Appendix New chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky and the fight against it First of all, about the very term “New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky”. He may seem immodest. But the point is this. In 1995, the title of the book “New Chronology and Concept ancient history Rus', England

They are falsifying our history again. Fomenko is a liar. Mathematicians use their laurels to fool people in history.

Grade 1 out of 5 stars by Slavyanin 11/23/2016 00:24

How surprised I am by such comments. I DIDN’T READ any further... Why are you writing then, my friend?! To understand you MUST read! Systematically. At least 3 books, consecutively. There is an evidence base - HUNDREDS of examples, explanations and explanations. People are academicians at Moscow State University, of the old school, and not with purchased diplomas, they dedicated their lives to this... for almost 40 years!!!
About Samarkand - we're talking about about the fact that CHRNICAL Samarkand is like a variant of Samara! When was Samarkand called Samarkand? - initially, supposedly in ancient times, once and for all... or relatively not so long ago, on paper, and then they attributed ancient history, also on paper?? Can you prove that it is not option 2? It is believed that the capital of the Horde was Samarkand, where they went to get labels and where ALL the wealth was brought... only in practice and during excavations it somehow doesn’t work out. SamarKand is essentially the same as SamarGrad or SamarBurg... the idea is clear. Taking into account. Taking into account that the main headquarters (Sarai) of the troops were the lands of the Volga region and the center of the so-called Horde is Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', from where the “conquest” of the world came - the settlement and construction of the main European cities!
And about the transition of letters .. OPEN the chronicles directly on the Internet and look at what letters they wrote - oak, etc., there is one - FITA, one name speaks for itself, that it’s like F or T. And it’s on, find channel U - there’s a program there called “tata and huts”, which now, in our opinion, is translated as dad in the apartment (on dad’s apartment), which our craftsmen translated as dad got there (this is about translations, even in given time) - here’s the transition from P to T (during translation, of course).
As for the comparison of names and personalities themselves - we are talking in particular about rumors and gossip, if simply put and the “correctness” of the translation.. The first is well understood by people from the village or not large areas, where sometimes an insignificant event is remade upside down by word of mouth, or a significant event is remade to the point of being unrecognizable - SCHEME. And secondly, first you need to understand that the WRITTEN history of HUMANITY is at most 1000 years old!!! There were no Sumerians 4000 thousand years before the year 0, they themselves existed but no more than 1000 years ago - any adobe shards will crumble to dust in 6000 years, like the Chini Wall, those parts of it that are really old, the first, adobe, built 300 years ago -400 ago and naturally, without support, they turned almost into dust!! And the only way to not understand this is to pretend that you don’t understand it.
Next, you MUST understand that writing, especially literate writing, was with the nobility, at the royal courts, in individual monasteries, especially before the advent of printing presses!!!
Can you imagine the translation of names or descriptions of events NOT by participants in these events with limited knowledge (there was no INTERNET then). As an example, FOR EXAMPLE, the word JOKER, if you need to translate it, say, into Finnish (and if you can’t find a translation, then say it in Finnish) - you get JOKERIT, which when pronounced, due to the emphasis on the first syllable like [Ё krt] and then someone with Finnish (just as an example) will be translated into Greek - OUKERITUS, but in Russian it was just a joke!
READ HUNDREDS OF VERY CLEAR EXAMPLES THERE!!! Alternately from the books of the main series 1-"The Mystery of Russian History" (to get interested) 2-"New Chronology of Rus'" 3-"Empire 1" 4-"Empire 2" 5-"Reconstruction world history", King of the Slavs. At least these!!

Northerner 08/11/2016 17:35

I came across a chapter about Samarkand, supposedly it was Constantinople, Samara. What nonsense. I myself am from Samarkand and there are still villages with the names Farizh - Paris, etc. I didn’t even read the rest of the legends...

Grade 1 out of 5 stars by SaMarks 09/07/2015 21:49

During “enslavement” they paid only a tithe to the prince, but now how much is the income?... pension and all taxes together? so maybe slavery now? and then there was freedom of choice?!
if there was enslavement, then there must have been mixing of races, but what do we see? (Canadian and English scientists independently analyzed the DNA of Belarusians, Ukrainians, Russians - the DNA was pure, there was no mixing with other races) I do not draw conclusions based on only one source, I simply draw up a picture in my head, analyzing the available information.
so the analogy drawn with these characters is quite possible, and there is nothing so supernatural here

Grade 5 out of 5 stars from Vladimir

Famous mathematicians Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky created, at first glance, a coherent and well-reasoned concept of the “New Chronology”. However, representatives traditional science subjected her to merciless criticism. What inconsistencies did they see in it?

Selective Approach

In the 1990–2000s, bookstores and fairs were inundated with numerous works on the “New Chronology” (hereinafter NK). The demand for such products grew at the speed of an epidemic, but contrary to expectations, it gradually faded away. Today, single editions of Fomenko-Nosovsky can be seen only on the periphery of bookshelves.
The main reason for the phenomenon is the decline in interest in such literature. On the one hand, the reader has had enough of the phantasmagoric theories of the above-mentioned authors, on the other hand, he has become more literate in matters of history, noticing the numerous absurdities of NH.
Thus, in Fomenko-Nosovsky’s concept, the ancestor of Russia was a single powerful state of Rus'-Horde, stretching from the Carpathians in the West to the Sea of ​​Japan in the East. How then can we explain why late XVI centuries, Russian pioneers began to once again conquer the lands of an already existing state?
No less shocking to the thoughtful reader is the denial by the authors of the NH of the thousand-year period. European Middle Ages, which they simply threw out of history as unnecessary with all the documented dates, events and personalities, since it does not fit into the concept of “continuity and progressive development of mankind.”
Fomenko is an experienced polemicist and it is useless to argue with him. It pulls out easily individual facts, confirming his correctness, while simultaneously pointing out to historians the gaps in traditional science, so that once again prove its falsity. To a person inexperienced in matters of history, the arguments of NH will seem quite convincing, and only the extremely radical nature of this theory will make them wary.

Beyond science

For a long time, there was no clear and reasoned criticism addressed to the authors of NH, since representatives official history They considered it pointless to analyze what lies outside scientific knowledge. According to scientists, NH actually completely rejects the centuries-old experience accumulated in philology, linguistics, archeology, paleography, and astronomy, since it contradicts the speculative model of history they have built.
According to NH, almost all historical evidence that has survived to date dates back no earlier than 1200 AD. e. – everything that happened before was conjectured and falsified by traditional science. Accordingly, the co-authors of NH are trying to place all the events that are familiar to us from the era of Antiquity in the 2nd millennium.
So, the beginning new era they date back to 1053, and the life of Jesus Christ is called the main religious event of the 11th century. Due to the fact that Fomenko threw out an entire millennium from history, not only dates floated, but also toponyms, which lost their traditional place in chronology. Thus, Jerusalem became both Constantinople and Troy.
Many famous characters who lived in different time(after all, they had to be placed somewhere). For example, Yaroslav the Wise turned into Khan Batu and the Lithuanian prince Gediminas, and Genghis Khan became the first ancient Russian ruler Rurik and the founder of Moscow Yuri Dolgoruky.
But what about the popes, information about whom the Vatican so carefully recorded? During the “non-existent” 1st millennium there were 138 of them! Where to put them? Perhaps Fomenko will resolve this issue the way he did with Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand), appointing him Christ.

Missed longitude

The theoretical design of NH is largely based on astronomical events reflected in Ptolemy’s star catalog “Almagest”, which, according to Fomenko, was not compiled in the 2nd century BC. e., as is customary, and in the 10th century AD. e. In this regard, the history of the Ancient World in NH was “rejuvenated” by more than 1000 years.
Using the modern coordinates of the celestial bodies, it is indeed possible to calculate at what time the stars occupied the position reflected in the Almagest (for this, it is taken into account that the longitude of the stars increases by 1 degree every 72 years). The gigantic error in Fomenko’s calculations, according to astronomers, lies in the fact that he does not base them on the longitudes of stars, which gives accurate results, but only on latitudes, where the accuracy of the calculations is extremely low.
According to astronomy professor Yuri Efremov, in order to avoid calculations based on the longitudes of stars, Fomenko directly falsified Ptolemy’s data and stated that the Almagest does not indicate the starting point for longitudes. Whereas it is enough to open the 7th part of book No. 11 and make sure that the Alexandrian astronomer already indicates the first zodiac sign of Aries in the coordinate system by longitude.

Unforgivable oversight

Fomenko is also very inconsistent in relation to radiocarbon method dating. On the one hand, he questions the effectiveness of the method, on the other, he speaks favorably of some cases of its use. In particular, about the dating of the “Shroud of Turin”, he writes that it was done “with a conscientious assessment of accuracy.” However, if radiocarbon analysis had shown that the shroud was made not in the 14th century, but in the 1st century, then we would hardly expect a positive assessment from the mathematician.
The very characteristics of the method radiocarbon dating this by Fomenko indicates his incompetence in this matter. He writes: “The method is perhaps more or less effective only when analyzing extremely ancient objects, hundreds of thousands of years old.” In fact, given that the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, it makes no sense to use it in dating artifacts older than 50 thousand years.

And the time is different, and the place is different

Many are surprised by the ease with which Fomenko postpones events for entire centuries, focusing only on a fact taken out of context and by no means indisputable. Thus, he interprets the eclipse of 431 BC described by Thucydides. e. in Athens as complete. But since, according to astronomical data, it was partial, the scientist moves it to the next convenient date, when the eclipse was actually total - 1039 AD. e., and at the same time transfers Thucydides himself to this era.
Fomenko does the same with the location of a particular event, for example, the Battle of Kulikovo. Considering that on the Kulikovo field in Tula region archaeologists found no traces of a serious battle, and the field is not enough to accommodate thousands of troops, Fomenko comes to the conclusion that the battle took place in a different place. He finds it in Moscow in the area of ​​​​present-day Kitai-Gorod, which allegedly proves the name of the temple built there - the Church of All Saints on Kulishi.

Play on words

According to the remark of linguist Andrei Zaliznyak, the methods used by the authors of NH linguistic analysis are at the most primitive level. In particular, the scientist draws attention to Fomenko’s neglect of vowels. So the word “Mongols” is transformed into mougoulioi, and then megaloi, and is categorically translated as “great”.
Linguists also reveal an amateurish approach when Fomenko attempts to identify Russians with some European peoples, while completely disregarding the morphology of words. As an argument for the identity of Russians with the Irish, the mathematician focuses on some similarity between the words Irish and Russian, ignoring the fact that ish is a suffix, and uss is part of the root.

Definitely a falsification

According to the "New Chronology" main argument The fallacy of all traditional science is that it is based on an initially falsified history. If you believe Fomenko, then in Russia in the 17th–18th centuries there was an entire service whose only job was to rewrite history to please the Romanovs.
Only the authors of NH are silent important detail: in order for a fictitious story to look plausible, it is necessary not only to seize and rewrite all domestic chronicles, but also to pull off a similar scam in other states, whose chronicles reflect the events of ancient Russian history.
But Fomenko and Nosovsky go further and believe that archaeological data was also falsified. As the medievalist historian Valentin Yanin notes, the assertion that such huge material was forged maliciously is in principle impossible. As an example, he names the number of cubic meters of all cultural layers of Novgorod - about 10 million. “That’s exactly how much, if you follow Fomenko’s logic, the evil Romanovs moved. And let the Department of Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences calculate how many supplies are needed to transport such a quantity of soil from the Volga to the Volkhov,” the academician concludes.

Plan
Introduction
1 History of the term “New Chronology”
2 Early attempts to revise the chronology referred to by the authors of “NH”
3 Ideas of N. A. Morozov
4 Formation of the “New Chronology” by A. T. Fomenko
4.1 M. M. Postnikov and the revival of Morozov’s ideas
4.2 Work of the Fomenko group
4.3 Relationships with the scientific community
4.4 Relations with party leadership

5 “New chronology” in the era of perestroika
6 Transformation of the “New Chronology” into a phenomenon popular culture
Bibliography

Introduction

“New chronology” is a pseudoscientific theory that claims that the existing chronology historical events is generally incorrect, and offers its own version of chronology and the history of mankind in general. According to the statements of its authors, it is based on mathematical and astronomical calculations; the creators consider it part of applied mathematics. Rejected by the scientific community - historians, archaeologists, linguists, mathematicians, physicists, astronomers and representatives of other sciences. A number of academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences from various scientific fields qualified the “New Chronology” as pseudoscience.

1. History of the term “New Chronology”

The term “New Chronology” was first used in a devastating review of N. Morozov’s book “Christ” by historian N. M. Nikolsky.

A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky first used the term in 1995 in the title of their book “New Chronology and the Concept of the Ancient History of Rus', England and Rome” (Moscow, Moscow State University, 1995) to designate a modified version of world chronology built on basis of the widespread use of supposedly modern natural scientific methods.

Later, it began to be applied to the works of earlier authors, whom Fomenko and Nosovsky classify as their predecessors: N. Morozov, Edwin Johnson, Jean Hardouin, Isaac Newton, etc.

In English-language literature, the term “New Chronology” has been assigned since 1995 to the works of the British Egyptologist David Rohl. David M. Rohl), who in his now famous book “A Test of Time”, published in 1995, used it in relation to his proposed changes in chronology Ancient Egypt. He has used this name in his articles since 1990.

2. Early attempts to revise the chronology, which are referred to by the authors of “NH”

The main information about early attempts to revise the chronology of NH is borrowed from the works of N.A. Morozov, who, in turn, learned a lot from a German newspaper article. However, many of the facts reported in this article, for example, about the Salamanca professor de Arcilla and the Pisan doctor Gragani, are not confirmed.

The Jesuit scholar Jean Hardouin (1646-1729), a major philologist of his time who had long and successfully engaged in philological criticism of texts, came to the conclusion in 1690 that a number of late antique works were actually written in the Middle Ages. Then he found that in general almost all ancient literature was composed by medieval monks, including Greek translation New Testament, while the latter was written in Latin - in his opinion, native language Christ and the Apostles. He considered the entire patristic tradition, and all the documents of the councils, as well as all ancient coins, to be a fake. After his death, a statement was found in his notes that all church history was “the fruit of a secret conspiracy against true faith" According to the modern French historian Henri-Irénée Marrot, it was Hardouin’s ideas that arose in the fight against the Jansenists, who relied on the writings of St. Augustine, which forced Hardouin to revise the entire legacy of the Church Fathers

An attempt to revise the chronology was made by Isaac Newton, who spent several decades on a mathematical analysis of ancient history. IN in brief his ideas were outlined in the book “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended”, which appeared in 1725 in French, and in 1728, after his death, in English.

The great physicist, who towards the end of his life devoted himself mainly to theology, became concerned about the discrepancy between “sacred” and “secular” chronology. Indeed, the date to which the then tradition, following Manetho, attributed the accession of the first Egyptian pharaoh Menes (4242 BC), is not only older than the date of the flood according to biblical data (2348 BC according to Asher), but also the very creation of the world (4004 BC according to Asher). To resolve this contradiction, Newton, who did not doubt the absolute reliability of biblical data, declared that the history of all peoples was deliberately made ancient by them. Newton's skepticism was partly confirmed by modern science, which considers Manetho’s chronology to be extended by at least 1000 extra years (see chronology). Using various combinations, Newton greatly reduced the list of reigns, declaring 904 BC as the year of Mena’s accession. e.; and since this, in turn, contradicted the chronology Greek history, then Newton also revised the latter - in its early, mythical and semi-mythical part: for example, he dated the campaign of the Argonauts with the help of astronomical combinations to 936 BC. e.. One of Newton’s cardinal mistakes, although conditioned by the state of knowledge of that era, was that he took as a basis the list of Egyptian reigns given by the earliest Greek author, Herodotus (as it turned out later, based on a very approximate presentation of his Egyptian interlocutors), and discarded the information of later authors, who were nevertheless based on the records of the Egyptian priests (through Manetho). However, it should be noted that his revision concerns mainly early history, which at that time was deprived reliable sources, so it, in the then version, still does not coincide with the data of modern science; but the Jewish chronology from the time of the creation of the Kingdom of Israel and the Greek chronology from the first Olympiad by Newton as a whole does not contradict either the then or the present science. Therefore, the attempts of the “new chronologists” to portray the great scientist as their immediate predecessor are clearly a stretch. Newton presented his version of chronology in his works “A Brief Chronicle of Historical Events, from the First in Europe to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great,” and “A Corrected Chronology of the Ancient Kingdoms.” The responses of his contemporaries were negative - his constructions were declared “delusions of an honorable amateur.” Subsequently, Cesare Lombroso called these works the results of “the dying madness of a genius.” However, in our time there are other estimates: a well-known specialist in ancient history S. Ya. Lurie believed that Newton was methodologically impeccable and to the right of his opponents; His trouble is that he proceeded from false premises and initial data, which, however, were objectively determined by the state of knowledge in his era.

In the 19th century, historian Edwin Johnson challenged the existing chronology, arguing, in particular, that the Bible was written in the early 16th century; Privatdozent at the University of Basel Robert Baldauf found that the monuments ancient literature(including Caesar's Notes) contain German rhyming and were therefore composed by medieval German monks

3. Ideas of N. A. Morozov

The predecessor of the modern developers of the “New Chronology” was the Russian scientist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov. Finding himself in the Peter and Paul Fortress for terrorist activities and having no other literature except the Bible, Morozov began reading “Apocalypse” and, by his own admission:

... from the very first chapter I suddenly began to recognize in the apocalyptic beasts what was half allegorical, and half literally accurate and, moreover, extremely artistic image thunderstorm pictures that have long been known to me, and besides them there is also a wonderful description of the constellations of the ancient sky and the planets in these constellations. After a few pages there was no longer any doubt left for me that the true source of this ancient prophecy was one of those earthquakes that are not uncommon even now in the Greek Archipelago, and the accompanying thunderstorm and the ominous astrological arrangement of the planets according to the constellations, these ancient signs of God's wrath, accepted by the author, under the influence of religious enthusiasm, as a sign specially sent by God in response to his fervent pleas to show him at least some hint when Jesus will finally come to earth.

Based on this idea as an obvious fact that did not need proof, Morozov tried to calculate the date of the event based on the supposed astronomical indications in the text and came to the conclusion that the text was written in 395 AD. e., that is, 300 years later than its historical dating. For Morozov, however, this served as a sign that not his hypothesis was wrong, but the existing chronology of historical events. Morozov, upon his release from prison, outlined his conclusions in the book “Revelation in a Thunderstorm and Storm” (1907). Critics have pointed out that this dating contradicts the undoubted quotations and references to the "Apocalypse" in earlier Christian texts. To this Morozov objected that since the dating of the “Apocalypse” was proven astronomically, then in this case we are dealing with either forgeries or incorrect dating of contradictory texts that could not have been written earlier than the 5th century. At the same time, he firmly believed that his dating was based on accurate astronomical data; critics' indications that these “astronomical data” represented an arbitrary interpretation of a metaphorical text were ignored by him.

In further works, Morozov carried out a revision of the dating of ancient astronomical events (mainly solar and lunar eclipses), described in chronicles, as well as several horoscopes, images of which were discovered in archaeological sites. He came to the conclusion that a significant part of the dating is simply unfounded, since it is based on extremely meager descriptions of eclipses (without indicating the date, time, exact location, even without specifying the type of eclipse). Morozov dated other ancient astronomical events, resulting in significantly later dates. Analyzing the history of Chinese astronomy, Morozov concluded that ancient Chinese astronomical records are unreliable - lists of comet appearances have obvious signs copying from each other and from European sources, the lists of eclipses are unrealistic (there are more records of eclipses than could in principle be observed).

"Christ" historian N. M. Nikolsky .

A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky first used the term in 1995 in the title of their book “New Chronology and Concept of the Ancient History of Rus', England and Rome” (Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1995) to designate a modified version of the world chronology, built on the basis of the widespread use of supposedly modern natural scientific methods. Later, it began to be applied to the works of earlier authors, whom Fomenko and Nosovsky classify as their predecessors: Newton, Morozov, etc.

In English-language literature, the term “New Chronology” is more often applied to the works of the British Egyptologist David M. Rohl, who in his famous book“A Test of Time,” published in 1995, used it in relation to his proposed changes to the chronology of Ancient Egypt. He has used this name in his articles since 1990.

Early attempts to revise the chronology referred to by the authors of “NH”

The main information about early attempts to revise the chronology of NH is borrowed from the works of N. A. Morozov, who, in turn, learned a lot from a German newspaper article. However, many of the facts reported in this article, for example, about the Salamanca professor de Arcilla and the Pisan doctor Gragani, are not confirmed.

An attempt to revise the chronology was made by Isaac Newton, who spent several decades on a mathematical analysis of ancient history. His ideas were briefly outlined in the book “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended,” which appeared in 1725 in French, and in 1728, after his death, in English.

Based on this idea as an obvious fact that did not need proof, Morozov tried to calculate the date of the event based on the supposed astronomical indications in the text and came to the conclusion that the text was written in 395 AD. e. , that is, 300 years later than its historical dating. For Morozov, however, this served as a sign that not his hypothesis was wrong, but the existing chronology of historical events. Morozov, upon his release from prison, outlined his conclusions in the book “Revelation in a Thunderstorm and Storm” (). Critics have pointed out that this dating contradicts the undoubted quotations and references to the "Apocalypse" in earlier Christian texts. To this, Morozov objected that since the dating of the “Apocalypse” is proven astronomically, then in this case we are dealing with either forgeries or incorrect dating of contradictory texts that could not have been written earlier than the 5th century. At the same time, he firmly believed that his dating was based on accurate astronomical data; critics' indications that these “astronomical data” represented an arbitrary interpretation of a metaphorical text were ignored by him.

Formation of the “New Chronology” by A. T. Fomenko

M. M. Postnikov and the revival of Morozov’s ideas

Work of the Fomenko group

Fomenko actively joined the work of the group formed around Postnikov, which was supposed to confirm Morozov’s theory, and soon headed this group.

To Postnikov's displeasure, Fomenko and Mishchenko seriously revised Morozov's ideas. Fomenko agreed with Morozov that the existing chronology is incorrect, but disagreed with him in assessing which chronology is correct. Postnikov, in turn, considered it impossible to reconstruct history without the help of professional historians.

Relations with party leadership

However, Fomenko and his group soon resumed publishing articles on their theories. After the appearance in “Questions of History” (No. 12, 1983) of a new devastating article written by Golubtsova in collaboration with physicist Yu. A. Zavenyagin, Fomenko, in turn, complains to the Central Committee, attaching an article refuting the astronomical conclusions of the authors. The result was a discussion with Zavenyagin in one of the offices of the Central Committee, where Fomenko last argument put forward his patriotic intentions: “I am Soviet, I am Russian! I want the history of my country to be as ancient as Ancient Rome!”

"New chronology" in the era of perestroika

Perestroika freed supporters of the “New Chronology” from the problems of censorship. But the topic of ancient history in that era was irrelevant among the broad masses, and Fomenko continued to publish small-circulation publications. Later, in 1993, at the author’s expense, the Moscow State University publishing house published his first monographs on the “New Chronology”: “Methods of statistical analysis of narrative texts and applications to chronology (recognition and dating of dependent texts, statistical ancient chronology, statistics of ancient astronomical observations)” and “Global chronology. History Study ancient world and the Middle Ages." In the appendix to the second, Nosovsky provides a new dating of the Orthodox Easter and the Council of Nicaea. In 1993, publishing houses in the USA and Holland published three books outlining Fomenko’s theory, with a total volume of about 1000 pages.

Transformation of the “New Chronology” into a phenomenon of mass culture

In discussions in the press and on the Internet, supporters and opponents of the “New Chronology” repeatedly accused each other of forgery, exaggeration, distortion of facts, personal revenge and political motives; in addition, professionals accused Fomenko and Nosovsky of amateurism and incompetence. Later, the intensity of the discussions decreased, since the authors of the New Chronology withdrew from direct discussions in the scientific press, turning to the general public in commercial publications. To date, the total number of books by A. T. Fomenko and his group is about 90. Reports and individual articles by critics of the “New Chronology” are collected in 7 collections “Antifomenko” published by the Russian Panorama publishing house and other collections.

In 2004, Anatoly Fomenko, in collaboration with Gleb Nosovsky, for books from the “New Chronology” series, was awarded the “Paragraph” Anti-Prize in the “Honorable Illiteracy” category - for “particularly cynical crimes against Russian literature”.

Notes

1. Condemnation of A. Fomenko’s works at a meeting of the Bureau of the History Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998
2. Problems of the fight against pseudoscience (discussion in the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences) // 1999, volume 69, no. 10, p. 879-904
   • Commission against pseudoscience and falsification scientific research at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences [responsible] ed. Kruglyakov E.P.] In defense of science. - M.: Nauka, 2007. - T. 2. - P. 102-111. - 208 p. - ISBN 978-5-02-036182-9.
   • How does pseudoscience threaten society? (meeting of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences) 2003
   • Kruglyakov E. P. Witch hunt // “Ogonyok”, 2003
   • Efremov Yu. N., Zavenyagin Yu. A.“About the so-called “New” chronology” of A. T. Fomenko” // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1999, volume 69, no. 12, p. 1081-1092
   • Alexandrov E. B. Problems of expansion of pseudoscience
   • Yanin V. L. In Novgorod, democracy was devoured by oligarchs
   • Zaliznyak A. A.“Linguistics according to A. T. Fomenko”
   • Novikov S. P.“Pseudohistory and pseudomathematics: science fiction in our lives” // Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 2000.
3. Nikolsky N. M. Astronomical revolution in historical science. Regarding the book by N. A. Morozov “Christ”, Leningrad, 1924. // “New World”, 1925, No. 1, p. 156-175; republished along with Morozov's response: Morozov N. A. A New Look on the history of the Russian state. (Volume 8 of the work “Christ”). - M.: Kraft+Lean, 2000. - 888 p. ISBN 5-85929-087-X . With. 687-709
4. Nosovsky G.V., Fomenko A.T.“New chronology of Rus', England and Rome”
5. Rohl D. A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History.- London: Century, 1995.