A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 8.


Up until the end of the XVIII century there still existed a vast Moscow Tartary – a gigantic fragment of the former Empire. Whereby according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1771 Moscow Tartary WAS THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD [1118], v.2, p.683. It is depicted on various maps of the XVIII century [4v1], ch.11. Moscow Tartary originated in the middle reaches of Volga, from Nizhny Novgorod. Thus Moscow was not far from the border with Moscow Tartary. The town of Tobolsk was pronounced its capital, the name TOBOL was underlined on several maps. A reminder that in the Bible mediaeval Russia was referred to as ROSH, MESHEKH and TUBAL, i.e. Ros, Moscow and TOBOL.

Moscow Tartary spanned the Urals, Siberia, Central Asia, The Far East, Alaska and North America. The conflict between Moscow Tartary and Romanov Russia (originally small in size) ended in the second half of the XVIII century with the famous, allegedly 'peasant', war against 'Pugachev'. The Romanovs succeeded in agreeing peace separately with Turkey and defeating the Great Tartary. Only after this the European emigrants who had settled on the Atlantic seaboard of North America, ventured West, inland over the continent. For decades they seized the North-American territories of Moscow Tartary left without any governmental authority. Today this has been beautifully, but incorrectly narrated on in the Hollywood movies about 'the very noble' white frontiersmen and the 'very bad' Indians.

As a result, in 1776 (straight after the defeat of 'Pugachev') the United States of America emerged. With the Romanovs they voraciously and speedily sliced and diced the vast territories of Moscow Tartary. Ural, Siberia, the Far East. In America – Alaska and Oregon was ceded to the Romanovs. The rest of North America – to the USA. After failing to maintain these bountiful lands, distant from St.Petersburg, and unwilling to obey the usurpers, both Oregon and Alaska were given away to the USA for a notably paltry sum. The very fact of the existence of Moscow Tartary up to the end of the XVIII century and the division of its vast territories between the conquerors was wiped clean from the history textbooks – both in the Old and the New Worlds. Up until now the native Russian population of America is being persistently forced to forget their language and their past.

In the XVIII century there existed another 'Tartar' state – the Independent Tartary with its capital in Samarkand [1118], v.2, p.682-684. It was another large 'splinter' of Russia-Horde. Unlike Moscow Tartary, the fate of this state is known. It was conquered by the Romanovs in the middle of the XIX century. Samarkand, the capital of the Independent Tartary, was seized by the Romanovs army in 1868 [183], part 3, p.309.

Before the defeat of Pugachev the entire Siberia was on the whole a country independent of the Romanovs. As a matter of fact there were a number of states.

Only after the victory over 'Pugachev' the Romanovs began to 'place' on the map of Russia the countries' names famous in old Russian history – the countries-provinces of the 'Mongol' Empire [4v2], ch.2:20. For example, Perm and Vyatka. In fact mediaeval Perm is Germany, and mediaeval Vyatka is Italy. These names of the old Imperial provinces were on the Russian coat of arms. After the break-up of the Empire the Romanovs began the re-writing the history of Russia. In particular it was necessary to relocate these names from Western Europe to some place far off, into the wilderness. Which was done. But only after the victory over Pugachev. Notably, it was done rather quickly. The Romanovs began to replace the coats of arms of the Russian cities and regions only in the second half of the XVIII century. On the whole in 1781 [4v1], ch.10:2 and [4v2], ch.2:20. The change of the coats of arms began 6 years after the victory over Pugachev – the last independent Hordian Czar, or the military commander of the Czar of Moscow Tartary.

According to the maps of the XVIII century, the border of Moscow Tartary was very close to Moscow. Such a dangerous proximity greatly concerned the Romanovs. It is possible that it was the reason for Peter the Great to make a decision to relocate the capital further away, to the swampy coasts of the Gulf of Finland. Here the new capital was built – St. Petersburg. This location was convenient for the Romanovs. Now the capital was far away from the Hordian Tartary. Besides, in the case of an invasion from the Siberian-American Horde, it would be easier to flee to the West from St. Petersburg than from Moscow. Mind you, for some reason they didn't fear invasion from the sea to the WEST. In St.Petersburg it is possible to board a ship made ready at the doorstep of the Czar's castle and quickly embark to Western Europe - to friends and relatives, to the historical motherland of the Romanov house.

The official explanation of the Romanovs for relocating the capital of Russia from Moscow to St. Petersburg was not very convincing. They said, that Peter I was 'cutting a window through to Europe', since it was easier to trade from there. But it was possible to trade from the shores of the Gulf of Finland without moving the capital there. They could have simply built a large trading port, and a city next to it. But why did they need to make it the capital of the country?

Furthermore, Siberia becomes a place for the exiled only after the Romanovs' defeat of Pugachev at the end of the XVIII century. Prior to this they exiled people to Solovki, i.e. Solovetsky Archipelago. In any case to the North, but not to Siberia. Let us see when the regular exiles to Siberia began. In particular, Tobolsk became a place of exile only since 1790, when A.N.Radishev was exiled there [797], p.1092; [4v1], ch.11.Since then Tobolsk has become the PERMANENT place of exile. For example, the Decembrists were exiled there. But prior to 1790 over almost the entire XVIII century nobody was exiled to Tobolsk for some reason [4v1]. Ch.11. The vast governmental system of Siberian exile and Siberian hard labour was created only in the XIX century.

Everything is clear. Until the end of the XVIII century the Romanovs could not exile anyone to Siberia simply because SIBERIA DID NOT BELONG TO THEM YET. But it was part of the Russian-Hordian Tartary hostile to the Romanovs. Only having defeated 'Pugachev', the Romanovs got an opportunity to exile the convicts further – to cold Siberia. And even further – to the Far East, to the coast of the Pacific Ocean, to Sakhalin island.

Let's go back to the question of when and how the USA was established. 'During the War of independence of North America in 1775-17983… an independent state – the USA was formed' [797], p.1232. And here we realise, that it SURPRISINGLY COINCIDES WITH THE END OF THE WAR WITH 'PUGACHEV' IN RUSSIA. 'Pugachev' was crushed in 1775. Everything falls into place. 'The War of independence' in North America was the struggle with the weakening Russian Horde. The Romanovs attacked the Horde from the West. And from the East in America - it was attacked by the Americans 'fighting for independence'. Today we are told that the Americans purportedly fought for their 'independence from Britain'. In fact it was a battle for the parcelling of the vast American land of Moscow Tartary left without any central administration. In order not to miss the carve-up, the American troops were eager to get to the West and North-West. George Washington became the first president of the USA in 1776 [796], p.1232. It appears that he became the first new ruler in the American lands of the Russian Horde. The facts of the war with the 'Mongol' Horde were wiped clean from the pages of the textbooks on the American history. As was the fact of the existence of Moscow Tartaria on the whole. The war between the USA and the remains of the Horde continued up until the second half of the XIX century. Alaska, which remained Russian for a particularly long time, was 'bought' from the Romanovs by the Americans only in 1867 [797], p.1232.

Thus, the USA was established in 1776 from the American splinter of the 'Mongol' Empire.


Relatively recently many settlements were discovered in the Southern Urals, of which Arkaim became the most famous [4v1], ch.11. The historians called them proto-cities and dated them to the Bronze era, allegedly to the XVIII-XVI cc. B.C. [33], p.9-10. They inform us that: 'Arkaim is not alone now. The archaeological explorations … brought to light a LARGE GROUP OF SIGNIFICANT SITES SIMILAR TO THE ARKAIM COMPLEX, tentatively noted as a 'COUNTRY OF CITIES' [33], p.11. And further: 'The urbanized character… of the Sintashta-Petrovka settlements was acquired primarily as the centres of manufacturing and distribution of the METAL GOODS… a large percentage of the findings comprised the metalwork instruments and the remains of the METAL PRODUCTION. Almost all the sites have the FIXED METALURGICAL FURNACES, despite the comparatively small uncovered areas [33], p.31.

The great 'antiquity' of these settlements was proclaimed quite recently. As it turns out, the original point of view of those, who discovered those cities, was different. The discoverers considered the cities to be more recent, i.e. closer to us on the timeline [33], p.9.

A clear picture emerges from all this data. The locals didn't see anything particular mysterious in these settlements. They thought them to be the remains of some not very old cities. They are made of wood and compacted soil, so their good preservation itself indicates that not so many years have passed since their creation. It is only later that the enthusiastic worshipers of antiquity baselessly announced the enormous antiquity of these settlements. Pilgrims and tourists became frequent visitors. I.V.Ivanov informs, that 'three to four thousands sightseers, tourists-psychics, members of religious sects, people hungry for knowledge and sometime even seeking cures of ailments, visit the conservation area on a yearly basis, during spring and autumn and make a pilgrimage to Arkaim' [33], p.13.

Most likely, these are the old Cossack settlements-fortresses of the XV-XVIII cc. which were a part of the military fortifications of Moscow Tartary. For a reason they write thus of Arkaim: 'The fortification is worthy of a MEDIAEVAL FORTRESSES' [33], p.25. The comparatively good preservation of Arkaim located in the open steppe, where the winds and the rains raze to the ground the remains of the clay, mud and wooden walls (built of earth packed into timber frames), comes into strong contradiction with the 'heralded antiquity' of these constructions [33], p.24. See [4v1].


It turns out that A.V.Suvorov's distinguished title of 'Count of Rymnik' is not related to the geographical name of 'Rymnik' in Romania, which, as we have discovered, appeared on the map only AFTER Suvorov's victories, but to the old name of the Yaik River (at present the Ural River). It can be seen on the old maps that Yaik also used to have a second, now forgotten name – Rymnik [ShEK], ch.8. And the Urals were also called the Rymnik mountains [ShEK], ch.8. This factor radically changes the traditional belief about A.V.Suvorov's participation in the Pugachev War. It turns out that it was he who defeated Pugachev. The picture of the historical falsification carried out by the Romanovs together with the Western ruling houses becomes increasingly clear.

The history of war against 'Pugachev' as it is known today is a pure invention of the victors – the Romanovs. 'Pugachev's rebellion' was a brutal war between the Romanov Russia and the Siberian-American Russian State. This Kingdom retained the old Russian-Horde customs and had its own czar with his capital in Tobolsk. The Siberian czar was hostile towards the Romanovs, considering them illegitimate rulers of the Western part of Russia.

The Romanovs strived to possess Siberian Muscovy at all costs. They understood very well that the Russian people on the whole didn't support them and many would rather prefer the regime of Tobolsk to the Romanovs' St.Petersburg. That is why the Romanovs turned the very existence of their Siberian neighbour into a national secret. To preserve this secret, the infamous Secret Police was created, where the executioners tortured and hanged those who 'knew too much'.

At the end of the XVIII century a major war began between the Romanov Russia and Siberian Moskovia. At first Ottoman Turkey marched out as an ally of Tobolsk. The Romanovs found themselves in a difficult position: they had to fight on two fronts at once. However on the 10 July 1774 after a series of defeats Turkey signed the peace Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca with the Romanovs which marked their defeat. Essentially it betrayed its ally – the Czar of Tobolsk. Seizing this opportunity in 1774 the Romanovs urgently mobilised their troops from the Turkish front to the Eastern Front.

A.V.Suvorov, who had recently distinguished himself in the battles
with the Turks, stood at the head of these troops. With Suvorov's help, count P.I.Panin, the commander-in-chief of the Eastern Front, defeated the Siberian army of 'Pugachev'. Suvorov personally convoyed the captured 'Pugachev' from Yaik to Simbirsk. He was later brought to Moscow and executed there, after purporting that he was a common Cossack who had rebelled against the rightful rulers – the Romanovs. Most likely, it was in fact some common Cossack who was brought for the execution, but not the real Siberian war chief. It is possible that he was called 'Pugachev'. The true identity of the Siberian leader was probably kept secret by the Romanovs. The two SECRET PANELS which were set up in Kazan and Orenburg in 1773-1774, were in charge of the misrepresentation of the Pugachev war history [988:00], the article 'Pugachevshina'.

Most likely that following their defeat the remnants of the royal court at Tobolsk and its faithful troops fled to China, where they were warmly received by the Emperors of Manchuria, the distant relatives of the Hordian czars of Tobolsk, see our book 'Pegaya Orda'. The Romanovs occupied Siberia, having at first annexed it to the province of Kazan and pretended that 'it had been always been this way'. But soon they began to divide it 'after suddenly realising that it was too big'. Many old Siberian cities were wiped off the face of the earth. The majority of the names present on the maps of Siberia in the XVIII century are not there in the XIX century anymore. When the archaeologists unearthed the remnants of the Siberian cities destroyed in the XVIII century, instead of reconstructing the true history of Siberia, they declared their findings to be extremely ancient. The perfect example of this is Arkaim in the Urals, (see above).

In 1775 for the victory over Moscow Tartary Suvorov was presented with the most luxurious and expensive award among those he had received – a diamond encrusted sword. Much to everyone's delight, it was not held a secret at that point. The Romanovs happily celebrated their victory over their severe Siberian neighbour. The victory came to the Romanovs at a price and they spared neither expense nor rewards for their victorious generals-victors.

Later however, the time came when they had to give an account of the history of the war on paper, to canonize the version for the posterity. And here they faced a difficulty. As the Romanovs were persistently hiding the very existence of their Siberian neighbour, depicting that Siberia had always belonged to them. That is why a decision was made to present the war with Tobolsk as an allegedly comparatively easy fight of government troops with a rebellious mob. Purporting, that the rebels' ringleader was a common Cossack Yemelyan Pugachev. When presented in such a light, Suvorov's achievements in defeating 'Pugachev' were an obstacle. It was clear, that a great military commander should not be fighting a crowd of ignorant peasants. He had much greater tasks, and the suppression of peasant revolts was a responsibility of the second-rate military commanders. That is why they presented the matter the following way.

Allegedly 'Pugachev' was defeated by an unknown lieutenant-colonel Michelsohn, who was made promoted to colonel for his achievement. Suvorov, they said, had nothing to do with it. He was called to the Eastern front by mistake, due to P.I.Panin's panic. Suvorov, they said, had absolutely nothing to do there. So in the end he did not fight against Pugachev.

The precious sword received by Suvorov for defeating Pugachev was clearly an obstacle to the falsifiers of history. As it bore witness to the fact that it was Suvorov who defeated Pugachev and that his victory was not came at a price. That is why they presented it as if the sword was awarded to him as reward for the success in the Turkish war and not for the victory over Pugachev. And they preferred to forget altogether about Panin's sword [ShEK], ch.8.

Some might ask why did Suvorov receive the title of Count of Rymnik rather than 'Count of Yaik' or 'Count of Ural' for the victory at Yaik=Rymnik. As Rymnik is the OLD name of Yaik. During the times of Suvorov this river was already called the Yaik river, and after 'Pugachev's' defeat it was renamed into the Ural river.

The probable reason is that in the Suvorov's epoch, under Catherine the Great, it was the 'ancient' geographical names that were very much in fashion. Thus after the annexation of Crimea in 1787 Grigory Potemkin started to be called Potemkin-Tavricheski, and not Potemkin-Crymski. Though Crimea in those days was already called Crimea, but not Tavria. But for the honorary title they used the 'ancient' name – Tavria. Incidentally in those times many cities in the Russian Empire were either called or re-named in the 'ancient style'. For example, Feodosia (instead of the Mediaeval Kaffa), Sevastopol, Odessa, etc. It's not surprising that Suvorov also received his title 'Count of Rymnik' according to the 'ancient' name of the place, where he won his victory.

Some might like to object. They might say that the old name of the Yaik river as Rymnik is just a random coincidence with name of a small river Rymnik in Moldavia (present day Romania). Purporting that this coincidence proves nothing. Everyone knows that Suvorov became the Count of Rymnik precisely for his victory by the Romanian river Rymnik, and not at Yaik.

However, is it true, that the battle of 1789 in fact took place at Rymnik? Such is the exact coincidence in the names of two rivers in a different place – where both of the rivers are closely connected with Suvorov – seem to be improbable. Of course, it is impossible to argue the fact that nowadays there is in fact a river there called Rymnik in the place where Suvorov won his victory in 1789. It is marked on the modern maps. The question is – WAS IT CALLED THAT DURING THE BATTLE ITSELF? Or was this name craftily attached to some obscure river flowing through the battlefield ALREADY AFTER THE BATTLE. Aiming to replace the true reason for awarding Suvorov with the title of 'Count of Rymnik', and to pretend that he received this title not for the victory over Pugachev at Yaik=Rymnik, but for a different victory?

Our suspicion increases by the fact, that the Austrians who fought together with the Russians against the Turks and took part in the same battle 'at Rymnik', as it turned out, referred to it not as the 'Battle of Rymnik', but the 'Battle of Martinesti' [668:1], p.148.

Let us turn to the old maps of the XVII-XVIII cc. and see what geographical names were there at that time in the location of the 'Battle of Rymnik' of 1789? Is there any 'Rymnik' among them?

We examined hundreds of various maps including those from the book [912:2a], containing the reproductions of over 300 old maps of Russia and its vicinities of the XVII-XVIII cc. It turned out that NONE OF THE OLD MAPS KNOWN TO US CONTAIN ANY TRACES OF THE NAME 'RYMNIK' IN THE LOCATION OF THE BATTLE OF RYMNIK IN MOLDAVIA. But Fokshany, situated very close, where another important battle of 1789 took place and where Suvorov also gained a spectacular victory, was indeed marked on some of the maps of that time. Fokshany was indicated, but Rymnik was not! Notably, in the location of contemporary 'Rymnik' a number of old maps indicate another name close to that of 'Rymnik', but still essentially different from it – 'RYBNIK' [ShEK], ch.8.

But then we begin to understand the 'cookery' of the Rymnik forgery. It was carried out by the Romanovs' historians rather intelligently. They have studied the geographical situation in the vicinity of Suvorov's victories of 1789 trying to find a name similar to 'Rymnik'. It turned out that on some old maps not far from those locations, the town of 'Rybnik' was indicated. That was sufficient to publicly announce that Suvorov, 'Count of Rymnik' received his title precisely for the victory of 1789. The indication on the old maps for the place 'Rymnik' illustrates only a slip of the pen by cartographers, they say. For greater authenticity a small river flowing through the battlefield was renamed as 'Rymnik' [ShEK], ch.8.

Thus, the name 'Rymnik' emerges on the map of Moldavia (present day Romania) only due to the Romanov's forgers. They made sure to depict Suvorov's battle with the Turks in 1789 as that very Battle of Rymnik for which he received the important title of 'Count of Rymnik'. But the real battle took place in 1744 at Yaik=Rymnik. During this battle Suvorov and Panin defeated 'Pugachev's' Siberian army, and by doing so they rendered an invaluable service to the Romanov dynasty. Hence the title and many other honours they generously showered Suvorov with. For example, they began to erect the monument to Suvorov in Petersburg by royal authority of the Emperor Paul I of Russia during the lifetime of the commander. Suvorov was buried in the most important place of honour - in Alexander Nevsky Lavra, in a special burial vault designated only for relatives and close friends.


During the epoch of Peter I the relations between Romanov Russia and the vast Moscow Tartary became especially tense. Fearing the restoration of the Horde's regime in Central Russia, the Romanovs transferred their capital to distant Petersburg, which was especially built by Peter I
for this purpose. The former capital – Moscow, which was still associated in the minds of many people with Horde of the XIV-XVI cc., was assigned the role of a second-rate city [4v].

Peter I and his circle didn't like Moscow and everything connected with it. Here is an interesting detail conveyed by the French courtier Leboise. He accompanied Peter's court in Paris 1717. In his report to the French King, Leboise wrote: 'The word 'Muscovite' and even 'Muscovia' are deeply insulting for this entire court' [514], v.2, p.283.

It is clear, that a heavy political gloom was to descend onto Moscow and Moscow Kremlin. This is the exact picture that emerges from the documents of the XVIII [TsRS], ch.9.

The Romanovs not only abandoned the old Russian-Horde Kremlin of Moscow=Jerusalem, but decided to mock deride it as 'Mongol' relics. For example, they sent their jesters with their 'weddings' into the Palace of the Facets (Granovitaya Palata). Let them have fun, they said. Let us see how exactly the Romanov's buffoons and their friends danced, drank and joked in the heart of the former capital of Russia-Horde = Biblical Israel.


Everything is clear. The West European 'scholars' who had swarmed across Romanov Russia (especially after Peter cut a window through into enlightened Europe, which was impressed on all of us multiple times) not only clowned around in the Russian Horde cathedrals, but also were destroying the vulnerable Hordian relics of antiquity, revelling in impunity. In particular they lime washed the old frescos in Kremlin. Later, post factum, they declared them to be extremely dilapidated. Purporting that there was nothing left to do but to lime wash them. It became clean and beautiful there. The old Russian pictures ceased to annoy the delicate Latin taste.

It is astonishing that the Romanovs abused the Moscow Kremlin up until the beginning of the XIX c inclusively. Hence one can see how great was their irritation with the former Hordian traditions and memories connected with Moscow and its Kremlin. It came to a point where in the beginning of the XIX century the Romanov administration practically exposed Kremlin to thieves and cheats! IN KREMLIN THERE APPEARED 'NESTS OF THIEVES' AND 'HOUSES OF DEBAUCHERY' [TsRS], ch.9.


There are a lot of preconceptions attached to Chinese history. Today it is thought that it is exceptionally ancient, that its dating is absolutely reliable, that in many ways it precedes European history. The common misconception is that allegedly Chinese chronology is solidly based on various 'Ancient Chinese' astronomical notes, which allow us to unequivocally date the 'Ancient Chinese' events.

We analyse the Chinese astronomy and history in [5v2], [PRRK], PVAT]. We show that dating the first astronomical observations in China to allegedly the sixth millennium BC is a serious error, as the alleged reference to the sunspots on the Chinese crockery of allegedly the fourth millennium BC. The Chinese astronomy of allegedly the second millennium BC on the shells and turtle shells also belong to the same phantoms. As it becomes clear, the FIRST observatories and astronomical permanent service appeared in China not earlier than the XIX century.

THE MOST ANCIENT Chinese horoscope of the grandson of the Yellow (Huangdi) Emperor Xuanyan-shi (who allegedly ruled in 2637-2597 B.C.) in fact dates to the 6th March 1725 according to Julian calendar, i.e. the XVIII century!

It appears that the EARLIEST Chinese Yellow Emperor who introduced the epoch of the 'Great Beginning' in China is the first Manchurian dynasty Shì-Tzu-Zhang-Huángdì Shun-Chih (1644-1662), i.e. lived in the XVII century, and not at all in the 'deepest antiquity'.

The astronomical facts prove, that the MOST ANCIENT (Chinese 60-year calendar cycle) was in fact introduced for the first time not until the XIII century.

It turns out that the MOST ANCIENT Chinese solar eclipse under the Emperor Zhòng Kāng in the beginning of the Xia dynasty (who ruled allegedly in 2100-1600 B.C.) occurred on the 1st September 1644, the year of the accession of the Manchurian dynasty. Which means that the history of the Chinese solar eclipses begins only from the XVII century, and not at all in the 'deepest past'.

Furthermore, it turns out that the data about the Chinese lunar eclipses fails to either affirm, or contest any kind of chronology of China. It is absolutely useless for the purpose of the astronomical dating.

We have devoted a large section in [5v2] to the Chinese comets – the most important backbone of the Chinese chronology. We have studied the Chinese comet catalogues in detail. To conclude:

1) The only comet, based on which it could have been possible to try and attempt to prove the validity of the Chinese chronology, is Halley's Comet. The rest of the comets are absolutely useless for the verification of the chronology of China as well as of any other ancient chronology.

2) The information about the appearances of Halley's Comet in the Chinese chronicles earlier than the XV century turned out to be falsified. We have shown that they were fabricated in the XVIII-XIX cc.. This is not just our hypothesis, but a firm statement [5v2], ch.5. However we do not claim that all the Chinese records referring today to Halley's Comet were falsified. It would be enough to fabricate just ONE or TWO OBSERVATIONS of Halley's Comet for the indicated forgery. The forgery was carried out most likely between 1759 and 1835.

The early history of China up until the XV century is in fact the history of Europe, Mediterranean, including Byzantium. The historical chronicles narrating about Europe were brought to China by the Hordian conquerors not until the XIV-XV cc.

Later, after the XVII century, in China these chronicles were erroneously understood as giving an account of allegedly 'ancient Chinese history'. It was easy to make a mistake particularly because in China for writing they used hieroglyphs, i.e. simply pictures.

This type of writing was apparently brought to China from Egypt, possibly as early as in the XII-XIII cc. The understanding of the pictures-hieroglyphs intrinsically depends on the language. The same hieroglyphs are read entirely differently depending on who is reading them: a Chinese, a Japanese, a Vietnamese, etc.

The proper nouns are represented by the hieroglyphs by way of finding similar sounding hieroglyphs IN THE APPLIED LANGUAGE. Hence the spelling, and therefore the reading, contemporary to us, of an old Chinese name considerably depends on who exactly translated ORIGINALLY into the hieroglyphic script: a Japanese, a Chinese or a Korean …

Besides, the language evolves too. A name which used to sound one way would acquire a completely different sound in several hundreds of years in the evolved language – even if the HIEROGLYPHS, which it was written with, remained the same.


Today it is thought that construction started on the Great Wall of China in the III century B.C. for the purpose of defence against the Northern nomads [5v1]. We would like to suggest the following idea.

The Great Wall of China was most likely built as a construction defining the BORDER BETWEEN TWO COUNTRIES: China and Russia. It could have certainly been intended as a military fortification, but it is hardly true that the wall was used in that particular capacity. It is pointless to defend a 4000 kilometres wall [5v1], ch.6 from the attack of an enemy. Even if it stretches over 'just' one or two thousand kilometres. The wall in its present form falls short of four thousand kilometres.

The wall was built first of all to MARK THE BORDER BETWEEN TWO COUNTRIES, notably when they came to an agreement about the border. Presumably, to eliminate any boundary disputes in the future. And such disputes most likely did occur. Today agreed parties draw the border on a map i.e. on paper. And consider it to be sufficient. In the case of Russia and China the Chinese placed such an emphasis on this agreement that they decided to cement it not just on paper, but also 'afield', constructing the wall according to the agreed boundary. It was safer this way and, according to the Chinese, would eliminate any boundary disputes for a long time. The length of the wall itself speaks in favour of our hypothesis. Four or one-two thousand kilometres is normal for the border between two countries. But as for the purely military construction – absolutely pointless.

But the political border of China changed frequently over the duration of its allegedly more than two thousand years history. The historians are telling us so. China has united, then broke into separate regions, then lost and acquired some lands.

We can date the construction of the Wall. If we succeed in finding a political and geographical map, where the BORDER OF CHINA GOES EXACTLY ALONG THE GREAT WALL, this would mean, that IT WAS EXACTLY THAT TIME, WHEN THE WALL WAS BUILT.

Let us try to find such a map. Such maps do exist. There are a lot of them. These are the maps of the XVII-XVIII cc. For example, the map of Asia of the XVIII century, produced by the Royal Academy in Amsterdam [1019]. We can find two states on the map: Tartary – Tartarie and China – Chine. See fig.93 and fig.94 [5v1], ch.6. The Northern border of China follows approximately the 40th parallel. THE WALL OF CHINA PRECISELY FOLLOWS THIS BORDER. Moreover, on the map the Wall is marked with a thick line and signed Muraille de la Chine, i.e. the 'tall wall of China' - translated from French.

In [5v1] we present a number of such maps. It all means that the Great Wall of China was built in XVI-XVII cc. as the political boundary between China and Russia = 'Mongol Tartary'.

Some may object: on the contrary, the border between Russia and China in the XVII century was drawn along the ancient Wall. However in this case the Wall should have been referred to in the written Russian-Chinese agreement. We haven't found such references.

So when was the Wall=Border constructed? It appears as precisely in the XVII century. It is for a reason considered that its construction 'completed' only in 1620 [544], v.6, p.121. And it might be even later [5v].

Did the Wall exist earlier than the XVII century? Most likely not. The historians tell us that China was conquered by the 'Mongols' in 1279. It became a part of the Great Empire. According to the New Chronology this took place in the XIV century [4v1], ch.2. In the Scaligerian chronology of China this event was marked in the XIV century as the MING dynasty ascending to power in 1368, i.e. the very same MONGOLS.

As we understand it now in the XIV-XVI cc. RUSSIA AND CHINA STILL COMPRISED ONE EMPIRE. Therefore there was no need to erect a Wall = Border. Such necessity emerged after the Time of Troubles in Russia, the defeat of the Russian Horde dynasty and the seizure of power by the Romanovs. They have changed the political course of Russia, subjecting the country to the western influence. Such orientation of the new dynasty led to the break of the Empire. Turkey broke off, the severe wars began with Turkey. In fact control over a substantial part of America was lost. In the very end even Alaska was lost, the last Hordian splinter in America.

China became independent. The relations between China and the Romanovs became tense and the border conflicts began. It was necessary to erect the Wall, which was carried out, most likely during the boundary disputes of the XVII century. The military conflicts flared up since the middle of the XVII century. The wars proceeded with variable success [5v1], ch.6. The descriptions of the wars survive in Khabarov's letters.

The beginning of the certain history of China (on its present day territory) falls only in the epoch of the Manchurian dynasty coming to power. I.e. the Mongol dynasty originated from Russia. The dynasty was either Russian of Tatar.

As late as in the XVIII century it was common to write MANZHOURY [5v1], ch.6, and not the 'Manchu' of today. I.e. MANGURY or MANGULY, as in China the sounds 'L' and 'R' are often indistinguishable. Thus the very name of MANZHOURY points to their origin. They were the 'MONGOLS' = the magnificent.

Incidentally, this border – the XVII century separating the epoch of the Manzhourian domination in China from the 'purely Chinese' period preceding it – coincides with the dating of the most ancient Chinese manuscripts which survive until the present day. To remind you, they date to not earlier than the XVII century [544], v.6, p.119.

The Manzhourian = 'Mongolian' rulers of China are known to consider themselves the successors of the vast Empire, which according to them spanned the entire world. If their kingdom was the splinter of the Golden Horde, then such a perception is understandable. But from the Scaligerian point of view, that before conquering China, the Manchu was a savage peoples who lived somewhere near the Northern Chinese border, the absurd pomposity of the Manchu sovereigns becomes not just strange, but without parallel in world history either.