A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 4.


The 'Mongol' conquest of Eurasia transferred many Russian-Turkic and Ataman (Ottoman) names of the cities, rivers and regions in all kinds of directions. The conquerors would arrive to the undeveloped lands, settle there and often call the new places with the traditional names, in memory of the homeland that they have left. For example, the name Horde, which appeared in England, in Spain and in many locations in Western Europe, Asia and America, multiplied a number of times. The name of COSSACKS also multiplied, turning into the names of various regions, separated from each other by thousands of kilometres. For example - in Spain and in Japan [4v]. The same thing happened to a name RUS' (RUSSIA): there appeared P-Russia or Prussia, Persia, Paris, etc. The names of TATARS and TIRKOMEN (TURKI) also spread and gave birth to the name of the Francs in the West, the Turks in Asia, and also such names as Thrace, Africa, etc. []

The natural transfer of the names along the routes of conquest in the XIV-XVI cc. overlapped later, in the XVII-XVIII cc. with another effect, which also led to the proliferation of the geographical names. One of the main results that we achieved is that the majority of the surviving ancient chronicles are LAYERED, as in their final form they were created or edited in the XVII-XVIII cc. The original chronicle would be overlaid with its duplicates, moreover, sometimes - with a chronological shift. It resulted with an elongated layered chronicle. This could recur several times. As a result, the events were doubled, the geography shifted, the dates were changed.

Something similar was happening in the XVII-XVIII cc. with the geographical descriptions.

# The first such descriptions were not the maps in the modern sense of this word, but just brief LISTS OF COUNTRIES AND NATIONS.

# Later the maps were depicted in the form of a circle divided into three sectors – Europe, Asia and Africa. These sections were defined by the form of a Christian T-shaped cross. Inside each sector the corresponding countries and nations were listed. This is exactly what the old Scandinavian maps look like in the geographical tracts [5v1], ch.11.

# With the development of the coastwise navigation, i.e. along the coasts, the maps with the rough contours of the countries appeared. The first navigators, constrained to keep to the shore, represented the seas as long rivers. It was as yet difficult for them to appreciate the scope of the seas and the oceans due to lack of a mariner's compass [1v], ch.5:11.

# Only later, with the beginning of the epoch of the Great geographical discoveries of the XV-XVI cc, with the invention of the compass, we see, that the countries and the seas on the maps of the XVI-XVIII cc. started to acquire much more credible contours and the geographical descriptions became more detailed. In the XIV-XVI cc. many geographical names multiplied, being transferred by the Hordian conquerors to the various regions of the world colonized by them.

# In the XVII-XVIII cc. a new Scaligerian history and a 'new geography' started being created and adopted. As the original geographical maps had an appearance of texts and lists of names, they unavoidably were subjected to the 'Scaligerian duplication', in a similar way to the chronicles.

In the XVII-XVIII cc. the historians began to wipe out the Great Empire from the chronicles. Besides, many imperial names were removed from the maps and replaced with different ones. They could also be relocated. A number of the geographical shifts-relocations were made. For example, it was declared that the Biblical Jerusalem 'was always situated' in present day Palestine, but it 'was never situated' in the Bosporus. The Romanovs' historians began to claim, that the chronicle history of Velikii Novgorod unfolded on the swampy desolate banks of the Volkhov River, but not at all on the banks of the Volga River, in the famous Yaroslavl and around it. And so on and so forth.

All the activities on the remaking of the geographical maps were purely office work i.e. was carried out on paper. Some famous 'Mongol' names were given to 'still vacant' spots on Earth. Then, the imperial names, which were transferred over there, were 'stuck' to the real nations, who lived there, and embedded into their conscience, writing system, geography and science along with the bits of the former history of Russia-Horde and The Atamania (Ottoman Empire), which were confiscated by force and replanted into the new places. The events which took place, for example, in Russia, were transferred - on paper - to the territory of modern China.

The missionaries, already with the Scaligerian maps in their hands, arrived, for instance, to Africa or China and announced to the natives what their country and they themselves were called in the 'ancient times'. And also what deeds their ancestors committed. At first the natives were baffled and shrugged their shoulders, but then agreed contentedly.

Thus, the geographical names of the various regions of the 'Mongol' Empire began to wander at first on paper, and later across the world. This process concluded only in the XVIII-XIX cc.



Let us look at the history of the Etruscans in more detail. To recap, in the XIII century the Trojan War takes place, as the result of which the GOTHS – TATARS – TARQUINII – 'MONGOLS' – RUSSIANS – seize Czar-Grad. After a while the 'MONGOLS'= THE GREAT ONES, aka the Tarquinii = the Tatar Khans invade the West. This is at the very beginning of the XIV century.

Specifically they colonize Italy and are firmly established in Florence. At the end of the XIV century the Etruscans (the Russians) lay the foundation of a small fortification, calling it Rome. The word ROME could have originated from a Russian word RAMO = a shoulder, an arm, a part of an arm up to an elbow. The plural - is RAMENA, in Russian. This is an old form. Hence the word RAMA (meaning a 'frame' in Russian), as a space restricted by something. The Russian word ARMIYA (meaning ARMY) and the English ARMOUR, also originate from here. The Greek ROMEA could have also come from here. The current belief that ROME is an 'ancient', purely Latin word is a consequence of inaccurate chronology.

The name Rome was also considered to be a reference to THE ENTIRE STATE (denomination of the state as the whole). The Latini used the word Urbis = City for Rome, and Orbis – world, universe. A corresponding Russian word is MIR (meaning WORLD in Russian). Many times we came across the backwards reading of names in the multilingual chronicles. For example, the Arabs and the Jews read from the right to the left; the Europeans read from the left to the right. That is why the words MIR (WORLD in Russian) and RIM (ROME in Russian) could have turned into each other when read by the peoples of different nationalities. Thus the MONGOLIAN WORLD would turn into the GREAT ROME and vice versa.

There is as yet an unsolved puzzle in Scaligerian history. Namely – THE ETRUSCANS. The people, who allegedly, even before the founding of Rome in the VIII century BC, appeared in Italy, created a wonderful culture there and then mysteriously vanished leaving behind numerous artefacts covered with incomprehensible writings, which are indecipherable to many generations of the scientists despite their strenuous efforts.

In our concept the 'riddle of the Etruscans' is resolved. It turns out that in the XIX century the scientists A.D.Chertkov and F.Volansky proposed their solution. They discovered the method of decoding and reading the Etruscan inscriptions. According to them THESE INSCRIPTIONS WERE SLAVONIC. THEREFORE THE ETRUSCANS WERE SLAVS. It became clear why the Etruscans called themselves 'Rasenna', i.e. the Rasens, the Russians [106], p.72.

However, the solution of the Etruscan riddle, put forward by these scientists, despite the indisputable interpretation of at least several Etruscan texts, conflicted with the spirit of Scaligerian history entirely. This was enough TO UNDERMINE BELIEF in A.D. Chertkov and F.Volansky, despite the fact that nobody could contest their theory. It seems there was nothing to object to – as A.D. Chertkov and F.Volansky in fact had successfully read many Etruscan inscriptions. Until today, for over a hundred years, the Etruscologists kept quiet about the findings of these scientists.

Furthermore, probably not being able to find other ways to oppose A.D.Chertkov and F.Volansky, some people began to deliberately mock them by earnestly publishing the 'research' with supposedly similar, but obviously meaningless 'decoding' (for example S.Grinevich, V.A.Chudinov). Substituting the opponents' arguments with other meaningless arguments is a dishonest, but, unfortunately, prevailing method of 'scientific warfare'.

This position is understandable. On one hand, what retort can one have if many Etruscan inscriptions indeed – as A.D.Chertkov and F.Volansky show us – can be read and understood based on use of Slavonic languages. You cannot really say that 'it is a coincidence'. On the other hand it is impossible to concur with it. If the Et-ruscans were Slavs, than it immediately follows, that they must have been Russian!

So what does it mean then? – Can it be that it was the Russians who founded the Italian Etruria? – the 'centre of the most ancient civilization in Italy and the eternal patroness and protector of religions' – according to the cardinal Egidio da Viterbo [106], p.4.

So what then? – The Russians lived in Italy before the founding of Rome. In Scaligerian history this would be inconceivable. But in the new chronology all obstacles to the acceptance of A.D. Chertkov and F.Volansky's results are removed. Furthermore, it would be extremely odd if the Russian-Turk conquest left no traces in the Italy of the XIV-XVI cc. As it was Et-ruscan 'Mongols' = the Mighty who arrived there in the XIII-XIV cc., prior to the founding of Italian Rome in the XIV-XV cc.

Some scientists are trying to comprehend the obvious traces of the wide spreading of the old Slavic objects and inscriptions found all over Eurasia, and are doing their best to find a place in Scaligerian chronology, where they could insert all of this prolific Slavic material. But as all of the Middle Ages 'was full up', they have to go into a distant past and come up with theories of certain 'most ancient' Proto-Slavic people. In our view all such findings relate not to the Protoslavs (who, indeed existed at some point, but about whom we know nothing of today), but to the Mediaeval Slavs. It was they who in the XIV century conquered Eurasia and North Africa, and in the XV century – America too.
For the first time the theory of the Etruscan language being Slavonic was expressed not by Chertkov, but by the Italian scientist Etruscan scholar Sebastiano Ciampi with whom Chertkov was personally acquainted. It was Ciampi who we can credit with the idea that the Etruscans were Slavic. However, not meeting with any approval in the scientific community, he did not follow through with his research. Chertkov developed Ciampi's theory, scientifically tested it and gave a definitive proof that the language of the Etruscans is indeed Slavonic [5v2].

I would like to draw your attention to an interesting fact. Here, for example, one of the Et-ruscan inscriptions, cited by Volansky [5v2], ch.3. How did the 'Etruscan specialists' manage to avoid reading this inscription?! IT WAS WRITTEN WITH REGULAR SLAVONIC LETTERS. And, moreover from left to right. What difficulties could prevent them from reading this text? We think, that the explanation is as follows. They consciously didn't want to. But why? Here is the answer.

In the West all the traces of the fact, that the great conquest of the XIV century and the conquest of the XV-XVI cc. were in fact Slavic and Russian-Turkic, were being destroyed. After the Reformation, in the XVII-XVIII cc., there arose an UNSPOKEN BAN ON ANY REFERENCE TO THE FORMER RUSSIAN PRESENCE IN THE WESTERN EUROPE. It found its expression in, particularly, a virtual ban on even trying to use any Slavonic languages to read so called 'illegible' inscriptions from Western Europe.

A new perception of the Et-ruscan history leads to a new approach to ancient Russian history of the XIV-XVI cc. Since the XVI century it was persistently impressed upon us that the Russian culture prior to the XVII century was of a very low level compared to the Western-European culture. And after the XVII century even more so. So, without trying to touch upon all the aspects of Et-ruscan life, i.e. a life of the Russians and Turks in Western Europe, let us see what the Et-ruscans achieved in the arts, medicine, etc. and how they did it. It becomes clear that they were able to do quite a lot. Here, for instance, are the words of the 'ancient' Diodorus Siculus (most likely a XVI-XVII cc. author), informing us of the high achievements of the Etruscans in science, culture and military arts. Many 'ancient' authors tell us about it.

The 'Etruscans', notable for their energy from time immemorial, conquered a vast territory and founded a great many cities. They created a mighty fleet and were the masters of the seas for a very long time… improved on the regulation of the army… They introduced writing, zealously studied the science of the Deities and mastered the observation of lightening. That is why until now they inspire awe in us …' Diodorus Siculus. XIV, 113. Quote according to [574], the back cover.

Home in English
Continuation >>