Part 5.
Ancient Egypt as part of the Great “Mongolian” Ataman Empire of the XIV-XVI century.
Chapter 19.
“Ancient” African Egypt as part of the Christian “Mongolian” Empire of the XIV-XVI century - its primary necropolis and chronicle repository.
1. General overview of the 18th “ancient” Egyptian dynasty and its history.
Let us reiterate that African Egypt of the XIV-XVI century must have been the primary imperial necropolis and chronicle repository. For the most part, the events recorded in the chronicles took place at some considerable distance from Africa - primarily, in the Imperial metropolis, and Russia, or the Horde, and the Ottoman = Ataman Empire, as well as certain imperial colonies in the Western Europe, Africa, Asia, America etc. In the XIV-XVI century Egypt was the name of Russia, or the Horde, qv in CHRON6. The land described as Egypt in the Holy Writ identifies as Russia. The Pharaohs, or the Great Ones (the “Mongolian” Czars, or Khans, of the Empire, lived in the centre of the Empire and not in African Egypt. They were only brought to Egypt posthumously for a lavish funeral. Quite naturally, Africa was more influenced by the former part of the Mongolian Empire known as Atamania populated by the Ottoman Turks.
The Egyptian African priests wrote chronicles, accurately recording the deeds of the faraway Czars, or Khans, of the Horde, and the Ottoman sultans. Later, after the breakup of the Empire and the creation of Scaligerian history, it was declared that Egyptian chronicles refer exclusively to the deserty African Egypt and its environs. Thus, historians of the XVII-XIX century have greatly reduced the true scale of the “Egyptian” history and the events related thereto. The history of the whole vast “Mongolian” Empire was compressed and transplanted onto African soil - and into deep antiquity so that it wouldn’t get in the way of those who were building the new edifice of Scaligerian myth in the freed-up space.
Let us proceed with an analysis of the “ancient” Egyptian dynasties. The famous 18th dynasty is dated to 1570-1342 B. C. by the Egyptologists ([1447], page 254). According to our conception, the dynasty is a reflection of the Ottoman, or the Ataman Empire of the XIV - XVI century A. D. The chronological shift equals some twenty-eight hundred years here, no less. Egypt was also part of the “Mongolian” Empire around that time. Traditionally, the following pharaohs are included in the dynasty ([1447], page 254 and [99], page 272):
1) Aames, 2) Amenkhotep, 3) Thutmos I, 4) Thutmos II with Hatshepsut, 5) Thutmos III the Conqueror, 6) Amenkhotep II, 7) Thutmos IV, 8) Amenkhotep III.
9) Amenkhotep IV, also known as Ikhnaton ([1447], page 354). Could this have translated as Ignatius or simply Ignat?
10) Tutankhamen, then Khoremhib - a single generation of heretical kings ([99], page 728). Tutankhamen was “considered an unlawful pharaoh in the Egyptian chronicles” ([99], page 419).
Therefore, nearly every pharaoh of this dynasty was named Amenkhotep or Thutmos. This could mean that in reality the history of this epoch refers to the deeds of the two great pharaohs for the most part - Thutmos and Amenkhotep. The history of the other reigns appears to have been forgotten almost completely, since the vivid events that took place in the epoch of Amenkhotep and Thutmos have eventually outshone the less important events.
Indeed, as we shall see below, when Brugsch relates the history of the 18th dynasty, he primarily concentrates on Amenkhotep IV and Thutmos III. Therefore, they are the primary pharaohs that interest us presently.
Let us pay close attention to the fact that there are no data available about the dates of the reigns for the 18th dynasty. Therefore, Brugsch is following his “dating method”, ascribing a hypothetical reign of 33.3 years to each of them. We have already mentioned this strange trait of his.
Nowadays we are by no means bound by the confines of such a “chronology”. Therefore, we shall have to consider the 18th dynasty as a whole - as a single unit consisting of several pharaohs whose reign durations remain unknown to us, as indeed the very order of the pharaoh inside the dynasty. As we have seen, the lists of pharaohs could be read in different directions - left to right and vice versa, which may have led to confusion in what concerns their order.
Egyptologists “date” the 18th dynasty to the alleged years 1570-1342 B. C. ([1447], page 254). It is very noteworthy that once we replace the “B. C.” with an “A. D.” in these dates, we come up with 1342-1570, which is in excellent correspondence with the real dating of this dynasty’s reign, as we shall see below. Once again, it has to be said that the most likely reason for the above is the fact that somebody had initially dated the “ancient” Egyptian dynasties correctly using the A. D. scale coming up with a date that cannot precede the middle of the XV century, later replaced by a corresponding B. C. dating, which has effectively transferred the entire history of the Middle Ages into deep antiquity.
This is easy enough to understand - the real epoch of the 18th dynasty ends in the XVI century A. D. according to our reconstruction, and therefore its documents must have contained the datings made in accordance with the new epoch, which were later coyly “corrected” in this uncomplicated manner.
2. The “lunar”, or Ottoman dynasty of the Pharaoh, or “the dynasty of the crescent”.
The “founder of the 18th dynasty” is named as a queen - “the beauteous Nofert-ari-Aames” ([99], page 276).
The very beginning of the Mameluke Cossack dynasty (the alleged XIII century A. D. - in reality, the XIV century A. D.) is marked by the reign of the famous Sultaness Shageredor, who “reigned over the land together with the Mameluke Council, a decisively influential party” ([99], page 745). This identifies her as the founder of the mediaeval Mameluke dynasty - the original of the “ancient” Egyptian 18th dynasty.
Brugsch reports the following: “We encounter the spouse of Aames . . . named founder of the eighteenth royal house” ([99], page 276). Therefore, the first pharaoh of this dynasty is Aames, according to Brugsch. This name is translated as “Child of the Moon” ([99], page 272). Brugsch reports: “The name of the revered deity and its celestial symbol [the moon - Auth.] wasn’t just adopted by Aa-Mes and his mother Aa-Khotep (‘the lunar one’), but also their offspring, the Thutmos (‘children of Tut’)” ([99], page 272).
Thus, almost the entire 18th dynasty of the pharaohs is lunar, or “born of the moon”. Given all that we already know, the meaning of the reference is crystal clear - the moon or the crescent are here as an Ottoman = Ataman symbol, or the symbol of Czar-Grad (Constantinople). Later on, after the XVII century, it became the symbol of islam and the Muslim faith. Things are getting clearer - according to the new chronology, the 18th dynasty reflects the Ottoman, or Ataman Empire of the XIV-XVI century. It is for this reason that Ramses II was also known as Osman the God (Osimandius), qv above.
It could be that the actual name Thutmos relates to “Ottoman”, whereas Amenkhotep is “Amon the Goth”.
3. Amenkhotep I and Amenkhotep IV.
3.1. Amenkhotep I.
Egyptologists place Amenkhotep I at the very beginning of a dynasty, and so he can be regarded as the founder of the Amenkhotep dynasty. However, little is known about him - Brugsch managed to scrape up enough material to fill a page and a half ([99], pages 277-278). It was a dull enough reign without any remarkable deeds credited to the ruler.
However, the last of the Amenkhotep dynasty, namely, Amenkhotep IV or Ikhnaton (Ignatius?) placed at the very end of the dynasty by the Egyptologists (the next to last pharaoh) wasn’t merely described in much greater detail by Brugsch (14 pages of [99] - 403-416); he is also one of the most popular “ancient” Egyptian pharaohs.
One must remark that Pharaoh Aames (“Child of the Moon”) was the ancestor of the first Amenkhotep, whereas the last Amenkhotep was the contemporary of “a high official who lived at the court of the pharaoh and took care of his house, by the name of Aames” ([99], page 410). We have a namesake here - another “child of the Moon” with the same name.
This fact alone tells us nothing - however, below we shall see that these two pharaohs, both called Amenkhotep, have most likely been mistaken for each other. The biography of the first Amenkhotep was erroneously ascribed to the last Amenkhotep. This is why Pharaoh Aames also became duplicated on paper, travelling forward in time and ending up reflected in the biography of Amenkhotep IV as “the high official Aames who took care of the Pharaoh’s household”. The direction of the time shift may also have been the opposite.
3.2. The religious reform of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (Khunaten - Khan of the Don?). Islam branches away from Christianity.
It appears that the history of the “ancient” Egyptian Khunaten (Khan/Don?) reflects the events of the late XVI or even early XVII century, or the epoch when the formerly united Christianity of the XII-XVI century branched into several fractions, one of them being Islam. This is the epoch when Islam becomes the official religion of the Ottoman = Ataman Empire. Pharaoh Khunaten is primarily known as the founder of a new religious cult that broke away from the ancestral faith. This resulted in a conflict between him and the orthodox priests.
It is said that “the people and the priests openly rebelled against the heretical king, who even refused to wear the name Amenkhotep since it had contained the part “Amon”, and dubbed himself Khunaten” ([99], page 406).
What was the religious reform of Khunaten all about? The following is reported: “The reason why the priests and the king severed all ties between them was . . . the refusal of Amenkhotep IV to observe the traditions of Amon’s cult and the deities worshipped alongside him . . . In the house of his foreign mother the young heir . . . heeded to the teaching . . . of a single god . . . this influence transformed him into an avid devotee eventually” ([99], page 405).
Our reconstruction makes everything perfectly clear. The “ancient” Egyptian chronicles describe the growing strength of the Ottoman religious movement within the Great = “Mongolian” Empire of the XV-XVI century. It is known that Islam branched away from Christianity as a religious movement that emphasised, in particular, that there was “no god but Allah”. This served as the reason for banning the cult of the saints and the deification of Christ as the Son of God. Apart from that, the cult of Our Lady fell out of grace. Islam emphasised the worship of a single god under a single name.
Apart from that, the Islamic faith was a sworn enemy of icons. Islam introduced the ban on the worship of graphical representations - modern mosques are decorated by geometrical ornaments exclusively - no icons or statues anywhere. Finally, it is common knowledge that the moon, or the crescent, the old symbol of Czar-Grad, is universally associated with the Muslim faith. Jalal Assad, the Turkish historian, tells us the following: “The Sultan adopted the old Byzantine crest, the crescent, as the national coat of arms, adding a star thereto” ([240], page 169). It is most likely that the star next to the Ottoman crescent is the Evangelical Star of Bethlehem. The crescent could have been a symbol of the solar (or lunar) eclipse that accompanied the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, according to the Gospels.
We see that the “lunar dynasty” of the Pharaohs introduces the cult of a single deity. We see the “deviation from the cult of Amon and the deities worshipped alongside Amon” ([99], page 405). In particular, this concerned “the wife of Amon - Muth”.
Apparently, this is a reference to the banishment of icons that depicted the saints and particularly to the banishment of the cult of Our Lady, or the Holy Mother of God (“Muth the wife of Amon”). This is apparently a slight corruption of the Slavic word “mat” - “mother”. Let us remind the reader that the ancient texts were transcribed in consonants exclusively; therefore, all the vocalizations, or the introduction of vowels, is a later phenomenon, largely arbitrary in nature.
And so, the “ancient” Egyptian sources describe a real and important event, which is likely to date from the end of the XVI or even the beginning of the XVII century. In the southern parts of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, Islam becomes the official religion; this is a religious schism.
3.3. The foundation of Rome in Italy around the end of the XIV century A. D. as reflected in the “ancient” Egyptian chronicles.
As we already mentioned above, Scaligerian history is well familiar with the “return of Popes” to Italian Rome at the end of the XIV century A. D. (circa 1380 A. D., after the “Avignon captivity” consensually associated with the French city of Avignon. Our reconstruction implies a different scenario - the popes didn’t return to Italy, but rather founded Rome there on a new site, as well as the Holy See in Vatican (named after Batu-Khan). The Italian throne was conquered in the epoch of the Great = “Mongolian” conquest as an affiliate of the central Imperial Orthodox Church of Russia, or the Horde, in order to facilitate the ecclesiastic domination in the west of Europe. Apparently, the pages of the Western chronicles initially described the foundation of Batu-Khan’s affiliate as the transfer of the Holy See from P-Russia, or White Russia. This was correct; however, in the XVII century many of the events that occurred in P-Russia were declared to have taken place in Paris, France. Hence the popular misconception that the Catholic Popes came to Italian Rome from Avignon in France. This is most probably incorrect. Avignon is a slight corruption of “Babylon” - presumably, the name of the Volga Horde in our reconstruction.
Let us remind the reader that, according to our research, the Bible describes the Avignon captivity as the famous Babylonian captivity of the Judeans (see CHRON1).
The transfer of the Holy See to Italy was presented as the transfer of the capital, whereas in reality this was merely the foundation of an occidental centre of “Mongolian” dynastic rule that occurred at the end of the XIV century. Its double is misrepresented by Scaligerian history as the transfer of the imperial capital from “Rome” to “New Rome” by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in the alleged year 330 A. D. In reality, New Chronology estimates it to have happened around 1380 A. D. (seeing how 1380 = 330 + 1050).
It turns out that the “ancient” Egyptian chronicles dating from the epoch of Pharaoh Khunaten, a contemporary of these events, reflect this event as well. This is what we learn from them: “The King . . . decided to abandon the city of his forefathers and to found a new capital of the kingdom, far away from Memphis and Thebes, in the land of . . . Tel-El-Amarna” ([99], page 406).
It is noteworthy that the new provincian “Mongolian” capital is directly referred to as “Italian Rome”, or “TL-Amarna”. “Amarna” means “Rome when read in reverse, which is in good correspondence with our reconstruction.
Egyptologists are naturally of the opinion that this “Tel-El-Amarna”, or “Italian Rome”, was located somewhere in African Egypt. They suggested that the capital was transferred to the site of some modern village, proudly renamed Tel-El-Amarna. But one finds no traces of a large ancient capital anywhere - the ruins one finds here somehow fail to correspond to the magniloquent “ancient” Egyptian descriptions ([99], page 406). Therefore the Egyptologists decided that a large city did exist in these parts, but it became destroyed ([99], page 406). Virtually without a trace, as we are told.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the “ancient” Egyptian chronicles reflect the foundation of New Rome in Italy around 1380 A. D.
