Part 3.
Scythia and the Great Migration. The colonization of Europe, Africa and Asia by Russia, or the Horde, in the XIV century.
Chapter 10.
The Slavs in European history as per the book of Volanskiy and Klassen.
1. Why the books of Orbini, Chertkov, Volanskiy, Klassen and many others were neither refuted, nor accepted.
We run into a paradox here. We see that Orbini and many other serious authors of the XVIII-XIX century were openly talking about the indubitable traces of Slavic presence in the Western Europe, discovering new evidence to confirm this, including archaeological evidence, qv below.
The paradox is that none of the evidence in question was ever refuted by any of their opponents; however, the results of Orbini and the rest of the scientists who made similar claims have never got accepted by the scientific community. The majority of the XVIII-XX century historians never agreed with their claims, despite their inability to counter them. Since they could neither agree, nor provide any valid objections, the opponents resorted to the tactic of obmutescence, never mentioning the names of the “heretic scientists”. As a result, they are all but forgotten today. This is how the dispute has ended – with no one left to argue.
It is very easy to understand the historians. As we note, they could not refute the results of Orbini or any other historian from that camp, but they were finding it psychologically impossible to agree with their claims, since nearly everyone had already believed in the erroneous Scaligerian chronology. This chronology naturally renders the very existence of “Slavic roots” in the Western Europe impossible, despite the evidence discovered by Orbini and many other researchers.
Indeed, how could one treat the evidence of Russians fighting against the Roman Emperor Vespasian seriously? Or that the Slavs had conquered the “ancient” Italy and lived there for some time? Or the Slavic identity of the Norman Conquest of France? And so on, and so forth.
Let us try to imagine all of it as seen from within the framework of the Scaligerian chronology. We come up with a total absurdity. Vespasian lived in the alleged I century A. D., whereas the Russians only appear in the X century A. D. We have a millenarian gap between the two.
Russians in the “ancient” Italy? In that case, why don’t any Russian chronicles reach any further back in time than the X century A. D.? Moreover, even the events of the X century are covered very vaguely.
Of course, one could make an effort in order to make all these contradictions fit the Scaligerian conception, which is what Orbini and his followers attempted to do. Yet they have failed to convince the others – it must have been too difficult a task psychologically.
2. Evidence of Slavic presence in the Western Europe perceived as perfectly natural from the viewpoint of our conception.
Today we, the authors of the present book, are actually forced to exhume the old issue of the “Slavic roots” found in the Western Europe.
We have to explain the reason why we believe the present to be the right time for returning to the issue in question, especially given that we aren’t intending to add anything to the documental evidence collected by Orbini and some others (more about them below). If their opponents never believed them, why should they believe us now? What new materials can we provide? What is our advantage over such prominent scientists as Orbini, Chertkov, Volanskiy and the rest?
Our reply shall be as follows. The scientists listed herein were forced into the limiting paradigm of the erroneous Scaligerian chronology, which was a great impediment to their research, as we realise today, and precluded other scientists from understanding what they had to say.
Unlike them, we suggest (as a hypothesis open for debate) a new chronology based on our mathematical, astronomical and statistical research as described in CHRON1-CHRON3, and, consequently, a new conception of the ancient and mediaeval history. We propose to abandon Scaligerian chronology, since we consider it to be blatantly erroneous.
It turns out that from the point of view suggested by the New Chronology the evidence of Slavic presence in the Western Europe becomes perfectly normal, moreover – it is the absence of such evidence that would strike us as unnatural.
Indeed, if the Great = “Mongolian” conquest of the XIV century was Slavic for the most part, and given that the nascence of the “ancient Rome” dates from approximately the same epoch as the Great Conquest, it is inevitable that the Roman (Romeo-Byzantine as per our reconstruction, and not remotely Italian) troops, including the legions of Vespasian, must have confronted the mediaeval army of Russia, or the Horde.
The participation of the Russian troops in the legendary Trojan War of the XIII century A. D. shall also lead to a different reaction than the usual patronising smiles. On the contrary, one finds it hard to think of any other place for them.
3. F. Volanskiy, Y. I. Klassen and their historical research.
Below we shall basically repeat the very same claims that we have made in the previous chapter according to the book of Orbini, this time basing them on altogether different sources; in particular – the large number of archaeological discoveries made in the Western Europe in the XIX century. Apparently, they are in good concurrence with Orbini’s evidence, and concur with our reconstruction.
Yegor Ivanovich Klassen (1795-1862) was of a German origin and a Russian citizen ever since 1836, who was also given an aristocratic title ([388], page 3). He became the custodian of the Muscovite Practical Academy of Commerce in 1831, and was a member of the Coronation Commission of Nikolai I in 1826 ([388], page 3). He was also a Doctor of Philosophy, a Master of Fine Arts and a Court Councillor ([388], page 109).
He was the translator and the publisher of “A Description of Artefacts that Explain the Slavic and Russian History”, a historical work of Fadey Volanskiy, complementing it by an extensive foreword and many commentaries wherein he sharply voiced the viewpoint already familiar to us from the work of Orbini. He compiled all these materials into a book entitled “New Materials on the Ancient History of the Slavs in General, and the Slavo-Russians of the Epochs before Ryurik in Particular, Accompanied by a Brief Apercu of Russian History Before Christ”. The book was printed by the typography of the Moscow University in 1854 ([388]). We refer all the interested parties to this phenomenal oeuvre, since it is now available as a reprint ([388]).
Klassen reports roughly the same as Orbini, although his text suggests that he had not been familiar with Orbini’s book. The argumentation of Klassen and Volanskiy is of a completely different nature. Let us quote some of the statements that he makes.
According to Klassen, “the facts that the ancient Russian history is based on have remained locked up unsorted for a long time . . . Still the history of the ancient Slavic Russia is so abundant in facts, that we find its traces woven into the culture and life of every European nation” ([388], page 80).
Klassen, being a German, points out that several German historians were diligently involved in the research of the Russian history, yet turned out poorly prepared due to insufficient knowledge of the Slavonic languages ([388], page 8). At the same time, Klassen is sharply critical in reference to the German founders of the Russian history, who worked in Russia in the XVII century and were recognised as authorities in his time, as well as they are today.
He tells us directly: “Among these unscrupulous characters we find Bayer, Müller, Schlezer, Gebhardi, Parrot, Halling, Georgi and a whole host of their followers. They have claimed all the characteristic Russian traits as their very own, robbed the Slavs and the Russians of their glory, greatness, power, wealth and industry, and even strived to deprive the Russians of their very name, which has been known as Slavic to all the Asian tribes for countless centuries; indeed, the Israelites have known the Russians as the forefathers of the Romans and even the ancient Greeks ever since they came to the promised land . . .
We know that history must by no means be a panegyric, but we have no right to let them transform Russian history into a satire” ([388], pages 8-9).
Klassen continues as follows: “Unfortunately, it has to be stated that certain Slavic writers, such as Karamzin, Dobrovskiy and a few others, were also guilty of participating in this criminal activity. It is however possible that these scientists were too intimidated by the false authorities of their epoch to speak out against them. But what about certain modern Russian historians? I dare them to stand up and confess with all due honesty why they keep on with the development of Schlezer’s system and the castigation of the ancient Slavs . . .
However, we are fortunate to have two kinds of evidence that will help us reconstruct the history of the ancient Slavs – the chronicles and the artefacts, which speak against them. These sources need to be destroyed in order to let them utter boldfaced lies” ([388], page 48).
Further on, Klassen writes: “The Slavs and the Russians, being a nation of much greater antiquity than the Romans and the Greeks, have left numerous artefacts all across the Old World, which testify to their presence in those parts as well as the antiquity of their culture, literacy and fine arts. The artefacts shall remain forever as indisputable evidence. They tell us about the deeds of our ancestors in our native tongue, the prototype of every Slavic language” ([388], page 11).
Klassen is referring to the plethora of archaeological artefacts periodically discovered during excavations in Europe and Africa, with inscriptions that the Western scientists consider illegible.
F. Volanskiy wrote: “Scientists would find themselves at a quandary with these artefacts, trying to decipher the inscriptions found upon them with the aid of the Greek and the Latin alphabet, but to no avail; when neither proved applicable, they would search for the key in Hebrew, but all in vain, since the only key to these cryptic writings could be found in the ancient language of the Slavs . . . As for the size of the Slavic habitat in Africa, it can only be proved by the Slavic inscriptions on the stones of Numidya, Carthage and Egypt” ([388], pages 73-74).
The research of F. Volanskiy is of the greatest interest indeed; we shall be considering it in greater detail in the chapter about the Etruscans. These works have been completely hushed up – moreover, there are parody publications on the subject in question that come out under seemingly academic titles, such as the book of G. S. Grinevich entitled “The Proto-Slavonic Script. Decipherment Results” (Moscow, 1993), published by the “Obshchestvennaya Polza” publishing house as part of the series entitled “The Encyclopaedia of Russian Thought”. These parodies can only discredit the authentic results of F. Volanskiy, A. D. Chertkov and a number of other serious scientists, who have managed to decipher many archaeological inscriptions discovered in Europe and Africa, which could not have been deciphered on the basis of any other language.
However, as we have already pointed out, these important results have not been accepted by the scientific community for the single unsophisticated reason that they contradict Scaligerian chronology. There is no proof, no matter how clear the Slavic decipherment of the lettering found on an Egyptian or an Italian artefact may be, that would convince anyone that these territories were once populated by the Slavs; one needs to free one’s mind from the confines of the Scaligerian version first.
Indeed, neither Volanskiy, nor any of his allies have managed to give a satisfactory explanation to the obvious presence of Slavic artefacts in Europe and in Africa within the paradigm of Scaligerian history.
However, today we may attempt to provide such an explanation.
Firstly, the epochs in question aren’t as terrifyingly ancient as they are commonly believed to be – the artefacts in question date from the XIV-XVI century A. D.
Secondly, we don’t claim the Slavs to have lived in Africa originally – this would indeed look odd. What we believe to be the case is that they came there for some period of time as conquerors and settlers during the Great = “Mongolian” conquest, having partially assimilated and partially withdrawn eventually, leaving distinct archaeological traces of their sojourn in Africa.
Moreover, this Great = “Mongolian” conquest of Africa is known to historians perfectly well – however, they misdate it to the XIII century A. D. without any understanding of its real nature: apparently, it was the Russian and Turkic conquest of the XIV century A. D. We shall discuss this in more detail in Part 5, which deals with Egyptian history.
4. Slavic presence in Europe was described in many books dating up until the XVIII century.
A. D. Chertkov managed to gather a large collection of historical works. It is known that “until the organisation of the Rosica department in the Imperial Public Library, it was the only valuable collection of books about Russia and the Slavs known in Russia” ([988]).
In 1838 and 1848 the catalogues of Chertkov’s library compiled personally by its owner got published. Chertkov provided brief annotations to the list of books, which we shall be using in order to give the reader an idea of how Russian history was described before the XVIII and even the XIX century.
For instance, Chertkov writes the following in re the book of F. Moroshkin entitled “On the Meaning of the Names of the Russians and the Slavs” (Moscow, 1840): “The author proved . . . the existence of other Russian lands apart from Kiev Russia: a) German Russia; b) Moravian Russia; c) Danube Russia (inhabited by Ruthenians in the epoch of the Roman poet Lucian), and d) Adriatic Russia” ([152], page 60).
As for the Italian book ([1098]), Chertkov comments as follows: “The author insists on the Slavic origins of the Macedonians, the Thracians, the ancient denizens of Illiria, the Dacians and the Hittites. Also, he claims Novgorod to have been larger than Rome (XVI century) and that many Roman Emperors were of Slavic origin” ([152], page 82).
Finally, according to the brief overview of Chertkov, more than 25 books published in Germany between 1575 and 1842 report that Slavs have lived in Germany at some point. Chertkov’s comment is: “The Serbs . . . have settled all across the modern Saxony; in the V century they were already the masters of all the Baltic lands between Hamburg and our provinces on the Baltic coast . . . They were the builders of Leipzig, Dolitsch, Rohlitsch and Dresden” ([152], page 146).
All these books and every single piece of such evidence was put out of circulation owing to the labours of the Millerian and Romanovian school. The representatives of the latter have replaced the whole bulk of authentic documental evidence by a single chronicle (the Radzivilovskaya Letopis). Then they have made everyone believe that there was but a single source for the history of the ancient Russia – the one they had edited themselves.
