A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 7.


For some time the revolt in Russia-Horde is worn down. The Oprichnina is destroyed and the Horde power is temporarily, for approximately 25-30 years, restored under the rule of the branch of the old Horde dynasty. It comprises – Simeon-Ivan, followed by Feodor Ivanovich, and then Boris 'Godunov'.
However it was too late. The Protestants firmly established themselves at the Russian-Horde royal court. It is shortly followed by a new large scale revolt of the early XVII c. The Protestant party regains power once again. The royal throne is seized by the Romanovs, their undisguised minion. But resistance of the remnants of Russia-Horde continues up until the end of the XVIII c. (Pugachev's Rebellion).
Horde's penultimate attempt to return to power was the so called 'Razin Uprising', which in fact was a war between the two splinter-states of the former Empire. Namely between Moscow state, where the Romanovs (the rebel boyars) were already in power, and the South Russian Astrakhan state, where the descendants of the Horde dynasty still remained in command. Stepan Timofeyevich Razin was Commander of the Astrakhan Horde army. The Romanovs heavily relied on the military support of Western Europe. Their most reliable troops were Reiter regiments, streltsy (riflemen) comprised of Western mercenaries [4v1], ch.9:4. The war ends with the defeat of the Horde army and the incorporation of the Astrakhan Czardom to Moscow. Nevertheless there still remained a vast Russian Horde Kingdom cutting across the whole of Siberia, the Far East and the most significant part of the North American continent. It was called Muscovite (or Russian) Tartary. It was conquered by the Romanovs and the United States only at the end of the XVIII c., following the Romanovs' victory over 'Pugachev' [4v1], ch.11:2.
Thus, in 1605 The Time of Troubles began in Russia. In 1613 a sharp turning point took place – the pro-Western dynasty of the Romanovs-Zakharyin-Yurievs' ascent to the throne.
The Romanovs banished the Cossack Horde from Moscovy. This was the end of the Old Russian dynasty. The remains of the defiant troops of the Old Empire were pushed away from Moscovy. As a result today we see the Cossack regions not in the centre of Russia, but far away. All of these Cossack regions are the legacy of Russia-Horde. For example, Kazakhstan is simply Cossack-Stan, i.e. a Cossack region, a Cossack site.
As a result of the Romanovs' open pro-Western policy and the weakening of Russia itself, the 'Mongol' Empire splits into several states – Russia, Turkey, Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, Denmark, France, Spain, Egypt, England, Middle East, Persia, China, Japan, India, America and some other European, Asian and African countries, fig.77.


But for Western Europe there still existed the danger of overcoming the crisis in Russia. The success of the Reformation rebellion was not secured and largely depended on the caprice of the Moscow Czar Romanov, though he was the ally of Western Europe. He might be a supporter today, but tomorrow he might change his mind. Besides there is still Turkey, which wasn't subjected to any damaging defeat at all.
Western Europe – the epicentre of the rebellion – does its best not to allow even a possibility of the restoration of the Great Empire. Not being capable of succeeding it via a military route, the Western politicians emphasised the diplomatic work. They wanted to split the former union of Russia and the Ottoman Empire (Atamania), and to set them against each other.
Let us recall that Russia and The Ottoman Empire up until the XVII c. were parts of the same state. In particular, Zaporozhean Cossacks freely moved between Russia and Turkey serving in turn the Czar or the sultan, without considering such changes to be treacherous.
In the end the relations between Russia and Turkey got spoiled, but not in the least on religious grounds. In Russia, prior to the Romanovs, Muslims were not persecuted, and the Russian Orthodox were not persecuted in The Ottoman Empire. But as soon as the Romanovs' regime strengthened, they started the wars with Turkey which lasted with intervals over the entire 300 years of the Romanovs' reign. It was for the purpose of the ideological support of these wars that the slogan 'archetypal religious discord' between the two countries was introduced.
Let's remember that the famous Turkish Janissaries, the elite infantry units that formed the Ottoman Sultan's household troops, consisted mainly of the Balkan Slavs [4v1]. The popular belief, that allegedly they were 'taken captive as infants', is not accurate. As in Russia at that time, the conscription of one tenth of the population into the Cossack army was a lawful 'tagma'– a part of the national service, similar rules presumably applied in the Ottoman Empire. 'Taken captives' has nothing to do with it.


So, the Romanovs come to power in Russia. The tension of Russian military pressure on Western Europe is lifted. Peter I is 'cutting a window through to Europe' and subjects life in Russia to the Western fashion in many ways. The idea of the Western superiority over Russia is being embedded into the consciousness of the Russian population. In the field of science, culture, etc. The German historians of the late XIX c. wrote: 'Peter interfered even into the family and public life. He banned FEMALE TOWER-CHAMBERS ('TEREM') and wouldn't tolerate the former CUSTOM OF WOMEN COVERING THEIR FACES. He demanded that women were not kept under lock and key in an Asiatic manner, but would walk about freely in the European manner… He also introduced European customs in Public life and arranged balls and assemblies according to the French fashion. Moreover he commanded the boyars to wear Western-European clothes in order to transform both their domestic and social life TO CHANGE THE NATION'S ENTIRE WAY OF LIFE according to one of the English diplomats, and to make his people truly European, or, according to Peter's OWN EXPRESSION in the presence of the Danish ambassador Jens Juel in 1710: 'TO TURN CATTLE INTO PEOPLE'… in a nutshell, THERE HARDLY EXISTED ANY CUSTOM WHICH PETER WOULD NOT WISH TO TRANSFORM… in order to shock his people out of its barbaric state' as soon as possible. [336], v.5, p.569-570.
Beginning with the XVIII c. various 'educators' continuously hammer in to us: it is necessary to turn cattle into people. Along the way we shall note that there are many reasons to believe that the authentic �zar Peter I was replaced during his well-known 'journey to the West'. See our book 'Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great: the Czar fictitious and the Czar false'.
The Romanovs re-wrote the history of Russia. In particular, the Russian-Horde army was declared to be an evil foreign power, which conquered not just Western Europe – now it is only mentioned in passing – but allegedly Russia itself. The descendants of the Mighty = the 'Mongols' = the Scythians, in England were respectfully called the Scots (Scots – Scythians), i.e. the very noble Scottish [4v2], ch.6:11. But in occupied Russia the triumphant victors squeamishly called the population bestial, i.e. filthy beasts.

At the same time they try to consign to oblivion those facts clearly showing that in the epoch of the XIII-XIV cc. Western Europe was still a sparsely populated and undeveloped land – see Ioannes Malalas and Mauro Orbini. All these lands were colonized and populated by Russia-Horde during the 'Mongol' conquest. Only then there started developing industrial crafts, science, culture, hygiene; see in [5v1], ch.12:4.4, a chapter called: 'When did they begin to wash hands before eating?' In it we cite some information put forward by the historians on this interesting subject. Apparently, they started to wash hands before eating comparatively recently, only with the arrival of the 'Mongols' [457:1], p.216-217.


Following the retreat of the Horde and Ottoman Empire from Western Europe, the chronologists attempted to erase from the historical memory all the still fresh but, from a European standpoint, unpalatable recollections. These events were pushed back into the distant past, where they would be less painful.
Ultimately, it's as if the historians were saying that anything could have occurred in the past. But since then no one at any time conquered Europe in such a barbaric way. And even if they did have to pay tax, it was mainly done by some very ancient Romans to some very ancient Goths and the long gone, more ancient Huns. And anyway, is it even worth recollecting? Since then everything has changed. The mediaeval and modern Europe is culture, progress and finesse and the East remained the same wild Horde as it was before.
And in order for the public opinion to come to terms with these 'truths' for many years they devised historic literary and film epics. Visually and persuasively making us understand how, for example, 'the early mediaeval Eastern barbarian Attila the Hun only through his ignorance dared to challenge The Great Western Rome. But in the very end having marvelled at Italian culture, and cowed by Roman might, he turns back, shamefully fleeing to the refuge of the barren steppes.
According to the Romanovs' version of Russian history, a huge gap appeared in place of the XV century. It was filled up with duplicates from the XVI century. The historians 'plugged the hole' which appeared during the editorial cleansing of the chronicles. This is precisely why the life story of Ivan III the Terrible is to a great degree the reflection of the events which took place a century later, under Ivan IV the Terrible.
The word NATION originated most likely from a Russian word NASHI (meaning OURS). After the split, the Empire was thus called 'our own', i.e. the people who found themselves inside one fragment of the Empire often hostile to the world around it. That is exactly the time when 'insiders' and 'outsiders' appeared. Earlier, in the 'Mongol' time there was nothing of the kind. Everyone was a subject of one Empire and obeyed one Khan-emperor. But following the Time of Troubles the terms 'insiders' and 'outsiders' acquired a special meaning. A battle for the vast Imperial succession commences. Rivers of blood are shed. Political and religious boundaries emerge dividing the nations. Until now, for instance, in English there is a word spelled NATION, i.e. 'NASHI'. The English NATIONALITY = national identity, citizenship, nation, allegiance; it could have originated from the Russian: NASHI LYUDI = OUR PEOPLE. It well corresponds with the definition of 'national identity' [7v2].


BORIS FEDOROVICH 'GODUNOV' 1598-1605 ACCORDING TO [362]. He was a son of the previous Czar Fedor Ivanovich. Godunov's story is badly distorted by the Romanovs [4v1]. Czar Boris 'Godunov' is not at all an old experienced politician. He is still a very young person. His characteristics, ascribed to him by the Romanovs and so familiar to us today, should refer not to him, but to Dmitry Godunov, his uncle on his mother's side. According to our reconstruction it was Dmitry Godunov who was a brother of Irina Godunov, the wife of Czar Fedor Ioannovich. Czaritsa Irina was not the sister of Boris 'Godunov', but HIS MOTHER. Thus, Boris Fedorovich 'Godunov' is the LEGITIMATE SON AND HEIR of Czar Fedor Ivanovich.
Initially it was a peaceful reign with no major domestic revolts. The government of Boris Fedorovich tries to succeed in the Livonian war via diplomatic means, being supported, in particular, by England.
Then the Troubles begin. Czar Boris is poisoned and dies young, leaving an heir – an infant son, Fedor Borisovich, his wife Maria and their daughter Ksenia. The conspirators count on Dmitry Ivanovich, the son of Czar Ivan Ivanovich, who was removed from power in 1572. Dmitry Ivanovich was forced to become a monk, but managed to escape to Poland. He tried to seize the power by military means with the assistance of the Polish mercenaries, but was defeated by the army of Boris Fedorovich. However the plotters poisoned Czar Boris Godunov in the capital and cleared the way to the throne for Dmitry Ivanovich.

FEDOR BORISOVICH, 1605. As a boy became the Czar after the death of his father Boris Fedorovich. Was soon murdered together with his mother by the plotters.

DMITRY IVANOVICH (FALSE DMITRY) THE 'IMPOSTER', 'THIEF' 1605-1610. A son of Czar Ivan Ivanovich who was stripped of his authority in 1572. He was forced to take monastic vows, but escaped to Poland and began his struggle for power. He seized the throne as a result of the plot and the palace coup d'état. A year later, in 1606, he was deposed by the supporters of Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, also a member of the royal house. The reign of Dmitry Ivanovich and the simultaneous reign of Vasily Shuisky is the epoch of the largest dynastic revolt in Russia, the civil war and chaos. In the Romanov history Dmitry is called an 'imposter' and a 'thief'. Notably the 'imposter' and the 'thief' are presented as two separate people. He was murdered in 1610.
The infamous story of Dmitry the 'Imposter' always produced a strange impression on researchers [183], v.2, p.97. Everything becomes clear in the New Chronology. This person was indeed a Czarevich (a prince) and his name was in fact Dmitry Ivanovich. He was a son of Czar Ivan Ivanovich, who reigned from 1563 to 1572 and was then deposed. Czar Ivan Ivanovich was brought up in the Zakharyin-Romanovs family, who ruled the state on his behalf, as Ivan Ivanovich himself was still very young (see above). As we can see the son of Ivan Ivanovich, Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich (the future 'False Dmitry') was also brought up in the family of the Romanovs. In order to prevent Dmitry ascending the throne, he was forced to take monastic vows, as the becoming a monk, according to the old Russian tradition, denied the right to take the throne.
But – a reader might object – Czarevich Dmitry, as it's well-known, was murdered in Uglich. Does it mean that under the name of Dmitry Ivanovich there was still an imposter? No, it does not.
It is thought that under Ivan the 'Terrible', there were allegedly TWO separate princes with the same name: Dmitry Ivanovich. They were both children of Ivan the 'Terrible'. One death occurred due to a nurses' negligence, who drowned the child in 1563. The second – the infamous Uglich tragedy allegedly of 1591 [4v].
In our opinion there was ONLY ONE death of Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich in 1563. However subsequently, during the rule of Vasily Shuisky, a false version of Czarevich Dmitry's murder in Uglich in 1591 (generally accepted today) was set in motion. The purpose of this fabrication is clear. Czar Vasily Shuisky endeavoured to present his rival Dmitry Ivanovich as an 'IMPOSTER'. To achieve this it was declared that the true Czarevich Dmitry was allegedly murdered as a boy in Uglich. Therefore the Czar, who fights against Shuisky is none other, but an imposter.
In fact it was a completely different Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich who died – he was the son of Czar Ivan Vasilievich and a brother to Czar Ivan Ivanovich, the father of 'False Dmitry'. He was an uncle to his namesake the 'imposter' Dmitry Ivanovich, whom Shuisky was fighting against. Using the coincidence between the names, the death of one of them was attributed to the other. Thus the true Czar Dmitry Ivanovich was declared an 'IMPOSTER'.
The entire story of Czarevich Dmitry's death could have been composed in Moscow. 'There are reasons to believe that Uglich's source became a victim to a retrospective appraisal of events [777], p.72. To put it simply, it was a FORGERY.
We'll elaborate. The falsification was based on a crafty SUBSTITUTION. The Shuiskys deliberately mixed up (on paper) Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, who died in 1563, and Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich the 'Imposter', who by no means died as a child, but on the contrary jostled with Vasily Shuisky for power at that very time. The exchange was cunning. The thing is, that Czarevich Dmitry, who died in 1563, as we show in our book 'The Expulsion of the Czars' ('Izgnaniye Czarei'), WAS ALREADY A CONSECRATED SAINT AND POPULAR AMONG THE PEOPLE by the time of this fraud. The Shuiskys SLYLY used the identical names of the two princes – the dead and the living one. They attributed the holy name of Saint Dmitry Ivanovich which was widely popular among the people and who died in 1563, to their contemporary Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich. Shifting (on paper) the death of Saint Czarevich approximately 30 years forward – from 1563 to allegedly 1591. Thus they turned (again on paper) their living and healthy rival Dmitry Ivanovich into the Czarevich who allegedly had died in childhood. Following which the living Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich naturally turned into an 'Imposter' (according to them). As he allegedly had already died a long time ago!
At first this fraud was necessary for Czar Vasily Shuisky in 1606. But later the Romanovs used it very cunningly. Moreover, they directly participated in this fraud. It was none other, but Feodor Nikitich Romanov, the future Patriarch Filaret, who went to Uglich to unveil Czarevich Dmitry's remains [988:00], article 'Filaret, the Russian patriarch'.
In the Cathedral of the Archangel of the Moscow Kremlin there was allegedly a fragment kept of the grave-stone of Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich. It was most likely a modern replica. Please see our theory on the burial of Czarevich Dmitry in Egypt in [5v2], ch.7:5. We are referring to the famous 'pharaoh' Tutankhamun burial site discovered by Howard Carter in the first quarter of the XX century. Most likely the young Tutankhamun is the very Dmitry, buried in the Horde Imperial cemetery in the early XVII century. It was one of the last burials of the Russian Horde khans there.

VASILY IVANOVICH SHUISKY 1606-1610 according to [362]. Ascended the throne in 1606 as the result of the plot and rebellion against Czar Dmitry Ivanovich. There were two Royal courts formed in the country – one of Vasily Ivanovich in Moscow and the other the court of Dmitry Ivanovich not far from Moscow, in Tushino. Dynastic embroilment and chaos stirred. Shuisky made an attempt to establish a new dynasty – as a branch of the Old Russian Horde dynasty, which the Shuiskys belonged to. This attempt failed.
Thus, 'False Dmitry I' – is the true Czarevich Dmitry, the son of Czar Ivan. From the very beginning of Dmitry's struggle for the throne EVERYONE WHO SAW TOOK HIM FOR CZAREVICH. The Polish aristocracy, the Polish King, the Russian boyars, crowds of people in Putyvl and other cities and at last his own mother – Czaritsa Maria Nagaya, by this time the nun Marfa [777], [183], v.2.
But the historians do not believe the numerous claims of the contemporaries that Dmitry is the real son of Czar Ivan, and proclaim all of the eyewitnesses to be either gullible simpletons or pretenders. Russian history was finalised under the Romanovs. They purposefully declared Dmitry to be the imposter and 'False Dmitry'. Why? The answer is simple. It appeared that Dmitry, who did become a Czar and who was of the royal descent, HAD A SON. The Romanov historians dubbed him a 'little thief'. Following Dmitry's death his son should have succeeded him. But the Romanovs were very keen on grasping power themselves. They usurped the throne even while Dmitry's son was still alive. Hence ELECTING MIKHAIL ROMANOV TO BECOME THE CZAR HAPPENED SIMPLY TO BE UNLAWFUL, as the son of the actual former Czar was still alive. There was only one way out for the Romanovs – to declare Dmitry as an 'imposter', which was immediately done. However, there still remained one more obstacle – Dmitry's living son. The problem was easily solved. The Romanovs cold bloodedly hanged the boy on the Spassky Gate.
It is indeed a complicated point in Russian history. And for the Romanovs dynasty it is the key moment. The Romanovs needed a proof of the legitimacy of their enthronement. They solved the problem via means which were clear and readily available to them.
We have mentioned above that Czarevich Dmitry was enthroned as a result of the boyars' plot which deposed Czar Boris. However the boyars regarded the Czarevich only as interim figure. The head of the plot was Shuisky, who himself was striving for power. That is why Czarevich Dmitry was merely in the way. Soon after Dmitry's coronation the palace coup d'état took place. It is thought that as a result Dmitry was killed. Vasily Shuisky ascends to the throne.
In this plot the Romanovs acted most likely on Shuisky's side, as Feodor Romanov, the future Patriarch Philaret, brought back from exile, was appointed Patriarch of Moscow.
Our point of view: CZAR DMITRY WAS NOT KILLED AND MANAGED TO ESCAPE. Czaritsa Marfa was presented with someone else's body. That is why it was disfigured, in order for it to be impossible to identify the murdered person. And in order to irreversibly remove traces, the body was burnt [436], p.288.
Thus Czar Dmitry remained alive after the coup. It should be expected that he will take centre stage once again. Indeed, soon in the very same town of Putyvl, which was previously Dmitry the first's headquarters, there EMERGES 'FALSE DMITRY II'. The first time 'FALSE DMITRY' was seen by crowds of people. It appears that the same crowds of people having seen 'False Dmitry II' 'ONCE AGAIN RECOGNISED HIM AS CZAR DMITRY! 'Having gathered the people in Putyvl, Shakhovskoy presented a new contender and claimed that in Moscow the traitors had MURDERED SOME GERMAN INSTEAD OF DMITRY AND DMITRY IS STILL ALIVE, and that the people should rebel against Shuisky' [183], v.2, p.125.
'FALSE DMITRY II' IS THE VERY SAME CZAR DMITRY, AKA 'FALSE DMITRY I'. Soon after Marina Mnishek gave birth to a son of 'False Dmitry II', whom the Romanovs were quick to call a 'little thief'. 'False Dmitry II' himself was nicknamed 'Tushinsky Thief'. Thus acknowledging that it was 'False Dmitry's II' son. It was this very child who was later killed by the Romanovs – and hanged from the Spassky Gate. In order to eliminate the legitimate successor to Czar Dmitry.
Marina Mnishek's behaviour becomes clear. After the death of 'False Dmitry II' SHE DID NOT LEAVE RUSSIA AND STAYED BY HER SON'S SIDE, CONTINUED TO FIGHT FOR THE RUSSIAN THRONE with the aid of the troops loyal to her, headed by Zarutsky. No wonder. She knew for sure that her son was a legitimate successor to the Russian Czar Dmitry. But if he was a son of some rootless 'Tushinsky thief' then it would have been more sensible to immediately leave the tumultuous country. In which Mikhail Romanov had already assumed power. She ought to have fled to her native Poland. She had such an opportunity. But instead she set off to Volga, Don, Yaik River, TO JOIN THE COSSACKS [1.83], v.2, p.158. The brave woman was fighting for her own rights and for the rights of her son – the legitimate heir to the Horde throne.
A war between Zarutsky and Marina with the Romanovs began. This is one of the most obscure parts in Russian history. It is most likely that the description of this war known today was invented by the victorious Romanovs who won this war [436, p.769-778. Represented by the Romanov historians it looks like a battle of the Romanovs, the legitimate rulers 'against the thieves'.
It is possible that Czar Dmitry Ivanovich had not yet been killed at this point. In which case he was executed by the Romanovs later. His execution was later passed off as the execution of Zarutzky. The suspicion increases by the fact, that following Zarutsky's execution there immediately emerges allegedly the second Zarutsky, about whom nothing was known earlier for some reason. More specifically, onstage enters the ataman of The Cherkasy Malorosy Cossacks, 'A certain Zakhar Zarutsky, possibly a brother or a relative of Ivan' [436], p.779. Most likely there was nonetheless just the one Zarutsky, and Horde Czar Dmitry Ivanovich was there with Marina Mnishek, whom later on the Romanovs cunningly called Zarutsky, in order to avert suspicion of regicide, which clearly suggests itself.
The army of Zarutsky (Czar Dmitry?) and Marina Mnishek were crushed by the Romanovs.


The crescent moon with a star is an old symbol of Czar-Grad [6v1]. It owes its origin to the blaze of the star of Bethlehem and to the solar eclipse which are associated with the Nativity of Christ and the crucifixion of Andronicus Christ. Today the crescent moon with a star is perceived exclusively as a Muslim symbol. However, up until the end of the XVII century a crescent moon with a star adorned, for example, the spire of the huge Christian St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna. The crescent moon was removed from the spire (and replaced with a cross) only in 1685 [6v1], ch.5.
A star inscribed into a crescent moon was a form of the Christian cross, pic.13. A cross in the shape of a star – 8- or 6-pointed, for example, - is known in mediaeval iconography. Such images of the crosses-stars can be seen on the walls of the famous St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. It turns out that a cross with a crescent moon on the domes of the Russian cathedrals and a Turkish crescent moon with a star, symbolising a cross, are just the VARIOUS FORMS OF THE SAME CHRISTIAN SYMBOL! The universal symbol of the Great Empire acquired a slightly different form in Russia and Turkey. When the Empire fragmented in the XVII century the Christian cross remained with the Christians and the Christian crescent moon with a star – with the Muslims. The Christian six-pointed star – with the Jews.
Is there a crescent moon present in the old Russian coat of arms? For example, in the coat of arms of the Russian cities? Many readers would probably think that nothing of the kind existed in Russia, as today it is very rarely that one might see such a Russian coat of arms.
Nevertheless let us open a fundamental edition [162] dedicated to the coats of arms of the Russian cities entered into the complete body of laws of the Russian Empire from 1649 to 1900. A book [162] for each coat of arms indicates the date of it being established. The majority of the dates refer to the XVII-XIX cc., however, reportedly, the majority of the coats of arms date back to an earlier age.
It appears that in the old coats of arms of the Russian cities the symbol of the crescent moon with a cross = a star was present. Notably, very vividly expressed. For example, the coats of arms of several cities in the Chernigov region consists of a large crescent moon with a cross inserted in it. Sometimes there is a star placed near a cross. There are quite a few such examples – we counted at least 29 coats of arms [4v1], ch.10. The crosses with the crescent moons, i.e. the crescent moons with a star = cross (see fig.13, bottom left) are, for example, high on the domes of the Moscow Kremlin. Now the presence of numerous crescent moons with a cross (a star) on the domes of the Christian churches becomes clear.


Why did a two-headed eagle become the symbol of the Empire? After all, the two-headed creatures very rarely occur in nature, except as an anomaly. It is clear, that the symbol of the Imperial two-headed eagle was determined by some reasons far removed from the study of nature.
Let us refer to the exceptional and fascinating engravings by Albrecht Dürer, comprising his famous Arch of Maximilian I , known as Ehrenpforte [1067]. In fig.78 there is presented one of the coats of arms on Dürer's Ehrenpforte. It is perfectly clear, that here is depicted a crescent moon with rays emanating from it. At the same time it is apparent that these are the upturned wings of an eagle. The rays are the feathers of a bird. There is no head of an eagle here. So, THE TWO-HEADED EAGLE, MOST LIKELY, SYMBOLISES THE CRESCENT MOON WITH A STAR, OR, THE CRESCENT MOON WITH A CROSS, WHICH IS THE SAME THING, as a star was often depicted in the form of a cross. The two heads of the eagle looking in opposite directions – is one of the forms of a star-cross, resting on the crescent-wings of the eagle, fig.79, fig.80. See [4v2], ch.2. The two-headed eagle with the wings raised upwards - is one of the forms of the Christian cross, 8- or 6-ended. Aka, we'll repeat, - the Ottoman crescent moon with a star.