History: Fiction or Science — Index & Evidence Brief

Prepared: September 2026 (PT)
Subject: Anatoly T. Fomenko (& collaborators, esp. Gleb V. Nosovskiy) — English series History: Fiction or Science? (New Chronology)
Primary Archive.org item: history-fiction-or-science-2003-2015-22-books-in-1-fomenko-anatoly

Framing note: This brief inventories the collection and summarizes claims of New Chronology as presented by its authors and publisher, then maps supporting-adjacent and mainstream critical sources. Disputed assertions are labeled as claims. Titles below are taken from the Archive.org OCR table of contents and matching Delamere e-series overviews — not invented.

---

Collection overview (Archive.org link, what the set contains)

Archive.org item

Direct link: https://archive.org/details/history-fiction-or-science-2003-2015-22-books-in-1-fomenko-anatoly
Metadata API: https://archive.org/metadata/history-fiction-or-science-2003-2015-22-books-in-1-fomenko-anatoly

What “22 books in 1” actually is

The Archive.org file is not the seven-volume Delamere paperback Chronology 1–7/8 set pasted end-to-end under different names. It is the English e-series of 22 shorter books, copyright-marked © 2003–2015 Delamere Resources LLC, publisher site historically given as http://history.mithec.com.

This mapping is confirmed by:

1. The OCR front matter TOC of the Archive.org PDF (Books 1–22 listed by title).
2. Publisher “Overview of the e-Series” repeated inside individual e-books (e.g. Book 22 overview lists the same 22 titles).
3. Secondary bibliography noting that the 22 e-book series is a reorganized edition of the 7-volume series (Ctruth bibliography).
4. Official site materials distinguishing the paperback Chronology volumes from the e-series (chronologia.org bibliography; seven-volume overview).

Confidence in the 22-title inventory: high (TOC present in the Archive.org OCR + matching publisher e-series lists).
Confidence that every e-book maps 1:1 to a unique Russian monograph: medium (content is rearranged/excerpted from the larger Chronology project; overlaps and cross-references are expected).

Parallel structure: 7 (≈8) English Chronology paperbacks

Separately, Delamere published English Chronology volumes (often marketed as a seven-volume edition; later materials list Chronology 1–8 with Russian book-numbering quirks):

Sources: chronologia.org/en/seven/index.html, chronologia.org/bibliography_en.html.

Relationship: The 22 e-books package themes from the Chronology project into topical shorter volumes; the 7/8 Chronology set is the systematic print/e-book organization. The Archive.org “22 books in 1” item corresponds to the e-series, not a secret third numbering scheme.

---

Master index (all 22 volumes in the Archive.org set)

Titles as listed in the Archive.org OCR contents (Book 6 title completed from the book’s own title page / publisher overview where OCR blanked the TOC line).

---

Volume-by-volume: Summary | Key findings | Contradictions to official narrative

Summaries synthesize publisher blurbs, chapter headings visible in OCR, and author-site abstracts. They describe authors’ claims, not established fact.

Book 1 — The Issue with Chronology

• Summary: Foundational critique of how “ancient” chronology was assembled in the 16th–17th centuries (Scaliger, Petavius, et al.), with appeals to earlier skeptics (Hardouin, Newton, Morozov) and introduction of Fomenko’s statistical/astronomical dating program.
• Key findings / claims: Consensual chronology is a late clerical construction; Roman chronology underpins European dating and is unreliable; written “ancient” history is largely a distorted copy of medieval events.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Scaligerian/Petavian synthesis, refined by later historians/archaeology, yields a continuous timeline from ancient Near East through classical antiquity.
  • Fomenko: That timeline was manufactured ~XVI–XVII c.; “antiquity” is mostly phantom duplication of XI–XVII c. events.

Book 2 — Astronomy vs. History

• Summary: Argues that solar/lunar eclipses reported in chronicles dated before the XVI century often fail to match modern retrocalculation for the stated place/time (publisher blurb: either wrong time/place or no spectacular sky event).
• Key findings / claims: Eclipse lists used to “confirm” ancient dates are mismatched; astronomical dating pushes many famous ancient events into the Middle Ages (e.g. Thucydides triad claimed as AD 1039 / 1046 / 1057 in the broader project).
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Ancient eclipse reports (Greek, Babylonian, Chinese, medieval European) are broadly consistent with conventional chronology and Earth’s rotational history (e.g. work of F. R. Stephenson and others).
  • Fomenko: Mismatches prove the dates of the chronicles are wrong, not that chroniclers exaggerated totality or that ΔT models need refinement within conventional time.

Book 3 — The Apocalypse Seen by Astronomy

• Summary: Treats Revelation and selected Old Testament prophetic books as containing datable planetary “horoscopes”; claims medieval astronomical symbolism encoded in biblical imagery.
• Key findings / claims: Apocalypse horoscope dated astronomically to the Middle Ages (project materials commonly cite late XII / related medieval solutions depending on edition); OT books likewise “medieval” in composition/dating.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Revelation usually dated late I c. AD (Domitianic or earlier); OT prophetic books centuries BCE.
  • Fomenko: These texts encode medieval sky configurations and belong chronologically with medieval Empire history.

Book 4 — The Issue with Dark Ages

• Summary: Attacks the narrative of classical glory → centuries of stagnation → Renaissance “rediscovery.”
• Key findings / claims: There were no Dark Ages separating antiquity from Renaissance; “rebirth” of Latin/Greek letters reflects the first flourishing of those cultural layers, not recovery of a lost classical age.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Late antiquity decline, early medieval transformation, Carolingian/12th-c. renaissances, then Italian Renaissance — with archaeological continuity and independent dating.
  • Fomenko: The classical corpus is largely medieval; the Dark Ages are a chronological artifact created by inserting phantom centuries.

Book 5 — The Issue with Antiquity

• Summary: Develops the thesis that “antiquity” and Middle Ages are two faces of the same XI–XVI c. events duplicated by chronological shifts (on the order of ~333 / ~1050 / ~1800 years in various Fomenko tables).
• Key findings / claims: Famous “ancient” rulers and wars are statistical/narrative doubles of medieval ones; dynastic graphs coincide after shifts.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Distinct ancient civilizations with independently datable material cultures (ceramics sequences, inscriptions, coins, radiocarbon, dendrochronology).
  • Fomenko: Those civilizations are literary/phantom reflections of a compressed medieval Eurasian history.

Book 6 — The Issue with Troy

• Summary: Rejects Schliemann’s Hisarlik identification as the Homeric Troy; links Trojan War narratives to medieval wars (Gothic / Tarquinian / XIII c. conflicts around “Czar-Grad” / Constantinople / Italian wars in the broader reconstruction).
• Key findings / claims: Homeric Troy ≈ medieval Constantinople region (e.g. Yoros / related sites in later books); Trojan Horse explanations tied to medieval siege engineering/aqueduct lore; XIII c. AD war is the “original.”
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Trojan War tradition rooted in Late Bronze Age Aegean; Hisarlik (Troy VI/VIIa etc.) is the leading archaeological correlate; Homeric epics crystallized earlier than the Crusades.
  • Fomenko: Troy narratives describe XIII c. medieval wars; Bronze Age dating is illusory.

Book 7 — The Issue with Russian History

• Summary: Applies New Chronology methods to Russian chronicles; argues Russian history as taught is systematically distorted.
• Key findings / claims: Primary Russian narrative sources need radical redating/re-identification; “ancient” foreign histories that touch Russia are often misdated doubles of medieval Rus’/Horde events.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Kievan Rus’, Mongol invasion (1237–), rise of Moscow, Romanovs — a sequence anchored by chronicles, archaeology, and foreign sources.
  • Fomenko: Much of that sequence is duplicated, mislabeled, or invented (especially the foreign “yoke” framing).

Book 8 — The Horde From Pacific to Atlantic

• Summary: Presents the “Russian Horde” / Great Empire spanning Eurasia; “Mongol” as “Great,” not an East Asian ethnonym in the medieval sense claimed by textbooks.
• Key findings / claims: A bilingual (Russian–Turkic/Arabic-script) imperial structure; Cossacks/Horde as military estate of the same polity; empire from Pacific to Atlantic before XVII c. breakup.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Distinct Mongol Empire originating in Mongolia under Chinggis Khan; Russia as conquered periphery under the Golden Horde.
  • Fomenko: “Mongols” were essentially the Russian army/state; Mongolia-as-homeland is a later ethnographic projection.

Book 9 — The Issue with Mongols

• Summary: Focused demolition of the “Tatar-Mongol yoke” as a Romanov-era historiographical construction (authors’ claim).
• Key findings / claims: Yoke theory justified new dynasty’s legitimacy and demeaned prior rulers; no centuries-long foreign slavery as taught.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Documented Mongol conquest, tribute, baskak administration, Battle of Kulikovo within a Mongol-successor framework.
  • Fomenko: Conquest/yoke narrative is largely fabricated; conflicts are internal imperial politics misread as foreign domination.

Book 10 — The Issue with Ivan the Terrible

• Summary: Reinterprets Ivan IV’s biography as composite or heavily duplicated with other “terrible” rulers / biblical / Roman figures in the parallelism system.
• Key findings / claims: Multiple “Ivans” or layered reigns; parallels to Nero and other “ancient” tyrants in related volumes (Split of the Empire, etc.).
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: A single XVI c. tsar whose reign is attested by Russian and foreign contemporary sources.
  • Fomenko: The standard biography conflates distinct layers/duplicates created by chronological shifts and chronicle editing.

Book 11 — The Issue with Tamerlane

• Summary: Places Timur within the same Eurasian imperial continuum; challenges isolation of “Asian” conquerors from “Russian Horde” history.
• Key findings / claims: Tamerlane narratives parallel / interconnect with Horde-Rus’ imperial wars; geographic labels mislead.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Timur as Turco-Mongol conqueror centered on Central Asia/Iran, distinct from Muscovy.
  • Fomenko: Part of one imperial story mis-split across phantom ethnies and centuries.

Book 12 — USA Has Issues with Maps of 18th Century

• Summary: Uses early modern maps (including depictions of “Tartary,” incomplete North American coastlines, etc.) to argue that geographical knowledge and political labeling contradict textbook timelines of discovery and statehood.
• Key findings / claims: Map evidence of a large northern imperial entity; American settlement narratives need revision in light of Horde-era claims developed elsewhere in the series.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: “Tartary” is an early modern European catch-all for Inner Asian lands; map myths ≠ lost world empire.
  • Fomenko: Such maps preserve memory of a real Great Empire later written out of history.

Book 13 — The Issue with Czar’s Helmet

• Summary: Russian royal arms/helmets with Arabic-script inscriptions interpreted as native bilingual craft, not captured Islamic trophies.
• Key findings / claims: XIV–XVII c. Russian workshops produced “Arabic”-looking inscriptions encoding Russian/Turkic; Russia–Turkey–Persia cultural continuum inside one empire.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Arabic inscriptions typically indicate Islamic manufacture, import, or spoils; Rus’ was Orthodox Slavic with steppe contacts.
  • Fomenko: Script use reflects official bilingualism of the Horde-Rus’ state.

Book 14 — The Issue with Russian Tartary

• Summary: Collates map and chronicle evidence for “Russian Tartary” as the same polity as Russia-Horde.
• Key findings / claims: Western maps labeling Tartaria document the empire; later historiography erased the identification.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Tartary = vague exonym; not a single Russian world-empire capital history.
  • Fomenko: Tartary was that empire under another name.

Book 15 — The Issue with British History

• Summary: Applies dynastic parallelism to England; claims deep entanglement of British and Russian/Horde dynastic history (expanded in Chronology 4).
• Key findings / claims: English medieval chronology contains shifts/duplicates mirroring continental/Russian streams.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: English history independently attested by charters, coins, archaeology, and continental sources.
  • Fomenko: Large parts are duplicated reflections of the same imperial medieval history.

Book 16 — Crusades and Exoduses

• Summary: Entangles Crusades, Biblical Exodus/Conquest, and Trojan/Gothic wars as reflections of the same medieval imperial conflicts (especially around Constantinople / “Promised Land” geography redefined).
• Key findings / claims: Fourth Crusade (1203–04) and related XIII c. wars are among the “originals” behind Trojan and some Biblical conquest narratives; Exodus geography remapped.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Exodus traditions are ancient Near Eastern/Biblical; Crusades are distinct medieval Latin–Byzantine–Islamic wars.
  • Fomenko: Biblical conquest and Trojan epics are literary reflections of Crusade-era (and related) wars.

Book 17 — Maps and Coins vs. History

• Summary: Argues numismatic series and map corpora contradict Scaligerian king lists and city chronologies.
• Key findings / claims: Coin iconography/legends and early maps support compressed chronology and imperial continuity.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Coin hoards and die studies are among the strongest relative-dating tools for antiquity/medieval periods.
  • Fomenko: Same evidence, reinterpreted, undermines long chronologies.

Book 18 — Swords and Mantles Tell History

• Summary: Material culture (weapons, vestments) used as chronological witnesses allegedly incompatible with deep antiquity.
• Key findings / claims: Styles and technologies appear “too advanced” or misplaced under Scaligerian dates; fit medieval Empire better.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Typology + stratigraphy + absolute dating place artifacts across millennia.
  • Fomenko: Apparent deep ages are misdated medieval objects or forgeries/duplicates.

Book 19 — The Testament of Peter the Great

• Summary: Discusses the notorious “Testament of Peter the Great” (widely regarded by mainstream historians as a later political forgery) in the context of reconstructing early modern Russian imperial ideology and Western mythmaking about Russia.
• Key findings / claims: Fits authors’ wider thesis about fabricated documents shaping Europe’s image of Russia; supplements prior Russian-history volumes.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: The Testament is apocryphal propaganda (XVIII–XIX c. European political literature), not Peter’s policy memo — but that does not validate New Chronology’s entire rewrite.
  • Fomenko: Emphasizes forgery culture as evidence that received history of Russia/Europe is systematically unreliable.

Book 20 — The Issue with Baptism of Russia

• Summary: Publisher blurb stresses that canonical church literature yields multiple baptisms of Rus’; Christianization timeline is unstable under close reading.
• Key findings / claims: Baptism(s) redated/reidentified within Empire history; parallels between Rus’ Christianization and other “baptisms” in phantom chronologies (including China parallels in Book 22).
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Primary baptism of Rus’ under Vladimir c. 988, with earlier missions as prelude.
  • Fomenko: Multiplicity of baptism stories signals chronological duplication and later editing.

Book 21 — The Issue with Chinese Astronomy

• Summary: Challenges the reliability of ancient Chinese eclipse/comet chronologies; analyzes Halley apparition lists; claims suspicious periodic duplicates (~540 years) between Chinese and European comet rosters.
• Key findings / claims: Chinese astronomical records were padded/fabricated backward; cannot independently anchor deep Chinese antiquity.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Chinese astronomical diaries/eclipse records are a major independent check on chronology and Earth’s rotation.
  • Fomenko: Those lists are largely untrustworthy for pre-modern absolute dating.

Book 22 — The Great Wall of China Hoax

• Summary: Compresses Chinese dynastic history via parallelisms with European/Byzantine history; questions age/purpose of the Great Wall; discusses “Kitai,” Peking/Beijing naming, Manchu era as start of “trustworthy” Chinese history (authors’ claim).
• Key findings / claims: Pre-XV/XVI c. Chinese history largely phantom; Wall dating overstated; European chronicles imported/mirrored into Chinese annals.
• Contradiction:
  • Conventional: Continuous Chinese civilization with archaeologically grounded dynasties; Wall sections from multiple eras, including pre-modern.
  • Fomenko: Deep Chinese antiquity is mostly duplicated medieval Eurasian history; Wall narrative is overstated/hoaxlike in popular form.

---

Cross-cutting claims (themes that recur across volumes)

1. Scaligerian chronology is late and wrong — Assembled by J. J. Scaliger, D. Petavius, and successors in XVI–XVII c. from contradictory manuscript traditions.
2. Chronological shifts / phantom centuries — Characteristic offsets (often cited in the project around ~333, ~1053, ~1800 years) duplicate the same medieval events into “antiquity.”
3. Dynastic parallelism — Reign-length graphs and narrative motifs of “different” dynasties coincide after shifts (Rome ↔ Holy Roman / Habsburg; Biblical kings ↔ medieval emperors, etc.).
4. Astronomical redating — Eclipses, zodiacs/horoscopes (Dendera, Apocalypse), and the Almagest star catalog are dated medieval (authors claim Almagest data ~AD 600–1300 compilation window / even later catalog use).
5. Jesus / Christ dating shift — Most probable “historical Jesus” prototype claimed as Andronikos I Komnenos (authors: birth Crimea 1152; crucifixion 1185 near Bosphorus); also paralleled with Gregory VII, Basil the Great, etc.
6. Trojan War = medieval Constantinopolitan / Crusade-era wars — Not Bronze Age Hisarlik.
7. Bible after (or entangled with) Empire medieval history — OT often treated as reflecting events later than or parallel to Gospel-era medieval strata; geography remapped (Jerusalem/Troy/Rome as “New Rome” / Czar-Grad complex).
8. Russia = Horde; Ottomans = Atamans — Single Great Empire misread as many peoples (Scythians, Goths, Mongols, Cossacks…).
9. Romanov-era falsification — German court historians accused of inventing the Mongol yoke and shortening/reshaping prior imperial memory.
10. Egyptian chronology compression — Zodiac monuments dated XI–XIX c. AD rather than Hellenistic/Roman Egypt.
11. Maps of Tartaria — Early modern cartography as smoking gun for erased empire.
12. Rejection/low trust of radiocarbon & conventional archaeological absolute dating — Treated as calibrated to the same faulty historical scaffolding (authors’ stance; mainstream rejects this circularity claim).

---

Additional evidence search (pro-claim findings with sources)

“Pro-claim” here means sources that support, echo, or supply raw material Fomenko uses — not that mainstream science endorses New Chronology.

A. Intellectual precursors & parallel revisionists

B. Author-primary documentation of specific concrete claims

C. Independent anomalies sometimes cited by proponents (caution)

These are real scholarly topics that revisionists rhetorically annex; none validates the full New Chronology:

• Lunar tidal acceleration / ΔT debates — Genuine geophysics; does not require deleting antiquity (Stephenson on historical eclipses & Earth’s rotation).
• Problems in early modern chronology-building — Historians agree Scaliger worked with limited manuscripts; that ≠ “all antiquity fake.”
• Schliemann controversies — Hisarlik methods and “Priam’s Treasure” ethics are criticized without moving Troy to 1204 AD.
• Apocryphal “Testament of Peter the Great” — Mainstream already calls it a forgery; limited point.
• Early maps labeled Tartary — Cartographic history is real; “Great Tartaria lost empire” is a separate internet-mythology offshoot (Bloomberg on Tartarian Empire meme).

D. Official author hubs (claim texts, bibliographies)

• https://chronologia.org/en/seven/index.html
• https://chronologia.org/en/bibliography_books.html
• https://chronologia.org/bibliography_en.html
• https://www.anatoly-fomenko.com/anatoly-timofeevich-fomenko-publications.html

---

Counter-evidence & scholarly consensus (brief, factual)

Consensus label: New Chronology is classified as pseudohistory / pseudoscience by historians, archaeologists, linguists, and most astronomers who have reviewed it. Russian Academy of Sciences discussions on pseudoscience have explicitly targeted it. Reception is “universally negative” in specialist communities (Wikipedia overview with citations).

Methodological critiques

Independent dating systems that contradict compression

1. Dendrochronology — Anchored tree-ring chronologies extend >10,000 years BCE in parts of Europe/US; cross-checked with ¹⁴C (Friedrich et al., Radiocarbon 46, 2004).
2. Radiocarbon calibration — IntCal curves calibrated against tree rings/other archives, not against Scaliger’s king lists.
3. Babylonian astronomical diaries — Planetary/lunar observations date rulers to the day in the first millennium BCE, agreeing with conventional chronology (Aaboe; Stephenson & Steele).
4. Multicultural eclipse corpora — Stephenson’s syntheses find consistency back to at least ~600 BCE, with quantified clock-error (ΔT), not missing millennia.
5. Linguistics — A. A. Zaliznyak and others detail linguistic impossibilities in Fomenko’s etymologies and text identifications.
6. Archaeology of distinct material cultures — Egyptian, Mesopotamian, classical, Chinese sequences are not interchangeable medieval layers.

Notable critical venues

• Moscow State University History Faculty round table, Dec 1999 — Myths of the New Chronology (Yanin et al.).
• H. G. van Bueren review in Annals of Science 53 (1996) — scathing assessment of Fomenko’s mathematical-historical books.
• James H. Billington, Russia in Search of Itself (2004) — places movement in post-Soviet identity politics / Eurasianism.
• Charles J. Halperin, Carl Beck Papers (2011) — false identity / Mongol Empire & Ivan.
• Konstantin Sheiko, PhD thesis Lomonosov’s Bastards (University of Wollongong) — pseudo-history and post-communist identity.

Political/popular note (not evidence for chronology)

Some Russian public figures (e.g. Sergey Glazyev, 2020 remarks cited on Wikipedia) have praised New Chronology for ideological consolidation. Popularity ≠ empirical validation. A 2004 Moscow book-fair anti-prize satirically honored Fomenko/Nosovskiy volumes.

---

Sources / links

Primary collection & author sites

1. Archive.org collection: https://archive.org/details/history-fiction-or-science-2003-2015-22-books-in-1-fomenko-anatoly
2. Archive.org metadata: https://archive.org/metadata/history-fiction-or-science-2003-2015-22-books-in-1-fomenko-anatoly
3. Chronologia — seven-volume overview: https://chronologia.org/en/seven/index.html
4. Chronologia — books bibliography (mentions e-series of 22): https://chronologia.org/en/bibliography_books.html
5. Chronologia — English bibliography: https://chronologia.org/bibliography_en.html
6. Chronologia — Chronology 2 (Troy/parallels): https://chronologia.org/en/chronologia2/index.html
7. Sample reconstruction PDF (Crusades/Empire): https://chronologia.org/en/chronologia4/4N20-EN.pdf

Bibliographies & catalogs

8. Ctruth — Bibliography of Fomenko’s New Chronology: https://ctruth.today/2019/02/03/bibliography-of-fomenkos-new-chronology/
9. Anatoly Fomenko publications page: https://www.anatoly-fomenko.com/anatoly-timofeevich-fomenko-publications.html

Reference / critique

10. Wikipedia — New chronology (Fomenko): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_chronology_(Fomenko)
11. Stephenson, F. R. — Historical eclipses and Earth’s rotation (A&G 2003): https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-4004.2003.44222.x
12. Dambis & Efremov — Dating Ptolemy’s star catalogue (JHA 2000)
13. Sheiko thesis (UOW): https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/222
14. Halperin, Carl Beck Papers 2103 (2011): doi 10.5195/cbp.2011.160
15. Laruelle, “Conspiracy and Alternate History in Russia,” Russian Review 71 (2012)
16. Friedrich et al. — Hohenheim oak/pine chronology (Radiocarbon 2004)
17. Bloomberg — Tartarian Empire architectural meme (related popular offshoot): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-04-27/inside-the-tartarian-empire-the-qanon-of-architecture

Academic monographs by Fomenko et al. (methods)

18. Fomenko — Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material… Kluwer, 1994 (2 vols).
19. Kalashnikov, Nosovsky, Fomenko — Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s Almagest. CRC Press, 1993.

---

Appendix A — Mapping cheat sheet (22 e-books ↔ Chronology themes)

Appendix B — Blockers / limits of this brief

• Archive.org description HTML timed out in ordinary fetch; metadata JSON + DjVuTXT OCR succeeded and were used for the 22-title TOC.
• OCR quality varies; Book 6’s title line is blank in the opening TOC but confirmed on the Book 6 title page as The Issue with Troy.
• Full page-accurate citations inside each e-book were not exhaustively harvested (5,992 pages); volume claims rely on publisher blurbs, chapter titles, author-site abstracts, and secondary scholarly summaries.
• Some Delamere paperback years differ across listings (2003–2021); where uncertain, years are marked as listed by chronologia.org rather than guessed.
• Third-party mirror PDFs of individual e-books exist on various sites; this brief does not redistribute copyrighted text beyond short identification excerpts already visible as titles/headings.

---

End of brief.