctant to touch this topic. Moreover, L. A. Belyaev, Head of the Muscovite Archaeology Sector at the RAS Institute of Archaeology, writes the following about the Old Simonov monastery: “There were no large-scale archaeological excavations conducted here. We only know of some perfunctory observations performed by B. L. Khvorostova during the reconstruction of the church in the 1980’s. V. L. Yegorov, the researcher who studied the issue of where Peresvet and Oslyabya had been buried, went so far as to presume the complete destruction of the refectory layer and the futility of further archaeological excavations [sic! – Auth.]” ([62], page 185).

It was only owing to a fortunate coincidence that we managed to find the information we were looking for in a book of 1806, no less, one that M. Pospelov referred to in his 1990 article in the “Moskva” magazine concerned with the scandalous refusal of the “Dynamo” factory to vacate the monastery buildings located on their premises. It was only after we had managed to visit the actual monastery that we found a photocopy of a very rare book there ([734]), one that was published in 1870 and also deals with the issue of Peresvet’s and Oslyabya’s final resting place. Both books (one dating from 1806 and the other from 1870) are concerned with the history of the Simonov Monastery specifically. Not a single fundamental work on history in general that we have at our possession contains any useful information; the same goes for the books written on the history of Moscow. N. M. Karamzin makes a very brief reference ([362], Commentary 82 to Volume 5, Chapter 1, page 31).

What could possibly be the problem here? Why do we find out nothing about the graves of the heroes who had fallen on the Kulikovo field? The answer appears obvious to us – this is due to the fact that the sepulchres in question have got nothing to do with the Tula region, where the Battle of Kulikovo had been relocated in order to make Moscow older than it really is, and have been in Moscow all the time. This is why historians prefer to circumnavigate this issue – anyone in their right mind shall instantly ask about whether the bodies of the deceased heroes had indeed been transported to Moscow from the Tula region, seeing as how the distance between the two is over 300 kilometres. If the burial ground is found in Moscow, the battle had been fought nearby as well; all of this is perfectly obvious. Let us reiterate that there were no signs of any warriors buried anywhere in the Tula region. Even if the number of the deceased was greatly exaggerated, which is likely to be the case, there should be lots of graves left after a battle as great, and some remnants of them should have survived until our day. This is indeed the case with Moscow, but not Tula.

However, it is easy enough to understand the position of the historians – according to their “theory” Moscow had already existed as a large city for quite some time when the Battle of Kulikovo took place; they are of the opinion that the Kulishki in Moscow had also been part of the city, and therefore an unlikely candidate for a battlefield.

According to our version, the epoch of the Kulikovo Battle had been the very dawn of Moscow, which was but a small settlement in those times. The Kulishki had still been a large field without any buildings. Dmitriy Donskoi started to fortify Moscow after the battle, or at the end of the XIV century, as the scribe tells us: “Dmitriy Ivanovich, the Great Prince, had founded Moscow as a city of stone, and kept on making it ever greater” ([284], page 89).

6.2. The Old Simonov Monastery presently. The discovery of an ancient communal grave in 1994

The present section relates the story of our visit to the Old Simonov monastery on 15 June 1994, which was undertaken in order to research the geographical circumstances of the Kulikovo Battle. It is perfectly natural that, having voiced the hypothesis about the battle in question taking place on the territory of the modern Moscow, we should want to visit the Simonov monastery personally, in order to verify our reconstruction empirically.

This visit yielded the most unexpected results, and we deem it apropos to relate them herein. First and foremost, let us mention the fact that in 1994 the Old Simonov monastery had still stood on the premises of the “Dynamo” factory, and could only be reached via a labyrinth of factory corridors, q.v. in figs. 6.22 and 6.23. The Church of Our Lady’s Nativity is surrounded by factory buildings, q.v. in fig. 6.24. It only became functional as a church several years ago, and had previously been used as a factory storage facility.

Fig. 6.22. A long passage that leads to the Old Simonov Monastery through the premises of a factory. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.23. Entrance to the Old Simonov Monastery at the end of the long passage, q.v. above. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.24. The Church of Our Lady’s Nativity at the Old Simonov Monastery. Photograph taken in 2000.

We knew that at least two of the most famous Kulikovo Battle heroes were buried here, namely, Peresvet and Oslyabya. However, we were concerned with the issue of whether we could find a communal grave of the other warriors who had fallen in the battle. After all, if Moscow had been the battlefield and if Dmitriy had spent eight days burying the dead, there must be soldier graves close nearby.

We have barely approached the church when we say a huge wooden container that had already stood in a freshly made grave, ready to be buried (see figs. 6.25 and 6.26). When we asked about the identity of the persons buried, the priest who had attended the funeral and the workingmen who were performing the actual burial told us quite eagerly that the ground in the radius of some 100 metres from the church consists of virtually nothing else but human skulls and bones – the area might be even wider, but factory constructions make it impossible to tell. As we were told, a gigantic amount of bones was found in the ground at the very construction of the factory; these ancient remains were simply dug out and thrown away.

Fig. 6.25. Old Simonov Monastery in 1994. A wooden box filled with skulls and bones that were unearthed during the construction of a single cellar next to the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity at the Old Simonov Monastery. The ground around the church is virtually packed with skulls and bones dating to the epoch of the Kulikovo Battle. The remains are positioned randomly – some of the skeletons were even standing on their heads, according to the local workers. According to our reconstruction, this is a large communal grave of the warriors who fell at the nearby Field of Kulikovo (Kulishki in Moscow). The photograph was taken by the authors in 1994, before the box was buried near the West side of the church. There is a large bunch of flowers inside the box.

Fig. 6.26. Wooden box with human remains. The flowers were put in the box by the monks before the burial. Photograph taken in 1994.

Recently, shortly before our arrival, a cellar was dug in the ground, some 10 metres away from the church. The construction site had been very small; however, several cubic metres of skulls and bones were found there, enough to fill the wooden container that we noticed as we entered the site. One of the workers was kind enough to open the lid of the container; it had indeed been filled with skulls and bones. We took a photograph, q.v. in fig. 6.27. The container was buried some 10 metres to the north of the church. The workers who had uncovered all of these bones reported some very noteworthy facts.

Fig. 6.27. The lid of the box was lifted at our request. Photograph taken in 1994.

Firstly, the bones were in utter chaos – one of the skeletons had stood on its head! It is perfectly obvious that this wasn’t a regular cemetery, but rather the site of a mass burial; the dead bodies were buried in large communal graves. Therefore, the construction of a single cellar resulted in several cubic metres of human skulls and bones unearthed.

Secondly, the workers were amazed by the fact that nearly all the skulls had possessed young and healthy teeth; they emphasised this fact a few times. One gets the impression that all the persons buried had been young and healthy people – warriors and not feeble old men, in other words. What they found was a communal grave of soldiers slain in a battle.

Thirdly, apart from skulls and bones, the workers have found a number of headstones, all quite uniform and sans inscriptions, q.v. in fig. 6.28. All of them are decorated with the same ornament – a plaque in the middle with several stripes connected thereto – a straight one at the bottom, and two curved ones at the top. The ornament resembles a warrior’s shield or the already familiar forked (or T-shaped) Christian cross (see the table of crosses in Chron1, Chapter 7:6.1 for further reference). The utter absence of inscriptions tells us about the communal nature of the graves – also, there are a lot more bones than there are headstones. There must have been several graves, each of them marked by a headstone of the same fashion; this fact should tell us that the burials were made simultaneously. Bear in mind that the cross on the headstones is forked, and looks very different from the crosses used by the Christian Church nowadays.

Fig. 6.28. A headstone from the Old Simonov Monastery. The ground around the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity in Old Simonov was covered in such stones. According to our reconstruction, they marked the communal grave of the warriors killed in the Battle of Kulikovo. This is where Dmitriy Donskoi had been burying the dead for several days, as the chronicles are telling us. Photograph taken in 1994.

It is noteworthy that on a number of ancient coats of arms we find this forked cross next to a figure of an erect bear, which had once been the famed city emblem of Yaroslavl; see one such coat of arms from the Cathedral of St. Lorenz in Nuremberg in fig. 6.29.

Fig. 6.29. The ancient crest in the Cathedral of St. Lorenz in Nuremberg. We see a forked cross and an erect figure of a bear; the latter represents the coat of arms of Yaroslavl, or Novgorod the Great, according to our reconstruction. Photograph taken by A. T. Fomenko in June 2000.

A propos, another burial ground with similarly-marked headstones (bearing forked crosses) can be found in the ground floor of the Arkhangelskiy Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, among the sepulchres of the Russian Czarinas. Those graves rank among the oldest ones found there, q.v. in fig. 6.30. However, it is possible that the T-shaped ornament found on the headstones is an ancient representation of the T-shaped Christian cross, similar to the one found on the embroidered attire that had belonged to Yelena of Walachia ([550], page 60).

Fig. 6.30. Old sarcophagus from the basement of the Arkhangelskiy Cathedral of the Muscovite Kremlin. It looks just like the headstone at Old Simonov. The photograph was taken in December 1997. This must be what the Russian sepulchres had looked like before the beginning of the XVII century, or the enthronement of the Romanovs, who had reformed the Russian burial rites in the first half of the XVII century. Historians and archaeologists refer to these graves as to “the graves of the sinners”, making the latter term comprise all the Russians who lived in the epoch of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire. The origins of this bizarre terminology remain unknown to us. We are of the opinion that such tendentious choice of terms is de facto urging the scientists not to take such sepulchres seriously.

Fourthly, when the Simonov burial grounds were unearthed, there were neither coffins, nor metallic objects, nor remnants of garments found; nothing remained but the bones. This implies that the graves are very old – wood, iron, copper and fabric decayed completely and turned to dust. This process takes centuries. The headstones also look manifestly different from the ones that the church has been using over the last couple of centuries. However, proving the great age of the graves appears needless, since the archaeologists that were summoned here already suggested a XIV century dating, which is the very century that the Battle of Kulikovo took place. However, as we were told in the monastery, the archaeologists instantly departed without showing an interest in the graves – the abovementioned opinion of the archaeologists about the “ futility of further archaeological excavations” in the Old Simonov monastery ([62], page 185). We consider all of this to be very suspicious.

We therefore learn of construction works conducted upon the last resting place of the Kulikovo Field heroes, with cellars and manifolds built on this site. The remnants of the soldiers are discarded, or, at best, re-buried in communal containers with a Christian service.

One would think that historians could really perform a large body of work here – how can it possibly be true that there’s an ancient burial ground that still exists in the very centre of Moscow, and there wasn’t a single historian or archaeologist to ask the question about the identity of the dead that were buried here?

However, let us assume that historians know nothing about the communal graves of the warriors who had fallen at the Kulikovo Field that were found in the Simonov monastery; after all, it is but a hypothesis of ours for the time being. Yet these very historians know perfectly well that the remains of Peresvet and Oslyabya are buried in this church. One would think that their ancient headstones were still guarded with awe.

This is not the case. When one enters the church, one sees the new gravestones made a couple of years ago, q.v. in fig. 6.31. An old photograph hanging nearby (fig. 6.32) demonstrates this place the way it had been in 1985, which is when the church was vacated by the factory authorities – there isn’t so much as a trace of any grave at all. The ancient headstones must have been destroyed or relocated by then.

Fig. 6.31. Modern graves of Peresvet and Oslyabya in the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity at the Old Simonov Monastery in Moscow. Installed after 1985. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.32. Old photograph of 1985 which reveals the condition of the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity right after the departure of the factory authorities. This photograph can be seen on the billboard with information on the history of the church’s reconstruction next to the entrance. The legend says “The final resting place of Peresvet and Oslyabya, the heroes of the Kulikovo Battle. 1985.” We made a copy of the photograph in 2000; what we see is a picture of utter devastation.

The real XIV headstone from the grave of Oslyabya and Peresvet as mentioned by N. M. Karamzin in [365], Volume 5, Chapter 1, comment 82, isn’t anywhere to be seen nowadays – it may still be part of the church masonry, as Karamzin suggests. However, no one knows anything about any old headstones nowadays – the one that interests us is most likely to have been taken outside and destroyed by paving breakers in the 1960’s during one of the subbotniks (Saturday collective labour meetings conducted by volunteers free of charge in the Soviet epoch). One of the workers who had participated in these subbotniks told us about them; he carried the stones out of the church personally. At any rate, we neither managed to locate the old headstone, nor to learn of what was written thereupon.

Moreover, the text of the inscription wasn’t found in any historical work, either. What could have been written there? How could it be that the barbaric order to destroy these priceless old stones with paving breakers was given in the 1960’s, cynically and in full awareness, when the ferocious anti-religious campaign had already been way past its peak? They managed to survive the 20’s and the 30’s, after all.

Could the matter at hand be related to the very roots of Russian history and not just religion? As for the authors of the present book, the facts that we know lead us to the conclusion that the methodical destruction of certain ancient artefacts (the ones that could have helped us understand the real meaning of the Old Russian history) has been taking place in Russia for many years now, without any publicity and in the most despicable way possible.

In 2000 we visited the Old Simonov monastery once again; by that time, many other bones were unearthed from the ground around the church. These bones were buried once again next to the wall one finds behind the church altar, q.v. in fig. 6.33; there are two new crosses marking the graves, q.v. in figs. 6.34, 6.35 and 6.36. We managed to converse with the person who had personally mounted the cross shown in fig. 6.36 in 1999. One of the parishioners was paving the yard of the church; the layer of the ground that became removed in the process had equalled a mere 2 or 3 feet in thickness. Nevertheless, this shallow layer of ground had contained a multitude of human bones and even the remains of several skulls; the parishioner buried the bones in hallowed ground and put a cross on top of them. Apparently, the neighbouring cross that one sees in figs. 6.34 and 6.35 was mounted in a similar fashion. It is perfectly obvious that the ground around the Church of Our Lady’s nativity is filled with bones up to the shallowest layers; the old gravestones must have been right on top of them. After their removal, the bones lie right underneath our feet.

Fig. 6.33. The wall behind the altar of the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity. One sees factory buildings behind the wall; the remains uncovered during construction works are buried next to the wall. Some of the graves are marked with crosses. The grave that we saw in 1994 is marked by a heavy stone and a small fir tree. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.34. The cross behind the church altar with a piece of an old headstone next to it. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.35. The cross behind the altar of the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.36. Another cross behind the altar of the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity. This is where the skulls and bones uncovered during the paving of the yard were buried in 1999. Photograph taken in 2000.

However, oddly enough, there is no cross over the spot where the gigantic container with skulls and bones was buried in 1994. This place is just marked by a large piece of rock and nothing else – neither plaques nor inscriptions (see figs. 6.37 and 6.38). The reasons for such secretiveness remain perfectly unclear to us. Why has there been no cross mounted on this site? The piece of rock and the flower bed are definitely serving some memorial purpose; however, if you don’t know that underneath one really finds a large container with skulls and bones exhumed from the collective grave of the heroes that had died at the Kulikovo Field, it is impossible to find it out by mere guesswork.

Fig. 6.37. The heavy stone upon the flowerbed that marks the place where the huge wooden box with the remains of the heroes slain in the Kulikovo Battle was buried in 1994. There is no cross here, for some reason. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.38. The heavy stone upon the flowerbed that marks the place where the huge wooden box with the remains of the heroes slain in the Kulikovo Battle. The actual burial was filmed by the authors in 1994.

6.3. The location of the Rozhestveno village that Dmitriy Donskoi had granted to the Old Simonov monastery after the Battle of Kulikovo

The History of the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity in the Old Simonov, Moscow ([734]) states explicitly that Dmitriy Donskoi granted the village of Rozhestveno to the church in question right after the battle; the village had stood at the actual Kulikovo Field:

“The Great Prince had granted the village of Rozhestveno to the Old Simonov monastery on the day of Our Lady’s Nativity; it was located on the battlefield where the troops of Mamai had been crushed by Dmitriy’s army” ([734], pages 7-8).

Historians are of the opinion that the Battle of Kulikovo had been fought in the Tula region. Doesn’t it strike the reader as uncanny that a Muscovite church should be granted a village that had been some 320 away from Moscow? Apart from that, the Tula region had not been part of his principality, and belonged to other princes! Nothing of the sort has ever taken place in veritable Russian history.

This absurdity ceases to exist once we relocate the Battle of Kulikovo to Moscow, which is where one finds the Simonov monastery. The latter had possessed no lands in the Tula region for the last 200-300 years, according to the chronicles; however, it did possess the village of Simonova right next to it – the residence of “the monastery’s workers – smiths, ironmongers, carpenters et al” ([734], pages 11-12). Everything becomes clear instantly.

6.4. The battle between Mamai and Tokhtamysh in 1380 as yet another reflection of the Kulikovo Battle of 1380

We are told that immediately after the Battle of Kulikovo, “Mamai, who had fled to his steppes, faced a new enemy: Tokhtamysh, the Khan of the Horde whose lands lay beyond River Yaik, a descendant of Batu-Khan. He sought to wrest the throne of the Volga Horde away from Mamai in order to salvage the heritage of Batu-Khan’s descendants. Jagiello, the ally of Mamai … had deserted the latter. Tokhtamysh put Mamai to rout on the banks of Kalka and proclaimed himself liege of the Volga Horde. Mamai had fled to Kapha … which is where he was killed by the Genoese” ([435], page 233).

We instantly mark the similarities between the descriptions of the two battles:

1. Both great battles take place in the same year – namely, 1380.

2. Both battles end with the defeat of the same military leader – Mamai.

3. One battle takes place at Kalki (KLK unvocalized), whereas the second is fought upon the Field of Kulikovo, which also transcribes as KLK without vocalizations. We already pointed out the similarity between both names.

4. Both battles feature Mamai’s Lithuanian ally who either deserts him or doesn’t manage to come to his rescue in due time.

5. Mamai flees to Kapha after the battle with Tokhtamysh, and does the very same thing after the Battle of Kulikovo ([635], pages 108-109).

This is virtually all that we know about the defeat of Mamai at Kalki.

Our hypothesis is as follows:

The defeat of Mamai at Kalki is but another account of the Kulikovo Battle that wound up in certain chronicles in a condensed form, which is drastically different from the battle’s detailed descriptions found in other chronicles.

This implies that Tokhtamysh-Khan can be identified as Dmitriy Donskoi, which is a very important fact, and one that concurs with our general reconstruction ideally – indeed, we already know that the chronicles call Tokhtamysh a descendant of Batu-Khan, whom we already identified as Ivan Kalita, the grandfather of Dmitriy Donskoi. The latter is therefore a bona fide descendant of Batu-Khan; the chronicles are correct.

7.

The Battle of Kulikovo and our geographical reconstruction thereof

The real geography and the general scheme of the Battle of Kulikovo in Moscow have been reconstructed by the authors to the best of their knowledge, q.v. in figs. 6.4 and 6.5.

Fig. 6.4. The route taken by Dmitriy Donskoi’s army to the battlefield. This area is now part of central Moscow, still known as Kulishki. Our reconstruction.

Fig. 6.5. The site of the Kulikovo Battle, or Kulishki in Moscow. We still see a great many monuments related to the Battle of Kulikovo, Dmitriy Donskoi and the name Kulishki.

8.

Apparently, Moscow was founded around 1382. The “Battle of Moscow” allegedly fought between the Russians and the Tartars in 1382 as yet another reflection of the Kulikovo Battle

Traditional history is of the opinion that Moscow was founded by Youri Dolgoroukiy in 1147, since the first reference to a town by that name is dated to 1147 in Scaligerian-Millerian chronology. However, the Kremlin in Moscow was built under Dmitriy Donskoi, and none other, for the very first time – at the end of the XIV century, that is (see [284], pages 87-88). We have already identified Dmitriy Donskoi as Tokhtamysh-Khan. Two years later than the Battle of Kulikovo, in 1382, Tokhtamysh comes to Moscow together with his army and two Princes of Suzdal, no less. Moscow fell. Who defended it from Tokhtamysh? Dmitriy Donskoi? This is an impossibility, since the two are the same figure, which is why the Khan was accompanied by two princes of Suzdal. Indeed, we learn that shortly before the arrival of Tokhtamysh, Dmitriy had gone to Kostroma. We are of the opinion that Kostroma had been the residence of the Great Prince, and this is whence he came to Moscow, accompanied by his army. This is why he hadn’t been in Moscow, which was defended by “Ostey, a Lithuanian prince” ([36], page 78).

This conquest of Moscow in 1382 marks the beginning of a new “Tartar” era, according to some chronicles ([759], page 25). The construction of the Kremlin and the real dominion of Dmitriy date back to this year, which also appears to mark the foundation of Moscow as a large fortified city. As we can see, the foundation of Moscow took place shortly after the Battle of Kulikovo, and right next to the battlefield at that.

Our reconstruction is also backed by the following legend.

In the XVI century, when the concept of Moscow as the Third Rome was being introduced, “it had been necessary to prove that the very foundation of Moscow resembles that of its sisters [the first two Romes, that is – Auth.] – it had also been marked by a large-scale bloodshed” ([284], page 50). The bloodshed in question is most likely a repercussion of the memory that the city had been founded right next to a battlefield.

The chronicle report about Russians fighting against the Tartars in Moscow that we find at the distance of a mere two years from the Battle of Kulikovo might be yet another report of the same battle, albeit a more concise one. The scribes didn’t manage to recognize the two as duplicates, and set them apart in time by a mere two years. A propos, the Battle of Kulikovo took place in early September, on the 8th, whereas the 1382 Battle of Moscow took place in late August, on the 26th ([36], pages 76 and 78).

Prince Dmitriy Donskoi won the Battle of Kulikovo, whereas the Battle of Moscow that dates to 1382 was won by Tokhtamysh-Khan, or the very same Dmitriy, according to our reconstruction.

Let us point out an interesting detail to demonstrate how historians alter history on the sly. It turns out that “M. N. Tikhomirov had considered certain chronicle episodes untrustworthy, and did not include them into his research – for instance, the version about the betrayal of the Great Prince Oleg Ivanovich of Ryazan, who had allegedly pointed out the convenient fords upon River Oka to Tokhtamysh ([841], page 59, comment 106). Our reconstruction makes this episode easily understandable – why wouldn’t Oleg show the fords to his liege Dmitriy Donskoi, aka Tokhtamysh-Khan? No betrayal anywhere – what we see is an example of perfectly normal collaboration between the Russian princes of the Horde.

We must also say a few more words about Oleg of Ryazan – he is presumed to have been frightened by Mamai’s troops right before the Battle of Kulikovo, and was begging the Russian princes to refrain from military actions against Mamai. This event is dated to 1380; Oleg all but became labelled a traitor and an ally of the “Tartars” ([635], pages 157-158).

A similar version of Oleg’s betrayal is included in the 1382 legend about the “Battle of Moscow” – Oleg of Ryazan went to Tokhtamysh and “became his assistant in the conquest of Russia to the greater grief of all the Christians” ([635], page 191). Oleg becomes an ally of the “Tartars.” This is most likely to be the same legend that became duplicated due to a minor chronological error.

The battle of 1382 is described as very fierce – it is reported that “Moscow had been crushed in the most horrendous fashion – there were 10.000 dead bodies buried” ([841], page 50).

Let us return to the issue of mass burials in Moscow that date from 1380 or 1382.

Tikhomirov reports the following about the battle of 1382: “there were lots of skulls and bones found in the side of the hill during excavations in the Kremlin, all of them buried in the most chaotic fashion [cf. the abovementioned chaotic burials in the Old Simonov monastery – Auth.]. In some places the amount of skulls obviously failed to correspond with the amount of bones; it is obvious that we have discovered a number of communal graves where parts of dismembered bodies had been buried in a disorderly fashion – most likely, the pits where the fallen defenders of Moscow were buried in 1382” ([841], page 50).

According to our hypothesis, this large communal burial ground on the territory of the Kremlin (another Red Hill?) is another group of communal graves where the Russian warriors of the Horde were buried, the ones who had fallen in the Battle of Kulikovo. The traditional dating of these graves (1382) virtually coincides with the year of the Kulikovo Battle (1380). The Kremlin burial ground is right next to a substantially more recent monument to Alexander II ([841], page 59, comment 107).

More communal graves with the remains of the Kulikovo heroes can be found in the Old Simonov monastery.

9.

Tokhta-Khan and the military leader Nogai as duplicates of Tokhtamysh-Khan and the warlord Mamai

The centenarian chronological shift inherent in Russian history created a phantom duplicate of the Kulikovo Battle events known as the strife in the Horde, which is presumed to have taken place at the end of the XIII century – a conflict between Nogai and Tokhta. We already mentioned Nogai being the double of Mamai in our discussion of the 100-year shift that we found in the consensual chronology of Russian history.

Tokhtamysh in front of Moscow. Mediaeval miniature.

10.

The capital of Dmitriy Donskoi = Tokhtamysh-Khan and its location before the Battle of Kulikovo

Let us turn to ecclesiastical tradition. The end of the XIV century (which is the date of the Kulikovo Battle) is commonly associated with the famous ecclesiastical Purification Feast associated with the Vladimir Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Russian name of the feast is sretenye, and we still find a street named Sretenka in Moscow, which was named so to commemorate the arrival of this icon in these parts due to the presumed invasion of Timur-Khan, shortly after the Battle of Kulikovo.

Unfortunately, we have found no details pertaining to the origins of this feast, which had once been a very important Holy Day in the Orthodox calendar, in any of the old clerical texts that we have studied – in particular, there is no ecclesiastical canon to describe them. However, there is an old Russian ecclesiastical canon associated with the Fyodorovskaya Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is known a great deal less than its Vladimir counterpart. The events of Russian history related in this canon date from the same epoch – the very beginning of the XV century, the Battle of Kulikovo still a very recent memory. This canon is most likely to contain the answer to our question about the real location of Dmitriy’s capital.

The ecclesiastical canon tells us quite unequivocally that the capital of the Russian prince who had reigned in that period was in Kostroma: “How fair art thou, o great Kostroma City, and the entire land of Russia …” (canon troparion); “… for mighty armaments against all foes have been bestowed upon thy city, Kostroma, and the entire land of Russia” (canon kathisma), q.v. in the ecclesiastical sources of the XVI-XVII century.

It is presumed that Dmitriy Donskoi had “escaped” to Kostroma shortly before the advent of Tokhtamysh; it becomes clear just why the chronicles refer to Kostroma – the city had been the capital of Czar Dmitriy, also known as Tokhtamysh-Khan, and this is where he had prepared his army for the march to Moscow. Kostroma is a large city and a close neighbour of Yaroslavl, or Novgorod the Great, as we are beginning to realise. Vague recollections about Kostroma striving to become the capital of Russia still survive in history – its competitor had been Moscow ([686], page 124). Kostroma had been the third largest city in Russia back then after Moscow and Yaroslavl ([438], page 97).

Our hypothesis is as follows: the city of Kostroma had been the residence of the Russian Czar, or Khan, at the end of the XIV – beginning of the XV century. Moscow had not been anything remotely resembling a capital, but rather a disputed territory where the princes of the Horde, or Russia, came to contend against one another (the word “kalki” stands for a special place for tournaments, or a battlefield). The construction of Moscow was instigated by Dmitriy Donskoi right after the Battle of Kulikovo; however, it had not been anything remotely resembling a capital back then, nor had it been known as Moscow before the XVI century, which is when the Russian capital was transferred there.

11.

On the history of the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity, which is part of the Old Simonov Monastery

It is presumed that “the first wooden church was constructed here in 1370” ([13], #25). Later on that year, “the Simonov Monastery was founded on the site of the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity, which was later transferred to a new place, half a verst to the north, where it stands until this day” ([706]; see also [803], Volume 3, page 111). Thus, the Old Simonov monastery is nothing but the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity and the cemetery that surrounds it. We see that when a real monastery was being founded here, complete with walls, towers and utility buildings, the chosen construction site lay at some 2000 ft from the old church, which means that the old burial ground had been so big that it could not be made part of the monastery’s premises. The Simonov monastery as it was in the XVIII century can be seen in fig. 6.39; the drawing is accurate and clear – we checked this ourselves when we visited the Old and the New Simonov monasteries in 2000 and compared many of the old drawing’s details to the surviving constructions.

Fig. 6.39. The Simonov Monastery in the XVIII century. Taken from [568], page 69. In the distance on the left we see the Monastery of Krutitsy (The Krutitsy Court).

We see a white church in this XVIII century drawing, to the left of the monastery and underneath the hill with the Krutitsy monastery. It is the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity in the Old Simonov; oddly enough, it differs from the modern church to a great extent (see fig. 6.24). In fig. 6.39 the church looks like a tall tower with a hipped roof; it has a superstructure topped by a small dome, q.v. in fig. 6.40. We see a long row of windows right underneath the roof, and a large semicircle altar wing with a dome of its own. This church looks drastically different nowadays (see fig. 6.24). As we can see, it has undergone a radical reconstruction – this is most likely to have happened in the XIX century and resulted in the destruction of all the inscriptions and the relics related to the Battle of Kulikovo. This destruction must have been the real reason for the “reconstruction” of the church of Our Lady’s Nativity in the XIX century.

Fig. 6.40. A close-in of the above picture with the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity at the Old Simonov Monastery. It had obviously looked different in the XVIII century – the church was rebuilt in the XIX century, and made much smaller at that. Taken from [568], page 69.

We learn that “in 1870, a cast iron memorial was put up over the graves of Peresvet and Oslyabya, which have been known to us since 1660. The following passage, written by a person who had frequently visited the church in the early XX century, is most edifying indeed: ‘… we have been to the Old Simonovo, where we looked at the church through a window and bowed to the sepulchre of Peresvet and Oslyabya, which one can see through the window, meditating on the icon of St. Sophia above the altar … on 23 June 1915, we have been to the Old Simonovo again, peering through the windows of the church and trying to see the sepulchre of Peresvet and Oslyabya. Some youth engaged in conversation with us, probably, a son of some member of their clergy; he told us that the ground around the church was packed with human bones; whole skeletons were found’” ([306], issue 6, pages 311 and 319-320).

We see the sepulchre of Peresvet and Oslyabya treated in an odd fashion – the visitors who wish to view them are forced to walk around the church peering into windows. It is also noteworthy that it has been “known to us since 1660”, q.v. above. Could this mean that the old headstones of Peresvet and Oslyabya were destroyed in 1600? This must have been the case indeed, since the middle of the XVII century had been the epoch when the memory of the pre-Romanovian Great = “Mongolian” Russian Empire, also known as the Horde, was being destroyed, thoroughly and with great vim and vigour.

“After the temple had stopped functioning, the cast iron sepulchre was sold as scrap-iron for a total of 317 roubles and 25 kopeks” ([405], page 21). A drawing of the sepulchre in question can be seen in fig. 6.41.

Fig. 6.41. Cast iron monument over the graves of Peresvet and Oslyabya at the Old Simonov Monastery. Installed in 1870. Sold as scrap metal when the church was closed down in 1928. Taken from [568], page 76.

“In 1978 the workers were telling that a foundation pit had been dug next to the church, and a great many ancestral skulls unearthed as a result (all of them were thrown away). The temple closed in 1928 … it ended up part of factory premises, and reached an extremely decrepit state as a result. The bell-tower was destroyed, with nothing but the ground floor remaining, likewise the entire dome. Crude holes for windows and doors were cut in the walls. There was no access to the church – it could be observed from the Simonov Monastery that stands some 200 metres to the north, across the fence and next to the sports ground” ([803], Volume 3, page 112)

“It was only due to the uncompromising position of the community that the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity survived instead of having been replaced by a warehouse that the factory authorities had planned to build in its lieu; however, its bell-tower was demolished in 1932 ([406], #6, page 38).

“The tragedy of the church, which is a relic of paramount importance annexed by the “Dynamo” electric machine plant … had first attracted public attention in the 1960’s. Pavel Korin, a merited artist, wrote the following in the “Komsomolskaya Pravda” newspaper: “There is another old wound that I just cannot keep silent about. There are great dates in our history, the mere thought of which ennobles one’s spirit. One of such dates is 1380 – the ‘great and even’ Kulikovo Field, where ‘there was a great battle, greater than all battles ever fought in Russia’, with ‘blood shed like rain falling from a heavy rain-cloud’ … But how many people know the fact that Peresvet and Oslyabya are buried in the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity in Moscow? Nowadays it stands on the premises of the “Dynamo” factory in Moscow … the ancient hallowed ground is being excavated without any hesitation. The building is shattered by the roar of motors over the bones of the heroes, without so much as a memorial plaque in sight – is this all that their glory amounts to? Our nation has been a patriotic one since times immemorial; patriotism makes the state and the individual greater and nobler. Let us be more consistent and have zero tolerance for blasphemous desecration of national halidoms” ([803], Volume 3, page 113).

“However, the debates about the salvation of the church ceased in 1966, the same year as they started, to be resumed more than 10 years later, in 1979, when the 600th anniversary of the Kulikovo Battle was celebrated. Numerous discussions of the necessity to restore the monument of national glory were published in a variety of periodicals – the Ogonyok magazine, for instance … the public address of Academician D. S. Likhachyov in the Pravda … and many others. Since the factory authorities had refused to part with so much as a square foot of their territory, there was even a project of making an underground passage right to the church. However, the anniversary had passed by without a single plan becoming reality. Finally, the Moskovskaya Pravda published three articles about the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity at the Old Simonov … The motors were removed from the church; however, this had been the only thing implemented by 1984 – the restoration works had not yet begun” ([803], page 113).

12.

Mamai the Temnik is also known to us as Ivan Velyaminov the Tysyatskiy. Both titles correspond to the rank of army commander, and translate as “leader of thousands”

The biography of Dmitriy Donskoi contains another victory episode where his main opponent is a military commander (“tysyatskiy” or “temnik” – both titles translate as “leader of thousands”, see [782], Issue 1, page 16). We are referring to Dmitriy’s victory over Ivan Velyaminov. Apparently, the rank of tysyatskiy had existed in Russia up until the reign of Dmitriy Donskoi; military commanders of that rank almost equalled the Great Princes in power and importance. According to A. Nechvolodov, “we have witnessed just how important a tysyatskiy had been – he had been the leader of all the common folk in the army. Apparently, Dmitriy had considered this rank an anachronism that provoked envy from the part of other boyars and also diminished the real power of the Great Prince. Therefore, after the death of the last tysyatskiy, Vassily Velyaminov, Dmitriy decided to abolish the rank altogether. However, Ivan, the son of Vassily, who had harboured plans to inherit his father’s rank and title, took this as a mortal affront” ([578], Book 1, page 782).

The events unfurled in the following manner: Ivan Velyaminov betrayed Dmitriy and fled to Mamai in the Horde ([578], Book 1, page 782; see also [568], page 61). This event takes place in the alleged year 1374 (or 1375) and therefore precedes the 1380 Battle of Kulikovo by a few years. A war breaks out as a result. Around the same time that Velyaminov betrayed Dmitriy, Mamai betrays Mahomet-Khan and initiates preparations for the campaign against Dmitriy: “Mamai had removed Khan-Khan once he tired of ruling on behalf of the latter, proclaiming himself Khan … in the summer of 1380 he had gathered an enormous army” ([578], Book 1, page 789). This date marks the beginning of Mamai’s invasion, the Battle of Kulikovo being its apotheosis.

Our theory is very simple – the boyar Ivan Velyaminov, who had betrayed Dmitriy Donskoi, is the very same character as Mamai, who had rebelled against the Khan and claimed the title for himself. This betrayal had led to a military conflict of unprecedented scale and the violent Battle of Kulikovo. This reconstruction of ours is supported by Russian chronicles – Ivan Velyaminov, who had “come to the land of the Russians”, was captured and beheaded on the Kuchkovo Field: “Despite the fact that the turncoat had boasted a number of very distinguished relations, Dmitriy gave orders to execute him: the traitor was decapitated on the Kuchkovo field … The chronicler reports that … this execution had impressed the public greatly … even Dmitriy’s mint reflected the memory of this event” ([568], page 61).

What do we come up with, one wonders? Dmitriy Donskoi, having just celebrated one of the greatest victories in Russian history, one that made him a world-famous military leader, commemorates an altogether different event with new coins, namely, the execution of Ivan Velyaminov, a traitor captured quite accidentally. However, a single glance at the coins reveals to us that the event in question resembles a battle to a much greater extent than it does an execution – both Dmitriy and his foe are engaged in combat, with swords in their hands (see figs. 6.42, 6.43 and 6.44). The artwork we see on these coins depicts a victory in a battle, one that was great enough to have made it onto Dmitriy’s coins in the first place. The victory took place on the Kuchkovo field ([568], page 61), which is where Dmitriy Donskoi “beheaded” Ivan Velyaminov – none other than the Kulikovo Field, according to our reconstruction, where Mamai the temnik had been put to rout. A symbolic representation of the execution that is supposed to have followed the battle can be seen in the drawn copy of the coin in fig. 6.42 (top right).

Fig. 6.42. The coins of Dmitriy Donskoi. Two coins in the top row commemorate the victory of Dmitriy Donskoi over Ivan Velyaminov, or Mamai, on the Field of Kulikovo (or Kuchkovo). One must pay attention to the fact that some of the coins combine Russian and Arabic lettering – apparently, Arabic had been one of the official languages used in the Russian Empire, or the Horde. This shouldn’t surprise us – according to the amended chronology, the famous Arabic mediaeval conquest of the VII-VIII century is a reflection of the Great = “Mongolian”, or Russian, conquest of the XIV-XV century. Taken from [568], page 62.

Fig. 6.43. A drawn copy of the coin minted by Dmitriy Donskoi to commemorate the victory over the Russian warlord Ivan Velyaminov, or Mamai. Taken from [568], page 62.

Fig. 6.44. A drawn copy of another Dmitriy’s coin, also minted to commemorate the victory over Ivan Velyaminov. In his left hand Dmitriy is holding an object that may either be the severed head of his enemy, or a shield fashioned in the manner of a human head. This might be an allusion to the famous “ancient” Greek legend of Perseus and the head of the terrifying Gorgon Medusa fastened to his shield. Could this “ancient” legend have first been told after the Battle of Kulikovo? Taken from [568], page 62.

Fig. 6.45. A miniature from the Litsevoy Svod (second half of the XVI century). We see a battle scene; the Russian prince on the left is holding a shield with a human head fastened to it (cf. Perseus and Gorgon’s head). Taken from [38], page 17.

Fig. 6.46. A close-in of the above miniature with the human head upon the shield of the Russian prince. Taken from [38], page 17.

On the other hand, the coins in figs. 6.42 and 6.44 lead us to several other questions; it is possible that Dmitriy is holding a shield with a human face depicted thereupon in his left hand. We see drawings of such shields in several ancient Russian illustration (in fig. 6.45, for instance, we see a miniature from the “Litsevoy Svod” with a battle scene; the prince on the left is holding a shield with a human head either affixed to it or drawn upon it, q.v. in fig. 6.46.

This brings us to the “ancient” Greek myth of Perseus, whose shield had been decorated with the head of the horrendous Gorgon. In Chron1 and Chron2 we demonstrate that the myth of Perseus and the Gorgon is in direct relation to Russian history, being a mere mythical reflection of the endeavours attributed to the real character known as St. George = Genghis-Khan, who had lived in the XIV century. The very name Gorgon might be a distorted version of the name “Georgiy” (see Chron5 for more on this topic).

The so-called Vorontsovo Field still exists as a part of Moscow, right next to the Kulishki; it is named after the boyar clan of Vorontsov-Velyaminov, the Russian military commanders ([803], Volume 2, page 388). The last one of them had been the very Mamai who had risen against Dmitriy Donskoi.

The book Forty Times Forty is telling us the following about the modern Vorontsovo Field Street: “In the XIV century there was a village here; it had belonged to the distinguished boyar clan of Vorontsov-Velyaminov; the last military commander-in-chief in the rank of tysyatskiy had hailed from this clan. After his execution, the village became property of the Great Prince Dmitriy Donskoi, who had granted it to the Andronyev Monastery” ([803], Volume 2, page 388).

Thus, the Vorontsovo Field, or Mamai’s Field, had been granted to the Andronikov Monastery built to commemorate the victory over Mamai; we see an easy and logical explanation of distant events.

As a matter of fact, the very name Velyaminov (Velya-Min) may be a distorted form of Veliy Mamai, or Mamai the Great.

13.

The Battle of Kulikovo recorded in the famous book of Marco Polo

Marco Polo’s oeuvre entitled Le Livre des Merveilles, or “Book of Wonders” ([510] and [1263] describes the “Mongolian” Empire in the epoch of its sixth Khan Khubilai, or Kublai ([510], page 111). Marco Polo had been his contemporary. Scaligerian history dates these events to the very end of the XIII century; however, according to our reconstruction, the epoch in question is the end of the XIV century. The sixth great Khan, or Czar of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire founded by Genghis-Khan = Georgiy Danilovich had been none other but the famous Great Prince Dmitriy Donskoi. Indeed – the first Khan was Georgiy Danilovich (Genghis-Khan), the second – Ivan Kalita = Caliph (Batu-Khan), the third – Simeon the Proud, the fourth – Ivan the Red, the fifth – Dmitriy of Suzdal and the sixth – Dmitriy Donskoi, q.v. in the table above.

One should expect Marco Polo to describe the Battle of Kulikovo as the most famous event of Dmitriy’s epoch and the most important battle of the Middle Ages. This expectation of ours is indeed met, and very spectacularly so – Marco Polo gives a long and involved rendition of this battle, dedicating a whole four chapters (77-80) to its description ([510], pages 110-117).

Marco Polo uses the name Nayan or Nayam for referring to Mamai (the version depends on the translation; see [510] and [1263]). Khubilai-Khan as mentioned by Marco Polo identifies as Dmitriy Donskoi, whereas Nayam-Khan is the same historical personality as Mamai from the Russian chronicles. Bear in mind that the sounds M and N were often confused for each other, especially in the Western European texts, where they were transcribed as all but the same symbol, namely, a tilde over the previous vowel, q.v. in Chron5. Jagiello, or Jagailo, the Lithuanian Prince, is called King Kaidu. Likewise the Russian chroniclers, Marco Polo reports that Kaidu-Khan (Jagiello) hadn’t managed to approach the battlefield fast enough.

According to Marco Polo, the war began with the disobedience from the part of the great Khan’s uncle Nayam (Mamai), who “decided to disdain the authority of the Great Khan [Donskoi], and to wrest the entire state away from him, should he prove lucky. Nayan [Mamai] had sent envoys to Kaidu [Jagiello] – another mighty ruler and a nephew of the Great Khan … Nayam [Mamai] ordered him to approach the Great Khan [Donskoi] from one direction, whereas he himself would approach from another in order to seize the lands and the governorship. Kaidu [Jagiello] agreed to it and promised to come accompanied by a hundred thousand cavalrymen … the two princes [Mamai and Jagiello] began their preparations for the campaign against the Great Khan, and gathered a great many soldiers, infantry and cavalry.

The Great Khan [Donskoi] found out; he didn’t act surprised, but started … with the preparation of his own army, saying that if he failed to execute these traitors and mutineers … he would need no crown or governorship. The Great Khan [Donskoi] prepared his troops in some 10 or 12 days, without anyone but his council knowing about it. He gathered 360 thousand cavalrymen and 100 thousand infantrymen; the troops that came to his call had been the ones located the closest, hence their small number. He had many other warriors, but they were far away, conquering distant corners of the world, and so he would not be able to make them come at his beckon … the Great Khan had set forth with his horde of warriors, and in some 20 days he came to the plain where Nayam [Mamai] had stood with his army, 400 thousand cavalrymen all in all. The Great Khan [Donskoi] arrived early in the morning; the enemy knew nothing, since the Great Khan [Donskoi] had blocked every road and seized every passer-by, therefore the enemy had not expected his arrival. Their arrival came as great surprise to Nayam [Mamai], who had lain in his tent with his dearly adored wife” ([510], pages 111-113).

In fig. 6.47 we see an old miniature from Marco Polo’s book, which depicts the battle between Nayam and the Great Khan. In the close-in (fig. 6.48) one sees Nayam-Khan (Mamai) and his wife surrounded by troops, whereas the fragment in fig. 6.49 portrays the Great Khan (Dmitriy Donskoi) attacking the troops of Nayam = Mamai. A propos, all the faces, including those of Nayam-Khan (Mamai) and his wife, are typically European, q.v. in fig. 6.48.

Fig. 6.47. The beginning of the battle between Kubilai-Khan (Kubla-Khan) and Nayan-Khan (or Nayam). Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 34, page 82.

Fig. 6.48. A close-in of a fragment of the above miniature. Nayam, or Nayam is resting with his wife before the battle. Both of them have royal golden trefoil crowns on their heads.

Fig. 6.49. A close-in of a fragment of the miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Kublah-Khan attacks Nayan-Khan. Taken from [1263], folio 34, page 82.

Let us point out that the old miniature from fig. 6.49 emphasises the young age of the Great Khan, which is just as it should be, since he had been a young man at the time of the Kulikovo Battle. Both the miniature and Marco Polo’s text emphasise the personal participation of the Great Khan (Donskoi) in the battle. By the way, in the miniature we see him mounted, with a red harness on his horse and a royal trefoil crown of gold upon his head: “This time the Great Khan [Donskoi] … went to the battle personally; he sent his sons and his princes to other battles, but this time he wanted to take part in military action personally” ([510], page 117). Russian chronicles also emphasise actual participation of Dmitriy Donskoi in the Battle of Kulikovo.

“At the crack of dawn, the Great Khan [Donskoi] appeared at the hill near the valley, while Nayan [Mamai] had sat in his tent, quite sure that no one could possibly attack him … The Great Khan stood on a high place, with his banner flying high … Nayan [Mamai] and his army saw the army of the Great Khan, and there was a great panic; everyone ran to arms, trying to get armed and stand in formation. Both parties stood prepared for battle; there was a great noise of many horns and other instruments, and a loud battle hymn was heard. Tartars have this custom of waiting for the warlord’s drum to sound before they engage in combat … Both armies stood ready now; the Great Khan [Donskoi] started beating his drums, and the soldiers were quick to gallop towards each other with bows, swords, maces and pikes wielded and ready for battle, whilst the infantrymen charged forth armed with crossbows and other weapons … A fierce and most violent battle commenced, with arrows falling down like rain. Dead horses and horsemen were falling to the ground; the great noise of the battle was louder than thunder.

Let it be known that Nayam [Mamai] had been baptised a Christian, and he had a Christian cross upon his banners … there has hardly ever been a battle this fierce; one doesn’t even see armies this great nowadays, especially with so many cavalrymen about. A tremendous number of people from both parties were killed; the battle had raged on until noon, and the Great Khan [Donskoi] defeated his enemy in the end.

Nayan [Mamai] and his remaining soldiers saw that they could not resist anymore and fled … Nayan [Mamai] was captured, and his army surrendered to the Great Khan [Donskoi].

The Great Khan [Donskoi] learnt that Nayan [Mamai] had been taken captive, and ordered to have him executed … after this victory, the Great Khan [Donskoi] returned to his capital in Kanbaluk … Kaidu, the other Czar [Jagiello] found out about the defeat and the execution of Nayam [Mamai], and decided to refrain from battle, fearing that a similar fate might befall him” ([510], pages 113-117).

This description of Marco Polo is in perfect concurrence with the focal points of the Kulikovo Battle as related in the Russian chronicles, which say that Mamai had indeed made arrangements with Jagiello for both of them to attack Dmitriy Donskoi simultaneously; however, they had not managed to unite forces, since Dmitriy took Mamai by surprise, having attacked him a day earlier than Jagiello could join in.

The battle of Kulikovo had indeed lasted from morning till noon, which is exactly what Marco Polo tells us above. According to the Russian chronicles, the battle had started in the third hour of the day counting from dawn, and ended with the ninth hour ([635], pages 120-125). If we convert this into astronomical time, we can say that the battle began around 8 AM and ended around 2 PM.

Russian chronicles report that Jagiello turned and fled as soon as the news of Mamai’s defeat had reached him ([635], pages 126-127). Marco Polo reports a similar situation – Kaidu learns of Nayam’s defeat and refrains from battle in fear ([510], page 117). Also, the names Jagiello (or Yagailo) and Kaidu contain the root Gai (Kai).

Marco Polo also mentions an interesting and important detail that didn’t make its way into any “ancient” Russian chronicle edited by the Romanovs, namely, the fact that Nayam-Khan (Mamai) had been Christian and that there was a cross on his banner ([510], page 116). We already mentioned the fact that the name Mamai (or Mamiy) is a Christian name, and can be found in the church calendar.

Let us conclude with a rather curious portrait of Khubilai (or Dmitriy) allegedly drawn in China (fig. 6.50). The Chinese artists had lived a great deal later than the events they were supposed to illustrate. We see Dmitriy look like a typical Mongol, in the modern sense of the word; it is quite natural that historians should consider this portrait to be the most veracious of all.

Fig. 6.50. A portrait of Kubilai-Khan from a Chinese engraving. This is how the Chinese artist drew Dmitriy Donskoi, believing him to be a Mongol born somewhere near the borders of China. Taken from [510], page 120.

14.

Other places in Moscow related to the Battle of Kulikovo in one way or another

14.1. Seven churches on the Kulikovo Field, or the Kulishki in Moscow

Nowadays there are seven old churches in the area of Kulishki (or upon the Kulikovo Field, according to our reconstruction). Some of them have undergone significant metamorphoses. It appears that the memory of the Kulikovo Battle and Dmitriy Donskoi lives on in the names of the churches and their history. There is even a cross at one end of the field – a monument to Dmitriy Donskoi. We find it right where we expect it to be (see fig. 6.51). More details will be provided below.

Fig. 6.51. A monument to Dmitriy Donskoi at the fool of the Taganskiy Hill (Red Hill), which is adjacent to the Kulishki in Moscow, or the Kulikovo Field. Could this be the place where the wounded Dmitriy Donskoi was found after the battle? The modern sculptor may have been unaware of how well the place was chosen – some vague memory of the Kulikovo Battle may still be alive in Moscow.

The disposition of the “Kulikovo” churches is very eloquent by itself – they surround the perimeter of the Kulikovo Field, q.v. in fig. 6.5. Some of them were founded by Dmitriy Donskoi himself. Let us provide a list of these churches.

1) The Church of All Saints at Kulishki, located on the square that had once been called Varvarskaya, then Nogina Square, and Slavyanskaya Square starting with 1992. It is the corner of Slavyanskiy Drive and Solyanskiy Drive ([803], Volume 2, pages 156-159). The name Kulishki survived in the name of the church: “It had initially been built under the Great Prince Dimitriy Ioannovich Donskoi in memory of the Orthodox warriors who died on 8 September, 1380, in the Battle of Kulikovo. A reconstruction was performed in 1687; the latest substantial renovation works took place in 1845. The belfry dates from the XVII century” ([803], Volume 2, page 156).

During our visit to the Andronikov monastery on 21 May 2000, the monastery clergy told us that many of the warriors who had been killed in the Battle of Kulikovo are buried next to the Church of All Saints at Kulishki. We haven’t managed to find any documental proof of this fact; however, there are a few indirect indications to confirm it. Firstly, the church was specifically erected in memory of the warriors who died in the Battle of Kulikovo ([803], Volume 2, page 156). Secondly, it is known that “the ground floor of the church had originally served as a burial-vault. Graves of the XV-XVI century have been found in the conch … in the 1620’s and the 1630’s the dead were buried underneath the gallery floors, which is where a number of white headstones has been found, the very kind that was used in that epoch … ‘Fragments of the initial wooden church dating from the times of Dmitriy Donskoi were found at the depth of 5 metres during the reconstruction that started in 1976. The lower section of the stone church is 3 metres underground or deeper’” ([803], Volume 2, page 158).

The very fact that there is an old necropolis here, one that was founded simultaneously with the construction of the church in the XIV century, confirms the theory that the warriors killed in the Battle of Kulikovo might be buried here – this would be perfectly natural, seeing as how the church of All Saints at Kulishki is the most famous church related to the Battle of Kulikovo.

It is reported that the original necropolis lays buried some five metres underground or even more – it would be extremely interesting to organise archaeological excavations here.

2) The Church of Kosmas and Damian at Shubin – in former Kosmodemyanskiy Lane; currently 2, Stoleshnikov Lane (see #14 in [803], Volume 2): “The Church of Kosmas and Damian at Shubin, which had already existed in the first part of the XIV century, and the fact that the lane in question was known as Shubin Lane in the XVIII century, lead us to the hypothesis that the lane had also existed in the XIV century, and that it had been the court of the nobleman Ioakinf Shuba, who had put his validating signature on the testament of Dmitriy Donskoi” (quotation given in accordance with [824], page 226).

Therefore, there is an indirect connexion between the church and the name of Dmitriy Donskoi – at the very least, it is presumed to have been founded during his reign.

3) The Church of the Three Saints (Basil the Great, Gregory the Divine and John Chrysostom at Kulishki, next to the Khitrov Market (see # 25 in [803], Volume 2). “It is possible that the church (known as the Church of St. Frol and St. Lavr back in the day) had existed since 1367 as the Church of the Three Saints. Known since 1406” (quotation given in accordance with [13], #22).

4) The Church of Peter and Paul at Kulishki, next to the Yaouzskiye Gate. 4, Petropavlovskiy Lane, see [803], Volume 2, page 95. The word “Kulishki” is present in the name of the church.

5) The Church of the Life-Giving Trinity at Khokhlovka or Stariye Sady. 12, Khokhlovskiy Lane. Presumed to have been known since the XVII century; the name of this church also used to contain the word “Kulishki.” We learn of the following: “the oldest churches have all got the formula ‘at Kulishki’ as part of their name: the Church of Peter and Paul, the Church of the Three Saints, the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity, the Church of All Saints … and the Church of the Trinity” ([803], Volume 2, page 146).

6) The Crossroads Church of Our Lady’s Nativity at Kulishki, 5, Solyanka Street, corner of 2, Podkolokolniy Lane ([803], Volume 2, page 153). The word “Kulishki” is also part of the church’s name.

7) The Church of Kir and Ioann at Kulishki, 4, Solyanka Street. The church is presumed to have been known since 1625 ([803], Volume 2, page 268). The word Kulishki is present in the name of the church.

Apart from the abovementioned seven churches, one must also point out the Church of St. Vladimir the Prince at Stariye Sady, 9, Starosadskiy Lane, corner of Khokhlovskiy Lane. The site of the church in question is mentioned in the testament of Vassily I, the son of Dmitriy Donskoi, dating from 1423. It is known that “in the early XV century the ‘New Court’ of Vassily (his summer residence), the church being part of its ensemble” ([803], Volume 2, pages 141-142).

Another church related to Dmitriy Donskoi had once stood at Lubyanka, right next to Kulishki – the Grebnyovskaya Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary on the Lubyanskaya Square (corner of Serov Drive, q.v. in [803], Volume 2, page 253): “Alexandrovskiy suggests that … the Grebnyovskaya Church was constructed to house the Grebnyovskaya Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which had been brought from the Kremlin Cathedral, by Vassily III – an edifice that was built in stone from the very start. According to oral tradition, the icon was brought to Dmitriy Donskoi in 1380 by the Cossacks from the region of River Chara, which flows into the Don estuary” ([803], Volume 2, page 253).

Apart from that, there is the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity in Moscow, which is part of the Kremlin ensemble nowadays. It is said to have been built by Great Princess Yevdokiya, the wife of Dmitriy Donskoi, in memory of the Kulikovo Battle. V. V. Nazarevskiy tells us the following about this church: “The Church of Our Lady’s Nativity, which we find inside the Kremlin citadel, has been built by the Great Princess Yevdokiya in memory of the Kulikovo Battle, which took place on 8 September, the Day of Our Lady’s Nativity in the ecclesiastical calendar” ([568], page 70).

We can see how the Kulishki in Moscow and the adjacent areas still preserve the memory of the Great Prince Dmitriy Donskoi. This doesn’t seem too reasonable from the Scaligerian point of view – many Great Princes had reigned in Moscow, and the fact that it is his name that we encounter the most often requires an explanation. We are of the opinion that this question is answered exhaustively by our reconstruction – Moscow is a city founded at the very battlefield where Dmitriy’s army crushed the enemy in the Battle of Kulikovo. The fact that the memory of Dmitriy Donskoi is still preserved in the toponymy of Moscow is a logical consequence of the above.

As a matter of fact, one should also pay attention to the fact that the Kulikovo Field, or the Kulishki in Moscow, still remains free from buildings and constructions to a large extent, q.v. in fig. 6.52; the only buildings one finds here today are former barracks, still occupied by the military (the Ministry of Defence for the most part).

Fig. 6.52. The Kulikovo Field at the junction of Moskva and Yaouza as seen from the Taganskiy Hill, or the position of Mamai’s army. Photograph taken in 1995. A large part of the Kulikovo field remains void of constructions to date; we see a square and a military obelisk. Moreover, according to the old maps of Moscow, this part of the Kulikovo field has never been built over.

Could this tradition date from the epoch of Dmitriy Donskoi and the Battle of Kulikovo?

According to the maps of Moscow that date to the XVIII century, there were no buildings anywhere near the Kulishki (see fig. 6.53, for instance; it is an old map taken from [626]).

Fig. 6.53. A fragment of a plan of Moscow dating from 1767, which makes it obvious that Kulishki in Moscow, or the Kulikovo Field, have never been built over. Taken from [626].

Fig. 6.53a. Old plan of the estuary of Yaouza, a river in Moscow (dates from around 1670). We see that the right bank of the river, which is where our reconstruction locates the Kulikovo Field, is still free from constructions of any kind. It turns out that in the XVII century this land was used for nothing but horticulture. Archive of Ancient Acts (RSAAA), Fund 210, Belgorod, item 1722, page 240. Fund of Razryadniy Prikaz, a royal military institution. The photograph was given to us in 2001 by Professor V. S. Kousov, MSU, Department of Geography.

Fig. 6.53b. A close-in of a fragment of the 1670 plan reproduced in fig. 6.53a; the plan tells us explicitly that the area in question was used for horticultural purposes.

Furthermore, one can see an old plan in fig. 6.53a (dating from circa 1670), where the absence of buildings on the right coast of river Yaouza is visible perfectly well – there are farmlands all around, q.v. in the close-in of the plan (fig. 6.53b). This unique photograph came to our attention courtesy of Professor V. S. Koussov, MSU, Department of Geography.

14.2. Mass burials at Kulishki in the centre of Moscow

In 1999 we received a very interesting letter, a fragment of which is cited below. It was sent to us by I. I. Kourennoi, a captain of the Space Forces and an engineer of the Peter the Great Military Engineering Academy. He reports the following:

“I am currently researching the mass burials at Kulishki. The matter is that the former Dzerzhinsky Academy, known as the Peter the Great Academy nowadays, is virtually built upon a foundation of bones, and quite literally so. Back in my cadet days (around 1992-1993) I was helping to stop a leak in one of the Academy’s basements. When we got to the basements, we saw soldiers who were shovelling away the bones in great loads. Our academic historian told us that those were nothing compared to the amount of bones unearthed during the construction of the Academy’s recreation grounds (two tennis-courts, a football pitch, and a number of basketball and volleyball playing-fields); they can be seen from the side of the Kitayskiy Drive next to Hotel Rossiya. The Academy occupies a gigantic XVIII century building; one of the building’s sides faces the Moskva River, another runs parallel to the Kitaygorodskaya Wall, the third faces the Kulishki (Solyanka Street), and the fourth, the high-riser upon the confluence of the Yaouza and the Moskva. These tremendous amounts of bones came to mind as I was reading the story of your take on the battle between the Russian troops and Mamai in Moscow. The bones in questions are presumed to have been buried there after the war of 1812, since there had been a French hospital in our building (one of the few stone edifices that was fortunate to survive the great fire). This may be true; however, seeing how there were no significant battles in Moscow in 1812, and no one has managed to find any monuments or inscriptions that would identify the dead in question as French soldiers brought here after other battles of the war with France, as well as my own memories of people mentioning fragments of weapons obviously dating to an earlier epoch found on this site, I believe it would be worthy to check the relics for compliance with your version.”

We believe this research would be of the greatest interest indeed.

14.3. The Andronikov Monastery and the Battle of Kulikovo

The famous Spaso-Andronikov Monastery, one of the oldest monasteries in Moscow, is situated right next to the Kulishki – it stands atop the steep bank of the Yaouza, on the left of the Taganskaya Square = Krasniy Kholm (The Red Hill) as seen from the Kulishki, q.v. in figs. 6.54 and 6.55.

Fig. 6.54. Andronyev (or Andronikov) Monastery in the XVIII century. Taken from [568], page 71.

Fig. 6.55. General view of the Andronikov Monastery in the XVIII century. Watercolour by Camporesi. Taken from [100], page 132.

These places are most likely to have some relation to the Battle of Kulikovo as well, which must be why the Andronikov Monastery had been founded there in the first place. The construction and the decoration of the Spasskiy Cathedral, which is part of the monastery, are reported to have been carried out in 1390-1427 (see [569], pages 1-2). In other words, the stone cathedral was constructed right after the Battle of Kulikovo, which dates to 1380. There is indeed some memory of the fact that the monastery was founded to commemorate the battle. The cathedral only assumed its modern shape in the XIX century, when it was reconstructed after the Napoleonic invasion ([556] and [805], see fig. 6.56). Apparently, “in the XVII-XIX century the cathedral was disfigured by reconstructions, which also resulted in the destruction of the old frescoes. The dome fell in during the fire of 1812, and the cathedral had undergone a radical reconstruction” ([805]). It turns out that there aren’t even any drawings of the cathedral as it had been before the reconstruction. Historians tell us that “no knowledge of the cathedral’s original appearance survived” ([556]). The XX century “restoration” of the cathedral was based upon rather vague preconceptions of how the cathedral “should have looked in reality.” We learn that “a great many researchers of Russian architecture have studied the cathedral in order to reconstruct its initial appearance … The cathedral was restored in 1960 by a group of architects headed by L. A. David” ([805]).

Fig. 6.56. The Spasskiy Cathedral of the Andronikov Monastery in its modern condition. Photograph taken in 2000.

The art critic V. G. Bryussova writes the following: “the Andronikov Monastery and its Spasskiy Cathedral rank occupy a special place in history of Russian culture. Andrei Roublev lived and worked here; this monastery also became his final resting place. The monastery had once been exceptionally famous, but there is a strange veil that obscures its history from us. Chronicles describe the construction of virtually every other stone church in Moscow, but there isn’t a single word to be found about the construction of the Andronikov monastery’s cathedral – all we find amounts to stray bits of misleading information” ([100], page 49).

On the other hand, “the analysis of written sources that report the construction of the monastery leads us to the firm conclusion that its founder had been none other but Cyprian [the metropolitan active at the time of the Kulikovo Battle – Auth.] … Upon having reached the pan-Russian pulpit, Cyprian decided to commemorate the victory over Mamai … he founded a monastery … and made Andronik (Andronicus) Father Superior … it is understandable just why the consecration of this cathedral was related to the famous image of the Sudarium, which had decorated the military banners since times immemorial, helping the Russian army on the battlefield, according to folk tradition. The very architectural appearance of the cathedral embodies the concept of a victory monument perfectly” ([100], page 121).

M. N. Tikhomirov gives the following characteristic to the Andronikov Monastery, emphasising its importance:

“The Andronikov Monastery became a key cultural centre of Moscow soon immediately after its foundation … in one of the sources we find a description of the ceremony held by Dmitriy Donskoi after his victory at River Don. This description must have been made after the demise of Cyprian, which gives it a certain fable-like quality; nevertheless, the events it is based upon are real. Therefore, the victory of the Russian army at the Don became associated with the Andronikov monastery as well” ([842], pages 222-223; also [843], pages 243-244).

There is evidence of Cyprian meeting Dmitriy Donskoi on the site of the monastery after the Battle of Kulikovo. According to V. G. Bryussova, “Cyprian’s edition of the ‘Tale of the Battle with Mamai’ introduces the dramatized story of Cyprian meeting Dmitriy Donskoi at the site where Andronikov monastery was to be built” ([100], page 121).

The visit of the monastery’s Spasskiy cathedral in 1999 left the authors with a sad and sombre impression. According to the Concise History of the Andronikov Monastery ([569]), written by the archpriest of the cathedral, the “Spasskiy cathedral of the monastery, formerly known as Spaso-Andronikov Monastery, is the oldest surviving temple in Moscow … In the days of the monastery’s third Father Superior, Reverend Alexander … a cathedral of white stone was erected here, one of ‘great beauty’, with ‘artwork a living marvel’ … made by Andrei Roublev and Daniel Chorniy ‘in memory of their fathers’ … the construction and decoration were carried out in 1390-1427 … the frescoes of the divine masters were destroyed in the XVIII century, with nothing but the floral ornament in the altar window niches remaining intact” ([569], pages 1 and 2).

We are thus told that the artwork of the Spasskiy cathedral survived the “horrible yoke of the Horde and the Mongols”, likewise the turmoil of the XVI century with the oprichnina, etc. It had even stood through the Great Strife of the XVII century. Yet in the XVIII century, when the Romanovs finally gathered all the reins of power in their hands, they gave orders to destroy all the frescoes of the monastery. Why on earth would anyone do that? The scale of the Romanovian “rectification” of Russian history is plainly visible for any visitor of the Spasskiy cathedral – the vast space of the walls and the dome is completely blank. The order given by the Romanovs was carried out meticulously – there is no plaster on any wall, just bare bricks. All of this must have taken a tremendous amount of labour – one would have to find workers, construct the scaffolding and pay for the whole affair. The vandals did not even deem it necessary to paint the walls; we see nothing but chiselled brick and mortar surface nowadays – the past was eradicated in the cruellest manner imaginable. After all, the Romanovs could have justified their orders to destroy the old frescoes of the Spasskiy cathedral in some way, calling them dated or claiming them to be in a poor condition. They did nothing of the kind – the unique “Mongolian” frescoes were destroyed barbarically, with blatant contempt for the old history of Russia.

As a matter of fact, we only learnt about the XVIII century Romanovian destruction of the frescoes in the Spasskiy cathedral from the materials published by the cathedral’s provost Vyacheslav Savinykh in 1999 ([569]). Modern historians remain very tight-lipped when they are forced to speak about the Romanovian outrage – V. G. Bryussova, for instance, the author of a voluminous work entitled Andrei Roublev, which contains a detailed rendition of the Andronikov monastery’s history, doesn’t go beyond the following two cautious phrases: “It is possible that a description of the mural artwork before the destruction will be found in the archives – that should be worthy of our attention” ([100], page 53). Also: “The only surviving fragments of the frescoes can be found in the opening slopes of the altar windows” ([100], page 53).

The two fragments of the old artwork in the window niches are the only remnants of the cathedral’s former splendour. It is noteworthy that they are of an ornamental nature – neither saints, nor angels or indeed any other imagery familiar to us nowadays. The remaining ornament fragments are quite unusual. It isn’t even “floral”, as the guidebook is telling us ([569], page 2). We see circular wheel patterns and various geometric figures. On the left window one sees a cross formed by a circle and four Ottoman crescents. According to Bryussova, “One of the elements reminds us of the ornament from the famous Ouspenskiy cathedral in Vladimir … a similar motif is also present in the Assumption Church on the Volotovo Field … The publications concerned with masterpieces of decorative artwork sadly don’t devote enough attention to the reproduction of ornaments and other decorative motifs” ([100], page 53). The topic is thus of little interest to contemporary historians.

As we see, the symbolism used in the pre-Romanovian ecclesiastical decorative art had radically differed from the style of the Romanovian cathedrals that has existed ever since the XVII-XVIII century. It is possible that one can get some idea of what the old Russian Horde style had been like if one studies the artwork of the Muslim mosques – ornaments of floral and geometric nature, with no human figures in sight. Let us remind the reader that the recently uncovered old artwork in the Cathedral of St. Basil in Moscow is also ornamental in character (see Chron6 for more details).

As we are beginning to realise, once the Romanovs managed to strengthen their position, they proceeded to instigate radical changes in the symbols used by the state and the church, as well as the ecclesiastical rituals. The goal had been the complete erasure of the Great = “Mongolian” Russia from historical memory – the “unacceptable” Ottoman crescents and stars etc. One must think that the old artwork of the Spasskiy Cathedral in the Andronikov Monastery had some quality about itself that provoked particular hatred from the part of the Romanovs, which had resulted in the barbaric destruction of the entire artwork of the monastery. It must have suffered a particularly gruesome fate because of its being directly related to the history of the Kulikovo Battle in Moscow – it is possible that the cathedral’s walls were decorated by icons and murals that depicted the battle in a veracious manner. This would be only expected, after all, since, as we have already mentioned, there are legends about Dmitriy Donskoi met on this very spot after the Battle of Kulikovo.

A similar process took place in the XVII-XVIII century Western Europe, when the ancient history was being altered there as well. Bear in mind that the Ottoman star and crescent were removed from the spire of the huge Gothic cathedral of St. Stephan in Vienna, q.v. in Chron6, Chapter 5:11. The Romanovs were chiselling the artwork off the walls of the Kremlin cathedrals around the same time, and so on, and so forth. See more on this below in Chron4, Chapter 14:5.

Let us return to the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery. This is what the cathedral’s provost, Archpriest Vyacheslav (Savinykh) is telling us in his work: “The righteous prince Dmitriy Donskoi had prayed in the Spasskiy cathedral shortly before the Battle of Kulikovo [it is presumed that a wooden church was built here in 1360, and rebuilt in stone after the Battle of Kulikovo – Auth.] … This is also where he had praised the Lord for victory. The bodies of many heroes that fell in this battle are buried in the churchyard of the monastery” ([569], page 1). This fact is also mentioned in [556]. “The oldest necropolis in Moscow, which is of great historical significance, had remained within the confines of the friary for a long time. It is known that Most Reverend Sergiy of Radonezh had visited the monastery on the night before the battle … He blessed the army for victory. The heroes of the great battle, who have fallen for the Motherland, were buried in the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery with great solemnity; ever since that day, this churchyard has served as the last resting place of the soldiers who fell defending their country” ([556]).

And so it turns out that many of the soldiers who had fallen in the Battle of Kulikovo were buried on the churchyard of the famous Andronikov monastery. Our reconstruction offers a perfect explanation of this fact, suggesting the Battle of Kulikovo to have taken place on the territory of Moscow.

Nowadays the old necropolis of the Andronikov monastery is de facto destroyed. As we were told at the museum of the monastery, the enormous necropolis was bulldozed in 1924, with no stone left unturned. Most of its territory is located outside monastery premises, since one of the friary’s walls was moved in the XX century. This had halved the monastery’s territory, and the former necropolis ended up outside its confines. Modern photographs of the site where the necropolis had been situated formerly can be seen in figs. 6.57 and 6.58. Nowadays one finds a square there, with a tram-line right next to it. The wall of the monastery that one sees in figs. 6.57 and 6.58 was built in the XX century to replace the old wall, which had once encircled the entire necropolis. Several wooden crosses have been installed here recently to mark the old burial ground (see figs. 6.59 and 6.60). As we have been told in the Spasskiy cathedral, these crosses were put there with the explicit aim of commemorating the heroes who had died in the battle of Kulikovo and were buried here in the XIV century. There are plans of erecting a chapel here.

Fig. 6.57. The general view of the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery’s old necropolis, which isn’t on the premises of the monastery anymore. In the background we see the monastery’s wall, which was rebuilt in the XX century. The warriors buried on the Kulikovo Field were buried on this cemetery. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.58. The square on the site of the monastery’s old necropolis. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.59. Large wooden cross, installed in memory of the warriors who had been killed in the Battle of Kulikovo and buried in the old cemetery of the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery. This information was related to us by the monastery museum workers. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.60. Another cross installed near the previous one, also in memory of the warriors who had died in the Battle of Kulikovo. Photograph taken in 2000.

It is most noteworthy that the voluminous work of V. G. Bryussova ([100]) remains completely silent about the fact that many of the Kulikovo heroes were buried in the necropolis of the Andronikov monastery. There isn’t a word about it in the modern book by the archaeologist L. A. Belyaev entitled Moscow’s Ancient Monasteries (Late XIII – Early XV century) and Archaeological Data ([62]), either. L. A. Belyaev offers a very comprehensive collection of monastery-related data, yet doesn’t utter a single word about the old graves of a great many heroes of the Kulikovo battle. He also remains completely silent about the destruction of the frescoes in the XVIII century. Why would that be? Reluctance to get involved with contentious issues, or mere ignorance?

We deem either to be a crying shame – how could this possibly be true? Many heroes who had fallen in the Battle of Kulikovo, one of the most important battles in Russian history, are buried in the famous Andronikov monastery, which is located in the very centre of Moscow – yet the modern historians and archaeologists do not so much as make a passing reference to this fact, pretending it to be of no interest or feigning nescience. Let us reiterate: we believe this to be utter and complete disgrace. The provost of the Spasskiy cathedral is the only person to mention the ancient graveyard next to the church ([569], page 1) – yet the learned historians remain deaf. How come that the numerous heroes of the Kulikovo Battle buried in the Andronikov and the Old Simonov monasteries didn’t deserve so much as a mention in history textbooks? How come there is no monument here – nor flowers, nor visitors?

In March, 1999 we saw two old headstones in the museum of the Andronikov Monastery, allegedly dating from the XVI century (see figs. 6.61, 6.62 and 6.63). This is what the museum annotations tell us, at least. We see a forked or T-shaped cross on both of them, which looks exactly the same as the crosses on the headstones from the Old Simonov monastery. One of the headstones from the Andronikov monastery still bears marks of an old inscription, which was obviously chiselled off and replaced by a new one, q.v. in figs. 6.61 and 6.63. The letters look very clean and accurate, and visibly differ from the old and worn-down pattern on the headstone.

Fig. 6.61. A XVI century headstone from the necropolis of the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery. Currently kept in the museum of the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery in Moscow. We see an old forked three-point cross on the stone – this is how the Russian headstones had looked before the XVII century. However, the inscription was renewed – it may be a copy of the obliterated initial lettering, but this isn’t quite clear. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.62. Another XVI century headstone from the necropolis of the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery exhibited in its museum. We also see the ancient forked cross; there had once been some lettering in the top part, but it was chiselled off – the remaining fragments don’t let us reconstruct a single word. Photograph taken in 2000.

Fig. 6.63. Top parts of the XVI century headstones with lettering from the museum of the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery. Photograph taken in 2000.

Some old inscription had been chiselled off the second headstone as well, in a very blatant and barbaric manner, q.v. in fig. 6.62 and 6.63. The perpetrators did not even care about covering their tracks, and their intention to erase the inscription from the stone and from human memory is right out there in the open. Had they intended to use the stone for another grave, the old text would have been remove with more care. This was not the case – we see huge and uneven indentations in the stone (fig. 6.62).

Once we sum up the above data, we get a very clear picture of the following: it turns out that there are old burial grounds in Moscow, which are very likely to be the last resting place of the warriors killed in the Battle of Kulikovo, namely:

1. The gigantic graveyard of the Old Simonov monastery, q.v. above.

2. The huge necropolis of the Andronikov monastery, q.v. above.

3. The mass burial grounds in Kremlin, q.v. above.

4. The hypothetical burial ground next to the Church of All Saints at Kulishki.

5. The mass burial grounds on the actual site of the Kulikovo Battle, or the modern Peter the Great (former Dzerzhinsky) Academy mentioned in the letter of I. I. Kourennoi, q.v. in 14.2 above.

Let us reiterate that there were no such burial grounds found anywhere in the region of Tula, where the Battle of Kulikovo is supposed to have taken place according to the modern historians, despite the fact that they were sought with great diligence.

14.4. The modern Dmitriy Donskoi memorial at the foot of the Red (Krasniy) or Taganskiy Hill in Moscow

Nowadays the former Kulikovo field contains the Solyanka Street, the Yaouzskiye Gate, the Foreign Literature Library and the high-riser on the Kropotkinskaya Embankment in Moscow. As we already mentioned, Mamai stood camp on the Red Hill (Krasniy Kholm), where one finds the Taganskaya underground station nowadays (hence the name of the Krasnokholmskaya Embankment).

Therefore, the troops of Dmitriy Donskoi must have crossed the Yaouza and headed towards the Red Hill, upwards between the Library and the high-riser.

It is most curious that a memorial was erected on this very spot in 1992, on 25 September, or the day of the Kulikovo Battle. The monument has the shape of a cross that stands upon a foundation of granite. The name of the sculptor is Klykov; there is an inscription upon the granite saying: “There shall be a monument to St. Dmitriy Donskoi, the Righteous Prince and the Defender of Russia. 25 September 1992” (see fig. 6.51).

There must be some tradition that connects this place with the Battle of Kulikovo and the name of Dmitriy Donskoi, one that remains alive despite everything – let us remind the reader that the Battle of Kulikovo is reported to have taken place on 25 September 1380. It is most significant that the cross in question is facing the actual Kulikovo field, somewhat sideways across the Yaouza!

15.

The Battle of Kulikovo on a XVII century icon

Let us study a rare depiction of the Kulikovo Battle on an old icon from Yaroslavl dated to the middle of the XVII century and uncovered as late as 1959 ([996], pages 136-137; also [142], page 130). The icon depicts the life and the deeds of Sergiy of Radonezh ([142], page 130). We reproduce it in fig. 6.64. The icon is considered “a masterpiece of the Yaroslavl school and the XVII century Russian art in general” ([142], page 132). In the very centre of the icon we see Sergiy of Radonezh. The icon is “complemented by a battle scene below that shows the defeat of Mamai’s troops, pained on a long and relatively narrow board (30 centimetres). The anonymous artist created a unique painting of the famous Kulikovo battle, with an unprecedented amount of details, figures and explanatory subscripts” ([142], page 133).

Fig. 6.64. Hagiographical icon of St. Sergiy of Radonezh. In the bottom part of the icon we see “the battle against Mamai.” Taken from [142], page 130.

In fig. 6.65 one sees the left part of the board, whereas the right part is reproduced in fig. 6.66. Let us also clarify the exact meaning of the term “uncovered” as applied to icons. Icons were usually covered by a layer of drying oil, which would eventually darken, becoming almost completely black in some 100 years. Therefore, new images were drawn on top of the blackened icons; often marginally different from the original, and at times completely different. This process could take place several times. The XX century chemical science allows the removal of newer layers and the restoration of the older ones; this means that the Yaroslavl icon in its modern, “uncovered” state had not been visible in the XVIII-XIX century. The top layer must have had nothing in common with the battle scene in question, which was uncovered in 1959 ([996], pages 136-137). This rare painting has thus managed to escape the attention of historians. We are using a close-in of a fragment of the icon from [996] (pages 136-137). One might well enquire about the modern fate of this icon, as a matter of fact.

Fig. 6.65. Old icon called “The Tale of the Battle against Mamai” that depicts the Battle of Kulikovo (left part of the icon). Many of the details that we see in this icon confirm our hypothesis that the Battle of Kulikovo really took place at Kulishki, Moscow, and that both armies had been Russian, the hostile “Tartar forces” being purely figmental. The icon is dated to the middle of the XVII century. The artwork gradually became obscured by the darkened layer of drying oil; it was only uncovered in 1959. Taken from [996], pages 136-137.

Fig. 6.66. “The Tale of the Battle against Mamai.” Right part of the icon. Taken from [996], pages 136-137.

What does one see on the icon? Many interesting things – firstly, the faces and armament of the Tartars don’t differ from the faces and armament of the Russian soldiers – both armies look completely the same. The Russian army of Dmitriy Donskoi is on the left, and the “Tartar” army of Mamai is on the right. The most noteworthy detail is the fact that Mamai’s soldiers are crossing a river in order to reach the Kulikovo Field, descending the steep slope of a tall hill as they approach the river. One can see this plainly enough in fig. 6.66 – everything is in perfect concurrence with our reconstruction. Indeed, the troops of Mamai, which were located on the tall Red Hill (Taganskiy Hill) would have to descend and cross the famous River Yaouza in Moscow right away; we see Mamai’s army wade the river.

The fact that the “Tartar” troops of Mamai had indeed been forced to wade the river, just as we see them do on the icon, is reflected in the following passage of the Tale of the Battle with Mamai: “Simon Melik told the Great Prince that Czar Mamai had already waded the river and arrived to the Goose Ford, being just one night away from Dmitriy’s army and aiming to reach Nepryadva in the morning” ([635], pages 164-165). According to our reconstruction, the Nepryadva identifies as the well-known Neglinnaya river in Moscow, which had been right behind the army of Dmitriy located on the Kulikovo Field. Mamai would have to cross the Yaouza in order to reach the field, q.v. in figs. 6.4 and 6.5. One might note that the name Goose Ford (Gussin Brod) might be derived from the name of the river Yaouza (Yaouzin Brod); the scribe may have failed to comprehend the name and transformed it into the word “goose.” Alternatively, this transformation may have been deliberate, serving the purpose of covering the Muscovite tracks in the history of the Kulikovo Battle, which is how the Goose Ford came to existence. Another possibility is that the name Yaouz (Guz) referred to the Cossacks.

One must note that historians fail to indicate the Goose Ford within the framework of the Romanovian version, which locates the events in question in the area of the Don. They say that “the Goose Ford has not been located to date” ([631], page 215).

Let us return to the old icon; it is full of surprises. Another amazing fact is that both armies have got the same banners flying above them – the Russians and the Tartars. This is perfectly amazing from the Scaligerian point of view – we have been fed the version about the Orthodox Russian army of Dmitriy fighting foreign invaders adhering to a different faith for a long enough period of time. This implies different symbols on banners at the very least. What do we see on the actual icon? It is visible perfectly well from figs. 6.67-6.70 that both the Russians and the “Tartars” have the same banners with Christ’s Sudarium above them – the ancient wartime banners of the Russian army, in other words (see fig. 6.71). The fact that the “Tartar” troops of Mamai have a Russian banner flying high above their heads can only mean that the Battle of Kulikovo had been fought in the course of a bloody civil war between the armies of Dmitriy Donskoi and Ivan Velyaminov the tysyatskiy.

Fig. 6.67. “The Tale of the Battle against Mamai.” Fragment of the Icon. Mamai’s troops are gathered under typical Russian banners with the head of Christ. They have just crossed River Yaouza (we see one of the “Tartar” warriors crossing it on a raft). Taken from [996], pages 136-137.

Fig. 6.68. A close-in of the “Tartar” banner with the Russian Orthodox “Sudarium” image as carried into battle by the soldiers of Mamai. Taken from [996], pages 136-137.

Fig. 6.69. Russian troops of Dmitriy Donskoi facing the “Tartar” troops of Mamai in battle underneath the very same banner with the Orthodox “Sudarium” image. Fragment of the above icon. Taken from [996], pages 136-137.

Fig. 6.70. A close-in of the banner carried by the troops of Dmitriy Donskoi with the “Sudarium.” Fragment of the above icon. [996], pages 136-137.

Fig. 6.71. Old Russian double-sided icon entitled “The Sudarium.” On the reverse side we see the “Revering of the Cross.” Currently kept in the State Tretyakovskaya Gallery, Moscow. This particular image of Christ had been generally associated with the military. Russian troops carried banners with copies of this icon into battle. Image taken from [277], page 188.

In fig. 6.72 one sees the photograph of a Russian military banner dating from the XVI century. The banner is kept in the State Hermitage, St. Petersburg ([637], colour inset), and carries the image of the Sudarium. However, one needn’t get the idea that the banner in question is indeed a XVI century original; we are told that it is a XIX century copy. One cannot help but wonder about the location of the original, which must have been about in the XIX century. Why are we shown a copy nowadays? Has the original survived at all? It is most likely that we cannot get access to the original due to the “erroneous symbolism” present thereupon – for instance, there must have been Ottoman crescents with stars next to the head of Christ. The stars remained, and the crescents were removed. There could be inscriptions in Arabic, which were naturally removed as well. At any rate, the original remains concealed, and we are certain that it was concealed for a good reason.

Fig. 6.72. Russian battle banner of the XVI century with the image of Christ (the Sudarium). Kept in the State Hermitage, St. Petersburg. We see similar banners on the icon called “Tale of the Battle with Mamai” – over Russian troops as well as the Tartars. However, this XVI century banner isn’t an original, but rather a XIX century replica – most likely, an “edited” one. The original was coyly left in storage (if it is indeed intact at all). Taken from [637].

We must emphasise that the drawing on the icon is perfectly explicit – the Sudarium banners over the army of Dmitriy Donskoi are moving towards the very same banners over the army of Mamai, q.v. in fig. 6.69.

Fig. 6.73. A battery of cannons in the army of Dmitriy Donskoi firing at the enemy. Fragment of the icon entitled “Tale of the Battle with Mamai.” Taken from [996], pages 136-137.

Finally, one cannot help noticing the fact that Dmitriy’s army has got an entire battery of cannons, which we see shelling Mamai’s army at point blank range (fig. 6.73). Each cannon looks like a stretc.hed-out hand holding a wreathe and surrounded with a cloud of smoke. As we demonstrate in “The Baptism of Russia”, the famed Constantine’s Labarum was one of the symbolic representations of a cannon. Formally, there is nothing surprising about the battery of cannons since, according to Scaligerian history, cannons were introduced around the middle of the XIV century ([1447], page 47), around the time of the invention of gunpowder in Europe ([1447], page 357). However, historians hasten to assure us that those inventions were made in the enlightened West, whereas the Russians kept on using bows, arrows, maces, axes and so on. It is presumed that the casting of cannons was introduced a great deal later, and that the technology was imported from the progressive West. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary, for instance, is trying to convince us that the first Russian cannons were cast in Moscow in the XV century ([797], page 1080). However, as we can see nowadays, real history had been completely different – cannons were introduced in Russian immediately after their invention in the XIV century; there were apparently enough cannons by 1380 to meet the enemy with an entire battery of artillery.

The “Veche” publishing house released a book entitled The Mysteries of the Ancient Russia at the very end of the year 2000 ([113]); its authors are the professional archaeologists A. A. Bychkov, A. Y. Nizovskiy and P. Y. Chernosvitov. A third of the book (some 160 pages) is concerned with the Battle of Kulikovo – namely, Chapter 5, “The Mysteries of the Kulikovo Battle” ([113], pages 339-498). The authors go on at length about the archaeological characteristics of the place in the Tula region called the “Kulikovo Field” by the modern historians. We learn that there were no archaeological findings made there whatsoever that could prove the Battle of Kulikovo, or indeed any other large-scale mediaeval battle to have happened here. It turns out that the notorious findings made by S. D. Nechayev, the XIX century landowner, have nothing to do with the Battle of Kulikovo ([113], pages 370-371). Reports made by the archaeological expeditions of a later epoch (the XX century) also demonstrate an utter lack of any traces that could lead one to the conclusion that there had indeed been a mediaeval battle in these parts ([113], pages 390-391). Palaeogeographical analysis of the field demonstrated that “the left bank of the Nepryadva was completely covered in woods” ([113], page 406). This contradicts the chronicle data about the field in question being large and wood-free.

The authors come to the conclusion that the Battle of Kulikovo must have taken place elsewhere. Further in [113] one encounters a brief rendition of our reconstruction that suggests the Battle of Kulikovo to have taken place at Kulishki in Moscow. The authors claim our reconstruction to be unconvincing, and instantly suggest “their own reconstruction”, according to which the Kulikovo Field is also situated on the territory of the modern Moscow, but somewhat further south, at Shabolovka. This version is called the A. A. Bychkov version, after one of the book’s authors. We cannot help but make the following comment in re the general attitude of historians towards our works. We are either subjected to scorching criticisms, or, as is the case with Bychkov, our theories are shamelessly plagiarised. Most often, they skilfully do both.

Thus, the famous Battle of Kulikovo is most likely to have taken place at Kulishki in Moscow. Even if Moscow had existed around that time (late XIV century), it must have been a relatively small settlement and not a capital city, at any rate. The memory of the famous battle fought upon this field must have survived for a long while – the toponymy of Moscow is full of names that bear relation to the Battle of Kulikovo. However, when the Romanovian historians started to re-write Russian history, they were confronted with the task of erasing the Muscovite traces of the battle, changing the geography of events and “transferring” the battle to an altogether different location. The matter is that the foundation of Moscow had been backdated to the XII century, a few hundred years earlier than it had actually been founded, and the Battle of Kulikovo had to be relocated as a result. This is easy enough to understand – if Moscow had been capital for a long time, the city must have been full of buildings and construction, thus rendering a battle upon a large field in the centre of the city impossible.

Thus, after the distortion of Muscovite chronology, historians needed to solve the issue of relocating the famous battle elsewhere. The new location was chosen in the vicinity of Tula, all but void of buildings and settlements back in the day. This was followed by printed declarations that the famous Battle of Kulikovo between Dmitriy Donskoi and Mamai took place in the Tula region. However, one would need to do some clerical work to make this feasible – namely, locating a Nepryadva river in the Tula region and creating a phantom “Kulikovo” geography here in general. The old names had naturally been different; the Romanovian historians and geographers must have copied the names relevant to the Battle of Kulikovo from historical chronicles.

This “geographical relocation” has been analysed by I. R. Moussina. She made a detailed comparison of the names encountered upon the respective maps of Moscow and the Tula region. Let us cite some of the observations she made.

For instance, the Moscow Krutitsy Tract and the Krutitskiy Yard (one of the oldest architectural ensembles in Moscow – see [735:2], page 547), must have become reflected in the geography of the Tula region as Kurtsy, the name of a local river.

The Kulishki, or the Kulikovo Field in Moscow transformed into the Tula names of Kaleshevo and Kulikovka.

There is a Danilovskiy monastery in Moscow. There is also the “village of Danilishchev … as mentioned in the testament of Ivan Kalita” ([800:1], page 178). Apart from that, there’s a Danilovskaya Square, Danilovskaya Embankment and the village Danilovskaya in Moscow. Tula received the alias of Danilovka on the maps.

Next we have the rather well-known name of Saburovo, a village in the vicinity of the Kashirskiy Motorway. Fyodor Sabur (or Saburov) took part in the Battle of Kulikovo, and his descendants “were granted two fiefs in the XVI century, one of them near the village of Kolomenskoye, and the other – to the north of Moscow. See the article entitled “History of the Saburovo Village” at: moskvoved.narod.ru/saburovo.htm. The Tula duplicate is the Saburov hamlet – and so on, and so forth. The work of I. R. Moussina is extremely interesting, and shall be published separately.

This is how some of the “Kulikovo-related” names drifted from Moscow to Tula. People eventually got used to them and started to think of them as of local names, whereas the Muscovite originals were duly forgotten.

Let us emphasise another thing – one might get the impression that our reconstruction, which suggests the Kulikovo battle to have been fought upon the site that is part of central Moscow nowadays, is in no immediate relation to the problems of chronology, since the date of the battle remains the same – the year 1380. Why haven’t the learned historians found the traces of the Kulikovo battle in Moscow? The reason is simple – as we have already mentioned, they are convinced that Moscow had already existed as a city in 1380, which means that no battle could possibly have been fought here. This is how deeply chronology affects our perception of geographical facts, among other things.

16.

A brief history of coinage in Moscow

It turns out that Russian coinage was “revived” in the reign of Dmitriy Donskoi ([363], Volume 5, 450). To put it more precisely, the first coins minted in Moscow are dated to 1360 traditionally, whereas the wider circulation of the Moscow coins is said to have started as late as in 1389, right after the Battle of Kulikovo ([806] and [347]).

This is yet another indication that the Principality of Moscow had really been founded after the Battle of Kulikovo and not in the early XIV century, as Millerian and Romanovian historians are trying to convince us.

Actually, the researchers of numismatic Russian history (see [806] and [347]) begin their lists of surviving coins with the following dates and princes:

- The Great Principality of Moscow – starting with Dmitriy Donskoi.

- The Great Principality of Moscow and the Independent Principality of Galich – starting with 1389.

- The independent principalities around Moscow – starting with Dmitriy Donskoi.

- The Great Principality of Suzdal and Novgorod – starting with 1365. According to our reconstruction, it had really been the Great Principality of Suzdal and Yaroslavl, seeing as how Novgorod identifies as the latter.

- The Great Principality of Ryazan – starting with 1380.

- The Great Principality of Tver – starting with 1400.

- Independent principalities around Tver – starting with 1400.

- The Principality of Yaroslavl – starting with 1400.

- The Principality of Rostov – starting with the late XIV century.

- Novgorod and Pskov – starting with 1420.

Corollary. The real history of Russian coinage can be traced back to the end of the XIV century the earliest. We believe this to be the beginning of coinage in Russia, and not a “revival”, as historians are telling us.

17.

The history of the Donskoi Monastery in Moscow and the parallels with the Battle of Kulikovo on the territory of modern Moscow

By T. N. Fomenko

(T. N. Fomenko, Cand. Sci. (Physics and Mathematics), the author of a number of books and articles on algebraic topology and geometry, as well as algorithm theory, Assistant Professor at the General Mathematics Subdivision of the Numerical Mathematics and Cybernetics Department of the MSU.)

17.1. The battle against the “Tartar” Kazy-Girey in the XVI century, the Donskoi Monastery and the icon of Our Lady of Don

A brief history and description of the Donskoi monastery can be found in Forty Times Forty, where it is described as the “first-class Stavropegial friary outside the Kaluga Gate” ([803], Volume 3, page 244) See figs. 6.74 and 6.75; in fig. 6.76 one sees a modern photograph of the monastery’s northern wall.

Fig. 6.74. An old engraving depicting the Donskoi Cathedral in Moscow dating from the early XVIII century. A print made by Peter Picart. Taken from [31], page 7.

Fig. 6.75. A lithograph of the Muscovite Donskoi Monastery dating from 1873. Taken from [31], page 47.

Fig. 6.76. The northern wall of the Donskoi Monastery as it is today. Taken from [31].

The consensual version tells us the following about the foundation of the Donskoi monastery (quoting from [803], Volume 3, and [31]):

“Founded in 1591 to serve as a fortification and to defend the Kaluga gate of the city” ([310]).

“Founded by Czar Fyodor Ioannovich in 1591-1592” (the Alexandrovskiy manuscript).

“Founded in 1593 to commemorate the miraculous liberation of Moscow from the invasion of Kazy-Girey, a Crimean Khan, in 1591, on the site where the Russian regimental train had been positioned, together with the mobile church of the Most Reverend Sergiy of Radonezh, wherein the icon of Our Lady of Don was installed after it had been carried around the walls of the city and the army encampment. After the battle that had raged on through the entire day on 4 July, the Khan fled in the morning of the 5th, having tasted the resistance of the Russian army and leaving his baggage-train behind. The monastery was known as the Monastery of Our Lady of Don ‘at the Train.’

The icon of Our Lady of Don, which is housed in the monastery, had accompanied Dmitriy Donskoi during his campaign against Mamai; Russian Czars prayed before it to be given victory over their enemies in the XVII century. A sacred procession set forth from the Kremlin towards the friary on 19 August” ([239] and [803], Volume 3, page 244).

The identity of the founder of the former church remains unclear, likewise the time of its foundation. Could it have been founded by Sergiy of Radonezh himself to commemorate the victory of Dmitriy Donskoi in the Battle of 1380, fought upon the Kulikovo field, which would later become part of Moscow? Bear in mind that, according to our reconstruction, the troops of Dmitriy Donskoi set forth from the village of Kolomenskoye in Moscow, heading for the Kotly.

The time when the icon of Our Lady of Don was transferred to the church of the Donskoi Monastery remains unknown to us, likewise the identity of whoever initiated this transfer. The icon is related to Dmitriy Donskoi, which leads one to the natural presumption that it may have been kept in the old church of Our Lady before the XVII century. Otherwise, why would the Czars begin to address their “prayers for victory” to this particular icon in the XVII century? It may have been worshipped in earlier epochs as well, starting with the end of the XIV century and the victory in the Battle of Kulikovo.

Next one must enquire about the date of the sacred procession from the Donskoi monastery to the Kremlin in Moscow – 19 August. Why the 19th? This date cannot possibly be linked to Kazy-Girey, who was defeated on 4 July, some six weeks earlier. The choice of date is more likely to be related to the memory of Dmitriy Donskoi and his campaign against Mamai. Bear in mind that the Battle of Kulikovo took place on 8 September 1380, whereas its duplicate, which is known as the “Battle of Moscow fought against the Tartars”, is dated to 26 August 1382 by the modern historians (see Chapter 8 above). Both calendar dates (26 August and 8 September) are obviously a great deal closer to 19 August, the date of the procession, than 4 July. A propos, the very name Kazy-Girey might be a slightly distorted version of “Kazak-Geroi”, or “the Cossack Hero.”

The icon of Our Lady of Don (see fig. 6.77) is associated with some other oddities in Millerian and Scaligerian history: “The original icon of Our Lady of Don (painted by Theophan the Greek in 1392), which was kept in the Blagoveshchenskiy Cathedral of the Kremlin before the revolution, is currently part of the Tretyakovskaya Gallery’s collection. The worshipped copy of the icon was made by Simon Oushakov in 1668, and had been kept in the Minor Cathedral of the Donskoi Monastery (restored around 1930 by Y. I. Bryagin), is also kept in the Tretyakovskaya Gallery – it was handed over to the Gallery in 1935 by the Anti-Religious Museum of Arts organised on the premises of the former Donskoi monastery” ([28] and [803], Volume 3, page 244).

Fig. 6.77. The icon of Our Lady of Don. Taken from [969], page 8.

How can it be? We are being convinced that the icon was written in 1392. On the other hand, there are reports of said icon worshipped by the troops of Dmitriy Donskoi in 1380 and “accompanied the army during the Mamai campaign” ([239], q.v. above). Let us once again remind the reader that the Battle of Kulikovo took place in 1380. Although the resulting discrepancy is relatively small (a mere 12 years), it is a clear indication of confusion inherent in the Romanovian version of the Kulikovo Battle.

“A copy of Our Lady of Don is currently installed in the monastery’s Minor Cathedral” ([803], Volume 3, page 244). Oddly enough, neither the identity, nor the authorship of the copy are indicated anywhere.

The church named after the icon of Our Lady of Don is the oldest, first and most important church of the Donskoi monastery. It is “an old cathedral located in the middle of the southern part of the friary’s premises” ([803], Volume 3, pages 251-252). Little is known about the foundation of this cathedral.

“The cathedral was erected in 1591-1593. It was the first stone building of the monastery. The cathedral has often been reconstructed” ([570] and [803], Volume 3, page 244).

“The main altar bore the name of Our Lady’s Glorification; however, this church eventually got named after the icon of Our Lady of Don and not the altar; the feast on the 19 August also became known as the feast of Our Lady of Don” (The Alexandrovskiy Manuscript).

“It is presumed that the old cathedral had been built by F. S. Kon. According to the evidence of the deacon I. Timofeyev, the author of the ‘Annals’, there had been a ‘likeness’ of Boris Godunov’s image upon one of the cathedral’s walls; however, there were traces of this image found [see [150] and the reference to [170] below – Auth.]. The cathedral itself is a typical relic of Godunov’s epoch” ([310] and [803], Volume 3, page 244).

This is what the album-cum-monograph entitled The Donskoi Monastery ([31]) is telling us about the history of the friary’s foundation:

“In 1591, at the end of June, Kazy-Girey [apparently, Kazak-Geroi, or ‘the heroic Cossack’ – Auth.], a Crimean Khan, set forth towards Moscow with his troops … on 4 July 1591, Kazy-Girey, who had stood camp at the village of Kolomenskoye, gave orders to his avant-garde to conduct an offensive reconnaissance … The avant-garde tried to fight its way to the Kaluga Gates of the Zemlyanoi fortification (the Oktyabrskaya Square today), in order to use the Crimean Ford for wading the Moskva, and get to the Kremlin via one of the river’s banks. They were met by the fire of the Russian artillery. The battle raged on all day long, right next to the Goulyai-Gorod [mobile fortification made of wooden shields mounted on carts – Auth]. The Crimean Tartars withdrew, preparing for the next offensive. The Khan had divided his army into two parties so as to be nearer to Moscow; he left one at Kolomenskoye, and relocated to the heights of the Vorobyovy Hills with the other. This was taken into account by Boris Godunov, who was preparing a ruse of war.

Late in the evening on the 4 July 1591, all of Moscow was illuminated by bonfires lit upon the towers of the Kremlin, the Byeliy Gorod and the monasteries. The Muscovite militiamen were firing their cannons and beating their drums: “That night they set forth towards the dislocation of Kazy-Girey, and started to fire their cannons as they approached” ([720], page 444). Around the same time, an unarmed rider dressed as a wealthy man appeared next to the camp of the Tartars. They seized him and took him to the Khan, who questioned the prisoner about the noise raised by the Muscovites, threatening him with torture. The prisoner replied that a great body of reinforcements had arrived that very night from Novgorod and other Russian principalities (CCRC, Volume XIV, Part 1, page 43). “The prisoner had been tortured mercilessly … yet he remained steadfast and kept on telling the same thing, without altering a single word” ([514], page 38). The Tartars, exhausted by the evening battle and convinced by the prisoner’s staunchness, believed him and fled the very same night with such haste that “they broke a great many trees between Moscow and the town of Serpukhov, with many of their own horses and men trampled down” ([514], page 38). Next morning there were no Tartars near Moscow.

The army of Kazy-Girey was intercepted as it had attempted to cross the Oka, and put to rout. The campaign of Kazy-Girey proved the very last Russian campaign of the Crimean Tartars that had reached the walls of Moscow.

The defeat of Kazy-Girey had been compared to the victory on the Kulikovo field, which resulted, among other things, in Boris Godunov’s receiving … a golden vessel as a reward, which had been captured by the Russian army upon the Kulikovo Field and dubbed ‘Mamai’” ([31], pages 4-6; also [803], Volume 3, page 244).

An old drawing entitled “The Defeat of Kazy-Girey’s Army near Moscow in July 1591” ([629], page 19), survived on a map of Moscow from the book of Isaac Massa entitled “Album Amicorum”, allegedly dating from 1618. We reproduce this map in figs. 6.78-6.82.

Fig. 6.78. A plan of Moscow from the book of Isaac Massa entitled “Album Amicorum.” Manuscript allegedly dating from 1618. Presumed to be an illustration “to the tale of how Kazy-Girey’s troops were defeated under Moscow in July 1591 … The page reproduced tells us about how the troops engaged in battle … Its top part depicts Moscow” ([629], page 19). We instantly see an empty cartouche on the map that is most likely to have contained some inscription once. Taken from [629], page 19.

Fig. 6.79. A close-in of a fragment of the plan by Isaac Massa. “At the bottom of the page we see … the part of Moscow to the south of River Moskva and the Vorobyovskoye Field, where the first decisive battle with the troops of Kazy-Girey was fought on 4 July 1591.” Taken from the front cover of the book ([629]).

Fig. 6.80. A close-in of a fragment of the plan by Isaac Massa. “The bottom part of the engraving is larger; it depicts the mobile citadel, or gulyay-gorod, and the warriors around it … The citadel is formed by a row of wooden shields with openings for cannons” ([629], page 19). Taken from the cover of the book ([629]).

Fig. 6.81. A close-in of a fragment of the plan by Isaac Massa. “As it is widely known, the Donskoi Monastery was founded on the site of the gulyay-gorod the very same year” ([629], pages 19-20). Inside the mobile citadel we see the military commander of the army that defended Moscow – possibly, Boris Godunov, since we see a trefoil royal crown on the head of the horseman. Taken from the front cover of [629].

Fig. 6.82. A close-in of a fragment of the plan by Isaac Massa. We see the centre of Moscow and the environs of River Yaouza. One must note that the site of the Kulikovo Battle is filled with buildings on the plan of Isaac Massa. This contradicts the old maps of Moscow dating from the middle of the XVIII century, according to which this entire territory had remained free from buildings until 1768 at least (see Chapter 14 above). This is why the plan of Isaac Massa is most likely to date from the middle of the XVIII century the earliest. Taken from the front cover of [629].

Many facts that concern Kazy-Girey remain unclear in the Romanovian and Millerian version. For instance, the XVI century defeat of Kazy-Girey is explicitly compared to the XIV century Battle of Kulikovo. However, this comparison isn’t explained in any way at all; there is no commentary made in this respect whatsoever. This is easy to understand, since the Millerian and Romanovian version has transferred the Kulikovo battle from Moscow to the faraway Tula region. Kazy-Girey was crushed near Moscow; his troops have taken the same route as the army of Dmitriy Donskoi before the Battle of Kulikovo. The parallel is obvious enough, yet remains beyond the comprehension of learned historians, blinded by the erroneous Romanovian version.

Next question is as follows. Why would Boris Godunov be awarded with a golden vessel called “Mamai”? This is clearly an important and valuable object, quite obviously related to the Battle of Kulikovo in some way. This fact also remains void of commentary.

Finally, the Romanovian and Millerian version doesn’t explain the haste of Kazy-Girey’s retreat – after all, we are told that the Tartars weren’t attacked by anyone. On the other hand, it is reported that the Tartars “broke a great many trees between Moscow and the town of Serpukhov, with many of their own horses and men trampled down” ([514], page 38). If the final defeat of Kazy-Girey took place at the Oka (somewhere in the Podolsk area, judging by the route of his army’s withdrawal), why would the church commemorating this victory of the Russian army be erected as far away as in Moscow? Could it be that Kazy-Girey was defeated at the walls of Moscow? In this case, the parallel with the Battle of Kulikovo, which was also fought in Moscow, according to our reconstruction, would become all the more obvious. It is likely that the Muscovites had still remembered this fact in the days of Boris Godunov, which is why the defeat of Kazy-Girey was compared to the victory over Mamai in the first place.

On the one hand, Kazy-Girey is considered a “vicious Tartar” who had attempted to invade Moscow nowadays. He was defeated, just like Mamai, another “vicious Tartar.” On the other hand, the army of Kazy-Girey chose the very same route as the army of Dmitriy Donskoi, the famous Russian hero. One must once again voice the presumption that the name Kazy-Girey is a derivative of “Kazak-Geroi”, which translates as “the heroic Cossack.” We must also remember that the words “Tartar” and “Cossack” had once been synonyms, q.v. above. Could the battle with Kazy-Girey have been fought as part of civil war in the XVI century Russia, or Horde?

Let us return to the cathedral of the Donskoi monastery. We learn that “we know of no documents that could help us with a precise dating of the cathedral’s construction. I. Y. Zabelin presents us with a rather convincing calculation based on chronicle data in [420], page 15, which suggests the Minor [the Old – Auth.] cathedral to have been finished by 1593 ([285], page 113). One might presume the construction began in 1591, since the Spasskaya church of the Simonov monastery, built in memory of the victory over Kazy-Girey (which no longer exists), was erected at the gates of the friary around 1591-1593 ([170]). Moreover, Ivan Timofeyev, an actual defender of Moscow in the battle of 1591, appears to be dating both the foundation of the monastery and the construction of the cathedral to this very year, judging by the style of his narrative ([170], pages 198-208)” ([803], Volume 3, page 6). A modern photograph of the Old (Minor) cathedral of the Donskoi Monastery can be seen in fig. 6.83. By the way, we see a Christian cross twined with a crescent crowning its spire; this is but another version of the Ottoman star and crescent, q.v. in fig. 6.84. According to our reconstruction, Christianity had remained united until the XVI century. The branch that would later transform into Islam emerged in the XVII century.

Fig. 6.83. The Lesser (Old) Cathedral of the Donskoi Monastery in Moscow. Taken from [31].

Fig. 6.84. The dome of the Lesser (Old) Cathedral of the Donskoi Monastery in Moscow. We see it topped with a symbol typical for the Russian churches – a Christian cross that comprises the Ottoman crescent and the star. Taken from [31].

“The deacon Ivan Timofeyev writes the following in his Annals: ‘The ambitious Boris had built a new cathedral of stone upon the site where the regimental train had stood and where the Lord made a miracle and consecrated it to the Blessed Virgin Mary as Our Lady of Don, hence the name Donskoi. He was pretending to be driven by true faith; however, the true motivation had been his tremendous vanity and a desire to keep the memory of his name and his victor’s glory alive for generations to come. His intentions were well understood, as they had been in many other instances, since there was his image painted on one of the cathedral’s walls, as though he were a saint’ ([170], page 208). Thus, the Minor cathedral was originally built to commemorate the victory of the military commander [Boris Godunov – Auth.] over the Tartars, with his portrait painted on one of the cathedral’s walls” ([31], page 8).

Has any original XVI century part of the Donskoi monastery reached our epoch? The answer is in the negative. The Romanovs gave orders for a radical reconstruction of the Old (Minor) cathedral in the XVII century. It is reported that “the research conducted in the 1930’s prior to the restoration works of 1946-1950, failed to discover a single fresco dating from the late XVI century. The artwork, whose temporal significance had truly been paramount, is likely to have perished in the cathedral’s radical reconstruction, which was performed in the 1670’s” ([31], page 8). Modern commentators cannot just omit the fact that the position of the Romanovs in what concerned such “radical reconstructions” had always been blatantly tendentious: “The frescoes may have been destroyed earlier, if we are to consider the extremely biased attitude towards Boris Godunov that had prevailed for centuries of the Romanovian rule … the partial opinion of the Romanovs had served as the official historical viewpoint for quite a while … the frescoes could have disappeared in the first decade of the XVII century, without a single mention thereof made in any church documents … the deacon Ivan Timofeyev must have been quite correct in his assumption that the Old cathedral of the Donskoi monastery had been built by Boris Godunov himself” ([31], pages 8-9).

The barbaric destruction of the frescoes in the Old cathedral of the Donskoi monastery is but an episode of the long and gruesome series of similar vandalisms to follow the Romanovian usurpation, whose goal had been the total erasure of the ancient Russian history (see Chron4, Chapter 14).

The large cathedral of the Donskoi monastery was erected in 1686-1698, q.v. in fig. 6.85 – at the very end of the XVII century, that is, and already under the Romanovs. One must think that the new decoration of the cathedral was already reflecting their “progressive” view of the Russian history. It is therefore futile to search for traces of the ancient history of Russia (aka the Horde) in that cathedral – also, it turns out that “the cathedral has undergone many restorations and renovations” ([31], 21). The XVII century can be regarded as the credibility threshold of consensual world history, and we see it manifest in the history of the Donskoi monastery as well.

Fig. 6.85. The Greater Cathedral of the Donskoi Monastery in Moscow. Upon its domes we see the same kind of Orthodox crosses comprising the Ottoman crescent and the star. Taken from [31].

Let us conclude with formulating the following considerations:

1) Apparently, the Church of the Most Reverend Sergiy had been built in the Moscow village of Kotly before the XVI century – in 1380, to be more precise, constructed to commemorate the victory over Mamai at the site where Donskoi had stopped before the military inspection of the troops. This is where Our Lady of Don was erected, and later the Donskoi monastery.

2) As for the icon of Our Lady of Don, q.v. in fig. 6.77, it must have also been part of this part of this church (possibly, a mobile one). It could have been transferred there after the foundation of the new church and the monastery, which became named after this icon.

3) The name of the icon (Our Lady of Don) is explained by the fact that it had been given to Dmitriy Donskoi by the Cossacks from the Don. One must recollect the fact that the icon of Our Lady of Vladimir is also reported to have been worshipped in Moscow during the reign of Dmitriy (see fig. 6.86). The two icons resemble each other a great deal.

Fig. 6.86. The icon of Our Lady of Vladimir. Taken from [969], ill. 1.

See more on these icons, their history, migrations and current locations in [420], Volume 2, pages 198-208, [963], pages 111, 143, 153 and 161, and [969], issue 1, ill. 1.8.

4) The choice of the site for the Donskoi monastery (originally the Church of Our Lady of Don) must be related to the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary built by Most Reverend Sergiy of Radonezh at Kotly in Moscow, where the troops of Dmitriy had stood. The church may have already been very old in the XVI century, seeing how some two centuries had passed since the Battle of Kulikovo by that time. Nevertheless, it appears that the location of the battlefield had still been known in the XVI century. It is possible that the ambitious Boris had tried to make his own deeds outshine the XIV century victories of Dmitriy Donskoi, hence the portrait in the church. The regimental train version suggested by modern historians doesn’t appear convincing even to themselves, and so they keep going on about the strategic choice of location etc. It is possible that many of the events associated with the Battle of Kulikovo nowadays really date to the epoch of Boris Godunov and his brother Dmitriy – the XVI century.

5) The self-implied comparison with the Battle of Kulikovo is just mentioned, historians don’t compare any actual documents anywhere, merely mentioning the “Mamai” vessel. Why would that be? The obvious parallel is between the routes of both armies and the choice of site for battle, both in the XIV and the XVI century (the villages of Kolomenskoye and Kotly in Moscow, the Crimean Ford and so on). However, the erroneous consensual location of the Kulikovo Battle (the Tula region) makes such heretical parallels right out the question for any historian. This is why they present us with vague comparisons and nothing but, fragmentary and rather illogical.

Corollary. The abovementioned facts confirm the correctness of our reconstruction, according to which the Battle of Kulikovo had been fought in the area of central Moscow, albeit indirectly.

17.2. The true datings of the presumably ancient plans of Moscow that are said to date from the XVI-XVII century nowadays

It is most curious that the part of Moscow where we suggest the Battle of Kulikovo to have been fought (the Kulishki) is drawn full of buildings in the plan of Isaac Massa. This is very odd, since this entire region is drawn as void of buildings and constructions in the two substantially more recent maps dating from 1767 and 1768 (figs. 6.53 and 6.87, respectively – see [629] and Chapter 14 above). Apparently, the memory of the fact that a violent battle was fought here in 1380 has lived on for many centuries, and no one would even dream of settling upon a gigantic cemetery. It wasn’t until much later, when the true history of Moscow became distorted out of proportion, that the first constructions appeared here. However, even those were related to the military in some way – there have never been any residential buildings here; nowadays this site is occupied by the buildings of the Ministry of Defence and related institutions. Therefore, the authors of the “Isaac Massa map” must have lived in the second half of the XVIII century, already after 1768. The plan must have been drawn around that epoch and slyly backdated to the XVII century, and is therefore a forgery.

Fig. 6.87. “The Plan of Moscow, the Imperial Capital”, 1768. We only cite the fragment of the plan with the Kremlin and its environs up until River Yaouza. What we see here is virtually an empty space. According to our reconstruction, this is the very site of the Battle of Kulikovo that took place in 1380. Taken from the jacket of [629].

This makes the datings of eight other famous maps of Moscow seem untrustworthy as well – all of them are considered very old. They are as follows:

1. “The Godunov Draught”, allegedly dating from the early 1600’s.

2. “Peter’s Draught”, a map of Moscow allegedly dating from 1597-1599 ([627], page 51).

3. “Sigismund’s Map”, allegedly dating from 1610, engraving by L. Kilian ([627], page 57).

4. “The Nesvizhskiy Map”, allegedly dating from 1611 ([627], page 59).

5. The map of Moscow allegedly engraved by M. Merian in 1638 ([627], page 75).

6. The map of Moscow taken from the Voyage to Moscovia, Persia and Indiaby A. Olearius, allegedly dating from the 1630’s ([627], page 77).

7. The map of Moscow from the Voyage to Moscovia by A. Meierberg, allegedly dating from 1661-1662 ([627], page 79).

8. The map of Moscow from the album of E. Palmquist allegedly dating from 1674 ([627], page 81).

Let us examine the fragments of the abovementioned maps that depict the Kulishki, or the area between the Kremlin and the Yaouza estuary, q.v. in figs. 6.88-6.95. Each of the maps depict this area as developed land, which leads one to the conclusion that none of them can possibly predate the 1768, likewise the map of Isaac Massa. The XVII and XVI century datings were introduced by later hoaxers. The cartography of Moscow is thus full of blatant forgeries.

Fig. 6.88. A fragment of “Godunov’s plan” allegedly dating from the early 1600’s, whereupon the part of Moscow between the Kremlin and the Yaouza estuary, or the Kulishki, is already filled with buildings. Therefore, the plan in question cannot predate 1768. Taken from [627], page 55.

Fig. 6.89. A fragment of “Peter’s draft”, or a plan of Moscow dating from the alleged years 1597-1599, whereupon the part of Moscow between the Kremlin and the Yaouza estuary, or the Kulishki, is already filled with buildings. Thus, the plan in question cannot predate 1768. Taken from [627], page 51.

Fig. 6.90. A fragment of “Sigismund’s map”, or a plan of Moscow dating from the alleged year 1610, whereupon the part of Moscow between the Kremlin and the Yaouza estuary, or the Kulishki, is already filled with buildings. Thus, the plan in question cannot predate 1768. Taken from [627], page 57.

Fig. 6.91. A fragment of the “Nesviga plan” dating from the alleged year 1611, whereupon the part of Moscow between the Kremlin and the Yaouza estuary, or the Kulishki, is already filled with buildings. Thus, the plan in question cannot predate 1768. Taken from [627], page 59.

Fig. 6.92. A fragment of the map of Moscow engraved by M. Merian in the alleged year 1638, whereupon the part of Moscow between the Kremlin and the Yaouza estuary, or the Kulishki, is already filled with buildings. Thus, the plan in question cannot predate 1768. Taken from [627], page 75.

Fig. 6.93. A fragment of the map of Moscow contained in the book of A. Olearius entitled A Journey to Moscovia, Persia and India, allegedly dating from the 1630’s. The map makes it perfectly visible that the area of Kulishki between the Kremlin and the Yaouza estuary is built over. This suffices for dating the plan to the post-1768 epoch. Taken from [627], page 77.

Fig. 6.94. A fragment of the map of Moscow from the book of A. Meierberg entitled A Voyage to Moscovia, allegedly dating from 1661-1662, whereupon the part of Moscow between the Kremlin and the Yaouza estuary, or the Kulishki, is already filled with buildings. Thus, the plan in question cannot predate 1768. Taken from [627], page 79.

Fig. 6.95. A fragment of a plan of Moscow from the album of E. Palmquist, allegedly dating from 1674. We see buildings all across Kulishki, or the area between the Kremlin and the estuary of River Yaouza. Therefore, the plan couldn’t have been drawn before 1768. Taken from [627], page 81.

Our opponents might theorise about the XVI-XVII century developments and buildings on the site of the Kulishki, which were demolished subsequently for some obscure reason, with new constructions appearing towards the late XVIII and even the XIX century. However, this rings highly improbable – if a territory this large and located at the very centre of the capital to boot had once been developed, it wouldn’t stand void of buildings for too long, even presuming some of them got demolished. There must be a good reason for a site at the very centre of a capital city to remain empty for a long period of time.

There is evidence that the “Godunov Draught” had undergone a transformation of some sort. It is presumed that the only surviving copy of the plan was made in 1613; it bears the legend “Moscow according to the original of Fyodor Borisovich.” Historians proceed to tell us that “according to the inscription, the original of the map was made by Prince Fyodor, the son of Boris Godunov” ([627]), page 55. Romanovian and Millerian historians admit the original to be lost; it is impossible to tell whether or not the copy differs from it in any way at all. We consider this “disappearance” of the original highly suspicious.

17.3. Additional remarks in re the Battle of Kulikovo

1. It is possible that the place called Mikhailov on River Chura is related to the name of Mikhail, the Great Prince of Tver. It is known that he had launched two campaigns against Moscow, spending the winter there. However, since Mikhail of Tver had fought against the offspring of Daniel, the Great Prince of Moscow, trying to seize the city, the victors may have taken care of making material traces of Mikhail’s sojourn disappear; however, oral tradition has preserved them.

2. One must pay close attention to the former locations of the princely palaces. There had once been a Danilov village to the north of the Danilov monastery, likewise the palace of Daniel Aleksandrovich, the founder of the monastery ([62], pages 101-104 and 109-111).

3. The royal palace of Dmitriy Donskoi must have formerly stood in the Moscow village of Kolomenskoye. There is no direct evidence to confirm this; however, “there are reports that in 1380 Dmitriy Donskoi built a church in Kolomenskoye to commemorate the victory at the Kulikovo field; nowadays there’s the Church of St. George on that site” ([294:1], page 7). Apart from that, “Kolomenskoye is known as a princely village and a strategic location in the avenue of approach to Moscow … Russian troops had stood at Kolomenskoye after the great Battle of Kulikovo … the ancient Church of St. George was built here to honour the Russian arms; it is possible that some of the soldiers who died of wounds after the battle were buried here” ([821:1], page 23). We learn of an old cemetery in Kolomenskoye, which had existed in the XIII-XV century and was closed down afterwards ([821:1], page 24).

4. The palace of Ivan the Terrible was located in the village of Vorobyovo at the Vorobyovy Hills ([301], page 64). Historians believe it to have been his rustic residence; however, it is most likely to have served as the primary palace originally, before the construction of the Kremlin on the other bank of the Moskva. The large size of the royal palace at the Vorobyovy Hills is emphasised in [537:1], page 56.

It turns out that some of the Russian princes’ primary palaces had stood to the south of the Moskva and its marshy lower bend known as Don prior to the Battle of Kulikovo and a short while afterwards. This explains the references to the Kulikovo field as located “across the Don” and the name of the Zadonshchina chronicle, whose name literally translates as “Writings from the Other Side of the Don.”

5. Let us turn to some of the old churches and monasteries in Moscow once again in order to trace their connexions with the Battle of Kulikovo. Let us cite some additional data taken from the “Nedyelya” newspaper, #1/96, page 21.

1. The Ougresh Stavropegial Friary of St. Nicholas (6 Dzerzhinskaya St.): “The monastery was founded in 1380 at the orders of Dmitriy Donskoi, who had erected it to commemorate his victory on the Kulikovo Field.”

2. The Stavropegial Monastery of Our Lady’s Nativity (20, Rozhdestvenka St.): “The monastery was founded in 1386 to commemorate the victory in the Battle of Kulikovo.”

3. The Sretenskiy Stavropegial Friary (19, Bolshaya Lubyanka St.): “The monastery was founded around 1395.” No direct references to the Battle of Kulikovo are made; however, both the date and the location fit.

4. The Church of St. Nicholas and the Life-Giving Trinity at Bersenevka in Upper Sadovniki (18, Bersenevskaya Embankment): “there used to be a monastery here, known since 1390.”

17.4. The origins of the name Mikhailovo at River Chura in Moscow

As it was mentioned above, certain editions of the Zadonshchina report that one of Dmitriy’s soldiers, Foma Katsybey (or Kochubey) stood guard at River Chura near Mikhailovo ([631], page 217). Historians cannot locate either anywhere in the Tula region, which is where they locate the Kulikovo Field. Therefore, they either try to dispute the authenticity of this passage, or invent ancient settlements, which don’t exist to date, named along the lines of “Kochur Mikhailov.” On the other hand, one may recollect our detailed account of the fact that a river called Chura (as indicated on many old maps) runs through Moscow until this day (see above). A propos, one must mention the following peculiar fact. Chura has got a tributary called Krovyanka. Oddly enough, certain recent maps use the name Krovyanka for referring to the entire River Chura. Why would that be? Could historians be striving to erase the “dangerous” name Chura from memory?

It is on the bank of River Chura that we find a distinct trace of an old tract called Mikhailov, right next to the Muslim cemetery. It is a large neighbourhood where nearly every street bears the name Mikhailovskaya, q.v. above and also in any map of Moscow.

Little is known about the origins of the name Mikhailovo near River Chura in Moscow; modern books on the history of Moscow usually deem it sufficient to trace the name Mikhailov to “one of the local landlords” – XX century landlords, that is.

However, the combination of the two names (Chura and Mikhailov) must still be perceived as dangerous by historians, since the Zadonshchina (which is where one encounters these names) is a well-known work. The fact that the name Krovyanka had been ascribed to the very part of River Chura that runs near Mikhailov may be in direct relation to the reluctance of the learned historians to have the names mentioned in the Zadonshchina linked to the toponymy of Moscow.

Let us also cite the data that indirectly confirm the ancient origins of the name Mikhailovo. Karamzin mentions the village of Mikhailovskoye (or Mikhalevskoye) twice – in comment 326 to Volume IV and in comment 116 to Volume V (see [362], Book I, comments to Volume IV, Chapter IX, column 125; also Book II, comments to Volume V, Chapter I, column 41. Some of the testaments left by the Russian princes also mention the village of Mikhailovskoye.

One wonders about the identity of Prince Mikhail, whose name was later given to the village of Mikhailovo on River Chura. Daniil Aleksandrovich, the first independent Prince of Moscow, became enthroned after Mikhail the Brave, Prince of Tver, since Moscow had been part of the Tver principality back then. Nothing is known about the location of Mikhail’s headquarters in Moscow. Daniil maintained amicable relations with the Princes of Tver. Daniil’s palace and the monastery that he had founded were located near River Moskva as well as the Danilov monastery and the Danilovskoye cemetery, which exist until this date. It is possible that the site chosen by Daniil for the construction of the palaces and the monastery had been in the vicinity of the former headquarters of Mikhail the Brave, the previous ruler. Historians discuss various possible locations of Daniil’s grave; one of the versions, which strikes us as the most plausible, suggests Daniil to have lived and been buried in his village of Danilov and the monastery that he had founded.

It is also presumed that Daniil’s son Youri (Georgiy) Danilovich, heir to the throne of Moscow, had had a worse relationship with Mikhail Yaroslavich, the regnant Prince of Tver who had come to Moscow twice – in 1305 and 1307. The princes had arranged for a truce the first time; the second time Mikhail tried to seize Moscow, and stood camp at the city walls for a long time – however, he was forced to retreat without capturing the city. If the headquarters of the Muscovite prince had been in the vicinity of the Danilov village at the time, it would make sense to presume that Mikhail had stood camp close nearby. There are reports that he had spent one of the winters in Moscow. The logical assumption would be that his headquarters were located next to the village of Danilov – possibly, right on top of the tall hill next to Chura where one finds a multitude of streets and lanes sharing the name Mikhailovskaya.

We are thus led to the theory that the name Mikhailovo is related to either Mikhail the Brave, his grandson Mikhail Yaroslavich, or both characters.

Let us cite the following passage from The History of Moscow by Ivan Zabelin: “The very same year … in 1329 … Ivan Danilovich [the Great Prince of Moscow – Auth.] came up with the idea of … erecting a stone church next to his court and consecrate it to Christ’s Transfiguration; this church was designed as a replacement for the decrepit Church of the Saviour in the Woods, where the remnants of Mikhail, Great Prince of Tver slain in the Horde, had still been kept in 1319 … The monastery near the church had already existed in those days – it might be the oldest monastery in Moscow … more recent legends told by old wise men claimed this monastery to have been founded on the other bank of the Moskva originally … by Daniil Aleksandrovich, the father of Ivan Danilovich … and also that Ivan Danilovich had transferred the archimandrite of Danilovo and several chosen priests to the Kremlin” ([284], page 77).

The implication is that a certain church of the Saviour in the Woods, where the body of Mikhail, the late Great Prince of Tver had been kept, was located next to the Danilovskiy monastery – possibly, in the vicinity of Mikhailovo on River Chura, hence the name Mikhailovo (or Mikhailov). Therefore, our reconstruction does not contradict the ancient tradition.

We already mentioned it above that the very name of the book that contains an account of the Kulikovo Battle (Zadonshchina) refers to the fact that the battle took place across the river from where the Prince had resided back then (“za Donom” translates as “across the Don”). This concurs well with our hypothesis that the Kremlin did not exist back then and could not have been the city centre, while the palace of Dmitriy had stood on the right bank of the Moskva, likewise the palaces of his predecessors (first in the vicinity of the Danilov Monastery and Mikhailovo at River Chura, and later in Kolomenskoye).

17.5. The Grebnyovskaya Icon given to Dmitriy Donskoi, and River Chura in Moscow

Certain sources (q.v. below) report that the so-called Grebnyovskaya Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary had been given to Dmitriy Donskoi right before the battle of Kulikovo. The sources concur that the Cossacks who had given the icon to Dmitriy hailed from River Chura, Chira or Chara, and called themselves the Grebnyovskiye Cossacks. The origins of the name cannot be traced by any existing documents. One of the versions suggests Grebnyov to have been the name of their Ataman, another – that these Cossacks hailed from the town of Grebni or the village Grebnyovskaya, and yet another one considers the name to refer to one of the Cossack tribes (likewise the Zaporozhye Cossacks, the Yaik Cossacks, the Terek Cossacks etc.), rather than an explicit geographical location. Let us proceed with quoting the sources.

The 4-volume oeuvre entitled Forty Times Forty reports the following in its description of the nonexistent church consecrated to the Grebnyovskaya Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary upon the Lubyanskaya Square in Moscow: “Alexandrovskiy suggests … that the Grebnyovskaya Church was constructed to house the icon by the same name, which was brought here from the Kremlin Cathedral, built of stone by Vassily III. An old legend has it that the icon was given to Dmitriy Donskoi by the Cossacks from River Chara, which flows into the Don near the estuary” ([803], Volume 2, page 253).

Y. P. Savelyev writes the following in his most noteworthy book entitled The Ancient History of the Cossacks (Moscow, Veche, 2002): “When the Don Cossacks from the towns of Sirotina and Grebni heard that Dmitriy Ivanovich, Prince of Moscow, was gathering his troops to stand steadfast against the Tartars, they came to aid him, and gave him the icon-cum-gonfalon of Our Lady of Don and the Grebnyovskaya Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary” (page 199). E. P. Savelyev gives a reference to the “Chronicle of the Antoniy, the Archimandrite of the Donskoi Monastery, 1592” from the “Historical Description of the Stavropegial Donskoi Monastery in Moscow” by I. Y. Zabelin, second edition, 1893.

Savelyev proceeds to report that “Stefan, the Metropolitan of Ryazan, mentions the fact that the icon in question was given to Dmitriy by the Cossacks from ‘the town of Grebni located in the estuary of River Chira’ in his tale of the Grebnyovskaya Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary dating from 1712. The icon is located at the Lubyanka in Moscow” (page 199), and then tells the reader about the futile attempts of the historians to locate the towns of Sirotin and Grebni upon the modern River Don.

However, if we are to identify the mythical Chira or Chara as River Chura in Moscow, everything becomes clear instantly, since the famous Donskoi monastery had stood at River Chura. According to our reconstruction, Dmitriy’s troops had passed by this place as they were approaching the Battle of Kulikovo. The icon of Our Lady of Don had been kept here as well; it is possible that the two famous icons mentioned above were given to Dmitriy right here. By the way, we have found no literary indications concerning the present location of these icons, or indeed anything to confirm that they still exist.

Let us conclude with the hypothesis that the name Cheryomushki (an area of Moscow) is a very old one; it could be derived from the names Chura and Mikhailovo, or Chura and Moscow. This possibility is to be studied further.

Also, let us relate an interesting fact that was mentioned to us by V. P. Fyodorov. On 23 August 2002 the Vechernyaya Moskva newspaper published an article entitled “The Capital Shall Reclaim its Ancient Lakes”, wherein it is written that the historical park of Kossino in Moscow happens to be the location of “the three oldest lakes in Moscow – the Black Lake, the White Lake and the Holy Lake … many curative properties are ascribed to the latter – according to the ancient legend, a church had once drowned here … we hope that after the cleaning works are over, the Muscovites shall once again be able to appreciate the salubrious effects of the lake (another legend has it that the participants of the Kulikovo Battle had bathed here in order to cure their wounds). The near-bottom silt of the lake is reach in iodine, bromine and silver; it has been used for curing rheumatism since times immemorial.” Therefore, there is yet another place in the vicinity of Moscow directly related to the Battle of Kulikovo, which concurs perfectly with our reconstruction.

“The Baptism of Russia” and “Cossacks as Aryans: from Russia to India”, books by Fomenko and Nosovskiy, demonstrate that the paramount importance of the Kulikovo Battle results from its religious nature – it was a clash between the two primary currents in that epoch’s Christianity, namely, the Czar and the Apostolic (headed by Mamai-Khan and Dmitriy Donskoi, respectively). “Ancient” history reflects the Battle of Kulikovo as the famous battle between the Roman emperor Constantine I the Great and Maxentius (Licinius). After the victory on the Kulikovo field, Emperor Dmitriy Donskoi = Constantine the Great made Apostolic Christianity the state religion of the entire Great = “Mongolian” Empire.

Part Three

From the Battle of Kulikovo to Ivan the Terrible

18.

The capture of Moscow by Dmitriy = Tokhtamysh in 1382 and the naissance of Moscovia as a state

In 1382 Tokhtamysh-Khan came to Moscow and took the city by storm. It is presumed that Dmitriy Donskoi, having won a battle of paramount importance on the Kulikovo field two years earlier, did not even try to resist the Tartars this time, fleeing from Moscow to Kostroma in haste. Thus, Dmitriy had been in Kostroma during the capture of Moscow by the Tartars. The city was defended by the Lithuanian Prince Ostey, who got killed when the Tartars stormed the city ([435], pages 235-236).

According to our reconstruction, Dmitriy Donskoi and Tokhtamysh-Khan are but two names of the same historical personality. His capital must have been in Kostroma. In 1382 the troops of Dmitriy stormed and seized a Lithuanian fortification on the territory of Moscow. Dmitriy (or Tokhtamysh) may have refrained from actual participation in the battle, remaining in Kostroma, his capital. Bear in mind that the name Lithuania had stood for the Western Russian kingdom with its capital in Smolensk. Moscow had been at the border of the Eastern Russian kingdom of Volga (The Great Russia) and the Western Russia, also known as Lithuania or White Russia.

Dmitriy begins to build Moscow around this time, which makes him the de facto founder of Moscow as a large city.

It appears that Dmitriy Donskoi = Tokhtamysh-Khan became the next Great Prince of White Russia; this must have been caused by inner struggle and strife in the Horde. It is known that Tokhtamysh ended up at the court of the Lithuanian prince soon after 1382, and quite unexpectedly so. Furthermore, the Lithuanians = White Russians refused to hand the fugitive Tokhtamysh over to the Horde, despite having been put to crushing rout by the latter ([183], Volume 1, pages 109-110).

19.

The identity of Lithuania and the location of Siberia

The issue of Lithuania’s identity is very key in the present discourse. XVI century sources solve it completely unequivocally – the name Lithuania had been used for referring to a Russian state with its capital in Smolensk. Later on, when Jagiello (Jacob), the Great Prince of Lithuania, ascended to the Polish throne, the Western parts of the Russian Lithuania went to Poland. A propos, it is common knowledge that the Smolensk regiments took part in the famous Battle of Grünwald. Despite the fact that historians claim them to have played a secondary part, assuming that the Prince of Lithuania had already been in Vilna. However, the famous “Legend of the Vladimir Princes” explicitly locates the capital of Prince Heidemin, the founder of the Lithuanian dynasty, in Smolensk ([637]).

Direct references to Lithuania being a Russian principality were made by S. Herberstein, the Austrian ambassador in the XVI century Russia. An ancient portrait of his can be seen in fig. 7.1.

Fig. 7.1. “Sigismund Herberstein, Imperial envoy. 1559. Xylograph from the book entitled Biography of Baron Herberstein Written for the Grateful Descendants. Vienna, 1560” ([90], page 48).

Let us ponder the origins of the name Lithuania. The unvocalized root of the word is LTN, which is most likely to make it a derivative of the word Latin and a synonym of the word Catholic. In other terms, the Lithuanians were the Russian Catholics. A part of the ancient Russian Empire fell under the influence of the Catholic Church, hence the name Lithuania. The term in question is of a late origin.

The Great Lithuania as mentioned in the chronicles is but a memory of the ancient Russian kingdom, which had comprised the territory of the modern Lithuania as well. It is true that Mongolia (aka Megalion) had spanned the vast territories “from sea to sea”, as it is rightly stated by the modern historians who study the Great Lithuania. There isn’t a single old chronicle written in Lithuanian to the best of our knowledge; however, there are plenty of chronicles written in Russian.

Sigismund Herberstein, the Austrian envoy at the Russian court, writes the following: “Russia is currently divided into three domains ruled by three rulers. Most of it belongs to the Great Prince of Moscow, the second greatest is the Great Prince of Lithuania (in Littn), and the third is the King of Poland, who is currently [in the second half of the XVI century, that is – Auth.] the ruler of both Lithuania and Poland” ([161], page 59). Bear in mind that the first edition of Herberstein’s book dates from the alleged year 1556.

Historians point out the fact that the term Russia as employed by Herberstein refers to the “ancient Russian state” – in other words, the XVI century meaning of the term had only made sense in reference to the state as it had been in the XI-XIII century ([161], page 284, comment 2). Our claim about Lithuania and Latin being synonyms is confirmed by Herberstein in the following manner: “Only two of the country’s regions aren’t truly Russian – Lithuania (Lithwania or Lythen) and Zhemaytia; although their inhabitants live in Russia, they speak a language of their own and adhere to the Latin faith. Yet most of them are Russian ethnically” ([161], page 59). The name of the modern Lithuania is therefore derived from that of the two old Russian provinces mentioned above.

Even nowadays the actual Lithuanian populace is concentrated around the city of Kaunas, which is the de facto capital of Lithuania in the modern sense of the word according to the Lithuanians themselves.

This isn’t the only case of a geographical name attaining an altogether different meaning known in Russian history. Another example is the name “Siberia.” In the XVI century this name was used for a principality in the middle course of the Volga; the town of Oulianovsk (Simbirsk) that exists until the present day must have been a capital of this principality at some point. This is what Sigismund Herberstein tells us in this respect: “The River Kama flows into the Volga twelve miles downstream from Kazan; the province of Siberia is adjacent to this river” ([161], page 162). Thus, in the XVI century Siberia had still been on the Volga; its “migration” to the East happened later.

20.

The parallel between Russian and Lithuanian history

The genealogy of all the Lithuanian princes is known from the “Legend of the Vladimir Princes.” We know of no other sources. The work in question dates from the XVI century. According to the historians, “the exact time these legends appeared remains unknown, and nothing is known about their existence before the XVI century” ([637], page 725). This work claims Heidemin (Gidemin) to have been a prince from Smolensk. His successor bore the name of Nariman-Gleb; next came Holgerd, married to Ouliana of Tver. Yevnout, the brother of the latter became Prince in Vilna during his reign; apparently, Holgerd had still remained in Smolensk. Holgerd was succeeded by Jacob or Jagiello, who had “fallen into the Latin heresy” and acted as Mamai’s ally. He was defeated by Dmitriy Donskoi. Then Jagiello became King of Poland, and a relative of his, Heidemin’s grandson called Vitovt, settled near the place knows as Troki or Trakai. We see two genealogical branches – the Polish and the Lithuanian. It turns out that this genealogy ended up as part of the “Legend of the Vladimir Princes” for a good reason – there is a dynastic parallelism between the Lithuanian princes and the Muscovite princes, their reigns being simultaneous. There is no chronological shift here – the rulers linked together by the parallelism had reigned around the same time. The parallelism in question is as follows.

a. The Czars (Khans) of Russia (The Horde).

■ b. The Princes of Lithuania.

1a. Russia (Horde). Youri Danilovich + Ivan Danilovich = Ivan Kalita (Caliph), 1318-1340, reigned for 22 years.

■ 1b. Lithuania. Heidemin, 1316-1341, reigned for 25 years. The reign durations of the two rulers (22 and 25 years) are close enough to one another.

1.1a. Russia (Horde). Ivan Kalita (Caliph) is the founder of a dynasty. Yaroslav the Wise is a phantom reflection of his shifted into the end of the alleged XI century, q.v. above.

■ 1.1b. Lithuania. Heidemin is also the founder of a dynasty.

1.2a. Russia (Horde). Yaroslav the Wise divides the state between his several sons in his testament.

■ 1.2b. Lithuania. Heidemin also divides the state between several of his sons.

1.3a. Russia (Horde). After the death of Yaroslav, his sons begin to scheme for the throne. Strife.

■ 1.3b. Lithuania. Heidemin’s sons also begin to struggle for power after the death of their father. Strife.

Commentary. This large-scale strife of the XIV century is known rather well – over the short period between 1359 and 1380, about two dozen khans had sat on the Russian throne. The XIV century strife wasn’t reflected in the history of the “Muscovite dynasty” founded by Ivan Kalita – most probably, due to the fact that Moscow had not yet existed. This would only happen at the end of the XIV century. History of the XIV century Moscow is but a phantom duplicate that reflects the history of the Khans.

After the divide of the kingdom, the parallelism between the Russian and the Lithuanian dynasty disappears for a short while. The two dynasties split; both trace their lineage back to Ivan Kalita = Yaroslav the Wise = Heidemin. The Lithuanian dynasty reigns in the West and its domain comprises the modern territory of Moscow, whereas the Muscovite Dynasty is based in Novgorod the Great, or the area of Yaroslavl, Kostroma and Vladimir.

2a. Russia (Horde). A sequence of rulers: Simeon the Proud (1340-1353, reigned for 13 years), Ivan the Meek (1353-1359), reigned for 6 years, Dmitriy of Suzdal (1359-1363), reigned for 4 years, and Dmitriy Donskoi (1363-1389), reigned for 26 years.

■ 2b. Lithuania. A sequence of rulers: Yevnout aka Ivan followed by Nariman, aka Gleb. They reign in the epoch of 1341-1345; all the information we have is very vague. Next we have Holgerd (1345-1377), who had reigned for 32 years, and Jagiello (1377-1392), regnant for 15 years. Jagiello = Jacob = Vladislav becomes King of Poland in 1386 ([797], page 1565; see also [637], pages 432-435).

The dynastic currents of Moscow and Lithuania become uniform once again – this happens at the end of the XIV century, after Dmitriy Donskoi, and the parallelism continues.

3a. Russia (Horde). Vassily I (1389-1425), reigned for 36 years.

■ 3b. Lithuania. Vitovt (1392-1430), reigned for 38 years. The two reign durations (36 and 38 years) concur well with each other. An old portrait of Vitovt from a book dating from the alleged year 1581 can be seen in fig. 7.2.

Fig. 7.2. A drawing of Vitovt from the book entitled A Description of Sarmatia in Europe by A. Guagnini, allegedly dating from 1581. Taken from [578], Book 1, page 819, illustration 408.

Commentary. Let us point out an amazing fact – the seals of Vassily I and Vitovt have survived until the present days. They are identical and even bear the same inscription ([794], page 129). See below for more details.

4a. Russia (Horde). Dmitriy Yourievich (1425-1434), reigned for 9 years.

■ 4b. Lithuania. Sigismund (1430-1440), reigned for 10 years. The reign durations of the two are very similar.

5a. Russia (Horde). Ivan III (1462-1505), reigned for 43 years (or, alternatively, 57 years between 1448 and 1505; between the blinding of his father and the commencement of the actual reign in 1448.

■ 5b. Lithuania. Kasimir (1440-1492), reigned for 52 years. The reign durations are in good correspondence (57 and 52 years, respectively).

The parallelism stops here, and ceases to exist by the XVI century. It is presumed that Lithuania and Poland merged under Kasimir, who becomes King of Poland in 1447.

The seals of the Great Princes serve as most valuable material for our research indeed. On the Lithuanian coat of arms we see a mounted warrior armed with a sword or a scimitar – much like the figure of St. George familiar to us from the coat of arms of Moscow. However, older versions of the latter don’t merely resemble the Lithuanian coat of arms – they are completely identical to it. This is plainly visible from the photographs of coins minted by Ivan Vassilyevich in [161], page 125. Every coin depicts a rider holding a sword (or a scimitar) – not a pike.

Let us study the seals of Vassily I Dmitrievich from the almanac entitled Russian Seals ([794]) reproduced in figs. 7.3 and 7.4. The rider is armed with a sword, and there is no slain dragon to be seen anywhere. We see the Lithuanian coat of arms, no less. The seal of Vassily I is therefore completely identical to the seal of Vitovt – the Great Prince of Lithuania and Vassily’s contemporary. Historians have got the following to say in this respect: “A mere comparison of the seal belonging to the Great Prince Vassily Dmitrievich (as found attached to his second and third testament) to that used by Vitovt during the final decades of his reign demonstrates the two to be identical” ([794], page 129). Further also: “Although both seals are traditionally ascribed to Vassily I, one cannot help noticing them being completely identical to the seals of his son-in-law Vitovt, the Great Prince of Lithuania. The inscription is in Latin, as is the case with Vitovt’s seal” ([794], page 150).

Fig. 7.3. The seal of Vassily I Dmitrievich from his second testament. Modern commentators believe that the circular inscription is “illegible” ([794], page 150). Taken from [794], Seal 19, inset between pages 128 and 129.

Fig. 7.4. The seal of Vassily I Dmitrievich from his third testament. Taken from [794], Seal 19, inset between pages 128 and 129.

Let us also point out that the inscription found on the seal of Vassily (Vitovt’s double, as we are beginning to understand) is visible perfectly well, q.v. in the photograph in [794]. However, historians are of the opinion that it “cannot be deciphered” ([794], page 150). It is amazing how the inscriptions from the seals of Vassily I and Vassily II are often proclaimed illegible, despite their excellent condition. The matter is that the text is written in a mixture of Latin and Russian characters with other letters and symbols; the latter defy identification today. Moreover, what we see in the seal of Vassily II, for instance, (#25 in [794]) is the perfectly legible legend “The Great Prince Vassily Vassilyevich” twined with some other inscription – just as clear, but apparently unintelligible, employing some forgotten alphabet.

The mounted warrior with a pike who slays a dragon (St. George) makes its first appearance on the seal of Ivan III Vassilyevich, together with two other bicephalous eagle seals. This means that the Muscovite coat of arms had been identical to that of the modern Lithuania up until Ivan III – apparently, the Lithuanians have preserved the ancient Russian coat of arms in its original form.

Our corollary is therefore as follows: the Lithuanian coat of arms is identical to that of Moscow. As for the coat of arms used by the Horde dynasty of Yaroslavl, it is very similar to that used by the city of Vladimir to date – a lion (or a bear) holding a long poleaxe. Whether the animal in question is a bear or a lion is hard to tell from the emblem’s old representations.

21.

Russia (aka the Horde) in the first half of the XV century. Epoch of strife and embroilment

The epoch between Dmitriy Donskoi and Ivan III is covered very sparsely by historical sources. It is the time of strife when the descendants of Ivan Kalita = Yaroslav the Wise = Batu-Khan were struggling for power; this mid-XV century strife is known well in history.

It is most curious that the surviving princely decrees dating from the epoch in question have neither dates nor references to places where they were written anywhere upon them. This becomes obvious from the materials collected in The Historical Acts Compiled and Published by the Archaeographical Commission ([8]), Volume 1. This compilation contains surviving Russian official documents, the oldest of which date from the XIV century. It is presumed that many of them have reached us in their original form. None of the decrees or acts that predate Vassily III has any indications of the date and place of their creation anywhere upon them (with the exception of a single act dating from 1486 – however, the name of the prince is torn out, q.v. in [759], page 64). Moreover, The Great Prince of All Russia is the title introduced in the reign of Vassily III.

Our commentary. The capital had still been in Kostroma or Vladimir, and not Moscow. Therefore, the titles of the “Muscovite” princes did not contain the formula “Great Prince of Moscow” – the rulers were simply referred to as the Great Princes. The name of Moscow is all but absent from the documents of the epoch – Ryazan is mentioned a great deal more often, for instance, and Yaroslavl is referred to as the domain of the Great Prince ([759], page 52).

All of the above makes the documents that predate Ivan III look very odd indeed. According to our reconstruction, the state of Moscovia had been nonexistent back in the day – the Khans of Russia (or the Horde) had still been based upon the Volga. The titles they used did not conform to the version of history taught in modern schools, and the alphabet became forgotten over the years. Therefore, Russian history predating the reign of Ivan III is a dark age – as we see, the surviving documents of that epoch obviously fail to correspond to the consensual version, which claims that Moscow had already been capital back in the day. It did exist, granted, but as a local centre that was founded relatively recently, and nothing remotely resembling the capital of the Empire as a whole. This epoch is also marked by the actions of a certain mysterious and omnipotent boyar named Ivan Dmitrievich Vsevolozhskiy – he somehow manages to ascend Great Princes to the throne and then remove them ([435], page 254). It is possible that this “boyar Vsevolozhskiy” is really the Czar of All Volga (vse-Volzhskiy) – the Czar-Khan of the Volga Kingdom, also known as the Golden Horde. Hence his power over the princes. This is yet another indication of the fact that Moscow had not been a capital city back then.

In general, we see an abnormally great amount of “Great Princes” in the XV century – in Suzdal, Tver, Ryazan, Pronsk, etc. ([435], page 253). Apparently, Russia had still resembled the old Mongolian Empire or the Great Horde in its infrastructure. There had been no Moscovia, despite the fact that the town of Moscow did exist. The capital had still been in “Lord Novgorod the Great”, or an agglomeration of several Russian cities – Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Rostov etc. This epoch has got nothing in common with the way it is described by the historians of today, who have replaced it with a phantom reflection of history pertinent to the Moscow Russia of the late XV-XVI century. What we have in reality is truly a dark age – we cannot even decipher the precious few documents that have survived from the epoch. It may well be that another old alphabet had been used apart from the Glagolitsa – the Cyrillic alphabet is most likely to have been introduced in the reign of Ivan III, after his marriage to the Greek princess Sophia Palaiologos, or even later.

22.

Ivan III

22.1. Russian principalities united under the rule of Moscow during the reign of Ivan III. The end of the strife

Nowadays we are told that the “Mongolian yoke” ended in 1481, after the so-called “Ougra opposition”, when the troops of Ivan III came to meet the army of the “Mongolian” Akhmat-Khan. There was no battle between the two armies, and they parted ways after having stood in front of each other for a while ([362]). An ancient drawing of this event can be seen in fig. 7.5. Pay attention to the fact that the warriors on either side of the river look exactly the same; moreover, the banners of the two armies are also identical.

Fig. 7.5. Ancient miniature depicting the “Ougra Opposition” of 1480. The Russian and Tartar warriors look perfectly identical. Moreover, the battle banners of both armies are completely identical. Taken from [264], Book 2, page 117.

Let us see what the chronicles tell us about the event in question. It turns out that in the very same year of 1481 Czar Ivan Shibanskiy and his fifteen thousand Cossacks had attacked Akhmat-Khan, breaking into his camp and killing him ([36], page 95). Historians call this Czar “Khan Ivan Shibanskiy” ([435], page 288). The chronicles also report that there had been no battle between the two armies ([36], page 95). It is noteworthy that Czar Ivan Shibanskiy disappears from Russian history without a trace after having accomplished a feat this great.

Our commentary is as follows: Ivan Shibanskiy is none other but Czar Ivan III himself. However, in this case he turns out to be the Khan of the Horde. This is precisely how it should be according to our reconstruction; as we see, he emerged from the strife victorious.

After his victory over Akhmat, Ivan III defeats Abreim, the Czar (or Khan) of Kazan the very next year. Next he conquers the entire Southern Siberia, up to the Ob, then Novgorod, and Vyatka a few years later.

Our main corollary is as follows: the “Mongolian yoke” did not cease in 1481, nor did the Horde disappear anywhere. One of the Horde’s khans succeeded another, and that was that. The Russian Khan Ivan III ascended to the throne as a result. Bear in mind that the Russian chronicles use the word “Czar”; we use “Khan” in order to emphasise the ties between the Russian Horde dynasty and the Moscow dynasty founded by Ivan III.

22.2. The Turks and the Russians seizing Constantinople in 1453. Moscow and its alias of “The Third Rome”

Constantinople, or the “Second Rome” (aka “New Rome”) fell in 1453, during the reign of Ivan III. It is presumed to have been conquered by the Ottomans = Atamans, who had come from the Slavic Balkans. Pay specific attention to the fact that the Ottomans attacked Czar-Grad, or Constantinople, from the North – the Balkan side ([455], page 191).

Our commentary. It is possible that Russian troops took part in the famous siege of Constantinople. This event may have become reflected in the legend of “Monomakh’s hat” brought from Constantinople as a trophy. Let us remind the reader that the relations between Moscow and Constantinople had been severed until the conquest of the city by the Ottomans = Atamans, and resumed after that.

It has to be pointed out that two Byzantine political parties had struggled for power in Constantinople prior to the fall of the city. One of them (the Palaiologi) had been pro-Western, and the other (represented by John Cantacusen, among others, q.v. in [455], page 183) – pro-Turkish. The relations between Byzantium and Russia deteriorated every time a pro-Western monarch ascended to the throne – the Russian rulers accused them of pro-Catholic sentiments. However, these relations would instantly flourish whenever the throne got claimed by a pro-Ottoman ruler. The pro-Ottoman party turned out victorious when the Ottomans had seized Constantinople (this event is known as “the fall of Constantinople” today). The relations between Moscow and Turkey had remained good and stable up until the XVII century, and only worsened under the Romanovs.

22.3. The marriage between Ivan III and Sophia Palaiologos and a change of customs at the court of Moscow

The Millerian and Romanovian history tells us of the marriage between Ivan III and Sophia Palaiologos, the Greek princess, and the radical changes at the court of Moscow that came as a result. According to a contemporary of this event, “our Great Prince had altered all of our customs” ([435], page 276). According to Kostomarov, “this reform of customs … had really been the introduction of autocratic governing methods” ([435], page 276).

The mysterious inscriptions upon the seal of the Great Prince rendered in an illegible script (q.v. mentioned above and in [794]) cease to exist under Ivan III, and the decrees issued by the royal court become accompanied by the indication of the time and place of their creation.

23.

Vassily III as the Sovereign of All Russia

Vassily III (1505-1533), the son of Ivan III, was the first to become known as the Sovereign of All Russia ([8]) and the Czar ([161], pages 74-75). These events date from the first half of the XVI century.

Vassily (Basil) III. Miniature from Tsarskiy Titularnik (“Titular Book”) of 1672.

24.

The seals of the Great Princes (or Khans) in the XV-XVII century

Let us reproduce several seals of the Russian rulers dating from the epoch of the XV-XVII century. We took them from the book of G. V. Vilinbakhov entitled The Russian Coat of Arms and its 550th Anniversary ([134]). The author tells us the following, among other things: “One finds it peculiar that the symbolic model of the seal attributed to the emperor Frederick III and dating from 1442 (with the emperor and his regalia on the obverse side of the seal and the bicephalous eagle on the reverse) is very similar to the seal of the Great Prince John III dating from 1497, with a rider on the obverse size and the same two-headed eagle on the reverse” ([134], page 25). The seal of Ivan III can be seen in fig. 7.6.

Fig. 7.6. The seal of the Great Czar, or Khan Ivan III dating from the alleged year 1497. Historians themselves point out the similarity between this seal and the seal of Frederick III Habsburg, or the same Ivan III, according to our reconstruction (see Chron7, Chapter 13). Taken from [134], page 23.

The exceptional similarity between the two seals is explained perfectly well by our reconstruction, according to which Frederick III is the reflection of the Russian Czar (Khan) Ivan III in Western European chronicles; this monarch had been the omnipotent Emperor as seen by the Westerners.

1) In fig. 7.7 we see the Golden Bull (will?) of Vassily III Ivanovich ([134], page 26).

Fig. 7.7. The Golden Bull (Will?) of Czar, or Khan, Vassily III Ivanovich, dated to 1514. This dating might prove off the mark by several decades, q.v. in Chron7, Chapter 13. Taken from [134], page 26.

2) In fig. 7.8 one sees the Minor Seal of State belonging to Ivan Vassilyevich IV “The Terrible” dating from 1539. It is identical to the seal of Ivan III, q.v. in fig. 7.6. This fact is also in perfect concurrence with our reconstruction.

Fig. 7.8. The Lesser Seal of State (double seal) of Czar, or Khan Ivan Vassilyevich (“The Terrible”). Dated to 1539. The seal, as well as the lettering found upon it, is virtually identical to the seal of Ivan III. Taken from [134], page 27.

3) The seal we see in fig. 7.9 is also presumed to have belonged to Ivan Vassilyevich IV “The Terrible”, one that dates from 1569. However, this seal is drastically different from the other one – we see a unicorn upon it. Oddly enough, this figure disappears from the royal seals of the Russian Czars shortly afterwards. This fact is also explained by our reconstruction, according to which the Ivan who had reigned in 1569 had been a different person, hence a different seal.

Fig. 7.9. The Lesser Seal of State (double seal) of Czar, or Khan Ivan Vassilyevich (“The Terrible”). Dated to 1539, or the epoch of the Oprichnina. Pay attention to the figure of the unicorn. Taken from [134], page 28.

4) In fig. 7.10 we see the Golden Bull of Ivan IV “The Terrible” dating from 1562.

Fig. 7.10. The Golden Bull (Will?) of Czar, or Khan, Ivan IV Vassilyevich (“The Terrible”) Taken from [134], page 29.

5) In fig. 7.11 we see the Middle State Seal of Czar-Khan Fyodor Ivanovich dating from 1589. Its design is almost identical to the Golden Bull of the previous Czars (Khans).

Fig. 7.11. The Middle Seal of State of Czar (Khan) Fyodor Ioannovich. Dated to 1589. Taken from [134], page 31.

6) In fig. 7.12 we see the Minor State Seal of “Dmitriy Ivanovich, Prince of Moscow” and the Minor State Seal of Czar Mikhail Fyodorovich. Let us pay close attention to the fact that in the seal of Dmitriy Ivanovich the shape of the eagle is strangely “ahead of its time” by some 50 years – the eagle drawn in this manner, with its wings opened and raised, appears on the Russian coat of arms for the first time as late as in 1654 ([134], page 35). This is how we see it represented on the seal of Alexei Mikhailovich dating from 1668, q.v. in fig. 7.13. It is instantly obvious that what we have in front of us is a forgery – this also explains the strange title “Prince of Moscow by the Grace of God” found in the seal of Dmitriy Ivanovich (see fig. 7.12).

Fig. 7.12. The Lesser Seal of State of Czar Dmitriy Ivanovich (the so-called “False Dmitriy”); possibly, a forgery. Can be seen on the left of the illustration. Its reverse side is missing from [134] for some reason. On the right we see the Lesser Seal of State of Czar Mikhail Fyodorovich, which is dated to 1625. Its reverse is also conspicuously missing from [134]. Taken from [134], page 32.

Fig. 7.13. The second Greater Seal of State of Czar Alexei Mikhailovich, made in the new fashion. Its reverse side is also missing from [134], with blank space left on the page. Taken from [134], page 35.

The following fact attains a news meaning in this respect as well: in fig. 7.14 we see what the historians call “The coronation gold medal bearing the image of Lzhedmitriy I [the name translates as “false Dmitriy”] struck out in Moscow in 1605” ([550], page 103). One might think that an important artefact of the epoch has reached our day – however, this doesn’t appear to be so. We are told that the item in question is a “XVIII century replica” ([550], page 103). The medal was therefore struck out some 100 years later than the reign of the “False Dmitriy.” One might do well to enquire about the whereabouts of the original and the extent of its correspondence to the Romanovian replica of the XVIII century. As we are beginning to understand, the artefact under study is most probably a forgery one should attribute to the specialists that were under orders of the XVIII century Romanovian historians; the latter had the objective of distorting the true events of the XVII century. There must have been something about the originals that did not fit into the concept of the “new Russian history” written by the Romanovs. The original must have been destroyed and replaced by the “correct” copy, to serve many a generation to come as a visual aid for learning the history of Russia.

Fig. 7.14. A golden replica of the XVIII century that imitates the golden coronation medal of Dmitriy Ivanovich dating from 1605, who became known as “False Dmitriy I” in Romanovian history. Apparently, the original of the medal got destroyed since it did not meet the conditions set by later Romanovian historians. They replaced it with a “rectified medal.” Taken from [550], page 103.

One must think that the replica had initially been playing the part of the original. After the passage of some time, the Scaligerian and Millerian version of history had attained a position of greater stability in historical literature and in people’s minds, whereas the true history became forgotten. Then the fact that the medal in question was but a replica was “finally recollected”, and patronisingly admitted – hence the blatant “XVIII century replica” legend on the museum plaque.

7) In fig. 7.15 one sees the Minor State Seal of Mikhail Fyodorovich dating from 1627.

Fig. 7.15. The Lesser Seal of State (double seal) of Czar Mikhail Fyodorovich. Dates from 1627. Taken from [134], page 33.

8) In fig. 7.16 we see the Great Seal of State belonging to Alexei Mikhailovich dating from 1654.

Fig. 7.16. The Greater Seal of State of Czar Alexei Mikhailovich. Dates from 1654. Its reverse is missing from [134], despite the abundance of space. Taken from [134], page 34.

Fig. 7.17. The Seal of Ivan Kalita (1328). Upon it we see the version of the Christian cross that looks like a six-pointed star (or tamga), which is known as the Star of David today. Taken from the Appendix to [648:1], Seals 9 and 10.

Let us conclude with the seal of Ivan Kalita = Caliph dating from the first half of the XIV century (see fig. 7.17). It is of the utmost interest – we see a Tartar sigil (known as tamga) at the top of the seal, and another tamga at the bottom that has the shape of a hexagonal star. It is generally acknowledged as a Judaic symbol; however, as one can clearly see from the illustration, this had not been the case in the XIV century. The hexagonal star known as the Star of David nowadays had once been yet another version of the Christian cross, and was part of the early Christian symbolism in the epoch of the XI-XVI century when Christianity had still been united. It wasn’t until much later, when the Great = Mongolian Empire became fragmented, that multiple confessions started to exist; each of them would adopt something from the formerly uniform Christian symbolism – thus, the Muslims adopted the crescent and the star (another form of the cross), and the Judeans started to use the hexagonal star.

Later epochs brought the certainty that the symbolism in question has been the way it is since times immemorial.

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.