Chapter 4.
THE EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY
14. EGYPT – THE LAND OF CROSSES.
The idea that the religion of 'Ancient' Egypt is not connected with Christianity has been instilled in us. However, when liberated from the trappings of Scaligerian chronology, a different picture emerges. For example, 'Ancient' Egypt is considered to be a classic 'land of crosses'. Many Egyptian deities featured on the drawings and the bass-reliefs hold in their hands a mediaeval symbol (anagram) for Christ – a cross with a loop (the Ankh Cross). For example, the gods Re-Herakhte, fig.29, the goddess of moisture Tefnut, the sacred lions of Shu and Tefnut, etc. [2v1], ch.1. On the backs of the thrones of both Egyptian statues, known today as the Colossi of Memnon, there survive enormous wide Orthodox crosses, fig.30 [5v2], ch.7. Here is another example of an impressive 'ancient' Egyptian sculpture of a pharaoh, on the back of the throne of which an Orthodox Christian cross is carved out, fig.31. It could not have been otherwise, as Egypt of the Pharaohs was a Christian country of the epoch of the XIII-XVI cc.
Similar Christian crosses often can be seen in 'ancient' India, Mesopotamia and Persia. There is a simple explanation to this. All over the 'Mongol' Empire in the XIII-XVI cc. Christianity was the state religion. At first – Royal Christianity, and then – the Apostles' Christianity. That is why people worshiped Christ and used a cross and the other Christian symbols in the religious symbolism.
15. THE SARCOPHAGI AND THE RUSSIAN DOLLS.
We know that the Egyptian sarcophagi with mummies are arranged in a remarkable manner. The coffins are enclosed within each other in order of decreasing size. Only the last one contained a mummy itself. Each coffin represented a HOLLOW FIGURE OF A PERSON - with a face, wearing the robes and a head-dress, and displaying the symbols of authority. For example, the scheme of the sarcophagus of Tutankhamun, See fig.32.
Does it remind you of anything familiar? Well, of course, the famous Russian dolls (matryoshka)! Several interleaved hollow figurines, resembling each other, becoming progressively smaller, only the last of which is solid. Each one of them is painted and represents a person. As far as we know this symbol – a doll - existed only in Russia. And, as we can see, in 'Ancient' Egypt as well!
It is probable that in the Russian folk art there survives a memory of the ANCIENT RUSSIAN-HORDIAN CUSTOM – to bury the czars in coffins – matryoshka. The Hordian czars and sultans atamans (ottomans) of the XIV-XVI cc. were buried in the Imperial cemetery in African Egypt according to the Russian tradition.
Earlier, before the Romanovs, Christian burial methods were prevalent in Russia, which was unusual from a modern perspective. In particular, the ANTHROPOMORPHIC SARCOPHAGI, i.e. tombs made in the form of a human body [5v2], ch.7. Just like in 'Ancient' Egypt! These customs were especially significant in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia.
Some scientists point out the correlation between these Russian tombs, Byzantian and the 'ancient' Egyptian tombs, but presume that the RUSSIAN ANTHROPOMORPHIC SARCOPHAGI were adopted from the Egyptian ones. However, most likely it was the other way round, such a type of sarcophagus came to 'Ancient' Egypt from Vladimir and Suzdal Russia together with the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century.
The anthropomorphic sarcophagi are constantly being found in Moscow during excavations. For instance, in a former Bogoyavlensky Monastery (Epiphany Monastery) close to the Kremlin [62], p.79. These Russian sarcophagi are made in the form of the human body, with a head and shoulders.
In the Kremlin's Arckhangelsky Cathedral at least some of the tombs of the Russian princes (most likely symbolic) were made in the following way: a wooden coffin was enclosed inside a stone sarcophagus. Thus the 'matryoska-like' burials were indubitably made in Russia. Today's Russian doll souvenirs are reminiscent of this custom from our ancient past. In [4v2], ch.2:6, we have shown that between 1632 and 1636 the Romanovs reformed the Church, in particular they dramatically changed the burial customs in Russia. Then a wave of the Romanov 'pogroms' swept through the Russian cemeteries.
In the new chronology the history of ancient Egypt of the XI-XVI cc. as before occupies the place of the most ancient ones. But some of the 'most ancient' customs survived until the middle of the XIX century.
16. TUTANKHAMUN AND CZAREVICH DMITRY.
By calling a young pharaoh Tutankhamun, we rely on the reading of the hieroglyphs with which he is so named in his tomb and, possibly, in some texts. In reality most likely, he had a different name. As the royal cemetery of the Horde Empire was situated in Egypt. Consequently Tutankhamun was one of the czareviches (princes) of the Empire. You will recall that HE DIED VERY YOUNG [1366], p.24, 117.
It is hard to say who Tutankhamun actually was. However, the fact that he was a CHILD, and there were DAGGERS attached to the belt of his mummy (most likely there was a particular importance placed on them), suggests that Tutankhamun is czarevich Dmitry. Dmitry died in the end of the XVI century in Uglich, allegedly by accidentally stabbing himself with a dagger whilst playing a game. This is one version of the story.
In this context the following fact acquires a particular tone. On the left side of Tutankhamun's mummy there was discovered a cut in an unusual place. Experts believe it to be an embalming incision whilst acknowledging its 'unusual' location [1366], p.117. However, it is quite possible that a cut in such an unusual place appeared not during the embalming process, but whilst the czar was still alive. Could it be the deadly cut of a knife with which Czarevich Dmitry 'stabbed' himself? Therefore this wound could have been used during the embalming. Furthermore, a splinter was embedded in Tutankhamun's skull, which is said to be a possible cause of his death [1366], p.118. Here is the medical professionals' opinion: 'The fact, that the czar (Tutankhamun - author's note) was murdered, however, appears increasingly plausible' [1366], p.118. See [5v2], ch.7.
There were two daggers discovered on Tutankhamun's mummy – one iron, the other – made of gold. It is possible that the grieving relatives put them there as a sign of czarevich Dmitry having been murdered by the blows of several knives or daggers. The 'classical authors' Suetonius and Flavius write about several swords, when telling us about Caligula = Czarevich Dmitry [��]. A first-hand account survives to this today, that the relatives of murdered czarevich Dmitry in fact did put the assassin's' knife on him: 'There (in the church – author’s note) still rested Dmitry's body stained with blood, and ON TOP OF THE BODY – THE ASSASSINS' KNIFE… having seen this angelic peaceful face, blood and the KNIFE, he shuddered' [362], v.10, ch.2, column 80. So, it was like this - with a dagger (or two) on his body Dmitry-Tutankhamun-Caligula was buried.
To conclude, it is plausible, that from the remote XVI century the original mummy of czarevich Dmitry, aka the 'ancient' emperor Gaius Caligula, aka young pharaoh Tutankhamun survives to this day. But 'czarevich Dmitry's tomb', which today is situated in the Cathedral of the Archangel in Moscow's Kremlin, is merely symbolic.
The 'Pharaohs of Egypt' were the czars-khans of the Great Empire. They by no means lived on the territory of modern Egypt, but far from Africa. After they died their bodies were embalmed and transported to Africa by large boats-strugi.
By such oared boats (strugi) it was possibly to travel both on rivers and by sea along the shore. According to chronicles, the Russians went to sea by strugi as far as Constantinople. Cossacks' strugi went to sea as early as in the XVII century. The longer such boats were, the easier they endured sea waves. It is possible that this particular fact explains the large dimension of the two 'ancient' Egyptian pharaohs' boats – approximately 40 metres long, found in the underground chambers close to the Pyramid of Cheops in Egypt. Fig.33a shows the front part of the pharaoh's shop in an assembled state. See also fig.33b, fig.33c. Below you can see displayed the layout of the boat-strug's parts in the underground storage chamber. The images of the Russian strugi [5v2], ch.7 bear a close resemblance to the pharaohs' boats, fig.2.
The 'Mongolian' burial strugi-boats transporting the body of a czar-khan would arrive to the sea port of Alexandria at the mouth of Nile, go up the Nile and reach Cairo with its royal cemetery in Giza. After this the strugi-boats were buried close to the pharaohs.
The pharaohs' boats were made of the long wooden planks, fig.33a, fig.33b, fig.33c. The edges of the planks were very smooth and fitted together very well. The boards of the ship's body curved and were also very well adjusted. The technology of curving the boards is quite complex and indicates an advanced level of ship building expertise. The 'ancient' craftsmen evidently used saws. It would be difficult to build such a boat with a common axe. Provided, that the saws should be made of iron or steel. Most likely, in front of us are the strugi-boats of the XIV-XVII cc. They can hardly be four thousand six hundred years old. As we are lead to believe that allegedly Ancient Egypt had no knowledge of iron or steel saws. This is the exact reason why the iron objects occasionally found in the pharaohs' tombs are declared to be rare and unique, or 'by chance' placed there during the later epochs.
Fig. 34 [���] ch.6, presents the scenes from life in 'Ancient' Egypt on the Rekhmire tomb's frescos in the Valley of the Kings in Luxor. At the top on the right and at the bottom on the left we can see the builders sawing wooden joists and planks with hack saws. You can see the teeth of the blades very well. Therefore steel was used in 'Ancient' Egypt. It is impossible to make a hack saw out of copper or bronze. Copper is too soft, and bronze is too fragile. The teeth of the bronze hack saw would break straight away.
18. CONCRETE AND THE PHILOSOPHERS STONE.
In [5v2], ch.7, we are, among other things, trying to deal with the issue of the pyramids' construction. The Egyptologists paint beautiful, but fantastical pictures on this subject for us. And it is not just about the pyramids, but also about other colossal constructions of Ancient Egypt. We are told about vast crowds of 'ancient Egyptian slaves' who allegedly cut blocks of stone weighting up to 200-500 tons in the mountains, moreover, supposedly with copper hack saws (?!). Then these monstrous blocks were allegedly dragged across the sand, in some mysterious way ferried across the Nile, and eventually from them, like from some little blocks, allegedly the pyramids were assembled. This being said, the height of the Great Pyramid of Cheops (Khufu) is approximately 140 metres.
Up until now they have come up with some fairy tale notions – how the enormous blocks were transported and supposedly lifted. On paper they draw some ingenious elevating machinery or gigantic sand ramps by which allegedly large-tonnage blocks were dragged up to the height of tens of metres. And to think that some of these blocks weigh several hundred tons! See [464], p.189.
In fact there are no puzzles there. There is only one puzzle: how could the Egyptologists 'not see', that the great majority of the blocks of the big pyramids, apart from the veneer and some internal constructions, WERE MADE OF CONCRETE.
The problem of rock and ore fragmentation in antiquity was solved after a sort of shattering of grain – mortars, attrition mills, grindstones. In the region of the gold Gebeit minefield in the Red Sea mountains, Doctor of Geological Science A.V.Razvaliaev examined dozens of grindstones with a diameter of up to 50-60 cm for splitting gold ore. The primary rock was ground with millstones and carried to the river bank for tossing (the washing process). There are smaller breaking devices known to us – grating machines, discovered in the Egyptian desert [5v2], ch.7.
This simple technology quickly resulted in the invention of concrete. What is concrete? In order to make it you need to grind down primary rocks into a dust-like powder. It's easiest to use soft formations. For example limestone, the sources of which are situated in the pyramids field in Egypt. In order for the powder to turn into dry cement it is necessary to thoroughly dry it or bake it in a fire for the moisture to evaporate. But in Egypt's arid and hot conditions, where rain falls sometimes only every five years [5v2], ch.7, the special dehumidifying of the powder was unnecessary. The thin dry powder is then sifted into a kind of mould and then into an encasement. This is then filled with water and mixed together. The solution solidifies and turns into stone. I.e. into concrete. Sometimes powder was mixed up with small finely broken stones. In this case there were fine little stones embedded in the final block.
After some time it becomes difficult to distinguish such concrete blocks apart from those carved out of the same rock, as they disintegrate and take the form of the 'natural stones'.
Many years ago a French chemistry professor of the University of Bern Joseph Davidovits put forward an interesting hypothesis [1092]. Analysing the chemical make-up of the 'monoliths' of which the pyramids are made of, he suggested that they were comprised of concrete and determined 13 components of which it could have been made. Just several crews of the 'ancient' Egyptian concrete stone layers could have easily erected a pyramid 100-150 metres high. And moreover, in a rather short amount of time. In any case not dozens of years.
J.Davidovits founded a new branch of applied chemistry called geopolymer chemistry. 'Any rock can be used in a finely fragmented state, and geopolymer cement made of it is practically indistinguishable from the natural stone. Geologists who are unfamiliar with the possibilities of geopolymer chemistry… mistake geopolymer cement for natural stone… Neither high temperatures, nor high pressure are required to produce such artificial stone. Geopolymer concrete quickly sets under the room temperature and turns into a beautiful artificial stone' [1092], p.69.
To invent geopolymer cement the only thing necessary was many years of observations and experiments. The alchemists could have done this perfectly well. The geopolymer cement of the pyramids, statues and obelisks of Egypt was in fact invented by the alchemists, however not 'ancient' alchemists, but mediaeval ones. In the Middle Ages alchemy was one of the principal sciences.
So now the multiple riddles of the 'ancient' Egyptian stone masonry can be explained. The puzzles appeared from not understanding that in the majority of cases it was geopolymer cement. The statues, mysterious vessels-amphoras, and also the pyramids' blocks were made of it. In each case the master-builders selected a special artificial stone. In some cases they made artificial limestone, in other – artificial granite, synthetic basalt or synthetic diorite.
Here for example are numerous stone amphoras. They are made of the hard type of stone, diorite. Some of them are harder than iron. 'Diorite is considered to be one of the hardest stones. Modern sculptors don't even try using these types of stone.' [1092], p.8. So what do we see in 'Ancient' Egypt? THE DIORITE AMPHORAS HAVE NARROW HIGH NECKS AND BECOME WIDER TOWARDS THE BOTTOM. AT THAT THE WIDTH OF VASE'S WALL IS PRACTICALLY THE SAME EVERYWHERE. Archaeologists are trying to convince us that the amphoras are supposedly carved out. The question is how is it possible to carve out an amphora from exceptionally hard diorite via a narrow neck so that the width of its wall is the same all around? So that on the inside surface of the wall no carving marks remained! Egyptologists cannot explain this. [1092], p.119. In fact the vessels are made of the artificial stone on a regular potter's wheel. Still unset geopolymer cement was processed like soft clay. The walls were made to be the same width. It is easy to do on the potter's wheel. After the setting the amphoras of the hardest diorite or quartzite were produced as a result.
After the collapse of the Great Empire and the wars of the XVII century some of the significant mediaeval technologies were forgotten. As usual they were kept secret. The secrets of the production of damask steel, golden filigree work, granulation and the geopolymer cement were not divulged. These were secrets of state importance. In the atmosphere of chaos many things were lost. It was extremely difficult to recover them. It would have been necessary to conduct numerous experiments all over again. After the arrival of the conquerors, in Egypt for example, after the invasion of Napoleon, scientists and artisans were either killed or didn't want to reveal their secrets to the enemy. Today they try to reconstruct some of these secrets with the aid of modern technology. Sometimes successfully, sometime not very. As it becomes clear now, the geopolymer cement is among those lost secrets.
The main aim of alchemy, which by the way appeared in Egypt (where the geopolymer cement was used the most) was to produce THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE. I.e. 'scientific stone' as the word PHILOSOPHY earlier used to mean science in general. Today the historians think that the mysterious philosopher's stone purportedly was for turning iron into gold. I.e. they are suggesting to us to think that the alchemists were wasting their time in the pursuit of nonsense. And only from time to time, at odd moments they would stumble upon something useful.
But now we understand that 'scientific (philosopher's) stone' is the geopolymer cement. It is most likely that many 'mysterious' stone monoliths of incredible sizes – in England (Stonehenge), in Lebanon (Baalbeck) and in other places – are made of the geopolymer cement in the epoch of the Horde Empire. When the Empire collapsed a desire grew in rebellious Western Europe to uncover the secret of the philosopher's stone. They failed. Hence appeared the legend about eternal and fruitless attempts to find the philosopher's stone. In the end the experiments ceased and the words the 'philosopher's stone' became magically endowed with fantastical meaning. Incidentally, in the history of alchemy it is considered that 'THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE WAS KNOWN IN EGYPT, BUT LATER THE SECRET OF ITS PRODUCTION WAS LOST [5v2], ch.7.
