ILLUSTRATIONS
Chapter 1.
Fig. 1.1. Hand-drawn map of the Azov Sea dating from 1702. The map is inverted, with the North at the bottom and the South at the top. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.2. The map of 1702 refers to the inhabitants of the area that has always been populated by the Kuban Cossacks as to “Kuban Tartars”. Therefore, the Cossacks were still known as the Tartars in the epoch of Peter the Great. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.3. The Land of the Muscovites is also referred to as Moskowiae PARS – the word “PARS”, which also stands for “Persia”, translates as “part” or “area” in this case. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.4. Map of the Black Sea dating from 1699-1700. “Compiled in accordance with the surveys and measurements made by the Russian warship ‘Krepost’ (‘Fortress’)”. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.5. The Russian military map of 1699-1700 refers to the Kuban Cossacks as “Kuban Tartars”. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.6. Constantinople is called Czar-Grad in the Russian military naval chart of 1699-1700. Therefore, the allegedly “ancient” Russian name “Czar-Grad” was still used in Russia at the end of the XVII century. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.7. “Naval chart of 1750. Compiled in accordance with the materials of the Russian hydrographic surveys” ([73]). Eastern part of the map. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.8. Fragment of the Russian military naval chart of Captain Nagayev (Nogai?) compiled in 1750. Nevertheless, the date that we see on the map is transcribed as 750 – the millenarian figure of one is missing! This could theoretically suffice for dating it to the VIII century A. D. and no the XVIII, as suggested by the Scaligerian chronology. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.9. Another military naval chart of Captain Nagayev (Nogai?). “Naval chart of 1750. Compiled after the results of the measurements carried out by the hydrographers from the school of Peter the Great primarily” ([73]). Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.10. The monogram from the map of Captain Nagayev (Nogai?) dating from 1750. The date is already transcribed in the modern format – as 1750. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.11. Inscription on the map of Captain Nagayev dating from 1750. The dates are still transcribed in the old fashion, as 721 and 743 – without the figure of one in the thousands place. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.12. The inscription on the map of Captain Nagayev transcribes the letters В “V” and П “P” in the same manner – the name ШПЕЦКОЙ (Shpetskoi) would be written as ШВЕЦКОЙ (Shvetskoi) nowadays. Thus, the transcription of certain Cyrillic letters wasn’t yet established in the XVIII century. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.13. The inscription on the map of Captain Nagayev transcribes the letters В “V” and П “P” in the same manner – today we would write the names НАГАЕПЫМ (Nagayep) and ЛЕБЯДНИКОПЫМ (Lebyadnikop) as НАГАЕВЫМ and ЛЕБЯДНИКОВЫМ (Nagayev and Lebyadnikov, respectively). Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.14. The inscription on the map of Captain Nagayev transcribes the letters В “V” and П “P” in the same manner – the word ФАРПАТЕРОМ (Farpaterom, “navigating channel”) would be written as ФАРВАТЕРОМ (Farvaterom) nowadays.
Fig. 1.15. Map dating from 1701 that is considered to be the first one ever printed in Russia. Most probably, earlier maps of the XIV-XVI century were destroyed. The Romanovs presented themselves as enlighteners, claiming to have brought culture to Russia and taking the credit for the birth of cartography, the formation of the fleet and the first timid steps of science. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.16. The map of Peter the Great demonstratively portrays the conquered Nogai Cossacks = Tartars, who lived in the region of the Azov Sea. The Cossack bunchuks and the flags with the Ottoman crescents and stars are laid down at the feet of the Romanovs. Taken from [73].
Fig. 1.17. Map of Europe taken from the Atlas of 1755. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 1.18. This is what appears to be the preliminary version of the map of Europe created in 1754. Taken from the Atlas of 1755 ([1018]).
Fig. 1.19. Muscovia and Russia are depicted as two different countries. Fragment of a map dating from 1754. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 1.20. The territory referred to as “Kiev Government” is depicted as part of Russia. Map fragment dating from 1754. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 1.21. A part of the modern Prussia is referred to as “Russie”, or Russia. Map fragment dating from 1754. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 1.22. We see the area of “Russie Noire” (“Black Russia”) next to Lemberg (Lvov). Map fragment, 1754. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 1.23. Map of 1754 entitled “II-e Carte de l’Asie” from the Atlas of 1755. Northern part of the map. The legend “Grande Tartarie” (Great Tartary) is set in huge letters that cover the entire territory of the Russian Empire. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 1.24. Map of 1754 entitled “II-e Carte de l’Asie”. Southern part of the map. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 1.25. Map of 1754 entitled “I-e Carte de l’Asie” from the Atlas of 1755. This is virtually the same map as the one known as “II-e Carte de l’Asie” without smaller lettering. The legend “Grande Tartarie” (Great Tartary) is set in huge letters that cover the entire territory of the Russian Empire. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 1.26. Map of Europe and the Russian Empire entitled “I-e Carte de l’Empire de Russie en Europe. 1755”. The words “Grande Tartarie” (Great Tartary) are stretched across the entire territory of the country. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 1.27. Eastern part of the map entitled “2-e Carte de l’Empire de Russie en Europe. 1755”. Russia is called “Grande Tartarie”, or “Mongol Tartary”, in other words. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 1.28. Map of Asia dating from the XVIII century. An enormous part of Eurasia that includes many other countries besides Russia is referred to as “Grande Tartarie”. Western part of the map. “L'Asie dressé sur les observations de l'Academie Royale des Sciences et quelques autres, et Sur les memoires les plus recens. Amsterdam. Par G. de l'Isle Geographie a Amsterdam. Chez R. & J. Ottens”. Taken from [1019].
Fig. 1.29. Eastern part of a map of Asia dating from the XVIII century. Taken from [1019].
Fig. 1.30. Central part of a map of Asia dating from the XVIII century. We see several Tartaries here. Taken from [1019].
Fig. 1.31. Fragment of a map of Asia dating from the XVIII century. We see India as part of the Kingdom of the Great Moguls. Taken from [1019].
Fig. 1.32. Russian map of Asia dating from 1737 that still indicates several Tartaries. Taken from [679], page 48.
Fig. 1.32a. Fragment of the Russian map entitled “A View of the Earth Globe” dating from the middle of the XVIII century. Apart from Great Tartary, we also see Free Tartary and Chinese Tartary. Taken from [306:1].
Fig. 1.33. Fragment of a map of Asia dating from 1737, which indicates an area called Pegu. The name is likely to be derived from “pegaya orda” (“Dapple Horde”). The name “Pakistan” could be of the same origin as well. Taken from [679], page 48.
Fig. 1.34. Fragment of an ancient map allegedly dating from 1507. “Map of Central Europe by M. Beneventano and B. Vanovski (reworked by Nicholas of Cusa) from Ptolemy’s ‘Geography’, 1507” ([977], page 114). Taken from [977], Map 2, page 21.
Chapter 2.
Fig. 2.1. Mediaeval Russian coinage. These coins bore Arabic lettering. It is assumed that the Russians used foreign coins of Arabic origin since they had no coinage of their own. Many hoardings of such coins were found in the area of Vladimir and Suzdal. According to our reconstruction, the coinage in question is authentic Russian coinage of the XIV-XVI century. Historians fail to realize that Arabic was one of the official languages spoken in the Russian Empire, or the Horde, up to the very end of the XVI century. Taken from [331], Volume 1, page 12.
Fig. 2.2. “Arabic dirgham. Found in a Russian hoarding” ([578], Volume 1, page 86). Taken from [578], Volume 1, page 86, illustration 70.
Fig. 2.3. Hoardings of Kufic coins in the Eastern Europe. These hoardings are found in great abundance all over Europe. Taken from [233], page 89.
Fig. 2.4. Russian coins bearing the image of a Tartar tamga. See the right side of the print. Taken from [957], table XVII.
Fig. 2.5. Russian coin with the image of a Tartar tamga and an inscription in Arabic. Taken from [870].
Fig. 2.6. Russian coin with the image of a Tartar tamga and an inscription in Arabic. Taken from [870].
Fig. 2.7. Russian coin with the image of a Tartar tamga and an inscription in Arabic. Taken from [870]. In reality, the inscriptions considered Arabic today are set in one of the alphabets used in Russia before the XVII century, now forgotten. See CHRON4, Chapter 13.
Fig. 2.8. Various forms of the Horde tamga as found on Russian coins (a, b and c) and ornamental details from the columns of the Ouspenskiy Cathedral in the Muscovite Kremlin (d, e and f). The symbols are obviously related.
Fig. 2.9. Images of Horde tamgas on the columns of the Ouspenskiy Cathedral in the Muscovite Kremlin. Taken from [96], page 31, ill. 15.
Fig. 2.10. Images of tamgas the columns of the Ouspenskiy Cathedral in the Muscovite Kremlin. Taken from [96], page 21, ill. 15.
Fig. 2.11. The amazing three hundred years of no coinage in the Romanovian and Millerian history of Russian coin minting.
Fig. 2.12. Mysterious lack of golden mediaeval coinage in Europe in the epoch of the VIII-XII century A. D.
Fig. 2.13. “Illegible” inscriptions on Russian coins. The reverse of the top coin bears the legend “Lord of All Russia”. Could it be that the strange script as found on the reverse of the bottom coin means the same thing transcribed in a now-forgotten alphabet? Taken from [957], table VII.
Fig. 2.14. Russian coin with “Arabic” symbols. Taken from [957], table VI.
Fig. 2.15. Russian coins with Russian letters shaped in an uncommon manner. Taken from [957], table XIII.
Fig. 2.16. Russian coins with Russian letters shaped in an uncommon manner. Taken from [957], table XIII.
Fig. 2.17. Russian coin with an inscription declared illegible and nonsensical. Taken from [957], table VII.
Chapter 3.
Fig. 3.1. Sword hilt allegedly dating from the X century. Taken from [385].
Fig. 3.2. Baryatinskiy’s inscription and its decipherment. Taken from [425].
Fig. 3.3. Table of symbols used in Baryatinskiy’s inscription compiled by N. Konstantinov. Taken from [425].
Fig. 3.4. Lettering and artwork on an ancient sword. Taken from [385].
Fig. 3.5. Lettering and artwork on an ancient sword. Taken from [385].
Fig. 3.6. Lettering and artwork on an ancient sword. Taken from [385].
Fig. 3.7. Lettering and artwork on an ancient sword. Taken from [385].
Fig. 3.8. Hilt of a Viking sword. Above we see a Horde tamga. Taken from [264], Volume 1, page 488.
Fig. 3.9. A close-in of a tamga as used by the “Mongol” Horde on the hilt of an ancient Viking sword. Taken from [264], Volume 1, page 488.
Fig. 3.10. Italian sword with Arabic lettering. ROM Museum of History, Toronto, Canada. Photograph taken in 1999.
Fig. 3.11. German or English sword with Arabic lettering. ROM Museum of History, Toronto, Canada. Photograph taken in 1999.
Fig. 3.12. Coronation mantle of the Holy Roman Empire. From the Scaligerian viewpoint it is truly amazing that the only lettering found on the item is Arabic. Taken from [336], Volume 6, inset between pages 122 and 123.
Fig. 3.13. Left part of the Arabic lettering on the coronation mantle of the Holy Roman Empire. Taken from [336], Volume 6, pages 122-123.
Fig. 3.14. Central part of the Arabic lettering on the coronation mantle of the Holy Roman Empire. Taken from [336], Volume 6, pages 122-123.
Fig. 3.15. Right part of the Arabic lettering on the coronation mantle of the Holy Roman Empire. Taken from [336], Volume 6, pages 122-123.
Fig. 3.16. Mantle of Charlemagne. Kept in the Aachen Cathedral. Decorated with Ottoman = Ataman crescents and crosses. Taken from [1231], page 19.
Fig. 3.17. A close-in of the Imperial eagle on the mantle of Charlemagne. We see Ottoman = Ataman crescents on the eagle’s chest. Taken from [1231], page 19.
Fig. 3.18. Photograph of the Orthodox cross with a Church Slavonic inscription rendered in the glagolitsa script from the Catholic Cathedral of St. Vitus in Prague. Photograph taken by G. A. Khroustalyov in 1999.
Fig. 3.19. A close-in of the cross fragment with the glagolitsa inscription from the Catholic Cathedral of St. Vitus in Prague.
Fig. 3.20. The Ancient Russian glagolitsa alphabet. Taken from [797], page 310.
Fig. 3.21. State seal of Czar Alexei Mikhailovich. Taken from [960], page 20.
Fig. 3.22. A close-in of the inscription on the seal of Czar Alexei Mikhailovich with the words “Lord and Sole Ruler of our Father’s and Forefathers’ Lands of the Eastern and Western Infidels”. Taken from [960], page 20.
Fig. 3.23. Stone statue of a warrior originating from the Horde and known as “Stone Maid of the Polovtsy” courtesy of modern historians. Currently located in the reception hall of the State Library of Russia, Moscow. Photograph taken by A. T. Fomenko in 1995.
Fig. 3.24. Stone statue of a warrior from the Horde. Sideways view. Photograph taken in 1995.
Fig. 3.25. Stone vessel pressed against the stomach of the Horde statue. Photograph taken in 1995.
Fig. 3.26. Russian military Cross of St. Andrew (X-cross) on the back of the Horde stone statue. Photograph taken in 1995.
Fig. 3.27. Scimitar and quiver on the side of the Horde statue. Photograph taken in 1995.
Fig. 3.28. Stone statue of a Scythian warrior with a sword. Tsygantcha Mound, Lower Danube. Archaeologists date it to the V-IV century B. C. As we realize today, they are wrong. Taken from [975], page 736, ill. 57.
Fig. 3.29. A stone effigy made by the Polovtsy. Front view. The Hermitage, St. Petersburg. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 3.30. A stone effigy made by the Polovtsy. Side view. The Hermitage, St. Petersburg. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 3.31. A stone effigy made by the Polovtsy. Rear view. The Hermitage, St. Petersburg. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 3.32. A stone effigy made by the Polovtsy. Head of the statue. The Hermitage, St. Petersburg. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 3.32a. Ancient Scythian stone effigy exhibited in the Moscow State Museum of History. The statue is female, and holds an object that is considered to be a chalice pressed against its stomach. There is a hat on the head of the statue; it also appears to have braids.
Fig. 3.32b. Ancient Scythian effigies of stone from the Altai region. Taken from [772:1], page 28.
Fig. 3.33. Ancient stone effigy of the deity Chac Mool. America, Yucatan. The statue is virtually identical to the ones made by the Polovtsy, or the Scythians (they look as human figures holding chalices against their stomachs). Taken from [1056], page 9.
Fig. 3.34. Ancient stone effigy of the deity Chac Mool at the entrance of the Warrior Temple in Chichen-Itza. Human figure with a chalice held at stomach level. Taken from [1056], page 34.
Fig. 3.35. A close-in of a statue that portrays a deity worshipped by the Mayans and the Toltecs. The primary motif is the same as in case of the Scythian statues. The statue holds a chalice near its stomach. Taken from [1056], page 34.
Fig. 3.36. Russian monarch receiving an ambassador. The Russian Czar is wearing a turban with a feather. Ancient engraving from Sigismund von Herberstein’s “Notes on Muscovite Affairs” (Frankfurt am Main, Zigmund Feyerabend, 1576). Taken from [161].
Fig. 3.37. Russian monarch receiving an ambassador. The Russian Czar and his entourage wear heavy plate armour. Ancient engraving from Sigismund von Herberstein’s “Notes on Muscovite Affairs” (Frankfurt am Main, Zigmund Feyerabend, 1576). Taken from [161].
Chapter 5.
Fig. 5.1. Chinese star chart of the XIX century. Northern Hemisphere. The map is very primitive. Taken from [544], Volume 6, page 64.
Fig. 5.2. Chinese star chart of the XIX century. Southern Hemisphere. N. A. Morozov wrote the following about these star charts: “In order to picture just how naïve Chinese astronomy was as recently as in the XIX century, I suggest to consider the following six star charts from the book of John Williams . . . The readers shall instantly recognize . . . Ursa Major, but that is the only constellation here that looks familiar. Nearly every constellation looks untypical; also, the lack of a coordinate grid leads to an almost childishly naïve disposition of star configurations that renders them unidentifiable in most cases” ([544], Volume 6, pages 64 and 69). Taken from [544], Volume 6, page 69.
Fig. 5.3. Several ancient drawings of comets from S. Lubieniecki’s “Theatrum Cometicum” dating from 1681. The very nature of the drawings demonstrates that all the comets were observed with the naked eye. Book archive of Pulkovo Observatory, St. Petersburg. Taken from [543], page 201.
Fig. 5.4. Chinese drawing of a comet near the constellation of Ursa Major. Taken from [544], Volume 6, page 70.
Fig. 5.5. Table from N. A. Morozov’s book ([544], Volume 6, page 168) that reveals the existence of serious contradictions within and between the “ancient” Chinese and the “ancient” European comet rosters.
Fig. 5.6. Comet depicted on an ancient carpet from Baille. Historians identify it as Comet Halley and date the observation to the alleged year 1066. The carpet was presumably made around 1073-1083. It is kept in the city library of Baille and made of wool on linen. The picture is reproduced in [930] as a fragment of “the longest and the most famous mediaeval carpet that can also serve as a historical chronicle” ([930], page 161). Taken from 930, page 161. See also the drawn copy in [544], Volume 6, page 144. The correct dating of Baille carpet is 1495 A.D. See our book “Baptism of Russia”, Ch.1.
Fig. 5.7. The graph shows the fluctuations of time intervals between the observations of Comet Halley according to the Scaligerian chronology. The horizontal line corresponds to the Scaligerian Comet Halley observation dates, and the vertical – to the distances between comet observations given in years. The graph is very obviously periodical in nature; the borders of the resulting periods are indicated at the bottom.
Fig. 5.8. Previous graph of fluctuating time intervals between the observations of Comet Halley. Here we have assigned the same number to every corresponding point within a given period.
Fig. 5.9. Superimposition of three fictional periods in the behaviour of Comet Halley. This goes to say that Comet Halley behaved in the exact same manner thrice.
Fig. 5.10. Breaks in the false periodicity of Comet Halley’s behaviour discovered in the XX century. This fact delivers a mortal blow to the Scaligerian chronology of Comet Halley observations that follows the “ancient” Chinese chronicles.
Fig. 5.11. The real behaviour of Comet Halley over the last six hundred years drawn as a thick curve. The dotted line demonstrates how Comet Halley should have behaved in accordance with the false periodic law of the “ancient” Chinese records. Similarly to the previous graphs, the dates of Comet Halley observations are on the horizontal line, and the intervals between observations are on the vertical line.
Chapter 6.
Fig. 6.1. Specimen of the ancient Chinese ideographic writing (left) and modern Chinese hieroglyphs (right). Taken from [485].
Fig. 6.2. The Great Wall of China. Taken from [544], Volume 6, page 121.
Fig. 6.3. The Great Wall of China in its modern condition. Taken from [85], Volume 21.
Fig. 6.4. The Great Wall of China. Apparently, it was also known as “The Wall of Gog and Magog” ([1078], Volume 1, pages 293-294. Taken from [1078], Volume 1, page 293.
Fig. 6.5. Map of Asia from an XVIII century Atlas. “L'Asie, dressé sur les observations de l'Academie Royale des Sciences et quelques autres, et sur les memoires les plus recens. Par G. de l'Isle Geographe. Amsterdam. Chez R. & J. Ottens, Geographes dans le Kalverstraat au Carte du Monde.” Printed in Amsterdam. Taken from [1019].
Fig. 6.6. Fragment of a map of Asia taken from an XVIII century Atlas ([1019]). It is very obvious that the Great Wall follows the border of China. The wall isn’t merely drawn on the map, there’s also the corresponding indication (“Muraille de la Chine”). Taken from [1019].
Fig. 6.7. Our drawn copy of a fragment of a map of Asia dating from the XVIII century that depicts the Great Wall of China. Map taken from [1019].
Fig. 6.8. Eastern part of the map of Asia from an XVIII century Atlas. Taken from [1018].
Fig. 6.9. Fragment of a map of Asia from an XVIII century Atlas. The Great Wall follows the border of China. We also see a corresponding indication (“Muraille de la Chine”). Taken from [1018].
Fig. 6.10. Our drawn copy of a map fragment dating from 1754 (“Carte de l’Asie. 1754”. We see the Great Wall of China. Map taken from [1018].
Fig. 6.11. Fragment of a map of Asia from the Atlas of Blau dating from 1655. The Great Wall of China follows the Chinese border exactly, with only a small part of it located within China. Taken from [1035].
Fig. 6.12. The Great Wall of China on the map that allegedly dates from 1617, which follows the border between China and Tartary exactly. Taken from [1036], pages 190-191.
Fig. 6.13. A close-in of the Great Wall, which serves as the borderline between China and Tartary. Fragment of a map presumed to date from 1617. Taken from [1036], pages 190-191.
Fig. 6.14. The Great Wall of China follows the border between China and Tartary on the map allegedly dating from 1635. Taken from the Atlas of Blau ([1036], pages 198-199).
Fig. 6.15. Close-in of a map fragment with the Chinese Wall drawn as the border between two countries. Taken from [1036], page 199.
Fig. 6.16. Ancient engraving from a book by I. Ides dating from the early XVIII century entitled “Russian Envoys Passing the Gates of the Great Wall of China”. This wall has got nothing in common with the one that we know under this name today. In the XVIII century it looked like a tall and relatively thin masonry fence, without any passageways on top, unlike the modern “ancient” Wall of China. Taken from [550], page 143.
Fig. 6.17. Close-in of an XVIII century engraving that depicts two passageways leading through the Great Wall of China. The passageways are wide and tall, without any gates or bars. It is perfectly clear that the Great Wall of China wasn’t a military fortification, but merely a symbolic representation of the border between two states. Taken from [550], page 143.
Fig. 6.18. The Great Wall of China in its modern state. It is rather thick, and has a wide passageway at the top, as though it were designed for tourists. Taken from [930], page 362.
Fig. 6.19. Photograph of the Great Wall of China taken in 1907. Taken from [158], page 122.
Fig. 6.20. The Far East is referred to as Cathaya on a map of 1635. Therefore, the name “Kitai” wasn’t applied to the territory of modern China in the XVII century. Taken from [1036], page 199.
Fig. 6.21. The area of Tyumen in Siberia is referred to as Kithaisko (China) on a map dating from 1635. Taken from [1036], page 198.
Fig. 6.22. Close-in of a map fragment dating from 1635, taken from the Blau Atlas, with the name Kithaisko referring to the area of Tyumen in Siberia. Pay attention to the legend “Tartar Cossacks” right underneath. As we can see, “Tartar” was a synonym of the word “Cossack” in that epoch. Taken from [1036], page 198.
Fig. 6.23. The most remarkable name of “Belgian Desert” referring to the very centre of Siberia on a map dating from 1635. Nowadays the name “Belgium” is associated with Europe exclusively. Taken from [1036], page 199.
Fig. 6.24. Chai Lung, the Chinese inventor of paper. Taken from [575].
Fig. 6.25. Ancient map of Asia compiled by Gerhard Mercator Jr. in the alleged year 1606. The original of the map is kept in the Library of Saxony, Dresden (465 x 373 mm). Taken from [1172].
Fig. 6.26. In the map of Gerhard Mercator Jr. the name “Kitai” or “Kithaisko” is written right in the centre of Russia, or the Horde (near the Siberian city of Tobolsk, right next to River Ob). This fact is explained by our reconstruction, according to which “Kitai” happens to be the name of Scythia (Scithia, or Kithia). Taken from [1172].
Fig. 6.27. The name of the modern China is transcribed as “Mangi Province” in the map of Mercator Jr. “Mongolian Province”, that is. Taken from [1172].
Fig. 6.28. Fragment of a map by Mercator Junior depicting the European part of Russia dating from 1606. The city of Moscow is strangely missing. Taken from [1172].
Chapter 7.
Fig. 7.1. Map of Japan from the Blau Atlas (published in 1655). Left part of the map. Taken from [1035].
Fig. 7.2. Map of Japan from the Blau Atlas of 1655. Right part of the map. Taken from [1035].
Fig. 7.3. Gotto islands on an old map of Japan. The name must have stood for “Goths”, or Cossacks. Taken from [1035].
Fig. 7.4. Cosyque Island on an old map of Japan. The name is likely to refer to the Cossacks. Taken from [1035].
Fig. 7.5. The name “Vulgo” on an old map of Japan – apparently, a derivative of “Volga” (or “vlaga”, which translates as “water” or “moisture”. Also note the name “Cikoko”, which is possibly derived from the Slavic word for “gallop” (“skok”). The most fascinating thing is that we see Christian crosses over towns and cities. Taken from [1035].
Fig. 7.6. Ancient Portuguese map allegedly dating from 1623 (Antonio Sanchez Collection: British Library). Amazingly enough, we see a huge Christian cross right over Japan. Taken from [1027], map 14.
Fig. 7.7. Fragment of a map dating from 1623 with a Christian cross over Japan. Taken from [1027], map 14.
Fig. 7.8. A close-in of the Christian cross over Japan in a map dating from 1623. Taken from [1027], map 14.
Fig. 7.9. Ottoman = Ataman crescent on the helmet of a mediaeval Japanese Samurai. Tsurugajo Castle Museum in Aisu-Wakamatsu, Japan. Photograph taken by A. T. Fomenko in 1997.
Fig. 7.10. A close-in of the Ottoman = Ataman crescent on the helmet of a mediaeval Japanese Samurai. Tsurugajo Castle Museum in Aisu-Wakamatsu, Japan. Photograph taken by A. T. Fomenko in 1997.
Fig. 7.11. Ottoman = Ataman crescent on the helmet of a mediaeval Japanese Samurai. Tsurugajo Castle Museum in Aisu-Wakamatsu, Japan. Photograph taken by A. T. Fomenko in 1997.
Fig. 7.12. Ottoman = Ataman crescent on the helmet of a mediaeval Japanese Samurai. Tsurugajo Castle Museum in Aisu-Wakamatsu, Japan. Photograph taken by A. T. Fomenko in 1997.
Fig. 7.13. An XVIII century engraving that portrays several Japanese Samurai. Their garments are decorated with the star and crescent symbol. Underneath the right hand of one of them we see a forked (triangular) Christian cross. Taken from [264], Book 1, page XX.
Fig. 7.14. Symbols on the clothing of the Japanese Samurai that look remarkably like crescents and stars. Taken from [264], Book 1, page XX.
Fig. 7.15. Coat of arms of the Japanes Samurai, which bears obvious resemblance to the star and crescent symbol. The bird with raised wings must have represented the crescent, whereas its head corresponded to the star. This is another version of the single-headed eagle symbol. It is rather curious that this very military coat of arms was placed on the title pages of both volumes of the “Global History of Wars” ([264]). Taken from [264], Book 1, page XX.
Fig. 7.16. Coat of arms of the Japanese Samurai – another version of the Ottoman crescent and star (cross) as seen on the title pages of both volumes of Harper’s Encyclopaedia of Military History ([264]).
Fig. 7.17. Photograph of Sadao Iinuma, the sole surviving Samurai from the division of Biakko-Tai. The photograph of Sadao Iinuma is a rare documental representation of an authentic Samurai, and appears to have preserved the true image of the former rulers of Japan in the epoch of “isolation” – a secluded military caste that barely ever mingled with the rest of the population. Judging by this photograph, they looked like typical Europeans. The Samurai Sadao Iinuma died in 1931 at the age of 79; he had worked at a post office in Sendai, Japan. His photograph can also be found at the memorial complex of Mount Iimoriama in Aizu-Wakamatsu, which commemorates the Biakko-Tai division of the Samurai. The present photograph was made at the request of the authors in the memorial complex of Aizu in 1999.
Fig. 7.18. Photograph of the Samurai Sadao Iinuma (close-in). Memorial complex at Mount Iimoriama in Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan.
Fig. 7.19. Map of Japan from the Blau Atlas published in 1655. Isle Hokkaido is called “Iesu”, or simply “Jesus”. This is very likely to be a vestige of Japan’s Christian past. Moreover, we see a Christian cross right next to this name. Taken from [1035].
Fig. 7.20. Another map of Japan from the Blau Atlas (1655). Here we see the southern part of Isle Hokkaido – however, it isn’t called Hokkaido in this map, but rather Eso – an obvious derivative of “Jesus”. Moreover, we see a Christian cross right over the island. Taken from [1035].
Fig. 7.21. Ancient Buddhist banned from the “Samurai’s Home” Museum in Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan. The artwork obviously portrays Jesus Christ (above) surrounded by the twelve Apostles. Eleven of them have saintly halos, whereas the twelfth apostle in the bottom right has none and identifies as Judas, the betrayer of Jesus. Photograph taken by the authors of the book.
Fig. 7.22. A close-in of Judas as portrayed on an old Buddhist banner. He has no halo, since he betrayed Christ. Fragment of the previous illustration. It appears as though Buddhism was yet another branch of Christianity in the Middle Ages.
Chapter 8.
Fig. 8.1. Fragment of the Psalter world map taken from a manuscript dating to the alleged XIII century. It depicts the wall that holds back the terrifying nations of Gog and Magog. Taken from [1058], page 11.
Fig. 8.2. A close-in of the fragment with the wall of Gog and Magog from the Psalter map of the alleged XIII century. Taken from [1058], page 11. See also [1177], page 333, ill. 18.35.
Fig. 8.3. Section scheme of the triple belt of Constantinople walls. Taken from [1464], page 79.
Fig. 8.4. Seriously damaged part of Constantinople wall. Taken from [1464], page 79.
Fig. 8.5. Partially restored part of Constantinople wall. Taken from [1464], page 80.
Fig. 8.6. Modern condition of the wall that surrounds Istanbul = Constantinople = Czar-Grad = Troy. Photograph taken by the authors of the book in 1995.
Fig. 8.7. Our drawn copy of the illustration to the chronicle written by Matthew of Paris in the alleged XIII century. It is signed as follows: “The Tartars eating human flesh”. Such “visual aids” were used in the XVII-XVIII century in order to tear the Western Europeans contempt and scorn for the “Mongols and Tartars”. Taken from [1268], page 14. The original is reproduced in CHRON4, Chapter 18:43.
Fig. 8.8. Campaigns of the “Mongols” and the territory of the Empire in the alleged year 1260 according to the Scaligerian version. Taken from [197].
Fig. 8.9. Territory of “Mongolia” around 1310 according to the Scaligerian version. Taken from [197].
Fig. 8.10. We have shaded the territory of “Mongolia” as per 1310 in order to make its size, which is enormous even in Scaligerian version, more illustrative. As we understand today, it only depicts the first stages of the Great = “Mongolian” conquest. According to the New Chronology, it can be dated to the first decades of the XIV century. The results of the most important conquests of Russia, or the Horde, and the Ottoman = Ataman Empire, which took place in the XIV-XVI century, remain beyond the scope of this map. Taken from [197].
Fig. 8.11. World map that we have compiled on the basis of the entire volume of information available to us, Scaligerian as well as discovered by our research, which makes it possible to trace out the approximate borders of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire in the XIV-XVI century. The think line roughly corresponds to the borders of the Russian Empire in the early XX century, for instance. The uninterrupted line delineates the borders of the Mongolian Empire in the epoch of the XIV century, corresponding to the results of the first stages of the expansion. The dotted line shows further conquests of the Empire in the XV-XVI century, during the second stage of the expansion, when the “Promised Land” was conquered by Russia, or the Horde, aided by the Ottomans = Atamans, qv in CHRON6.
Fig. 8.12. Ancient Russian Church of Pokrov on the Nerl, allegedly built in the XII century. Taken from [114], page 90.
Fig. 8.13. Ancient Russian Church of Pokrov on the Nerl; it is dated to circa 1165. Taken from [114], page 120.
Fig. 8.14. Pygmies fighting a crane in India. Fragment of a map attributed to the “ancient” Ptolemy, which was only published in 1540 or later (by S. Munster). Taken from [1353]. Tabula Asiae VIII.
Fig. 8.15. Asians with canine heads. Fragment of the “ancient” Ptolemy’s map which was published by S. Munster in 1540 or later. Taken from [1353], Tabula Asiae VIII.
Fig. 8.16. Natives of Russia, or the Horde, as pictured by the West Europeans. Drawing by Sebastian Munster. Universal cosmography. Paris. National Library. Taken from [328], page 192.
Fig. 8.17. One-legged Scythians protecting themselves from the sun. Fragment of the “ancient” Ptolemy’s map which was only published in 1540 or later (by Sebastian Munster). Taken from [1353], Tabula Asiae VIII.
Fig. 8.18. Headless Seres (apparently, Russians) with eyes on their bodies. One must think that the West Europeans of the XVII-XVIII century felt pity when they looked at pictures such as this one. Fragment of the “ancient” Ptolemy’s map which was only published in 1540 or later (by Sebastian Munster). Taken from [1353], Tabula Asiae VIII.
Fig. 8.19. Cannibal Seres (or Russians, or Tartars) cooking food. Such pictures must have made the enlightened and refined West European readers of the XVII-XVIII century swing from pity to revulsion. Fragment of the “ancient” Ptolemy’s map which was only published in 1540 or later (by Sebastian Munster). Taken from [1353], Tabula Asiae VIII.
Chapter 9.
Fig. 9.1. Title page from the Russian edition of Mauro Orbini’s book, 1722.
Fig. 9.2. First page from the Russian edition of Mauro Orbini’s book. 1722.
Fig. 9.3. First page from the Italian edition of Mauro Orbini’s book. 1606.
Fig. 9.4. “A picture of Attila from Sebastian Munster’s ‘Cosmography’ (edition of 1550)” ([578], Volume 1, page 73).
Chapter 11.
Fig. 11.1. Mediaeval Scandinavian map allegedly dating from the XIV century. Map 7 from manuscript GKS 1812, 4/0. Taken from [523], page 122.
Fig. 11.2. Mediaeval Scandinavian map allegedly dating from around 1200 A. D. Map 8 from manuscript GKS 2020, 4/0. Taken from [523], page 123.
Fig. 11.3. Mediaeval Scandinavian map allegedly dating from the XII century. Pay attention to the fact that the world is divided into three parts – Asia, Europe and Africa, with the Christian T-shaped cross used as a division mark. Map 4 from manuscript NKS 218, 4/0. Taken from [523], page 116.
Fig. 11.4. Mediaeval Scandinavian map allegedly dating from around 1200 A. D. The world is also divided into three parts by a Christian T-shaped cross. Map 5 from manuscript GKS 2020, 4/0. Taken from [523], page 117.
Fig. 11.5. Mediaeval Scandinavian map of the alleged XIV century. The inhabited part of the world is divided into three parts by a T-shaped cross. Map 2 from manuscript Fabr 83, 8/0. Taken from [523], page 113.
Fig. 11.6. Mediaeval Scandinavian map allegedly dating from 1250. Map 1 from manuscript GKS 1812, 4/0. Taken from [523], pages 106-107.
Fig. 11.7. The three sons of Noah. A manuscript dating from the alleged XV century (Jean Mansel, “La fleur des histories”). The T-shaped Christian cross divides the world into three parts – Asia, Africa and Europe. Shem is in Asia, Ham is in Africa and Japheth is in Europe. In the background we see Mount Ararat with Noah’s ark on its top. Taken from [1177], Volume 1, ill. 12.
Fig. 11.8. Fragment of a Slavic Bible that mentions the sons of Japheth.
Chapter 12.
Fig. 12.0. Dürer’s famous “Women’s Steam Bath”, a drawing dated to the alleged year 1496. We see a typical Russian steam bath, either in Russia, or the Horde, or in Europe, where steam baths were introduced in the epoch of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, but went out of fashion after its break-up. Taken from the “Kommersant Vlast” periodical, 7 August 2001, page 42.
Fig. 12.1. The domes of churches in the Muscovite Kremlin. Gold was used lavishly. Taken from [96], page 74, ill. 58.
Fig. 12.2. Domes of the Kremlin cathedrals, gilded. Taken from [549], page 12.
Fig. 12.3. The dome of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome, Italy. No gold to be seen anywhere – nor has there ever been any. Taken from [958], page 93.
Fig. 12.4. The Tartar victor underneath the feet of the defeated Silesian duke. Old artwork. Taken from [1264], Volume 2, page 493.
Fig. 12.5. The authors of the Global Chronicles and the dates of their creation. We indicate Scaligerian dates and the chronological shifts that return the listed authors to their correct chronological positions.
Fig. 12.6. The “Lobnoye Mesto” gathering point on the Red Square in Moscow. Photograph taken in 1995.
Fig. 12.7. The “Lobnoye Mesto” gathering point on the Red Square in Moscow. View at the Cathedral of St. Basil. Photograph taken in 1995.
Fig. 12.8. The “Lobnoye Mesto” gathering point on the Red Square in Moscow. View from the side of the Kremlin Wall. Photograph taken in 1995.
Fig. 12.9. The “Lobnoye Mesto” gathering point on the Red Square in Moscow, the Spasskaya Tower and Cathedral of St. Basil on an ancient sketch dating from around 1600. Taken from [96], page 53, ill. 28.
Fig. 12.10. The “Lobnoye Mesto” gathering point and the Pokrovskiy Cathedral on the Red Square in Moscow. Anonymous artist, 1820-1830’s. State Museum of History. Taken from [107], inset between pages 192 and 193, ill. 167.
Fig. 12.11. Ancient map of Moscow drawn in 1612 by K. Boussov, who took part in the “Polish and Lithuanian invasion”. As we realise today, Boussov was a participant of the Western European invasion into the Great = “Mongolian” Empire. The plan indicates the location of the Kulishki. The Cathedral of St. Basil is called Jerusalem. Taken from [331], Volume 1, page 215.
Fig. 12.12. Ancient domes of St. Basil’s cathedral shaped like the Ottoman = Ataman or Cossack turban. Taken from [549], page 35.
Fig. 12.13. The domes of St. Basil’s cathedral shaped like the Ottoman = Ataman or Cossack turban. Photograph taken in 1995.
Fig. 12.14. A portrait of Patriarch Nikon painted by D. Wuchters around 1660. Taken from [331], Volume 1, page 263.
Fig. 12.14a. Stroganov Church of the Nativity in Nizhniy Novgorod built in the XVII century. Its turban-like domes are covered in multicolour spiral ornaments, likewise the domes of St. Basil’s cathedral in Moscow. Photograph taken by A.T.Fomenko in August 2001.
Fig. 12.14b. The domes of the Stroganov Church of the Nativity in Nizhniy Novgorod have the shape of a turban. This is visible particularly well on the colour photograph, since the spiral ornaments are made of tiny tiles of different colours. Photograph taken by the authors in August 2001.
Fig. 12.15. “The Miracle of St. George and the Serpent”. Late XIV century. Novgorod. National Russian Museum, St. Petersburg. Taken from [462], icon 24. See also [135], ill. 5, where the same icon is dated to the second half of the XV century.
Fig. 12.16. “The Miracle of St. George and the Serpent”. First half of the XVII century. Nikifor Savin, Stroganov School. National Russian Museum, St. Petersburg. Taken from [135], ill. 21.
Fig. 12.17. Close-in of a fragment of the icon “The Miracle of St. George and the Serpent”. The angel lays a royal crown on the head of George. It is most likely that the memory of St. George the Victorious being the Czar, or Khan of Russia (the Horde) was still alive in the epoch of the XVII century. Taken from [135], ill. 21.
Fig. 12.18. Close-in of a fragment of the icon “The Miracle of St. George and the Serpent”. We see a royal crown on St. George’s head. Taken from [135], ill. 21.
Fig. 12.19. Ancient Russian icon known as “The Miracle of St. George and the Serpent” (early XVI century). The angel is laying a royal crown on George’s hear. Therefore, the memory of St. George being the Czar (Khan) remained alive for a long time. Taken from [308], icon 58.
Fig. 12.20. Close-in of a fragment of the icon “The Miracle of St. George and the Serpent with the royal crown over the head of St. George. Taken from [308], icon 58.
Fig. 12.21. Russian national coat of arms. We see St. George on the eagle’s chest. Middle of the XVIII century. State Hermitage, St. Petersburg. Taken from [135], ill. 45.
Fig. 12.22. The Order of St. George as it looked in 1769. National Historical and Cultural Museum Complex of the Kremlin, Moscow. Taken from [135], ill. 23.
Fig. 12.23. “St. George”, an engraving by Lucas Cranach allegedly dating from 1506. St. George looks like a mediaeval knight in heavy plate armour. Taken from [1258], page 9.
Fig. 12.24. “The Miracle of St. George and the Serpent”. St. George slays the dragon and saves the princess. First half of the XVI century. Vologda. National Russian Museum, St. Petersburg. Taken from [135], ill. 15.
Fig. 12.25. Fragment of the icon known as “The Life of St. George”. St. George slays the dragon and saves the princess. First half of the XVI century. State Hermitage, St. Petersburg. Taken from [135], ill. 13.
Fig. 12.26. Rafael’s painting entitled “St. George Slaying the Dragon”. The “ancient” Perseus who killed the monster and saved the princess is portrayed in the exact same manner. The identical nature of the two motifs (Perseus-Dragon-Princess and George-Dragon-Princess) is also very obvious here. Taken from [493:1], page 173.
Fig. 12.27. Fragment of “Perseus and Andromeda”, a painting by P. P. Rubens (1620-1621). Perseus is portrayed as a mediaeval knight in heavy armour, with the severed head of Gorgon Medusa on his shield. St. Petersburg, the Hermitage. Taken from [533], Volume 1, page 82.
Fig. 12.28. “Medusa’s Head”, a painting by Caravaggio. Painted in the alleged XVI century. Canvas on a board of poplar wood. Kept in the Uffizi Gallery. “Given as a present to Grand Duke Ferdinando I Medici by Cardinal Del Monte and served as a decoration of the Florentine arsenal (in the capacity of a ceremonial shield). Presumably dates from the period between 1595 and 1597” ([194], page 325). Taken from [1255], page 16. See also [194], page 325. The terrifying image of the Gorgon placed on the ceremonial shield must have symbolised the Great = “Mongolian” conquest of the world as perceived by the West Europeans.
Fig. 12.29. “Monstrous Relief with Medusa’s Head” ([1259], page 96). This ancient stone effigy of the Gorgon is kept in the “ancient” temple of Apollo in the Turkish city of Didima. Taken from [1259], page 96.
Fig. 12.30. “Museum of Archaeology in Side [Turkey – Auth.] . . . artwork depicting Medusa’s heads” ([1259], page 141). The left head of the Medusa looks male. Taken from [1259], page 140.
Fig. 12.31. Etruscan sculpture of Medusa’s head, allegedly dating from 500 B. C. Rome, Museo di Villa Giulia. Taken from [1410], page 204.
Fig. 12.32. Ancient Etruscan bronze coin with the head of the Medusa. Florence, Museum of Archaeology. The coin is dated to the alleged IV-III century B. C. However, it is most likely to date from the epoch of the XIV-XVI century and bear the imperial symbolism of St. George. Taken from [1410], page 236.
Fig. 12.33. “A part of bronze [Scythian – Auth.] armour portraying the Medusa from a burial mound near the village of Yelizavetinskaya (collection of the Hermitage” ([792], page 81). Taken from the book entitled “The Scythians” ([792], page 81).
Fig. 12.34. A close-in of St. George’s head from the engraving of Lucas Cranach allegedly dating from 1506. George’s hair looks like snakes. This might reflect the image of Gorgon who had snakes instead of hair. The Gorgon became a terrifying symbol for the West Europeans – possibly, in the XVII century, the heyday of propaganda campaign aimed at demonising the “Mongolian” Empire.
Fig. 12.35. Athena, Goddess of War. Artwork fragment from a vase by Midias. Presumed to date from the late V – early IV century B. C. Karlsruhe, Museum of Baden. Taken from [533], Volume 1, page 125.
Fig. 12.36. A close-in of the artwork. Aegis of Athena with the head of Gorgon Medusa. Taken from [533], Volume 1, page 125.
Fig. 12.37. Athena, goddess of war. Artwork fragment from an amphora by a “Berlin artist”. The alleged years 490-480 B. C. Basel, Museum of Antiquity. Taken from [533], Volume 1, page 127.
Fig. 12.38. Close-in of a fragment of the artwork. Shield of Athena with the head of the Medusa attached to it. Taken from [533], Volume 1.
Fig. 12.39. “The Life of St. George”. Novgorod. First half of the XIV century. National Russian Museum, St. Petersburg. Taken from [135], ill. 4.
Fig. 12.40. Close-in of a fragment of the icon entitled “The Life of St. George” with the dragon (or the unicorn). We see ears and one large horn on the head of the beast, with a leash tied to it by the princess. Taken from [135], ill. 4.
Fig. 12.41. Golden Horn bay on the map of Istanbul. Taken from [1464], page 107.
Fig. 12.42. Sound of St. George, which separates Great Britain and Ireland. Fragment of a Russian naval chart dating from 1750. Taken from [73].
Fig. 12.43. Photograph of the concealed icon of Our Lady of Kikkos from the Kikkos Monastery, Cyprus. Taken from [997], page 28. The icon is concealed in an encasement, which, in turn, is covered by a piece of cloth, which makes it impossible to see the icon.
Fig. 12.44. Old encasement of the icon of Our Lady of Kikkos dating from 1576 and installed on the iconostasis of Kikkos Monastery (see the encasement on the right). Taken from [997], page 25.
Fig. 12.45. Photograph of the old 1576 encasement, which contains another icon of Our Lady nowadays. Taken from [997], page 35.
Fig. 12.46. The road that leads to the Ouspenskiy Cathedral of Kirillo-Belozerskiy Monastery paved in ancient gravestones. We see the millstones that were used alongside gravestones as construction material. Photograph taken by T. N. Fomenko in 2002.
Fig. 12.47. The road that leads to the Ouspenskiy Cathedral of Kirillo-Belozerskiy Monastery paved in ancient gravestones. The lettering on many of the stones is destroyed, and not replaced by any new inscriptions. Therefore, one must rule out the possibility that the gravestones could be used for “secondary burials”. Photograph made in July 2002 (by A. T. Fomenko and T. N. Fomenko, as well as other photographs reproduced in the present section).
Fig. 12.48. One of the many defaced gravestones from the “paved path” that leads to the Ouspenskiy Cathedral of Kirillo-Belozerskiy Monastery. The lettering was obviously chiselled off deliberately. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 12.49. One of the many defaced gravestones from the “paved path” that leads to the Ouspenskiy Cathedral of Kirillo-Belozerskiy Monastery. The lettering was obviously chiselled off deliberately. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 12.50. One of the many defaced gravestones from the “paved path” that leads to the Ouspenskiy Cathedral of Kirillo-Belozerskiy Monastery. The lettering was obviously chiselled off deliberately. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 12.51. One of the many defaced gravestones from the “paved path” that leads to the Ouspenskiy Cathedral of Kirillo-Belozerskiy Monastery. The lettering was obviously chiselled off deliberately. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Chapter 13.
Fig. 13.1. World map. Miniature from the handwritten “Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes” dating from the XVII century. It is rather curious that the map only indicates four nations: the Scythians in the North, the Ethiopians in the South, the Indians in the East and the Celts in the West. This is what the first maps looked like – also, they were drawn in this manner up until the XVII century. Taken from [636]. We have removed the original black background.
Fig. 13.2. World map dating from the alleged year 1276 (the so-called Hereford map). We see Jerusalem at the center as the capital of the world. Taken from [1160], page 35, map 23.
Fig. 13.3. A close-in of the Psalter map dating from the alleged XIII century. At the very center of the round map we see Jerusalem as the main and only capital of the world. Taken from [1058], page 11.
Fig. 13.4. Old map allegedly dating from 1581. At the centre of the map (the junction of Europe, Asia and Africa) we see the city of Jerusalem – most probably, Czar-Grad (or Istanbul) on the Bosporus. Taken from [1083], title page. See also RI, 19-24 May 1999, Issue 20(123), page 55.
Fig. 13.5. Another version of the map that dates from 1581, with Jerusalem at the centre of the world, as seen in the previous illustration. This is an ancient world map drawn by Heinrich Bünting in Kleberblatt (1581 A. D.). Taken from [1160], page 334. Jerusalem is placed at the junction of Europe, Asia and Africa. It is odd that a single map should exist in two several versions.
The most interesting thing is that we are told nothing about the identity of the original and its edited “copy”. We can see that certain ancient artwork was subjected to changes during copying – to a greater or lesser extent. Then these copies were said to represent the originals.
Fig. 13.6. World map of Lucas Brandis allegedly dating from 1475 (city of Lübeck). The whole city looks like a Christian cross with Jerusalem at the centre. The map is oriented as follows: we have the East on top, and the North is on the left. Paradise is in the East, and there are several rivers flowing thence. There are two countries named Babylonia – in Asia and in Africa. In the North-East we see the Kingdom of the Great Khan, the land of Presbyter Johannes, India, Scythia, Sarmatia, Chaldaea, Amazonia, Tartary, Babylonia and Assyria (taken from [1160], page 38, ill. 2.9
Chapter 14.
Fig. 14.1. First page of the first edition of Marco Polo’s book that portrays Marco Polo himself. From a German edition allegedly dating from 1477. Taken from [1264], Volume 2, page 555.
Fig. 14.2. Map compiled from the data of Polo Sr. and Marco Polo himself. River Volga is called Tigris here! Obviously enough, nobody calls Volga that nowadays. The name must have been transferred to the south during the campaign for Scaligerian history and been affixed to the region of the modern Mesopotamia on the maps of the XVII-XVIII century. Taken from [1264], Volume 1, after page 144 (at the end of the Foreword).
14.3. Close-in of a fragment of Marco Polo’s map with Volga named Tigris. Taken from [1264], Volume 1, after page 144 (at the end of the Foreword).
Fig. 14.4. The death of Genghis-Khan during the storm of Calacuy Fortress. Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s mediaeval manuscript. Nothing stands in the way of interpreting this as a motif of the Horde’s (Russia’s) life – there are no details that could be interpreted as specifically Chinese in the modern sense of the word. Taken from [1263], Volume 1, page 68.
Fig. 14.5. Ancient miniature entitled “Palace at Khan-Balyk” from a mediaeval manuscript of Marco Polo’s book. Nothing should preclude us from regarding it as pertinent to the life of Russia, or the Horde – no explicitly Chinese elements here as we understand them today. Taken from [1264], Volume 1, page 369.
Fig. 14.6. A close-in of a warrior wearing a marksman’s hat from a miniature contained in Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1264], Volume 1, page 369.
Fig. 14.7. Winter Palace in Beijing. Modern miniature used in the British edition of Marco Polo’s book in order to “prove” that Marco Polo and the mediaeval artist that drew the Palace at Khan-Balyk, qv above, had something similar in mind. However, we see no similarities whatsoever. Taken from [1264], Volume 1, page 369.
Fig. 14.8. Ancient miniature entitled “Borus” (Boris, or B-Rus, White Russian?) from a mediaeval manuscript of Marco Polo’s book. No Chinese elements in the modern meaning of the word. Taken from [1264], Volume 2, page 310.
Fig. 14.9. St. Christopher the Dog-Headed. XVI century, Russian North. Taken from [693], page 74.
Fig. 14.10. St. Christopher the Dog-Headed. Second half of the XVI century, Chudov Monastery. Taken from [693], page 74.
Fig. 14.11. A close-in of St. Christopher the Dog-Headed. Second half of the XVI century, Chudov Monastery. Taken from [693], page 74.
Fig. 14.12. Ancient miniature entitled “The Cynocephales” – people with canine heads as drawn in a mediaeval manuscript of Marco Polo’s book. It is perfectly easy to interpret as a Russian motif – there is nothing we could identify as a typically Chinese element in the modern meaning of the word. Taken from [1264], Volume 2, page 311.
Fig. 14.13. First page from Marco Polo’s book. The beginning of Nicholas and Marco Polo’s voyage – Constantinople. Taken from [1263], folio 1, page 8.
Fig. 14.14. Nicholas and Marco Polo in Bukhara, Persia. Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 2, page 10.
Fig. 14.15. Entering the city of the Great Khan. Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 2v, page 12.
Fig. 14.16. The Great Khan receives a letter from the Pope. Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 3, page 12.
Fig. 14.17. Nicholas and Marco Polo receive a golden board from the Khan (used as a travelling document). Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 3v, page 15.
Fig. 14.18. Christian baptism of a relation of the Great Khan. Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 20v, page 52.
Fig. 14.19. The worship of a gold idol in Province Tangut. Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 22, page 57.
Fig. 14.20. Genghis-Khan’s inauguration ceremony. Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 25v, page 64.
Fig. 14.21. Genghis-Khan’s matchmakers addressing the daughter of Presbyter Johannes. Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 26, page 64.
Fig. 14.22. The beginning of the battle between the great Kubla-Khan and his uncle (Nayan, or Nayam). Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 34, page 82.
Fig. 14.23. The four wives of Kubla-Khan (or Dmitriy Donskoi, according to our reconstruction). Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 36, page 86.
Fig. 14.24. Bridge over the great river Pulisangin next to the capital of the Great Khan. We see a windmill. Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [510], page 166. See also [1263], folio 49, page 109.
Fig. 14.25. The fable-like “serpents” hunted by the subjects of the Great Khan. The initial reference was to the Russian bear-hunt method involving sharp stakes. Ancient miniature from Marco Polo’s book. Taken from [1263], folio 55v, page 121.
Fig. 14.26. A close-in of the miniature with the “serpent” (or the bear) from Marco Polo’s book. See also [1263], folio 55v, page 121.
Fig. 14.27. The famous Rukh Bird (“Russ” bird, or the Russian Bird). Copy of the ancient Arabic artwork (see Lane’s “Arabian Nights”). Let us point out that the Rukh Bird was also called Garuda, or Horda (Horde). The Westerners often referred to the Horde as to “Horda”, hence “Garuda”. The enormous Rukh Bird (Russia, or the Horde?) was much respected in the Orient. Many legends mention it. Taken from [1264], Volume 2, page 415.
Fig. 14.28. Map of Great Tartary compiled by Ortelius in the alleged year 1570 A. D. (after L. Bagrov). Bering Strait is called “Stretto di Anian”. Taken from “The Discovery of Kamchatka and Bering’s Expedition” by L. S. Berg (Moscow and Leningrad. Published by the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1946. Inset between pages 16 and 17.
Fig. 14.29. A native Ainu from Isle Shikotan. We see a typically Slavic face. Photograph taken in 1899. Taken from “The Discovery of Kamchatka and Bering’s Expedition” by L. S. Berg (Moscow and Leningrad. Published by the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1946. Page 134.
Fig. 14.30. The same Ainu from Isle Shikotan (profile). We see a typically Slavic face. Photograph taken in 1899. Taken from “The Discovery of Kamchatka and Bering’s Expedition” by L. S. Berg (Moscow and Leningrad. Published by the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1946. Page 135.
Fig. 14.31. A native Ainu from Isle Hokkaido. Once again, a typically Slavic face. Photograph taken in 1899. Taken from “The Discovery of Kamchatka and Bering’s Expedition” by L. S. Berg (Moscow and Leningrad. Published by the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1946. Page 139.
Chapter 15.
Fig. 15.0. A. D. Chertkov (1789-1858). From a portrait by Prof. Zaryanka. Taken from the title page of [618:1].
Fig. 15.1. Large ancient Etruscan necropolis in Italy, allegedly dating from the XVII century B. C. It bears a great resemblance to the Scythian burial mounds. Taken from [1410], pages 48-49.
Fig. 15.2. The inside of the Etruscan necropolis of the alleged VI century B. C. Taken from [1410], page 42.
Fig. 15.3. The ruins of an ancient Etruscan necropolis: “Orvieto, necropoli del Crocefisso del Tufo: particolare” ([1410], page 364).
Fig. 15.4. The ruins of a huge Etruscan temple in Italy: “Ara della Regina” (the alleged IV century B. C.). Taken from [1410], pages 144-145.
Fig. 15.5. Etruscan sculpture of the alleged VI century B. C. However, we see two Christian angels with wings taking the soul of a slain warrior up to heaven. The artwork is more likely to date from the XV-XVI century. Photograph taken in 1995, Museum of Florence.
Fig. 15.6. The She-Wolf of Capitol Hill. Bronze figurine of circa 83 centimetres in height. “Palazzo dei Conservatori. Lupa Capitolina. Originale in bronzo VI-V sec. a. C.” – Plurigraf-Nami (Tr), Italy.
Fig. 15.7. On the right – the table of F. Volanski with parallels between the Slavic and Etruscan alphabets. The first row contains Cyrillic characters, and the second, the Polish transcriptions of corresponding sounds. Taken from [388], page 103. We see an Etruscan epitaph on the left.
Fig. 15.8. Etruscan alphabet according to the book of A. I. Nemirovskiy ([574], page 70).
Fig. 15.9. Etruscan figurine known as “Boy with a Goose”. Taken from [388], page 184.
Fig. 15.10. Etruscan lettering on the right leg of the “Boy with a Goose”. Taken from [388], page 184.
Fig. 15.11. Etruscan figurine known as “Boy with a Bird”. Taken from [388], page 99.
Fig. 15.12. Two-sided Etruscan cameo. Taken from [388], pages 97-98.
Fig. 15.13. Etruscan bronze liver model, allegedly dating from the II century B. C. The model may have been made as a visual aid for teaching medicine in some Etruscan University. The Italian commentary is as follows: “Modello in bronzo di fegato di pecora con nomi di divinita incisi entro caselle, da Settima presso Piacenza (sec. II a. C.). Piacenza, Museo Civico” ([1410], page 284). Taken from [1410], page 284.
Fig. 15.14. Etruscan liver model. The alleged III century B. C. according to [574], page 180. Drawn copy of the convex part. Piacenza. Municipal museum. Taken from [574], page 180.
Fig. 15.15. Etruscan liver model. The alleged III century B. C. according to [574], page 180. Drawn copy of the concave part. The Etruscans appear to have been well-versed in medicine. Taken from [1410], page 285. See also [574], page 180.
Fig. 15.16. Etruscan prosthetic teeth. Taken from [106], page 10.
Fig. 15.17. Ancient Etruscan mirror. “Driving in a Nail. Bronze Mirror. Circa 320 B. C. Museum of Berlin” ([574], page 188). Could this be the angel that takes out the nails from the body of Crucified Christ? Taken from [574], page 188.
Fig. 15.18. Christian relic – one of the nails that had pinioned Christ to the cross. On the right we see the precious golden encasement where the nail is usually kept; it was taken out and exposed for the public to admire for a short time, which made it possible to take a photograph. The Treasury of Trier Cathedral. Taken from [1393], page 26.
Fig. 15.19. Ancient Etruscan bronze mirror, allegedly portraying Minerva, Kherkle and an infant ([574], page 195). It is very likely that the artwork actually portrays Our Lady and the infant Christ. Taken from [574], page 195.
Fig. 15.20. Etruscan sculpture from a Florentine museum. Our Lady with the infant Christ?
Fig. 15.21. . Ancient Etruscan bronze mirror. “Mirror portraying Usiles, Tesan and Neptune. III century B. C.” ([574], page 197). Note the Christian halo around the head of one of the characters. Taken from [574], page 197.
Fig. 15.22. Ancient Etruscan mirror. “Mirror from Tuscany depicting a divination scene” ([574], page 213). Taken from [1410], page 270. See also [574], page 213.
Fig. 15.23. Etruscan lettering. Taken from [388].
Fig. 15.24. Etruscan lettering. Taken from [388].
Fig. 15.25. Etruscan lettering. Taken from [388].
Fig. 15.26. Etruscan lettering. Taken from [388].
Fig. 15.27. Etruscan lettering. Taken from [388].
Fig. 15.28. Etruscan lettering. Taken from [388].
Fig. 15.29. Etruscan lettering. Taken from [388].
Fig. 15.30. Etruscan lettering. Taken from [388].
Fig. 15.31. Large bronze statue of the Etruscan Chimaera. We see a huge snarling dog ready to attack, with a tail that looks like a stinging serpent. “Chimera d’Arezzo”. Florence, Archaeological Museum. Taken from [1158], page 44. See also [1410], page 380.
Chapter 16.
Fig. 16.1. Scaligerian chronology of mediaeval Egypt. Compiled by the authors of the present book after [99].
Fig. 16.2. Mediaeval Coptic Christian cross.
Fig. 16.3. “Ancient” Egyptian artwork (Ra-Atum-Khepri) with a mediaeval Coptic Christian cross. Taken from [486], page 18.
Fig. 16.4. “Ancient” Egyptian Triad of Memphis: Ptah, Sekhmet and Nefertum, accompanied by mediaeval Coptic Christian crosses. Taken from [486], page 30.
Fig. 16.5. Mediaeval Coptic artwork depicting Christian crosses. Clay tablet No. 8565 (46 cm long). From the “Erment” collection of the Cairo Museum, pl. XXIX. Our drawn copy. Taken from [544], Volume 6, page 1063.
Fig. 16.6. Mediaeval Coptic Christian cross. Clay tablet No. 8569 from the “Erment” collection of the Cairo Museum (45 cm long). Taken from [544], Volume 6, page 1039.
Fig. 16.7. Solar falcon that decorated the beams of the “ancient” Egyptian royal chariots. On the head of the bird we see a disc with mediaeval Coptic Christian crosses. Taken from [374].
Fig. 16.8. Rear suspension of a ceremonial “ancient” Egyptian armature adorned with Christian crosses. Taken from [374].
Fig. 16.9. Egyptologists prefer to call this “ancient” Egyptian coat of arms, frequently encountered on the monuments of the “ancient” Egypt, “solar falcon holding the symbols of Life (ankh) and Eternity (shen)”. However, this is most likely to be the Ottoman = Ataman star and crescent symbol made to resemble a single-headed eagle that holds the Orb of Statehood in its paws, just like an Imperial “Mongolian” eagle should. This relic was found in the treasury of the “ancient” Egyptian tomb of Tutankhamen. Taken from [1366], page 151.
Fig. 16.10. “Ancient” Egyptian mirror frame shaped like a Christian cross. Taken from [374].
Fig. 16.11. Another photograph of a mirror-holder shaped as a Christian cross. It is made of wood and lavishly decorated. At the very centre we see the Ottoman = Ataman crescent that look like a pair of raised wings with a scarab inside. Taken from [1101], page 188.
Fig. 16.12. Christian crosses on the carved back of an armchair made of cedar wood from the tomb of Tutankhamen. Taken from [1101], page 70.
Fig. 16.13. Mediaeval Coptic Christian crosses on ritual artwork from Tutankhamen’s tomb. Taken from [1101], page 69.
Fig. 16.14. Mediaeval Coptic Christian crosses on a jewelled royal pendant from the tomb of Tutankhamen. Taken from [1101], page 178.
Fig. 16.15. Mediaeval Coptic Christian crosses on an “ancient” Egyptian trunk from the tomb of Tutankhamen. Taken from [1101], page 233.
Fig. 16.16. Mediaeval Coptic Christian crosses on an “ancient” Egyptian box from the tomb of Tutankhamen. Taken from [1101], page 233.
Fig. 16.17. “Ancient” Egyptian cross that looks identical to the mediaeval Coptic Christian cross. On the cross we see artwork depicting a royal sceptre. Taken from [1360], page 48.
Fig. 16.18. Precious chest-worn jewellery found in Tutankhamen’s tomb, virtually identical to late Russian and German coats of arms. The wings of the Imperial “Mongolian” eagle are no longer raised – the reformists may have wanted to vanquish any association with the Ottoman = Ataman crescent. Taken from [1101], page 177.
Fig. 16.19. “Ancient” Egyptian coat of arms that is virtually identical to the Imperian “Mongolian” eagle. We can plainly see that the symbol in question is merely a version of the Ottoman = Ataman crescent. Taken from [1366], page 152.
Fig. 16.20. “Ancient” Egyptian ritual figurines of Tutankhamen decorating the crown of Upper Egypt. On the head-dress of the Pharaoh we see the holy cobra (“ureus”) that forms a Christian cross. Taken from [1101], page 249.
Fig. 16.21. “Ancient” Egyptian sphinx on the Neva Embankment in St. Petersburg.
Fig. 16.22. A close-in of the Ureus serpent on the forehead of the Sphinx, cruciform. St. Petersburg, Neva embankment.
Fig. 16.23. Linen shirt (!) that the “ancient” Pharaoh Tutankhamen was buried in. It depicts a Christian cross. We also see the pharaoh’s glove; it has to be borne in mind that gloves were an accessory typical for the Middle Ages. Taken from [1101], page 270.
Fig. 16.24. Separate illustration with the Christian cross from Tutankhamen’s clothing. Taken from [1366], page 156.
Fig. 16.25. The statue of Nefert, the wife of Pharaoh Rakhotep. According to the Egyptologists themselves, she is dressed in a linen shirt and is also wearing a wig. Taken from [728], ill. 3.
Fig. 16.26. Candlesticks formed as sepulchral Christian crosses from the tomb of Tutankhamen. Taken from [1101], page 65.
Fig. 16.27. Chalice from the tomb of Tutankhamen adorned with mediaeval Christian crosses. Taken from [1101], page 98.
Fig. 16.28. Palace alabaster lamb shaped as a chalice. We see one of the most common details pertaining to the “ancient” Egyptian artwork – a Christian cross with a loop on top, or an ankh. Taken from [374].
Fig. 16.29. “Ancient” Egyptian golden chain of six Christian crosses. Discovered in the Meroe sepulchre. Taken from [1350], page 25.
Fig. 16.30. “Ancient” Egyptian golden chain of eight Christian crosses. Such artwork is most likely to date from the epoch of the XVI-XVII century. Taken from [1360], page 53.
Fig. 16.31. Front wall of the Karnak Temple. Inside view from the first court of the temple. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 16.32. Astronomical artwork from the “ancient” Egyptian tomb of Senenmut in the Valley of Kings, Luxor. Egyptologists believe this to be a horoscope, or a visual representation of a certain planetary disposition on the Zodiac. The horoscope resembles the Colour Zodiac of Thebes, which we consider at length in CHRON3, Part 2. Historians date in to 1463 B. C., the epoch of Queen Hatshepsut. But most possible astronomical solution is 1007 A.D. We shall cover our analysis of the horoscope in subsequent publications. Taken from Alberto Silotti’s book entitled “Guide to the Valley of the Kings and to the Theban Necropolises and Temples” A. A. Gaddis & Sons Publishers. Vercelli, Italy, 1996. Luxor, Egypt, 1999. See page 113.
Fig. 16.32a. Close-in of a fragment of the “ancient” Egyptian Zodiac of Senenmut. More details in the publications to follow. Taken from Alberto Silotti’s book entitled “Guide to the Valley of the Kings and to the Theban Necropolises and Temples” A. A. Gaddis & Sons Publishers. Vercelli, Italy, 1996. Luxor, Egypt, 1999. See page 113.
Fig. 16.33. In 1816 Belzoni, the famous archaeologist and Egyptologist, came to the ruins of the enormous statue of the “ancient” Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II (Ramesseum). Having admired the ancient artwork as seen on the fragments of the monument, Belzoni took a chisel and accurately wrote his name and the date of 1816 on the foundation of the statue, right next to the royal cartouche. As we can see, the Egyptologists of the XIX century had no qualms about taking the hammer and the chisel in order to comment on the ancient lettering found on the monuments of Egypt. In the present case there is no ambiguity involved: we see that Belzoni simply wanted to immortalise his own name. However, the implication is that the Egyptologists could easily edit ancient fragments of Egyptian texts, and also chisel off the fragments they found inappropriate. Taken from Alberto Silotti’s book entitled “Guide to the Valley of the Kings and to the Theban Necropolises and Temples” A. A. Gaddis & Sons Publishers. Vercelli, Italy, 1996. Luxor, Egypt, 1999. See page 121.
Fig. 16.34. Many statues of the “ancient” Egypt appear to be made of concrete and covered by a layer of extra-strong concrete, qv in CHRON5, Chapter 19:6. While this layer was moist, artwork and hieroglyphs were impressed into it. With the passage of time this relatively thin layer crumbled away in a number of places; this is the case we see in the photograph. The external layer peels away, revealing the actual body of the statue made of softer concrete. Taken from the Russian edition of a book entitled “Ancient Egypt” (White Star Publishers, Vercelli, Italy, 2001. See page 115.
Fig. 16.35a. The inside of a lid of an “ancient” Egyptian sarcophagus with the usual representation of the goddess Nuit and the starlit sky. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 16.35b. Now let us consider the outside of the same “ancient lid”. We see that it portrays a young boy in the manner characteristic for the XIX century, surrounded by a lengthy hieroglyphic inscription. Therefore, such sarcophagi could be manufactured in a very late epoch – possibly even the XIX century. As we realise today, there is nothing surprising about this fact. We have already calculated the date ciphered in the zodiac found on one of such “ancient” Egyptian coffins – namely, the Zodiac of Brugsch. This date turned out to fall over the middle of the XIX century, qv in CHRON3, Chapter 18. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 16.36. Golden burial mask of Tutankhamen (rear view). We instantly notice the braided hair resembling the Colossi of Memnon. We already mentioned the ancient Russian tradition of men wearing their hair in braids (see CHRON4, Chapter 14, figs. 14.67 and 14.68). Until very recently, the Russian Cossacks favoured the “oseledets” hairstyle, which is de facto another version of the same braid. Similar braids can be seen on the heads of the stone effigies known as “Stone Maids of the Polovtsy” (see CHRON5, Chapter 3, fig. 3.32a). Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 16.37a. “Ancient” granite sphinx next to the entrance to the Cairo Museum. We see “bald patches” on its paws and sides, resulting from the fact that the external layer of geopolymeric concrete has peeled off. This was caused by the use of an abrasive paste layer on the outside of the statue, which was convenient for polishing surfaces. The paste wouldn’t always attach itself ideally, and today we can see it peel. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 16.37b. Fragment of a statue of the “ancient” Egyptian Sphinx with a bald patch on the side. Cairo Museum. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 16.38a. The enormous “ancient” Egyptian temple on Isle Phile. It turns out that it was used as a Christian temple – this is also apparent from the numerous crosses engraved on its walls and columns. In the photograph we see a Christian sarcophagus with a cross and a niche in the temple wall with a cross over it. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 16.38b. A fragment. The cross and crescent symbol over the niche in the wall of a typical “ancient” Egyptian temple. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 16.39. A column of the “ancient” Egyptian temple on Isle Phile. It was decorated by a row of Coptic crosses; however, one of them was eventually replaced by a regular four-pointed Christian cross. Only one of the crosses was altered in this fashion, and very accurately at that. The rest have remained in their initial condition. Therefore, Christians in the days of yore saw no problem in the combination of the two types of crosses. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 16.40. Portrait of a Pharaoh over the entrance to the “ancient” Egyptian temple on Isle Phile. Pay attention to the fact that the pharaoh is portrayed in battle and wears a chain mail. Therefore, the legend about the utter lack or paucity of iron in the “ancient” Egypt, as well as its “meteorite” origin, is a figment of the historians’ imagination. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 16.41. “Valley of the Kings” (Biban-El-Mouluk). Some of the walls of the artificial sepulchral caves are whitewashed and covered in frescoes. We see a part of such a wall in the photograph (taken in 2000).
Fig. 16.42. “Valley of the Kings” (Biban-El-Mouluk). Hieroglyphic lettering on the walls of one of the royal sepulchres. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 16.43. Temple of Karnak. The sooty stone ceiling of one of the temple’s rooms left by a blaze. Nobody cared to remove the soot after the destruction of the temple; its former owners never returned. Photograph taken in 2000. It has to be said that if the ruins of one or the other “ancient” Egyptian temple are buried under a thick layer of sand, the destructions must date to the epoch of the Ottoman = Ataman conquest of the XV-XVI century, a long time ago. If the layer of sand is thin, the destructions were probably caused by the Europeans in the XVIII-XIX century.
Fig. 16.44. Temple of Karnak, central part. Marks of the vandalism. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 16.45. Temple of Karnak, view from the back yard. All the constructions inside the temple were barbarically destroyed. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 16.46. A mosque and a Christian church among the monuments of Luxor. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 16.47. Jean-Francois Champollion, 1790-1832. Taken from [1359], page 11.
Fig. 16.48. The Great Sphinx. We see the foundations of sculptures that once portrayed the “ancient” Egyptian kings between its paws. Taken from [1437], ill. 30.
Fig. 16.49. The face of the Great Sphinx, mutilated by the Napoleonic cannonade. The Egyptians later tried to fill the holes with cement. The Sphinx started to look marginally better, but the damage was too severe. Taken from [1437], ill. 25.
Fig. 16.50. The severely defaced head of the Great Sphinx. Sideways view. Taken from [1454], page 3.
Fig. 16.51. A close-in of the ureus, or the serpent on the Pharaoh’s headdress. The serpent is shaped like a Christian cross. Taken from [1101], page 249.
Fig. 16.52. “Ancient” Egyptian stone sculpture of the god Osiris – most probably, Jesus Christ. His head is adorned with a ureus, or a symbol of royal power, which is remarkably similar to the Christian cross. Taken from [1200], page 16.
Fig. 16.53. Sphinx figurine from the Golden Horde. We see that the Russians also made effigies of sphinxes. Taken from [197].
Fig. 16.54. Coat of arms of Princes Cherkasskiy. Taken from [193], page 217.
Fig. 16.55. Coptic alphabet. It is virtually identical to Cyrillics! Taken from [485].
Fig. 16.56. Our schematic reconstruction of the history of Egypt in Africa.
Fig. 16.57. The outside wall of an “ancient” Egyptian temple with a fragment of a large text that pertains to the Battle of Kadesh. Taken from [1438], ill. 32.
Chapter 17.
Fig. 17.1. Kadikoi, a suburb of Istanbul that is likely to be identified as the ancient Kadesh. Incidentally, at the top of Bosphorus there is Beykos, which is where Jesus Christ (1152-1185) was crucified, according to our reconstruction.
Fig. 17.2. A drawn copy of a map fragment dating from the XVIII century, whereupon we see Russian names alongside the Nile in Africa (Gaoga, Gorhan and Girge). “L'Asie dressé sur les observations de l'Academie Royale des Sciences et quelques autres, et Sur les memoires les plus recens. Amsterdam. Par G. de l'Isle Geographie a Amsterdam. Chez R. & J. Ottens”. Taken from [1019].
Fig. 17.3. The colossus of Ramses II exhibited in a museum today. This appears to be a symbolic representation of Jesus Christ. Another statue of Ramses II, 13 metres tall, stands in the square of the Cairo railway station. Taken from [370], page 84.
Fig. 17.4. Fragments of the enormous statue of Ramses II. Taken from [370], page 129.
Fig. 17.5. The gigantic statue of Ramses II in the square before the Cairo railway station. Taken from [2], page 24.
Fig. 17.6. Temple of Abu-Simbel, symbolising the greatness of Pharaoh Ramses II, who is likely to be identified as Jesus Christ. Taken from [370], page 182.
Fig. 17.7. The two rightmost statues from the Temple of Abu-Simbel built to commemorate Ramses II. Taken from [370], page 183.
Fig. 17.8. The “ureus” snake on the headdress of the statue from Abu-Simbel, shaped as a Christian cross. Taken from the cover of [370].
Chapter 18.
Fig. 18.1. The Great Sphinx at Gizeh. Taken from [1437], ill. 28.
Fig. 18.2. Schematic section of the Great Sphinx according to Lehner. Taken from [1200], page 36.
Chapter 19.
Fig. 19.1. The Great Pyramid of Cheops (Khufu).
Fig. 19.2. The sheer scale of the pyramids’ size can be estimated by the two human figures in the bottom right corner of the photograph. Taken from [1437], ill. 19.
Fig. 19.3. Roman inlay allegedly dating from the II or the III century A. D. that depicts “the wonders of the Nile valley”, according to the historians ([726], page 101). It is completely amazing that this truly detailed and skilfully made inlay doesn’t depict the pyramids or the Great Sphinx. Many other “ancient” Egyptian constructions famous nowadays are conspicuously missing as well. The implication is that they weren’t yet built in the epoch in question. Taken from [726], page 100.
Fig. 19.4. Concentric funereal chapels, or sarcophagi, which contained similar concentric coffins of Tutankhamen. Taken from [728], page 24.
Fig. 19.5. Concentric coffins of Pharaoh Tutankhamen. Their construction resembles that of the Russian matryoshka dolls. Taken from [1367], page 50. See also [1366], page 109.
Fig. 19.6. Napoleon’s sepulchre in Paris, Église du Dôme, Église Saint Louis des Invalides. It contains several concentric coffins. Taken from [1272], page 153.
Fig. 19.7. Ancient Russian anthropomorphic sarcophagi whose shape resembles the shape of the human body. Similar sarcophagi were made in the “ancient” Egypt. Taken from [62], table 55.
Fig. 19.8. Ancient Russian anthropomorphic sarcophagi, strongly resembling the sarcophagi made by the “ancient” Egyptians. Taken from [62], table 56.
Fig. 19.9. Scheme of the concentric sepulchre of Pharaoh Tutankhamen. Taken from [1366], page 65. The very concept of the Russian matryoshka dolls, which have a similar construction, must have originated a long while ago, and obviously symbolises human life and changing generations – humans “contain” many generations of their descendants, in a way.
Fig. 19.10. The first and largest coffin of Tutankhamen. Taken from [1366], page 108.
Fig. 19.11. The second coffin of Tutankhamen enclosed in the first one. Taken from [1101], page 267.
Fig. 19.12. The third coffin of Tutankhamen, which contained the mummy of the pharaoh. Massive gold casting. Taken from [1101], page 268.
Fig. 19.13. Cast golden mask on the face of Tutankhamen. Taken from [1101], page 114.
Fig. 19.14. The golden mask of Tutankhamen. Taken from [370], page 43.
Fig. 19.15. The sepulchre of Prince Dmitriy. Life-sized bas-relief of the prince. Workshops of the Muscovite Kremlin, 1630. Silver, precious stones, etching, casting and gilding. 157 by 70 cm. This gilded “shroud”, which has fortunately survived until our day, indirectly proves the fact that the Russians had a custom of burying their Czars, or Khans, in golden coffins. Taken from [187], page 74.
Fig. 19.16. Gilded relief mask of Prince Dmitriy. Etching and precious stones. Taken from the article entitled “Treasures of the Kremlin” published by the National Geographic, Vol. 177, #1, January 1990, page 87. See also [187], page 75.
Fig. 19.17. Two funereal wreaths of dry live flowers discovered in the coffin of Tutankhamen. According to the experts, about half of the flower species used for the wreaths appear to be of non-Egyptian origin ([374], pages 260-261). Taken from [1101], page 75.
Fig. 19.18. “Ancient” Egyptian mural. The Egyptians are carrying sacrificial food, which resembles the Christian Easter cakes. One of the trays is filled with Easter eggs, no less. The two trays at the top probably contain sprouted oats. The Russian Orthodox paskha is still served in a similar manner. Taken from [1360], page 46.
Fig. 19.19. Small “ancient” Egyptian pyramidion, whose shape resembles that of the Christian paskha, a ceremonial dish of white cottage cheese that has retained that shape to this very day. Taken from [1360], title page photograph.
Fig. 19.20. A close-in of one of the “ancient” Egyptian pyramidion’s (or paskha’s) sides. One must think that similar artwork had once covered the enormous white sides of the Great Pyramids of Egypt, which was eventually chiselled off. It was subsequently claimed that the pyramids have “always been that way”.
Fig. 19.21. Section view of the Cheops Pyramid (according to Borhardt). Taken from [464], page 31.
Fig. 19.22. Section view of the Cheops Pyramid. Contemporary model. Taken from [1360], page 23.
Fig. 19.23. Section view of the Mikerin Pyramid (according to Perring). Taken from [464], page 81.
Fig. 19.24. Comparative sizes of the largest Egyptian pyramids and several famous mediaeval and modern constructions. Taken from [1360], page 21. The only thing that we added to the table was the building of the M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University.
Fig. 19.25. Pyramid of Cheops in the Gizeh (Cossack) field in Egypt, near Cairo. This is the largest pyramid of all. Taken from [2], page 32.
Fig. 19.26. The three Great Pyramids in the Gizeh (Cossack) field in Egypt, near Cairo. We see the pyramids of “Pharaohs” Mikerin, Khefren and Cheops (left to right). Taken from [2], page 1.
Fig. 19.27. Funereal chamber of the Cheops Pyramid. Taken from [464], inset between pages 112 and 113. There isn’t any artwork anywhere on the sarcophagus, nor are there any inscription; the object is more like a trunk used for storing valuables. It may have contained a part of the imperial treasury – the reserve, as it were. The entrance to the chamber was blocked by a huge stone slab, which was elevated and supported from beneath. When the chamber was abandoned, the support was removed, and the stone slab slid to the ground guided by special grooves carved in stone like the blade of a guillotine, blocking entrance to the chamber. Somewhat later it was opened, and the treasure taken away. Ancient texts report that inside the pyramid there was “a pool filled with golden coins; 1000 full-weight golden coins were found inside, an ounce each. Al-Mamun was greatly impressed by the purity of this gold . . . Al-Mamun ordered for the pool to be taken away and made part of his treasury” ([464], page 39).
Fig. 19.28. Iron dagger (bottom) from the grave of the “ancient” Pharaoh Tutankhamen in Egypt. At the top of the illustration we see a golden dagger. “Two daggers from the king’s mummy, with blades of gold . . . and iron” ([1366], page 177). Taken from [1101], page 97. See also [1366], page 177.
Fig. 19.29. The location of the iron dagger on Tutankhamen’s mummy. Taken from [1366], page 113.
Fig. 19.30. The location of the golden dagger on Tutankhamen’s mummy. Taken from [1366], page 113.
Fig. 19.31. Royal hunt with hounds depicted on the sheath of the golden dagger of the “ancient” Pharaoh Tutankhamen. Such hunting was very popular with the Czars, or Khans, of the Horde (Russia). Taken from [1101], page 97.
Fig. 19.32. Pyramid field of the Northern Cemetery of Meroe in Egypt. This is what this area looked like in 1821. F. Gailliaud, “Voyage à Meroe”, Paris, 1823-27, plate XXXVI. Taken from [1350], page 7.
Fig. 19.33. The pyramid of the “ancient” Queen Amanishakheto in 1821 on the Meroe field of pyramids in Egypt. F. Gailliaud, “Voyage à Meroe”, Paris, 1823-27, plate XLI. Taken from [1350], page 9.
Fig. 19.34. Guatemalan pyramid arbitrarily referred to as the “Temple of the Jaguar” nowadays (45 metres high). It is very much like certain pyramids of the “ancient” Egypt. Taken from [1270], page 83.
Fig. 19.35. “Ancient” Egyptian artwork that depicts a rowboat crossing the sea. Pay close attention to the Christian “hand cross”. Illustration from the “ancient” Egyptian Book of the Dead. Taken from [1448], page 22.
Fig. 19.36. Another “ancient” Egyptian representation of a sea-bound rowboat. We see another Christian “hand cross”. Illustration from the “ancient” Egyptian Book of the Dead. Taken from [1448], page 22. This must be the origin of the “ancient” Greek myth of Charon, the ferryman of the dead.
Fig. 19.37. “Ancient” Egyptian carriage of Tutankhamen (dismantled). It looks like a typical mediaeval Russian or European royal carriage. Taken from [1366], page 79.
Fig. 19.38. “Ancient” Egyptian artwork that portrays a goddess blessing Pharaoh Ramses III with a Christian cross. The pharaoh is also holding a Christian (Coptic) cross in his hand. Taken from [1415], pages 118-119.
Fig. 19.39. “Ancient” Egyptian Christian cross of the exact same shape as used today. The Metropolitan Museum, New York. Photograph taken by A. T. Fomenko in 1996.
Fig. 19.40. Drawing of the “ancient” Egyptian obelisk of Iunu (Heliopolis) with a large Christian cross at the top; the shape of the cross is exactly the same as we’re accustomed to, it has no loop on top. Taken from [486], page 16.
Fig. 19.41. “Ancient” Egyptian drawing of a Christian cross. On the left we see another Christian cross circumscribed by a circle. Such crosses are occasionally referred to as “Qatar crosses”, although they are nothing but regular Christian crosses surrounded by halos. Photograph taken by G. A. Khroustalyov in 1999 (Museum of Egypt, Cairo).
Fig. 19.42. “Ancient” Egyptian representations of the Christian cross. On the right we see yet another Christian cross surrounded with a halo. Photograph taken in the Museum of Egypt (Cairo) in 1999.
Fig. 19.43. Rear view of the Memnon Colossi. Taken from [370], page 136.
Fig. 19.44. A close-in of the Orthodox Christian cross on the throne of the right colossus of Memnon. Taken from [370], page 136.
Fig. 19.45. The left colossus of Memnon. It was damaged to a greater extent than the right. Nevertheless, we can still make out the remnants of a wide Orthodox cross on the back of the throne, covered in hieroglyphs. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 19.46. Remains of a large Orthodox cross on the back of the left colossus of Memnon. The cross must have been shaped similarly to the one that we see on the throne of the right colossus, which has reached us in a better condition. Photograph taken by G. V. Nosovskiy in 2000.
Fig. 19.47. Right side of the throne occupied by one of the Memnon colossi with a T-shaped Christian cross. Taken from [370], page 137.
Fig. 19.48. “Ancient” Egyptian artwork depicting the Orb of State decorated with a Christian cross. Museum of Egypt, Cairo. Photograph taken in May 1999.
Fig. 19.49. Fragment of a long wall that depicts a row of door and their symbolic guardians (from the sepulchre of Pharaoh Seti I). Over the head of the figure on the right we see a conventional Christian cross (not an ankh). It is a narrow cross, shaped just like the Catholic crosses common for our day and age. Taken from [370], page 104.
Fig. 19.50. Close-in of the cross over the head of a figure from the sepulchre of Pharaoh Seti I. Taken from [370], page 104.
Fig. 19.51. The Cheops Pyramid. Taken from [2], page 34.
Fig. 19.52. The masonry of the Cheops Pyramid. Taken from [2], Chapter 34.
Fig. 19.53. The Cheops Pyramid. The enormous size of some of the blocks at its base is all the more apparent when we compare it to the figures of tourists on top of them. Taken from [1454], page 5.
Fig. 19.54. Fantasy modern reconstruction of the “elevating contraption” allegedly used by the “ancient” Egyptians to drag the blocks to the top of the pyramid with great effort. Taken from [370], page 69.
Fig. 19.55. One of the modern “theories” invented by the Egyptologists as an attempt to explain the mechanism of raising the gigantic blocks of the Egyptian pyramids to the top. Such utopian ideas are highly unlikely to ever become implemented in actual building practice. Taken from [464], page 199.
Fig. 19.56. Manual stone grinders in an Egyptian desert. Photograph taken from [47].
Fig. 19.57. Ancient engraving depicting the installation of the Vatican obelisk in September of the alleged year 1586 in front of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome, Italy. It is quite apparent that the operation was difficult and labour-consuming – such things were only done in exceptional cases. Stamp. Barb. O VIII 40, pl. A. Taken from [1374], page 122, Plate 98. One must also note that on the margins of the engraving the obelisk is depicted inside a wooden scaffold. It is most likely that the obelisk was cast of concrete right on the spot, vertically, step by step, with the scaffolding growing accordingly.
Fig. 19.58. Fragment of the Cheops Pyramid’s corner block taken from the height of 50 metres. The illustration was made with the aid of a photocopy machine under different lighting. We see two adjacent sides of the fragment. The mark left by the woven lining inside the wooden frame, or mould, which was used for the manufacture of the block, is in plain sight.
Fig. 19.59. Photographs of a block fragment from the Cheops pyramid made from different angles. We can very clearly see the marks left by the woven lining from inside the wooden frame. The specimen was taken from the height of 50 metres and shown to us in 1998 by Professor I. V. Davidenko, Doctor of Geology (Moscow).
Fig. 19.60.
Fig. 19.61.
Fig. 19.62.
Fig. 19.63.
Fig. 19.64.
Fig. 19.65 is removed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Поэтому следующий рисунок занумерован как 19.65/66.
Fig. 19.65/66. Obelisk (column) of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus allegedly dating from 940 A. D. It stands at the Istanbul Hippodrome. The construction is made of stone blocks covered in a layer of cement. The cement and the exterior have peeled off over the years.
Fig. 19.67. A closer view of the Obelisk of Constantine in Istanbul. One can clearly see the stone block that it was made of. Photograph taken by A. T. Fomenko in 1995.
Fig. 19.68a. “Ancient” Egyptian stone vessels (amphorae, plates etc) from the Pyramid of Josser. All of them are made from exceptionally hard stone such as diorite. The walls are of uniform thickness; the hollow parts of the amphorae couldn’t have been drilled. Taken from [1092], page 119, ill. 31.
Fig. 19.68b. Stone vases of diorite allegedly dating from 3000 B. C. The stone is exceptionally hard; modern sculptors never use it due to the reason that diorite is virtually impossible to shape with the aid of the instruments used for this purpose normally. The Egyptologists are trying to convince us that the “ancient” Egyptians mastered the mass production of such items using some sort of a “mystery drill” that allowed them to produce vessels with walls of a uniform thickness, no less. Taken from [1092], page 10, ill. 1 (in the electronic version of the book).
Fig. 19.69. Unfinished “ancient” Egyptian statue of Nefertiti made of quartzite, also a hard stone. We see a distinct joint line that runs across the entire face of the sculpture. This fact proves the quartzite in question to be of an artificial nature – it is concrete, in other words. Taken from [728], ill. 32. Also see the other photograph of the sculpture on the back cover of the book ([728]).
Fig. 19.70. A close-in of the joint on the face of Nefertiti’s sculpture. Taken from [728], ill. 32.
Fig. 19.70a. The same “ancient” statue of Nefertiti’s head as we see in fig. 19.70. However, in this case the lighting and the photography technique render the joint all but invisible. The authors of the album ([1245:1]) must have felt embarrassed about the presence of the joint that clearly proved the statue to be made of concrete. It was therefore decided to make a photograph where the joint wouldn’t be seen so as to preclude the readers from asking unwarranted question. This example clearly demonstrates that the surreptitious editing of the ancient history continues to this very day (deliberate or involuntary); the sanctity of the Scaligerian version is protected by every means available. Taken from [1245:1]. This leads us to further questions. G. V. Nosovskiy, who made a close study of the sculpture exhibited in the Museum of Cairo in July 2002, discovered that the vertical line (or the joint) seems drawn in dark paint of some sort. One may well wonder about the identity of the figurine exhibited in the museum. Is it the original or just a copy? In the latter case, where exactly is the original located?
Fig. 19.71. The head of Pharaoh Amenophis III. “Ancient” Egyptian sculpture of hard stone. Taken from [1415], page 4.
Fig. 19.72. Close-in of the sculpture of Pharaoh Amenophis III. The surface of the stone, which happens extremely hard, is polished to such an extent that it shines like a mirror. Such high quality of craftsmanship becomes obvious and understandable in the light of the discovery made by I. Davidovich. The sculpture was cast of geopolymeric concrete and polished before the end of the hardening process. Taken from [1415], page 4.
Fig. 19.73. Fragment of the inscription at the base of the 700-tonne “ancient” obelisk of hard granite. The quality of the “carving” is truly amazing – it is as though it was made with a laser. In reality, the hieroglyphs were embossed on the geopolymeric concrete while it was still soft. Taken from [1415], page 88.
Fig. 19.74. Ideal quality of the inscription on the “ancient” Egyptian obelisk of Ramses II. Mark the depth of the hieroglyphs – it is very uncommon for actual carvings; however, if we assume that the hieroglyphs were embossed on soft geopolymeric concrete, everything falls into place instantly. Taken from [1415], page 164. Also pay attention to the Christian cross inside a circle, or a halo (below).
Fig. 19.75. Large “ancient” Egyptian monolithic sarcophagus. The Metropolitan Museum, New York. Photograph taken in 1996.
Fig. 19.76. Large “ancient” Egyptian monolithic sarcophagi. The Metropolitan Museum, New York. Photograph taken in 1996.
Fig. 19.77. Photograph of a stone fragment from the Cheops Pyramid, which was given to Davidovich by the Egyptologist Lauer. The fragment revealed to contain inclusions of human hair, which proves it to be artificial. Taken from [1092], page 90, ill. 15 (page 112, ill. 19 in the electronic version of the book).
Fig. 19.78. Ancient portrait of Morienus, possibly of an arbitrary nature. From the egraving by De Vries. Taken from [705], page 79.
Fig. 19.79. Ancient map entitled “Tartaria Sive Magni Chami Imperium” – “Tartary, or Empire of the Great Ham” (Khan). Map from the collection of A. M. Boulatov (Moscow). Was exhibited at the map exhibition held by the Union Gallery, Moscow, in March 2000. Photograph taken by the authors of the book.
Fig. 19.80. A close-in with the title of the map (“Tartary, or Empire of the Great Ham”). We see that the “Mongolian” Empire was also known as the Empire of the Great Ham (Khan) – just like the “ancient” Egypt.
Fig. 19.81. Table of chemical reactions of pyro-tartaric acid from Lavoisier’s “Elementary Course of Chemistry” (Paris, 1801). Let us point out the usage of the term pyro-tartrite. Taken from [245], page 143.
Fig. 19.82. The inside of the Roman Pantheon, allegedly rebuilt in the II century A. D. The enormous magnificent building is built of concrete; it is most likely to date from the XVI-XVII century. Taken from [726], page 63.
Fig. 19.83. The Roman Pantheon built by Agrippa of concrete in the alleged I century B. C., and subsequently reconstructed by Hadrian in the alleged year 123 A. D. It is most likely to have been built in the XVI-XVII century A. D. Taken from [1242], page 41.
Fig. 19.84. The famous “ancient” Roman aqueduct in the south of France, near the city of Nimes (formerly Nemausus). The complex and elegant structure is made of concrete; it is most likely to date from the XVI-XVII century. Taken from [726], page 63.
Fig. 19.85. “In the [alleged – Auth.] year of 105 A. D. a six-section bridge with sturdy granite arches was built over the river Tagus (nowadays known as Tajo). The bridge is in Alcantar, Spain; its height is 52 metres above the surface of the water, and it functions to this very day” ([726], page 157). Taken from [726], page 157.
Fig. 19.86. Temple of Apollo Ilatis in Cyprus. These are the remnants of the “ancient” construction that had the shape of a spherical sector. The thickness of the walls is perfectly uniform. This is what the “ancient” concrete looked like; the detail in question must have pertained to the dome of the temple. Taken from [384], page 38.
Fig. 19.87. “Ancient” amphitheatre in Ephesus, Turkey. The enormous building is most probably made of concrete blocks, which have eroded over the course of time, revealing inclusions of pebbles and gravel added to the concrete mixture for extra volume. This practice is still very much alive today. The most obvious inclusions can be seen in the bottom left corner of the photograph. Taken from [1259], pages 88-89.
Fig. 19.88. Close-in of the fragment with the eroded stairs of the Ephesus amphitheatre. We can clearly see the inclusions of gravel and pebbles in the “ancient” concrete. Taken from [1259], pages 88-89.
Fig. 19.89. This is what the three Great Pyramids in Gizeh (near Cairo) looked like right after the conquest of Egypt by the troops of Napoleon Bonaparte. This old drawing is contained in the “Description of Egypt”, which was published after the Napoleonic Egyptian campaign. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. 5 – Pl. 1.10.
Fig. 19.90. The modern condition of the Khephren Pyramid. Taken from [370], page 60.
Fig. 19.91. Unique old photograph of 1864 with the Great Sphinx and the Pyramid of Khephren. Taken from [1415], page 44. The debris covering the Imperial graveyard of Gizeh owes its existence to the iconoclastic Ottomans and the troops of Napoleon that came in their wake.
Fig. 19.92. The mutilated colossi of Luxor, Egypt. This is the very condition that they were seen in by the Napoleonic artists that followed Napoleon’s army to this part of Egypt. The damage was most probably inflicted by heavy artillery – we can clearly see that the gunners aimed at the heads as well as the bodies of the statues. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. III – Pl. 13.
Fig. 19.93. The “ancient” Egyptian prince sporting the famous Cossack hairstyle known as “oseledets”. Artwork from a tomb that presumably dates from the second millennium before Christ. Taken from [370], page 121.
Fig. 19.94. An “ancient” Egyptian fresco. All the faces have apparently been chiselled off – we can clearly see that the vandals aimed at the faces, since the rest of the fresco is in a more or less good condition. Taken from [370], page 161.
Fig. 19.95. The so-called Royal Mound. This gigantic construction is located in the Crimea (the outskirts of Kerch). Photograph taken by G. V. Nosovskiy in 1996.
Fig. 19.96. Entrance to the Royal Mound. Photograph taken in 1996.
Fig. 19.97. Information sign installed next to the Royal Mound. Photograph taken in 1996.
Fig. 19.98. Christian crosses that have survived on stone walls inside the Royal Mound. Photograph taken in 1996.
Fig. 19.99. Fragment of the artwork on the wall of the Royal Mound with a Christian cross.
Fig. 19.100. Inner chambers of the Royal Mound. This particular chamber was obviously designed in the exact same manner as the Orthodox Christian churches – we can clearly see the three stairs leading to the altar and the room for the “royal gateway” that separates the altar from the rest of the church. Photograph taken in 1996.
Fig. 19.101. Altar chamber as seen from the “royal gateway”. Photograph taken in 1996.
Fig. 19.102. The actual chamber and the main entrance as seen from the altar. Photograph taken in 1996.
Fig. 19.103. Entrance to the church (or the mound). Photograph taken in 1996.
Fig. 19.104. Mound-shape storage facility in a modern Russian village. The inside has the same construction as the “ancient” mounds. Photograph taken in 1999 (Village of Ignatovo, Nizhegorodskaya Oblast, Russia).
Fig. 19.105. Entrance to the ancient “royal palace” in Yucatan, Mexico. Taken from [1056], page 94.
Fig. 19.106. The same entrance to the “royal palace” in Yucatan as seen in a XIX century drawing. It is perfectly obvious that the entrance has a triangular shape, without getting any narrower at the bottom. The shape of the entrance is exactly the same as in the case of the mediaeval Russian pyramid mounds (qv above). Taken from [1056], page 94.
Fig. 19.107. Ancient portolano map of the Mediterranean by Joan Oliva allegedly dating from 1599. The Egyptian city of Cairo and its environs are referred to as “SOL DAN DE BABILLONIA” – “Babylonia of the Sultans”, or, possibly, “Sun – Dan – Babylonia”. The word “dan” might be another version of “don”, or “river”, qv in CHRON5, Chapter 11:5.3. The name could have been borne by Nile, the greatest river in Egypt. Taken from [1058], page 109.
Fig. 19.108. A close-in of the portolano map of 1599 that uses the name “Babylonia” for referring to Cairo. Taken from [1058], page 109.
Fig. 19.109. Sturdy fortifications of Babylon located in the vicinity of the modern Cairo. It is most likely that they were built during the Ottoman epoch. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. V, Pl. 20.
Fig. 19.110. “Ancient” Egyptian artwork portraying a warrior wearing a helm decorated by the Ottoman crescent. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. II, Pl. 3.
Fig. 19.111. “The Shardana of the Egyptian Army” ([264], Volume 1, page 13). We can see the star and crescent symbol on the helmets. Taken from [264], Volume 1, page 13.
Fig. 19.112. “Ancient” Egyptian artwork depicting a deity with the Ottoman crescent on the head. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. II, Pl. 9.
Fig. 19.113. Ottoman = Ataman star and crescent symbol on the walls of the “ancient” Egyptian temples. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. V, Pl. 30.
Fig. 19.114. The coat of arms of the Cossack province of Ural (formerly Yaik). We see two bunchuks with golden Ottoman = Ataman crescents on their ends. Taken from [162], page 200.
Fig. 19.115. Colossal Cossack bunchuks near the entrance to the “ancient” Egyptian Greater Temple of Karnak. There are four of them on either side of the entrance. The illustration only depicts the right half of the temple. This symbolism is in perfect correspondence with our reconstruction, according to which Egypt was part of the Ottoman = Ataman Empire (or the Horde) in the epoch of the XIV-XVI century. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. III, Pl. 41.
Fig. 19.116. The enormous Cossack ataman bunchuks standing at the southern entrance of the “ancient” Greater Temple of Karnak in Egypt. This drawing was made by Napoleon’s artists. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. III, Pl. 57.
Fig. 19.117. Bicephalous “Mongolian” eagle over the entrance of the “ancient” Egyptian Greater Temple of Karnak. The heads of the imperial eagle have the shape of serpent heads. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. III, Pl. 57.
Fig. 19.118. The right Colossus of Memnon (as seen from behind). We see a wide Orthodox cross on the back of the throne. Photograph taken by G. V. Nosovskiy in 2000.
Fig. 19.119. The right Colossus of Memnon (rear view). There is a large Orthodox cross on the back of the throne. Incidentally, new cracks have appeared on the statues over the last couple of years – we don’t see them on the photographs taken a few years ago. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 19.120. The two “ancient” Egyptian Colossi of Memnon on the Napoleonic drawing. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. II, Pl. 21.
Fig. 19.121. Three projections of the Southern Memnon Colossus drawn by the Napoleonic artists. The rightmost drawing was supposed to depict the rear side of the statue. Oddly enough, Napoleon’s artists failed to draw the Orthodox Christian cross that one finds on this side of the statue. It was evasively replaced by a white spot, the obvious implication being the lack of interesting details in this area. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. II, Pl. 21. If we are to call a spade a spade, this drawing is a fraud.
Fig. 19.122. Rear view of the Memnon Colossus drawn by Frederic Catherwood in 1832. It is plainly visible that the wide Orthodox cross on the back of the throne was covered in hieroglyphs, which have become almost completely obliterated by now – we can barely make out their general shape. Taken from [1047], page 27.
Fig. 19.123. One of the “ancient” Egyptian Memnon Colossi. The theme of the artwork on the side of the throne is explicitly Christian – the elevation of the cross. The drawing was made by the Napoleonic artists. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. II, Pl. 22.
Fig. 19.124. A close-in of the side of the throne underneath the “ancient” Egyptian Colossus of Memnon as drawn by the Napoleonic artists. We are obviously confronted by the famous Christian theme – the elevation of the Holy Cross. The cross is T-shaped. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. II, Pl. 22.
Fig. 19.125. Another version of the “elevation of the Holy Cross” on the “ancient” Egyptian statue of Memnon as drawn by the artists of Napoleon. We see a T-shaped cross. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. II, Pl. 28.
Fig. 19.126. Close-in of the Christian T-shaped cross on the “ancient” Egyptian bas-relief (Memnon). Taken from [1100], A. Vol. II, Pl. 28.
Fig. 19.127. Side view of the Memnon Colossus drawn by Frederic Catherwood in 1832. Taken from [1047], page 27.
Fig. 19.128. The side of the throne underneath one of the Memnon Colossi with the artwork depicting the scene of the elevation of the Holy Cross. Drawn by Frederic Catherwood in 1832. Taken from [1047], page 27.
Fig. 19.129. “Ancient” Egyptian bas-relief from Phile that depicts the famous Christian subject – the elevation of the cross. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. II, Pl. 10.
Fig. 19.130. Close-in of a fragment of the previous illustration.
Fig. 19.131. The Christian scene of the elevation of the Holy Cross. “Ancient” Egyptian bas-relief from Luxor. Taken from [1438], ill. 14.
Fig. 19.132. The world map with a “T-shaped cross”, according to the historians themselves. The cross appears to be dividing the world into three parts. Taken from [1177], fig. 18.37, page 334.
Fig. 19.133. Ancient world map ascribed to Sallust. The Christian T-shaped cross divides the world into three parts. Taken from [1177], fig. 18.47, page 344.
Fig. 19.134. Ancient world map of the alleged XIV century. The T-shaped Christian cross divides the world into three parts. Taken from [1177], fig. 18.74, page 355.
Fig. 19.135. The veil of Helen of Volokh dated to 1498. We see a church procession and two large T-shaped Christian crosses right over it. Taken from [812], page 60.
Fig. 19.136. A close-in of the T-shaped cross embroidered on the veil of Helen of Volokh. Taken from [812], page 60.
Fig. 19.137. Nowadays this “ancient” Egyptian artwork is believed to portray the goddess Isis and her son Horus. The bas-relief is located in Erment (or Hermonthis), Egypt. According to our reconstruction, the artwork portrays Our Lady with the infant Christ (a. k. a. Horus) and dates from the epoch of the XIII-XVII century. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. I, Pl. 95.
Fig. 19.138. The alleged “ancient” Egyptian portraits of Isis and her son Horus. The bas-relief is located in Karnak, Egypt. It is most likely that we see Our Lady and the infant Christ (Horus) – a very common theme for the Christian art of the XIII-XVII century. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. III, Pl. 37.
Fig. 19.139. Bronze figurine of the “ancient” Egyptian goddess Isis holding her son Horus, presumed to date from the IV-II century B. C. However, it is more likely to be a Christian image of Our Lady with the infant Christ. The statue is kept in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, England. Taken from [533], Volume 1, page 570.
Fig. 19.140. An “ancient” Egyptian sculpture of Isis and the infant Horus, allegedly dating from the I century A. D. As we realise today, it is really a sculpture of Our Lady holding the infant Christ. Kept in the Egyptian Museum of Vatican. Taken from [930], page 36.
Fig. 19.141. The site where the two funereal boats of Pharaoh Cheops were found – right next to the pyramid named after this pharaoh. Taken from [1281], page 521.
Fig. 19.142. Schematic section drawing of the chamber that housed the funereal boat of Pharaoh Cheops, dismantled and packaged. The actual boat can be seen in the bottom right part of the drawing. Taken from [1281], page 521.
Fig. 19.143. Fragment of a miniature from the XVI century collection of Russian chronicles entitled “Ivan IV sending out vessels with siege weaponry to Kazan” (1552). The Russian boat is headed down the Volga with the mission of conquering Kazan. Taken from [550], page 88.
Fig. 19.144. Russian army of Dmitriy Donskoi on ships. Miniature from the “Tale of the Battle with Mamai”. The XVII century. The Russian vessels have the exact same shape as the boat of Pharaoh Cheops. Taken from [974].
Fig. 19.145. Ancient miniature depicting the sea battle between the Russians and the Romans (or “Byzantines”). Both armies use boats of the same construction, with a tall curved front part. Taken from [338], page 112.
Fig. 19.146. Ancient miniature dated to the XIV century by the historians. We see Byzantine boats and gunfire, which modern commentators call “Greek fire”, forced to misdate them to the epoch when there were no firearms yet due to the pressure of the erroneous Scaligerian chronology. Taken from [328], page 107.
Fig. 19.147. The first subterraneous chamber that housed the first boat of Pharaoh Cheops. This is how it was first seen by the archaeologists that discovered it in 1954. The boat was taken up to the surface, assembled with great care and put up for exhibition in the special museum next to the Pyramid of Cheops. Taken from [1281], page 523.
Fig. 19.148. The second subterraneous chamber with the second boat of Pharaoh Cheops. This is how it was revealed to the video camera that filmed the chamber through a drilled orifice. The chamber was then sealed up again; the boat was left untouched. Taken from [1281], page 523.
Fig. 19.149. The first boat of Pharaoh Cheops, assembled. Front part. “Boat Museum” next to the Pyramid of Cheops. Taken from [1281], pages 529-533.
Fig. 19.150. The first boat of Pharaoh Cheops, assembled. Middle part. “Boat Museum” next to the Pyramid of Cheops. Taken from [1281], pages 529-533.
Fig. 19.151. The first boat of Pharaoh Cheops, assembled. Rear part. “Boat Museum” next to the Pyramid of Cheops. Taken from [1281], pages 529-533.
Fig. 19.152. A partial draft of the boat of Pharaoh Cheops. Taken from [1281], page 524.
Fig. 19.153. “Ancient” Egyptian shirt decorated with Slavic ornaments. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. I, Pl. 5.
Fig. 19.154. A close-in of the fragment of an “ancient” Egyptian garment decorated with a Slavic ornament. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. I, Pl. 5.
Fig. 19.155. Pharaoh’s attire with embroidery that greatly resembles the Southern Russian ornamentation. The Metropolitan Museum of New York. Photograph taken by A. T. Fomenko in 1996.
Fig. 19.156. Fragment of a mediaeval Serbian fresco in the Kuli Chapel dated to the XIII century. We see the royal couple of Constantine and Helen whose clothing is decorated with a Christian ornament. Taken from [276], page 12.
Fig. 19.157. Serbian fresco dating from the XIII century. The royal garments are decorated with Slavic ornaments. Taken from [276], page 34.
Fig. 19.158. Slavic ornament of ceramic tiles on the floor of a palace in Velikiy Preslav, the mediaeval capital of Bulgaria. Taken from [1411], page 32.
Chapter 20.
Fig. 20.1. Ancient portrait of the XV century Sultan Mohammed (Mehmet) II. The famous warlord, who conquered Constantinople and terrified Europe, Africa and Asia, is portrayed in a romantic manner, meditatively savouring the aroma of a red flower. The Sultan adored flowers; the Ottoman court artists were well familiar with his habits. Taken from [1464], page 67.
Fig. 20.2. The parallelism between the history of the “ancient” Egypt (reign of Thutmos III) and the events of the XV century A. D.
Fig. 20.3. The “ancient” Egyptian obelisk of Pharaoh Thutmos III. It is presumed that Emperor Theodosius erected it in Czar-Grad two thousand years after the death of Thutmos – namely, in the alleged year 390 A. D. According to the New Chronology, this event took place some 1050 years later - in the XV-XVI century A. D. Let us remind the reader that the chronological shift of 1053 returns the “ancient Rome” to its proper chronological position. Taken from [1464], page 46.
Fig. 20.4. “Ancient” Egyptian obelisk on the Piazza del Popolo in Rome. It is also presumed to have been brought to Italy from Egypt: “The 24-metre obelisk stood in the Heliopolis Temple of the Sun initially. It was brought to Rome by Emperor Augustus and installed in Circus Maximus with great honours. Caligula moved it to his own circus later on. The current location of the obelisk is to be credited to Pope Sixtus V” ([930], page 39).
Fig. 20.5. Portrait of Czar Vassily III from the book of Sigismund von Herberstein. Taken from [160]; see also [161], page 69.
Fig. 20.6. A close-in of a fragment of the above portrait with a Latin inscription, translated as follows (after [160]). “I am Czar and Lord of the Russians by right of birth; none of my titles were bought or received as a gift. No other ruler’s laws have any power over me; I believe in Jesus Christ and despise honours begged from others”. Taken from [160]; see also [161], page 69.
Fig. 20.7. Another photograph of the Thutmos Obelisk in Istanbul (as seen from a different angle). Photograph taken by T. N. Fomenko in 1995.
Fig. 20.8. Fragments of bas-reliefs at the base of the Thutmos Obelisk in Istanbul. Taken from [1464], page 48.
Fig. 20.9. Bas-reliefs decorating the base of the Obelisk of Thutmos and Theodosius in Istanbul. Taken from [240], inset between pages 112 and 113.
Fig. 20.10. Lettering on the foundation of the Thutmos Obelisk in Istanbul. We see distinct marks of a forgery below – the old name was chiselled off and replaced by “PROCLO”. Photograph taken by T. N. Fomenko in 1995.
Fig. 20.11. Close-in of the lettering on the pedestal of the Thutmos Obelisk. The censors have obviously chiselled off some word, which resulted in the formation of a groove, wherein the new name PROCLO was written subsequently. Photograph taken in 1995.
Fig. 20.12. The ancient Serpent Column on the Istanbul Hippodrome. Taken from [1464], page 47.
Fig. 20.13. Ancient Turkish miniature depicting the Istanbul Hippodrome in the epoch of Suleiman the Magnificent. At the centre we see the Serpent Column that looks like three interwoven serpent bodies. Taken from [1404], page 589.
Fig. 20.14. Close-in of an ancient miniature depicting the Serpent Column. This is what it looked like in the XVI century. Taken from [1404], page 589.
Fig. 20.15. Close-in of a fragment with the wrestlers competing before Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent at the Istanbul Hippodrome. They look distinctly like the Russian Cossacks with moustaches and long oseledets tresses. Taken from [1404], page 589.
Fig. 20.16. Portrait of Roxolana, the Russian wife of Sultan Suleiman I the Magnificent. She wears earrings shaped like the Ottoman crescent. Taken from [1404], page 571.
Fig. 20.17. The enormous Mosque of Suleiman I the Conqueror (the Magnificent) in Istanbul. Allegedly built in 1550-1557 ([1464], page 59). The construction is most likely to be of a much later origin. See CHRON6 for more details. Taken from [1259], page 22.
Fig. 20.18. The luxurious “ancient” sarcophagus of Alexander the Great. Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul. In reality, this is most likely to be the sarcophagus of Suleiman I the Law-Giver (the Magnificent). Taken from [1464], page 16. See also [1465], page 105.
Fig. 20.19. “Ancient” bust of Alexander the Great. This must be the bust of Suleiman I the Magnificent as a young man. Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul. Taken from [1464], page 16.
Chapter 21.
Fig. 21.1. Ancient portrait of Presbyter Johannes, the ruler of “India maior ethiopi”, or “Greater Indian Ethiopia” (see the inscription above his head). Thus, Russia, or the Horde, was also known as Ethiopia in the days of yore. Taken from [1177], page 333, ill. 18.36.
Fig. 21.2. Fragment of a map by Hans Rüst allegedly dating from 1480 A. D. The East is at the top of the map as the location of Paradise and the source of the four rivers. Taken from [1160], page 39.
Addendum 1.
Fig. d1.1. “World’s famous diamonds: 1 – Great Mogul, 279 karats; 2 – Koh-i-Noor, new cutting, 106 karats; 3 – Orlov, around 190 karats; 4 – The Florentine, 133 karats; 5 – Sancy, 53 karats; 6 – The Regent, or Pitt, 137 karats; 7 – Koh-i-Noor, old cutting, 186 karats; 8 – Southern Star, 125 karats; 9, 10 and 11 – the Medici (with engravings)”. Taken from A. E. Fersman’s book entitled “Gem Tales” (Moscow, Nauka, 1974), pages 196-197.
Fig. d1.2. The Shah diamond with engravings. Taken from “The Diamond Treasury of the USSR”, Moscow, 1979.
Fig. d1.3. The Orlov diamond, initially adorning the golden royal sceptre of the Romanovs made in the early 1770’s. The gigantic “Indian diamond” may have been placed on the sceptre as a symbol of the final victory over the Horde in the XVIII century “Pougachev War”. Taken from “The Diamond Treasury of the USSR”, Moscow, 1979; see also “Gemstones” by N. I. Kornilov and Y. P. Solodova (Moscow, Nedra, 1983), page 21, illustration 12.
Addendum 2.
Fig. d2.1. “St. John’s Vision of Christ”, an engraving by Albrecht Dürer illustrating the Biblical Book of Revelation. Dürer followed the edited text of the book meticulously, and drew a sword that appears to be coming from the mouth of Jesus. It is most likely that the authors of the Revelation were trying to hide certain details of real historical events – namely, Joshua’s conquest of the Western European nations by fire and sword in the XV-XVI century A. D. The leader of the Ottomans = Atamans naturally used his hands for holding the sword in reality. Taken from [1234], ill. 107.
Fig. d2.2. Judgement Day. Ancient engraving on wood coloured by watercolour. The artist was obviously trying to mitigate the bizarre reference of the Revelation to the sword coming from the mouth of Jesus, and eventually decided to draw the sword closer to Jesus’s ear. The artist was obviously afraid to draw the sword in the hand of Jesus, since this would bring the symbolism of the Revelation too close to its blatantly military original. It would become too apparent that the Book of Revelation speaks of real wars fought in the Middle Ages. Hartmann Schedel, “Liber Chronicarum”, Nürnberg: Anton Koberger, 23. XII. 1493. Taken from [623], ill. 127.
Fig. d2.3. Fragment of an engraving from Hartmann Schedel’s book allegedly dating from 1493. The sword is drawn right next to the ear of Jesus. Taken from [623], ill. 127.
Fig. d2.4. Illustration to the annotated Book of Revelation published in the XVI century. The sword is drawn close to the hand of Jesus. Taken from [745], Volume 8, page 425.
Fig. d2.5. Fragment of an illustration to a XVI century edition of the Revelation. The sword of Jesus is drawn in a more realistic position than the one stipulated by the allegorical text of the Revelation and the reference to the mouth of Jesus contained therein. Taken from [745], Volume 8, page 425.
Fig. d2.6. Illustration to the Book of Revelation. “The Antichrist and his Army Cast into Inferno”. Book of Revelation with comments by Andrew of Cesaria, ceremonial edition. Late XVIII – early XIX century. Taken from [623], ill. 88. The first impression that one gets when one looks at this picture is that Jesus is holding the sword in his hand, just like a military leader should.
Fig. d2.7. Fragment of a miniature that portrays Jesus armed with a sword, drawn as if it were held in his hand. Formally, the artist does not contradict the ecclesiastical canon, since the hilt of the sword approaches the mouth of Jesus. Nevertheless, the general atmosphere of the illustration is one of perfect realism – we see real events and not abstract allegories, contrary to the consensual opinion imposed on us today. Taken from [623], ill. 88.
Fig. d2.8. Illustration to the annotated Book of Revelation published in 1799. The sword is drawn as though Jesus is holding it in his right hand, as is the case in real warfare. Taken from [745], Volume 9, page 493.
Fig. d2.9. Fragment of an illustration to the annotated Book of Revelation published in 1799. The artist conformed to the canonical stipulation – the sword approaches the face of Jesus, although in general it is depicted correctly, held by his hand. Taken from [745], Volume 9.
Fig. d2.10. The army of Jesus that massacres the nations of the Earth. Albrecht Dürer’s illustration to the Book of Revelation. We can clearly see swordsmen attacking, horsemen, priests etc. In the background there is a chariot covered in iron. Jesus and the angels are holding horns, which apparently represent cannons. See more on this in CHRON1, Chapter 3, figs. 3.41 – 3.45. Taken from [1234], page 113.
Fig. d2.11. Illustration to the XVI century edition of the Revelation. It appears to be depicting the destruction of a city in a war. Taken from [745], Volume 8, page 373.
Fig. d2.12. Illustration to the XVI century edition of the Revelation. We see real battle scenes. Taken from [623], ill. 54.
Fig. d2.13. Illustration to the Book of Revelation with comments by Andrew of Caesarea: “A Vision of Horses Breathing Fire”. Taken from [623], ill. 80. This is how the warriors of the Horde were usually portrayed.
Fig. d2.14. “St. John on a Ship Bound for Pathmos”. A miniature from the hagiology of St. John the Divine. Second quarter of the XVI century. Taken from [623], ill. 64. St. John is sailing on the flagship of a military fleet, which is clearly transporting an army of warriors in heavy armour armed with pikes and poleaxes.
Fig. d2.15. “St. John Devouring the Book”, an engraving by Albrecht Dürer. Therefore, the first version of the Apocalypse was “devoured” by St. John, who later wrote the second version from scratch. The second book is drawn laying on the ground right next to John. Taken from [623], ill. 115.
Fig. d2.16. John “devouring” the book. As we realise now, this is a metaphor that stands for voracious reading. Fragment of Dürer’s engraving. Taken from [623], ill. 115.
Fig. d2.17. Illustration to the Book of Revelation that depicts ships on the ocean at the moment of the “great catastrophe”. The ships are drawn similar to the customary representations of the caravels of Columbus. XVI century engraving on wood by V. Solis. – Biblia: Germ. Frankfurt a. M.: S. Feyerabend, 1561. Taken from [623], page 136.
Fig. d2.18. Illustration to the Book of Revelations with comments by Andrew of Cesarea. Late XVIII century. Taken from [623], page 94. According to the text that accompanies the illustration, we see the “Exodus of the Lord’s People” from Babylon and into the sea at the time of some great cataclysm. According to our reconstruction, the events in question date from 1492, when the Horde’s fleet set sail for the Americas, led by Columbus = Noah.
Fig. d2.19. “The Lord’s People leaving Babylon. The angel casts a rock in the sea, which looks similar to a millstone”. Book of Revelation with comments by Andrew of Caesarea, 1799. Taken from [623], page 91. The “falling rock” produces a deluge. The ships sail into the ocean.
Fig. d2.20. Fragment of an illustration to the Book of Revelation. The fleet of the Lord’s People setting sail the moment when a “huge millstone” falls into the water, raising a great wave. Mark the six-pointed star on the banner. It used to be one of the Christian symbols commonly used in Russia, or the Horde, which identifies as the Biblical Israel. As for Judea - it was the name of the Ottoman = Ataman Empire used in that epoch. Taken from [623], page 91.
Fig. d2.21. Fragment of a miniature from an annotated Book of Revelation published in 1799. A fleet of shits sails on the ocean “against a cataclysmic background”. This must be the fleet of Noah = Columbus, who set sail for the New World = the Americas in 1492. Taken from [745], Volume 9, page 485.
Fig. d2.22. General view of the “Apocalypse” icon. Late XV century, presumably around 1480. Ouspenskiy Cathedral, Kremlin, Moscow. Taken from [553], page 27. See also [577:1], ill. 4. We see a calm and solemn picture, without any horrifying details.
Fig. d2.23. Fragment of “Judgement Day”, a fresco by Dionysius. Apostles sitting upon their thrones. The Ferapont Monastery, northern side. Taken from “Dionysius the Icon Artist and the Frescoes of the Ferapont Monastery” by L. V. Nersesyan, Moscow, Severniy Palomnik, 2002, ill. 37.
Fig. d2.24. Fragment of “Judgement Day”, a fresco by Dionysius. Hosts of the righteous rising for the judgement. The Ferapont Monastery. Taken from “Dionysius the Icon Artist and the Frescoes of the Ferapont Monastery” by L. V. Nersesyan, Moscow, Severniy Palomnik, 2002, ill. 38.
Fig. d2.25. Fragment of “Judgement Day”, a fresco by Dionysius. Paradise. The Ferapont Monastery. Taken from “Dionysius the Icon Artist and the Frescoes of the Ferapont Monastery” by L. V. Nersesyan, Moscow, Severniy Palomnik, 2002, ill. 38.
Fig. d2.26. “Judgement Day” by Hieronymus Bosch. Vienna, Academy of Fine Arts. Taken from [91]. A lugubrious painting with terrifying scenes galore.
Fig. d2.27. Fragments from “Judgement Day” by Hieronymus Bosch. Taken from the book entitled “Tout l’oeuvre peint de Jerôme Bosch. Introduction par Max J. Friedländer. Documentation par Mia Cinotti” – Flammarion, Paris, 1967, PL. IL.
Fig. d2.28. “Triumph of Death” by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Taken from [1053:1], ill. 35.
Fig. d2.29. Fragments of “Triumph of Death” by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Taken from [1053:1], ill. 36.
Fig. 5dp-01a. Denizens of the Horde (or Russia) as seen by the West Europeans. Engraving from the “Global Chronicle” of Hartmann Schedel (allegedly dating from 1493). All such artwork is based on real characteristics pertaining to the nations inhabiting Russia in the XIV-XVI century, which were misunderstood and greatly distorted by the Western European chroniclers. Taken from [1396:1], page XII. See more on the subject in CHRON5, Chapter 8:6.7.
Fig. 5dp-01b. Denizens of the Horde (or Russia) as seen by the West Europeans. Engraving from the “Global Chronicle” of Hartmann Schedel (allegedly dating from 1493). All such artwork is based on real characteristics pertaining to the nations inhabiting Russia in the XIV-XVI century, which were misunderstood and greatly distorted by the Western European chroniclers. Taken from [1396:1], page XII. See more on the subject in CHRON5, Chapter 8:6.7.
Fig. 5dp-01c. Denizens of the Horde (or Russia) as seen by the West Europeans. Engraving from the “Global Chronicle” of Hartmann Schedel (allegedly dating from 1493). All such artwork is based on real characteristics pertaining to the nations inhabiting Russia in the XIV-XVI century, which were misunderstood and greatly distorted by the Western European chroniclers. Taken from [1396:1], page XII, reverse. See more on the subject in CHRON5, Chapter 8:6.7.
Fig. 5dp-02. Silver thaler (known as “yefimok” in Russia) with a Russian crest. More details concerning this type of coinage as well as the tribute paid to Russia and the Ottomans = Atamans by the Western Europe in the epoch of the XIV-XVI century can be found in CHRON5, Chapter 12:4.1. Taken from [80:1], Volume 1, page 405.
Fig. 5dp-03. The Greater Fortification Line of the Muscovite Kingdom in the XVII century. Such lines of fortification constructions protected the borders of Russia from the south and the southeast in the XVI-XVII century. It is assumed that all these fortifications were built as a defensive measure “against the raids of the Tartars, and also used as military bases during campaigns against the Khans of Kazan and the Crimea. The Greater Fortification Line of the Muscovite Kingdom is the most famous of them all – it was part of the general national defence system and consisted of military outposts, Cossack settlements and fortified citadels (40 of the latter are known to have existed in the early XVII century) . . . Fortification lines included log barricades in the forests and earth ramparts in open areas, as well as forts or small fortified settlements” ([80:1], Volume 1, page 427). According to our reconstruction, all these fortifications were built by the Romanovs to define the borders between the relatively small Muscovite Principality, which was under their control, and the lands that still identified with the Horde, such as the Astrakhan Horde and Great Tartary, which had spanned the enormous territories beyond the Volga, the entire Siberia and a large part of America. See CHRON7, Chapter 9 for more details. Taken from [80:1], Volume 1, page 428. The Great Wall of China must have been constructed around the same time and for a similar purpose, namely, the definition of a state border.
Fig. 5dp-04. Greater Fortification Line of the Muscovite Kingdom in the XVII century on a map of 1613, published by G. Gerrits in Amsterdam. Taken from [626] – [629]. Apparently, a similar role was played by the Great Wall of China, which separated the Dapple Horde (a fragment of the former Great = “Mongolian” Empire) from the Romanovs, who had usurped the throne in the imperial capital. According to our reconstruction, the Great Wall of China was also built in the XVII century, likewise the Greater Fortification Line in the south of the Muscovite Kingdom. See more on the Great Wall of China in CHRON5, Chapter 6:5.1. Therefore, it is most likely that the Greater Fortification Line and the Great Wall of China were built for similar purposes and in the same epoch.
Fig. 5dp-05. Fragment of a map of China allegedly dating from 1619 from the Atlas of Mercator and Hondius. We see the Great Wall of China, which goes right along the border of China as it was in the early XVII century (or even later). This is all the more obvious on the coloured map, where the borders are drawn as yellow and red lines. We see a yellow line and a red line, both of which follow the Great Wall of China. Such disposition of the Great Wall gets a perfect explanation in our reconstruction – the long wall was used to define the state borders in the XVII century, the epoch when the Great = “Mongolian” Empire broke apart. The Dapple Horde, which later became China, proclaimed independence from other parts of the Empire. Also, the Great Wall had never served the purpose of an actual military fortification. See CHRON5, Chapter 6:5.1.
Fig. 5dp-06. Map of Africa from the atlas of Abraham Ortelius dating from the alleged years 1570-1612 A. D. It is remarkable that sea that separates Africa from Arabia, which we know as the Red Sea, is called “Mar Rosso” – could it stand for “Russian Sea”? There is also a city of Belugaras in the far South of Africa – a reference to the Bulgarians, perhaps? Abraham Ortelius: “Theatrum Orbis Terrarum”. Taken from [1261:1].
Fig.5dp-06a.Fragment of the old map of Ortelia (allegedly 1570-1612), where the modern Red Sea between Egypt and Arabia peninsula is named quite differently, namely: MAR ROSSO. This is the old Rus-Orda name that, as we see, disappeared from later maps in the XVII-XVIII centuries with the tendentious note: "Alteration of history and geography." Further, just above Cairo, upstream of the Nile, we see city (or town) GEORGIA CANA that is, probably, GEORGIY KHAN. On the Arabian coast of the Sea of Ross, slightly to the south from Mecca, is the city of ARIADANA, whose name, comes from the word Orda or Ordynian. Abraham Ortelius: "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum". Taken from [1261: 1].
Fig. 5dp-06b. Fragment of an ancient map of Africa compiled by Ortelius in the alleged years 1570-1612. We see a region called “Amasonum Regio” in South Africa (Amazon Kingdom?). There is also the land of Amazen (Amazons?) in Central Africa, north of the Equator. To the north of “Amasonum Regio” we see the land of Agag and the city by the same name, which must be the well familiar name Gog, common in the Horde. Also mark the region of Gaoga in Nubia, qv in the photograph of the whole map. Abraham Ortelius: “Theatrum Orbis Terrarum”. Taken from [1261:1]. See more about the Amazons, or the Cossack women, in CHRON4, Chapter 4:6.
Fig. 5dp-07. We see a “Mar Rosso” (Russian Sea?) on an old world map allegedly dating from 1598 (the Wright-Molyneaux World Map). Taken from [1459], Plate XLV, No. 166. We reproduce the entire map as well as close-ins of two fragments thereof depicting Mar Rosso (the modern Red Sea).
Fig. 5dp-07a. Fragment of a map of 1598 that depicts Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The Red Sea is referred to as “Mar Rosso” (Russian Sea?). Taken from [1459], Plate XLV, No. 166. This name is also encountered on the old map of Abraham Ortelius. See Abraham Ortelius: “Theatrum Orbis Terrarum” ([1261:1]).
Fig. 5dp-07b. The Red Sea is referred to as “Mar Rosso” on the map of 1598. Taken from [1459], Plate XLV, No. 166.
Fig. 5dp-08. Fragment of an ancient map of Africa and Arabia allegedly dating from 1508: Montalboddo, “Iternarium Portugallensium . . .”, Milan, 1508. The sea between Africa and Arabia, which we know as the Red Sea today, is called “SINVS RSICVS”, or “Rusicus Bay” – “Russian Bay”, perhaps? Taken from [1459], Plate XXIV, No. 69. Later on, in the epoch of the XVI-XVII century, this name transformed into “Persian Gulf” and moved to the East, while the former “Russian Sea” became the Red Sea.
Fig. 5dp-08a. Fragment of an ancient map of Africa and Arabia allegedly dating from 1508 (close-in). We see the name “SINVS RSICVS” applied to the Red Sea. Taken from [1459], Plate XXIV, No. 69. We see a similar name on the map of Ortelius (“Mar Rosso”), and also on a map of 1598. See Abraham Ortelius: “Theatrum Orbis Terrarum” ([1261:1]; also [1459], Plate XLV, No. 166).
Fig. 5dp-09. Detailed world map by Giacomo Gastaldi, Venice, the alleged year 1546. The modern Red Sea between Africa and the Arabian Peninsula is indicated as “Mar Rosso”. Taken from [1459], Plate XXXVI, No. 121.
Fig. 5dp-09a. Close-in of a fragment of the map by Giacomo Gastaldi allegedly dating from 1546. The modern Red Sea is called “Mar Rosso”. Taken from [1459], Plate XXXVI, No. 121.
Fig. 5dp-09b. Another close-in of Giacomo Gastaldi’s map, magnified further. We see the “Russian Sea”. Taken from [1459], Plate XXXVI, No. 121.
Fig. 5dp-10. A detailed world map by Gianfrancesco Cammoccio, Venice, the alleged year 1569. The modern Red Sea between Africa and Arabia is referred to as “Mare Rosso”, or “Russian Sea”. Taken from [1459], Plate XXXVII, No. 125.
Fig. 5dp-10a. Close-in of a fragment of the Venetian map by Gianfrancesco Cammoccio allegedly dating from 1569. We see the Red Sea indicated as “Mare Rosso”. Taken from [1459], Plate XXXVII, No. 125.
Fig. 5dp-10b. The same fragment of the map by Gianfrancesco Cammoccio with the Red Sea, or the “Russian Sea”, under greater magnification. Taken from [1459], Plate XXXVII, No. 125.
Fig. 5dp-11. Eastern part of the detailed world map compiled by Caspar Vopell, Venice, in the alleged year 1558. Much of the information found on this map contradicts Scaligerian history very blatantly indeed – however, our reconstruction makes it all look perfectly normal. For instance, we see the legend “India” set in large letters and placed at the very centre of Africa. Taken from [1459], Plate XXXIX, No. 111.
Fig. 5dp-11a. Close-in of a fragment of Caspar Vopell’s map with India at the centre of Africa. The corresponding legend is as follows: “India major . . . Christiani . . .” – apparently, “Greater India, a Christian country”. Unfortunately, we haven’t managed to decipher the rest of the legend due to the low resolution of the photograph. Taken from [1459], Plate XXXIX, No. 111.
Fig. 5dp-11b. Another close-in of a fragment of Caspar Vopell’s map with India at the centre of Africa under greater magnification. To the right of the legend “India” we see a king on his throne who holds a sceptre topped by a large Christian cross. Taken from [1459], Plate XXXIX, No. 111.
Fig. 5dp-12. The mummy of the Egyptian Pharaoh Seti I. According to our reconstruction, the Egyptian Pharaohs buried in the Valley of the Kings were really the Czars of the Great Empire, a mediaeval state whose capital was in the Vladimir and Suzdal region of Russia in the XIV century and later. Mark the explicitly European features of the Pharaoh’s face – his Slavic origins seem very plausible indeed. Incidentally, his tomb in the Valley of the Kings is one of the most lavish ones. Its ceiling is decorated with a zodiac that hasn’t been deciphered or dated yet. Taken from “Mummies” by Philip Steele (Moscow, Machaon, 1999), page 74. The authors are referring to the Russian edition of the book published by King Fisher Publishers, New York, in 1998.
Fig. 5dp-13. Stone masonry near the entrance to the Karnak Temple in Egypt. The eroded parts of the huge stone blocks reveal chaotic layer curves. Such amorphous structure of the stone implies that the block didn’t come from a quarry (in which case the layers would be parallel), and can be identified as a concrete casting made in several stages, hence the erratic nature of the layers. Liquid concrete was poured into a mould and hardened portion by portion. Photograph taken in 2000.
Fig. 5dp-14. Two effigies of the deceased Pharaohs in the Temple of Karnak, Egypt. Both have their arms crossed on their chests, as is customary for Christian burials. Both are holding Coptic Christian crosses with loops at the top, or “ankhs”, in either hand. Photograph taken in 2002.
Fig. 5dp-15. The Colossi of Memnon in the beginning of 2002. The right colossus is inside scaffolding – it is being restored. And yet we are told that the “ancient” Egyptian constructions have stood fast for thousands of years. If this is the case, how could it be that they started to erode at such a rate only recently? Could it be that their age really isn’t all that great, and that the current erosion rate is perfectly normal? Photograph taken in 2002.
Fig. 5dp-16. The hills in the Valley of the Kings (Egypt, Luxor). The stone is so soft that it crumbles by itself with time. It is a very convenient material for grinding into powder, which can be used for making concrete blocks subsequently. It is also completely impossible to cut a large stone block from these rocks – nevertheless, each of the numerous “ancient” Egyptian temples located in this area was built of such blocks. Photograph taken in 2002.
Fig. 5dp-17. Valley of the Kings in Egypt, near Luxor. Egyptian Pharaohs were buried in this canyon, which is hidden from everyone’s sight and can only be approached via a single road built among the rocks. According to our reconstruction, the deceased weren’t mere rulers of Egypt, but rather Khans, or Czars, of the entire Great Empire in the Middle Ages. The imperial capital was in Russia between the XIV and the XVII century, until the dissolution of the Empire. Photograph taken in 2002.
Fig. 5dp-18. “St. George Fighting the Dragon” by Martin Schaffner. Once again we see the saved princess, just like Andromeda in the legends of the “ancient” Perseus. Mark the curly hair of St. George – as we have already pointed out, this detail is very typical for most works of art that portray St. George. See CHRON5, Chapter 12:11.4 for more details. Taken from the following postcard: Augsburg Staatsgalerie. Aufnahme Helga Schmidt-Glassner. Deutscher Kunstverlag, München & Berlin (146).
Fig. 5dp-19. “Famous golden tablets from Pyrga with parallel inscriptions in Etruscan and Phoenician. The translators have failed to reach a consensus on this issue”. Taken from “Veneti: Ancestors of the Slavs” by Pavel Tulayev (Moscow, “Byelye Alvy”, 2000), pages 70-71. Already in the XIX century the research of such prominent scientists as A. D. Chertkov and F. Volanski revealed that many Etruscan texts can be deciphered with the aid of Slavic languages. However, no details of such research are ever made public. See more on this subject in CHRON5, Chapter 15.
Fig. 5dp-20a. The wall built by the “ancient” Incas in the Peruvian city of Cuzco (Calle Hatunrumiyoq). It is made of large blocks that fit together very tightly – local guides never tire of emphasising that one cannot get so much as a blade of a knife between adjacent blocks. Historians and archaeologists compete in inventing various “theories” of great ingenuity in order to explain how the “ancient” Incas managed to “cut and fit together” enormous stone blocks of immense weight. Even more elaborate theories are constructed to explain how stone blocks of this size could be elevated to the top of the construction. Authoritative sources are trying to convince us that each such block was “the fruit of many months of labour”. However, the new information that we have about construction works in the Middle Ages makes it rather easy to explain all the above. Such walls of Incan cities (and even more monumental ones) were made of concrete blocks. The technology must have been as follows: sacks of rough cloth were filled with liquid concrete and placed inside wooden frames. The sacks assumed the necessary shape, and the concrete clung to the existing blocks, already solid, without any spaces left in between. The external part of the sack would then be removed; smaller pieces of fabric must have disintegrated without affecting the masonry. This theory was voiced by S. M. Bourygin after he became familiar with our conception of the New Chronology and the research of I. Davidovich in the field of geopolymeric concrete (see CHRON5, Chapter 19:6). S. M. Bourygin supplied us with numerous photographs of such walls common for many Peruvian cities. Taken from Alexandra Arellano’s book entitled "All Cuzco. Peru". - Fisa Escudo de Oro. Centre of Regional Studies of the Andes "Bartolome de las Casas", Lima, Peru. Instituto de Investigacion de la Facultad de Turismo y Hotelria, Universidad San Martin de Porres, 1999, page 5.
Fig. 5dp-20b. Stonework of the walls of the city of the Incas of Cusco in Peru. Ideally fitted to each other blocks, most likely, made by pouring liquid concrete with matting bags, which were laid between the formwork of the boards. After solidification of a number of blocks, their upper surface could be slightly hewn to even out individual sections. This was easy to do before the concrete was completely frozen. Then the next row of bags with liquid concrete was placed on top. The bags tightly encircled all the tabs of the lower row, filling the voids. Of course, there were practically no cracks left. Strong bags could be made from cactus fibers. Taken from the book: Alexandra Arellano. "All Cuzco. Peru". - Fisa Escudo de Oro. Center of Regional Studies of the Andes "Bartolome 'de las Casas", Lima-Peru. Instituto de Investigacion de la Facultad de Turismo y Hotelria, Universidad San Martin de Porres, 1999, p.5.
Fig. 5dp-20c. Tall wall of huge stone blocks that fit together perfectly well. Cuzco, Sacsayhuaman, Peru. The wall was built by the “ancient” Incas. As we have explained above, the technology must have involved the placement of cloth sacks with liquid concrete between wooden boards that defined the general shape of the wall. When the concrete hardened, the blocks assumed an ideal shape. Taken from Alexandra Arellano’s book entitled "All Cuzco. Peru". - Fisa Escudo de Oro. Centre of Regional Studies of the Andes "Bartolome de las Casas", Lima, Peru. Instituto de Investigacion de la Facultad de Turismo y Hotelria, Universidad San Martin de Porres, 1999, page 27.
Fig. 5dp-21. Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609). This portrait differs from another old portrait of Scaliger (reproduced in CHRON1, Chapter 1:2). Taken from the catalogue under the following title: “The 30-year War. The Splendour of Europe. The Renaissance. Humanism. Enlightenment”. Published by the V. T. Kozlov Regional Public Fine Arts and Culture Support Foundation, Moscow, 2001 (see page 44).
Fig. 5dp-22. Ever since the decline of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire in the XVII century and the radical revision of history that followed, we have been deliberately fed the myth that historical realities known to us today have always been this way. First and foremost, the myth about the world changing very slowly was a political necessity: the new rulers of the Reformation epoch were in need of “substantial proof” in order to back their claims for the throne, tracing their lineage back to times immemorial. This myth of “antiquity and rigidity” expanded to include the surviving historical artefacts. The makers of Scaligerian history dated the works of mediaeval writers, artists and craftsmen to deep antiquity, assuring everyone that the works in question have been around for hundreds and even thousands of years without suffering much damage inflicted by age. However, this claim has been proven preposterous by the destruction rate of mediaeval artefacts registered today. Only a very limited number of professional restorers are aware of just how fast the ancient works of art (paintings, frescoes, statues etc) darken and erode. Museum visitors usually see the end result of the restorers’ efforts, completely unaware of their being confronted by embellished and “revamped” history. In order to illustrate our point, we reproduce a rare photograph where one sees the actual process of Michelangelo’s XVI century Sistine Chapel frescoes being restored at the end of the XX century. The lighter part of the artwork represents the results of the restorers’ efforts. The rest, which looks much darker, corresponds to the natural condition of Michelangelo’s frescoes after the passage of some time (one must also bear in mind that the restoration works in question were by no means the first ones conducted in the Sistine Chapel. It has to be said that the actual conception of renovation is highly ambiguous per se. Today such endeavours are seen as “noble efforts aimed at the preservation of humanity’s cultural legacy” – however, more often than not this translates as the replacement of the dilapidated original by a blatant replica created by our contemporaries in accordance with the guidelines of Scaligerian history. It would be much better for the preservation of historical truth (and a great deal more honest to boot) to preserve the ancient artefacts in the exact same condition that they had when they were discovered. Renovation, which is often de facto rendered to painting an “ancient fresco” anew, filling the gaps with the products of one’s own artistic imagination, has every reason to be regarded as forgery. Making the past look “better” is an act of forgery at the end of the day, no matter how noble the motivation. Taken from “The Sistine Restoration. A Renaissance for Michelangelo”, an article by David Jeffery published in the National Geographic magazine, Vol. 176, #6, December, 1989 (page 696).
Fig. 5dp-23. The inculcation of the myth about the “conservative nature of the ancient history” and the allegedly slow evolution of civilizations by the mutinous reformists of the XVII-XVIII century had a very simple goal of making the freshly emerged independent states that evolved from former fragments of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire look old and dignified, with ancestry traceable to the very deepest antiquity. The myth of “ancient artefacts” remaining miraculously intact for many centuries on end was certainly very useful for that purpose. However, modern experience demonstrates that paintings, frescoes, sculptures, buildings etc erode at a considerable pace. We reproduce a rare photograph that demonstrates the restoration of Michelangelo’s frescoes in the Sistine Chapel. The lighter part above is what the restorers painted in lieu of the original eroded paint layer. The rest of the ceiling is virtually black. If it weren’t for the restorers, modern visitors of the Sistine Chapel would see nothing but darkened plaster covered in blurry blotches. And yet we are being told that the “ancient” works of art have reached us in their primordial condition from the immense depths of Scaligerian millennia. Therefore, the bright colours of Michelangelo’s frescoes and the numerous works of ancient art as known to us from countless reproductions can actually be credited to the modern restorers. The exact condition of the ancient originals usually remains well beyond the scope of public attention. This state of affairs is very salubrious for the tourist industry – the more attractions, the more tourists (which translates as more money). Taken from “The Sistine Restoration. A Renaissance for Michelangelo”, an article by David Jeffery published in the National Geographic magazine, Vol. 176, #6, December, 1989 (page 696).
Fig. 5dp-24. As we have already mentioned (see CHRON1, Chapter 1:13.3), the general public is puzzled about the rapidly deteriorating condition of the allegedly ancient works of art, sculptures, paintings and buildings, which is seen as a recent phenomenon. After all, Scaligerian history tries to convince us that these artefacts have remained intact for hundreds and even thousands of years. The suggested explanation is the allegedly perilous influence of the modern industry. However, the real reason is different. As we realise today, the Scaligerian millennia are a phantom; the erosion rates have always been rather high. We reproduce a rare photograph of restoration works in the Sistine Chapel as proof. The darkening and dilapidation of the frescoes make it impossible to make out any details at all. The “reconstructed originals” shown to us today were all painted by the modern restorers. We have no means of estimating the reproduction accuracy. The very idea of restoring old artwork (as well as making replicas of antiques) came into being during the Reformation, stimulated by the need of creating a new picture of the past that would meet the needs of the new rulers. Therefore, the most valuable ancient documents and works of art are the ones that have escaped the caring hands of the restorers. Semi-dilapidated originals are much less of a sight than the exquisite replicas – however, they are a lot more likely to be authentic. Let us reiterate that the bright colours of the Sistine frescoes have nothing to do with Michelangelo himself, which is highly deplorable. His art fell prey to relentless time. What we see today is the art of the restorers “based on Michelangelo’s motifs”. Taken from “The Sistine Restoration. A Renaissance for Michelangelo”, an article by David Jeffery published in the National Geographic magazine, Vol. 176, #6, December, 1989 (page 696).
Fig. 5dp-28. Ancient wooden Church of Lazarus Risen (from the Monastery of Murom, late XIV – early XV century). Nowadays it is part of the Kizhi ensemble on an island in Lake Onega. Its style is typical for the ancient Russia (also known as the Horde and the “Mongolian Empire”), and is easily identifiable as the famous Gothic style familiar to us from the architecture of the Western European cathedrals (see CHRON4, Chapter 14:47). Postcard from the collection by B. Savik and V. Parkkinen called “Kizhi. Open Air Museum”. See CHRON4, Chapter 14:47 for more details.
Fig. 5dp-29b. The Pokrov Church of 1764. Isle of Kizhi, Lake Onega. The entrance to the church is on the first floor, not the ground floor – this is a typical trait of the “ancient” Mongolian churches of Russia, or the Horde. It was only after the drastic reform of religious customs instigated by the Romanovs in the XVII century that the architecture of the Russian churches transformed into the “Greek style”, fallaciously declared ancient. Postcard from the collection by B. Savik and V. Parkkinen called “Kizhi. Open Air Museum”. See CHRON4, Chapter 14:47 for more details.
Fig. 5dp-32. Portrait of Nicholas Copernicus (who is presumed to have lived in 1473-1543) made by an anonymous artist in the alleged year 1600 (kept in the library of the Leipzig University). The portrait is ostensibly different from the other old portraits of Copernicus that we reproduced in CHRON3. The legend on the portrait begins as follows: “Nicolaus Copernicus Thorv ensis Prussi . . .”. Mark the term “Prussi” as applied to Copernicus. Taken from “The Parsimonious Universe. Shape and Form in the Natural World”. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996 (page 59).
Fig. 5dp-34. Altar room of the “ancient” Egyptian Temple in Edfu. Its construction coincides with that of the Christian altar rooms, complete with the so-called “royal gates” and the location of the altar. On the left and the right of the “royal gates” there are two doors leading to side-chapels. Therefore, the sanctum sanctorum of the Egyptian temple was a spitting image of the altar-rooms of Christian churches. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 5dp-35. “Ancient” Egyptian stone depicting Christian crosses of the exact same shape that we’re accustomed to today. The stone was discovered during the excavations of the “ancient” Egyptian temple of Edfu. Therefore, the temple in question was in fact a Christian church – and by no means a clandestine tabernacle of the sort that modern historians are very fond of describing at great length. The religious rituals were obviously conducted openly here, which is obvious from the size of the enormous stone effigies. In this case the halfway rounded stone has a diameter of 150 cm – a large and massive Christian symbol with nothing clandestine or secretive about it. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 5dp-36. Low quality concrete granite block with some “ancient” Egyptian symbols embossed on it. Located in the court of the “ancient” Egyptian temple of Dendera; found on the site during excavations. In this particular case the builders chose a poor quality binding solution, either by mistake or due to insufficient experience. The pieces of granite fall apart at the slightest touch as a result. This specimen proves it irrefutably that geopolymeric concrete was used very widely in the “ancient” Egypt as a construction material. Photograph taken in July 2002.
Fig. 5dp-37. “The image of a sowing plough embossed on clay with a cylindrical matrix (around 1400 B. C., Mesopotamia). Taken from The Concise Soviet Encyclopaedia, Moscow, 1928, Volume 1, pages 159-160. However, what we see on this “antediluvian” embossment is a typical Christian cross. The finding is therefore unlikely to predate the XII century A. D.
Fig. 5dp-38. Drawn copy of the Coloured Theban Zodiac discovered in the Luxor Valley of the Kings. It was found in the early XIX century, during the Egyptian campaign of Napoleon. The drawn copy was made by the Napoleonic artists. In CHRON3 we have already reproduced the coloured copy of this zodiac contained in the same “Napoleonic” Egyptian album ([1100]). The black and white version reproduced herein gives one a better view of certain minor details pertaining to this important zodiac. Let us remind the reader that our research of the Theban Zodiac revealed the date ciphered therein to be 5-8 September 1182 A. D., qv in CHRON3, Chapter 18:3. In CHRON3 we use the abbreviation OU for referring to this zodiac. Taken from [1100], A. Vol. I – Plate 96 (left page).
Fig. 5dp-39. On the right we see the memorial Etruscan stele of Avles Feluske, allegedly dating from the V century B. C. (Vetulonia, Italy). Kept in the Florentine Museum of Archaeology. Taken from [1410], page 247; see also [574], page 114. On the left we reproduce the rear side of a XVI century stone monument from the village of Middle Aty in Tartarstan, Russia. This photograph was reproduced in G. V. Yousoupov’s work entitled “An Introduction to the Bulgar and Tartar Epigraphy” (1960), page 152. We are using a reproduction of this extremely valuable snapshot taken from a more recent publication of Nurikhan Fattakh entitled “Language of the Gods and the Pharaohs”, Kazan, Tatarskoye Knizhnoye Izdatelstvo, 1999 (page 271). The two ornaments are virtually identical to each other – the “ancient” Etruscan stele reveals itself to be a relation of a Tartar monument of the XVI century located in Russia. We see a six-pointed star circumscribed by a hexagon and then also a circle. On the Etruscan stele the “Star of David” (apparently a religious symbol used by all Orthodox Christians at some point) decorates the shield of an Etruscan warrior. According to our reconstruction, such close proximity between the Tartar symbols and their Etruscan counterparts can be explained by the colonization of the Western Europe (Italy in particular) by the Horde in the XIV century, whose vestiges were later ascribed to the “ancient Etruscan civilization”.
