A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 9.



In [1v], ch.1:13.1 and [TsRIM], ch.9 we tell about the excavations in Central Russia conducted by the Romanov archaeologists of the XIX century. In particular in 1851-1854 count A.S.Uvarov, who today is mistakenly called an archaeologist, in the land of Vladimir and Suzdal excavated 7729 mounds. SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY NINE! It is reported: 'On entering the items to the Rumyantsevsky museum (re: the excavations of 1851-1854 – Author) they presented all in all a CHAOTIC PILE OF STUFF, as there was no accompanying inventory notes specifying which mound each item originated from. Mr.Uvarov AT A LATER DATE compiled an inventory of the entire collection, however using just the excavation reports and PARTIALLY BY MEMORY. The grandiose excavations of 1851-1854 in the Suzdal region WILL BE GREATLY MOURNED BY SCIENCE FOR A LONG TIME and will serve as a dreadful premonition for all the enthusiasts of MASS EXCAVATIONS. So much sadder is the LOSS OF THE VLADIMIR MOUNDS in that they present the ONLY material to answer the question about which Russian tribe in particular laid the foundation of the Velikorossy (The Great Russians – in the Pre-Soviet time the Russians were officially called Velikorossy (Great Russia), the Ukranians – Malorossy (Little Russia), the Belorussian were called the same name as today the Belorussian (White Russia) – Translator's note) … THE LOSS OF THESE MOUNDS CANNOT BE COMPENSATED BY ANYTHING' [305:0], p.89-90.

There were some days, when UP TO 80 OR MORE MOUNDS WERE OPENED UP. That was not the scientific research, but a deliberate demolition. Our analysis allows us to state the following:

# Count A.S.Uvarov and P.S.Saveliev over a period of at least four years in the middle of the XIX century organised and headed a deliberate destruction of the old Russian-Horde mounds in Central Russia, authorized by the Imperial Edict. I.e. at the very heart of the former 'Mongol Empire'.

# The Russian-Horde mounds were mercilessly razed to the ground and the burials inside them were destroyed there and then. Hundreds of workers were summoned for the purpose. There was no trace of any 'scientific research' there.

# Almost no detailed documents reporting on this pogrom survive. They 'disappeared' mysteriously. A few of them which are presented to us today were written post factum.

# A small amount of unearthed items were preserved for the museums. So there was something to demonstrate and to give an account for. Purporting, that these were the results of their meticulous scientific activities. Alleging, that they have found something nonetheless, though really not a lot. Most of the genuine findings which could tell us a lot about our history, were destroyed straight away in the field. Or hidden in the deep storages.

Today we cannot even imagine how many mounds turned out to exist in Russia. THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS were destroyed by the Romanovs administrators. Nevertheless in the XIX century there was still a lot left. For example, 'Mr.Nefyodov who opened up one mound in the same area and reporting that he counted up to 200 mounds over the distance of 3 versts (0.6629 mile – Tr.)' [305:0], p.93. But soon they got to them too. Needless to say they were all ruthlessly razed to the ground.

Only vague rumours reached out time and recollections of some numerous mounds along Tver downstream of Volga, the mounds of Uglich, the mounds of Murom, etc. [305:0], p.94-95. Where are they now? They are gone. No trace of them. Not afield, not in the documents. Where are the findings unearthed from them?

CONCLUSION. In the second half of the XIX century the Romanov administrators, archaeologists and historians destroyed many thousands of the Russian-Horde burial mounds. Most likely they were razed to the ground deliberately in order to conceal the traces of the true history of the XIII-XVI cc. Today we are being cynically told with a wry smile: you see, there are no mounds and opulent burials in Russia, our history is poor, doesn't come close to the history of the West, the East, the North or the South.


To support the version of Scaliger-Petavius in Europe there was created a 'scientific school of history', which 'adjusted accordingly' all the documents that came to its attention. After the main body of the conflicting documents were either destroyed or edited, the 'odd' documents emerging from time to time were interpreted as 'Mediaeval ignorance'. Until now the main body of the documents which the modern historical version is based on are comprised of the Western-European texts. They have all undergone the editing of the XVII-XVIII cc. – a fact which is often concealed. On the other hand the Old Russian, Turkic and Arabic primary sources occupy only a supportive secondary place in the history science. They allegedly contain 'a lot of nonsense'. We are told that you should approach them carefully. In fact they are not being edited as thoroughly.'

Most thoroughly the reformers worked on the history of the XV-XVI cc. Due to the clear reasons – this is the epoch of the rise of the 'Mongol' Empire. There is almost nothing left from the true history of that epoch in the history textbooks. The empty space which was freed up was to be urgently filled up. This filling was taken place in the offices of the historians of the XVII-XVIII cc. That is why it is not surprising that the epoch of the XV-XVI cc. to a great extent is populated by phantoms, the reflections of the events descended here from the XVI-XVII cc. Any falsifier either consciously or subconsciously uses imagery from the surrounding reality. The books of the allegedly XVI century were printed or re-printed in the XVII-XVIII cc. The false dates of the XVI or even the XV cc. were deliberately stamped on them. The great examples of this are the Bibles, see in [6v]. Another great example is Ptolemy's Almagest [3v1], and also his Geography [6v2], ch.7. Many of the authentic books of the XV-XVI cc. had a clear 'Imperial stamp' on them. For example the dedication to the Russian Emperor-Khan. Naturally it was all eliminated in the re-prints of the XVII-XVIII cc. Everything concerning the former Imperial history was edited in the texts.

The history of Western Europe was presented this way. The Russian-Horde khan was declared exclusively the Western-European 'Habsburg Austrian Emperor'. Thus the many deeds of the entire Great Empire was automatically attributed only to Western Europe. The major historical facts – for example, the existence of the Emperor in Europe, the former unity of Europe under his rule, a strong Slavic presence in Europe, etc. – partially remained on the pages of the textbooks. But their presentation was significantly distorted [7v1], ch.1.

The Western rulers of the XVI century, remaining faithful to the 'Mongol' Empire were declared reactionary. For instance, Duke of Alba (Fernando A'lvarez de Toledo, duque de...; 1507-1582), the 'Spanish commander, the Governor of Netherland' [797], p.44. is treated as a monster, who 'drowned the progressive liberation movement in blood'. This 'Dyak Belo-Rus' (whose name was later on pronounced as Duke Alba-Rus, i.e. Duke Alva-Rez) was most likely one of the governors of the Empire fighting the Reformation. In fig.106 we show the title page of a book called 'THE MIRROR OF THE SPANISH TYRANNY' allegedly first published in 1596. The Duke of Alba and Don Juan of Austria were depicted as the main tyrants 'brutally supressing progress'. On top above them the publishers placed a portrait of a 'very bad king' Philipp II. The book represented a very important study guide for the education of the Europeans of the XVI-XVII cc. in the required spirit. On the title page there is a clear picture of the bad rulers torturing the good people. The book was re-published in 1620 and 1638 [330], v.3.

Here is what the Encyclopaedia says of the King Philipp II of Spain (1527-1598): 'His policy promoted the strengthening of the Spanish AUTOCRACY'. HE INTENSIFIED OPPRESSION IN THE NETHERLANDS. He supported the inquisition' [797], p.1406. On the whole, a bad ruler. A great oppressor.


Where do we know the works of the 'ancient' writers from? Here is a detailed review by professor V.V.Bolotov in the 'Lectures on the history of the ancient church' [83]. Technically he touches upon only the sources concerning the history of the church. But the great majority of the mediaeval texts, in one way or another concerned church history. In general the Scaligerian version is built primarily on the church sources [72], [76].

In the history of the print publications of the 'ancient' sources, what stands out is the fact that from the very beginning they were not disconnected or random, the way it should be under the normal course of events when, with the rise of publishing, certain books which were copied beforehand, began to be published. In one place someone should have published one book. In another place another publisher should have independently printed another book. And so on. Only later there appear digesters who collect separate publications and on that basis publish the FUNDAMENTAL MULTIVOLUME COLLECTIONS. Contrary to that, if the ancient falsified history and the old texts are edited and forged accordingly, then the picture of the published editions most likely will be the reverse. I.e. immediately there would be published multivolume editions of the 'correct books'. Where they would be published in one or two centres, but not randomly. Each centre would focus on one strand. In order to easier control the falsification. And then, based on such an officially approved body of publications, there would emerge isolated editions, which would be reprints of certain individual books allowed by the censors.

It is the second scenario that we witness when we see the publishing of the 'ancient' texts of the XVII-XIX cc. [83]. As it's clear now, we see an organised forgery. For example, 'the writings of the holy fathers and the ecclesiastical writers FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WERE PUBLISHED AS MULTIVOLUME EDITIONS' [83], v.1, p.118. In the middle of the XIX century came out 'The Patrologia' by the French priest J.P.Migne comprising of several hundred volumes: 221 volumes of the Latin writers and 161 of the Greek writers. Since then all the researchers mainly use the Migne's publication as the manuscripts and earlier publications as a rule are either inaccessible or 'inconvenient' [83], v.1, p.119.

A logical question is: based on what sources did priest Migne publish his 'The Patrologia'? Apparently he simply republished the editions of the XVII-XVIII cc. produced by the Benedictine order [83], v.1, p.120. He republished it in a more convenient, contemporary format. 'The value of Migne's 'The Patrologia' first of all is that it is practical and easy to use. Migne freed the world from the tomes of the Benedictine monks, which were very uncomfortable to use, incidentally due to the enormous format… He would usually take the best Benedictine edition ... when necessary adding the works (published by the later scientists) lacking the Benedictine holy fathers which was published by the later scientists' [83], v.1, p.120.

Consequently, the PRIMARY SOURCE is not Migne's publication, but the Benedictine one. Migne simply republished it. The Benedictines on the other hand didn't just reprint the ancient manuscripts. It is well known that THEY FUNDAMENTALLY CORRECTED IT. For example, 'if a holy father cited a place from the Scripture DISCORDANT with the Vatican canons, the Benedictine considered such a place to be an error and 'CORRECTED IT PEACEFULLY' either according to the Sistine edition of the Bible (in the writings of the Greek Fathers) or according to Vulgata versio (in the writings of the Latin Fathers)' [83], v.1, p.121.

To conclude, in the XVII-XVIII cc. in one and the same centre, and only there, the Benedictines fundamentally edited and published all the writings of the holy fathers of the Church. In particular, the Benedictines would check all the quotations according to the Bible. When the quotations differ from the contemporary Bible they would 'adjust them'. It is not surprising that when opening today any edition of the old text quoting the Bible we will see that the quotations correspond to the contemporary Biblical canon. And we begin to think that the canon existed exactly like this for a very-very long time. As it is being quoted so accurately by the 'ancient' authors. BUT IN FACT IT IS A FAKE. As we read not the original old text, but its adaptation by the Benedictine monks. If not altogether a forgery of the XVII-XIX cc. This refers to not just one or two, but THOUSANDS of the old texts. The amount of the volumes itself published by Migne 'based on the Benedictines' – there are almost 400 of such volumes! – shows the scale of 'activity'.

If the manufacturing of the writings by the holy fathers was assigned to the Benedictines, then the publication of the Lives of the Saints was entrusted to the Jesuit order of Bollandists. These are the 'Flemish Jesuits headed by Bolland, who died in 1665' [83], v.1, p.136, 137. From 1643 to 1794 there were 53 volumes of 'The Lives' published. I.e. one central monopoly was established in regards to this ecclesiastical historical direction.

As we can see 'the manufacturing of the true history' was assigned to several departments simultaneously. One was specialising in the history of the church. Another – in the descriptions of the lives. And so on. Supposedly they would have meetings of the 'historic departments' where their work would be coordinated. The further instructions would be given…

The leaders of the 'historic project' would work on the most important cases themselves. For instance, 'The Chronicle' by Eusebius Pamphili for which 'the Greeks ACCORDING TO THE TRADITION LOST the Greek original' [83], v.1, p.145, was 'reconstructed' by Scaliger personally. Though the historians say, that Scaliger only 'attempted to restore' the Chronicle. But he allegedly failed. So he gave it up. But later in 1787 the Chronicle by Eusebius Pamphili was 'found' anyway. In the Armenian translation. I.e. it was found a hundred years later after Scaliger 'attempted to restore' the text by Eusebius Pamphili. It is most likely that in 1787 they found a text written by Scaliger himself. And immediately declared it the 'original' Chronicle by Eusebius Pamphili. The suspicions of forgery increase by the look itself of the 'discovered Chronicle'. It was written allegedly on parchment which was very valuable due to its high cost. At the same time the chronological tables by 'Eusebius Pamphili' look exactly like the tables published by the Scaligerian school in the XVII-XVIII cc. The pages take the form of numerous vertical columns. Each of them related to the chronology of a single country or a certain 'stream of events'. Notably almost all the space on the parchment remained apparently EMPTY, as there were few known events. As Bolotov points out, the scribes could hardly correctly copy the text in such a format over the period of 600 years [83], v.1, p.145. It's all clear. Such a format of the tables emerged only in the XVII century. The genuine Chronicle by Eusebius Pamphili (which did probably exist, but in some other form) was most likely destroyed. And in its place they offered us a forgery of the XVII century.

This 'activity' is by no means inoffensive. Apparently 'around THREE QUARTERS OF THOSE DATES WHICH THE HISTORIANS HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION
FOR THE CORRESPONDING PERIOD OF TIME ORIGINATE FROM THE CHRONICLE BY Eusebius Pamphili [83], v.1, p.151. I.e. as we understand, they are based on the dating which was suggested by Scaliger in the XVIII century without any proof. Today these dates remain unfounded.


History and chronology turned into a powerful ideological weapon with lasting effect, successfully used against Russia and Turkey. It disorientated, disabled the opposition, changed the value system, and imbedded an inferiority complex. In the XVII century there was made an attempt to divide Russia-Horde into many small states. But afterwards many of them still merged around the former centre. The Romanov Empire appeared. Starting from the XVII-XVIII cc. the idea of the cultural superiority of Western Europe over Russian and Turkey is being enforced. For example the German historians of the late XIX century, the authors of the multivolume 'History of humankind' openly write in a chapter under the eloquent name (expressively called) 'The Russian antagonism towards civilization': 'The mistake of the (Russian – Author) people was that it WAS ACCUSTOMED TO ROUGHNESS, accepted it as its NATIONAL IDENTITY and stopped understanding the value of culture… Russia, who should have had hundreds of Higher Schools, doesn't want to do anything for itself and purposefully kept its population in ignorance… The foreigners who find themselves in Russia look down on the Russian people due to their cultural backwardness…The Russian people were poor and always remained this way as they were uneducated. ..Russia desperately needs another Peter the Great who could forcibly TEAR IT AWAY from the primordial gloom. Russia, instead, due to its ANIMOSITY TOWARDS CULTURE earned itself more than one fierce enemy' [336], v.5, p.599-601.

Pan-Turkism has deep roots in the very same Great Empire. This is the memory of the peoples of the Turkic languages that at some stage, not so long ago, they were a part of the united Empire. The Turks left Russia-Horde and on the wave of the 'Mongol' conquest settled all over Eurasia. In Russia the Turkic, Tatar language was spread much wider than today, but the Romanovs supressed it heavily. Despite that there still remain many Turkic speaking peoples in Russia now.

The question frequently arises – where does Russia refer to: Europe or Asia? Both Europe and Asia were in their time conquered by Russia-Horde. That is why many 'purely Eastern' customs are simply the forgotten Russian-Hordian ones. Both Europe and Asia were a part of the Russian-Ottoman Empire. The population of the provinces to a great extent – the native nobility in particular – consisted of the descendants of the Russian-Hordian conquerors of the XIII-XIV cc. Russia-Horde successfully oriented towards both West and East. Trade was organised between the East and the West, which took place in Russia. The taxes from this trade went to the treasury of the Empire. Such was the indirect, gentle way of tax collection of the entire Empire. This is one example of how Russia manipulated its geographical position between the East and the West and its influence over them to its advantage. Russia is neither the East nor the West. Russia has its own history which greatly differs from the history of its neighbours. Having been, together with the Ottoman Empire, the master of the Eurasia and the significant part of America, it had close connections with both the East and the West. It's not a coincidence that the two-headed eagle was always a Russian emblem. It looked both to the East and to the West.

The idea of the wars of religion emerged in the epoch of the Reformation as a concept of destroying a unified state. The visionaries of the split in the XVI-XVII cc. understood it very well and used it 'in practice'. They began to advocate the separation from the 'Mongol' Empire, referring allegedly to the religious tensions. But the religious policy of the Empire formerly was very different. There reigned the principle of religious tolerance and state's non-interference into the sphere of the religious matters. In the czardom there co-existed various branches of the original unified Christianity, each being under the protection of the czar-khan. But this didn't lead to the religious wars until the Reformation revolt erupted at the end of the XVI-XVII cc. Religious slogans were used for the first time to split the united czardom.

Orthodox Christianity and Islam split later than it is common to believe. These two branches of the originally united religion retained their close affinity the longest. The various traces of their closeness in the XV-XVI cc. can be found in many documents. Particularly, in Turkey and Iran. Opposing Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism on one hand to Islam on the other is a manoeuvre successfully used in order to play off Russia against Turkey in the XVII-XVIII cc. Once again a form of the west's struggle against Russia-Horde.

Here is an example of the role of the language and culture in the history of a nation. As we understand it now the contemporary population of Germany are descendants of the Slavs who were the conquerors of the XIII-XIV cc. They spoke Slavonic at some point, but now they speak a different language. It is impossible to preserve a people, having changed its language and its culture. This will become a different people. The more the new language and the new culture would be removed from the former ones, the more the new nation would differ from the former one. Such programs are being realised via educating the youth at school.


We discovered that the 'emperors of the Western-Roman Empire', i.e. the Habsburgs up until the XVI century turned out to be merely the phantom reflections of the Great Russian czars-khans who ruled until the end of the XVI century in Western Europe. All the Western-European rulers were the vassals of them in particular. Only after the victory of the Reformation the Western governors found themselves at the head of the independent states which formed in Europe (Germany, France, England, Spain, Italy, etc.).

Of course, it was impossible to completely wipe out the 'former' dependence from the Russian czars-khans. Noticeable traces remained in Western history purportedly as purely formal vassal dependence of all, or nearly all the Western rulers from the Habsburg, the Emperor of the Western Roman Empire. It is true though, that a certain oddity remained. This dependence which lasted several hundred years suddenly disappears in the XVII century without a trace. And this is understandable. The Austrian rulers were simply 'appointed' by the rebellious Western Europe of the XVI-XVII cc. to play the part of an old Imperial dynasty. Though in the XVII century the status of the Austrian Habsburg was no different from, let's say, the French or the English Kings.

The Habsburg of the XIV-XVI cc. was on the other hand the almighty Russian czar-khan ruling in Veliky Novgorod – Yaroslavl. He truly was the Emperor for all the governors – the kings and the dukes of the West. And not just formally – as it is presented today in the Scaligerian history of the Habsburgs – but the real sovereign of the single superpower. Only the late Habsburgs: from the late XVI to the early XVII cc. are the Western rulers of Austria. Which emerged as one of the splinters of the 'Mongol' Empire.

Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. and the Czar-Grad kingdom of the XI – the early XIII cc. are crucial for practically all 'ancient' Scaligerian history. Here is a list of the main phantom reflections of the Russian czars-khans of the 1276-1600.

1) The 'ancient' Russian history of allegedly the X-XIII cc.

2) The Habsburg Empire of 1273-1600.

3) The Holy Roman Empire of allegedly the X-XIII cc.

4) The 'ancient' Kingdom of Israel, according to the Bible.

5) The 'ancient' Kingdom of Judah, according to the Bible.

6) The Third Roman empire allegedly of the III-VI cc.

7) The Second Roman Empire allegedly of the I century BC – III century.

8) The Czar Rome = The First Roman empire allegedly of the VIII-VI cc. BC.

9) The 'Zero' Byzantine Empire allegedly of the 330-553 and the first half of the First Byzantine Empire allegedly of the 553-700.

10) The first half of the Byzantine Empire allegedly of the 830-980.

11) The first half of the Third Byzantine Empire allegedly of 1150- 1300.

12) The history of Mediaeval England allegedly of the 400-1327.

13) The Empire of the Carolingian Empire allegedly of the 680-890.

The proponents of today's accepted version of history react angrily to the evidence that many well-known 'classical' heroes were Russian. Or the'ancient' Et-Ruscan, i.e. once again Russian [5v]. The surviving facts are sorely received, facts which indicate that 'Ancient' Rome is actually Russia-Horde XIII-XVI cc. I.e. the 'ancient' Roman emperors were in fact the Russian-Horde czars-khans.

The cause of such an acute reaction is clear. After the collapse of the Great Russian-Horde Empire in Western Europe and some other former imperial provinces there formed a hostile and at the same time fearful attitude towards Russia. See the reasons for that above. The clearly surviving 'Russian footprint' in the Scaligerian history (surviving despite numerous attempts to 'cleanse' the documents) has been presently removed from scientific circles. The historians pretend that there is no 'Russian footprint' at all. But if somewhere such information still breaks through, they disregard it.


Sometimes it is asked whether it is a coincidence that our reconstruction, according to which for a long time Russia was the metropoly of the Great Empire, appeared specifically in Russia. Could it simply be a consequence of the authors' unnecessarily patriotic view of ancient history? Is it possible they believe in a reconstruction created in Russia? If it was thought of in England, France or, even better, in America – then it would be a different matter. It goes without saying that in that case it should have been received with great respect, and they would have begun studying it immediately.

We will answer this. It is not surprising that the correct reconstruction of the epoch of the 'Mongol' Empire emerged specifically in its former metropoly. As it is in the metropoly that the memory of the Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. survived for longer than anywhere else. Here there more old books, documents and monuments, somewhat dilapidated remains of the old traditions. Here survive the traces of the view 'from the inside', from the centre of the Empire. However in the other countries, the former provinces of the Empire, only the traces of the view 'from the outside' remained. Also undoubtedly valuable, but insufficient on their own. That is why it is easier to create the true reconstruction in the former metropoly. It is not surprising that it appeared specifically in Russia. This does not prove that the authors of this book are biased or that our theory is invalid. And it is not a reason for dismissing it out of hand. In other words, if we are right, then it should have happened exactly this way: the reconstruction should have appeared specifically in Russia. That is what happened.

Another objection from the people who don't want to get to the heart of the matter, in short can be formulated like this. This contemptuous statement can be heard often. Again, they say, you have Russia as the homeland of the elephants. But ultimately it contains some manipulation. There are certainly no elephants in present day Russia. But the word 'Russia' radically changed its meaning over the past several hundred years. Sometime before the entire 'Mongol' Empire was called RUSSIA (RUS' or ROSSIA), i.e. RASSEYANIE (DISSIPATION – Russian). Where elephants were certainly not unusual. For example, India and Africa were a part of the Empire.

That is why, strictly speaking, Russia was indeed the homeland of the elephants. However odd it might sound today.

Such sardonic slogans were first heard in the epoch of the XVIII-XIX cc., when to a great extent the memory of Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. was eliminated. The purpose of these contemptuous statements was to eradicate from the conscience of the Russian people the last memories, which were no longer supported by neither documents nor the Romanov history. These memories still existed, and in order to extinguish them they used ridicule.

The Russian history in its now recognisable form was first published by N.M.Karamzin. The 'History' by Prince M.Sherbatov, written slightly earlier, was fundamentally different. But it was not republished since the middle of the XIX century and today it has been ultimately withdrawn from circulation. Is it a coincidence that the 'History' by Karamzin saw the light only after the Moscow Tartary was crushed? I.e. following the victory over 'Pugachev'? Most likely, it is not. Only when it became clear that there was no going back, the composing of the final version of the 'correct Russian history' commenced.


As we understand it now, the gunpowder and the canon were invented in Russia-Horde = Scythia = China in the XIV century. This added even more power to the Cossack = Israel troops. The Horde corps (the Biblical tribes) for a long time achieved an overwhelming advantage in the battle fields. The mortar guns, howitzer weapons, harquebuses, blunderbusses, muskets, hand cannons, etc. decimated the enemy and spread panic. The Russian field artillery batteries spread, together with the troops, all over Europe. That is why all the canons of the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. across the Empire were Hordian. This being said the imperial masters could make them not just in the metropoly – in Russia-Horde, but also 'locally', i.e. in Western Europe, Asia, Africa, America, etc.

After the collapse of the Empire all of this Horde weaponry was seized by the rebels of the epoch of the Reformation and proudly (though erroneously) declared to be 'their own invention'. Thus, in particular, there emerged (on paper) the genius 'Western European Berthold Schwartz' – the phantom reflection of St.Sergii Radonezhsky (Bartholomew) [ShAKh]. Today in many museums of Eurasia there are exhibited the old firearms of the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. declaring the canons to be 'locally-made' or 'of local invention'. Having forgotten that some time ago (though not that long ago) these canons were a part of the Horde Cossack armies which were stationed all over Eurasia and America and under the control of the central command. We will repeat, that at the same time many imperial weapons were in fact manufactured 'on site', i.e. where the Cossack troops were stationed. In this sense they can be called the 'locally-made weaponry'.

Later on the information about the Horde canons 'multiplied' under the quills of the chroniclers and were partially cast back into the remote past. These phantoms were called by the historians, for instance, 'the Greek fire'. In fact it was 'the Christian fire'. I.e. the weaponry created by the Apostolic Christians.

The first firearms were made from wood [KR]. This great invention by Sergii Radonezhsky was handed to Prince Dmitry Donskoy, i.e. the 'classic' emperor Constantine the Great, before the Battle of Kulikovo. In [ZA], ch.3 we cite a vivid description of a canon by 'classic' Thucydides which today is considered by the historians some mysterious 'liquid fire', erupting from a wooden barrel (allegedly in the V century BC).

Best of all the historians like to discuss the mysterious 'ancient Greek fire', forgetting the true past of the XIV-XVI cc. The old chroniclers fascinated and daunted by the canons by often missed the point (which in the beginning was strictly confidential). That is why the 'classical authors' coloured the reality with bright fantasies: fire breathing dragons, flying fiery snakes, etc. The modern historians do their best to interpret these 'visions' and give them some common sense, but are afraid to pronounce a word 'canon', categorically banned by the Scaligerian chronology in regards to 'antiquity'.

With the collapse of the 'Mongol' Empire the Horde workshops were destroyed during the rebellion of the Reformation in its former provinces and the art of producing good quality canons was lost for some time. Many Horde-Imperial weapons were destroyed during the rebellion. Europe was engulfed in the flames of the bloody feuds. The Horde = Israel artillery production was in ruins. All this led to the return of the wooden canons in some areas. The weapons were also made in haste out of different kinds of materials, depending on what was available. The rebels fiercely shredded to pieces the legacy of the Horde Empire. Everyone desperately needed the canons.

In the XVII century the Russian artillery pool was badly damaged. Very little is left. But even that which survives is impressive. We recommend visiting the interesting Museum of Artillery in St. Petersburg, where in particular the old Russian weaponry is exhibited.

To conclude, when analysing the history of firearms, it becomes clear that it is waste of some contemporary publication (like the fundamental and interesting book by U.Karman [336]) to tendentiously allocate just several patronizing paragraphs to the Russian artillery, giving the main attention to the Western-European armament. In fact the picture was the opposite. The centre of the canon production was in Russia-Horde.


1. (1821) The HOROSCOPE in the 'ancient' Iranian Epos Shahnameh dating to the reign of Shah Kay-Khosrow, allegedly 'classical antiquity'. The horoscope has four solutions, but the following date fits the best:
17-19 April according to Julian calendar (Old style) 1821 [ShAKh], ch.5.

2. (1841) THE ZODIAC OF BRUGSCH, a horoscope 'without the staffs', BR2. It is depicted on the inside of the wooden coffin-lid. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'classical antiquity'. In fact: 6-7 October according to Julian calendar (Old Style calendar) 1841 [NKhE].

3. (1853) THE ZODIAC OF BRUGSCH, a horoscope 'in boats', BR3. It is depicted on the inside of the wooden coffin-lid. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'classical antiquity'. In fact: 15 February according to Julian calendar (Old Style) 1853 [NKhE].
4. (1861) THE ZODIAC OF BRUGSCH, a horoscope of the demotic scriptures, BR1. It is depicted on the inside of the wooden coffin-lid. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'classical antiquity'. In fact: 18 November according to Gregorian calendar (New Style) 1861 or 17 November according to Gregorian calendar (New Style) 1682 [NKhE].

To conclude, we completed a brief overview of the reconstruction. Finally we would like to repeat an important thought which we began this book with and which lies in the basis of our research: 'THE TRUTH CAN BE COMPUTED'.