THE EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY
30. 'ANCIENT' PERSEUS AND DMITRY DONSKOY. MEDUSA GORGON – IS A FIRE ARM.
Fig.40 represents a coin of Dmitry Donskoy depicting his victory over Ivan Velyaminov. Dmitry with a shield makes a strike with his sword to behead his kneeling enemy. At the same spot, as it was often done in the old miniatures, the body of his enemy is depicted prostrate and already beheaded. There is a human face depicted on Dmitry's shield. But a shield with a face or a head on it is very well known in the 'ancient' mythology. It is Perseus' shield with the head of the Medusa Gorgon. So, Perseus' shield was known in Russia and was attributed to Dmitry Donskoy. A shield with a head was depicted not just on the coins, but also on the miniatures of the Russian chronicles [市], ch.3.
Let us recall that Constantine the Great and his army also (see above) carried 'signs' on their shields. The latter brought them victory. As we understand it now, they were cannons. The idea that the victory was brought by a symbol on a shield only came to mind of later chroniclers. But the same idea is also expressed in the legend of Perseus. Perseus cuts of Medusa Gorgon's head and secures it on his shield. This head becomes a terrifying weapon: it turned everything alive into stone.
In the legend of Perseus a head on the shield is given the name of GUARDIAN (SUPPORT) by which they meant the head on the shield. In the history of Constantine the word GUARDIAN (SUPPORT) was also used to denote a banner , v.3, p.13. Everything becomes clear. In particular, why Medusa Gorgon has snakes instead of hair. We have already pointed out that by SNAKES (SERPENTS) the old sources, the Bible, in particular, meant CANNONS. The idea is clear: a snake, or as is, cannon – is some kind of 'stinging pipe'. It is becoming clear that 'ancient' Constantine and Perseus are the reflections of the czar-khan Dmitry Donskoy.
It is clear why the people 'who looked in the face' of Medusa Gorgon died, 'turned into stone'. They fell victim to the artillery and buckshot fire. The image of Medusa is a symbol of a cannon. That being said, 'Medusa Gorgon' probably meant 'Brazen Throat (Funnel)', [市], ch.3.
The Horde Cossacks mainly fired buckshot from heavy mortar guns. A salvo of several mortars inflicted great casualties upon the enemy. By the way, the famous Czar Cannon which is situated in the Kremlin is a mortar. That being said, it is not of the heaviest calibre, which was in standard ammunition in the Russian-Horde army of the XV-XVI cc [6v], ch.4:16.
Cannons were often depicted on the 'ancient' monuments. In particular, in the form of torches, from which the fire bursts out 'in a straight line', i.e. along the direction of the flare stack, even if it is downward sloping [市]. It is clear why there are so many of such images. Cannons were invented in the epoch of the adoption of the Christianity, and in the XV century they were still something of a novelty. The legends of the new weapon spread around exactly in the epoch of the XV-XVI cc – the golden age of 'antiquity'. That is why the 'ancient' monuments and myths overflow with allegoric representations of cannons. For example, of the 'ancient' Greek characters – Pan, Pandora, Prometeus, Medusa Gorgon [市], ch.3.
The Battle of Kulikovo is reflected in the Bible several times. Our method of dynasty identification immediately indicates the dating of the ruling of Samuel, Saul and David. These biblical events should be looked for in the XIV century. That being said, geographically – in the metropoly of the Great Empire, in Russia Horde. In particular, the Battle of Kulikovo reflected in the Old Testament as the battle of David with Goliath [市], ch.4.
It turns out, that under the names of the famous czars of the Old Testament Samuel, Saul and David were depicted as the following rulers of Russia Horde, i.e. Israel, of the XIV century:
Mikhail Aleksandrovich Tverskoy = Samuel;
Khan Mamai (+ Ivan Velyaminov) = Saul (+ his son/double Jonathan);
Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy = David.
Of course here the equal sign should not be taken literally. This refers to the fact, that the significant part of the 'biographies' of these three specified biblical rulers is comprised of the life descriptions of Mikhail, Mamai and Dmitry. That being said, in King David's case, only the first half of his 'biography', represented in The Book 1 of The Kingdoms and part one, Book 1, Paralipomenon, is the reflection of Dmitry Donskoy's life description. The second part of David's 'biography', described in The Book 2 of The Kingdoms and second part of Book 1, Paralipomenon, is composed of later events which took place after Dmitry's death in 1389. Besides, the legends about David included some information about Andronicus-Christ from the XII century [倚謁.
The surviving 'biographies' of ancient characters, are mainly layered. The chroniclers erroneously combined the descriptions from different epochs.
Thus the Battle of Kulikovo is described in the Old Testament twice. The first time as a hard-fought battle of the Israelites with Philistines, immediately following which King Saul was killed. The second time, as a famous battle of David with the giant Goliath [市].
To remind you of the biblical story (1 Kings 17). The Philistines and the Israelites met on the battle field and prepared to fight. The Philistines set forth against the giant Goliath. He began to challenge the Israelites calling someone to fight him. Young David with a staff and a sling stepped out from the Israelite army. Goliath came forward heavily armoured and started taunting David. David struck Goliath in the forehead with a stone from his sling. Goliath fell dead. After that David beheaded him. Then a great battle began and the Israelites defeated the Philistines. This story inspired many painters, sculptors, writers and musicians.
The crux of the duplication is a follows. David = Dmitry Donskoy defeats Goliath = khan Mamai and his representative – 'a tatar' Chelubey. That being said, Chelubey was killed by Peresvet, Dmitry's representative. David, like Dmitry, remains alive, fig.41 [市], ch.4.
David killed Goliath striking him directly in the forehead 'with a stone from the sling' (1 Kings 17:49). It becomes clear why the Russian chronicles called the defeated 'Tatar' giant with the name CHELUBEY. It means (in Russian) FOREHEAD+STRIKE, i.e. the warrior was killed with a strike of a stone in his CHELO = FOREHEAD. The exclamation 'FOREHEAD STRIKE' was encouragement to strike the enemy in his forehead. For a reason A.Nechvolodov quotes Chelubey's name as: 'Cheli-Bey' , book1-2, p.804. In the Ostrog Bible it is written straight, that 'the stone' set off by David struck Goliath 'in CHELO (FOREHEAD)' (1 Kings 17) The biblical name GOLIATH could have been a distorted version of the name of CHELUBEY when 'CH' changes into -> 'G' and 'B' (changes into) -> 'TH' (at the change of …) I.e. Chelubey = CHLB ? GLTH = Goliath.
It says further: 'He (David – Author's note) took his STAFF in his hand, picked out five smooth stones from the stream, placed them in the pouch of his shepherd's bag … took his sling in hand, and approached the Philistine (Goliath – Author's note)... When the Philistine looked carefully at David, he despised him, for he was only a FAIR and handsome boy. The Philistine said to David, "Am I a dog, that you are coming after me with STICKS AND STONES?" … David reached his hand into the bag and took out a stone. He SLUNG it, striking the Philistine on the forehead' (1 Kings 17:40, 17:43, 17:49).
Thus, the Bible's editors paint a fairy tale picture for us. A young shepherd boy David faces the giant Goliath with just a staff, a sling and five stones. Having taken a little string and a piece of cloth, i.e. a slingshot), and having skilfully cast a stone, the hero strikes the giant. In such a way literally the artists of the XVI-XIX cc. represent this theme. There is, for example, a fresco by Michelangelo 'David and Goliath' in the Vatican. Following the text from the Bible which has already been edited, Michelangelo depicted David's slingshot in a form of a cloth and two little strings. What ought to have been painted was a musket.
Let us see how Goliath was armed. 'He had a bronze helmet on his head and was wearing scale body armour. The weight of his bronze body armour was five thousand shekels. He had bronze shin guards on his legs, and a bronze javelin was slung over his shoulders' (1 Kings 17:5-6). This is a Mediaeval knight, encased in armour, with a helmet on his head. The helmet probably covered warrior's forehead. The mediaeval helmets had visors. It is also said here that the point of Goliath's spear was made of IRON (1 Kings 17:7). Most likely Goliath was encased in the iron and not in the bronze body armour. Bronze (brazen armour) was inserted by the editors who aspired to depict the events as 'terribly ancient'. Hardly a cast stone could SHOOT DEAD a knight encased in the heavy plate armour. That being said as Josephus Flavius tells us, the 'stone' 'broke the skull and passed through to his brain' , v.1, p.293. But it would be comprehensible if it was a bullet from the musket or a cannon ball from a cannon. Bullets and buckshot successfully pierced the iron shields. The firearms have entirely changed the face of the battlefield. Heavy armed knights were powerless against the mortars and muskets.
So, most likely, David had in his hands not just any sticks and stones, but a MUSKET = 'a stick', GUNPOWDER = 'a sling', BULLETS or small cannon balls = 'the stones'. A long barrel of a musket or a portable cannon could have been evasively called 'a staff'. The words POROKH (meaning GUNPOWDER in Russian) and PRAKH (meaning ASH in Russian) (when the sounds Kh and Sh interchange) the editors cunningly turned into PRASHA (SLING in Russian). Using the fact that a sling was indeed a primitive weapon. Finally, musket bullets, cannon balls and buckshot could have easily been called STONES. We would like to remind you that in the Kulikovo battle field they were in fact firing cannons [4v1], ch.6.
Further. Synodic translation assures us, that David had a STAFF or a STICK in his hands (1 Kings 17:40, 43). The Ostrog Bible says something quite different. In the first case: 'He took his STAFF in his hand' (1 Kings 17). And in the second instance the same term is used: 'going against me with a STAFF' (1 Kings 17). (STAFF – is PALITSA in Russian – Translator's note)
Thus, in the old text a word PALITSA (STAFF) was there. Of course, the word 'palitsa' was also used for conventional weapons – a 'stick' with an end weighted with spikes. So the editors of the Bible could have swapped the word PALITSA (STAFF) for PALKA (STICK). However, in [KAZ] we have demonstrated that the Battle of Kulikovo was also described in the 'ancient' Indian Epic Mahabharata Story. Where partially there are also mentioned the STAFFS. But in Mahabharata it is the fire arms. So, most likely, David's staff in the Ostrog Bible also meant the firearm musket or musketoon. The word PALITSA (STAFF) originated from PALIT' (to burn), SPALIYU (I will burn), spaliyu = SPL -- > PLTS = palitsa, opaliat' (scorch with fire). The editors of the Bible distorted the text, in an effort to erase any mention of the fire arms.
Let us pay attention to Goliath's 'spear'. The Bible says: 'The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam, and the iron point of his spear weighed six hundred shekels. His shield bearer was walking before him' (1 Kings 17:7). Josephus Flavius is even more forthright: 'His spear WAS NOT LIGHT [ENOUGH](! – Author's note) TO BE CARRIED IN HIS RIGHT HAND; INSTEAD HE BORE IT SUSPENDED ON HIS SHOULDERS. HE ALSO HAD A LANCE WEIGHING 600 SHEKELS. MANY FOLLOWED HIM, CARRYING HIS WEAPONS.' , v.1, p.291. Most likely it is not a description of a spear, but a musket or a musketoon, a small portable cannon. They were carried on a shoulder, [6v1], ch.4, like modern flame-blast weapons or portable missile launchers. They shot from a tripod, which were stuck in the ground and mounted a heavy gun barrel on top of it. It is for a reason that Goliath was accompanied by a TROOP of armour-bearers. The Mediaeval cannons were operated by several artillerymen.
Please remember the two statues of 'David' by the sculptor Donatello of allegedly 1408-1409. His 'Davids' were a product of his imagination. Donatello read the Old Testament most likely in the XVI-XVII cc., having been already brought up on the Scaligerian version. According to it he sculpted 'visual aids'. Donatello's David's head is turned very elegantly, however the Russian Horde czar-khan Dmitry Donskoy, most likely, looked different. Or for example the nude 'David' by Michelangelo. It is also very beautiful, but by no means bears any relation to reality.
A significant number of such portrayals were created in fact much later – in the XVII-XVIII cc. the core of the subject is either forgotten or deliberately obscured. The artists and sculptors portrayed elegant gowns, beautiful naked bodies and excessively elaborate poses. Noticeably more truth remained on the actual old imagery of the XVI cc. Unfortunately many originals were destroyed. Today we look at the past through the distorting prism of the biased editorial revision of the XVII-XVIII cc.
Nevertheless, observing the old work of art from a new point of view, it is possible to discover numerous traces of true history, sometimes rather colourful and not noticed by the picky editors and therefore fortunately preserved. They have to be searched for. Such work is akin to the painstaking work of an investigator.
In the biblical life description of Samuel the central place is assigned to the travelling of the ark (1 Kings 4-7). What is it? The ark appears in the Bible in several places and, most likely, what is meant here are two separate objects. The first ark is described as a casket, a box for the Moses' tablets of stone, or their fragments [2v]. N.A.Morozov showed in , v.6, that this 'first ark', possibly survives until today and is well known. It is the famous Kaaba in Mecca, the object of worship for modern Muslims. The objects of adoration are the walled-in wreckage possibly of the meteor or volcanic origin. The travels of the arc, described in the Bible, are the wandering of the holy stone debris in the Middle Ages prior to their final resting place in Mecca on the Arabian Peninsula.
If the 'first arc' is a sanctum of the Meccan Kaaba, then the 'second arc', described in the 1 Book of Kings is something entirely different. We have discovered that here the issue at hand is of an icon and an arc, or an icon in the arc. Or of the relics in the arc [市]. We would like to point out, that the 'first arc' and the 'second arc' are our terms, introduced for conveniently denoting the two biblical plots.
It turns out, that the travels of the famous biblical Arc of the Testament at the time of the king (czar) Samuel, is a sequence of appearances and travels of the famous icon, Theotokos of Tikhvin in Russia in 1383. The travels of the Lord's Arc are linked to the victories on the battlefields. Here the Israelites are the Russians of the XVII century, and the Philistines are their enemy the Swedes. To remind you, that some of the biblical books were written up to the first half of the XVII century [6v].
In our books we referred to various written testimonials and old pictures showing that the 'Russians' and the 'Tatars' in those times were indistinguishable [4v1], ch.6. In the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. they comprised a single nation. The Battle of Kulikovo was a civil war conflict. In the civil battles the 'Russian' and the 'Tatar' armies truly look virtually the same. Similar armament, similar banners, etc. So what did the word TATARS mean then?
That's what the Cossacks were called. TATARS probably originated from: TORIT' (TO CUT A PATH in Russian): TORIT/ = TRT -- > TTR = TATAR. Hence TORKI (nomadic tribes speaking Turkic language – Translator's note) and TURKS. The Cossacks were the horse cavalry troops of Russia Horde. It was them who 'cut a path', travelled very fast, made new routes, lead the colonization of the distant lands. Only in the epoch of the Romanovs they thought of the artificial division of the single nation of the metropoly of the Empire into the 'Russians' and the 'Tatars'. They tried to drive a wedge between them. They followed the principle of the age of Reformation: divide and rule. Despite of the lengthy efforts they, generally speaking, failed.