A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 3.


The infants Romulus (partially Christ) and Remus (partially John the Baptist) having happily escaped death, despite the order of the 'evil king', live alone, secluded from the rest of the world, suckled by the she-wolf. Sometime later a certain shepherd finds and rescues Romulus and Remus. Titus Livy communicates the opinion of the ancient authors that 'THE SHE-WOLF WAS IN FACT A WOMAN'. A shepherd 'brought the children home and LET HIS WIFE LARENTIA RAISE THEM UP. Others think that Larentia was called a 'SHE-WOLF' amongst the shepherds.''[483], v.1, p.13. A historian Sextus Aurelius Victor says that the twins were given to 'a woman Acca Larentia, and this WOMAN was called SHE-WOLF for selling her body… Thus are called the women who sell themselves for profit, that is why a place where they live is called LUPANAR' [726:1], p.176.

Baby Jesus, aka Romulus, was but of course suckled not by a she-wolf, but a woman Mary, his mother. Only the later authors began to be confused in the description of the biblical events.

Why was the story of a she-Wolf, suckling the infants Romulus and Remus, so popular? The she-Wolf with two infants even became in a sense a symbol of 'ancient' Rome.

I the book [] we have analysed a famous 'ancient' story-
king Aeneas carries out on his back his father Anchises, holding a relic, and leads his son Ascanius by the hand from burning Troy. His wife Creusa is walking by Aeneas' side. In fact this is a vague reflection of the biblical flight into Egypt of Joseph with his wife Mary and the Baby Jesus. Notably Jesus and Mary were traveling on donkey's back. It appears that later writers called Mary Mother of God Anchises. A man Joseph was recast as a woman Creusa. The biblical donkey was renamed Aeneas. At that the total number of characters was left unchanged. There were four of them originally, and four of them remained. But the writers mistakenly mixed up their names.

The 'most ancient' Roman story of the Capitoline Wolf (i.e. a woman called Larentia), her husband and two babies (Romulus and Remus) – is another distorted version of the same biblical story of the flight into Egypt of Joseph with Mary and Jesus travelling on donkey's back. Except that the biblical donkey was transferred under Titus Livy's pen into the Roman SHE-WOLF.

The later 'ancient' authors heatedly discussed the reason A WOMAN Larentia, i.e. Virgin Mary, as we understand now, was called A SHE-WOLF. They purported that in Latin LUPA means a she-wolf, and in common parlance it also meant 'a whore' [483], v.1, p.507, meaning a woman who according to Titus Livy 'gave herself to anyone' [483], v.1, p.13. However, it is possible that the Latin LUPA originated from the Slavonic LEPO, LEPYI, LYUBO, meaning BEAUTIFUL. Then everything becomes clear. The Virgin Mary was called BEAUTIFUL, i.e. LEPAYA, LEPO. Later, when the core of this matter was forgotten, the 'ancient' authors of the XVI-XVII cc. tendentiously changed the respectful Slavonic LEPAYA, LEPO into 'Latin' = a she-wolf, a whore, after which they began to seriously analyse the 'transformation' of a woman into a she-wolf. The fact that in Russian the word LEPO, if read backwards (from the right to the left), as do the Arabs or Jews, for example, could have been confused with a word LECHERY, and cold have led one to believe that the subject they referred to was a wanton and immoral woman, could have played its part in the cunning blackening of the woman's reputation.

Titus Livy's 'story' in its spirit turns out to be rather close to the style of the Old Testament [2v]. But then it is worth remembering that in the Judaic version of the biblical events it was insistently repeated that Mary Mother of God was a victim of rape. Many authors discussed 'the Jewish version of the illegitimate birth of Jesus from a certain philanderer' [307], p.302. Generally the Judaic tradition cast Christ and Virgin Mary in a negative light [307], [] So Titus Livy's words that a woman Larentia = She-Wolf, who suckled Romulus (and Remus) was a whore giving herself to anyone, fit the negative Judaic reflection of the biblical events well.

The Roman legends of Romulus and Remus partially absorbed the biblical details about Christ and John the Baptist. According to the Gospels they were second cousins [298:1], p.14, were childhood friends, grew up and were raised together. They were often depicted in the Mediaeval paintings next to each other in the form of two infants [] ch.1. On many old pictures apart from Virgin Mary and the two infants next to her (i.e. Jesus Christ and John the Baptist) – THERE IS NO ONE ELSE THERE [] ch.1. Possibly that is why an 'ancient' myth about a 'She-Wolf' and the infants – Romulus and Remus - raised by her, has emerged. The Virgin Mary was symbolically presented as a 'She-Wolf'. Romulus is the reflection of Christ, Remus is the reflection of John the Baptist.

In [] we suggested that a legend of a 'She Wolf' absorbed into itself an image of the Russian Volga River which 'nursed' Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome ('with its own milk'). In a figurative, but very clear sense. As Volga 'nursed' Yaroslavl, a new capital of Russia-Horde on its banks, and also it 'raised' two of its founders. It is also appropriate to remember a famous Biblical expression: 'a river flowing with MILK and Honey' (The Exodus 3:8). In the Russian fairy tales 'land of MILK and honey' (MILKY rivers – Land of Milk and Honey) is often mentioned. For a good reason it is said in the Christian tradition: 'The Blessed Virgin Mary, who brought forth for us the bread of life, is the true promised land, FROM WHICH FLOW HONEY AND MILK' [298:1], p.9.

So there prevailed an image of a river flowing with milk. From this image it is not too far to arrive at the 'river feeding with milk'.

At the beginning of the XIII century Ioann-Aeneas fled to Russia, the motherland of his ancestors. During the same epoch Andronicus-Christ (aka Romulus or Remus, aka Andrey Bogolyubskiy) repeatedly stayed in Russia with his mother Mary Mother of God, the symbol of whom was a 'She-Wolf'. Mary originated from Russia, that is why in times of danger she and her son returned there, to her motherland, possibly with a young John the Baptist = Remus. Mary could have also been called the 'She-Wolf' because in the Russian language the words 'VOLGA=VLAGA' meaning (VOLGA RIVER = MOISTURE or WATER) and VOLK (meaning WOLF) sound similar and could have been confused.

On fig.21. it is shown a famous sculpture of the Capitoline Wolf. In [5v2], ch.3:9, we explore when this Et-ruscan stature was made. The historians refer it to the V century B.C. Under the she-wolf there are bronze figurines of the two twins Romulus and Remus sucking her milk. But such depiction could have not appeared earlier than the XV century. It turns out, as the historians acknowledge themselves, that the figurines of the twins are made between the years 1471 and 1509! So the She-Wolf, most likely, is also made in the XV century. At the same time as the figurines of the children, and not two thousand years before they were made.



After the Romanovs assumed power they destroyed almost all the frescos, having replaced them with new ones. In those rare cases where the old frescos survived, they reveal incredible things. For example, 'the tree of Jesse', the depictions of which have survived in the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin and partially in the Aleksandrova Sloboda (Aleksandrov Village) [4v], [], ch.4. In the time of the Romanovs these frescos were painted over with some other ones, but they were uncovered later. 'The Tree of Jesse' represents THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN PRINCES AS THE RELATIVES OF CHRIST. On the walls are depicted the 'ancient' philosophers and poets.

'It is very interesting that THE RUSSIAN GRAND PRINCES: DANIIL ALEKSANDROVICH, DMITRY DONSKOI AND VASILIY I were included in the frescos. It is a kind of a genealogical tree of Moscow rulers interweaved into the branches of the tree of Christ' [107], p.148-149.

Thus, the Russian princes are shown descending from the family line of Christ, and the 'ancient' philosophers – as associated with Christianity. Everything is correct. Aeneas, a relative of Christ, founded the Russian Horde dynasty. We spoke about Virgil and Homer above. They wrote about the events in the times of Christ and the subsequent Trojan War of the XIII century, i.e. the events having a direct bearing on the history of Christianity.



The Medieval Mongolia and Russia is simply the same thing. No foreigners conquered Russia. Russia was originally populated by the peoples who lived on their land from the time immemorial – the Russians, the Tatars, etc.

The so called 'Tatar-Mongolian Yoke' is simply a specific period in the history of our state. In that time the population of our country was divided into two parts. One part – a peaceful civil population ruled by the princes. The other part – a regular army-Horde under the leadership of military commanders, who could have been Russian, Tatar, etc. At the head of the Horde-Army was a czar or a khan. The supreme power belonged to him. In this way the two administrations acted hand in hand: military – in the Horde and civilian – in towns and villages.

We all know that Russia paid taxes to the Horde – a tenth of its property and a tenth of its population. Today it is considered to be a testimony of the Tatar Yoke and the slavish subordination of Russia. However, we refer to the tax that existed in reality - 'TAX FOR THE UPKEEP OF ITS OWN REGULAR RUSSIAN ARMY – HORDE, AND ALSO ABOUT CONSCRIPTION OF YOUNG PEOPLE INTO MILITARY SERVICE. In that time they drafted the children into the Horde before adulthood. The recruited warriors - Cossacks did not return home. It was this military conscription, that 'tagma', blood tribute, which the Russians allegedly paid to the Tatars. Such an order, by the way, also existed in Turkey, at least up until the XVII century. But this was not at all the 'tribute paid by the enslaved people to their evil conquerors', but 'THE STATE PRACTICE OF COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE. For refusal to render the tribute the military administration would punish the population with a punitive expedition to the offending regions. These are the operations which are presented by the historians allegedly as 'Tatar raids' on the Russian territories.

There was no so called 'Tatar-Mongolian' conquest. I.e. there was no foreign invasion to Russia. What today is declared as the 'Tatar-Mongolian conquest of Russia' was an internal unification of the principalities and the reinforcement of the czar-khan power.

The remainders of the Russian forces-Horde survived until now. They are the Cossack forces. The new chronology greatly alters the history of the Cossacks. The historians assure us that the Cossacks are the descendants of the 'fugitive serfs', who have fled to the Don River (or were forced to flee in the XVI-XVII cc.) and other remote areas in order to lead there a 'free and easy life'. In other words, that they were, allegedly, the descendants of criminal gangs. This is not true. As early as in the XVII century the Cossacks were spread throughout THE ENTIRE TERRITORY OF RUSSIA. The sources of that time speak of the Cossacks OF YAIK, DON, VOLGA, TEREK, DNIEPER, ZAPOROZHIA, MESHERIA, PSKOV, RYAZAN, and also URBAN COSSACKS, i.e. situated in TOWNS. They also mention the Cossacks of HORDE (ORDYNSKI), AZOV, NOGAI, etc. See [4v].

It turns out that DNIEPER or ZAPOROZHIAN COSSACKS until the XVI century were called HORDE (ORDYNSKIYE) COSSACKS. More than that Zaporozhian Base was considered to be a yurt (meaning 'homeland') of the Crimean Cossacks [4v]. This proves our point once more that the COSSACKS (from the word 'skok', 'skakat'? – in Russian meaning 'hop', 'skip', 'gallop') – WERE THE TROOPS OF THE MONGOLIAN HORDE-ARMY. That is the exact reason why the Cossacks were spread all over the Empire, and not just along its borders, as it was from XVIII-XIX cc. With the change of the state structure the Cossack regions of the Empire to a greater degree kept their original military order. For example, the samurais in Japan, Mamelukes (or Mamluks) in Egypt, etc.

The Royal dynasty of Ivan Kalita=Khalif of the XIV-XVI cc. is the dynasty of the khans-czars of the Horde. That is why it can be tentatively called the Horde dynasty. This it is our term. We would like to repeat that this was RUSSIAN, not some foreign dynasty.

The unique Horde period in the history of Russia spans over the XIII-XVI cc. It ends with the famous Great Strife of the early XVII century. The last ruler of the Horde dynasty was the czar-khan Boris 'Godunov'.

The Great Strife and the Civil War of the early XVII century ended with accession of a fundamentally new Romanov dynasty, which originated in West Russia, allegedly in Pskov. THE HORDE DYNASTY WAS HEAVILY DEFEATED in the Civil War of the XVII century. The Horde epoch ended. However, the independent Horde states continued to exist up until the end of the XVIII century. A new stage in the history of Russia began. Thus the end of the epoch, which was later declared 'the famous Tatar-Mongolian Yoke' – was in the beginning of the XVII century, but not anywhere near the end of the XV century, as it is considered today.

The new Romanov dynasty had to strengthen its position on the throne, as at that time the surviving descendants of the former Horde czars still existed. They made claims the throne. Most likely both the Crimean khans and some of the Cossack tribes were amongst them. That is why it was so important for the Romanovs to present the khans as the long-standing enemies of Russia. To this effect the theory of the military conflict between Russia and Horde, the Russians and the Tatars, was created. The Romanovs and their historians called the preceding Russian Horde dynasty 'Tatar'. Having attached a completely different interpretation to the ancient Russian history, the Romanovs introduced a concept of an 'enemy', whom it was necessary to fight. Without intrinsically changing the historical facts, they massively distorted the entire meaning of the history of Russia-Horde.

Of course then, as is now, there were the Tatars living in the country. However the opposition of the Tatars and the Russians, the depiction of some as the conquerors and others as the conquered, is the 'invention' of the historians of the XVII-XVIII cc. It was them who distorted the Russian history and presented it in such a way as if in the Middle Ages there existed two opposing forces – 'the Russian Rus' and 'the Tatar Horde' and that allegedly Russia (Rus') was conquered by the Horde.

The division of Russia and Mongolia into the three kingdoms, referred to in the chronicles, is in essence the same sort of division.

1) Velikaya Rus' (Great Russia) = Golden Horde including Siberia = Tobol (capital of this province was Tobolsk) aka the Biblical Thubal and Volga Kingdom = Vladimir and Suzdal Russia. In the 'Mongolian' terminology it is probably Novyi Sarai (New Sarai) = Veliky Novgorod = Yaroslavl.

2) Malaya Rus' (Minor Russia) = the Blue (Kok) Horde = Severkaya Zemlia = Malorossiya (Small Russia), i.e. modern Ukraine = Biblical Rosh, i.e. Rus'(Russia) or Kiev Rus' (Kiev Russia). The Russian sources often called Chernigov as its capital, or Novgorod Seversky [161], p.140, and the Western sources name Kiev. The name BLUE came from The Blue Waters. For example, the Synjucha River, the left tributary of the Southern Bug was previously called THE BLUE WATERS [4v].

3) White Rus' = White (Ak) Horde = Lithuania = Smolensk principality = North-West Rus' (Polotsk, Pskov, Smolensk, Minsk) = Biblical Meshech. Today's Belorussia comprises only the Western part of this mediaeval state, and the latter day Catholic Lithuania is a part of old White Russia. The LITHUANIANS of the Russian chronicles are simply latinyane (latini), i.e. the RUSSIAN CATHOLICS. In the 'Mongolian' terminology it is, most likely, Sarai Berke, i.e. Sarai Belyi (meaning 'White' in Russian) as the sounds R and L often interchanged.

The border between Velikaya Rus' (Great Russia) and Malaya Rus' (Little Russia) was probably passing approximately in the same place as today, between Russia and Ukraine = Malorossiya (Little Russia). The border between Belorussia = Lithuania and Velikaya Rus' (Great Russia) ran in the mediaeval times much more to the East, between Moscow and Vladimir to be more precise. I.e. Moscow belonged to White Rus' = Lithuania. They remembered that even in the XVII century, in the times of the Great Strife [4v1]. It is quite possible that this border survived until now in the form sub dialects of the Russian language still in existence today (retaining the unstressed 'o' and failing to differentiate unstressed vowels. In Great Russia = Golden Horde they pronounced 'o' whereas in White Rus' they would pronounce 'a').

In the process of the distortion of the ancient Russian history some geographical shifts of various names known in the mediaeval times took place. The name Mongolia 'moved' far away to the East and overlapped the territory which today is known to us by this name. The peoples who lived there were effectively 'designated to be called the Mongols'. On paper. The historians are still convinced that the ancestors of the modern Mongols are those very 'Mongols' who in the mediaeval times conquered Europe and Egypt. However on the territory of the modern Mongolia was not found even one ancient chronicle which would tell us about Batu-Khan's campaign to a faraway country Rus' (Russia) and about its conquest. Following the name MONGOLIA = GREAT the name SIBERIA also shifted to the East.

The geographical names in the Middle Ages were shifting around the map due to various reasons. With the beginning of the epoch of book printing the drift of the names stopped with the emergence of maps and books which were multiplied on a mass scale and which fixed the geography and the names of the peoples, cities, rivers and mountains. Only then in the XVII-XVIII cc. the geographical names were generally consolidated. In this way they became part of the textbooks.



The ancient chronicles contain many descriptions of the Solar and Lunar eclipses. It became clear that being under pressure from the pre-existing Scaligerian chronology, the astronomers of the XVII-XIX cc. were compelled, while dating the eclipses (and the chronicles), to consider not all the results of the astronomical dates, but only those that fell into the interval of time which was designated in advance by the Scaligerian chronology for the eclipse that was being researched and the events connected to it.
As a result, in many cases, the astronomers did not find any eclipses 'in the required century', which would accurately correspond with the description in the chronicle and were compelled, without questioning the Scaligerian chronology – to resort to stretching the facts. For example, they would point out an eclipse which would only partially match the description in the chronicles.

Further still, there are obvious signs of the fact, that some eclipses in the chronicles were calculated post factum i.e. calculated backwards, into the past, by the mediaeval chroniclers of the XVI-XVII cc. in order to support the Scaligerian chronology which they were creating at the time. Having calculated into the past some Lunar eclipses, for example, the chroniclers of the XVI-XVII cc. would then insert them into the 'ancient' chronicles created by them to 'firmly substantiate' the erroneous chronology.

Our research has shown that all the eclipses, which were thoroughly and well described, when celestially dated in an unbiased way, would date far from the Scaligerian ones (situated in the interval between year 1000 BC and the year 1000 AD), but considerably later (sometimes even by many centuries). In fact all of these new exact solutions fall into the interval between the years 900-1700 AD.

So, the effect of shifting the dates of the annalistic eclipses, discovered by N.A.Morozov in [544] for the 'ancient' eclipses, also refers to the eclipses which are usually dated as the years 400-1000 AD. It means that either there are many equal celestial solutions and as a result the dating is multiple-valued, or there are only a few solutions – one or two. But then all of them fall in the interval of the years 900-1700 AD. Commencing only approximately from year 1000 AD, but not far from the year 400 AD, as suggested by N.A.Morozov in [544], the congruence between the Scaligerian eclipses dates, which were listed in the celestial canon by Gintzel for example, and the results of the modern methodology becomes satisfactory. And only since 1300 AD it becomes – more or less reliable.

We will give an example: the three eclipses (two Solar and one Lunar) described by 'ancient' Thukydydys as taking place during the epoch of the famous Peloponnesian War. Traditionally they are referred to the distant V century BC. However the unbiased astronomical dating reveals that the true dates are entirely different, where there are only two exact solutions. The first one was discovered by N.A.Morozov in [544], v.4, p.509, and the second one was discovered by A.T.Fomenko during re-analysis of the 'ancient' mediaeval eclipses. [1v], ch.2.

The first resolution: the 2nd August 1133 AD (full Solar); the 20th March 1140 AD (full Solar); the 28th August 1151 AD (Lunar).

The second resolution: the 22nd August 1039 AD (full Solar); the 9th April 1046 AD (partially Solar); the 15th September 1057 AD (Lunar).

We will point out that the first part of the Peloponnesian War narrated by Thukydydys includes, as it happens, the story of Andronicus-Christ and the events of the XII-XIII century which followed it. I.e. the Crusades which were the revenge for the crucifixion of Christ. Whereupon in the Thukydydys' version he describes mainly Czar-Grad under the name of Athens, aka 'ancient' Troy, Jerusalem [GR]. Russia-Horde and its allies are mainly described under the name of Sparta. In [GR] we show that Thukydydys' description of the allegedly second phase of the Peloponnesian War = Sicilian Battle – are much later events of the end of the XIV century, namely the Battle of Kulikovo.
The 'Ancient' city of ATHENS is denoted as various cities in different ancient texts. In the history of the 'ancient' Battle of Marathon by the name of ATHENS the chroniclers meant the city of TANA, the city of DON, i.e. the city which stood on the river DON. We would like to remind that the name of DON earlier was referring to any river in general – from a Russian word DNO, DONNY (meaning 'bottom' or 'bed' of the river or ocean). Most likely in this given place in the 'History' by Thukydydys the 'city of Tana'= Athens is understood to be Moscow situated on the Moscow river. In [4v1], ch.6, we showed that the Moscow river in those times was called DON. The words 'TANA' and 'ATHENS' are close as the letter Fita was pronounced both as F and as T. On the 'ancient' maps the region of modern river Don in Russia (Rus') sometimes was denoted as the 'country of TANA' [5v]. Besides, the old NAME FOR THE RIVER Don is TANAIS. A slight distortion of these names is the 'ancient' ATHENS. In particular the ATHENIANS are, at least in some old texts, the DONTSI, i.e. inhabitants of the DON river.

But let us return to the astronomy. The analogous picture of the shifting of the dates was discovered when dating the ancient horoscopes. It turned out that all the ancient zodiacs known today as a result of the unbiased celestial analyses are dated to the epoch of the X-XIX cc [1v], [] [] [] At the end of each chapter of this book we quote such dating.


1. (Years 1206 or 969) ZODIAC SP FROM THE TOMB OF FARAOH SETI I. A coloured fresco on the arch of the burial chamber. 'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, Valley of the Kings, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact – the first variant: 14-16 August 969; the second variant: 5-7 August 1206 []

2. (Year 1221) ZODIAC LK 'LEO OF COMMAGENE'. A stone relief in a form of a lion embedded with stars and inscriptions. Turkey, mountain range Nemrut Dagi, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the 14th 1221 []

3. (Years 1227 or 1667) ZODIAC P1 FROM THE PETOSIRIS TOMB, THE OUTER CHAMBER. The coloured depiction on the tomb's ceiling. 'Ancient' Egypt, Dakhla Oasis, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact – the first variant: the 5th August 1227; the second variant: the 2nd August 1667 (12  August in modern calendar) []

4. (Year 1228) ZODIAC BG, 'ASTROLOGY' (the invention of the Ptolemy's system of the world). Italy, Vatican. The Frescos of the XV century on the vaulted ceiling of the 'Hall of the Sybils' in the chambers of the Borgia Apartments. Ptolemy's system is dated to the II century. In fact it is: the 28th August 1228. The Zodiac was created not earlier than the XV century, by the way of 'calculations into the past [VAT].

5. (Year 1230) FLINDERS PETRIE'S UPPER ATHRIBIS ZODIAC. A coloured painting on the ceiling of the burial tomb. 'Ancient' Egypt, Athribis (Wannina), allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: the 15-16th May 1230 []

6. (Years 1240 or 1714) ZODIAC P2 FROM THE TOMB OF PETOSIRIS, THE INNER CHAMBER. The coloured painting on the ceiling of the tomb. 'Ancient' Egypt, The Dahla Oasis, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact – the first variant: the 24-25th March 1240; the second variant: the 2nd April 1714 (13 April in modern calendar)  []

7. (Year 1268) FLINDERS PETRIE'S LOWER ARTHRIBIS ZODIAC AN. The picture painted in colour on the ceiling of the burial cave. 'Ancient' Egypt, Athribis (Wannina), allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: the 9-10th February 1268 []

8. (Year 1284) THE ROMAN ZODIAC GA THE GEMMA AUGUSTEA. Europe. Allegedly 'ancient' double relief cameo gem. In fact: the 8th December 1284 []

9. (Years 1285 or 1345) ZODIAC NB WITH 'CLOTHED NUT'. Possibly painted on the lid of a wooden coffin. "Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact – the first variant: the 31st January – the 1st February 1285; the second variant: the 29th -31st January 1345 []

10. (Years 1289 or 1586) ZODIAC RS FROM THE TOMB OF PHARAOH RAMESSES IV. An image on the ceiling of the burial chamber. 'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, Valley of the Kings, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact – the first variant: 4-5 April 1289; the second variant: 20-21 February April old style 1586 []


Home in English
Continuation >>