In their article A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin tell about sensational in the last time openings in the field of "Novgorod" archeology. Two items are discussed in the article. First, about a birchbark sheet with a picture of Saint Barbara (on one of the sides), pic. 3.41 Second, about three cereous plates with scratched on wax signatures, which A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin call "Novgorod psalm book" [1], pp.202-203. Both items were discovered in Novgorod on Volkhov during archeological diggings of 2000[1].
Pic. 3.41 →
We are not going to estimate the value of these openings for historical science and linguistics. Here we are interested only in formal issue. What is the dating of found in the ground ancient items with signatures, about which A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin write? A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin try to insist, that it is the beginning of the XI century[1]. More precisely they date a soil layer, from which the mentioned birchbark sheet was taken, with the first third of the XI century [1], p.202. And the layer, in which three plates of psalm book were found – with the first quarter of the same XI century [1], p.203. So, according to A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin, both found by them "ancient Novgorod" items we made allegedly around one thousand years ago. Next A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin confidently come to the conclusion that these are really ancient Russian texts. About three plates "Psalm book", for example, in [1] it is told that it was written with the hand of a man from the "earliest generation of literate Russian people", who allegedly "probably was nearly a bystander of the Christianization of Russia" [1], p.206.
"Accuracy" of the proposed in [1] datings impresses: "In general a monument should be dated with the beginning of 990 – end of 1010s" - write A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin, for example, about "Novgorod psalm book". So they date it with up to around 10 years accuracy. Nearly the same level of "accuracy" is in the dating of the mentioned piece of birchbark. Here they propose an interval of archeological dating around 30 years ("first third of the XI century"). So this time "Novgorod" dating is received with plus-minus 15 years accuracy [1], p.202.
Here we take the word "Novgorod" in quotes, as according to our studies, see for example our book "New chronology of Russia", modern city Novgorod on Volkhov, where V.L.Yanin continues his diggings already for many years, has no relation to Novgorod the Great of Russian chronicles. Seems that modern Novgorod on Volkhov was named "Novgorod" only by first Romanovs in the XVII century with the purpose of distortion of the old Russian history. In the XVI century it was still called simply "town-district", see. [2], p.9 and our book "New chronology of Russia, England and Rome" (publishing house "Delovoy Express", 2001) or "Reconstruction of the universal history: studies of 1999-2000". As we found, the history of Novgorod on Volkhov hardly could go into past further than the XV-XVI centuries A.D. – and only like a history of even at that time small settlement, not a big city. Novgorod fortress, pompously named today "the Kremlin" or "citadel", was for the first time built more likely only in the XVII century as a common military fortification for struggle with Sweden. All this is described in details in a section of our book "New chronology of Russia, England and Rome" (Moscow, 2001), devoted to "Novgorod" dendrochronology. Here we only want to underline that according to our studies in Novgorod on Volkhov the items older than of the XV-XVI centuries couldn't underlay between the layers of old pavements. As in those times there was neither city itself nor probably its pavements. Dating of the lower layers of these pavements with the XI century A.D., proposed by V.L.Yanin, in our opinion, is insufficiently reasoned. Most probably it is wrong and a correct dating is much later, see our book "New chronology of Russia, England and Rome" (Moscow, 2001).
So, let's see, how A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin date the first of the mentioned items – the birchbark sheet. Its photo, taken from their article, is published on pic. 3.41.
Method of dating, proposed in the article of A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin [1], is based on dendrochronological dating of old sank in soil pavements. They write: <<2000 season started with pleasant surprise. In the layer, related to the first third of the XI century, a small sheet of birchbark was found, and on both sides of it pictures of people's figures were scratched. Picture on one side is identified as a picture of Jesus Christ. A figure on the other side is marked with a well-read signature "Barbara" and a letter "A" before it in a circle, what is a usual abbreviation of a Greek word "saint" (��I��). The image of Saint Barbara was represented in full accordance with the canon: saint in a crown holds martyrdom in her hand>> [1], p.202. See pic.3.41.
So, the birchbark sheet is dated in [1] based on the dating of the soil layer, where it was found. In its turn "Novgorod" archeological layers themselves are dated, as it is well known, based on the dendrochronology of sank in soil pavements, dug out in Novgorod on Volkhov only in the XX century. Diggings were done by archeologists mainly headed by V.L.Yanin. In general, the scale of "Novgorod" datings was created by V.L.Yanin not long ago. The remarkable thing is that although the idea of dendrochronological dating itself is rather reasonable, proposed by V.L.Yanin implementation of this idea in the case with "dendrochronology of Novgorod", cause serious doubts.
In our books, speaking about Novgorod dendrochronology, we already explained the issue in detail, see. [9], ch.1; [7], section 3:12. Here, on example of the mentioned birchbark sheet, we will make sure once again that doubts, expressed by us regarding "Novgorod" dendrochronology of V.L.Yanin, are quite reasonable.
The issue is that this birchbark sheet CONTAINS AN EVIDENT DATE. Moreover, rather clear and in fair preservation. So we get a good possibility to CHECK the correctness of dendrochronological datings of V.L.Yanin. Is it true, that the date on the birchbark really corresponds to the XI century A.D. – that is to the dating by the method of V.L.Yanin of that layer of pavements, where the birchbark was found? If so, than "Novgorod" dendrochronology would get some confirmation. If no, than instead there is a contradiction between "Novgorod" datings of V.L.Yanin and "Novgorod" findings. In the last case it is interesting to learn what date it is and how much it differs from the proposed by V.L.Yanin dating of the corresponding soil layer (allegedly XI century A.D.). By the way, it is remarkable that the presence of date under the picture of Saint Barbara is not quarreled by A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin. They write: "And one more interesting detail. Under the picture of Saint Barbara on the birchbark a date is scratched..." [1], p.203. We will tell a bit later, how exactly A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin read this date. 
This is a topic for a separate discussion. Let's turn to pic.3.42, where a zoomed fragment of the photo of the lower part of the birchbark with a scratched date is presented. Please note, that the date is scratched, not written [1], p.203. This is an explanation for an evident particularity of the handwriting – its lines hardly curve, not so easy, as during usual writing with a pen.
← Pic.3.42
It is not so easy to read a signature on the birchbark. WITH A TYPICAL HANDWRITING OF THE XVIII CENTURY, WITH USUAL ARABIC NUMBERS IT IS WRITTEN HERE: 7282. This is obviously a year according to Russian church era "from Adam", that is according to Byzantine era. In this era, as it is well known, the start of the used today "Common era" or "A.D. era" is in 5508. It is worth saying that the chronology of the era "from Adam" remained official in Russia until the reforms of Peter the Great. And after this Russian people still for a long time used this means, especially in church usage. In some church editions even today one can meet years according to this old Russian era. They look already very archaically, but, we will repeat, they still can be met in our time. It will be no trouble to calculate, that indicated on the birchbark 7282 year in usual chronology means 1774 A.D., as 7282 - 5508 = 1774. That is the end of the eighteenth century!
Handwriting of a man, who wrote on the birchbark, is typical exactly for the XVIII century. Indeed, let's see how he was writing out figures. The first figure - 7. In general it is written nearly like today, but below a clear bend or "tail" is seen, pic.3.42. In our time seven "with a tail" is not used. But at the end of the XVIII century it was written exactly like it was scratched on the birchbark.
To be sure in this let's address to old documents of that time. On pic.3.43 a fragment of handwritten plan of Moscow streets of 1776 is presented. On the plan there are many figures, written with a handwriting of the end of the XVIII century. Also a literal signature "Dmitrovka" – name of one of the streets is seen, pic.3.43. The plan is taken by us from the book "The history of Moscow in the documents of the XII-XVIII" centuries [3], p.218, where it is placed under the name: "Drawing of the earth on Petrovskaya street for building a theatre. 1776." This is an original of the XVIII century [3], p.218.
Pic. 3.43
In a zoomed view some figures from this plan are presented on pic.3.44. It is well seen that at that time seven was often written with a noticeable tail – on the same way as the first figure on the birchbark is written. So, the first figure of the "birchbark" date is SEVEN.
The second and fourth figures are written absolutely equally. It is an arch with a small going down tail on the below end, pic.3.42. So in the XVIII century figure "2" was written. It is well seen from the examples, provided on pic.3.44. By the way, in Russian handwriting of the end of the XVIII century figure "2" and letter � were written on the same way. Probably because "�" is the first letter of the word "two". Full identity of letter "�" and figure "2" in the handwriting of that time is evident, for example, from the signature on another picture of the XVIII century, which we provide on pic.3.45.
Pic.3.45
Pic.3.46
But then it cannot go unmentioned, that letter "�" (also two) was written in the XVIII century without below tail. So they left only the upper part from two. The below part of two – the tail, as appeared, was not obligatory. Exactly like this letter "�" is written in the word "Dmitrovka" on already mentioned plan of 1776, pic.3.43, pic.3.44. This is just an upper arch from two. There is no below tail. The same attention to two we see in the signature on the birchbark, pic.3.42. In both two the below tails are nearly not written. Nevertheless they exist, although small, pic.3.42.
As for the third figure in the date, it is just eight, expressed with two waving scratches. Exactly like this eight, scratched on birchbark, should look. Despite some conventionality, issued by the way of writing, eight here could be well recognized, pic.3.42. As a result there is a date: 7282 (year). As we already told, it is easily understandable, although given not according to the modern era. In re-count on our era we get 1774. It is the end of the XVIII century, the time of Catherine the Great.
← Pic.3.42
Now let's pay attention that higher on the right from number 7282 on the birchbark also a Church-Slavonic letter "�" is added, that is 7, pic.3.42. It is easy to understand what it means in this case. It is so called "indiction", that is number of year according to special cyclic count with 15-years period.
It is important to underline that in 1774 indiction REALLY WAS EQUALL TO 7. Adding indiction to the date in a definite sense turns it into more "church". That is - corresponding to the sample of dating that was accepted in old Russian church books. It seems rather natural that archaic indiction, compared to more modern main date, is given with an ancient Slavonic, not modern Arabic figures.
In conclusion let's pay attention that in the date on the birchbark after the first seven below there is a small ruse, which probably indicates a point, pic.3.42. Notably, it is impossible to scratch a point on the birchbark like one can do, for example, with a pen on a paper. That's why they could only put a small ruse instead of the point. Probably elder positions – that is thousands are separated by this point-ruse from the other figures of the date. Please note that thousands in dates, written with Arabic figures were often separated with a point from the other figures. Besides, when writing dates with Church-Slavonic figures a point was not used for separation of the elder positions. Instead of this a special sign of thousands was used, which looked as twice crossed stand line. It was put not after but before the figure, which specified thousands. It is very easy to scratch such sign on a birchbark, as it consists only of straight lines. But it is missing here. Already this one circumstance suggests that the date on the birchbark was written not with Church-Slavonic figures, as A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin think [1]. Now we will tell how A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin read this date. It is rather interesting and in a definite sense instructive. Quote:
"And one more interesting (that is like not so important? - Aut.) detail. Under the picture of Saint Barbara on the birchbark a date is scratched, which is read like 6537. (from the creation of the world), what corresponds to 1029 A.D. THE FIRST, THIRD AND FOURTH NUMBERS ARE WRITTEN WITH SLAVONIC SIGNS AND THE SECOND, ACCORDING TO SUPPOSITION OF S.G.BOLOTOV, WITH A LATIN SIGN. This means that Saint Barbara was depicted by a person, who couldn't write number 500 with a Slavonic sign, but knew how it was written according to the Western tradition" [1], p.203. We will avoid spread comments regarding such strange way of reading the number, written with a usual, used today Arabic figures. We will only tell to the interested readers how date 6537 should look (that is 1029 A.D., as 6537 - 5508 = 1029), written with Slavonic letters-figures. It is written like this: S � � �
Here "S" – is Slavonic "zelo", meaning (together with special additional sign) number 6000:
"�" – Slavonic letter "fert", meaning500:
"�" – Slavonic letter "lyudi", meaning 30:
"�" – Slavonic letter "zemlya", meaning 7.
NOTHING OF THIS IS WRITTEN ON THE BIRCHBARK, THERE ARE NO THESE LETTERS EXCEPT THE LAST LETTER "ZEMLYA". But letter "zemlya" doesn't solve anything here. First, it is related to the UNITS digit position, that's why even if it was related to the date itself, it couldn't significantly influence on it. Second, it doesn't relate to the main date. On pic.3.42 it is well seen, that letter "zelo" on the birchbark is written not together with the other numbers. Definitely it is very much shifted on the right and upwards from the main date and obviously means something separate. As we already told, this is really a Slavonic figure on the birchbark, but it stands separately and means indiction of 1774, which really was equal to 7. Let's address to the first three figures, pic.3.42. If it is a Church-Slavonic number 6537, as it is stated in [1], than these figures should be "zelo", "fert" and "lyudi". If it is possible, with big desire, to "see" them on the birchbark? Let's investigate this.
First of all, the first letter "zelo", meaning 6000, should have a special sign of thousands, about which we already wrote above. THERE IS NO SUCH SIGN on the birchbark, pic.3.42.
But not this is the most important. They could leave the sign out. In general figure 7 on the birchbark could be "strained" on church-Slavonic "zelo", pic.3.42. But for this it will be necessary to flip "zelo", having creased its upper part to another side. But such way of reading of figure "zelo" in Church-Slavonic dates is rather often used by some historians. In our opinion it is unreasoned. But we will not go into this now and temporarily will agree, that the first figure was read by A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin correctly.
Let's address to the main second figure. Why is it the most important? Easy. It is a figure of hundreds. It is clear that hundreds determine approximate dating. All the other figures are already not so important. For example, one can finally guess the meaning of the figure of thousands. As its change moves the date for at least one thousand years. It is not so easy to make one thousand years mistake (although even such things could be met when reading the "most ancient" dates, but we will not go into this, see details in [6]). As for the figures of tens and units, they, instead, even with "joint efforts" can't move the date for more than 100 years. So, they also don't influence approximate dating.
So here only figure of hundreds is "critical". Let's see how it would look if "Novgorod" dendrochronology was correct. If it is possible to find something like this on the birchbark? We say no. And as it comes from the above quote, A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin actually have to confess this. We remind that the birchbark was found in the layer, dated according to the method of V.L.Yanin with THE FIRST THIRD OF THE XI CENTURY [1], p.202. A simple arithmetical calculation shows that in order a year on the birchbark corresponded to the indicated dating of V.L.Yanin, it is necessary that the figure of hundreds in it meant 500 or 400.
In the first case, not taking into account tens and units, there would be 6500, that is 992 A.D. Tens and units would move this date to the XI century, what is "required". With this any figure except 90 would suit to be tens (and moreover units). It is clear that this is the most profitable case for placement of the final date into the XI century.
Second case would be much worse. If the second figure was 400, then without tens and units there would be 6400, that is 892 A.D. (6400 - 5508 = 892). It is much "worse" than the first case, as for placement of the final date into the XI century now it would be necessary to place very strict requirements to the figure of tens. That is, only figure 90 would suit, which is expressed with a Slavonic letter "cherv" (�). It would require many efforts to "strain" what is written on the birchbark on letter "�". As there is simply no such letter there, pic.3.42. A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin insist on the first case. But still they didn't dare to announce that Church-Slavonic figure 500, that is letter "fert" (�), really exists on the birchbark. As for stated in [1] supposition that all figures on the birchbark are SLAVONIC, and only one of them, THE MAIN, for some reason turned to be LATIN, we will say the following. As it was already explained, the issue is in this and only in this figure, and supposition that exactly it was taken from any other figure system (for example, Latin), fully devaluate "reading" of this date. It is absolutely clear, that any letter or figure was here, if desired, it is always possible to select such foreign system of notations, in which the required reading of this figure will be if not evident, but at least allowable. Let us recall that the issue is not about clear calligraphically written date, but about scratches on the birchbark. The question is if the second figure (two) on the birchbark resembles Latin letter D, meaning 500? See pic.3.42. Strictly speaking - no. But it is possible to strain. Moreover this straining actually will have some sense. Really there is two here. And we already saw that in the handwriting of the XVIII century two was written exactly like Russian handwritten letter �. But Latin D exactly corresponds to Russian �. Handwritten forms of these letters probably were alike.
But then why the fourth figure of the signature, the same two, A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin already read like Latin D, that is 500?
How instead of this they saw in the remaining part of the date only Church-Slavonic "�" ("lyudi") with a numerical meaning 30? There were always only two lines in the letter �. And there are much more of them on the birchbark on this place, pic.3.42. If we see what we want? But like this it is possible "to read" here nearly any given in advance date.
So let's ask a rhetorical question. If it is possible that a clearly written with a handwriting of the end of the eighteens century date, meaning 1774 A.D., was related to the XI century? We think, no. Or at least it is rather difficult. But reading the work of A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin shows that it is easy to do when desired. We came across a bright example of a case that whatever date was indicated on an ancient item, digged out from the soil, some historians put maximal efforts (like in this case) to read it so that the chronology of Scaliger was "confirmed".
Besides, dating of the birchbark with the XI century still induced a "problem" in historical science: <<The finding immediately induced a problem. Farmstead "�", where it was found, is placed on the ancient Chernitsyna street which took its name from aforetime placed on it nunnery of St. Barbara. OF COURSE IN THE FIRST THIRD OF THE XI CENTURY THERE COULDN'T BE ANY NUNNERY HERE: the earliest nunneries in Russia appeared only in the second half of the XI century, and Novgorod nunnery of St. Barbara was for the first time mentioned in a chronicle of 1138, that is more than for 100 years later than our finding>> [1], p.202.
So it appears that at the place, where the birchbark was found, in the later time the nunnery of St. Barbara was placed. And a picture of Saint Barbara is on the birchbark, pic.3.41. It is clear that the birchbark was dropped here (or earthed) more likely in the time, when there was a nunnery. Probably it still stayed there in 1774, when the birchbark was covered with signatures. And then everything fits together.
A question appears – why exactly 1774 year was put on the birchbark? Why there is a date? Usually in Russia dates were not put under the pictures of saints. Of course there could be different answers to this question and we don't propose a final answer here. But it is difficult not to note, that 1774 is the year of crushing of Pugachev. Exactly in this time cruel persecutions of everybody, who had supported the "rebel", took place all over Russia [4], p.52, [5], volume 35, p.280. We start to understand the scale of this event only now, when it becomes clear, that crushing of Pugachev was more likely not a "suppression of peasant revolt", as we are taught at the course of history, but a military defeat of hostile to Romanovs huge Russian Siberian state of the XVIII century with a capital in Tobolsk. At the West this state was called "Moscow Tartaria", and a self-name of it probably was simply "Moscow". See a section devoted to our reconstruction of the events of "Pugachev's war" in our book "New chronology of Russia, England and Rome". So 1774 probably was the year of the biggest turning point in Russian and World history, which had painfully touched all the layers of Russian society. Probably because of this 1774 was placed on the birchbark under the picture of St. Barbara. We will repeat that no dates were usually put under the pictures of saints.
In conclusion we will say some words about the second item, discussed in [1] – the three plates "Novgorod psalm book". Unfortunately there are no clear dates on it. At least in [1] nothing is told about it. But dating of these cereous plates with the XI century A.D., proposed in [1], seems unreasoned. The fact that this plate was found in the layer, dated according to the method of V.L.Yanin with "the first quarter of the XI century" [1], p.203, as we already assured ourselves on example with the birchbark of 1774, says about nothing. Like the birchbark these plates easily could be an item of the XVIII century.
All the examples of writing separate words on these plates, provided in [1], p.206, are met also in the manuscripts of the XVIII century. For example, in Old Believers' ones. The same could be told about handwriting on the plates, according to the photo in [1], p.205. There is nothing impossible for the XVIII century in this handwriting.
By the way, the name of such plates, used, as considered, in the "ancient" times, is rather interesting. And also the name of special sticks, with which they wrote on such plates. <<The code contains four wax pages, so called ceraes... It is well known that ceraes, cereous plates, were widely used for writing in the Ancient Greece and Rome, and also in the medieval Western Europe... As a means of writing on the ceraes served "styluses" – metal or bone stems, pointed for writing on wax on one side and having a plain shovel for deleting written signs on the other ... Such devises have an OBLIGATORY SHOVEL>> [1], pp.202-203.
Well, "antique", "ancient Greek" and "ancint Roman" cereous plates, on which the letters were Scratched, were called Ceraes. And stems, with which the "ancient" Greeks and Romans (and also medieval Europeans) Deleted these letters, were called Styluses. Isn't it strange that both these words ideally correspond to Russian words Scratch or Draft in case of plates-ceraes and Deleting or Rubbering (STYLUSES) in case of rubbers - Styluses. We will remind that not every stem for scratching on ceraes was called "stylus", but only the one having a shovel for deleting. In Russian even today it would be called RUBBER. As for transition of letters � and � into each other in many words, there are a lot of examples of this. For example, the name of the city Amsterdam earlier was written as "Amsteldam", see. [6], etc. Substitution of � to � (draft - cerae) into so called "pronouncing 'ch' as 'ts'" dialects is just a rule.
CONCLUSION. Proposed by academicians A.A.Zaliznyak and V.L.Yanin reading of the date, contained on the found in Novgorod excavation birchbark, as allegedly the date of the XI century, in our opinion, is deeply mistaken. They "made a mistake" for around seven hundred years. Actually 7282 (from Adam) is rather clearly read on the birchbark. That is, in conversion into common chronology, 1774 A.D. It is the end of the XVIII century, absolutely not the XI century. Moreover, indiction of 1774 is correctly indicated on the birchbark, what additionally confirms the correctness of proposed by us reading of this date.
So, in the layer of "Novgorod" pavements, dated according to the method of V.L.Yanin with the first third of the XI century, an item of the end of the XVIII century was found. This issues serious doubts in the correctness of all the proposed by V.L.Yanin scale of "Novgorod datings". In our opinion this scale in its modern form is insufficiently reasoned and most likely is wrong.
LITERATURE
[1] Zaliznyak A.A., Yanin V.L. "Novgorod psalm book of the beginning of the XI century – the most ancient book of Russia". – Newsletter of RAS, volume 71, issue 3, 2001, pp.202-209.
[2] Rozhdestvenskaya LA. "Novgorod Kremlin. Guidebook". - Lenizdat, 1980.
[3] "The history of Moscow in documents of the XII-XVIII centuries of the Russian state archive of the ancient acts". – Russian state archive of the ancient acts. Moscow city associations of archives. Publishing house of the association "Mosgorarchive", Moscow, 1997.
[4] "Chronology of the universal and Russian history". Composed by V.L.Rantsov. – St.Petersburg, Brokgauz-Efron, 1905. Reprint: Kaliningrad, Argument, Yantarny Skaz, 1995.
[5] "Big Soviet Encyclopedia". Volumes 1-51. Second edition. - Moscow: Publishing house Soviet Enciclopedia, 1949-1957.
[6] Fomenko A.T.. Methods of statistical analysis of historical texts. Applications to chronology. Volumes 1,2. - Moscow, "Kraft+Lean", 1999.
[7] Nosovskiy G.V., Fomenko A.T. New chronology of Russia, England and Rome. - Moscow, "Delovoy express", 2001.
[8] Nosovskiy G.V., Fomenko A.T. New chronology of Russia. - Moscow, "Factorial" (1997, 1998, 1999, 2000).
[9] Nosovskiy G.V., Fomenko A.T. Reconstruction of the universal history. Studies of 1999-2000. (New chronology). - Moscow, "Delovoy express", 2000.
