Empire and Russia as the Horde. The exhilarationabout final liberty from the Great = “Mongolian” Em-pire had been truly great, and its wave rolled over theentire Western Europe, some of the echoes surfacingas late as in the XIX century. A minor, but illustrativedetail is the map of Europe that was published inEngland in 1877, qv in figs. 14.105 and 14.106. Themap is kept in the British museum; one of its repro-ductions was included into the fundamental atlas en-titled The Art of Cartography ([1160], pages 337-338).Russia is represented as a gigantic repulsive krakenthat looms over Europe; the graphical allegories forall the other European countries are much more at-tractive. This agitprop tradition can be traced to cer-tain mediaeval Western European stereotypes knownto us from the Chronicle by Matthew of Paris, for in-stance ([1268]; see Chron4, Chapter 18:17). Matthewhad used the entire weight of his authority to claimthat “the Mongols and the Tartars only drink waterwhen they can get no fresh blood” ([722], page 240).

5) A large-scale campaign for the editing of the an-cient chronicles commenced in the XVII century,when the new “authorised” version of history was re-placing the old. The most blatantly “heretical” chron-icles were destroyed, likewise the more “radical” ver-sions of the Bible, while others were re-written.Freshly written literary works became declared “an-cient” and therefore of great authority. Unpleasantand embarrassing events became dated to phantomepochs in the distant past, and some of the key termshave altered their meanings as a result, such as “Cath-

olicism”,“Empire”,“The Reformation” and so on. Theevents of the pre-XVII century epochs have thereforebecome distorted to a large extent by the XVII-XVIIIcentury editors, and are extremely difficult to recon-struct nowadays.

21. THE OLD COAT OF ARMS OF YAROSLAVL

DEPICTING A BEAR HOLDING A COSSACKPOLE TOPPED BY AN OTTOMAN CRESCENT.

These poles were considered a symbol of powerall across Europe up until the XVII century

We have already seen the Ottoman, or Atamancrescent on many ancient Russian coats of arms. Thisisn’t quite as obvious nowadays, owing to the secondhistorical and geographical reform launched by theRomanovs at the end of the XVIII century. Theusurpers also instigated a second wave of mass re-naming, which had concerned urban and regionalcoats of arms in particular. As a result, the Ottoman(Ataman) crescents vanished from the Russian coatsof arms. We already mentioned the first Romanovianrenaming plague that had struck Russian history inthe XVII century. Apparently, it had not been suffi-cient, and so the Romanovs decided to finally stream-line Russian history, polishing it off, in a way. Pay at-tention to the fact that many Russian coats of armswere re-introduced around 1781 and often also mod-ified rather drastically, qv in the section on the coatsof arms of the Russian cities above (Chron4, Chap-ter 10:2; also [162]). One must also point out the dis-appearance of the Ottoman (Ataman) crescent fromthe coat of arms of Kostroma.

The above cannot fail to make one wonder aboutYaroslavl’s old coat of arms as reconstructed within theframework of our theory. Nowadays the bear is hold-ing a poleaxe on its shoulder, but one must remem-ber that this version of the crest was only introducedin the second half of the XVIII century, namely, in1777 ([409], page 10). An older drawing of the coatof arms of Yaroslavl is known to us from the “Natio-nal Almanac”compiled in 1672.“The city coat of armsof Yaroslavl … depicts an erect bear that holds a pro-tasan on the right shoulder” ([409], page 9). In 1692this drawing was used in the making of the principalityseal accompanied by the legend “Royal Seal of the

chapter 14 various data | 481

Fig. 14.107. Coat of arms ofYaroslavl on the State Seal ofRussia dating from the XVIIcentury. A bear with a pro-tasan, or the Ottoman cres-cent on a long pole. Korb’sdiary. Taken from [162].

Fig. 14.108. The Byeloozerocoat of arms on the StateSeal of Russia dating fromthe XVII century. Ottomancrescent with a cross (or astar). Korb’s diary. Takenfrom [162].

Principality of Yaroslavl”. Historians claim that thisversion of Yaroslavl’s coat of arms only dates from theXVII century; however, they admit that the design wasbased on folk tradition traceable all the way back tothe foundation of Yaroslavl ([409]). We shall shortlysee just why historians are so reluctant to recognise theversion of the coat of arms with the protasan-carry-ing bear as being much older than the XVII century.

What is a protasan, actually? Let us take a look atan old drawing of the Yaroslavl coat of arms takenfrom the Great Seal of State dating from the XVIIcentury ([162], page XI; see fig. 14.81). The drawingcomes from the diary of Korb, which is known wellenough. We can see the bear hold a pole topped witha crescent (see fig. 14.107). A protasan is therefore aspear-like construction where the spearhead is re-placed by a crescent. Moreover, it turns out that thepole of a protasan would usually be decorated in someway:“painted and upholstered in silk or velvet” ([85],Volume 35, page 111). And so, according to the abovedescription, protasans were completely identical tothe famous Cossack bunchuks, which were likewiseadorned and had crescents on their ends. Thebunchuk is presumed to be a purely Turkish symbolnowadays – however, one finds it on the crest of theYaik Cossacks, for instance (see fig. 10.7). Conse-quently, the bunchuk had been the state symbol ofthe entire Great = “Mongolian” Empire, and not justits former Ottoman part. Moreover, we learn thatbunchuks with crescents, or protasans, had been usedas a symbol of power up until the XVII century. Welearn of the following: “the protasan had been usedas a weapon … used by the bodyguards of the feudallieges in the Western Europe up until the XVII cen-tury. In Russia, protasans were used by bodyguardsin the XVII century, and in the XVIII century theprotasan eventually transformed into a ceremonialweapon worn by officers of high rank, losing its util-ity as a combat weapon” ([85], Volume 35, page 111).

All of the above is in perfect correspondence withour reconstruction. The Ottoman, or Ataman bun-chuks with crescents had indeed symbolised royalpower in the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, all acrossits vast territories, which had at some point includedWestern Europe in particular. It is perfectly obviousthat the bear on the crest of Yaroslavl should haveinitially been drawn holding a protasan, or a Cossack

bunchuk topped with an Ottoman = Ataman cres-cent. The Machiavellian transformation of the pro-tasan into a poleaxe took place under the Romanovs,and rather late, at that – already in the XVIII century.The reason why they did it is right out there in theopen – the usurpers were methodically destroyingwhatever evidence of the fact that the Ottoman =Ataman conquest was launched by the Horde, or Rus-sia, had still remained intact by that time.

Actually, the Great Seal of State from Korb’s diarycontains yet another distinctly visible Ottoman(Ataman) crescent, which can be found in the coat ofarms of Byeloozero (see fig. 14.108). The latter hap-pens to be a historical Russian city situated to thenorth of Yaroslavl. What we see is obviously a con-stellation of old crests with crescents upon themaround Yaroslavl – the actual city of Yaroslavl has oneon its crest, likewise its neighbours, such as Kostromaand Byeloozero.

22. THE “ANCIENT OLYMPUS” AND RUSSIA AS

THE HORDE IN THE XIV-XVI CENTURY

22.1. Kronos and other Olympian deities of theWestern Europe

As most of us were getting acquainted with theClassical mythology for the first time as children andadolescents, it was instilled into our heads that thegods of the ancient Greece had presumably lived intimes immemorial, upon the mountain of Olympusin Greece. The representatives of the pantheon inquestion are the protagonists and participants of agreat many poems and legends declared “ancient”nowadays – Kronos, Zeus, Athena, Aphrodite andmany other powerful deities formerly worshipped bythe Greeks.

Let us turn to the History by John Malalas, aprominent Byzantine historian of the Middle Ages([938], [338] and [503]). Apparently, Malalas is ofthe opinion that Kronos, Zeus and other “ancient”Greek deities had started their divine careers as thefirst kings of Assyria, or the first Czars of Russia, aswe realise nowadays – namely, the Russian Czars ofthe XIV century: Ivan Kalita, or Caliph, Georgiy Dani-lovich, and their numerous descendants.

482 | history: fiction or science? chron 4 | part 1

This is what John Malalas reports: “The very tribeof Shem that had been in command of Syria, Persiaand many other Oriental lands traces its ancestry allthe way back to the first son of Noah, a giant namedKronos, named thus by his father Damius … He hadbeen of formidable strength, which became famouseven before he became king… And he had reignedover Assyria for many a year … fierce and fearsomein battle had he been, showing no mercy” ([338],page 24; also [503], pages 195-196).

Malalas proceeds to report that the wife of Kronoshad been known by the name of Semiramis or Area,or Ira/Irene. The children of Zeus were called Zeus,Nin and Ira ([338], page 24; also [503], page 196). Wesee several references to the same female name ofIrene, or Ira. Zeus had also been known as Pik andDiy ([503], page 196). The son and heir of Zeus, orPik, had been known as Velon ([338], page 25). Ac-cording to our reconstruction, the first Assyrian Czarshad been the Khans, or the Czars of the Horde, or an-cient Russia; they lived in the XIV century. In partic-ular, Ivan Kalita = Caliph, also known as Batu-Khan,became reflected in a number of chronicles as Kronos,the Olympian deity.

Let us return to the name Diy, which had belongedto the Olympian god Zeus according to Malalas, aswell as an Assyrian king ([503], page 196). We knowof no such name nowadays, but there is evidence thatsuggests that it had once been used, in Russia at least.One might recollect the large village that still existsnear Yaroslavl called Diyevo Gorodishche (the nametranslates as Diy’s settlement); it is presumed to havebeen founded in the XV century (see [409], page 66).The village had initially been a fortified settlement.We can thus see that the name Diy was not inventedby the Byzantine author Malalas, and that its tracescan still be found in Russian toponymy.

John Malalas gives an in-depth account of theWestern campaign launched by Kronos, aka Ivan Ka-lita, aka Batu-Khan, and tells us about a number ofimportant new details: “Kronos left his son Pik in As-syria, likewise his wife Area, also known as Semiramis,and marched forth towards all the Western lands thathad no kings to rule them, leading an enormous army… and Botiu had remained in the West, ruling overthe entire land thence” ([338], page 25). The word“Botiu” strikes one as odd initially, but it is most likely

to be a variation of the name Batu that the com-mentators failed to recognize as such.

Thus, according to Malalas, Kronos, King of As-syria, also known as Ivan Kalita and Batu-Khan, whohad later transformed into the Olympian god Kronosin numerous “ancient” poems and legends, did not re-turn from his campaign, having founded a new cap-ital in the West. Apparently, during the first years,when communications had not yet been developedto a sufficient extent, the Russian Czar, or Khan, wasfinding it very difficult to rule over the distant Westernprovinces from his capital on the Volga, Novgorod theGreat. John Malalas specifies that the Western capitalof Kronos, King of Assyria, had been in Italy ([338],page 26; also [503], page 196). This makes it instantlyclear to us why the residence of the Holy See is calledthe Vatican – even N. A. Morozov mentions that thename Vatican translates as “Batu-Khan” ([547]).

We feel obliged to remind the readers that the Sca-ligerian chronology misdates the campaign of Batu-Khan = Ivan Kalita = Kronos the Assyrian to the XIIIcentury, which is a hundred years off the mark. Oncewe turn to the history of Vatican in the XIII century,

chapter 14 various data | 483

Fig. 14.109. Mediaeval portrait of Pope Innocent III (or IvanCalita (Caliph), also known as Batu-Khan, according to ourreconstruction) on Rafael’s fresco entitled “Dispute”. Markthe Slavic features of the Pope. Taken from [713], pages 334-337. See also [402], page 125.

we learn of the most amazing fact – it turns out thatright at the beginning of the XIII century PopeInnocent appears on historical arena – the nametranslates as Ivan-Khan! He is reported to have beena secular ruler of the entire Europe apart from beingthe Holy Pontiff (see fig. 14.109). The whole of Eu-rope had simply paid tribute to him: “Innocent hadbeen an extremely ambitious and vain person… In-nocent III managed to gain control over not only theepiscopate, but secular rulers as well. He became thesovereign of vast territories in Europe – the kings ofScandinavia, Portugal, Aragonia and England, likewisethe rulers of Serbia and Bulgaria, recognised him astheir liege, and paid him large tribute. Other coun-tries had also paid St. Peter’s fees [once again, a taxthat went to Innocent, or Ivan-Khan – Auth.], andwere forced to bear with the Pope meddling in theiraffairs of state… He was assisted by a perfectly or-ganised administrative and fiscal agent framework.The Curial Council and legates sent to every countryin Europe had controlled the implementation of thePapal orders” ([492], page 124).

Let us also ponder the name “Curial Council”. TheLatin word “curia” stands for a confederation of tenclans ([85], Volume 24, page 99). The Russian wordkuren, used by the Cossacks historically, means prettymuch the same thing and also sounds similar, whichmakes the Latin word likely to derive therefrom. Theactual “ancient” division of the Roman populace intocuria must have been introduced after the Great =“Mongolian” Conquest of Europe in the XIV cen-tury, and by none other than Ivan Kalita = Batu-Khanthe Assyrian = Pope Innocent.

It also turns out that Ivan-Khan, or Innocent, hadbeen “the mastermind of the Fourth Crusade [whichhad resulted in the fall of Constantinople – Auth.],the foundation of the Latin Empire on Byzantine ter-ritory and the universities of Paris and Oxford. Theemerging new monastic orders had brought fourth anew era in mediaeval Christianity. The transforma-tion of the Apostolic Capital [or Vatican, aka theHouse of Batu-Khan – Auth.] … into one of the mostpowerful financial powers in Europe is also creditedto Pope Innocent III” ([402], page 125). Let us remindthe readers that, according to our reconstruction, theword Order (Ordo) is also a derivative of the Russianword for “horde”, “orda”.

Our reconstruction gives us an altogether new per-spective of the Pope’s endeavours. They came in thecourse of the actual Great = “Mongolian” Conquestof the Western Europe by Batu-Khan = Kronos theAssyrian = Pope Innocent. We see the introductionof a new clan organisation system – the curia, or thekureni, the foundation of Vatican, or the residence ofBatu-Khan in Italy – his Western capital, the state-sponsored construction works all across the WesternEurope and so on.

It is also most likely that Innocent III = Ivan Kalitahad not been buried in Moscow, but rather in Egypt,qv fig. 14.110.

A propos, one cannot fail to note that the veryphysical type reflected in the portrait of Pope Inno-cent III, qv in fig. 14.109, is dramatically differentfrom that of all the other Popes, obviously his suc-

484 | history: fiction or science? chron 4 | part 1

Fig. 14.110. Another photograph of the headstone made inthe XVII century as a replica and found at the “sepulchre ofIvan Kalita” in the Arkhangelskiy Cathedral of the Kremlin inMoscow. We made this photograph in April 2002, with dif-ferent lighting as compared to another photograph of thesame headstone that we reproduce above, in fig. 14.11. Onecan clearly see that even the inscription found on the Roma-novian replica did not evade the attention of the censors.The authentic sepulchre of Ivan Kalita (Caliph), also knownas Batu-Khan, is most likely to be on the Royal “Mongolian”cemetery in Egypt, on the Pyramid Field, or in Luxor.

cessors. Innocent’s cheekbones are typically Slavic,and he also wears a long beard.

Let us however return to the description of theGreat = “Mongolian” Conquest as rendered in theChronicle of John Malalas, who reports that after thetroops of Kron had left Assyria and marched West-ward, his son Zeus remained in charge of affairs athome. This historical personality had eventuallytransferred into the legendary image of the Olympiangod Zeus. His duplicate in the Russian version of his-tory bears the name of Simeon the Proud – the sonof Ivan Kalita. A while later, Simeon, or Zeus, joinedhis father in the West and also stayed there to reign.The Assyrian, or Russian, throne, soon went to Nin,the second son of Kronos.

The name Nin appears to be a slight corruptionof Ioann/Ivan/John. Malalas must be referring to IvanIvanovich Krasniy (“The Red”), the second son ofIvan Kalita = Kronos the Assyrian = Batu-Khan, whohad indeed ascended to the throne after the “myste-rious disappearance” of Simeon the Proud (accord-ing to the learned historians, he had expired ofplague). According to Malalas, Simeon the Proud (akaZeus and Pik) did not die of any plague, havingmoved to Italy instead, and ruled there as the suc-cessor of his father for many years ([338], page 26; seealso [503], page 196).

Malalas describes Western Europe of that epoch asa wild and largely uncultivated land, without so muchas towns and cities:“There had been neither cities, norfortifications in the Western lands – just a few noma-dic descendants of Japheth living here and there”([338], page 28). It appears as though in many partsof the Western Europe the people had still maintaineda very primitive lifestyle, neither building cities, noreven making fortifications of any kind. Malalas istherefore of the opinion that Kron the Assyrian (whoapparently identifies as Batu-Khan, or Ivan Kalita),may have had the Western lands all but fall into hishands.

We also encounter an interesting reference to the“ancient” Diodorus made my Malalas – it concernsthe burial site of Zeus (Simeon the Proud?) on the Isleof Crete. He was buried in a temple erected specifi-cally for that purpose:

“And his sons had erected a temple in memory ofhis father, and they laid him into a casket on the Isle

of Crete; the coffin exists to this day” ([338], page 29;also [503], page 196).

It is possible that some remnant of the tomb ofZeus, or Dimeon, had survived until our day and age.This issue is worth of a further study.

It becomes clear why the Isle of Crete had for-merly been known as Candia, which is the name wediscuss above. It was present on certain maps up untilthe XIX century – see the map in fig. 14.101, for in-stance. The reason might be that the name Candia de-rives from Khan Diy. According to Malalas, this namehad been worn by Zeus, or Simeon the Proud, a Rus-sian Great Prince. The old name of the island impliesZeus, of Diy, to have been a Khan, which is in perfectcorrespondence with our reconstruction.

Malalas also mentions other descendants of theAssyrian King Kronos = Ivan Kalita (Caliph), such asHermes etc. All of these “ancient Greek deities” hadonce been kings of Persia or Assyria according to Mal-alas, or the Russian Czars (Great Khans) in our recon-struction. They had reigned in Italy, Egypt and othercountries that had been under the rule of Assyria, orRussia, in the XIV-XVI century ([503], page 196).

Our reconstruction makes everything crystal clear.Malalas is telling us about the first Czars of the Great= “Mongolian” Empire, who had reigned in Russia,or the Horde (also known as the Biblical Assyria) eversince the XIV century. It is natural that the inhabi-tants of all the lands owned by the Horde had re-garded the Khans as their mighty lords and rulers.Later on, in Greece and other warm countries on thecoast of the Mediterranean, the memories of the for-mer Assyrian, or Russian, rulers, transformed intomyths of mighty gods that had lived on the farawayMount Olympus, tall and misty, from whence theycast their thunderbolts (fired cannons), making therebels tremble in fear. They would also occasionallyvisit their worshippers in the human form, take mor-tal concubines and sire demigods. The latter had sub-sequently reigned on the behalf of the “authenticGreek gods” in the beautiful “ancient” Hellas, Italy,Gaul, Egypt and so on.

Let us also point out that the name Ira, or Irene(Irina) had really been common among the wives ofthe first Assyrian rulers (subsequently deified). Thereis a possible connexion with the Temple of St. Irenein Constantinople.

chapter 14 various data | 485

22.2. The name Irina reflected in the historicaltoponymy of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire

The oldest temple in Czar-Grad had been knownas the Temple of St. Irene, qv in Chron6. The nameIra, or Irene, obviously became reflected in the to-ponymy of the regions that had been directly relatedto the Great = “Mongolian” Empire – Ireland, Iran(Persia) and so forth. Let us also remind the readerthat the name Persia is a version of the name Prussia,or White Russia, according to our reconstruction. Wemust also point out the fact that the wife of Yaroslavthe Wise was called Irina ([404], page 264). Our re-construction identifies Yaroslav as Batu-Khan, IvanKalita and John the Caliph. This is why we believe itlikely for the name of his wife to have been immor-talised in the names of places that had once been partof the Great = “Mongolian” Empire.

And now for a rather surprising fact. It turns outthat the name Irina had been borne by the mother ofthe Biblical King Solomon, or the wife of the BiblicalKing David. Let us turn to the famous Gennadiyev-skaya Bible, allegedly dating from 1499 (more pre-cisely, a photocopy thereof that was published in 1992– see [745]). In the first lines of the Gospel accord-ing to Matthew we read that “King David begat Solo-mon from Irina” ([745], Volume 7, page 15; see figs.14.111 and 14.112). Could this very Irina be repre-sented by the mosaic from Hagia Sophia in Czar-Grad that we reproduce in fig. 14.113? This would bemore than natural, since, according to our recon-struction, the Biblical King Solomon identifies as thefamous Ottoman, or Ataman Sultan Suleiman theMagnificent, who is also known as the XVI century“restorer” of Hagia Sophia. According to our recon-struction, he didn’t “restore” anything – he built thetemple (see Chron6, Chapter 12).

This fragment of the Gennadiyevskaya Bible musthave really sounded heretical to the meticulous XVIIcentury editor, who had done his best to make thename Irina contrast the neighbouring names of Davidand Solomon as little as possible. As one sees in fig.14.112, a small circle of O has been put in front of thename’s first letter; this would transform the soundfrom I to OU. Old Russian texts, such as the Genna-diyevskaya Bible, used to transcribe the letter U as ei-ther the handwritten Greek γ, or a combination of two

letters, O and U (q). The letter that stands for thesound I is called “izhitsa” (y), which looks very muchlike γ ; however, it needs to be preceded by an O tosound as “OU”. The missing letter was happily pro-vided by the editor. Let us emphasise that it is obvi-ously a later subscript, since the “alleged letter q”isn’t transcribed in this odd a manner anywhere elsein the Gennadiyevskaya Bible. Moreover, there aretwo horizontal strokes over the izhitsa (see fig.14.112), which is a diacritic sign used in cases whenthe letter stands for the sound I exclusively, and neverused in combination with the q at all.

What does the modern Synodal translation say?Could it have preserved the name Irina? Obviouslynot – the modern translation is rather oblique, andgoes like this: “King David begat Solomon from one

486 | history: fiction or science? chron 4 | part 1

Fig. 14.111. The first page of the Gospel according toMatthew in the Guennadievskaya Bible allegedly dating from 1499. Taken from [745], Volume 7, page 15.

of Uriah’s kin” (Matthew 1:6). See fig. 14.114 for theChurch Slavonic original.

The editors went even further here, having trans-formed Irina into an anonymous relation of Uriah, amale. Apparently, they didn’t count on the old text ofthe Gennadiyevskaya Bible to fall into too many hands,presuming that no one shall ever bother too hardabout trying to decipher the real name. This is theway the ancient history was “amended” – slyly andsuccinctly; the “amendments” later became presumedto have been in the text from the very beginning.

The above quotation was taken from the geneal-ogy of Jesus Christ, which is what we find in the be-ginning of the Gospel according to Matthew. This ge-nealogy also ties the Gospels to the Old Testamentchronologically, placing them at the very end of Bib-lical history. Another fact that needs to be mentionedin this respect is that the genealogical passage fromMatthew had not been included in the list of “Evangel-ical readings”contained in the Gennadiyevskaya Bible.This means that this part of the Gospel had never beenread aloud in mediaeval churches, and could thereforebecome expurgated from the so-called AprakosGospels used for reading aloud during service. The“chronological passage” is therefore likely to be apoc-ryphal and introduced by Scaligerian and Roma-novian historians, which may also explain why it spellsthe name of Jesus as Иисус, with two letters и, whichis the spelling introduced after the reforms of Nikonin the middle of the XVII century. It is spelt as Исус

in every other passage – the old way, that is (see [745]).Corollary: It is most likely that the first page of

the Gospel according to Matthew from the Gennadi-yevskaya Bible was replaced by another, written anewin the XVII century in order to correspond with theScaligerian and Romanovian historical chronology.

23. WORLD HISTORY ACCORDING TO SOME

GERMAN AUTHORS OF THE XVII-XVIII CENTURY.The book of Johannes Heinrich Driemel

We would like to bring an extremely interestingXVIII century book to the attention of the reader. Ithas been pointed out to us by Y. A. Yeliseyev, who hadalso been kind enough to copy a number of passagesfor us.

chapter 14 various data | 487

Fig. 14.112. Photograph of the first lines of the Gospel ac-cording to Matthew in the Guennadievskaya Bible allegedlydating from 1499. The wife of David and mother of Solomonis explicitly called Irina. Taken from [745], Volume 7, page 15.

Fig. 14.114. Quotation from the Ostrog Bible (Matthew 1:6).

Fig. 14.113. Empress Irina. Mosaic from the Cathedral ofHagia Sophia. Is it the same woman as the wife of David andthe mother of the Biblical Solomon (Suleiman the Magnifi-cent), according to the Guennadievskaya Bible? Taken from[1123], page 36.

The book in question was written by JohannesHeinrich Driemel (or Drümel) published in Nurem-berg in 1744. A Russian translation came in St. Peters-burg in 1785 under the following title: “A SpecimenHistorical Demonstration of the Genealogy of theRussians as the First Nation after the Deluge”. A copyof this book is kept in the National Library of Russia,which is where Y. A. Yeliseyev had come across it.

The contents of this rather small book in Germancan be rendered in the following manner. History ofthe world begins with the Assyrian Kingdom, whichDriemel also identifies as the Kingdom of the Scyth-ians, or the Cossacks, or Gog and Magog, or the Rus-sian Kingdom. The Biblical Nimrod was of Scythian,or Russian, descent. These are the very words thatDriemel uses! In the XIII century the Russians, knownas the Tartars in the West, invaded into the WesternEurope. The memory of this invasion is kept alive inthe toponymy of Germany, for instance. Driemel citesthe name of Mount Risen as an example, and ex-plains that the name translates as “Russian Mountain”.

Driemel concludes in the following manner: “Theword Ris is Scythian without a doubt… The wordRis is said to be German, but it can equally be Scyth-ian. The Germans and the Scythians have many com-mon names, and had once been brothers. This is whythe Russian are also known as the Rises, the Giants,the Scythians, the Sacians, the Kurds and the Ararat-ians” ([261], page 46-47).

The fact that Driemel identifies the Russians asthe Tartars in a perfectly casual manner must seemastonishing to a modern reader, but it had appearedperfectly natural to a XVIII century citizen Nurem-berg, who doesn’t even bother with citing any evi-dence to support this claim, being very pedantic aboutit normally. He considers it axiomatic!

One must realise that the book of Driemel hadbeen written before the propagation of the theoryabout the “horrendous yoke of the Mongol and Tartarinvaders in Russia” thought up by the “eminent Rus-sian scientists” Bayer and Schlezer. Driemel had sim-ply remained unaware of their great discovery, andhad adhered to the old German way of thinking aboutthe Russians and the Tartars being but two names ofa single nation.

As for the Russian origins of the Biblical Nimrod,Driemel already needs to prove those, since the Sca-

ligerian version of the Biblical history had alreadybecome widely used in Western Europe.

We shall proceed to give a few quotations fromDriemel’s book that speak for themselves.

Driemel starts with references to a number of the“ancient” authors, proving the first nation after theDeluge to have been the Kurds, whose very name canactually relate to the words “Horde” and “gordiy”(“proud”). What makes him think so? Apparently,Driemel reckons that the modern Kurdistan is partof Assyria, and every mediaeval chronicler knewabout the Assyrian Kingdom being the first one everfounded. As we have tried to demonstrate in the pres-ent book, the true meaning of this statement is thatthe “Mongolian”, or the Great, or the Russian = As-syrian Empire had been the first kingdom to spanthe whole world. Driemel’s further elaborations defacto confirm our reconstruction, since he later iden-tifies the Biblical Assyrians as the Scythians and theRussia. However, Driemel follows the erroneous Sca-ligerian geography and fails to understand that theBiblical Assyria had really been Russia, or the Horde,all along. This is why he traces the origins of the Rus-sians to the ancient inhabitants of the modern Meso-potamia, or Assyria.

Driemel reports the following:“The northern partof this land [Kurdistan – Auth.], which comprisesmost of Assyria, is called Adiabene… It is mentionedby Strabon in the ninth book of his ‘Geography’,wherein he says that the inhabitants of the land arecalled the Sacopods or the Sacs… Ptolemy in his ‘AsianTables’ mentions the Sacian Scythia to be the placewhere Noah had stopped… Solinus writes in BookXLIX that the Persians had originally been known asthe Korsaks, and that the name translates as “CordianSacs” ([261], pages 26-27). Driemel comments thesequotations from the “ancient” authors in the most re-markable manner indeed: “These may be the ances-tors of the Cossacks”([261], page 27). Therefore, Drie-mel openly identifies the Scythians and the “ancient”Sacs as the Cossacks.

Driemel proceeds to tell us the following: “TheSacs are the main ethnic group in Scythia (Strabon,Geography, Book XI)… The Sacs are identified as theScythians everywhere (by Isidore in the ‘Characteris-tics’ and by Arian in the ‘Tale of Alexander’s Cam-paigns’, Book 3)” ([261], page 29). Driemel’s own

488 | history: fiction or science? chron 4 | part 1

comment is as follows: “The name Scythian trans-lates as ‘catcher’ … the word ‘catcher’ is translated as‘giant’ in the Greek Bible; other nations use the word‘Scythian’… Therefore, the words “Catcher”, “Kurd”,“Giant” and “Scythian” are synonymous … the Biblerefers to the ‘Catchers’ as to a nation” ([261], page 30).Driemel is therefore proving that the Biblical KingNimrod, the founder of the first kingdom upon theface of Earth after the deluge, had been a Scythian.This last word is erroneously translated as “catcher”in the modern version of the Bible. Driemel furtheridentifies the Scythians as the Russians.

“The names of Gog and Magog are Scythian in ori-gin as well” ([261], page 33). Driemel’s commentaryin re the passage from Ezekiel that mentions Gog andMagog is as follows: “The 70 Translators render thispassage as follows: ‘Thou art facing Gog, Prince ofRosh, Meshech and Thubal’… Since Magog is trans-lated as ‘Rosh’, which is the name of a nation that thetranslators must have been familiar with, they [Gogand Magog – Auth.] had also been Scythian, sincethe nations of Magog, Meshech, Thubal, Homer andFarhaman had been Scythian – the first nations of theNorth (Moses, Book I, Chapoter X 2.3), most of whichhad been known as the Scythians in the epoch thatthis prophecy is telling us about … Joseph Flavius, aJudean historiographer, states it explicitly that Gogand Magog are Scythian (Book VII, Chapter 1)…Stromberg, who had lived among the descendants ofthe Scythians, and a most trustworthy source, writesin the ‘Description of Europe and Asia’ (page 42),that the Scythians refer to themselves as Goug andGioug, and that the affix Ma stands for the Orient;and so, Gog and Gioug are the same thing, whereasMagog is the name of the Oriental Scythians” ([261],pages 34-36).

After that, Driemel proves (quoting several “an-cient” and mediaeval authors, as usual) that the Scyth-ians can be identified as the Persians, quoting an entryfrom a mediaeval encyclopaedia:“Right after the entry‘Magic’ we read that the Persians are referred to as Ma-gog and Nagouzei [a reference to Nogaisk? – Auth.]by their neighbours… Upper Assyria is the mother-land of the Scythians. Persia lies to the East… How-ever, no other nation fits to represent the EasternScythians better than the Persians… Hodollogomor,King of Elim or Persia (Genesis, Chapter XIV) is re-

ferred to as the King of the Scythians (see commentsto Genesis, letter H) – therefore, Gog, Magog andGiug are all names of the Scythians” ([261], pages37-38).

One might think that the nations in question areOriental in origin, and have always inhabited the ter-ritory of the modern Persia. This doesn’t contradictScaligerian history that much; however, Driemel goeson to prove that the Russians and the Germans areboth of Scythian descent. Such claims naturally soundoutlandish insofar as consensual history is concerned(and coming from a German author, at that), butthey are in perfect concurrence with our reconstruc-tion, according to which the Biblical Assyria, alsoknown as Persia and the land of Gog and Magogidentifies as mediaeval Russia, or the Horde, whilethe Germans are likely to be the descendants of theSlavs that came from Russia, or the Horde, duringthe Great = “Mongolian” conquest.

Let us carry on with quoting from Driemel: “Theforefathers of the Germans had been known as theScythians (Pliny, ‘Natural History’, Book IV, Chap-ter 25), the Gettians, the Celtic Allemanians, theFranks and the Germans… ‘Japhet’ translates as ‘giant’,which is also the word used in the Sarmatian Chron-icle, whereas the Chronicle of Alexandria says ‘Scyth-ian’… The Germanic peoples (Gudlingian, Book 1)translate the Greek ‘giant’ into German as ‘Riesen’ …the Holy Writ refers to peoples of exceptional height,strength and bravery, such as the Nephaim, Emimand Enakkim… The Norwegian and Danish chron-icles report the Risi to be a Baltic nation that hadsigned a peace pact with the Normans” ([261], pages39 and 42).

Driemel then tells us directly that “the Risi are theRussians’ ([261], page 43).“The name Russia is Latin,whereas the Greeks use the word ‘Rosses’ (those arementioned by the Greek authors as a Scythian nation;in the X-XIII century, Kedren wrote the following inhis ‘Brief History’ (page 453): ‘The Rosses are a Scyth-ian tribe that occupy the Northern part of the Tauris).They call themselves Reises (Russians)’… The Ger-mans pronounced the name as ‘Riesen’” ([261], pages42-43).

“And thus I enquire – what are the origins of MountRiesen’s name, whence did the name come to the hillsbetween Bohemia and Silesia? The only reason I be-

chapter 14 various data | 489

lieve to be true is that the Tartars, also known as theRises and the Russians, had sadly invaded Silesia as ahostile force in the XIII century” ([261], page 45).

This is how Driemel casually refers to the Tartarand Mongol invasion, calling it the Russian conquestand obviously unaware of the extent to which hecompromises the pact made by later historians aboutnever ever recollecting that the Russians were for-merly known as the Tartars, or that the Horde hadcolonised the West.

Further also: “The writers of all epochs recognisethe Rises, the Rosses or the Reises as a Scythian na-tion (Kedren)” ([261], page 46).

This is how a German author from the early XVIIIcentury saw global history. The adepts of the mod-ern textbooks shall of course treat the above infor-mation as utter nonsense and wonder about how anauthor as ignorant as Driemel could possibly havewritten a book and get it published. Actually, inChron5 we explain (referring to A. D. Chertkov) thatthere were many such books published in Germany.It would be very interesting to analyse all of them. Wehaven’t done this and just used a single example – thebook of Driemel, which also exists in Russian trans-lation. As we can see, many Germans had still re-membered the true course of world history in theearly XVIII century, albeit vaguely.

24. THE IMPERIAL BICEPHALOUS EAGLE ANDTHE POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF THE SYMBOL

In 1997 the book of G. V. Vilinbakhov entitled TheRussian National Coat of Arms: 500 Years ([134]) waspublished. The author writes about the history of theRussian coat of arms – the bicephalous eagle, deem-ing it perfectly natural that the Russians had lackedthe imagination necessary to invent a symbol of theirown and had to adopt it from elsewhere. Three pos-sible sources are named – Byzantium, Western Europeand the Golden Horde ([134], page 23). Apparently,“the eagle figure on the coinage of the Golden Hordeis likely to be Oriental in origin and not a Byzantineimport, as some of the researchers suggested. V. I.Savva came up with the theory that the bicephalouseagle on the Juchid coins had stood for the seal ofsome Khan of the Golden Horde” ([134], page 23).

This idea corresponds with our reconstruction, ac-cording to which the bicephalous eagle of the GoldenHorde had been a Russian symbol used in the Hordefrom the very beginning.

We must also recollect that the seal of Ivan III isvery similar to that of Ivan IV, which is precisely howit should be, according to our reconstruction. Bothseals are simply inscribed with the name Ivan; one ob-viously finds no “numbers” here (see figs. 7.6 and 7.8,as well as Chron4, Chapter 7:7).

Vilinbakhov’s book also tells us about the ancientRussian banners, that have apparently borne the“symbol of the sun and the crescent” ([134], page 31).It is very likely that in some of them at least the sym-bol was that of the star and crescent, well familiar tous from the Ottoman = Ataman Empire. It is oddthat the publishers of the album ([134]) for somereason didn’t reproduce a single photograph or atleast a drawing of some such banner. Could it be dueto the overly explicit representation of the star andcrescent, perhaps? It is also said that the “sun symboland the crescent” had once accompanied the impe-rial two-headed eagle ([134], page 31): “The compo-sition consisting of a crowned bicephalous eagle with

490 | history: fiction or science? chron 4 | part 1

Fig. 14.115. One of thecrests on Dürer’s “Ehren-pforte”. Ottoman crescentemitting rays of light lookslike the spread wings of aneagle. Taken from [1067],page 30.

Fig. 14.116. One of the crestson Dürer’s “Ehrenpforte”. Thebicephalous eagle is mostlikely to be a version of thestar and crescent, or the com-bination of the cross and thecrescent (octagonal or hexag-onal Christian cross). Takenfrom [1067], page 30.

the sun and the moon to his sides had once been thecrest on the banner given to Prince Grigoriy Cherkas-skiy from Astrakhan by Czar Alexei Mikhailovich in1662. A similar banner was received by Prince BoulatCherkasskiy in 1675. On some of the banners, thesun and the moon can be to the left and right of thecross upon the Golgotha [sic! – Auth.]; we can alsorefer to a similar engraving dating from the late XVII– early XVIII century entitled ‘Our Lady and theCrucifix’, where the celestial luminaries are depictedon the sides of the cross with crucified Christ” ([134],page 31).

All of the above indicates that the Ottoman = Ata-man symbols had still been rather common in the lateXVII – early XVIII century.

Let us now ponder the reason why the imperialsymbol is a two-headed bird – after all, such phe-nomena in nature are extremely rare and regarded asabnormalities. It is perfectly obvious that in case ofthe imperial bicephalous eagle the choice of symbolwas dictated by special considerations of some sort

that had nothing in common with biology. What isthe real reason? Although the issue is of no principalimportance to us, it is rather curious in itself. Let usput forth a certain hypothesis in this respect.

We shall turn to the extremely rare and utterly fas-cinating engravings of Albrecht Dürer that comprisehis famous “Glory Arch of Maximilian I” – the so-called “Ehrenpforte” ([1067]). In fig. 14.115 we see adetail of one such engraving that shows a coat of armsdrawn by Dürer. It is perfectly obvious that we see acrescent here, with shining rays on its both sides thatlook remarkably like the feathers of the two raisedbird’s wings formed by the crescent. There is no headhere – however, it becomes obvious that the famousbicephalous eagle must really be another rendition ofthe same old star (or cross) and crescent symbol. Thetwo heads of the eagle with their backs to each othercan be regarded as yet another version of the star, orthe cross, that rests upon the crescent, or the eagle’swings. Therefore, the bicephalous eagle with its wingsraised is yet another version of the Christian cross (of

chapter 14 various data | 491

Fig. 14.117. Coat of arms with two eagles (crosses or cres-cents). The spread wings form the actual crescent. Takenfrom [1067], page 298.

Fig. 14.118. Four crests (eagles) from Dürer’s “Ehrenpforte”.We see a crescent on the chest of the eagle. Taken from[1067], page 16.

Fig. 14.119. Coat of armswith two eagles (star andcrescent symbols) fromDürer’s “Ehrenpforte”.Taken from [1067], page 24.

Fig. 14.120. Coat of armswith two eagles = star andcrescent symbols fromDürer’s “Ehrenpforte”.Taken from [1067], page 25.

six or eight points), or the Ottoman star and crescent,all of them ultimately standing for the same thing.

In fig. 14.116 we reproduce another coat of armsfrom Dürer’s “Ehrenpforte” that depicts a bicephalouseagle, whose wings obviously form a crescent, whereasthe body and the two heads are arranged as a part ofthe cross. What we have in front of us is therefore yetanother form of the six-pointed or eight-pointedChristian cross. It also becomes clear why the initialversion of the eagle had raised wings – they were rep-resenting the crescent. Folded wings are a result oflater modifications introduced when the initial mean-ing of the symbol had already been perceived rathervaguely; eventually, it became forgotten for good. Theeagle’s wings must have been folded in the epoch ofthe Reformation so as to get as far away as possiblefrom the possible associations with the Christiancross, or the Ottoman star and crescent.

In fig. 14.117 we see another coat of arms takenfrom [1067], page 298. Here we see two eagles, eachwith a single head, with their wings raised, obviouslysymbolising crescents and stars (or Christian crosses).

In fig. 14.118 we see four heraldic eagles with theirwings raised and obviously representing crescents([1067], Page 16). Here the crescents, or the wings, aredrawn right on the body of the eagle. We see the sameto be the case with the coats of arms reproduced infigs. 14.119-14.122. This effect is the most observablein fig. 14.122, where the crescent is perfectly blatantand instantly recognizable.

25. THE GENEALOGY OF THE GREAT PRINCES

OF MOSCOW AS RE-WRITTEN IN THE XVII CENTURY

It appears that the genealogy of the MuscoviteGreat Princes had been written anew in the XVII cen-tury, no less ([134], page 37). This is what we knowabout the matter at hand:“Around 1673 Emperor Leo-pold I had sent his heraldic expert, a Slav named Lav-rentiy Khourelich (or Kourelich), to Moscow at the re-quest of the Czar [Alexei Mikhailovich – Auth.]. In1673 Lavrentiy Khourelich wrote a tractate entitled“Genealogy of the Most Holy and Reverend GreatPrinces of Moscow et al…” The “Genealogy” was sentto Moscow from Vienna in 1674 personally by the au-thor, who had entrusted it to Paul Menesius for thatend; this was recorded in the documents of the Posol-skiy Prikaz [royal service in charge of foreign relations– Transl.] Apart from the actual genealogies of theRussian Czars, from Vladimir Svyatoslavich to AlexeiMikhailovich, and the description of the family ties be-tween the Czar and the monarchs of nine other coun-tries, the work of Khourelich contains portraits of theCzars and the Great Princes” ([134], page 37).

Therefore, historians themselves are telling us thatsome new version of the genealogy of the RussianCzars and Great Princes was written in Vienna in thesecond half of the XVII century, and then posted tothe Czar in Moscow, apparently, as a reference man-ual for the “authorised version” of history – one thatwas meant to be followed obligatorily, perhaps?

A propos, the “Genealogy” (commonly referredto as the Titular Book) has never been published – itis still being kept in an archive, waiting to be de-stroyed in another “random conflagration”.

26. THE BAPTISM OF RUSSIA

Modern readers are most likely to be familiar withthe history of the baptism of Russia from the PovestVremennyh Let ([716] and [715]). The latter is asource that dates from the early XVIII century, as wedemonstrate in Chapter 1 of Chron4. According tothis chronicle, the one and only baptism of Russiatook place under Prince Vladimir in 986-989 a.d. En-

492 | history: fiction or science? chron 4 | part 1

Fig. 14.121. Coat of arms withthe eagle (star and crescentsymbol, or Christian cross)from Dürer’s “Ehrenpforte”.Taken from [1067], page 25.

Fig. 14.122. Perfectly obviousshape of an eagle (cross with crescent). Taken from[1067], page 31.

voys of different lands presumably came to Vladimirin 986, offering to convert him into their faith ([716]and [715], pages 65-66). This is how the preparationsfor the baptism started. The actual baptism took placein 989, according to the Povest Vremennyh Let ([715],pages 84-85). The Christian ecclesiastical hierarchy issaid to have been nonexistent prior to that; when itdid appear, it had initially consisted of foreign priestsfrom Greece. The first Russian metropolitan is saidto have appeared several decades later, under Yaroslavthe Wise, which is also the time when the ecclesiasti-cal literature was translated from Greek into Slavic.This is how the Romanovian version of Russian his-tory relates the baptism of Russia – the one that wascreated in the XVII-XVIII century. This is also theofficial version, and one that we’re accustomed to.

But let us see how the baptism of Russia, doubt-lessly a major event in the ecclesiastical Russian his-tory, was described in the canonical church literatureof the early XVII century. Let us consider the GreatCatechesis, published in Moscow under Czar MikhailFyodorovich Romanov and Patriarch Filaret in 1627([86]). This book contains a special section on thebaptism of Russia ([86], sheets 27-29). The version itcontains is greatly at odds with the one we’re accus-tomed to. According to the Great Catechesis, Russiawas baptised four times. The first baptism was byApostle Andrew, the second performed by Fotius, Pa-triarch of Czar-Grad “in the reign of the Greek King,Basil of Macedonia, and Ryurik, Great Prince of Rus-sia, with Askold and Dir regnant in Kiev” ([86], sheet28, reverse). The Great Catechesis doesn’t indicateany dates for either baptism – all of this in the earlyXVII century!

Unlike the first two, the third baptism of Russia isdated in the Catechesis. It is said to have taken placeunder the Great Princes Olga, in the year 6463 sinceAdam, or around 955 a.d. We shall withhold fromdiscussing why the Catechesis insists on convertingthis date into the b.c./a.d. chronology somewhat dif-ferently (the book insists on 963 a.d.). This must beexplained by the poor correlation between the “Adamera” and the b.c./a.d. chronology, which had still beenin a state of flux around that time.

The fourth baptism of Russia is the famous bap-tism under Prince Vladimir. The Great Catechesisdates it to 6497, which is roughly 989 a.d. This is

what we read: “And so he had ordered to the wholepeople of Russia to get baptised by the Holy Patriarchsin the year of 6496 – Nikola Khrusovert, or Cicinius,or Sergiy, Archbishop of Novgorod, under Mikhail,the Metropolitan of Kiev” ([86], sheet 29).

This description rings very odd nowadays. We“know” that Russia had been pagan before the bap-tism, and that no ecclesiastical hierarchy had existeduntil Prince Vladimir summoned the first membersof the Christian clergy from abroad.Yet the XVII cen-tury Catechesis claims the baptism to have happenedin the epoch of Sergiy, Archbishop of Novgorod, andMikhail, Metropolitan of Kiev, which means that twochurch hierarchies had existed at least – in Novgorodand in Kiev. However, as one may have expected, theScaligerian and Romanovian version of history knowsnothing about any archbishops in Novgorod or met-ropolitans in Kiev under Vladimir. Nowadays we aretold that all of the above is but a “mediaeval fancy” –“fantasies of the Catechesis” in the present case.

One is also instantly confronted with the follow-ing question. Could the people in the XVII centuryhave known nothing of substance about the baptismof Russia? Have they never read the Povest VremennyhLet? One must think that if even the authors of theCatechesis possessed no definite information aboutthis event, the rest of the people, those who had usedthe Catechesis as a learning aid, must have knowneven less. Therefore, later historians must have beenthe first to discover “truth about the baptism of Rus-sia” – Bayer, Miller and Schlezer, who had “read aboutit” in the Povest Vremennyh Let. This oeuvre was nat-urally unknown to their predecessors in the XVII cen-tury for the simple reason that the version of thischronicle known to us today had not yet been writ-ten; it had only attained its Romanovian and Milleriancharacteristics in the XVIII century, qv in Chron4,Chapter 1. As we can see, the history of Russia’s bap-tism in its consensual version also cannot predate theend of the XVII century, since it had still been seenin a totally different light in the early XVII century.

However, let us return to the Great Catechesis,which reveals more curious facts, and begin with thedate of the baptism. According to our research, theepoch when Russia was baptised becomes superim-posed over the XI and the XV century (see the chron-ological tables in figs. 2.4 and 2.5 in Chron4, Chap-

chapter 14 various data | 493

ter 2). Bear in mind that the XV century is the famousepoch of the Great Schism. According to the NewChronology, this is when the formerly united Chris-tian Church had become divided into several sepa-rate branches. This is why the issue of confessionchoice had been a poignant one for the secular au-thorities of the XV century. Mark that the baptism ofRussia under Prince Vladimir was described in the Po-vest Vremennyh Let as a choice of faith and not a sim-ple baptism ([86]). This explains the several baptismsof Russia, which must indeed look odd if we regarda baptism as the conversion of the pagans into Chris-tianity – we see nothing of the kind in the history ofany other country. Who would there remain to bap-tise? However, if we are to view the consecutive bap-tisms of Russia as confession choices made duringreligious schisms, the picture becomes perfectly clear.

Another thing that ceases to look odd is the waythe patriarchs are listed – the baptism was supposedto be performed by either Nikola Khrusovert, or Cici-nius, or Sergiy. If the above patriarchs all took part inthe baptism of a pagan country, wherefore the “or”?“And” would have been more appropriate. If theydidn’t take part in the baptism, why mention themat all? However, if the baptism of Russia is to be re-garded as a choice of confession, everything starts tolook normal – different patriarchs must have sidedwith different branches, and the indication of a cho-sen confession must have also contained the namesof its most distinguished patriarchs. There could havebeen several; the use of “or” becomes justified if we’reto assume that all of them had been in consensus –any of them could have supervised the “confessionchoice” with the same result. Therefore, the con-junction “or” is used by the Great Catechism in orderto hint at the atmosphere of an ecclesiastical schism.

Let us now consider the way the date of the bap-tism is transcribed in the original – “six thousandУЧЗ”. It contains the Slavic letter У, which stands for“400”. However, in many old texts the letter in ques-tion is virtually indistinguishable from Ц, qv in fig.14.123. The difference between the two had been trulyminimal (see fig. 14.124). This is how these letterswere written in most of the old texts – all but dupli-cating one another. Examples of just how similar thetwo letters had been in writing are abundant in theillustrations to [745].

494 | history: fiction or science? chron 4 | part 1

Fig. 14.123. Page from an old edition of the “Apostle” datedto the alleged XIV century. A specimen of the “ustav” writingstyle, where the letters of У and Ц are virtually identical toeach other. Taken from [745], Volume 8, page 197.

Fig. 14.124. Fragment of the previous illustration. One of let-ters Ц at the top is highlighted, likewise the three letters Уbelow. It is perfectly obvious that the shape of the two lettersis identical.

However, when these letters would actually comeup in texts, the letter У would as a rule be accompa-nied by the letter O – in other words, the sound OUwas transcribed as two letters. Therefore, the similaritybetween the letters У and Ц did not usually lead toany confusion in the interpretation of narrative text.However, when used as digits, the letters would im-mediately become very confusing, since there were noadditional O’s next to the У’s, and the similarity be-tween the shapes of the two letters proved problem-atic. Both letters also referred to the hundreds place,which would lead to occasional 500-year errors indating. The matter is that the letter Ц had stood for900, whereas У had meant 400. In cases when the lat-ter became confused for the former, the dating writ-ten in these digits immediately gained 500 years ofextra age. Such cases were numerous, since confusioncame easy. Thus, if a certain Slavic date has the letterУ in the hundreds place, the very same date may havebeen transcribed with Ц in the old original that itwas copied from, and there is a possibility of a 500-year chronological error inherent in the newer copy.

This is the very situation that we have with thedate of Russia’s baptism. The date in question is 6497since Adam and is transcribed with the use of the lat-ter У, which stands for 400. If the letter in questionwere Ц, the dating would become 6997 since Adam,or 1489 a.d. Therefore, it is possible that the originalold document had dated the baptism of Russia to1489 instead of 989, which is the date that we’re ac-customed to using nowadays. The baptism is thusdated to the end of the XV century, while the previ-ous baptism of Russia instigated by Olga shifts to themiddle of the XV century.

However, it is this very century that the largest re-form of the Russian Church falls upon, which was indirect connexion with the religious schism, the fa-mous Council of Florence and the failed attempt ofa religious union. The story is known to everyonevery well, and related in numerous textbooks on ec-clesiastical history. Nowadays this reform is presentedto us as an important moment in the history of theRussian Church, but not really a crucial one. However,the contemporaries of this event had written some in-teresting things about it. A. V. Kartashev reports thefollowing:“Simeon of Suzdal in his ‘Tale’ likens VassilyVassilyevich not only to his predecessor St. Vladimir,

but also Constantine, the great Czar and the ‘found-ing father of the Orthodox faith’ considered equal tothe Apostles in rank by the Church” ([372], page 374).Vassily Vassilyevich is the Great Prince Vassily IITyomniy, who had lived in the XV century. Appar-ently, the Povest Vremennyh Let describes this veryepoch as the last baptism of Russia under Prince Vla-dimir. Let us also remind the reader that the givenname of Vladimir the Holy had actually been Vassily,which is common knowledge – see the Great Catech-esis, for instance ([86], page 29).

However, one is confronted by the natural wish tofind out the identities of Nikola Khrusovert, Ciciniusand Sergiy, Archbishop of Novgorod, whose faith hadbeen chosen at the baptism of Russia. No archbishopof this name exists anywhere in the epoch of the Xcentury, which is the epoch that the Millerian andRomanovian textbooks place it. Indeed – what Ortho-dox hierarchy could possibly exist in the pagan Nov-gorod “before the baptism”?

However, let us turn to the XV century and lookfor the abovementioned characters there. We do findthem here; moreover, they are actually rather famous.

Nikola Khrusovert is most likely to identify as thefamous Nicolaus Chryppfs Cusanus, who had livedin 1401-1464 ([936],Volume 2, page 212). He is knownas “the greatest German humanist … theologian, the-ologian, mathematician and a public figure, ecclesi-astical and secular” ([936], Volume 2, page 212). Thenickame Cusanus is presumed to have derived fromthe village of Cusa, which is where he was born ([936],Volume 2, page 212). We find it odd that he wasnamed after a village that nobody has ever heard ofinstead of the province or the country that he hadhailed from. We believe his nickname to translate as“native of Kazan” – a famous city in the XV century.

The origins of the name Khrusovert as mentionedby the Great Catechesis also become clearer. NicholasCusanus had also borne the name Chryppfs, qv above,which may have read as “Khrus” in Old Russian. Butwhere does the word “vert” come from, and what doesit mean? The following explanation is possible. Ap-parently, Nicholas Cusanus had written a tractate ontelluric rotation, no less – “a hundred years before Co-pernicus”, as it is generally assumed ([936],Volume 2,page 212). In this case, the word “vert” might refer tohis discovery (cf. the Russian word “vertet”,“to rotate”,

chapter 14 various data | 495

and the Latin “verto” – “I turn”. Thus, the name Khru-sovert might stand for “Khrus, the discoverer of tel-luric rotation” – or even “the Christian who had dis-covered the rotation of the Earth”. Possibly, khrus+vert may have stood for “converting to Christianity”,especially seeing how the Great Catechesis names himamong the founding fathers of the Orthodox Chris-tianity. The nickname Khrus could have stood for“Christian” and been derived from the name Christ,or Horus. As we are beginning to realise, Great PrinceVladimir (aka Vassily) must have baptised Russiawhile Khrusovert had still been alive, or shortly afterhis death.

Now, who could the Cicinius character possibly be?He is the ecclesiastical activist mentioned second inthe Great Catechesis. The Christianity encyclopaedia([936]) doesn’t mention any known XV charactersunder that name. However, we did find Zosima, oneof the most famous Russian saints and the founderof the famous monastery at Solovki. Zosima died in1478 ([936],Volume 1, page 562). Could he be the per-son mentioned in the Great Catechesis as Cicinius?Moreover, it turns out that Gerontiy, the Metropolitanof Moscow, died in 1489, which is the very year of thebaptism, and his successor had been MetropolitanZosima ([372], Volume 1, page 387). The biographyof Metropolitan Zosima is complex and very convo-luted; his entire life was spent in the atmosphere of aheated ecclesiastical schism. The details aren’t knownall that well ([936], Volume 1, page 562). It is possi-ble that Cicinius from the epoch of Russia’s baptismas mentioned in the Catechesis is Zosima, the Mus-covite Metropolitan from the end of the XV century.

What can we say about Sergiy, the Archbishop ofNovgorod, who is also mentioned among the actualinstigators of Russia’s baptism, according to the GreatCatechesis? There is but a single person suitable forthat role – Sergiy of Radonezh. Although his death isdated to the end of the XIV century nowadays, he wascanonised in 1452 ([936], Volume 2, page 553) – thevery epoch of the “fourth baptism of Russia” underPrince Vladimir, or Vassily. The lifetime of Sergiy fallson the epoch of the ecclesiastical schism, which hadalready been in its budding stage around the begin-ning of the XV century, according to our recon-struction.

A propos, to come back to Nicholas Cusanus (pos-

sibly, Nicholas Khrusovert) – it must be pointed outthat “in 1453, being deeply impressed by the con-quest of Constantinople by the Turks, he had pub-lished a tractate … wherein he had emphasised … thepossibility of a Christian agreement between all thenations. Next he had published a work entitled …‘Sifting through the Koran’ … which is concernedwith pointing out the close ties that exist betweenIslam and Christianity” ([936], Volume 2, page 212).This demonstrates his positive attitude towards theOttomans, or the Atamans, which hints at his con-nexions with the mediaeval Russia, or the Horde. Letus reiterate that the Ottoman = Ataman conquest,had been launched from Russia, or the Horde, ac-cording to our reconstruction.

27. HOW THE ROMANOVIAN FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS WAS REFLECTED IN THE

HISTORY OF RUSSIAN HANDWRITING

Above we have said a great deal about the globalfalsification of the ancient Russian documents thattook place in the epoch of the first Romanovs (start-ing with the middle of the XVII century, that is). Letus ponder how this tremendous hoax should haveaffected the history of Russian handwriting. Hand-writing styles are subject to change in the course oftime; this can greatly affect the manner in which cer-tain letters and combinations of letters are written. Asa result, texts written in an archaic and uncommonhandwriting are often very hard to read – due to thesimple fact that some of the letters will be impossi-ble to recognize at the very least.

However, let us imagine that at some point in his-tory all the documents of the previous epochs wereedited and written anew, and the originals destroyed.This shall leave us with a situation where all of the fal-sified “ancient” documents are written in more orless the same style of handwriting – the one that hadbeen used in the epoch of the falsification. This is thehandwriting that the scribes of the late XVII centurywere taught as children. No matter how hard theymay have tried to make the handwriting look “an-cient”, the manner of writing adopted in the child-hood should have affected the end result in one wayor another. Thus, the modern reader shouldn’t have

496 | history: fiction or science? chron 4 | part 1

that many problems with reading the “ancient” (fal-sified and edited) texts. It suffices to read two or threesuch “ancient documents” to get accustomed to themanner of writing. The rest of the “ancient” docu-ments shouldn’t present any difficulties, since theshape of letters and the manner of writing should re-main more or less the same.

This is precisely what we see happen with the his-tory of the Russian handwriting. All of the “ancient”texts allegedly dating from the pre-Romanovianepoch can be read without much trouble. If you canread a text dating from the alleged XVI century, youwill find it easy to read the texts from the alleged XIand XII century as well, etc. The same applies to textsdating from the second half of the XVII century. Itseems as though the shorthand texts of the first halfof the XVII century are the only exception, notwith-standing the fact that the shorthand of the allegedXVI century is usually a lot more accessible. We arequite naturally referring to published specimens ex-clusively – there is no way of knowing what is con-cealed in the closed archives.

And so, something strange happened to the Rus-sian handwriting in the first half of the XVII century,or the epoch of the first Romanovs, starting aroundthe beginning of the XVII century and up until 1630.The handwriting in these documents is drasticallydifferent from any other handwriting dating fromany other historical period. For some mysterious rea-son it is the epoch of roughly 1613-1630 that had thehandwriting one finds particularly hard to interpret,occasionally failing altogether. This is primarily dueto the outlandish shape of most letters, which oftenresemble Arabic script more than they do Slavic char-acters. In reality, the letters are Slavic – it is only theirshape that we find uncommon today. This effect istruly of great interest, and vividly manifest in the se-ries of specimens of Russian handwriting reproducedin the multi-volume edition entitled the Dictionaryof the Russian Language of the XI-XVII century([782]-[791]). Twenty-three volumes of the diction-ary have been published to date. Each of them con-tains two different examples of the old handwritingreproduced on the title page. We have chosen twelvehandwriting specimens – documents concerningtrade for the most part, qv in fig. 14.125 – 14.140. Letus point out that the specimens we do not reproduce

herein are all written in a perfect calligraphic handthat shall be easy to decipher for any modern reader,despite the several centuries that had passed since theepochs in question.

Our recommendation to the readers familiar withthe Cyrillic alphabet is to try and actually read thesespecimens, and then estimate which ones are thehardest to decipher. Those are doubtlessly the speci-mens of shorthand writing dating from 1613-1614and from 1629. This fact can obviously be explainedin a number of ways – however, our reconstructionmakes it look perfectly natural. Moreover, it would bestrange if things had been any different. Indeed, dur-ing the Romanovian document falsification cam-paign, which falls on the second half of the XVII cen-tury, the scribes would understandably enough leavethe documents of the Romanovs themselves intact –the ones that dated from the epoch when their dy-nasty had just come to power. After all, these docu-ments already fell into the “authorised” category, anddidn’t need any amendments, unlike the bulk of ear-lier documents, which were either destroyed or edited

chapter 14 various data | 497

Fig. 14.125. Page from “Svyatoslav’s Almanac” allegedly dat-ing from 1076. Taken from [782], issue 1.