Part 4.
Western European archaeology confirms our reconstruction, likewise mediaeval cartography and geography.
Chapter 15.
The disappearing mystery of the Etruscans.
5. How the Etruscans referred to themselves.
Let us begin with the observation that the Etruscans called themselves “Rasenna” ([106], page 72), or “Rassians” – “Russians”, perhaps? We learn that “Rasenna was how the Etruscans referred to themselves” ([106], page 72). S. Ferri characterises the Etruscan migration to Italy as “Tuscan, Sabine and Racene” ([574], page 14).
“H. Mühlestein considered Etruscans to be of mixed origins – the offspring of two different nations, the Tirrenians and the Rasenna” ([574], page 11). Turks (or Tartars) and Russians? We have little else to add to this reference.
6. Possible toponymy of the words “Etruscan” and “Tuscany”.
Since the Etruscans themselves used the word “Rasenna” (or “Russians”) for referring to themselves, Italians must have called them similarly – “Et-Ruscans”. The “et” prefix might be related to the Italian eta, age, or, perhaps, the French “état”, state. Therefore, the Etruscans are either “old Russians” or people from the “Russian land or state”.
According to F. Volanskiy, the name “Etruscan” had simply stood for “Get-Russians” or “Goth-Russians” ([388], page 84).
The name Tuscany (the Etruscan homeland in Italy) might be derived from the name Ascania that we already know – New Scythia, qv above. As is the case with the word “Etruscan”, we see another relic of the word “état” or something similar – the prefix “T”.
7. The Etruscan Tarquins = Tarkhuns = Turkish Khans.
It is believed that “Rome was guided by the Etruscan kings. According to Roman legends, they were Tarquin Priscus, Servius Tullius and Tarquin the Proud . . . Etruscan sources really contain mentions of the name Tarkhunies [sic! – Auth.], or ‘Tarquins’. It is possible . . . that the name of the Tarquinian dynasty . . . can be derived from that of the city of Tarquinia, an important centre in the South of the Etruscan State” ([106], pages 46-47).
Thus, first and foremost, some famous kings of the “Regal Rome” as described by Titus Livy were Etruscan; moreover, they were called “Tarkhuns” in Etruscan, or simply “Tartar Khans”. This is in perfect correspondence with our reconstruction.
Let us also remind the reader that we have already discovered that the Tarquins identify as the Goths, basing our discovery on altogether different considerations. Namely, we have discovered that the Tarquinian War and the Gothic War are but two reflections of a single war, whereas the Goths identify as a congregation of Slavic and Turkic peoples. This is what Orbini reports, in particular, qv in CHRON5, Chapter 9.
Therefore, it turns out that according to the high authority of the “ancient” author Titus Livy, some of the Roman kings were Khans of Russian and Tartar origins. They lived in the XIV-XVI century of the new era, and not in the VI century B. C., as Scaliger had erroneously opined. The version of Titus Livy is in excellent concurrence with our conception.
Let us also mention the report of “John Lydus, a late author, about the two Tarcons: the first one is presumed to have come to Italy before Evander the Greek, and the second, after Evander” ([574], page 14).
Apparently, the “first Tarcon” is the first Tartar Khan, or Batu-Khan, also known as Great Prince Ivan Kalita; he came to Italy in the XIV century. The “second Tarcon”, or the second Tartar Khan, is Tamerlane, a Khan who came here in the XV century.
8. Our explanation of the dispute between Florence and Rome.
As we already understand, the “ancient dispute” between the Italian Rome and the Etruscans must be the mediaeval dispute between the Italian Rome and Florence dating from the XV-XVI century. It was later transferred into a distant epoch. Let us consider this dispute in more detail and suggest an explanation.
What do the documents tell us about the allegedly “ancient” dispute?
Modern commentators write as follows: “Nothing can alter the fact that Rome became Rome because of the Etruscans, going down in history as an Etruscan city . . . the Etruscans were deliberately after transforming this city into the citadel of their domination in Latia . . . They were obviously unable to predict that the city they would drag into the historical arena would play a dominant part in the destruction of their Italian supremacy.
Nor could they foretell that Rome would make every attempt to destroy and twist every document and fact testifying to the former glory of the Etruscans, while their true role in the ascension of Rome would get diminished and covered by thick layers of hypotheses . . .
The Romans, famed for their disproportional pride, couldn’t allow for the ‘fat Etruscans’ . . . to stand at the beginning of their city’s history . . . Instead, they were lulling themselves by legends where the truth was woven together with half-truths and outright fantasy . . . This is how the myth about the glorious origins of Rome was created, an empire that distinguished itself from its neighbours ever since the foundation . . . This myth was falsely recognized as historical reality. This is how it was introduced into historical manuscripts, where one historian would borrow it from another . . .
Romans were partial towards the legends and myths that emphasised that the urbis aeterna had been an ‘eternal city’ in all actuality . . . cherishing the link with the legendary history of Greece, especially the events that took part during the war between the Greeks and the Trojans . . . This is why Rome was so persistent about the veracity of the legend that the Roman nation traces its pedigree to the Trojan hero Aeneas, the son of Venus, who reached . . . the shores of Italy after the fall of Troy . . .
Ironically, the Romans, who revered Aeneas as a forefather of the Roman nation, borrowed the very legend of Aeneas from the Etruscans” ([106], pages 52-53).
Now let us explain the meaning of the above (according to our viewpoint, of course). The Trojan War breaks out at the very end of the XIII century A. D., as a result of which the Goths, or the Tartars (the Turks, or the Trinity Warriors), also known as the Tarquins, the “Mongols” and the Russians, seize Czar-Grad, or New Rome.
The Trojan War took place at the beginning of the 13th century as the revenge of Rus-Orda and its allies for the crucifixion of the emperor Andronicus-Christ (also called Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky, idem Apostle Andrew the First) in 1185 in Czar-Grad (see our book "The Czar of the Slavs ").
The townsfolk flee the city, making their way towards Italy and France, among other nations. Those regions must still have been populated sparsely around that time. A short while later, the “Mongols”, or the Great Ones, invade the West as well, inspired by their victory in the Trojan War. They are also known as Tarquins, or the Tartar Khans. These events can be dated to the very beginning of the XIV century.
In particular, they begin to reign over Italy and make Florence their stronghold. This is how the Etruscans, or the Russians, came to Italy and settled there. It is likely that in the late XIV century they also founded a small settlement in Latia, calling it Rome. It is for a good reason that “the very name of the new city (Roma) was of Etruscan origin” ([106], page 46). Russian origin, in other words – the Italian settlement may have received its name from the Russian word “ramo” – shoulder, arm, or upper arm. The Old Russian plural would be “ramena”, an anachronism, according to V. Dahl’s dictionary ([225]). The word “armia” (army) must be of a similar origin.
It is possible that the founder of the Italian settlement dubbed Rome was the hero known to us as Constantine after his flight from Czar-Grad. However, he is followed by the Great Ones, or the “Mongols”, led by the legendary Aeneas (“New One”). They were Russians for the most part, whose name later became attached to the Etruscans. It is possible that the image of the “ancient” Aeneas was particularly inspired by the conquest of the “promised land” in the XV-XVI century by the Ottoman = Ataman army of Joshua son of Nun = Charlemagne = Sultan Suleiman (see CHRON6 for more detail).
Initially, after the Great = “Mongolian” = Etruscan conquest of Italy in the XIV century, there could be no dispute between Florence and a settlement on the Tiber, later to be known as Rome. There was no reason, seeing as how the whole of Europe was part of a single Empire the XIV-XVI century.
Time passed by. In the XVI-XVII century the formerly united Christianity split up into several branches. The Great = “Mongolian” Empire split up as well. Italy was on its own, and the new Catholic Church supervened the old Imperial Orthodox Church of Rome based in Moscow, or Third Rome, in the XIV-XVI century.
According to our reconstruction, in the epoch of the “Mongolian” conquest, around 1380, a religious centre was founded in the settlement on the Tiber – an affiliate of the Roman Orthodox Church of the Empire. It was called Vatican after Batu-Khan. The “Mongolian” missionaries, or crusaders, came from Russia, or the Horde, to the Western Europe. This event has left a palpable trace in Scaligerian history as the so-called transfer of the Holy See to Italy. However, nowadays we are told that it was transferred to the Italian Rome from the French city of Avignon. We believe this to be a mistake. It is most likely that the Christian bishops came from Russia, or the Horde, or White Russia (P-Russia). As we demonstrated in CHRON1, the name B-Russia (or P-Russia) would transform into Prussia or Paris in certain documents. This is how Paris in France got its name originally. The very name “France” is said to derive from the Franks – Tartars, or the Turks, as we realise already. The name “Turk” could be derived from the word “troitsa” (the Russian for “Trinity”). Moreover, some ancient documents keep memory of the fact that the “French” Avignon was formerly referred to as “Babylon”, qv in CHRON2, Chapter 4:16. However, Babylon was one of the names used by the Volga Bulgars, or once again the Horde (ancient Russia), qv in CHRON6.
This is how the history of Batu-Khan’s city begins in the XIV century – it will eventually become the international centre of Catholic faith known as Vatican. In the XVI-XVII century the power here must have gone to the reformist Latin bishops. Orthodox priests must have been banished from Italy. The former church, known as “KAPHOLIK” became “Catholic”; the reformists proceeded with a religious reform. The new history of Vatican began. The older version was cast into oblivion; however, before it was, the Italians appropriated every glorious deed and every scientific advance made on Italian territory by the Empire. The same process was going on all across the Western Europe. Alongside the new orientation of the Western Europe – namely, the Reformist kind, the construction of the enormous edifice of the “ancient Roman history” began. This paper myth should have proved that the very ancient Rome of the legends has always been situated here as the capital of the world.
Apparently, when the Florentines were reached by strange and recurrent rumours of the “ancient Rome” constructed right next to them, they must have been flattered to some extent – after all, it is a great honour to be in the vicinity of the “legendary Rome”. On the other hand, they could not understand why Vatican was any better than Florence itself. If it were the ancient Rome, as they were forced to admit eventually, Florence was much older, since this very settlement was founded by the Florentines.
However, in this case the Etruscan Florentines would become the founders of Rome in Italy. Rome was only entitled to reject the “ignorant claims” indignantly as a “travesty of historical truth”. A dispute flared up consequently.
The dispute must have commenced in the XVI century and not in the XV, as we are being told, continuing well until the XVIII century, qv above. In reality, Rome won somewhere in the XVII century, and the incessant weak attempts of the Florentines to “restore justice” no longer interested anyone. The latter were free to found as many Etruscan academies and museums as they wanted – it would still be obvious to everyone that any item exhibited there was either a forgery or copied from an ancient Greek or Roman original.
)
Yet the victory wasn’t that easy for the Italian Romans. This is how the joy of the recent victory was carried over into the “ancient Roman chronicles” published in the XVII-XVIII century.
This is how the “ancient sources” started to claim loudly that the proud Italian Romans ousted the Tarquinian usurpers, also known as the Tarkhuns and the Tartar Khans. This event presumably dates from the VI century B. C. In reality, it was reflecting the XVII century reality, in particular, the weakening role of the Etruscan Florence, whose supremacy was gradually dwindling and finally went over to Italian Rome.
In fig. 15.5 we see an interesting Etruscan sculpture dating from the alleged VI century B. C. We see two winged angels who take a warrior’s soul up into heaven. This subject is typically Christian.
9. The famous Etruscan lupine statue of the Capitol and the date of its creation.
Everybody knows the famous Roman legend about Romulus, the first King of the “ancient” Italian Rome brought up by a wolverine stepmother, as well as his brother Remus.
)
One of the most famous Etruscan sculptures to represent this motif can still be found in Rome – the so-called Capitol Wolf-Mother, cast in bronze in the alleged V century B. C. ([930], page 77). Underneath the female beast we see bronze figures of the two infants sucking it – Romulus and Remus (see fig. 15.6). However, according to our reconstruction, no such artwork could have appeared before the XV century A. D.
What do we see? Apparently, historians themselves concede that the figures of the twins were indeed cast between 1471 and 1509 A. D. ([930], page 77). The art critics are therefore incorrect to try and date the wolverine statue to the V century B. C. – it must have been made in the same time span, simultaneously with the twin figures and not two thousand years earlier.
10. Etruscans in the Bible.
<<Marionas, a Franciscan monk from Florence [and therefore an authority on the subject – Auth.] links the ancient past of Etruria with the myths of the Genesis in his tractate entitled “On the Progeny, Nobility and Glory of Tuscia”. According to his opinion, the sons of Noah populated the world after the deluge, and one of them, named Homer, decided to settle in Etruria [sic! – Auth.]. His descendants were the first to embrace the teaching of Christ>> ([574], page 4).
And so, we learn that Homer, a son of Noah, came to Italy after the Trojan War of the XIII century and founded Etruria during the Great = “Mongolian” conquest of the Russians (or Etruscans). The Etruscans were also referred to as “Tyrrenians” ([574], page 33) – possibly, a version of “Tyrant”, “Trojan”, “Tartar” etc.
<<In our search for data on the Tirren nation, we should by no means reject the Bible. It has preserved a great amount of information about the nations of the Middle East, Northern Black Sea and Mediterranean coast etc . . . The name “Tarsis” is found in the following context: “Sons of Javan: Elisha and Tarsis, Kittim and Dodanim” (Genesis X:4) . . . It has long ago been suggested that Tarsis corresponds to Tartess, a semi-legendary city>> ([574], page 33).
It is clearly stated here that Tarsis is Tartess. However, Tartess could have stood for “Tartar”, and therefore so could Tarsis.
On the other hand, historians themselves associate Tarsis with the Etruscans ([574], page 33). Therefore, the Biblical name Tarsis may have stood for the Tartars, the Turks and the Russians simultaneously. Thus, the Etruscans were well known to the compilers of the Bible, and rather appropriately called “Tarsis”, or Tartars. All of this is in good correspondence with our conception.
As a matter of fact, the Bible had every reason to use the name Tartars (or “Tarsis”) for referring to the sons of Javan (or Ivan). Indeed, the Tartars set forth to conquer the world as the army of Ivan Kalita, which we have mentioned many a time (see CHRON4). The Old Testament reflects this XIV century event correctly.
Let us reiterate that the name “Tyrrenians” as used for the Etruscans (or TRRN) is also in perfect correspondence with our reconstruction, since TRRN are likely to identify as the Trojans (see CHRON1), the participants of the Trojan War – dated to the XIII century A. D. and not B. C.
11. What was the Holy Book of the Etruscans called? What was the Etruscan religion?
The Holy Book of the Etruscans turns out to have been known as “Suda” ([574], page 169). Quite simply, the “Book of Judgement” (which is “Kniga Suda” in Russian). “Book of the Law”, in other words. “Law” and “Judgement” are closely related concepts. It turns out that the Etruscans were familiar with the Russian word “Sud” – which stands for “law” and “judgement”.
This book has partially reached us in descriptions of the Roman authors ([574], page 169). The scientists have long ago noticed the similarities between the Etruscan book of Suda (Book of the Law) and the first chapters of Genesis: “Modern researchers invested a lot of effort into the explanation of the similarities between the text of the Suda and the Bible” ([574], page 170).
It is possible that the reader accustomed to the New Chronology might fail to understand why we “waste so much effort” in order to explain the correspondences between the Suda and the Bible. We shall have to recollect the old Scaligerian chronology for this purpose. Since the Etruscans had lived several centuries before the Nativity, according to Scaliger, and given that “the contacts between the Etruscans and the adherents of Judaism are undocumented and unlikely ([574], page 170), the objective of the Scaligerites becomes ever more complex. Needless to say, they haven’t reached it, and the problem remains unsolved ([574], page 170).
The New Chronology puts everything in place. The Etruscan conquerors of the XIV century were Christians, and obviously used the Christian Holy Book – in particular, the Book of the Law, or Nomocanon, which contained certain laws and may have been referred to as the Suda, or the Book of the Law; maybe some other ecclesiastical literature as well – early versions of the Pentateuch and so on.
It is therefore nothing surprising about the fact that the surviving remnants of the Etruscan Book of the Law contain parallels with the Genesis – it is the absence of such parallels that we would find strange.
