You are on page 1of 149

Adji Murad. Asia's Europa.

Volume 1 (Europa, Turkic, the Great Steppe)

Author's Preface
We are the Kipchaks! Altai Cradle The Great Nations Migration Our Spiritual Wealth European Kipchaks

Part One
Moscow Stories Saint Cyril and Methodius - Who Were They? Mist over the Baptism of Russia Rewriting History Kipchak Kiev Pictures on the Pages of the Chronicles Main Sources

Part Two
The World of the Wild Field Wild Field The Great Steppe Main Sources

Part Three
Tengri-Khan and Christ, His Foster Son The Vanished Heritage Splits and Splitters Main Sources

Part Four
Desht-I-Kipchak an Unknown Country? Main Sources

Near St. George Spring Gyurdzhi's Day Different Georges The Voice of Forgotten Motherland The Mystery of the Cross Iron Gates Gregoris - George Diocletian Who Suffered Not Being Guilty Every Nation Has Its Own George Beginning of the Catastrophe The Great Enlightener of Armenia Contradictions Let the Christians Be the Christians again Where Will this Lead? Where to Go? Dzhalgan Settlement Spring of the Known Legend Notes and Comments to the Appendix Bibliography

Part I
"Moscow Stories" We should begin the story of Desht-I-Kipchak and its tragedy from the nearest and well-known place - I mean Russia, which as the fates decree became a historical successor of the Turkic country doesn't feel like agreeing with that. It is ridiculous, though: thousands and thousands evident Mongoloids live in Siberia in whose appearance one cannot find any Slavic features, but they call themselves Russians, speak only Russian language and have Russian names. Today even evident Asiatics are called Slavs in Russia. And there are millions Slavs with pure Russian appearance there. However one shouldn't be astonished at anything concerning Russian history (as well as European) - it has become a riddle long ago: logic of certain events has been trampled down, and the facts were consigned to oblivion. For example, 196 nations lived in tsarist Russia. This number has considerably reduced in the course of the years of Soviet power. Human nationality was dealt with as his property, at authorities' discretion The Cossacks were the first who lost their name in the time of the soviet regime. Those steppe inhabitants' descendants were called the Russians right after the decree of dispossession of Cossacks was issued; they became the first Soviet "new Russians". To tell the truth, Kuban and Stavropol Cossacks were ascribed to the Ukrainians at first, and only after that they "became" Russians Who are they - today's Russians - indeed? A great deal has been said about it. Poets, writers, philosophers searched for "suitable" answers to a simple question. But one should know the truth in order to answer. Everything is obvious: "Ancient Russian nationality with an eastern Slavic self-consciousness was formed during the period of unity of ancient Russian early feudal Kiev state (Kiev Russia of IX - XII centuries)" - that's an official

viewpoint. But What was before Kiev Russia? It didn't appear for good reason. Who were they, those people, who to the Dnepr bank in IX century? Where from? And was Kiev (Slavic) state that united to allow a new nation to be formed there? It usually takes centuries and centuries. Another thing is also incomprehensible, why were Kiev inhabitants always called Ukrainians and not Russians: for, it seems, Russia means Kiev? And finally, why is Russian and Ukrainian culture that different? By the moment of Kiev Russia appearance civilizations of Egypt, Hellas, Ancient Rome, not to mention Ancient East, have risen and fallen. And what was happening on the territory of modern Russia before Kiev Russia? A desert? Well, no. For instance, archeologists proved the Kiev was founded in IV - V centuries as well as many other ancient towns (Bryansk, Tula, Elets, Rostov-on-Don, Simbirsk, Chelyabinsk, Tyumen). Thus a new question arises, why were they "ancient Russian" while Russia hasn't existed yet? Unfortunately, in Russia similar questions are usually passed over in silence. Or suggested versions give rise to new questions and perplexity. But chronicles of that faraway country remained and they are not confidential in Russia. The earliest, where the RUSSES were mentioned for the first time, are "Bertinsk Annals", "Russian Chronicle", "How to Run an Empire" treatise by Constantine Bagryanorodniy. And what then? It's the same everywhere: Scandinavian Varangians used to be called Russes. It turns out Russian encyclopedic reference-book called "Nations of the World", which is cited above, is not correct, to put it mildly. It is incorrect to speak about Russian nation neglecting Russes who gave the name and ethnic origin to it. These were the Russes who've founded Kiev Russia in IX - XII centuries. Why should notorious facts be concealed? Why should the Slavs be made the "builders" of Russia? In "Bartinsk Annals", for instance, it is reported of arrival of the Russes to Ludovico the Devout together with Byzantine embassy in 839. That is the most ancient written evidence where a nation called "Russes" is mentioned. It is a very serious text with which history of Russian nation should be started. Talking about their national identity the Russes were called Swedes or Norsemen. It turns out Russes were not the Slavs. Furthermore, they didn't even know about their "Slavdom". Their roots are absolutely different. Not only Greeks, but also Romans, Arabs, Kipchaks, Persians - the whole world! - in IX - XII centuries comprehended the word "Russ" the same way. Thus was called the nation known as "Varangians" in Russia. That was written in all historical monuments of those times. The end of the 1st millennium was the time of Norsemen in Northern Europe. Kiev Russia was not the only state they've founded. The White Russia, The Black Russia and other Russian states - the Swedish language was also spoken by the rulers there. In 1066 the Varangians conquered England and strengthened their ruling dynasty there. But the Englishmen, having been brought in other traditions, don't think this fact should be concealed or denied, it humiliates the dignity of modern Englishmen. And how should the Austrians feel because their state was founded by the convicts. And the Maltese - pirates' descendants? They're not ashamed of the past but of their ignorance. The Russes were a strong nation esteemed in Europe. They made all the rest esteem them. Why don't today's Russians recognize them? Why do they turn their backs on their forefathers and invent a new history? And besides, it is interesting what did Varangians call Kiev Russia? Their new state upon Dnepr? And they used to call it "Gardarik". For they couldn't call it "Russia". Scandinavians meant their allies - natives of the Northern Sweden - when they used that word. These were foolhardy people, their courage was boundless: excellent seafarers, brave warriors who used to control the whole Northern Europe. They were unrivalled water as well as on land. European scientists derive the word "Russia" from an ancient Varangian (ancient Icelandic dialect) word "oarsmen", "seafarers". Scandinavians appeared as seafarers, "sea warriors". Rivers were their roads, sea rocks were their shelter. Their ancient sagas perfectly reproduce that history. The last doubts are dispelled by the Finns and Estonians who keep on calling Sweden with the word conformable with "Roussia" - "Ruotsi", through an old habit. At the same time they call their southern neighbor - which was recently called USSR - "Venia", which means "Wends" i.e. "Slavs". That is the norm of Finnish and Estonian vocabulary and toponymy. The word "Wends" means "Slavs" in German as well. Italians also use that word "Russes" and "Slavs" are different and non-coincident terms of ethnography. But certainly that doesn't mean that two nations couldn't create a united state.

Plinius the Elder (24 - 79), a Roman scientist and writer, was the first who called the Slaves a European nation in his treatise in many volumes named "Natural History". That is a real encyclopedia of ancient world! Scientists of future generations were brought up with it. Ancient Slavs were called "Wends". Another Roman historian - Tacito (58 - 117) - confirmed and enriched the information about Wends - a nation which lived in the north of Europe, between Vistula and Oder. New registered history of the Slavs, or it's better to say "Wends", appeared in world history after that. And everything that was written by Russian historians later is a fib. The Slavs and Russes didn't even live alongside - they were divided by the Baltic Sea. They were different in many aspects: way of living, appearance, turn of mind. For example, Varangians earned their living through sea trade, feats of arms, while the Slavs were the plowmen, cattle-breeders and later - nomadic farmers. Furthermore, annalistic sources marked that "Russes used to wage war against the Slavs", "the Slavs paid levy to Russes" Those two nations were of different levels of social development. Their unification wasn't possible even in theory. In IX century Russes inconvenienced Byzantium. To tell the truth, certain Russian historians assert in the simplicity of their souls that all those inconveniences were caused by some "Slavic Russes". However nobody, except for them, has ever spoken of such a strange "nation". To discuss "Slavic Russes" is all the same as to discuss "Greek Arabs" or "Roman Moors". This is absurd in the view of common sense. Bat, alas, mythical "Slavic Russes" adjoin mythical TatarMongols in Russian history. "Russes don't have any ploughed fields and they feed on what they bring from Slavic lands", - Ibn Ruste, an eastern chronicler, marked in X Century. "30 - 200 of them (Russes) usually go to the Slavs and violently take lots of things for their sake", Gardizi, another writer of those times, repeated. It turns out these were not the Slavs who fastened a shield to the gates of Tsargrad - that was a Varangian shield. Saint Cyril and Methodius - Who Were They? Another story about "Slavic" first teachers, saint brothers Cyril and Methodius, is also significant. Monuments were raised and holidays are celebrated in their honor. But who has ever proved that they had been the Slavs? Brothers were born afar from Slavic lands, in a Great Bulgaria chaganat. They spoke Turkic language - or Protobulgarian language, as it was sometimes called in Europe - and wrote in it as well. What was Slavic in them? They invented a new written language for their native Turkic language instead of an old - runic - one. Those two brothers are another mystery of Russian history. Some consider them Greeks, others think they were Slavs, while they gained an understanding in Russian language just as in Chinese or Zulu - they simply didn't know it. Saint Cyril didn't invent Slavic Cyrillic alphabet - he invented Glagolitic alphabet. And these are not the same things. It is known that since olden days Turkic Kipchaks have been using runic written language which graphics differed from Greek and Latin letters adopted in Europe. Intending to make their written language look like European brothers simply changed the runes into letters. And that's the whole invention. Glagolitic alphabet contained certain letters corresponding with specific sounds of Turkic language. That's because there are forty symbols in Glagolitic alphabet, almost as in runic one, while in Slavic alphabet number of symbols is noticeably lower. From where and how did this episode concerning "Slavic teachers" appear in Russian history? It turns out it appeared due to a mistake (or a deliberate distortion?) in the translation of ancient text. At first it wasn't emphasized, but later it became a historical fact. It is said in the Church Slavonic translation of the Acts of Cyril and Methodius: "Cyril was taught Russian reading and writing by a Russ in Kherson". That phrase gave rise to everything. It is evident that Cyril wasn't Russian which isn't denied by Orthodox publicism. Another thing is worse - that phrase is absent in the Greek original! What's the matter? It came to light: in Russian language original word "Sursian" was changed by the word "Russian". And they are not the same. In IX century "Sursian" meant "Syrian". Dealing with Syrian books was common for Cyril and other enlighteners. And there was no trace of any Russian book How could books appear when written language

didn't exist? The legend of "Slavic teachers" has been confirmed neither by Byzantine nor by other documents. N.M Karamzin borrowed that fact of "enlightenment" from Nestor, the chronicler, being fully aware of his unreliability. Great Russian historian was surely embarrassed by the fact that Mikhail, the emperor, who's supposedly sent Cyril and Methodius in 898 to translate books into Slavic language, had been killed in 867 and couldn't have sent them to Moravia. And besides, how could he order to translate books into Slavic language while Slavic alphabet didn't exist, the Slavs couldn't read and translators didn't know Slavic language?... Who needed those books? Another question: what language was spoken in Moravia? Certain evidences show that it was Turkic language. At least inscriptions found there have been made with Turkic runes. If that is true, nobody needed Slavic books in Moravia at all. Cyrillic "Slavic peculiar alphabet" appeared after Cyril's death! One can assert that for, as it is evident from the Hagiography, the elder took the name "Cyril" several days before his death, on St. Cyril day, when he fell ill and adopted a saint schema. Before that his name was Constantine, he led his life with it It turns out even the word "Cyrillic" couldn't exist at that time, not to mention a dialogue between two persons who lived in different times. However, medieval historians had no doubts in this regard. For example Dobner, a Bohemian, wrote as follows: true Cyrillic alphabet is Glagolitic one. "Glagolitic letters are crude and incoherent, they have all signs of antiquity and are not similar with any other. Cyrillic letters are nothing else than Greek ones and they couldn't pass for a new invention in IX century. There are only seven non-Greek letters among them which were taken from Glagolitic Alphabet". Documents witness of one thing and Russian legends - of another. Thus it turns out that as if two Cyrils and two Methodiuses existed - true and imaginary. To tell the truth N.M. Karamzin marked that Glagolitic alphabets have not been accepted by Slavic languages as though due to "frizzy signs" but he was evidently cunning. Cyrillic alphabets are "frizzy" as well. Of course there was another reason and it couldn't happen that great Karamzin was not in the know. Cyrillic alphabet became obligatory only during XVIII century when everything connected with the Turki was to be annihilated while Slavic style was rising. New alphabet was merely a political trick of Moscow governors! In order to make the following generations unable to read ancient books So that the nation could start its "Slavic" history from nothing. Later those methods were also resorted to. Thus several Caucasian nations were deprived of their literary monument when in order to breach the ties between the generations Arab graphics was specially introduced to Moslems and later it was changed by Latin and Cyrillic graphics, one after another Annihilating even mentions of Turkic culture Russian historians and politicians committed a common forgery. Example with "Slavic" writing language is rather convincing. But unfortunately it is not the only one. Having made the Kipchaks - Cyril and Methodius - "Slavic teachers" Russian chroniclers sent elder Cyril (Constantine, to put it more precisely) to Kiev with a Christian mission, neglecting the fact that traces of those great people of their time were also found in non-Russian sources in which no Kiev voyage has ever been mentioned. "Mist" over the Christening of Russia History of the Baptism of Kiev Russia is also not clear. That isn't even a deceit! These are all conjectures and assumptions, apparently. Including the christening date. Disputes in this regard have been continuing for ages. Although it is known that officially christening happened in 449 when Scythian Diocese, to which Kiev belonged, was established by Ephesian Council. It is not difficult to understand that this fact doesn't correspond with Slavic origin of Russian history, hence a fabrication was necessary. Legend of St. Andrew who christened unborn Russia was invented. (This myth appeared in XII century, apparently). But the acts of Andrew the apostle are authoritatively described in "History" by Eusevius Cesarean with a reference to Origen, although only a visit to Scythia is described there ("Scythia" is a collective Greek word with a geographical tinge more likely, but not historical or

ethnographical. That was the name of the lands lying to the north of Black Sea and of the nations living there. The Greeks "due to their ignorance" (N.M. Karamzin's expression) called the nations of different origin (!) Celts and Scythians and all the rest - Western or Eastern Europe inhabitants. ). St. Andrew's journey through Ancient Russia, by a choice word of L. Muller, a well-known German historian, makes one laugh and regret: this is an "anecdote which existed in Russia long since". In the book called "The Christening of Russia" tireless Muller observed the way the legend was created. Its creators were inspired only by ignorance. The Slavs needed their own historic roots. Thus St. Andrew's journey through Russia became overgrown with details. German historian calculated the date of appearance of the first variant of "the journey" - the times of Vladimir Monomakh, 1102 exactly. How did this evident fabrication appear in Russia? It came from Byzantium. Legend of Andrew the apostle was also composed there, as though he visited the place of future Constantinople and founded the first Christian community there. But they recollected his "coming" rarely. Historical science has no information concerning who was the head of Russian Church, in what language services were held, how did christening of Russia happen and where was it performed. Flatness of any statements is irrelevant here. Because not everything is known for certain! But archeologists have ascertained it exactly - temples existed in Kiev long before the official date of Christening of Russia, for example - Elias the Prophet Temple on Pochaina stream, which was mentioned by Muller and other authors as well. Temples existed but what were they?.. Whom was the service held there for? Temples also existed after the seizure of Helgom (by Oleg). At that time, in 882, a century before the official date of Christening of Russia, that Varangian robber imposed his belief on Kiev inhabitants, but they stubbornly resisted keeping the faith to Heavenly God - the Great Tengri. Isn't it the reason why Ukrainians were called "Khokhols" - due to their special souls and their devotion to God. The word "Khokhol" has a sublime Turkic translation: "heaven's son". In spite of fear and death "heaven's sons" used to gather on St. George Island and go to St. Elias Temple on Pochaina stream. There were Christians even in the retinue of Russian princes who have conquered Kiev. How did it happen? Rewriting History Secrets, mysteries They are everywhere. That's why inaccuracies appeared on first pages of official Russian History in relation to most important events. But those "inaccuracies" were favorable for the politicians. The Great Steppe - an entire country - the biggest on the earth at that time! - was to be concealed. Let's emphasize once again: the Russes, as it should be, had Varangian names later rewritten in Slavic style due to painstaking of Russian chroniclers: Helga became Olga, Ingvar became Igor, Valdemar became Vladimir. Helga and Helg, Valdemar, Gunnar, Vermund, Faulf, Ingald - Kiev rulers of X century - appear in documents. The Slavs were not engaged in government in Kiev, they were far away from the throne. It is witnessed by the text of an agreement concluded between Kiev princes and Byzantium in 911. The agreement began as follows: "We, being of Russian origin, Carl, Ingelot, Farlov, Veremid, Rulav, Gudy, Raul, Karn, Frelav, Ryuar, Akturuyan, Lidulfost, Stemid" These were the ones who represented Russia during negotiations, were in power and were authorized to speak in the name of Russia. "Names of first Russian people - the Varangians and their retinue - are mostly of Scandinavian origin" - another famous Russian historian, V. O. Klyuchevskiy (1841 - 1911), asserted It goes without saying they were the Varangians. And they spoke the Swedish language. There are several lines in aforementioned agreement which are rather interesting - they evidence of impossibility for the Russes and the Greek to be "purchased slaves". In other words the Greeks and the Russes acknowledged themselves as slave-traders. But that article of the agreement didn't cover the Slavs. The Slavs were "living goods", the loot and a source of income for the Russes. The Russes dealt in them at slave markets which was described in writings by Constantine Bagryanorodniy, the Byzantine emperor, and other authors. The words "Slav" and "Slave" were the synonyms in Europe, which remained in European languages - "slave", for instance. However, the Turki, Finns, Varangians and Greeks themselves were also put to slave market as articles. Everything happened as the fates decree.

But N.M. Karamzin's opinion of Slavic language in the agreement of 911 is not convincing, to put it mildly. That agreement could have been executed in any world language but not in Slavic - masters didn't write in the language of their slaves. Another thing is more likely: if there existed the second (vanished) copy of the agreement, it has been executed in Turkic language. Byzantine and Scythian records, i.e. the Great Steppe records, had been kept in that language for about five centuries. Varangians could also become proficient in Turkic language during the years of government. It was the language of international communication in Central Europe. By the way, Karamzin reports the same several pages later: "About a half of X century two languages were spoken in Russia Scandinavian language was called Russian; it was used in conversations between our Princes and Grandees of Norman origin, but it was abandoned by them little by little as the Bulgarians have forgotten their language between the Slavs". But one ought to be very careful reading Karamzin: traps for the credulous are almost on every page of his writings. And the quotation stated above is also not complete - and who were the Bulgarians if they've forgotten their language? Which was their native language? Again, Karamzin provides an answer: " many considered them Slavs, but the Bulgarians had previously spoken a special language. Their ancient names are not Slavic at all but they are similar to the Turkish ones as well as their customs Historians specialized in Byzantine name the Ugros and the Bulgarians the Huns". That's absolutely right for khans who reigned over Bulgaria, while there were no any in Greece or Slavic lands, - these were only the Turki whose ruler was called so. It's a vicious circle. Karamzin has skillfully hidden by a fence of words the fact that can be put in a single phrase - the Bulgarians are the Turkic Kipchaks. Kipchak language was the official language of Kiev Russia, and after Varangians had come two languages have been spoken for a while: Scandinavian and Turkic languages And thus everything is in its right place, logic concerning these events appeared. Poor Russian history It is far from being clear as it seems to be. A lot of interesting happened in it which wasn't included in the books and what is called life And V.L. Yanin is absolutely right saying that "clarification of historical conceptions of deep-rooted myths is possible only by methods of historical criticism". History should be clarified as a cesspool from time to time. And the despotism was started by Vladimir Monomakh who withdrew Nestor's Chronicle from Pecherskiy Cloister and took it to his Vydubitskiy Cloister where it was transferred to Father Superior Sylvester. And he was the first who "rewrote" the history of Russia. Prince Vladimir who has been brought up in Slavic traditions was dissatisfied for he couldn't see Slavic Russia. A new text appeared in two years which was created by the elder son of Vladimir Monomakh, prince Mstislav, the most resolute Russian editor. A grandson of the English king, a son-in-law of the Swedish king, a pupil of Novgorod boyars, prince Mstislav has written Russian history at his discretion: Novgorod being closer to Kiev Russia in its new edition. Due to the pains of writing prince Novgorod eclipsed Kiev. The whole Turkic history of that town was made null and void. It was thrown away, and Kiev became three hundred years younger. And at the same time the role of Varangians was shown in the new light. Do you remember: "Come and reign over us and become our masters"? And Kiev was never conquered by Helg. Ascold, the Kiev chagan, was never killed. There was nothing but invented Kiy and his brothers. Prince Mstislav, a "Slavic Norman" author left such awkwardness that one can be struck dumb, but it became an early history of Russian state. He has crossed out everything relating to the Turki from Nestor's Chronicles - everything on which the true history if Kiev based. Mstislav, that evil editor, even made a list of Slavic tribes who've allegedly founded Kiev Russia. No one has ever heard or spoken of those invented "ancient field inhabitants" before. Perpetual rewriting of history was continuing in order not to let people know the truth and their roots - historical science has been lying claim to the title of "the most ancient profession" persistently long since. In soviet times, before the eyes of one generation, that dirty work was made six times. Six times life was represented in a new way, certain events were estimated oppositely. So as to forget everything and become oblivious Who needs that inconvenient truth? For instance, why should people know that ethnic structure has never changed in the Great Steppe. It remained for centuries as it has been formed after the nations' migration. Only the names were

changed. Avars, Barsils, Bulgarians, Burgunds, Huns, Hun-Guros, Kipchaks, Kotiguros and another two dozens of names of the Turkic nation were named by the history. That seeming chaos was to "confirm" existence of wild tribes and nations in the Great Steppe and in Altai. But one has to read Chinese chronicles in order to understand the opposite: a horde used to give its name to a conquered nation having got power. That's all. No new tribes and nations. And "wild" ones particularly For example, Prokopiy Caesarian marked in his book named "War against Goths": two Hun king's sons divided the power and the nationals after his death. Each of them gave his name to his nation. The sons' names were Utigur and Kurtigur. That's the history of "appearance" of two Turkic nations Utigurs and Kutigurs. Turning one nation into another was a common thing in the Great Steppe. It was a tradition. And in case one doesn't know it how can he judge the Turki and their culture? A nation "appeared" and in a couple of decades it "disappeared", another "new" Turkic nation came to its lands. An absurdity? A queerness? No, that's ignorance which was posed as the knowledge of "nomadic civilization". After all, the position of certain scientists is not clear - those who used to study the Steppe but neglected obvious in a pointed manner - the unity of the Steppe on the one hand, and the difference between the culture of Turkic Kiev and Slavic Novgorod on the other. All was ascribed to the Slavs. What for? These are not the same things! They've put themselves, their nation and their ancestors in an awkward situation. And besides they showed disrespect towards their neighbors. These are not only the Turki who were made wild and unknown by Russian politicians who have usurped their history and culture. They treated Ugro-Finnic nations the same. Belarusian and Ukrainian history has been distorted; those nations were deprived of their best sons. For instance, Belarusian printing pioneer Ivan Fedorovich was given a new Russian name - "Fedorov", as well as Glinka, the composer, Dostoevskiy, the writer, and dozens of others The sky over Belarus has no stars. Kipchak Kiev New interpretation of events intensifies the desire to invent another new thing That can be witnessed by the history Kiev - there's no limit for perfection there. "Chroniclers" dated information of Kiev foundation back to 854, while archeologists persuade that people settled there in V century. That is confirmed by Arab sources. Thus a time period of 350 years was reduced to zero in Russian chronicles. What does this method mean? It means Peter the First could possibly be Stalin's crony, they participated in the Battle of Poltava together and then gave rise to repressions A queerness? But Kiev example is of the same kind. Truncation of time is a proven method of official Russian historians. That wasn't accidentally that introduction to "The Story of Temporal Years" has been rewritten five times. They were searching for a way out - how to make the Slavs Russians. And they found it. It was unusually simple: some things just have been crossed out, others have been corrected and the names of Varangian rulers have been changed. And the history of Kiev Russia became Slavic A perfect method to dupe everyone. But can one agree with such a beginning of history of a new country (Slavic Russia) and a new nation? Russian nation Certainly not. Some more serious reasons and circumstances should exist which allow the Slavs to raise their heads and after all, having come to power, to call themselves a Russian nation. We cannot do without a review of basic events of those times in this regard. In XI century the star of Byzantium drooped, the state was declining rapidly. Rome won a victory in the struggle for domination in Christian Church, which affected political and economical situation. Byzantine power was decaying. The Greeks forcedly renounced a lot. For example, items of luxury which were delivered to their country by the Russes. The Slavic slaves also didn't meet a ready sale. Reaction of the Russes also didn't keep waiting: they lost their interest towards the Byzantines. The route "From the Varangians to the Greeks" was rapidly falling into decay and at the same time the Russes grew poorer. They have ceased their trading with Persia, which had been performed through the Turki, by then. And then a fatal loss of Byzantium. Unconcealed beggary of Kiev (Varangian) governors may be confirmed by the fact that in the middle of XII century they even ceased to mint coins But in the depths of this chaos and decay new life was slowly ripening. People say: "Sacred place is never empty".

And at that time the Slavs rushed to the deserted Varangian towns on the former route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" - to Pskov, Smolensk, Novgorod which then became Novgorod instead of former Varangian Holmgrad (Unity of Holmgrad and Novgorod is denied by Russian science. There are certain reasons, apparently. However nobody's willing to explain where did Holmgrad disappear? The town was an advanced post of the Varangians during their conquering Upper Dnepr basin. And how did the Slavs manage to build Novgorod having no town-planning skills? ). The Slavs surely appeared in Polotsk principality as well as in faraway Kiev. That customs town was also declining as well as the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks". Kiev princes have lost former support of Ruotsi - Scandinavia. Their neighbors made use of that: weak Novgorod prince started a campaign against Kiev. And he conquered it easily. There was no Kiev at that time. Decaying town surrendered without any resistance. Everything was decided during a short combat on the pier; new master of the town was determined there. One can find an interesting expression in the chronicles about appeared Slavs who "were leading an animal life". Those days the skirmishes between "new" and "old" Kiev inhabitants became more often, apparently, a new word "katsap" appeared which meant "bearded goat" in Turkic. The Slavs were called so due to their "animal nature" and smell. And the answer was: "khokhol", which seemed to be a dirty word, but no one new its real meaning, that's for certain. Time and events were implacably working in the Slav's favor, fortune manifestly smiled them - it was their hour of triumph in a ruined country! The worse was the situation around, the better it was for the Slavs. Especially when Kiev was "controlled" by prince Vladimir, the one from Novgorod, Varangian in his blood and Slav in his soul. Forest newcomers rapidly filled a social niche formerly created and cleared by the Russes for them. Varangians left Russia for the Slavs. They left it "free of charge". Or rather as a payment for their former obedience and slavery. But did Kiev Russia inhabitants have a feeling of national unity? Could Russian nation be formed there - as it is asserted by Russian historians? Reality indicates to the opposite: in XII century Kiev state split to the principalities. What principalities, how and why? That's another question but the fact remains - a state, Slavic or any other, ceased to exist! It perished in a painful agony having lasted several decades at most. Elm deeds of Novgorod bring it out clearly. Those deeds, according to academician V.L. Yanin, "gave rise to a new approach for solving a series of problems which former interpretation seemed to be indisputable". Indeed, modern conception of a procedure of Old Russian state formation should be altered radically. In fact it was an attempt to unify the nations of two DIFFERENT cultures - Turkic and Slavic. Kiev and Novgorod cultures "differed in many aspects". Novgorod language, for example, was a dialect of the Wends, or "Southern Baltic Slavs", as Yanin calls them. Kiev natives had absolutely another language. As we can see Kiev Russia, inherited by the Slavs, wasn't a product of their policy. That's why it couldn't have lasted for a long time: it rose like a comet in the sky, and then it faded out. Russia rapidly faded out, it didn't just split - it split to hostile principalities: rulers and nations, as far as we know, cannot exist without mutual obligations between each other. It is a hard work - to come to power. But to retain the power is a work hundred times harder. That's how it happened But for some reason no one is disturbed due to lack of logic in traditional Russian history. For example, why do Ukrainians differ from Novgorod inhabitants or Vysatichs? They differ not only in their appearance. Differences can be found everywhere - in clothes, cookery, songs, dances, buildings anything. It comes as no surprise, Russia and Ukraine are far from being the same. They've been communicating for a while until the middle of XIII century, for about seventy years (And Russian nation appeared in the course of seventy years (?!), according to official Russian science. It is astonishing. And incredible.), and later it was stopped. It was recommenced in 1620. But how? Documents confirming reunification of Ukraine and Russia show that absolutely different nations were "reunifying", which didn't understand each other and communicated through the interpreters. Thus there were two translators, Bilyal Baitsa, a Turki, and Stepan Konchinskiy, in the Moscow embassy in Ukraine, headed by V. Buturlin. They went to "foreign Circassians" (thus the Cossacks were called in Russia) and "lituins" (i.e. western Ukrainians). The former spoke Turkic, and the latter spoke one of Slavic dialects which "Russian" Slavs didn't completely understand. At first "reunification" of two nations faced a great many difficulties - an evident confrontation was

one of them. And the idea of "reunification" was expounded by Catherine II in one of her instructions: "We ought to easily make them Russified and stop staring like wolves in a forest" What is it if not a colonization of Ukraine? The Russians abolished hetman's power "to make hetmans' times and names disappear - not simply to cancel that position". Besides, Ukrainian Church was beheaded for the Russians doubted it their hierarchs didn't regard the "khokhols" as their coreligionists. Although the priests weren't dispersed and defrocked, but they were appointed to church offices (Matskevich and others). Alexander II put an end to a "union for all times" on May 30th, 1876, when he promulgated a law which prohibited to speak Ukrainian language, print books in it and to teach it at schools; even songs were also prohibited Thus Ukrainian speech became clearer and clearer to Russians from year to year. While the Ukrainians really have a Slavic and not any other origin, why don't other "Russian" Slavs, Novgorod inhabitants for instance, wear papakhas, top-boots, wide trousers, Russian shirts as the Turki did? Why don't they sing those emotional songs that the Turki used to sing, why don't they perform those weird dances? Why a horse is nothing more than a wretched nag or a carrier for a Novgorod inhabitant while for a Kipchak (be it called a Ukrainian, a Russian or anything else) a horse is a continuation of his body and soul, his another "self"? There are thousands of questions but they all relate to malevolent falsification of History. A lie has stricken its roots so deeply no one is able to tell the truth from a lie. Although everything is in sight: it is Kipchak culture that remained in Ukraine! Having been established in XVII century, relations between Moscow Russia and Ukraine have at once become ambiguous which remains until now: one thing is said, another is done. Moscow and its head have always regarded "Cossack land" inhabitants as their enemies who, according to V.N. Tatischev, "have organized many rebellions and performed many actions which caused damage to Russia". That's why the Russians aimed to make Ukraine obey the Tsar, and Ukraine resisted in reply. Due to the differences in political culture the heads of two "sister" nations simply didn't understand each other. And they didn't trust each other either. V.N. Tatischev, as well as V.O. Klyuchevskiy wrote that. Isn't it indicative that after the unification of Ukraine with Russia "none of the hetmans has lived his last years safely and no their blazonry remained in Minor Russia". And at the same time the word "hetman" means "bearer of spirit", "bearer of honor" of a nation in Turkic! And it is also indicative that "cherkasine" nickname, which means "Ukrainian" has been meaning "traitor" for Moscow rulers for a long time. Catherine II wrote in an Instruction to Peter Rumyantsev, "the main Minor Russian commander", that "Russian nation has become accustomed to show evident contempt for Minor Russia inhabitants". The latter returned the same (Of course there are other historical witnesses of difficulty and hopelessness of the situation in which Ukraine was due to provoked split of society. But this is the subject of another book. ) That feeling of mutual antipathy between two "sister" nations was clearly expressed in XIX century by Johan Koel, the German traveler: "Aversion that Minor Russia inhabitants have for Great Russia inhabitants is so great it can be fairly characterized as national hatred". Unconsciousness is a dreadful disease, and Russia has it. And it's not the only one. Famous French historian Mark Ferro wrote an amazing book called "How History is Represented to the Children in Different World Countries". It turns out that everybody tells stories about himself! That is a generally accepted norm of "official" history. In India, for instance, in Mark Ferro's opinion, history lacks a main point, it is basically a myth. Arab history is a "history in pictures". The Persians put their history in the center of world civilization. "Armenia, which was defeated many times, willingly glorifies its history and puts it into shape of martyrdom". Almost every country tells ITS history to the children! Thus Russian historians shouldn't be blamed, they've invented not more than others. Maybe, a little bit more. But there is no future without past, the past turns into future - time is permanent. History is the Record of Time and all events in it. Interrupting or distorting the Record people don't change the time, they don't stop the course of events, they just bring up poorer generations without memory which means such generations are not able to look into the future. But sometimes unconsciousness may do good. It is a medicine but with admixtures of poison, it cures spiritual wounds of the nation that has suffered a great many misfortunes due to which previous way of life was demolished. And in some time poison accumulates and unconsciousness starts to do harm Of course it is hard to recollect the past, but it is necessary in order to remain a nation and not to dissolve among the neighbors.

"Seek for another's - loose your own", - an ancient Turkic proverb says. Kipchak khan Kurya ordered to engrave those words on the cup made of the skull of Russian prince Svyatoslav after his inglorious campaign against the Great Steppe. It is impossible to create a nation. One can compile a single book of ten ones, but it is impossible to form a nation of ten "ethnic parts": a crowd without historical roots and traditions isn't a nation. It also relates to American and any other "new" nations. It is an ideological or political society and nothing more. World nations differ not only in their appearance, not only in their culture, customs, habits and conduct. According to Biologists they also have differences on genetic level. That's why the Chinese cannot be born by the black men. That's because different natures have different cultures. Thus there are four thousand nations on our planet: they seem to be equal but they are different. And the signs uniting people into nations have been known from time immemorial. Biological peculiarities divide people into races - into nations. Nature (or breed?) of each of us is being investigated across the generations That is the truth known always and everywhere. But not in official Russia. Here investigation of human is not recognized although the latest achievements in that branch of science are strikingly interesting. Political dogmas hinder, apparently. And Israelis studying themselves and their genetics made amazing discoveries according to skin pattern of the tips of their fingers. It turned out that not only every man is individual according to this sign, but entire nations also are! Every nation has its print. Thus, according to skin pattern, Israelis learned to determine: a Jew - not a Jew. Is it a step on the road to racism? Not at all, there's no reason to be afraid of it. Another thing is in question: we - people - are living creatures above all, and after that we are the members of society. One thing is primary, another is secondary. Perception of our own nature and identity will permit us to comprehend the sources of social and other phenomenon of life. This knowledge is very important. Not only national history, but all social processes also originate from it. "Biological face" is out of governments' control. For example, the Turki even have different tissue and bone protein in comparison with the Slavs, Vepses and other nations of forest zone. Altai and steppe nature has created a special type of man with its health, attitude, traditions and culture. A very stubborn type. And this is a Kipchak nature! It is individual. And its individuality is shown not only in national culture, but also in skin pattern on the tips of the fingers. And whatever name one can give to a genetic Kipchak (Kumyk, Russian, Ukrainian or any other) his "biological face" remains invariable It makes him look like his parents and ancestors. "Seed and breed are interrelated", - ancient people noticed. Today they are trying to abolish this rule supposing that civilized nations cannot be secluded That's a controversial position but unfortunately it exists. In ethnography, as well as in physics, everything is subject to certain rules, even the differences between the characters of the nations, their conduct and adherence to certain drinks and dishes In a word, nothing happens accidentally in the lives of the nations. Groundlessness of American "nation" stuck together in a hurry originates from neglect of biological laws; people are divided into ethnic communities inside this nation (Italian, Chinese and other quarters exist in any big city). Although it is very sad, one can notice the same in Russian circles (the same communities). Since Ivan the Terrible unfriendliness, aggression and disrespect towards their new brothers and neighbors have occurred between the people of Moscow Russia. For example, oprichnina was carried out by the Turkic Kipchaks who were accepted into "Russians". And there are thousands of similar examples. Unfortunately, recurrence of this old disease has been taking place until now. The latest example is a mass slaughter near the White House and in Ostankino in autumn of 1993. These are also the repressions of 1937, civil war and down on historical ladder through violent suppressions of popular uprisings headed by Pugachev, Bolotnikov, Bulavin, Razin and strelets. This is oprichnina and many other episodes when the Russians were willingly annihilating each other. They were annihilating each other as real enemies, not having a feeling of own blood. No other nation in the world - no other one! - has ever tormented itself this way. That's what ethnographic experiments lead to. They lead to self-destruction of a nation and to pitiless aggression against itself. Of course not everybody will be impressed by these lines. No matter how patriotic are certain readers, they were written not to humiliate them. But ancient Kiev really didn't bear relation neither to

Varangians who have conquered a built town, nor to the Slavs. Kiev is a significant page of Turkic history which also became the history of Russia, it was written in runes as well as in letters. First Russian chroniclers have known that, that's why following rulers corrected the chronicles that thoroughly. In IX century Kiev inhabitants spoke "odd language", their native language, for they were the Turkic Kipchaks. Kiev means "town of son-in-law" in Turkic. It is a settlement of V century; it was formerly called Bashtau. Then it became a customs town on the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" which extended through the territory of chaganat called Ukraine (However, it is also possible that the name of the city descends from "kya" or "kia". In Turkic language - and again Turkic is the only one! - this word means "bordering", "located on the border". Maybe this word is even more suitable to be the name of the town which has been standing on the river since V century and operating frontier and customs functions. It was the northern gate to the Turkic land - Desht-IKipchak, one of which chaganats was called "Ukraine", which meant "border", "located near the border" in Turkic. It is interesting that "Kiy" place-name can be met rather often. For example, that was the name of the town on the frontier between Khazaria and the Great. Bulgaria, it was also a customs town, Kiev village is located there now. And what about Kiy - an island in White Sea, near the Solovetskiy Cloister? It was also used in frontier purposes. As is well-known, the cloister was built by the Turki.). A chagan reigned there. Rulers of neighboring chaganats - Avaria, the Great Bulgaria, Khazaria, Bulgaria of the Volga - had the same title. Together they formed the country which was called DESHT-I-KIPCHAK (Kipchak Steppe or Polovetskoe Field). And fortunately, it hasn't been forgotten. 1500 anniversary of Kiev foundation was recently celebrated in Ukraine. Thank God - they remember the truth! Prayers of Kiev Russia were broadcasted on the radio with the refrain: "Hodai aldynda beten adem achyk bulsun". Unfortunately some know-all began to explain the prayer and its Church Slavonic language A simple soul! Any greenhorn Turki is able to translate this "ancient Slavic" text without explanations: "Every man should appear before God with an open soul". And there are no other translations. They really prayed only in Turkic in Kiev Russia, looking into the sky in the east. Turkic runic writings on the walls of ancient temples in Kiev and the whole Ukraine also remained, as well as ancient prayers Kipchak Ukrainians retained them. Desht-I-Kipchak country was formed up to V century - in 370, after a mighty fight for Don with strong Alans the Turki came out to European steppe. That's when European page of Kipchak history was opened. That country is a geographical result of the Great Nations Migration. It existed until XVIII century, until Azov campaigns of Peter I and further conquest of Minor Russia. But steppe inhabitants' descendants don't even perfectly understand its name. Why? Scanty information about Russian Motherland is provided by the Encyclopedia: "Desht-I-Kipchak (Kipchak Steppe) is the name of the steppes from Irtysh to Danube, from Crimea to the Great Bulgaria where the Kipchaks (Polovtsians) roamed, taken from Arab and Persian texts of XI-XV centuries". And there is no other information about Turkic country which border was lying on Moskvariver! Even the word "desht" is ascribed to Iranians for some reason, in spite of the fact that there are no steppes in Iran. Neither of Encyclopedia authors wonders why did the Kipchaks need an Iranian word to call their Motherland? Yes, the word was borrowed from the Sanskrit by the Turki, but it got another meaning there deep and figurative meaning! In ancient Turkic language the word "tashta" had several meanings, including "foreign land". People who've left Altai - their Motherland - for an unknown steppe, foreign lands, couldn't have found a better word. Foreign land became a new Motherland for the Turkic Kipchaks. Hence is Desht-I-Kipchak. There are no other words Hence is the word "steppe", it still comforts a Kipchak soul (From an ancient Turkic word "isiteppe" - "comforting", "sheltering".). Pictures on the Pages of the Chronicles History of Russia and Kiev is rather strange But the traces of truth remained, and they remained in the foreground. Those traces are the pictures in the chronicles, they are more expressive than words. But nobody guessed to correct them. Editors of Russian history cared mostly for the text, and they simply lost sight of the pictures. Books by B.A. Rybakov, the Russian academician, exemplify that in the best way. They are notable

for excellent polygraphy and beautiful illustrations - these are possibly the most valuable things. On those pictures one can see people wearing Kipchak clothes, Kipchak armor, with Kipchak arms, near the buildings of Kipchak architecture, sitting on Kipchak furniture, using Kipchak crockery. Faces on the pictures are the faces of real Kipchaks: broad, with high cheek-bones. One wouldn't be confused. But the author easily calls them Russians, even not the Ukrainians. And the portrait of a man, as well as of a nation, is created according to his objects - the details. Sometimes one feature is enough to recognize it. A Mexican is known for a wide-brimmed hat, a Japanese - for a kimono. Of course we cannot reproach such a famous author with ignorance of elements of ethnical history. His analysis of different documents, for example of Radzivillovskaya (Lavrentievskaya) chronicle, or its Russian copy to put it more preciously, rich in illustrations, witnesses of his deep understanding of the problem. The text is dated back to 1130 - 1140. It contains dozens of miniatures - a real treasure. B.A. Rybakov is certainly right when he asserts that the artist had a "complete manuscript abundantly illustrated by Kiev artists". He probably had. But the text was shortened or burned in Vladimir. Copied pictures remained safe. Isn't it strange that only documents of Northern Russia, written in Slavic language, can be found on the shelves of archives of Russian history? And where are the Turkic codes? It is ridiculous to suppose that they never existed. Why, weren't there any cloisters on southern lands? Weren't there any enlightened people? Were there no towns? Novgorod is all right, but why is Bryansk (Birnichi) neglected? Cultural traditions of that ancient Kipchak town haven't been studied adequately, though it appeared earlier than Novgorod - in IV - V centuries. The town was a spiritual centre of the Great Steppe and its capital. For Europe it was the University of Life. Of course sooner or later towns of south of Russia and the Great Steppe will let hear from themselves. It's indecently for it to keep silence any longer - cultural stratum is huge. And it is to be opened: new countries appeared, they are the young growth of an old Kipchak tree. Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan will want to know their true history. Their ancestors made their contribution on world culture, so why should it be concealed? According to Rybakov, the Russians started to ornament their chronicles with color miniatures in X century That's a keen observation! It conjectures that Russian chronicles hadn't been ornamented with color miniatures until 997. And did Russian chronicles ever exist? The author passes it over with silence. Thus, by a single phrase, the academician kind of takes away the readers from the main point: there were no Russian chronicles in X century, consequently, there was nothing to ornament. Ancient Kiev (Ukraine and the whole Great Steppe, in other words) interested Moscow historians in order not to learn the truth, but to conceal it. Foreign and Russian scientists are being perplexed looking at Russian archives which were carefully cleared of the documents of Kiev Russia. A great many things were ruined For example M.I. Carger regretfully marked in his two-volume edition of the book "Ancient Kiev" that almost all things having been found by archeologists disappeared mysteriously. For example, burial places were found in frameworks dated back to before-Vladimir times, they were the same as in Altai, with a horse, with servants and utensils. But they never scrutinized them, they tried to talk and write about them as little as possible, and then they forgot everything. As if nothing has ever been found. Once an intact burial place was found by the archeologists under the southern apse of Dessiatinnaya Church. It used to be a barrow, apparently, and then a brick temple was erected on it one of the most ancient temples in Kiev. The burial place was rich. An ornament made in animal style, traditional for the Kipchaks, is perceptible on the horse's harness (archeologists often came across such ornaments in Altai). Equilateral crosses worn next to skin were found - they were taken over from the Turki. And many other findings However, it seemed unconvincing to Moscow historians. Even Turkic runic writings on the walls of ancient temples didn't convince them. And academician Rybakov is also biased against Kiev miniatures. They were put in ancient Chinese chronicles, that's for sure. They couldn't be absent there. Visual line was deemed a good tradition for the Kipchaks. This tradition is the continuation of rock paintings. Their own. Conventionalized. Turkic. And, it should be mentioned, similar to those in the chronicles with regard to the way of writing. One can still see those paintings on Altai and Southern Siberia rocks - from where the Kipchaks came to Dnepr, Don, Danube and to Central and Western Europe. They can also be seen on the jewelry found on the barrows by the archeologists. They haven't disappeared! Soslan Baichorov, Doctor of Science, a Karachai, published a work called "Ancient Turkic Runic Monuments of Europe"; it contains a lot of interesting facts.

In a word, one can easily make sure that the traditions of Turkic culture, which are clearly described in Kiev books, were formed long before the Varangians: they've been grinding for hundreds and thousands of years. Miniatures from the chronicles are that important for they provide a clear picture of Kiev life, its archaic features. For example, arms, buildings, armor, head-dress, furniture, clothes and many other things have not been forgotten by the artist who painted those things as if from nature - he has seen them in his life. Paintings from nature give rise to doubts in relation to authenticity of rewritten texts. For example, arms and armor found on the barrows far away from Kiev are absolutely the same as the paintings in the chronicles. It means a painting contradicts with text. That's true indeed, for Russian Slavs (except for prince's armed forces) were armed otherwise - they had arms for foot! The Kipchaks didn't wage a war on feet. The paintings are really important! Miniatures from the chronicles are "the windows to a disappeared world", as it was called by one of researchers. An excellent image. If there are windows it means one can look through them. Firstly one can have a look at the subject of the pictures. According to eastern tradition only the main things were embodied. Author's (or the one's who has given an order) attitude to a certain event is evident in the subjects. Author's spirits. This quality - selection of main things - was a distinguishing feature of the Turkic, as well as the whole eastern culture. The main thing of the subject is put into the center of painting, and spectator's attention is fixed on it. An ancient tradition. In the paintings of Kiev chronicles the main thing was also put in the centre so as to make the spectator look there. Look and analyze comparing with the text. In Russia during the years of Slavonicism prince Mstislav was the first who became familiar with an occupation of a copyist sitting in the great prince's scriptorium - sort of court publishing house. Everything was organized in a big way: unyielding monks were replaced for yielding men of the world. And his crowned father sketched a summary of the future "Kiev" history (Monomakh's "sermon"). Docile son put the idea on paper. He put it on paper having created a special style of chronicles writing. Should one be surprised that the chronicles, as well as the whole Russian history, are abound only in victories and feats, even those which never happened. All the rest is concealed. Alas, that's a tradition too. But, as far as we know, victories may be glorious and they may also be of other types. Here is one of them, expounded by N.M. Karamzin: "Year 1905. Victories. At last Grand Duke and Vladimir encouraged a despondent spirit of their nation due to the victories Polovtsian leaders, Itlar and Kitan, having buried the hatchet, took Monomakh's son Svyatoslav to be an ataman. Kitan safely lived in the country near the town wall; Itlar stayed in Peryaslavl with Ratibor, the grandee". Thus Kiev prince took occasion. On February 24th, late at night, the Russians, having stolen to the camp of Kitan-khan, knifed him in his sleep. "Iltar, who knew nothing, was preparing to have breakfast with his hospitable masters when Olbeg, Ratibor's son, shot an arrow at his chest through the hole made in the upper side of the attic for that purpose; unlucky Itlar with many famous friends became the victim of an infamous plot which seemed an allowed "rues" to the best of Russian Princes of those times". "The best of princes of those times" acted that way. Reality of life - one cannot turn his back on it. Facts are more important than words. Facts have always required Russian governors to interpret the events otherwise. They required for inventions! Docile son of Vladimir Monomakh showed eagerness for it: he was rewriting pages after pages. Prince Mstislav cannot be reproached with lack of talent, he skillfully polished the roughness of life. Indeed, the first Russian editor-in-chief! He invented a new method of annalistic illustration: they started to put a sort of appraisal near the painting. Fables' symbolism became important. It happened as follows. Year 1111. Monomakh's campaign against Northern Donets and Salnitsa. As usual, cavalry is painted, but near it one can see the dog running away - it symbolized running Kipchaks. Year 1112. Svyatopolk's son defeated the yatvyags. Beaten bear is painted on the margin - the symbol of Lithuanian Marshy Woodlands. Year 1120. The Turki and the Berendeis attacked Russia and were put to flight. Frightened monkey is added to a traditional painting. Year 1127. Mstislav sent the troops against Polotsk. Izyaslav, his son, took prince Bryachislav prisoner. A cat having caught a mouse is added to an ancient miniature. Here it is, Russian chronicles writing, it never missed. The paintings stroke the keynote to public opinion: people either were illiterate or couldn't read in Turkic, they responded to the painting but not

to the text. Certainly a frightened monkey and a cat with a mouse didn't improve chronicles writing, but those clear and insolent symbols worked. Usage of Aesopian language in the chronicles was rejected after prince Mstislav's death; while the traditions of a Kipchak book were not ( Not to be unfounded, I'll remind that the word "book" is Turkic; the Kipchaks borrowed it from the Chinese; literal translation - "in a roll", "in a chronicle"). For example, a small town was still depicted as a tower which was distinguished due to a certain symbol its future emblem. Warriors were still painted as riders with crooked eastern sabers, but the foot with berdyszes were near them. After that little men appeared on the margin of the chronicles instead of animals. Very expressive little men. They kept silence mysteriously - although imperceptible, but still the participants of the events. The Russes were the same - imperceptible inspirers of events in Russia, their directors, ideologists hidden in the wings of political theatre. They are the same everywhere - those colonial leaders with a foreign nature: kind of side by side, but not together. There are many mysterious things in the pictures of Radzivillovskaya chronicle. Sometimes it is not even clear who is who. The artist kind of doesn't care, for example, about outward appearance of Russian and Kipchak warriors, about certain details of his pictures. The warriors should differ, weather by color or by dress; after all, they are the enemies representing the nations of different cultures. But there is nothing of the kind! All are the same. Is it a discrepancy? Something like that. But excavations of Turkic barrows provided enough archeological material in order that one can imagine appearance of the Turki, his arms and his horse's harness. What a steppe warrior looked has been known long before it appeared on the pages of the chronicles. And archeologists also know what a Russian warrior looked. Anyone will be able to compare them, and even a child will be able to draw right conclusions. Professor A.S. Pletneva, a famous specialist in steppe nations of ancient Russia, marked: "In most man's burial places they've put a horse with a harness and arms together with the dead. Usually we can find only metallic parts of those categories of items: iron bit and stirrups, saddle-girth buckles, iron arrow-heads, saber blades. Moreover, almost in every burial place we find small iron knives and fire steels. All said items are notable for extraordinary uniformity of sizes and shapes. Such standardization is typical for nomads of the whole European steppe right up to Ural. Types of those items have been changing all over and simultaneously. All this allows to make a conclusion that in winter camps of Polovtsians (as well as other steppe inhabitants) blacksmith's work was well organized with traditional steppe methods and criterions (bold supplied. - M.A.)". Indeed, the Kipchaks had their appearance, their way of life with "traditional steppe methods and criterions". These conclusions are well reasoned by A.S. Pletneva, no doubt. That's true - culture different from all other cultures of the world dominated in the Great Steppe. Of course features of that culture were also shown by other Russian scientists. Professor S.I. Rudenko, for instance, has excellently explored a number of Altai barrows and has written a real scientific poem about ornaments which covered certain findings in abundance. It turns out that practical Turki didn't ornament their sabers, pikes, helmets, chain armors harnesses for no particular reasons. Ornament meant belonging of an item to its owner from this or that clan; it was a sort of sign. Thus unity of the nation was emphasized. Even ornaments were standardized by the Turki. Because the ornaments contained in-for-ma-ti-on This information was originally and ably interpreted by A.A. Trofimov, a Chuvash scientist, - a very observant person. He ascertained that ancestors used to encipher words and phrases in the ornaments. Artist's skills let him lick the runic writings into shape of ornate pattern. Having analyzed embroidery of the Ukrainians, Cossacks, Chuvashes Trofimov read them and made an unexpected conclusion that these were the ornaments which had been used as an identity card in great antiquity. They contained not simple beauty! That beauty was clear only to the nearest: cryptographic writing! That is the main purpose of Turkic ornament being the mark "own - foreigner". Having learnt more about Turkic culture one can easily make sure that the Turki were painted on the miniatures in Kiev chronicles more often. The Slavs and the Russes were rarely painted. They can be easily distinguished. Russes had another arms, another clothes - everything differed, which was proved by Pletneva, Rudenko and other scientists in their works; but they didn't call the Turki their name. Archeologists haven't found any centers of blacksmith's works in the zones of Slavic settlements, which would be similar to those found in Turkic settlements. Although Rybakov proudly mentioned a

sword hammered by a Russian master in his books. As if it belonged to Svyatoslav. To tell the truth, there is one known detail on it - a runic inscription on the blade Maybe the Slavs used to make swords somewhere (Found Slavic metallurgic centers give rise to nothing but indignation. They were found on the territory of Desht-I-Kipchak - near Dnepr! At that the furnaces are Turkic, as in Altai. Turkic metallurgy was called Slavic?! Another thing happened, apparently, and we can agree with it: so-called marsh metallurgy was cultivated in Slavic lands - a technology allowing to obtain metal out of marsh slash rich in iron.) but it is obvious they haven't written with the runes on them for they had been enlightened by Cyril and Methodius. And the situation with another sword on which clearly perceptible runic inscription remained put Rybakov into an embarrassing position. Having "reconstructed" the text or, better to say, having added what was missing in his opinion, he read an inscription: "Lyudota koval". Thus he declared: the sword was made by a Russian armorer But who could let a craftsman profane arms with his name? Only greatest craftsmen were allowed to put an identifying sign. Ancestors used to write only magic conjurations on the blade! And we don't "reconstruct" the inscription on that sword as Rybakov did, but simply read the Turkic runes without a fake, the translation is evident and it goes as follows: "Insidious intention (which should be collapsed) strike you down! Evil crafty designs wipe you out!" ("A? uj sigu ur. Al je"). History of arms, of its ornaments is an interesting subject which won't stand any fantasies and is still waiting for its researcher. History of cavalry - Turkic troops - is also waiting for him. For example these are miraculous heroes in the vision of Leo Dyakon, a Greek historian who has described Russian attack on Byzantium in 971: "Svyatoslav's warriors appeared on horses for the first time then (bold supplied. - M.A.), but they couldn't ride them". Such observations put us to a nonplus: why, how did the Russians defeat Khazaria in 965 without horses? They managed somehow. It must have been too hard - not knowing dzhigit skills - to wage a war against born riders. And speaking without irony, was it Svyatoslav who has waged a war against the Khazars? Or it was a union of Svyatoslav and Bulgarian chagan?.. It seems something is wrong in Russian history. Maybe the answer is simple: these were the Turki who have defeated Smender - the capital of Khazaria, and the Russians ascribed another's victory to themselves Alas, this has been also happening in Russian history - some victories seem to be unlikely easy. However, another thing is also possible. That has never happened! Most likely Khazaria has died as a result of natural cataclysm: big trouble occurred - Itil (Volga) river changed its bed - the mouth was moved far to the north. Droughts and hunger occurred in rich Khazaria which sealed the fate of the chaganat. But in any case Svyatoslav had nothing to do with it. The Kipchaks - inhabitants of Ukraine chaganat, Ukrainians - but not the Slavs formed Kiev cavalry. The Russes have set the Turki on to fight and fratricide commenced. A brother was fighting against his brother: one under the Russian flag, another - under his native one. That was fixed in the miniatures if the chronicles. That's why warriors - Turkic and Russian ones - were painted the same. That fratricide gave rise to the Reign of the Russes. Kiev Russia history started there Mini atures from the chronicles are the real "windows to disappeared world". And if one manages to wash them, he will able to see a lot. And one of the pictures is strikingly different - other Turki are painted on it: they have caps with brims on their heads instead of helmets. What is it? And who are they? The cap looks like Kazakh or Kirghiz man's head-dress which hasn't been forgotten yet. It means people from eastern chaganats of Desht-I-Kipchak are on those pictures. They were called the Pechenegs. They didn't wear papakhas. Outer head-dress of the Turki contained important information about the owner. Form, size and material of head-dress informed about estate and patrimonial belongings There were many interesting things in the pictures of the chronicles. A life of the whole nation. Miniatures, as the letters of ancient writing, tell a lot about departed generations. Some consider them primitive, too simple. But that's a mistake - each detail was written out carefully, it hid the sense and reproduced author's feelings Ancient pictures have a delicate light - they invite you for contemplation. There is nothing unnecessary on them. Similar paintings remained in Chinese and Japanese culture. Artists also always left a white spot there - a place for spectator's imagination. So that a spectator becomes a "co-author"

and his picture becomes the most expressive and recognizable in the world. But he was the only one who could see it! Is it our ancestors' fault that we - their timid descendants - have become that callous? The Great Steppe was also notable for its implements - also with their standards Those "domestic small items" also provide important information about Kipchak culture. And whatever this culture is called - Polotsk, Pechenegs', Bulgarian, Andrew's or otherwise - it had always only one - Turkic origin. Domestic items of Kipchaks are shown on pictures of Kiev chronicles. A moot point? But the Slavs, judging by Novgorod findings of academician V.L. Yanin, had another way of life. For example, let's have a look at the cup which is given to prince Yaropolk as a sign of making piece with prince Vsevolod (the same cups were found on the barrows thousands of kilometers from Kiev). It was called "charon", it is still in use. Koumiss or Airan - drink of peace - is given in it. The armchair in which Kiev prince is sitting was called "tver". Attila used to sit in the same one in V century, when the Slavs wandered through Europe. And nowadays the Turki leave a "high place" tver ( By the way, the word "throne" has the same Turkic root and means "go up to an honorable seat") - for an "eminent guest". And now let's have a look at the heading-dress of Kiev princes - that is an important distinguishing feature of Turkic national clothes. Kipchak nobility used to wear them His tory of Monomakh's hat is interesting in this relation: it had absolutely nothing to do with Byzantium. "Byzantine version" of its origin was invented later after Vladimir Monomakh's death Clothes on the pictures. Haven's the scientists investigated them? Wasn't anyone surprised by the fact that Russian men wear Turkic caftans? The Kipchaks used to put on caftans and klobuks for solemn performances. Caftans were sewed two-ply of thin felt. There were different cuts. Archeologists have even come across felt tail-coats - they were worn more than two thousand years ago in Altai. Khan's caftan was sewed with sleeves sable fur-lined and ermine embossing. Decorative plates and buttons were fixed over furs, which ornamented the clothes Unexplored is all around! And that's because Turkic national clothes were casually "borrowed" by the Russians. And meanwhile armyak, epancha, caftan, bashlyk, shushun, fur coat, klobuk and many other items are the words with a Turkic root and they have their historical owner. Let's compare the national clothes of Cossacks (of course not tsarist soldier's blouses, but real, ancient clothes!) and the Kumyks - it is absolutely the same to the smallest detail. Because it belonged to one nation. Cossacks are called Russians today, they've rejected their ancestors, but does that give the right to call their history and clothes "Russian"? Besides, pictures from Ancient Kiev are interesting because the Russes are also painted there. This is the most interesting thing! Added little men are dressed otherwise - they have European clothes. They have another appearance. That's what the Russes looked in life! The horn in man's hands on the margin also isn't a Kipchak one. The Kipchaks didn't curve their horns, they left them straight. And another Kipchak horn is on the picture of 1153. Those ancient horns can still be heard in Altai, Khakassia, Kirghizia, Carpathians (where Gutsuls live), in a word, where descendants of steppe nation remained. Even the scene of the funeral, skillfully depicted on one of the miniatures, makes one think: did the Russes and the Slavs bury in coffins? Or in graves? It is a Kipchak ceremony. Bottom of a grave was to be covered with fir boughs - a Turkic sacred tree. Burial ceremony is conservative, it is rarely changed. Some time the Kipchaks used to set fire to their fellows' remains according to the eastern tradition. Then they rejected it and started to build wooden graves. The Khazars were the first who started to bury in coffins in Europe which became known from Chinese chronicles. But they added ashes or white lime under the coffin in the grave following an ancient tradition In XI - XII centuries, when formation of Russian culture commenced, three nations took part in that complicated process. They exchanged with their ceremonies and traditions - they retained the best. And that was normal. After that the Finns and the Turki have been forgotten, and everything was ascribed to the Slavs! But avidity caused a great deal of curios incidents. For example, they borrowed the three epic heroes from the Turki. They are a personification of

Russia and its might according to V. Vasnetsov, an artist. Indeed? Gorynia, Dubynia and Usynia these were the names of those heroes before they became Elias Muromets, Dobrynia Nikitich and Alesha Popovich. They were the enemies of the Slavs: Gorynia was able to "rock a mountain with his little finger", Dubynia "dealt with oaks", Usynia has "stolen a river with his mouth and fishes with his moustache". Study of those characters really shocked the literary critics: it turned out Russian heroes have been taken form "Turkic trinomial group - Fiery Serpent, Serpent of the Depths, Water Serpent". That is a three-headed serpent - the one who is so roughly treated in Russian epics and fairy tales. A serpent is a recognized Turkish symbol - it is our symbol. Steppe inhabitants still address to a respected person with the words "Gorynych" or "Ajidakhaka". By the way, the word "hero" is also Turkic; it became Russian not long ago. As well as "Baba-Yaga". Who is "Baba-Yaga"? A forest old witch eating children? Not at all. In Kipchak folklore that mythological character was a man named "Babay-Aga", he flew in a mortar and brought luck to people. Any place where Babay-Aga landed became sacred That kind character was worshipped in Central Asia in great antiquity, and it seems it was closely connected with a notion of future character of Buddha The character of Kaschei the Immortal has also been distorted while he had never done harm to anyone. He is "immortal" for he is a cloud. Steppe inhabitants used to tease a black cloud (or a flying serpent) which gave no rain that way Of course culture borrowings have always existed with neighboring nations; that is good. That is really good as against stealing and craftiness. Here is another example. The Kipchaks had one fairy tail - now it is considered to be a Russian folk tail - about a kolobok. The fairy tail had a moral. And what moral does "Russian" kolobok have? A Sly fox managed to eat the kolobok having outwitted everyone. No moral. Because it's not known what the word "kolobok" means. In Russian it means nothing. There is no such a word in Russian language. And in Turkic kolobok means a small ball mould of what a dung-beetle usually rolls. Kolobok fell into the fox's mouth after a long walk: "DON'T BE AS SLY as a fox, otherwise you have to eat a kolobok". Here it is, the lost moral of the fairy tail. But do these words relate only to the fox? Is it the only one eating its kolobok? Poor mother Russia. And "Ryaba-Hen" (speckled hen) has also lost its original meaning. As well as "Tower-Room" And other tales "borrowed" from the Turki. Russia became Slavic since Peter I, which was especially noticeable in XIX century, A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevskiy, K.S. Aksakov (by the way, they were Turkic Kipchaks) offered really racist theory to society. According to their idea of Slavophilism it is asserted that only the Slavs are real Russians from now on. Turkic culture was stigmatized as a leprous culture, people started to be ashamed of it. Volga became a Russian river since then, although the Russians have never lived there. Birch, izba, kvass and everything on earth became Russian. Even winter. And, of course, kolobok Main Sources Bernstein S.B. Constantine the Philosopher and Methodius. M., 1984. Van-Veik N. History of Old Slavonic Language. M., 1957. Ancient Russia. Legends. Epics. Chronicles. M., 1963. [Constantine Porfirorodniy] Church History of Euseviy Pamfil. Vol. I. Spb., 1858. Inostrantsev K.A. Hunnu and Huns. L., 1926. Jordan O. About Origin and Acts of the Geths. L., 1926. Istrin V.A. 1100 Years of Slavic Alphabet. M., 1988. Karamzin N.M. History of Russian State. Vol. I-V. M., 1989 - 1996. Carger M.I. Ancient Kiev. Vol.1-2. M.; L., 1958; 1961. [Constantine Porfirorodniy] Church History of Eusebius Pamfilus. Vol. I. Spb., 1858. (first issue) // Proceedings of National Academy of Material Culture History. Issue 91. M.; L., 1934. Pipes R. Russia under the Old Regime. M., 1993. Pletneva S.A. The Polovtsians. M., 1990. Radzivillovskaya Chronicle; Photomechanical Reproduction of Radzivillovskaya (Konigsberg) Chronicle. SPb., 1902. Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X - XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15th, 1991). Part I - III, M., 1991.

Rybakov B.A. Kiev Russia and Russian Principalities of XII - XIII centuries, M., 1982. Rybakov B.A. Handicraft of Ancient Russia. M., 1948. Rybakov B.A. Russian Chronicles and the Author of "The Lay of Igor's Warfare". M., 1972. Rybakov B.A. Paganism of Ancient Russia. M., 1987. Samashev Z.S. Rock Paintings of Upper Irtysh Banks. Alma-Ata, 1992. [Simokkata] Feofilakt Simokkata. History. M., 1957. Tacito Collected Works in Two Volumes. SPb., 1993. Chichurov I.S. Byzantine Historical Works. M., 1980. Shakhmatov A.A. Ancient Fates of Russian Nation. Pg., 1919. Shakhmatov A.A. Essay of Modern Russian Literary Language. L., 1925.

Part II
The World of the Wild Field This example with kolobok is significant: nothing tasty can be baked without flour. Whatever you may say, but a kolobok, even kneaded with sour cream, is uneatable The same thing happen ed to Russian history: can the history of a great nation exist without the truth? Only THE TRUTH - bitter truth! - is the best medicine for Russia and its future. Only the truth will save the country from befallen shame and ruin. For History, in its higher meaning, is an instrument of protection of the Truth from the pressure of inventions. Consolidated lie never brought luck to anybody: neither to the Slavs who are wearing a foreign hat, nor to the Turki who were deprived of their own one. But historical Truth remained. It can't disappear - it can only sometimes be forgotten. Unfortunately it hasn't been documented yet. It remained in people's memory, legends and traditions How long will we be at odds with each other? And in the name of what? We've forgotten our relationship, we don't remember how our murderous conflict originated: we've been scowling for centuries. Russians are not guilty of Turkic tragedy. It occurred long before Kiev Russia Everything started in IV century. That time the whole Europe trembled having heard the thud of horses' hoofs, having seen the dust on the road. That was a signal of Kipchaks' arrival; the towns came to a standstill in expectation of their fate, anxiety sprang up there. The Great Nations Migration was completed. In IV century formation of the face of modern Europe began. European nations became free from power of Roman despots. Hated empire has fallen, pagan Rome collapsed together with former dependence, humiliation, slavery and fear which had been tormenting Europe for more than seven centuries making it perhaps the most backward corner of civilized world. Unfortunately not many documents of those times remained - perhaps, only the notes of Prisk, a Byzantine ambassador, and a few other papers. These are the only documents written by the eyewitnesses. The rest was written later by a craven hand on deceitful paper. No other nation, no other European country has ever been described as deceitfully as Attila and his nation - founders of Desht-I-Kipchak - have. All sins known to the world have been ascribed to the Turki. Savages, nomads, Huns, depredators, barbarians What else? European historians, as though mocking at the Kipchaks, were dividing them for "nations" and "small nations", they rarely mentioned the community of the newcomers and their national unity. Their culture, at last. The word "Turki" has obtained a shade of faceless wildness. It became indecent to be called a Turki! And invention of new names for the Kipchaks wasn't accidental. Greeks used to call them "Huns" some time. But at first the words "Huns" and "Turki" meant the same in their language. Here is the line from a Byzantine document of 572: "At that the Huns whom we usually call the Turki". Later the word "Huns" obtained another meaning - "riffraff", "crowd". Why was it a crowd? Can a nation be called a crowd having conquered half of the world? Or can it be called riffraff? Soldiers from defeated countries were really fighting under Kipchak flags - the strong

have subjugated the weak. But in the word "Hun" there isn't the slightest allusion to the native nation in whose hands battle flags were waving. The Huns were turned into a nameless mass, a hostile army having no ethnic signs. But is that true? And who are they from a European viewpoint? The article about them in Encyclopedia Britannica is rather punctual. The emphasis is placed on their nomadic life but their culture is passed over in silence. Historic dates are accurate But it is impossible to understand what nation is called with the word "Huns". It is also impossible to determine what language it was speaking. Much has been said but it means nothing. There is an article, it seems to be right, but lack of most important details makes it impossible to consider it a source of information. We should mention that it has become a secret rule for scientific literature concerning the Turki. It seems keeping back has become an indispensable condition of certain publications Evidently it is the authors' goal - to talk without finishing. In Russia the Huns were described in a rude and candid manner. "Nomad nation having been formed in II-IV centuries near Ural of Turkic-speaking Hunnus and local Ugros and Sarmats, - one can read in the most popular modern Encyclopedia. - Mass migration of Huns to the West (since 70-s of IV century) gave rise to so-called Great Nations Migration. Having defeated several German and other tribes, they headed a powerful union of the tribes which used to perform devastating campaigns against many countries. Their power was at its highest point during Attila's reign. Huns' advance to the west was stopped as they were defeated in Kataluan Fields (451). After Attila's death the union of the tribes broke up". Each line is full of lie. Big lie or little lie, malevolent or accidental. Thus, for example, the Great Nations Migrations commenced not in the end of IV century, but in the beginning of II century, it started not in Ural but in Altai. The Turki have already become a single nation by the 70-s of IV century, they were well-known in the East, they had their literature. In 372 Balamir-khan crossed Don (Tanais) and entered European steppes. And one century earlier the Turki have settled Caucasian foothills and the whole steppe from Altai. It would be wrong to assert that the nation formed the tribes and that the Sarmats lived near Ural - they originated from Persia. And Attila's army wasn't defeated in 451; that fact was invented by the Europeans Desht-I-Kipchak state can be hardly called a "union of tribes". Turkic state system with a single ruler, power institutes and economics had been enrapturing the Chinese for two thousand years, that is witnessed by Chinese chronicles and, for instance, "The Book of S han Region Governors" What else can be said? Yes, there were the Roman Empire, Byzantium - great European powers, but Desht-I-Kipchak also existed and both those powers had been paying levy to it from the beginning of IV century. And, indeed, it is inconvenient to remind of things which are written even in Encyclopedia Britannica. Ancestors should be seen as they were, without embroidery and not concealing their deeds. And one should better trust the facts but not emotions. The area of Desht-I-Kipchak impressed the contemporaries. The Roman Empire looked like a miserable province as compared with Turkic land, and Byzantium could be treated as a remote district. It covered the Alps in the West - the very center of Europe near Danube source and stretched for thousands of kilometers to the East - beyond Baikal lake: according to Zimarkh, the Byzantine dignitary, Arab traveler Ibn Battuta and other travelers, it took eight months to cross the Turkic country form East to West. In the South Desht-I-Kipchak bordered upon Bosporus, it remained up to the present time in a general way; it still divides Greece and Bulgaria which was a Desht-I-Kipchak chaganat and was called the Great Bulgaria. Northern Caucasus foothills also belonged to Desht-I-Kipchak, the border got deep into the South, it stretched over Caspian Sea coast through the "Iron Gates" to Transcaucasia and Iran - in the middle of III century the whole Nakhichevan territory became a Kipchak outpost in the remote South. The northern border of Attila's kingdom was cut off by nature itself: coniferous forests and morasses impassable for a rider. One of its sections lay on Moskva-river, others - on Oka and marshy woodlands The lands of modern Tatarstan were the north of Desht -I-Kipchak A vast country, impressive scales The strongest irritant for envious rulers of Rome and Byzantium who had been unconditionally yielding to the Turki until the middle of V century. The great steppe country appeared almost "out of nowhere" Europe had time to forget about its existence having dazzled itself. But still, the country existed! And the Turki whose horses have

reached the Mediterranean Sea coast and have been trampling the earth of British Isles lived there This is the real and forgotten history of Europe of IV-V and all the following centuries. The Turki haven't ever left their land, unless for America! And whatever Europeans call the Turki and Attila, documents of those times remained. These are the words by Romul, the Roman dignitary, which haven't been lost by a fluke: "None of those who have ever reigned over Scythia or other lands has ever performed anything compared with Attila's great deeds. His dominion stretches over islands in the ocean. And the Scythians are not the only ones who pay levy to him; Rome was also forced to do it. His military power is so strong that no nation is able to stand up against it (bold provided - M.A.)". Should we comment on these words? That person was versed in politics; he was taking part in it. Not only Europe but China and Persia also paid levy to the Turki. "His military power is so strong that no nation is able to stand up against it" It seems these words gave rise to that hatred which dazzled Europe and hasn't been forgotten yet. One couldn't even dream of an army like a Turkic. The Kipchaks used to wage a war with iron sabers and long pikes, they had iron chain armor and helmets. European arms and armor were made of bronze for the most part. Steppe inhabitants used to go into action on horses while for Europeans a horse was an unheard-of luxury It wasn't the same with the Turki. Everything was much better. Speaking about the Kipchak army historians usually neglect their evident technical and tactical superiority. The Turki usually defeated backward Europeans due to their fighting tactics and excellent armament. Their army was well equipped and organized. There were no wild hordes having appeared from the East. The Romans called the Kipchaks "barbarians" due to their fighting tactics. The Greeks used to call the Romans the same some time. Many mysterious things are contained in this word. What was meant? At first "barbarian" meant "someone failing to act in accordance with certain rules". In Rome it obtained another meaning - "one not being a Roman citizen", i.e. "an alien" There may be other explanations, apparently. But this word didn't have a pejorative shade which emerged later. And why should the Kipchaks accept backward rules of a European fighting? They were the artists on a battlefield. A horse and a saber made them the masters of the situation in the Roman Empire and far beyond its bounds. Could Europe forgive the Turki its former weakness after the revenge? Such things can never be forgotten. The Kipchaks regarded Byzantium as their tributary to whom they were obliged to render assistance according to steppe customs. And they did. In 306 Constantine became the emperor, his position was very strong. As a matter of fact he was a formal emperor, until 312 when Turkic cavalry ("barbarians") defeated Maksentsian's army on Mulviysk Bridge and unexpectedly appeared near the walls of Rome itself! Thus the Kipchaks delivered Byzantium from Roman power. Byzantine emperor was obliged to pay levy for that Normal relations between two countries - the vassal and the master. As he took the superior position, sometimes Attila was talking to Byzantine ambassadors sitting on a horseback and not showing his respect to them. He was the master of Europe, and the ambassadors knew that. They would stand before the leader in roadside dust and catch his every sight The Byzantines were driven crazy due to their weakness, they tried to poison Attila several times - they didn't know any other way to overthrow him. Having exposed another conspiracy, Attila uttered the only word: "War!" in response to apologies. And that was enough - a single word gave rise to a tumult in the whole great Byzantium. Feodosiy the emperor promptly made the amount of levy twice as much as it was. Constantinople humbly carried out any orders of incensed Attila: everything but war. Cowardly Greeks were shrinking having seen any cloud coming from the North. At first they paid 350 libres annually. But the historians called that levy "insignificant payment, a kind of gift". A nice gift - two buckets of gold! Later the Greeks gave 2000 libres, also "as a gift". Of course, liberality was not peculiar to Byzantine emperors; while the Turki were acting by force, the Byzantines used gold and ruse. Secret confrontation between them has always existed. It became apparent in big and small issues. Because evident difference in moral climate of two allies has always existed. This moral gave rise to many controversies and misunderstanding which became the part of history Thus, one day a debate arose during one of Attila's feasts, the Greeks compared Feodosiy, their

emperor, with God, and the Kipchaks - kindly souls - were at a loss: "Man cannot be compared with God". "Divine" and "earthy" were incompatible terms for them. The Huns "resignedly honor their belief in the simplicity of their soul", - marked the Greeks with a smile of superiority. But the Turki knew: "one should speak and believe without any doubts". Thus their wisdom taught, on which the moral of Turkic society based. The image of Heavenly God was above all for a Turki. Mental freedom was in their blood - and God saved the Turki. Similar discrepancies have been arising earlier between the Turki and the Chinese: they also considered their emperor to be a living God. Wars commenced due to those discrepancies. Is it a conflict of belief or a conflict of cultures?.. It seems neither this nor that. Different world outlooks. Sacred war against China lasted for about five hundred years. Kipchak army was defeating a million strong army again and again, but the victory wasn't gained in the battlefield. The Chinese, being versed in diplomacy and having another moral skillfully bred strife in Turkic society and finally split it to Northern and Southern branches. The Turki couldn't lie. "Don't give false evidence" was the commandment of their belief in Altai. It is important to emphasize the fact that discrepancies between Attila and Rome and Byzantium were not of military character: there were no controversies in the battlefield. Everything was more intricately and deeper - two cultures, eastern and western, confronted again. Two different outlooks, two morals. The Turki believed in Heavenly God - Tengri-Khan, they associated their victories and pleasures with His name, while the Europeans remained pagans although their rulers have rejected pagan deities: unfortunately human consciousness changes rather slowly as compared with the words coming from their lips. Freedom-loving Turki offered their cultural wealth to Europe It turns out tha t Attila's nickname "God's Scourge" is more than accurate and righteous. His wars were not against belief. They were for belief in Heavenly God. Turkic creed is to be described later; we shall just mention that Prisk in V century and later Jordan pointed to Christianity. Although future historians have also "forgotten" that. (Let's not use the word "Christianity" for a while for those days it had a different meaning.) The only and the most ancient version of Attila's reign is contained in "Getika", the work of VI century signed by Jordan. Unfortunately the author had a vague idea of his hero: he wrote it a hundred years after commander's death, he wrote it with jaundice and craftiness from dictation of Roman censure. Perhaps the whole black paint available in Europe those days was gathered for that purpose. But other literature has been obliterated. To tell the truth, logic and the outline of events remained and they don't tie in with proposed text. Jordan called the Kipchaks Geths or Goths (another name was assigned to a Turkic nation due to him). However, Jordan is an alias or a changed Turkic name. The author himself makes us think so. "O, reader, you should know, - he asserted, - that following the writings of the elders I managed to gather just a few flowers from their vast meadows, and I twined a wreath for a searching one to the extent of my mind. But don't you think that I, being the descendant of aforesaid tribe, added something for its benefit in addition to what I've read or learnt. If I didn't cover everything what is written and said of those people, I described it not of their glory but of the glory of those who've defeated them (bold provided. - M.A.)". At the end Jordan added: "The work relating to antiquity and Geths' acts is finished; the Geths were defeated by Justinian-emperor through Velizariy-the-consul who was faithful to the empire". To tell the truth that addition is controversial; it wasn't contained in ancient texts. (Original was also edited, apparently.) This unfortunate work gave rise to humiliation of Turkic nation in Europe and deliberate misrepresentation of its true history. Jordan left a thoughtful message. A mysterious one. Can't a penance for everything that was done be read in it - he humiliated his nation to a great extent. And the author himself alludes in so many words to the fact that he has just "twined a wreath for a searching one", i.e. only a searching one will be able to understand him. Although these were not the searching ones who have read "Getika". Jordan hasn't written a single word in favor of his fellow countrymen, but the facts, which he has skillfully mentioned, speak for him. And that's why his work is valuable: it was composed of false words but it contains true facts. It's a paradox but it's true. And maybe Jordan's innate wisdom becomes apparent in his work - his mind gave him power over tongue and pen? Maybe it is not a dictation of a Roman novice, but a cryptography allowing the inquisitive descendants to learn the truth about the disaster? Who would have let him write his story

not being free? Dozens of eyes were fixed on him. It is a contradictory writing. The facts are not in accordance with each other as if on purpose. And the sense of proportion has been lost while glorifying the winners; it is read compromising him. Was Jordan a Kipchak? This question has been arising repeatedly during the years of "Getika" reading. Sometimes he was called an Allan, even an Italian, supposing that a person, and particularly a Christian, could have humiliated his parents and ancestors that way. But he was a Kipchak, that's for certain. He was a real Kipchak. And only a Kipchak. His act is typical for a Kipchak who has diverged from his ancestors' laws and, as a matter of fact, changed his moral. During the whole their "European" history they were notable either for immense devotion, or for immense cruelty. There was nothing else - they couldn't stand half-and-half easily going from one extreme another. As a matter of fact, the whole further Turkic history is an example of that - no other nation has ever waged so many internal wars in such a fierce way and for such a long period. No one has been rejecting its parents as often as the European Kipchaks. They betrayed their belief and their moral. And treachery was not alien to them Notes of Prokopi Caesarian, a prominent European historian of VI - VII centuries, are another example. In his book called "War with the Goths" he describes the arrival of secret ambassadors from Don to the emperor of Byzantium. Having offered cooperation, they wondered weather it would be useful for the Roman Empire if neighboring barbarians would be in perpetual conflict with each other Traitors from the Steppe came themselves, they weren't invited. Europe being alien to the Turkic moral taught them a lot; no one lived there in any other way. It is amazing how meanness, betrayal, lie have been always getting along together in blood of European Kipchaks with former acute pride, courage, nobility and generosity. An unexpected nation, indeed! Mixture of dignity and terror. The Kipchaks became really disjoined, they became envious but not cowardly, they never remember an offence for a long time, they don't bear a grudge, they are open and can enjoy themselves without restraint, they are amazingly hospitable. That's what they are today. Their behavior is unexpected. They may promise whatever one likes, vow fidelity, but before another day is over they can forget anything so as to promise and swear passionately next time They are ready to believe any gossip and to invent a new one No, they are not tattlers or pretenders, they really believe in what they say or hear. They can't do anything easy and in cold blood - even be on friendly terms with anybody As if European "today" and Asian "yesterday" are fighting in them! One would think, why did Ukrainian "Circassians" become the Slavs? Why did "Russian Cossacks" betray their nation? One would hardly be able to answer these questions not knowing the secret of Kipchak character and their former history. In V century after Attila's death a long fighting commenced in Europe; blood was shed on both banks. Numerous commander's heirs waged a war for the power in Desht-I-Kipchak. Miserable splits of former five hundred thousand Attila's army survived and they kept on fighting between each other furiously. And after those "splits" have also split Roman legionaries settled their last disputes. Having buried the hatchet, the third "one being pleased" - Justinian the emperor - celebrated victory, and, as far as we know, victors need never explain. That's why in VI century, when everything was finished, the Romans needed Jordan - the man knowing Latin, with a good name and who seemed to be weak and broken. Those years a part of the Kipchaks has already recognized the power of the Roman emperor. Or, as Jordan wrote, "they preferred to ask the Roman Empire for land". They stayed within the bounds of Dakia. The Romans treated the Turki who have turned to their side with outward respect, they took them to the army, paid good wages, gave them land and called them the "federates", showing by this queer word that their Kipchaks are not hirelings or prisoners but the volunteers who are bound only by a free agreement. Trustful steppe inhabitants entered Roman emperor's service and became the mice in a mousetrap By the way, world history of the Cossacks begins from those federates - these were the Turki who agreed to wage a war against their nation for money. As they used to say in the Steppe in such cases, blind colt was searching for teats on stallion's body Of course Jordan doesn't mention that he "was following the writings of the elders" and "gathered just a few flowers from their vast meadows" accidentally. It means vast meadows existed! As well as the ancestors. These are Cassidor and other historians whose works have mysteriously disappeared

during the period of inquisition. Jordan was gathering the weed form those meadows in a pointed manner: his works were kept for that. That's what his work is valuable for; it should be read as if through a looking-glass. All that irritates an enemy witnesses of the opposite: the more paltry the Kipchaks are in the text, the more majestic they were. That is the rule of "mirror" reading. Of course it is sad that a man having called himself a Kipchak didn't find a good word for his nation. But he made another thing through his "mirror" truth. Jordan devoted half of the text dedicated to Attila to a false defeat in Kataluan fields. Not a single word has been said about glorious victories. Why? It turns out that the Turki had a wise rule - "one should become a frog living among the frogs". "Ukrainian Circassians" acted that way as well as "Russian Cossacks" who were compelled to serve their yesterday's enemy. Federates and remained Usuls who were searching for protection in foreign lands played that sorrowful part before. Jordan was leading his life in accordance with the same rules. Everything was rapidly changing in Europe in VI century. Everything became covered by secrecy which was kept as a relic. Europe was trying to conceal shame which can't be concealed. Rome was skillfully provoking Attila, but it was afraid to oppose it. Having learnt the Turkic customs the Romans sent Aetsius, the scion of noble birth, to be brought up with the Kipchaks, which was in accordance with traditions of the Turki who used to send and accept children of rival clans for upbringing. Aetsius gained Attila's favor. The Kipchaks have brought up a spider and later they entangled in his web like flies. Their souls being open to the friend did not have the slightest notion of the fact that a person with whom they have been sharing bread and salt was able to act meanly. That was in contradiction with the moral of the Great Steppe. But that man was a European. Having returned to Rome Aetsius, a young and highly experienced fellow, became the emperor's councilor with regard to relationship with Desht-I-Kipchak. When Attila understood whom he has called his friend and brother it was too late. Having enticed and bribed several Attila's warriors, Aetsius headed Roman army. Years spent with the Turki were not spent in vain - correlation of forces in Europe was changing not in favor of Desht-IKipchak. Infuriated Attila, having learnt of Aetsius' betrayal demanded to give up all betrayers from the Romans, he even provided a written list, but the Romans were wriggling, refusing and lying. Finally they sent an embassy to Attila; Prisk, an envoy of Byzantine emperor, was among its members. Having realized that a brief talk is not likely and the enemy is trying to save its strength and gain time, laconic Attila exclaimed: "I march into battle against you!" The ambassadors delivered these words to the emperor. O, you wise Jordan! Having skillfully reported of enticement of the riders, he kind of didn't mention that Attila had the reason to exclaim: "I march into battle against you!" He uttered his Attila had a foreboding: he's been surrounded by betrayal. Rome was enthusiastically carrying out its policy, it was weaving plots one after another; simple-minded Kipchaks, not being versed in peculiarities of European moral, heard out one thing form Roman envoys while they were doing another. At last certain information relating to open and hidden preparations of the enemies of the Turki in the north of Italy was obtained; it became evident that they were getting ready for an attack. Attila has become anxious - but not scared! - and Jordan skillfully expressed that. "He was a man born to shake the nations, he was the horror for all countries which made everybody tremble for some unknown reason; hew was known everywhere for a frightful attitude towards him. He had a haughty pace, fastened his eyes here and there and showed his mind by his motions. Being fond of wars he managed to be moderate, he was a strong man of sense, affable to the beggars and gracious to those in whom he has once confided. He was undersized, he had a strong chest, big head, small eyes, thin beard, slightly gray hair, flat nose and disgusting skin color - he showed all signs of his origin. Although he was always notable for his conceit, it has been rising in him since he had found a Mars sword which was recognized to be a sacred one". And he told the legend: that sword - the symbol of divine election - was found accidentally. A certain herder brought it to Attila. Mars sword, according to a legend, conferred power to its owner. However in 451 anxious foreboding stopped the commander, nothing of that sort has ever happened to him. He turned to the fortunetellers with a heavy heart. The biggest ram was slaughtered in accordance with the custom and when the fortuneteller looked at the animal's shoulder he shrank back and foretold a disaster. It is not inconceivable that he has also received something from Rome. Those days Rome wasn't stingy of a bounty.

Thus Aetsius was being a winner until the battle in Kataluan Fields - he has performed all necessary preparations: he managed to bribe several Kipchaks, to gather a united European army secretly; he got away with distemper bred in the heart of invincible Attila. Everything was for Rome's sake. Attila accepted Aetsius's conditions without thinking, he got ready for a fight in Kataluan Fields which was not advantageous for the riders: relief was favorable to the Romans The fighting was to take place where the enemies wished. Attila remained a Kipchak even in this unnecessary concession; he wasn't able to deny a wittingly disadvantageous offer because of his pride - he couldn't get a reputation of a weak in the eyes of his associates. The foreboding was increasing, it unbearably oppressed Attila's heart. And Attila delayed the attack when the troops have been already formed. As though some mysterious force kept his horse back, tied his wrists and troubled his mind. Commander's uncertainty transmitted to the troops, the army became worried. United European army was awaiting not having made a single step. Longed-for morning passed and the battle hasn't begun yet. Attila delayed perhaps until midday being a prey to doubts. He kept silent looking into the sky, as well as Aetsius. "flight is sadder than fall", - the great Kipchak broke his silence at last and gave an order when the sun has already risen high. With "Hurrah!" battle-cry (which meant "beat!", "strike down!" in Kipchak language) the riders rushed to the attack. The battle was happening like an outburst, like a sudden storm. Aetsius, the foster child of Attila himself, was aware of fighting tactics of the steppe inhabitants; he has calculated everything rightly. The attack was stopped. Nothing of that king has ever happened to Attila. The Kipchaks were taken aback. That was the first time they had to recede. And at that time their tsar showed former wisdom: he settled down himself. That was perhaps the most difficult victory in his life - the victory over himself. In a little while he went to his troops and found all necessary words. His brief phrases inflamed Kipchak hearts like the sounds of a slashing saber: "Defence is the sign of fear". "That one is brave who strikes a blow". "Revenge is the great gift of nature". "Recover your spirit and let your fury boil up". "The arrows can't reach the one longing for victory". "The one being calm when Attila is fighting has been already buried" - these words completed the speech. He took his saber out of the sheath, struck with it showing an equilateral cross above the troops and uttered silently: "Alla bilae" ("God save us!", "Godspeed us" in Turkic). "Saryn kyocchak" - the commanders pealed in reply, and their exclamation ("Saryn kyochak" means "hail to the braves" in Turkic, it is a slogan to rush to the attack (thus a Russian proverb which means "the crowd should be on the prow").) drowned in a furious "Hurrah" of the whole army. In a moment everything was mixed up. Battle-cries, luster of the sabers and the dust over the rushing riders, - the world was turning over. "Alla bilae! Alla bilae" was thundering over Katalaun Fields, the sun and the sky were then reflecting in Turkic hats. Thus the battle with united European army was happening in the right way. Tens of thousands of corpses remained there. Steppe inhabitants returned to their camp late at night - tired but happy. In the morning, having shown the mercy upon the Romans, Attila generously let the remains of their army go away, which was estimated by the European historians in their own way. Who's going to recognize its defeat even in a lost war? And the historians made Attila the looser and Aetsius, who has been defeated by him, was proclaimed a winner. His victory is really odd! One can even believe in it not being aware of the continuation. And the continuation was grave: the "loser" Turki moved his troops against Rome. He, "having been defeated", passed over the towns of Northern Italy leaving the ruins in place of them. The emperor's deputation headed by Lion I, the Pope, was waiting for him near Rome. In the Ambulei Field the emperor's deputation begged Attila to bury the hatchet. They were ready for everything not to have another massacre in their town. The Pope fell down on his knees raising an equilateral cross - the symbol of the Kipchak culture - above him. The same cross was on Attila's flags. Thus Rome acknowledged the superiority of the Turki. Laconic Attila, intending to humiliate Valentinian, the Roman emperor, demanded to bring Gonoria, his sister, with the part of the property due to her Rome has become "an Eternal City" since then,

and Attila started his way home with a heavy spoil having the stained European capital behind him. The record of the battle, as well as the record of a symphony allows reproduction of the chords of that great music of life in a thousand years. War, the same as love, death or a song was and remains the satellite of man. Having realized that, the ancient Turki brought up the youth in their particular way. For example a youth not having passed the military training was forbidden to marry in the Great Steppe. Wars and warriors were especially respected in the Great Steppe; special history was kept in relation to them. They were able to estimate the outcome of any battle. The battle of Kataluan is not an exception. Why weren't the European authors embarrassed by the fact that "defeated" Attila razed the Northern Italy and Gaul to the ground? That only recognition of the Turkic cross by Lion I, the Pope, saved Rome from destruction? That Valentinian the emperor, the glorious "winner", violated the sanctity of his sister himself?.. And they call it HISTORY? People get knowledge from poisoned sources and pass it to their children. And the latter will never be proud of their glorious ancestors. Let's consider for a moment: according to Jordan, Attila's army counted half a million warriors, and after him up to three million of people came to Europe (that the general proportion of army and population - 1:5, 1:7). But I doubt whether more people lived in the rest of Europe. It turns out every second European has Turkic roots!.. Until IV century, i.e. until the Great Nations Migration, most part of European lands remained empty, there were no many settlements on them. And while later, for different reasons, European Turki changed their language and belief, not everybody was able to rid themselves of appearance and customs of their ancestors. Blue-eyed, white-haired, a little bit broad faced - they remained as the Kipchaks should be A common mirror would remind them of the past. What does it reflect? It reflects that there is no and there has never been "ethnic purity" in Europe. Integral tissues cannot be found neither in Germany, neither in France, neither in Italy, neither in Spain nor in England - nowhere! Europe is sewed of "ethnic rags". And that's natural. Bavarians, Austrians, Saxons, Englishmen used to understand Kipchak language sometimes, they've been hearing it from their very infancy. It was native for the Serbs, Croatians, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Cossacks, Hungarians and Czechs And can the Savoys or Burgundies, for example, be treated as the French while Turkic blood is running in their veins? These were the Turkic khans who led them to Gaul from Altai. That's right, they've forgotten their native language, but they haven't forgotten the traditions of their ancestors!.. The symbol of Turkic culture - equilateral cross - is still present on the flags there; Turkic symbols are vividly seen in armory. Here it is, the Finger of God! And sacred places also cannot be forgotten! In Southern England (Sutton-Who) the tsar's barrow is known, it was raised in VI century. In whose honor? And after all, how did the barrows appear in England while neither Britons nor Celts - the natives of the isles - have never built them living traces of Time?! And that happens not only on the British Isles. It is also happening in Bulgaria - the barrows are also found there and Kipchak culture, which became "Slavic" all of a sudden, dominates there. And where have the Bulgarian khans - Asparukh (Isperikh, to put it more preciously) and others - gone to? Where has the Great Bulgaria chaganat, which was a part of Desht-I-Kipchak, disappear?.. The same questioned can be asked about Kurbat-khan and his ulus - today's Croatians. Their barrows and ancient temples are quite the same as Turkic, steppe ones Doesn't Hungary put anybody to a nonplus for its inhabitants - the sekels (seklers) - the nation having been speaking Turkic language and writing in runes until XVI century? "Seklers" meant "keepers" in ancient Turkic, and they really were the warders, the warriors, as well as Russian Cossacks. In a word, the early history of the Balkans doesn't give rise to any doubts concerning its origin. Imperceptible becomes visible. For example, one can have a look at cheese production in French Savoy and become astonished. That is the steppe cheese! Apart form the Turki no other nation of the world produces cheese that way. And they make halva (chakchak) exactly in a Turkic way. And they boil beshbarmak (khinkal) for holidays, but they call it otherwise - in French manner National cookery is the most conservative element of national culture. People can forget everything but their favorite food. Everything has got mixed up, indeed. But the traces of the past remained. People are those traces. Although forgetful, but still they are the people. Turkic voice hasn't faded out; no, it remained and it is

just keeping silence in blood of certain Europeans who haven't got the slightest idea of their ancestors "Respect your parents" - these were the basic words of the Turkic society some time. And all the rest went after that. The man respecting his ancestors was the top of priorities, he was the only one having the right for respect. If one takes a look at the map being two thousand years old he may find that western world looked a little bit wild. It huddled in the backyard of human civilization. Only those countries having close contacts with the East (the country between two rivers, India, China) could claim to leadership within the bounds of the cultural Europe. Why did Hellas become the leader? It was nearer to the East. Later Rome became the leader, having intercepted the trade routes in the Mediterranean, having pushed the Greeks aside live-giving eastern roads In fact, European civilization was formed around the Mediterranean Sea transport was its circulatory system. They used to construct ships in Greece and in Rome. They were the only ones having relations with other countries increasing the power of the state. That's why the borders of Hellas lay not far from the sea - as a rule, big towns were built on the shores. Romans made "all the roads lead to Rome" but there were two or three those roads at most, heavy and unwieldy carriages and slaves with load on their shoulders could be met there. Sail was the symbol of Europe; it wasn't on friendly terms with a wheel. Thus continued until IV century when Kipchak tilt carts and wagons appeared. We should emphasize the fact that the Turki arrived not by sea as they used to "wonder" in the whole Roman Empire but by fry land! A very important detail, a matter of principle, which explains a lot. For example, why did the first Turki settle in the steppes of Central Europe. Why they didn't rush to the shore And their tilt carts were excellent. Harnessed with two or there horses, they filled the desolate spaces of deep-laid Europe. They didn't need roads. A tilt cart is a perfect technical invention of those times. Its construction is light and firm. Indeed, much has been written about "wildness" of the Kipchaks and almost nothing about their technical skills. Curious "trifles" were overlooked; and those trifles explain how the Turki managed to perform what other nations haven't been able to do Nothing happens just by accident in life. Especially if the Great Nations Migration is in question. Neither weather nor distance were the obstacles for a covered cart. There were no barriers for it in the steppe. Hence is easiness and liveliness of the steppe nation, its fantastic vitality under hard steppe conditions - houses on wheels! No other nation could ever think about that. Although it was all estimated otherwise by certain Europeans: "the nomads". This verdict was brought on the Kipchaks And after all, why were they "nomads"? Why did they have to lead a nomad's life? And could they do it in the Great Steppe with its inclement conditions? That's true, the Kipchaks have passed thousands of kilometers, they learnt to cook in a moving tilt cart or in a hut (izbushka - thus was a warm cart called), they invented a samovar (which has later become a "Russian samovar") for that purpose. But the goal of their long road was the settlement of vast spaces of Europe and Asia. The settlement, indeed. Than shouldn't the Europeans also be recognized as the nomads for they were populating America? Aren't they the nomads? And was Australia inhabited otherwise? By the way, these were also the Kipchaks. It is possible they remembered the past. "Nomads" is a lame word. Nobody can tell what does it mean? Monographs of "nomadic civilizations" have been written, the Kazakhs have invented their "nomadic theory" and pride themselves upon it. But nomadic life of the Mongols is applied also to the Turki in it and it is forgotten that in XIII century the Mongols have been destructing ancient towns in the country between seven rivers to make certain Turki change their settled way of life for nomadic. That was the destructive policy of Desht-I-Kipchak conquerors, which was lasting for centuries. Under the Mongols and under Russians as well "Nomadic" monographs of the Kazakhs are evident recurrences of the Mongol yoke. After all, any movement is a "nomadic life". Any movement. Movement of a herder's family after the herd, work of a crew of a sea craft, passages of geologists and builders. And even business trips and expeditions. And visits in the country in summer - what are they if not a nomadic life? People have always been the slaves of words and terms. The word "nomad" is a tribute to yesterday's fashion, worn out boots of Mr. Karamzin Another thing is more interesting - what if the Great Nations Migration hasn't been over in V century? What if settlement of America and Australia by the European migrants was a continuation thereof?! It was quite the same on the surface - covered carts, field camps, herds and flocks,

permanent risk, fighting and sacred feeling of freedom. And - this is probably the most important - people were the same! To tell the truth they haven't already been speaking Turkic language but it was Kipchak blood running in their veins. And certainly they were not to borrow courage. They held a bridle in one hand, a gun - in the other, and moved straight forward, to the West, the same as with Attila. All the first American settlers are the natives of Western Europe. From the regions where advanceguard of Attila's army has settled. They were the Turki, there definitely were no other nations there. Knowing that, should one be surprised by appearance, for example, of American cowboys? Their solemn devotion to a horse, their reckless boldness for which the Kipchaks have been known in Altai?... Everything has its sources. By the way, the cowboys have invented nothing new there in America, their exciting competitions are the continuation of ancient traditions of the Great Steppe. That's what the eyewitnesses of the events say about the life of the Kipchaks. Those who have seen them with their own eyes. For example, Prisk, the Byzantine ambassador, having visited Attila. His writings are interesting for they reproduce the "spirit of presence" of the European author having come to the Turki who had already arranged their way of life in V century. "Having crossed several rivers, Prisk wrote, - we arrived to a huge settlement where Attila's palace was located. As we were made to believe, it was far more magnificent than his palaces in other places. It was built of logs and planks skillfully polished and enclosed in a wooden fence being more suitable for its decoration than for defence". Tsar's palace was also decorated with hipped roofs, big and small towers which were rising like the guards above the fence Here it is - the Turkic architecture! In Europe that architecture wasn't known. Prisk was one of the first of those Europeans who've noticed that. Tsarina Kreka's terem ("Terem" - a wooden house) was standing in beauty near the tsar's palace, magnificent and light due to its patterns. To tell the truth, nowadays the word "terem" is deemed to be of Greek origin and that seems especially strange after having read Prisk: in Kipchak lands the history of that building is centuries-old and the Greeks just managed to see it ()The word "terem" originates from another Turkic word, "terek" - a "wood", or "wooden house" However, there are other interpretations which are more correct, but they are not in question. Archeologists have been using the term "carpenter culture" long since which reflects appearance of the first log constructions about four thousand years ago in Altai. Prisk, being a European, was amazed with log buildings. The remark of the translator who worked with Prisk's notes is interesting in this connection. He was Russian and he perplexedly marked in a reference that he didn't understand Byzantine's amazement with wooden architecture of Attila's palace. "Could wooden houses and columns amaze an ambassador?" - asks the translator with distrust? Of course they could. He has seen them for the first time in his life! And his amazement was valid. Thus Europe got acquainted with Turkic architecture. In tsar Attila's capital almost all the houses were carpentered. A log lay next to a log. A built house was called either "terem", if it was built for nobility, or "isb" if it was built for ordinary people. The word isb means "warm premises" in Turkic (it originates from "issi bina"). An isb could have four walls - for a small new family having recently moved away from their parents, or for the aged parents themselves who feel better being close to their children. That's why a family usually had two or three houses. Carpenters skillfully made the framework: they applied all methods known those days. Traces of their work were thoroughly investigated by professor S.I. Rudenko. It turned out that in old times the carpenters worked aside from the place of future house, beginning one year before construction, they were waiting for the logs to get dry, after that the logs were marked, the framework was demolished, transported to the required place and constructed again The logs found by the archeologists retained ancient marks. However, the Kipchaks used to build kurens more often. That is also a wooden building, octahedral in its form and half-deepened into the earth. The living space of a kiren was bigger in comparison with an isb. Earthen steps led to an entrance into a kuren. The building was deepened on purpose: so that in winter, when soil is frozen through, it is possible to stay on warm wattle and daub floor, and having laid the carpets not to feel any inconveniencies. In isb floor was made of planks hence the building wasn't deepened. The dwellings were heated in different ways. An open hearth was placed in the center of a kuren because many people lived there - and it wasn't cold. A kuren is more ancient than an isb, no doubt.

Isbs appeared in Altai, Sayany and other regions of Southern Siberia. They were really suitable for life in towns where severe earthquakes were taking place. During a shock the logs moved and didn't roll out, and the building remained safe. A new hearth - pech (oven) was invented for an isb (that is also a Turkic word, as well as hearth). The form of an oven was changing as centuries went by: they used to sleep on a stove, cook and even took steam baths inside it. As a rule a good man had usually had more than one stove. One inside the house; another (summer) - in the street, and the third - with an oven - in the outhouse where bread was baked. In the town of tsar Attila amazed Prisk was discovering something new at every step. The Byzantine ambassador was very amazed by the baths - he had never seen it before. White baths made of stone was the only non-wooden construction in Attila's capital. Baths are not that simple as it seems. Baths of Ancient Egypt, for instance, are evidently different from Chinese ones. In Europe baths were built according to Egyptian traditions, and according to Chinese ones in the East and in Siberia. The essence of the differences - the Europeans bathed in warm water which temperature couldn't vary, while for the Siberians water was not as important as air temperature inside the baths. Their bath was not water but aerial Turkic architecture hasn't disappeared; it remained, its ideas are the basis of Gothic. To tell the truth nobody wants to speak about its Turkic origin today, but the Turki are the only ones to blame; that's due to ignorance of their own history But let's return to Prisk's notes for he could see from the outside; entered Turkic buildings and talked to Attila's cronies. The amazed Greek, for example, having entered a terem, wasn't able to comprehend how could one cut and put the logs that skillfully so that the building seemed to be round while it wasn't round? Tsarina Kreka's terem only seemed to be like that - in fact in was octahedral. Carved platbands and shutters, as well as laces over the windows, high porch with a carved shed they were constructed those times. And now Prisk enters the chamber of tsarina Kreka: "I opened the door and passed by the barbarians standing over there and found Kreki lying in the soft bed. The floor was covered with woolen carpets on which they walked. A lot of slaves were standing around tsarina; female slaves, sitting on the floor opposite her, were speckling linen coverlets with different paints and those coverlets were put on the shoulders of female barbarians as a decoration. Having come up to Kreki I hailed her, gave her the gifts and went out". This scene (and the whole Prisk's story) contains nothing wild which is ascribed to the Turki through an evil habit. Subjects of day-to-day life are clearly described - they were permanently attracting attention of the Byzantine due to their novelty. The floors were covered with woolen carpets on which they walked. Felt carpets are really traditional for the Kipchaks. They were different from Persian carpets familiar to the Byzantine; that's why he has noted them. The Europeans didn't know the felt method of wool handling. They should have been very surprised by felt cloaks, felt boots and other ordinary small items which were the part of Kipchak life. And one observation is to Byzantine's credit - he could have not noticed what female slaves were doing - they were decorating their wraps with which Kipchak women still adorn their clothes. An important detail of ancient national clothes. Today it is known as "shawl" or "kerchief". And the Gutsuls are the only ones who still call it the old way - "guni". Guni was made with a long fringe - with tassels like falling branches of a weeping willow. They were white and solemn - for a temple and for a funeral repast, and the motley ones - for feasts and day-today life. A tradition! Maybe that's why Kipchak women are that beautiful Prisk wrote of Attila's fellow men rather tiffly: "They wear short cloth caftans of not dyed wool which their wives spin and weave, white wide trousers and leaver boots tied by the straps on the instep. They are especially notable for their tender treatment and love for the nearest. (That was really so! Bold provided - M.A.). Their (woman's) clothes is rather neat and comfortable, it consists of an apron and a jacket of dark-blue color trimmed with a light border and without it, a white shirt lower than a skirt and adorned with folds near the neck and hands with a frill like the laces, maids are usually bareheaded decorating their hair with all sorts of coins. They all wear ear-rings, bracelets and rings since they are three years old". National clothes of the "barbarians" haven't noticeably changed during the centuries. And they couldn't change! Archeologists found them in burial places in Altai; certain nations retained the same fashion. But of course some things were changed. For example, one won't find "the straps tied on the

instep", they are not necessary no longer. They used to tie the heels that way. Prisk also described Attila's chambers where he has seen the commander among the feasting cronies. Table traditions of the Kipchaks are impressive and they haven't changed. "When we returned to our tent father Erestov came to us and declared that Attila has invited us both to the feast" Here we'll interrupt Prisk's story and focus on a very important fact which becomes evident from it: there was a clergyman, father Orestov, with Attila - commander's confessor. He fetched Byzantine guests "according to a custom of his country so that we also pray before sitting down to table", - Prisk wrote (Doesn't that witness that Attila, as well as his cronies, was a believer or at least not indifferent to sacred rites. A very important observation. Later the Turki, having become the Christians or the Moslems, haven't rejected their ancient customs. Meal only after a prayer. And the Greek wasn't the first one who has noticed that, but Favst Buzand, the chronicler of Caucasus (30s of IV century). To tell the truth, after Prokopi Caesarean Turkic culture hasn't been thoroughly analyzed and following historians have neglected it and called them "Arians", "shamanists" and "nasty Tatars".). How did they sit down to table? Not by accident. Senior guest of honor sat at the head of the table, other guests of honor sat from the right. His (Attila's) elder son was sitting at the edge of his coach, not close to him dropping his eyes due to respect to him". The guests were to drink after each toast accordingly to the ranks. The eldest guest was the first to bring the cup to his lips, and everyone were looking at him with inspiration; after that the baton was passed round the table. "When everyone was sitting in due order, - Prisk writes, - the cup-bearer, having come up to Attila, gave him the cup of wine. Attila took it and greeted the first one sitting from the right. The one in whose honor the greeting was made, stood up and he couldn't sit down until Attila returns the cup to the cup-bearer having drunk wine. When he sat down all the ones present honored him the same way, accepted their cups and having greeted him, drank their wine. One cup-bearer was standing near each guest". After that the second guest was greeted the same, and after that - all the rest. The chambers where the feast took place smelt like fresh wood. Wide benches were standing along the walls; massive oak tables were near them. Commander's couch was at the end of the premises. Several steps led to the throne. That place of honor was called tver, it was closed by thin variegated curtains The same ones as on the paintings of Kiev chroniclers. Dishes were served on silver plates. Wine - in golden and silver glasses which, again, are absolutely the same as those found by the archeologists and depicted by Kiev chroniclers. They were drinking honey and kama - light heady drink of brown color made of couched barley or millet. What is it if not beer? Beer - the drink being very popular among the Tuki. As well as kvass. Of course modern drinks are different. But the Chuvashes have kept that ancient custom of invitation to pay a visit. The Chuvash will say on any occasion (be it a wedding, a meeting or for no particular reason): "Come to drink some beer". And they are a good judge of beer. Each family has its recipe It turns out that in Prisk's times Europe didn't even know about beer. It seems it was also presented by the Turki? Beer-lovers (beer countries) remained just exactly among European Kipchaks; it's amazing that their geography coincides with forgotten borders of Desht-I-Kipchak. After that the songs were sung at Attila's table - sincere and quiet ones. Those that flow into soul and relax it. They were singing accompanied by music. A harp, harmonica, kobyz (cello's ancestor) were trembling in the hands of skilful players The musical nation lived in the Great Steppe. In V century, as well as before and after that, a steppe inhabitant couldn't live without music, songs, hot folk dances after which the heels come loose. "After the songs some ugly one, having stepped forward, made odd absurd speeches having no sense and made everybody laugh". This tradition - to play tricks! - also remained with the Turkic nation Whom can one laugh at if not himself? And wasn't the intention to imitate Attila the reason of appearance of fools in the palaces of European kings, which amused and diverted the guests at the balls? Those fools would tell the truth to the kings' faces and then get away with it?.. Attila laughed from the heart at his fool together with the others. Of course Attila's greatness was not in table competitions - it lay somewhere else. He used to wear modest clothes, not "as a tsar". Kipchak rulers were not notable for magnificent clothes disfiguring their bodies. Tsars would wear modest clothes peculiar to common people and become famous for their deeds. In Dest-I-Kipchak people were respected for their deeds and actions.

Attila "was moderate in everything. Those participating in feasts drank from golden and silver cups while he had a wooden one. His robe was also simple and notable only for its neatness. Neither his sword, neither the laces of his barbarian footwear nor the bridle of his horse were decorated with gold, stones or something precious as the others are fond of". The Kipchaks used to wear papakhas. The aristocrats (the uzdens) had astrakhan ones, papakhs of free people (the Cossacks) were made of sheepskin and the slaves were prohibited to wear papakhas. In summer they wore a peaked cap or a felt cap with brims. A real man wore a bashlyk on his shoulders for the whole year, especially on journeys, - another ceremony is connected with it. Everything mattered - the way it was tied, the way it was worn. One can even judge about the haircuts on the basis if the notes of eyewitnesses. Certain Kipchaks would shave their heads. And others, on the contrary, wouldn't cut their hair but palate it. Rushing to the attack the riders let their plates down and their hair waving from under their helmets terrified the enemy. Prisk wrote about the "blood-thirstiness" of the Turki as follows: "They lead a calm and careless life after a war, each one deals with what he has". Calm and careless! Only self-assured nation could lead such a life. When there was no war, relations between the settlements became not that strong and khans' power wasn't that strict. However, in case of danger the Steppe promptly awakened; everybody was alarmed. It was a shame for the whole family not to be ready to fight. Families and yurts united - separate fingers formed a fist; khan's power became absolute The Steppe has always been a misery for the aliens. Having met a Greek taken prisoner Prisk suggested that he should return to motherland but he, having just been delivered from slavery, refused asserting that its better among the Turki than in Byzantium It might be an insignificant detail but it bears a lot of information. Sometimes a phrase let fall by an eyewitness is enough. So many interesting things around Everything is mixed up in history of nations, everything is under the heel of politics and prejudices. Unfortunately these are the politicians who often estimate archeological findings. For example, in the Hermitage or the Fine Arts Museum named after A.S. Pushkin in Moscow one won't find a single exhibit or item relating to the Kipchak culture. There is nothing. It is never mentioned. Although entire collections of works of art are stored in the storerooms, they've never been exhibited. It was prohibited. They are from the Steppe! Treasures get dusty on dark shelves; and according to Russian history they've never existed. Coffee and tea sets of delicate work, porcelain statuettes, marvelous cups and jewelry, as well as many other items, are known just to a narrow circle of professionals Are not the articles by V.V. Radlov, the academician, indicative for he mentioned in the middle of XIX century how Turkic barrows have been pillaged, with what greedy eyes Russian settlers "archeologists" have cut golden items. Ancient vases, ornaments of delicious work turned into contemptible metal in their trembling hands. And Turkic history was turning into what it has become I'll repeat, disdain for Turkic culture originated not in Russia; Russia simply inherited it as a tribute to a formed European fashion. "History" by Ammian Marcellin, the Latin author, is a good example where information of the Kipchaks of the close of IV century is provided; that was the first time they appeared in European steppes beyond the "Meotiysk Marsh" (Sea of Azov). That book set the fashion which remained for centuries. According to Marcellin the Kipchaks were notable for stumpy constitution, their faces were beardless, they were "ugly and looked like eunuchs". Well, tastes differ, as the saying goes. Of course those times they didn't know about the eastern newcomers in Europe. Otherwise Marcellin wouldn't have called a papakh worn at a rakish angle a "wry hat" and the boots - "soft high footwear". The Europeans have worn neither papakhs nor boots. "All of them, not having any residences, hearths, laws and stable way o life, - Marcellin writes, roam from one place to another like eternal runaways with the tilt carts in which they spend their lives. Tilt carts with curved covers are made of bark. Having come to a place rich in grass they arrange their carts in circle and feed on in an animal way; having used all the fodder they carry on riding their towns, so to say, placed on the carts. Leading draught animals and herds before them, they pasture them; especially they care for their horses. Everyone who is not suitable for a war due to age or sex would remain near the tilt carts and be busy with peaceful affairs". It's a surprise - the repelling description is uncommonly unbiased! As well as the fact that "the youth having got used to riding since early childhood considers it a shame to go on foot". That's true the Kipchaks are a horse-riding nation, they've "adhered to a horse". At first a child was put on a

horse and after that he learnt to walk. But it seems Marcellin's observations still need a comment. Since we are talking about the close of IV century it should be mentioned that those days a grandiose battle for Don has just been finished; the Kipchaks won a victory hence the settlement of Don steppes has barely begun and it is reasonable that people lived in tilt carts, children were born there and later those children could hardly answer the question: "Where is your motherland?" The Turki were choosing places for new villages and towns. They were searching for land. History of ancient Don towns and villages - Kobyakov settlement and others - begins exactly from IV century! After the year 370. Observations of a man not understanding the question - thus one can call the notes of the Latin historian, which is also twice as interesting. His lines are valuable for that, unprejudiced objectivity is contained in them. For example, Marcellin wrote about the Kipchaks: "they eat like animals" And what did he mean? It turns out the Europeans were eating with hands, they weren't using any place settings as against the Turki. Greek grandees, for example, kept Arab boys in a house to wipe their hands with their curly and tough hair while eating. To tell the truth, a spoon became widespread in Greece very soon and a fork wasn't used until XIII - XV centuries So who was eating "like animals"? The Turki, of course! Or another example from nations history. When the Europeans came to the Middle East for the first time they were struck by ugliness of its yellow-skin inhabitants. But in remaining witnesses of the aboriginal population this fact is also cited; only the aboriginals reported of ugliness of the white newcomers "whose awful look could make one faint away". Similar examples - and there are many of them - convince: we are all people and no human qualities are alien to us. The Turki, the Greek, the Chinese have their own idea of the beauty!. It is certainly hard for an historian from the shore to judge about another life, especially in the steppe, which he couldn't even imagine. That's why it is better to avoid any estimations in historical works not to be taken in! But how can that be done? Of course, the author of these lines is also subjective to the same extent as Marcellin was having sincerely written about ugliness of the steppe inhabitants. "He is not a handsome man", - the Turki could have said about him. And they would have been right. For example, emperor Julian (331 - 366) was considered to be a really handsome man in the Roman Empire. His thick beard was covered with lice as with ashes There is no doubt that the beauty is a complex category. Marcellin's reports of Kipchak arms are confirmed by the archeologists How can one do without estimations here? A saber doesn't need any recommendations, that's for sure, its advantage is evident: a rider slashes with a saber much faster than his enemy with a sword. And the Turki invented stirrups - a foothold - to make a slash quicker. After the battle for Don a bow became the favorite arm of the Turki. They were excellent shooters. A warrior adjusted a bow "to his hand" by himself. Arrow-heads also provide food for scientific research: they were with trilobate heads, of harpoon type, "whistling" - with a hole on one side. A bow of a steppe inhabitant went down in world arms history under the name of "a bow of Turkic type". That is a heavy bow, according to European name. It size is up to 1,5 meters. Strength was necessary in order to stretch it. But an arrow could break through the arms of the Romans like through an egg-sell Arms, fighting, attack and retreat methods are the usual topic of Turkic culture studying. Permanent wars to which the nation got used required invention of new arms and skilful Kipchak craftsmen were always busy. There were towns in Desht-I-Kipchak where aliens were prohibited to come. One of them was called Tulu ("full" in Turkic) or Tolum (arms), blacksmiths - armourers lived there since V century. The town appeared near Oka river where iron ore was found. The same town was situated not far from modern Belgorod. Other towns also existed, apparently. A strong and original country was forming in the steppe as the centuries went by; in IV century European world got acquainted with it. There were holidays and workday routine in that country of which the Europeans have never heard. Attila loved to hunt; only elite was invited to see it and only a few could take part. They hunted as the Kipchaks should - on horses. They beat bears, boars, deers with clubs or pole-axes riding their horses. Dogs were not used in hunting. But it was falconry that impressed the Europeans most. Sok-kol (falcon) means "to call on a hand", ber-kut (golden eagle) means "to bring the prey". Birds "calling on a hand" worked wonders before the very eyes of astonished Greeks. They searched for ducks and cranes with their keen eyes, made them fly and caught them flying. And after that they

returned on a good master's hand. And weren't the nervous trembling looking at the favorite amusement of the Kipchaks - bear fight? One wild bear was put into a paled place and a bold fellow with a knife or a bear-sparer came to it. It was necessary to bring the bear to the ground with iron as soon as possible. By one stroke, right in the heart so that the people could hail the winner. Kipchak warriors were tempered that way! That was their idea of amusement. Slashers were especially conciliated for they used to break horses in wild races mortifying their vice. Horse race, games were obligatory for a holiday. As well as wrestling with belts. Lads stood in circle not because of a big ram (a usual prize for the winner!) but to prove themselves and control the rivals. The Turki were always able to invent something; they were rarely wasting their time For example, if all the conversations were over at table a dispute began - who will be able to break the cannon-bone of a just eaten ram. It should be mentioned that a person with weak hands would hardly manage to break it. There were certain fellows who managed to kill a bull with a punch on a bet. It was important to know where to strike. And to have a good fist. And any man having self-esteem could kill a bull - an everyday affair. Participation in fisticuffs was a great honor; not everyone was admitted to take part. They were fighting for their pleasure. The boys started the fight and were fighting to the first drop of blood. After them the elder lads entered in twos or "crowd against crowd". And after that, having enjoyed the show, real fighters got up. Nobody would ever break the sacred rules of fisticuffs - that meant he would never take part again. Besides, one could be killed for that at the very same moment. Maybe we shouldn't have described the life Attila that thoroughly if a reader knew the details about him. "Attila (? - 453), the leader of the Huns since 434. Headed devastating campaigns against the Eastern Empire (443, 447-448), Gaul (451), Northern Italy (452). Under Attila Hun union of tribes reached its highest magnificence". That is the whole information provided by the Big Encyclopedia about the Great Turki having been the personification of Desht-I-Kipchak. Attila also died on account if his needless trustfulness The historians pass over in silence who was that beautiful woman named Ildiko of whom loving Attila had taken notice. Either she was sent from Rome, or everything is really happening as the fates decree. In a word, the great commander fell in love in 453. And real love is never without a feast and a tender night. Jordan writes on this point: "Having become weaker at the wedding due to great enjoyment he was lying swimming in blood because his nose was usually bleeding, but this time it was stopped in its usual way and, having taken the fatal way through the throat, choked him. Thus intoxication was the reason of the shameful end of the glorious fighter". In the faraway Constantinople emperor Marcian had a vision that tragic night: he saw a broken Attila's bow in his dreams. An astonishing concatenation of circumstances! But being aware of mendacity of the Greek and their attempts against Attila for some reason one doesn't have the slightest wish to believe. Attila's death brought joy to the Europeans! Each Jordan's letter is full of joy: "Those days Attila was really dangerous for the great Empires that his death was sent by heaven to the regnant instead of the gift". A dreadful confession - in can be seen through a mirror. They were afraid of Attila and even his tragedy was taken as a gift. The nation of Desht-I-Kipchak was distraught with grief; absurd death of their leader almost lay it down. As the custom required, men started to cut off the tufts of their hair and make deep incisions of their faces. The great warrior has died! His loss should have been mourned with blood and not with tears. Deep mourning commenced in the Steppe. A silk tent was pitched in open country where the remains of untimely-departed commander were placed. The best riders of his army were going round the tent day and night paying tribute to the great tsar. Women were not let to take part in the mourning ceremony - their howls could disturb the warrior. After the bloody mourning the funeral feast began - it was a grand feast. A fantastic sight: funeral sorrow was mixed up with frenzy rejoicing. A striking philosophy of that ceremony - departing the tsar should see that well-being that he has left to his nation is still there and a happy life is going on. Late at night the body was committed to the earth. Attila's remains were put into three coffins one made of gold, the other made of silver and the third made of hard iron. Arms gained in the battles

with the enemies were also wrapped there as well as his orders and decorations which Attila has never put on in life but he could need them in the world beyond. In order to prevent marauding everybody who knew the burial place was killed as soon as they came back and thus they departed together with their master. The mourning days haven't been over yet when internal wars commenced. It turned out that the great number of heirs (and there were more than a hundred of them!) burdens the reign far more than lack of them. And when Ellak, the Elder son, the only legal heir of the ruler, was dead, Roman and Byzantine politicians had already known what to do Having made use of the discord they unleashed a fratricidal war which lasted for centuries. That's all. The great Attila, the Turkic commander, who inspired fear on the whole Europe, was dead. And a great deal of things departed with him. But Attila's inheritance - his victories, his place in history of Europe gave no rest to many people. Thus, for example, in 1858 a book was issued in Russia and, generally speaking, it was a lame book but with an expressive title - "Attila and Russia of IV - V centuries". Its author, professor A.F. Veltman, without batting an eyelid, emphatically asserted on more than two hundred pages that Attila was Russian. And Desht-I-Kipchak was called Russia. That's not a joke. Similar opinions were also expressed by other historians The Wild Field - The Great Steppe The Germans also succeeded in appropriation of Kipchak inheritance. They made Attila their national hero, the personage of epics. Etzel Alps were named in his honor. How does that go: the Germans, calling themselves the descendants of Celts (those Celts who were mercilessly defeated by Attila!) recognized him as a national hero. And the Turki have forgotten about him. Is that normal?.. Atli, Etzel - those were the names of the great Turki in German and Scandinavian epics and sagas. But in Southern German tales, for example in a heroic song "Valtariy", Etzel is glorified as a powerful monarch who, due to his generosity, sometimes ventures to be weak and hesitating. Thus he watches and doesn't take part in the intrigues in the palace, he doesn't save his son and wife from death. And it is astonishing that he isn't judged; on the contrary - they are delighted with him. Literary critics couldn't get the reasons of Attila's "passive" behavior; they were just surprised. However, their ignorance shows again the differences between eastern and western moral, eastern and western outlook. If only the Europeans knew that according to the law a Kipchak never helped his son in anything, even in case of fatal danger. He didn't have the right to touch his son with his finger, wherever he was - even on bull's horns. Only other man could help a child being in trouble. Is that rough? Sure it is Bat at the same time that is right! Using rough laws the Kipchaks brought up a young man who had to live in the Great Steppe: he should drive away the clouds over his head by himself! Mama's boys were despised in the Turkic society. They were a shame. Only things gained by yourself were taken into consideration. Man had to care for himself and his reputation and the latter was especially esteemed. Hence is acute feeling of honor. The authors of "The Song of the Nibelungs" and "Valtariy", there is no doubt, were the Kipchaks by birth - they remembered the steppe laws. That is evident due to certain details. That's why their hero Atzel (Attila) remained noble even in a situation unacceptable from a European viewpoint. He acted regardless of European moral and that aroused admiration. But the authors of "The Song of Atli" and "Atli's speeches" were not aware of Turkic customs. Those works are also related to Ancient German ones, but they were written by the Northern Germans. Attila's character is different in them; there he is an alien, a conqueror harshly dealing with his enemies: they cut out the heart of one of them under his order and another was thrown into a hole with snakes. Who were they - the authors? They were not the Kipchaks, that's for sure. Cruelty was not in the traditions of the Steppe: the Turki acted toughly but they were not cruel. They rapidly rendered justice (according to the code), execution was simple - there was a dagger, there was a saber, there was a lasso and a horse. And that was enough. As a last resort they used a rope - if they dealt with a man not deserving a decent death. And at the very least, say, for stealing in a temple, the thief was dug into the earth alive It might be that first texts of "The Song of Atli" and "Atli's Speeches" were in Russian (Swedish) language - traditions of the Northern Europe are described in them. These were Hunnara and Khengi

whom Atli pursued. And "Hunnar" and "Khengi" seem to be Varangian names. However, the word "Huns" which can be read in them may be the key to another version. But still there is a feeling that the text is "Russian"; it becomes stronger after reading other Varangian songs. For example, in Icelandic "Saga of Velsungs" or Norwegian "Saga of Tidrek" Attila is also shown as a crafty ruler having ensnared the Burgundy (!?) king Hunnar and his brother Khengi in order to have their gold And that is much stranger. What gold has to do with it? The Burgundy waged a war under Attila's flags; they were the Turki. It is evident that they didn't have a king; there was a khan - the leader of an ulus It is not unlikely that he had a quarrel with Attila's father in 435 and the son was avenging. But for what purpose should the Burgundy be turned into the northerners; still they are the nation having come from the East. Attila, as well as other Kipchaks, was notable for indifference to money, gold, treasures - that was marked by Prisk and other Europeans who have seen him. Those were the values only for the Europeans!.. They were not the values for the Kipchaks. Nobody would be at enmity for gold. One could sit on a bag full of gold and have no respect in the Great Steppe; furthermore, he could have fallen into contempt. The Turki estimated not things but actions! The Eastern moral put the spirit above materialism. A horse was worth more than gold. As well as a saber and a bow. And all the rest people gained through hard work. Three wishes are sacred for a real Turki. The first one - to saddle a horse. The second - to eat meat. And the third - to love his wife. Attila acted in full accordance with Kipchak traditions; each element of the latter provided an action, a deed. An action of a man! Domination of spirit was the basis of the Turkic psychology. That circumstance is extremely important. It leads to understanding of the prime causes of many historical events, even human tragedies. The Southern Germans, for example, felt an eastern mark in their souls which is still their distinguishing feature, although they are the Europeans. That's why their literature about Attila is more strict and accurate; knowledge of the free Steppe is contained in it, maybe even in spite of authors' intentions. In poems and ballads of Southern Germans Attila's warriors could "become" even the knights of XI or XII centuries. The poets were not afraid to break the chronology because people wanted to see their heroes instinctively making them closer to their history. Bavarians and Saxons are proud of those pages of their history and are not willing to give them up. Isn't that accusation of Church against Gunter (Another "Hun" name, he took the pulpit since 1057 until 1065 in Bamnerg.), the bishop, indicative? It turns out that the German bishop preferred the stories about Attila to diligent reading of church literature. He even mentioned the great Turki in his sermons Because he was a Kipchak himself and he recognized his native history in the history of the steppe riders. One shouldn't be astonished. According to N.M. Karamzin the German elite was fond of koumiss mare's milk. And the language of the Kipchaks, again in accordance with documents, remained in the Southern Germany until XV - XVI centuries. It means the crusaders who have been leaving those places in 1204 to conquer Constantinople or to destroy Rome, gave commands in Turkic (Kipchak) language. Alas, that's not an exaggeration! William Thomsen, the Danish scientist, was among the first ones who opened a new section in European linguistics; his academic works performed last century form a part of most favorable possession of science. Thomsen was about to turn the whole Europe up - the outburst threatened to turn into a big fire in coherent history of the Old World. "What Huns?", "What are these barbarians about?", - many people questioned having read an irreproachable work of an outstanding Danish scientist who has brought out clearly that European history is empty without Turkic one. William Ludvic Peter Thomsen (1842 - 1927) was born in a postmaster's family in Randers; he spent his childhood there and started his university career. Young man wasn't satisfied with theology; he became fond of other sciences - philology and botany. Thomsen was lucky: he had met outstanding teachers who noticed his phenomenal memory and recognized a philological gift in him. He was brought up according to exemplary traditions of a classical European school which provides for combination of laboratory and field research. A living unique world was opening to the beginning scientist during his journeys, and in the libraries he discovered a departed world. Arabic, Persian, Japanese, Chinese, Gipsy - Thomsen learnt dozens of languages until he went into Turkic language which was exotic for Europe. The scientist felt a certain mystery in it; he felt something like the "motherland" of several European languages with his heart, their linguistic base but his mind has been opposing to the voice of

his feeling for a long time. Until he had a chance. In 1887 Thomsen was invited as a professor to the department of comparative philology to Copenhagen University. Those years he became world-famous due to his work about the connections between the Ancient Russia and Scandinavia and about origin of Russian state. (Russian state but not Slavic!) Is it necessary to say that investigation of a Danish scientist expressed the viewpoint which was considerably different from this accepted in Russia. As a matter of fact, professor Thomsen was one of the first scientists who has written a truthful - no politics! - history of Russian as it was. His work was accepted by world community; it became classics and students are brought up with it. Inability neither to deny nor to accept the conclusions of that fundamental research in which there was no place for legends and inventions made the name of professor Thomsen if not forbidden than at least neglected among Russian scientists; his works are not known in Russia: they translated and published a single small article, nothing was found. Such a pity! The world could have known the truth about Kiev Russia from them. Professor Thomsen visited Russia more than once, he gained a deep understanding in European (Wend) roots of Slavic culture. That outstanding linguist discovered everything which has been always escaping attention of Russian scientists, - he revealed the Turkic base of the culture which nowadays is mistakenly called Russian. But, no. Respected professor simply provided a scientific base for the facts known for a long time. They say: "Scratch a Russian and there is a Tatar there". Thus Thomson scratched Russia. Everything started with written monuments found in Russia or rather in the Southern Siberia, in the ancient Turkic motherland. Those monuments were neglected during more than a thousand years. History of "infidel" nations wasn't interesting for Russian science. That's why the findings of Daniel Gothlib Messersmidt were passed over in silence. That naturalist from Danzing was the first European who traveled through Siberia (Another "Hun" name, he took the pulpit since 1057 until 1065 in Bamnerg.) in 1719 - 1727. Not far from Merchinsk Messersmidt examined the remains of an ancient cemetery where two queer stones remained and those stones were covered with relief pictures and inscriptions. Everything was clear about the pictures: scenes of a hunt and oblations, animals, faces, ornaments were harmonious and skillfully made. Written signs seemed familiar to the German scientist; they reminded of the ancient German runes. But he rejected the guess - Siberia was too far from Germany. In Petersburg Messersmidt's finding didn't impress anybody - as though it wasn't a new thing. They didn't even look at the copies of unique monuments not to mention the possibility to publish them. They ordered to consider the writings Scythian and recommended to hand the copies to the archives as not wanted. Later, with assistance of one of ambassadors of Catherine II those copies were secretly delivered to Europe and published there. Stealing and underground trade with antiques were a common practice those days, apparently. Thus the world learnt about one of forgotten pages of its culture - to tell the truth, ancient Turkic culture wasn't in question. Siberian steles with strange paintings became widely discussed. For it seemed too mysterious and magnificent. Especially after public speeches of Balha, the abbot, concerning Siberian Atlantis and Siberian Atlases who perished under strange circumstances. Of course Messersmidt's publication wasn't utterly neglected. Searching for Siberian antiquities has become a passion for many European scientists since then. Rare works of art were bought for a trifling sum; not only Siberia but the whole steppe Russia and its barrows were lavish in them. We have lost so many treasures - and they have found a great deal of them - in the course of that stealing. By the beginning of XIX century seven monuments were discovered in the Southern Siberia - those monuments being dappled with mysterious writings. Traces of amazing and unknown culture were becoming evident; those traces attracted but, alas, not researchers but adventurers. In Paris, in World Oriental Studies Centre new and new findings brought from steppe Russia were being discussed almost every year. Of course the owners didn't report about many findings not to be in conflict with legislation: golden items were in question and certain documents were necessary to own them. Finally Parisian orientalists decided that they had enough information and it was time to think about deciphering the mysterious writings. The first ones who took the charge were A. Remyuza, the academician, and his constant opponent in scientific discussions Y. Klaprot. Both of them, being excellent experts in ancient history, were trying to roll a mountain like the Titans. It was all in vain.

They didn't even manage to determine to which group of languages mysterious writings relate. Mystery around the findings was thickening. And there was no lack in hypotheses. The exhibits gave no rest to the archeologists. Some were inclined to the version of their Scythian roots. They even invented a nation called "Chud". However the majority of experts agreed upon recognition of new writings as ancient German runes for no other reason than their superficial resemblance. Thus they ascribed them that way having no reasons, and that was it. As it often happens in science, futility, lack of new ideas little by little damped the interest to mysterious monuments and again they fell into drowsiness waiting for their hour to come. Interest to the Siberian findings was awakened in 1875 when M. Kastren, the Finnish scientist, returned from Minusinsk expedition. He published the work called "Yenisei Inscriptions". That was possibly the most detailed and complete work. Whatever irrepressible soul of an archeologist wished was contained there. The linguists were to say the final word but they kept silence. They didn't have any ideas! It seems that excitement of foreign researchers awakened Russia. On the VIII Russian Archeological Congress N.M. Yadrtintsev "has taken Holland" as it is said: having visited Manchuria he found what has been studying by the archeologists for more than a century. Yadrintsev's report was taken into consideration. At the same time, in spring of 1890, in a deserted place near Orkhon river, A. Geykel, the Finnish researcher found another two ancient monuments near Kosho-Tsaidam lake. It is hard to describe excitement of the scientist who has made his way there together with his brother and wife. The first monument was a heavy stone similar to a memorial stone. Due to position of that stone Geykel guessed that it had been thrown from a pedestal. It seemed a grand construction was standing there and only ruins remained after it An earthquake or these were people who destroyed the monument? It is not clear. One could distinguish dragons and little pentagonal tables with inscriptions on remaining ornaments. But many things were destroyed, wiped by merciless disasters. Having got what he could get from that monument Geykel came to a conclusion: that was a Chinese work. To tell the truth, one small item seemed to be embarrassing - Chinese inscription covered only one part of the plate. On the other three sides there were the letters of a familiar "ancient German" alphabet. The same as on other Siberian findings. Why? Not far from that plate being nothing but a cast down stele, as the scientist concluded, there was a big quadrangular altar. Near it - dug into the earth - there were the remaining parts of a long building. Geykel made a plan of the monuments. And he started to dig. Soon he found the wall made of bricks covered with earth. Working with a spade the archeologists found seven statues with broken heads. It was evident that they were not of Chinese origin. Looking at them Geykel realized that the version of their Chinese origin should be rejected. Clothes and arms known due to the findings near Don, Danube and in other parts of forgotten Desht-I-Kipchak pointed to the Turki. However that finding didn't make things clear: what had the Turki to do with that? What relation could those savages bear to high culture which the archeologist was researching? In one kilometer from the dig Geykel and his fellow travelers found another monument which was exactly the same, it was just a little bit bigger. It was also covered with inscriptions, but unfortunately a considerable part of them was wiped out. And again - one of the sides of the monument was with Chinese hieroglyphs and the rest three were covered with familiar "unknown" letters - possibly, of Turkic origin. He and his fellows didn't suspect that they've found the headstone of prince Kul-Teghin and his brother Bilghe-Kagan. They copied found inscriptions, took them when they left and published them in Helsingforce in 1892. It seemed that mysterious letters were about to find their owner although everybody new - ancient Turkic writing language has never existed - that was a savage nation. They were the barbarians, after all! There was more than enough information of mysterious "Siberian writing", as it was cautiously called. Its traces were marked in the findings near Ural, Volga, Don, Dnepr, Danube - around the whole steppe. It remained only to find a person being able to read what was gathered by archeologists during a hundred years. And luckily that person was found. To tell the truth, at first nobody paid the slightest attention to his thin report (just several pages) which he presented to the Danish Royal Scientific Society. The report was signed by a name which told nothing to the archeological world, - it was some W.

Thomsen, the professor of comparative philology department of Copenhagen University. It happened on December 15th, 1893 - the date of the second birth of the Turki. Copies of inscriptions with mysterious "Siberian" letters were transferred to professor Thomsen just by accident. And in the right moment. At first he detected the direction of the writing in order to understand how to read those writings. It turned out they should be read not from left to right, like Mongolian ones, but from right to left, like vertical lines of Chinese writing. The next step was to count the letters. It also didn't weary the venerable professor. It allowed making a conclusion that a unique and unknown written language is in question which stood apart between the alphabetical syllabic writing accepted in the West and in the East. And after that everything was easy for a person who knows about thirty foreign languages. The first word which the Danish professor William Thomsen managed to read was the word "Tengri". A divine omen! It was the first to come out of a silent stone: The scientists didn't know what that unknown word had meant, and later from the text he comprehended that "Heaven" and "Heavenly God" were in question. Actually that was right. The great Tengri-Khan opened in XIX century ancient Russian writing language which was considered to be non-existent while it moved from Altai to Europe in II century and was lost there together with the Kipchaks. The language read by Thomsen belonged to a nation which the Chinese used to call "tu-kue". The pure Turkic language, the dialect, being considerably elder than all the other Turkic dialects known those times. After that discovery Thomsen became an outstanding expert in Turkic dialects; very soon he was able to read, write and speak Attila's language. Due to professor's sufferings the Turkic alphabet was pulled out from tenacious paws of oblivion. It was clear: a unique and almost unknown culture had been discovered which was spread among the "Huns", "barbarians", "Geths" etc. - in a word, the Turkic Kipchaks. It was impossible to neglect their culture. Three years have passed after that triumphal December evening in Danish Royal Scientific Society where professor Thomsen had presented his fabulous report. The book written by the scientist was published where under laconic title "Deciphered Orchon Inscriptions" the key to reading ancient Turkic texts was hidden. Not only the full alphabet was published in the book but also a commented translation of all known inscriptions. As a matter of fact that was the first and the only textbook in grammar of Turkic language; at the same time it seems that Russian ancestors of the Kipchaks have never heard about it. There were no doubts (and further researches confirmed that): five centuries before Common Era a glorious empire existed on the territory of the Southern Siberia. It lead its life leaving written and material traces. And by first centuries of Common Era the nation had disappeared. Where? How? Why? Nobody knew that. Running a few steps forward let us mention that together with Messersmidt and his followers an outstanding Russian archeologist S.I. Rudenko and his Siberian colleagues headed by A.P. Okladnikov also had a feeling of a discoverer. They discovered their Siberia in XX century - that vanished empire whose existence was surmised by European archeologists in XX century. Thus in XIX century the world learnt what was contained in stony messages transferred by the ancestors to their descendants. The stones began to talk. The real Turkic history was speaking after centuries of silence. The texts revealed to W. Thomsen were different in their age and contents. Some monuments were dated back to the period before the Great Nations Migration. Their language and expressiveness of the phrases cannot keep one indifferent: "Dissimilar, born in heaven Turkic kagan, today I took the reign. You, followers, listen to my speech, my younger relatives and the youth, my allied tribes and nations. When blue sky was created on high, dark ground was created below, between them human sons were created. My ancestors - Bumyn-Kagan and Istemi-Kagan were sitting above human sons. Having got the reign they organized a tribal union and thus Turkic nation appeared. Four parts of the world were their enemies. Setting out with their troops they conquered all the nations living in four parts and made them all live in piece. Those who had heads had to bend their heads; those who had knees were forced to kneel. My younger brother, Kul-Tegin, was dead and I was mourning; my seeing eyes were almost blind,

my prophetic mind was almost fading away. Heaven allots the sky, human sons were born to decay." These are the lines from an epitaph. Their wisdom is in their simplicity. Thomsen's book contains many useful things. At first it was interesting only for orientalists. Then linguists, historians and politicians joined them. And new facts were revealed. And the facts are as follows. Munich amateur orientalist Franz Babinger, working in the family archive of Fugger princes and counts in Augsburg stumbled upon some ancient texts which dated back to the events of 1553 - 1555 years. Those texts were copied from the wall of one building which was, apparently, a stable and nobody has ever paid the slightest attention to them considering them to be an exotic painting from Istanbul or an intricate ornament. In a word - nonsense among business papers. But Franz Babinger couldn't call himself an orientalist not having read the book by professor W. Thomsen and having not recognized ancient Turkic runic writings in the found text! The happy owner of the finding sent the photocopies to famous Mr. William Thomsen to Copenhagen. But he also was at a loss. New mystery was to be born. Those sent runes, taking their similarity with ancient German ones into consideration, still were different. Only special investigation helped to put everything in its right place: the scientists faced the European dialect of Turkic language. But that gave rise to a new perplexity. Where from? The found text threw light on one historic event known from ancient Hungarian chronicles. So there were no reasons to doubt the trustworthiness of the described fact. The document was authentic. But the scientist noticed that the basis of the writing had been formed by the runes changed in shape, which were more like notches or dents. In fact, that was the difference with "Siberian" runes which form slightly reminded of the elements of Chinese graphics. But in this case it was otherwise, there was its own - European - writing style which was closer to Greek or Latin one. W. Thomsen determined the found text as ancient Hungarian language; soon Franz Babinger has become the first expert in it and prepared a big scientific research on that point. To tell the truth having been preparing it it turned out that similar texts have been often met in the archives of different European countries but they were always neglected. It simply happened that nobody ever tried to analyze those casual papers. Almost all the found documents were written correctly - from right to left. There was only one text relating to 1501 found at Chiksentmiklosh which was written in a wrong way and was to be read from left to right. It was obvious that Turkic - Kipchak - language was used as the language of international communication in the Central Europe (The right question: why did Turkic language disappear from the Central Europe in XV - XVI centuries? What reasons did the Europeans have to exclude it from their speech that rapidly?. And also from their memory? There were two reasons, apparently - inquisition of the Roman Church which was gradually annihilating all the Turki in Europe. And a new invasion from the East! The Turki, again. But this time not the Kipchaks but the Oguzes instead, they conquered Constantinople in 1453 and in a little while they started colonizing the Central Europe from the East bearing Moslem ideas to the Christian countries. Cruel confrontation of Turkic Oguzes and Turkic Kipchaks was lasting in the Central Europe for centuries and it is still happening as far as we know. The war at the Balkans between Christian and Moslem Serbs, which is considered to be a new war, is actually one of episodes of that endless war which has been flaring up and fading for centuries. The reasons are forgotten, the sources are forgotten, the flags are forgotten but the fratricidal fighting is still happening. And again the Turki are taking part in it.). The whole paper work - execution of purchase deeds, land schemes, accounts etc. - was performed with it. Hence is amazing similarity of ancient Turkic and ancient German runes. But again that's not all. Babinger found a forgotten work by Tekegdi, the Hungarian historian, who has written the book about Kipchak language in 1598. It seemed the secret of the European dialect of Tutkic language was about to be revealed, while it was on the surface and wasn't really a secret. It was necessary just to recognize the obvious and to write about it. And nobody has ever done that. However, Franz Babinger smattered in science. His attention wasn't attracted by the circumstance that in Hungary, near Semigradye town, lives the nation called "Sekels" which - probably, the only nation in Europe! - has been calling itself the descendant of the Turki since olden days, although nowadays it doesn't speak the language of their ancestors. It retained clear historical memory which was embodied not only in literature but also in written documents Destiny didn't give good luck to Babinger; after all, it was him who didn't take it, to put it more preciously. When Hans Dernchwam, the bachelor of Leipzig University, came to the Sekels in order to

familiarize himself with ancient documents which were mentioned in passing by Babinger he found that they were absolutely different as compared with ancient Hungarian texts. Sekel runes seemed unfamiliar to the young man. He copied them and went away in disappointment. Although as experienced linguists looked at them they were at a loss: the documents were executed in ancient Turkic language. Attila's language! Finally everything was in its right place. From a scientific viewpoint it was proved and aroused no doubts that the ancestors of the Central Europe inhabitants - and that was there where existence of Turkic language was traced, at least until XV - XVI centuries - are the Kipchaks by birth. Those Kipchaks who performed the Great Nations Migration and who were considered to be vanished. Identity of the language, similarity of writing were unconditionally detected. It seemed a scientific discovery leaving no space for disputes was evident. And there were no disputes. That could lead to a new comprehension of European history in accordance with reality which was not suitable, first of all, for the western Church. A lie was convenient for everybody! Nowadays it's the same. Someone decided that the works by W. Thomsen and his colleagues affected acute national feeling of Balkan inhabitants. And not only them. Kipchak history binds to doubt Indo-European theory of population. Archaeology and linguistics convince that the most of the Europeans had come not from India but from Altai. Legendary Arians, as the Germans see them, are that Turkic Kipchaks who had been called "Arians" for a long time in medieval Europe. Of course it is difficult to recognize that. And there's no wish to do it. It is rather easier to forbidden and conceal and keep on believing in something tender, rosy and beautiful even if it is absolutely baseless from a historical viewpoint. That's why in XX century there were no important discoveries in the area of linguistics equal to those of brilliant William Thomsen and his keen colleagues. To tell the truth, the researchers are moving on, but they are gradually taking an opposite direction - they are being led far away from the truth. For example, who is perplexed by the "lapse" in European chronology, in its history: as a rule found materials are dated back either to the period prior the arrival of the Turkt, or to later times - starting from XV - XVI centuries when the positions of the Kipchaks in Europe became weaker. Boldness is needed to declare: Turkic documents simply were being destroyed as well as everything relating to the Turki in medieval Europe. European Turki were called heretics, they were anathematized, faggoted, tormented, tortured, forced to reject their ancient culture and belief. Papal inquisition was created for them; it was working for renascence of bygone Roman power over Europe Hence is Renaissance! But everything cannot be destroyed. As an eyewitness evidences one of ancient texts of the Bible "Psalter" - which is stored in the library of Vatican - was written in Turkic language; it was brought to Rome from Don, from Tan town, in V - VI centuries. This and other sacred books having become Christian and having been written in "Hun language" were mentioned by Moses Kagankatvatzi, the historian of early Middle Ages. No, one cannot neglect the facts - not everything has disappeared. Even in Rome. Vatican and its subtle policy made for weakening of memory of European Kipchaks (How can one forget an apt phrase by R. Kipling, the English writer, which is often mentioned in the West: "Every Russian is a nice fellow as long as he is not drunk. He is charming as an Asiatic. And only when he insists that Russians should be treated not as the most western nation from the eastern ones but as the most eastern nation from the western ones it turns into an ethnic misunderstanding. And it is very difficult to deal with it". If only the famous Englishman knew whom he had been laughing at At himself! He represented himself as an ignoramus. Attila's warriors - the Turkic Kipchaks - performed Anglo-Saxon campaign in V century; the Celts were the only inhabitants of Britain before their arrival. So I doubt whether any European should brag about his clean "western" origin. Any white European can easily become an "ethnic misunderstanding" himself forgetting that the ancestors of all Europeans have come to Europe from the East, from Asia. The Great Nations Migration colored modern demographic maps on the territory of the Old World and even Albion inhabitants shouldn't forget that. One should reckon the reality and be more restrained. ). That was the revenge for the defeat during the Great Nations Migration times. Rome succeeded in it. In the consciousness of inhabitants of late Middle Ages the Church implied the new (suitable for it) type of culture and the new (also suitable for it) outlook Here it is - Renaissance - which destroyed everything "unnecessary" in Europe! The traces of historic memory of the defeated Turkic nation were wiping out with gallows, poison, swords and fire. One can remember the ominous phrase by Goebbels: "bereave the nation of its history - and in a

generation it will turn into a crowd and in another generation it can be easily ruled as a herd" In Vatican that was declared long before the fascists. They always knew how to plan their policy for a long-term outlook. And another thing is absolutely not surprising - the Turki themselves have been always assisting them. Or their customs and traditions, to put it more preciously: among the frogs one must also become a frog. This proverb is for the Turkic Europeans. They willingly became "the frogs" and thus saved themselves from death in foreign lands. But foreign mask has adhered to their faces. Nowadays they are called not according to their names but according to their masks: Bavarians, Saxons, Englishmen, the French, the Austrians, the Bulgarians, the Czechs, the Serbs, the Hungarians And in order to keep their foreign face the Europeans invent unconvincing versions. "One fact is reliable: in this case writing language of Attila and his troops is not in question", - asserts, for instance, E. Dobblehoffer whose materials were used in this chapter. And at that he archly adds: "And besides, nowadays nobody seriously asserts that". Sure they assert! And very seriously. If Dobblehoffer wasn't a follower of European school in science he would have never ventured such a slip of tongue. Writing language of Attila is the only thing which can be in question. And nothing else. Because those days there were no other Turki in Europe! The corns thrown by William Thomsen were sprouting up; they were placed in a fertile field. For example, the works by academician V.M. Zhirmunskiy (1891 - 1971) which proved the unity of German and Turkic linguistics; those works are considered to be classics although they are not popularized. Father and son Kyzlasovs also perform interesting investigations on this point; however, they are also neglected by the Turki. The research work by the archeologist K.A. Akishev is also very interesting; he has dotted all "i's" and crossed all "t's" in the so-called Scythian subject. In Issyk barrow in the land between seven rivers (Kazakhstan) the scientist found a cup with a clear runic inscription in Turkic language. The finding is two thousand years old, as well as the barrow! Thus the inscription became the first written monument of the Scythians and the Sachs; it witnesses of their language. That was the first but not the only finding. In Kara-Tel, near Termez, the archeologists found a destructed Buddhist (or Tengri-Khan?) center of II - IV centuries where among other material the vessels with the same runic writings were discovered Moreover, the French geologists reported about the finding of the wall with the same runic writings in Afghanistan The same runes were found in the territory of the Eastern France, in the former Burgundy Kingdom (Sharney clasp). The same as in Romania and in the Ukraine. The language was the same everywhere. And it was Turkic! It turns out the Scythians were absolutely the same as the Kipchaks. It was only their belief which differed them - the unite representatives of the Turkic nation. But they didn't wish to recognize the Scythian language as the ancient Turkic one in Moscow. For example, Moscow experts didn't even read the inscription on Akishev cup, but they brought a killing verdict: scratched later. As though the cup was put in the barrow after the burial ceremony In the meantime the inscriptions were read according to the rules of ancient Turkic grammar. "The one prepared the (food), fill" - from this appeal (to pagan deities?) begins the inscription on Akishev cup And other inscriptions also had a translation They were notable for an excellent literary language and light figures. Here is an example of ancient Turkic poetry. These lines are the sounds of that time: You just leave me munificence Let it be my peculiar feature Then you find a horse for me And send me into the fight! Those days the poets managed to rhyme the words and they did it skillfully: at the end of the lines, in the centre or even by the first syllable Turkic language p rovides an amazing freedom! Only a few modern poets can deal with freedom of speech of that kind. Runic inscriptions found on the ancient monuments (epitaphs) also show that over two hundred and a half years ago the Turki had their own writing language. One of the epitaphs was as follows: I parted from my relatives and my wives.

I was among the enemies in an evil hour. Kuck-Kul-Tutuk - I - was severed from the world. Today I stay away from ale and from the khan, From my horse and golden quiver. I was the hero, I was thirty-five. Ale Yunanchi, be sure, I was faithful. Be grateful our glorious khan! Long live my clan and my nation! My enemies have no count, and I have left This ancient inscription was found in the upper reaches of Yenisei in 1786; for the first time it was translated by V.V. Radlov in 1895 (Comment: "Kuch-Kul-Tutuk" - personal name and title of the departed; "ale" - in this case - Turkic "state"; "Ale Yunanchi" - "representative of the state" (word-forword).). And the first runes fixed on paper relate exactly to V century - the times of Attila's reign. Alas, that is not a twist of fate. The tsar of the Kipchaks could read and write in his native language. Besides, according to Jordan, he knew Greek. The Kipchak commander was a well-bred and educated person. It could happen that he used to read the following lines written by his contemporary, at leisure: God created the world of hollow and the world of height, To make the firmament turn there forever, To make the stars fly there, And night always changes day there. God made the heavens of turquoise color, He threw the jades of the stars in the sky, He created Libra, And night always changes day. The racer of destiny galloped above the world He stroke fire and set the grassy world On fire: it became hot, smoky and scarlet And the fire hasn't faded yet. Here it is, the ancient Turkic poetry It never existed according to the ignoramus. Not only Attila's cronies were delighted by expressive works of Altai inhabitants, but also the nobility of India and China. And owing to Erka-Khan (Kanishka tsar) ancient texts in Brahmi remained there And the poems weren't getting worse just because Europe didn't know about them. L.Y. Tugusheva, the Leningrad researcher of the Turki, earnestly proved that having published an excellent book called "Uigur Version of Suan-Tzan Biography". She was gathering a scattered ancient Turkic manuscript for her book page after page And in Attila's times the Kipchaks have already had a literary language in which the poems were written. But here is an explanation at first. Uigur language is related to ancient Turkic one; it is one of its dialects. "Uigur written language is alphabetic - audible it was the basis for ancient Mongolian writing language; it is traced to one of Siberian Aramaic alphabets". And here, speaking about the Turki, encyclopedia is cunning - yet again! Connection with Syrian - Aramaic alphabets hasn't been determined, Turkic language stood apart, it was searching for the ways of development itself. And ancient Mongolian writing language cannot be called into question at all: the word "Mongol", according to the Mongols themselves, was met in XI century for the first time Thus ancient Turkic culture is wittingly distorted being ascribed to other nations. To the Mongols, to the Iranians - whoever it may be. "One of the most important works of early medieval Turkic literature - Uigur version of Suan-Tzan biography, - Tugusheva writes, - was presented in the only manuscript which separate parts are currently stored in manuscript collections in Paris, Peking, Leningrad. It was determined that all parts of the manuscript found in its time, as well as other monuments of early medieval writing language, in the Eastern Turkestan, were in one place before they were found and later they were separated and delivered to manuscript collections of different countries by different ways".

This is not a preface but an indictment relating to those who used to squander, steal and sell ancient Turkic literary monuments. And fortunately a man was found who managed to recreate the full text and to read the ancient book. Tugusheva made an impossible thing - she saved the pages doomed to perishing. The only copy of a Turkic literary monument in the world was sold all over the world by smart operators of science! Peter's descendants need the Turki only as "savage nomads". Russian science is great but being dishonored by those smart operators it gives rise to nothing but pity for it. And the ancient Turki wrote about it that way: The one with empty heart will remain so forever: He'll never become reach. Having become great, as the law directs, You should be close to those who do good. "While analyzing the collection, - Tugushevs writes, I was lucky to find the parts of that work among unidentified material in the manuscript collection of Oriental Studies Institute of Academy of Sciences of the USSR and to identify them". She is so tactful while the point is that the pages of a priceless manuscript which they didn't have time to sell abroad, were lying about in disorder. They were kept in the institute which should have stored and analyzed the monuments of the East and which treats them that way. It never occurred to anybody that those rare pages, although having been written in ancient Turkic language, still remain the pages of history of the Great Russia. The past was embodied not only in Slavic elm deeds but also in monuments written in the Turkic runes. To safeguard one thing and to destroy another is the same as to put out one eye as the competitor of the other. Isn't that indicative that the first information about steppe barrows, presented to Russian science, belonged to academicians G. Miller and I. Gmelin, who have written down the evidences of a barrow harrier in XVIII century? The marauder with Selenga alias initiated the classification of Turkic antiquities. And it suited everybody! For it was put within strict "academic" bounds. The monuments weren't seriously analyzed; they were plundered on the sly. And there was a lot worth analyzing there. For example - the tofalars; there are about 400 people in Siberia. In their language one can retrace connection of Turkic language with the language of Palaeoasiatics and Keths. And it means there was a sole culture in the Central Asia and in Altai in ancient times Here they are, those everlasting mysteries of the East! And now - after all - a few lines which charmed people's ears several centuries ago. And they were written in ancient runes: God's generosity is a gem, they say, God's generosity - there's nothing more precious. But my God - you, the mighty hero, are more precious than sapphire. But my God - you, my mighty hero, are more precious than ruby. Or these: O, O, O, O, Wisdom, Wisdom, Wisdom, Wisdom, you you you you scare a fool and an ignoramus. chasten the careless and the idle. give joy to the laid-back. send calm to the wise.

The crystal lines Derzhavin, Pushkin and the whole golden century of Russian poetry originated from them two thousand years ago! Literary and archeological monuments are the echoes of past times frozen in stone, bronze, gold and on paper. And the more stronger this echo sounds, the firmer is the desire to recognize the "voice" having uttered those majestic sounds. Although nothing similar happened to the Turkic history: their voice was lost among the discordance of cultures and nations. Their echo has been elapsing to emptiness for centuries. But, thank God, the life went on in the Soviet Union. In the 50s they declared about developing of Siberia. Creation of Siberian cities, scientific centers and gigantic factories was in fashion. The youth, including the archeologists, was moving to Siberia. They needed Siberian science, Siberian history,

Siberian archaeology which should have been international, socialist and, of course, outstanding. But, as the saying goes, there could be mo fortune but misfortune helped. It happened exactly that way. Due to ignorance - there is no other explanation - prominent scientific forces of the Soviet Union proceeded to "global" investigation of Kipchak subject. Nobody of the Kremlin strategists had the slightest idea of where national funds had been directed Here it is, God's will! It was the first time destiny favored to the Kipchaks. In 1961 one of scientific conferences - which were also in fashion those years - was attended by Alexei Okladnikov, the archeologist. An ordinary Soviet scientist came to a common scientific conference in Gorno-Altaisk. An ordinary event, but it was to become the part of history. It should be mentioned that the conferences were usually dull and boring; the hall was usually halfempty. The participants gathered for the opening and then they wandered off until the closing and banquet. The scientists appreciated communication between each other and not listening to the reports which were to be published anyway. Okladnikov wasn't an exception. On that memorable conference, saving himself from boredom and persistent fellow scientists in Gorno-Altaisk, he went to the city park to have an airing. Thousands of people visited that park before him; thousands of people followed the beautiful path along Upalinka river. A common river - purling water, stones scattered to the banks. The scientist fixed his look at one of those stones. Okladnikov couldn't continue his way. One must be born a hunter to find a hidden beast. One must be born fisherman to feel fish in the river. Alexei Pavlovich was born an archeologist; he has been searching for the traces of the past all his life. And he found them! Even oval pebble, which he had picked up in the city park, was sharpened on one side. A primitive has taken away everything unnecessary to make an instrument - a stone ax - out of pebble. Neither river nor glacier are able to split a stone that way. Only man could do it. However, archaeology is an amazing science - it makes a man be happy with a common stone! Just because it was in hand of another man a thousand years ago. Due to imperceptible traces, due to tiny details sliding away from am average man, the scientists judge about the past. That is the secret of their science, its magic attraction. The real archeologist will find the only stone among a thousand of others. After that an expedition came to the bank of Upalinka and the excavations were commenced. In the city park, where a brass band still used to play in the evening, one of the biggest camps of a primitive was discovered. That was exactly what people from the Kremlin had expected. Here it is - the big Siberia! The archeologists met hundreds of items. Altai became the subject of disputes and conversations all over the world - there were a few similar discoveries in the history of the planet. A unique "Siberian" culture was in question. The scientists proved that Siberia had been settled in great antiquity; and who were the people who had been living there? That question didn't arise. Everything was going on in the best way possible; the authorities didn't grudge the funds for excavations of "Siberian archeology": it was a national affair - to develop Siberia! But the more items the scientists discovered the more their astonishment grew - the findings were not the same as any others in Siberia. It seemed ancient Siberians knew their own special technology of stone treatment. Their instruments weren't beaten off but treated. As though they were grinded on a modern grinding machine. For example, one could easily shave with certain stone knives. Wonders beyond the reach of a modern man. The phantom of an important scientific discovery appeared on the horizon. Later, after engagement of engineers, physicians and representatives of other sciences being far from archaeology, it turned out that Altai inhabitants really didn't beat off the stone as it was done everywhere else but treated it with fire and water. Hence their instruments were that perfect and different from others'. Ancient Altai inhabitants showed themselves as quite good connoisseurs of nature. They knew which stones could be treated that way and which couldn't. It means mountains were not only mountains for them but the storage of rock. Running a few steps forward it should be mentioned that in modern archeology and mining a lot of terms remained which have come to the world geological science from that Altai nation - they are of Turkic origin: a hack, a mandrel, a pick, a sledge-hammer, a wedge and many others. But the most heated disputes began when they tried to determine the age of the most ancient findings; those disputes were really strained. When were those stone instruments made? By radioactive dating method it was determined: almost two hundred thousand years ago! And in relation to certain items devices indicated to eight

hundred thousand years Nothing of that kind has ever happened in Russian archaeology. Thus the age of appearance of first quarries in Altai was determined. It turns out those times people lived there and one day it happened so that they needed those quarries Who were they those masters of stone treatment? No, it was too early to call them a nation. People were communicating with each other by gestures and separate sounds. Thousands of years of their life in Altai should pass before they learn to speak their own language, think, become delighted and surprised. But the archeologists gave them the name - the troglodytes. That is the name of the tribes living in caves. Today a great many caves are known in Altai foothills and in other places of the Southern Siberia where ancient people lived. However the cave on a high rock near Kan river was the richest in findings. Troglodytes lived there for several thousands years - cultural layer near the foot of that cave was over six meters. A great deal of stone instruments was contained in that treasure. It became clear how technology of stone treatment was changing as time went on: from rough ancient items to accurate, even ones. According to remaining bones archeologists recreated the nature of distant past. Antelopes, rhinoceroses, mammoths and other big animals couldn't save themselves from skillful hunters. Loads of bones remained under the precipice where the entrance to the cave near Kan river was situated. Craftsmen were living close to the hunters in the cave. Otherwise how can one explain found storages of stone knives and daggers? How can one explain the appearance of beads and other women ornaments made of shell of ostrich eggs? Those findings are 40 - 45 thousand years old. Isn't it amazing? The first ornaments! Women used to try them on - not all of them, of course, just selected beauties. It means aesthetic feelings originated in Altai, which was followed by appearance of the first songs, fairy tales, memories which were kept for centuries, but there wasn't a way to express their feelings to their fellow countrymen. Other unexpected findings relate close to the same period, for example - thin blades were quite the same as modern daggers. The thing was that they were made of stone. Simple stone knives were also met - they were used in everyday work. There were many elegant and sharp arrow-heads. There is really a great deal of findings. Different findings. And they all showed the way amazing culture known as "Siberian" or "Altai" was developing from century to century. How it made its way from a rough ax found near Upalinka river in Gorno-Altaisk and at last, as though from a seed, it grew into a young branchy tree in a severe taiga garden. Those new perfect instruments allowed the tribes to leave Altai - their cradle, their motherland and to start their way to the plain, into the forest. They were able to leave. They had all necessary means to protect themselves. People left for uncertainty - to explore flat Eurasia Slow settlement of empty lands commenced, those lands being covered with forests; in thousands of years those lands have become known as Russia. Those tribes didn't come to the steppe: their warriors weren't strong enough - stone axes couldn't save them dealing with a beast of prey; and they had no other means to protect themselves. But "Brazen Stone Age" didn't leave without a trace. Archeologists found its traces. It turned out that there was a route from Altai to Europe, it lay in the southern ends of a forest zone, there - in Ural and Volga region - the places of camps were found with different items being like those from Altai. The earliest finding was discovered near Karabalykty Lake, it is dated back to the period of middle paleolith. The camp was situated on the eastern vaults of Ural, closer to Altai. Later traces of ancient people were discovered in the territory of modern Bashkortostan, along Agidel (White) rived. The most famous of them is Shugan-Tash cave, ancient paintings were found there The findings gladdened and invariably surprised the archeologist with their singularity. Of course one cannot assert that these were the Turki who inhabited ancient Ural, although anthropological researches seem to give cause to it. No. Those were the bearers of ancient Altai culture, Turkic culture appeared in it close to Ugro-Finnic one. There was no division into nations - it was too early! Even during the Bronze Age (here: the middle of the II and the beginning of the I thousand years B.C.), when the rise of metallurgy commenced and Arkaim, Sintashta and other towns of metallurgists appeared, Turkic culture wasn't strongly pronounced. Like young wine, it was slowly ripening here, in Altai, neighboring with Ugro-Finnic culture and being almost the same as it. But it was ripening to amaze the world with its delicate taste. Inhabitants of Bulgaria of the Volga chaganat are the descendants of those ancient cultural traditions which were brought to Ural by the natives of Altai And that is the continuity of Turkic history, its unity, magnificence and antiquity of its neighboring Ugro-Finnic sister nations.

Findings of Ural and Volga region made one think about global things - about intercommunication and mutual influence on Eurasian continent. It turns out the routes between East and West have always existed since man was born (There was an idea about existence of Nephritis Route but it wasn't confirmed. In the spurs of Sayany Mountains rich fields of that rare stone are known; their development could have begun in extreme antiquity especially since nephritis was highly estimated by the ancestors of the Turki - their sharp stone knives were made of nephritis.) People have been wandering from the immemorial. Their way lay from Altai. Certain tribes settled in Europe having passed it; later they called themselves Ugros, Finns, Liths, Ests, Wends, Celts, Vikings. But at first they were not noticeably different. They all settled in forests, on river banks; they have all been hiding from wild beasts and wandering until they reached their "legal" abodes That was the first Great Migration, although these were not the nations which took part in it. But it originated in Altai - in the European cradle. And those not attracted by long roads remained in Altai, in the Southern Siberia. They still lived in caves, went hunting and made excellent arms and instruments. And besides they learnt to admire the beauty made on stone. The first rock paintings are thousands of years old. Not each rock turned into an artist's canvas. They chose only a few which were perceptible from afar, - of yellow, orange or brown color. Life suggested the subjects to the artists. On a big rock the paintings were placed in groups - in this or that place. From a technical viewpoint they are absolutely the same: points stamped with a chisel flow together into a fillet which "leads" the image. One keen look is enough to see: rock paintings show that ancient Altai inhabitants could count. Archeologists noticed that the figures of animals on stony paintings had been gathered into groups. But how? Five or ten figures. That is the counting on fingers! And another figure - "seven" - Altai artists also new it. Why seven? Because it is connected with phases of the moon; hence are seven days in a week. But could the savages know that much?.. It turns out they haven't already been the savages. And they hunted with dogs - that fact was also fixed by the artists. On one of the paintings one can see a man hunting with a bow on his back, a leather quiver with arrows and a dog running after him. They are valuable for their commonness and simplicity - those scenes of everyday life. Of course it is difficult to describe the paintings - one should see them. However it should be mentioned that changes outlined in the subjects of stony "paintings" made approximately four thousand years ago: animal silhouettes took a back seat to the images of people. That was a critical moment for the Siberians: a plow (That's when agriculture in Altai arose! It turns out the Turki had a good school and experience. It is useless for "experts in nomadic life" to dispute against archeological material, thus they never mention it.)and a wheel appeared, new culture was arising which was to turn their former "troglodyte" economy. The first kurens also appeared those days. At first simple, and later accurately made figures of people, mainly women, filled the canvas of a "painting". They are primitive and rough only by sight, those stone pictures, - one must be able to see and feel their magnificence. Route stones are known since that distant times, and later - stone sculptures ("stone women"), they've turned into companions of Altai inhabitants for a long time almost without being changed. The same broad faces. The same straight expressive noses. Stocky figures. And unique eyes Blue eyes of a Turki always remind of a young moon. Regardless of a widespread delusion ancient Altai inhabitants were etalon Europeoids. Future Europeans originated from them. About three thousand years ago a union of tribes which was called pre-Turkic was formed in Altai. People were united by language, appearance, culture. All signs of a state are evident. It seems the word "ale" appeared in Turkic language those days - it means the state, the country. Imak tribe was the head of the union for a long time. "Imak" meant "serpent", "dragon". A serpent has become the symbol of Altai Turki. It was flaunting on the flags, it became an element of patterns and ornaments. It seems those days Serpent Gorynich (Firedrake) became the kind hero of fairy tales. It is more likely that the image of a serpent originates not from Altai but from Indo-China where spiritual traditions were polished with time to a greater extent. The image of a serpent is still alive in the consciousness of Turkic nation, it remained in proverbs, sayings and ancient legends as an image of spirit - clean, home, native and very close one. Arising of a cult of a serpent enriched the spirit of Europeans but it didn't lead to considerable

changes in economy. To tell the truth, archeologists mark out copper items among the findings of that period, which appeared in Altai more and more often. Bit where are they from? From Indo-China and Ural, apparently. It is evident they were brought. They weren't able to arrange local manufacture for a long time; lack of copper ore played its part. And nevertheless There were tin fields and copper was found beyond Baikal Lake. They started to deliver copper to Altai in order to create bronze metallurgy; and they used to carry tin from Altai. That was determined by the archeologists. That's the explanation of appearance of Altai "affiliates" beyond Baikal and expansion of the Turkic geography. Ore is the reason! "Altai" rock paintings and settlements of "Altai" architecture appeared in the Eastern Siberia - on Lena and Angara. A striking resemblance: art images and styles - everything was the same. But not everything, though. In the Eastern Siberia air was better and water was cleaner. Otherwise how can one explain the fact that the artists of that place were much more gifted than their Altai teachers? In their paintings two opposite qualities appeared which were to become the etalons of Turkic arts later: realistic accurate representation of an object and unusual stylization thereof. Mixture of fantasy and reality, commonness and sublimity, materialism and spirituality is evident. Maybe that is the ideal of any art? Dynamism, struggle, passion and stone calmness. In fact, annalistic miniatures are full of that style. An explosion which separated the Stone and Bronze Ages from the Iron Age was about to happen. It happened in V - III centuries B.C. That event was marked by appearance of the new god with the Turki - Tengri-Khan. He taught people to smelt iron ore. A new epoch in the life not only of Altai but of other nations commenced. Professor Sergei Ivanovich Rudenko (1885 - 1969), an outstanding archeologist and the scientist of the highest level was the best expert in that epoch. It is a real pleasure to read his monographs: he wasn't just searching for the traces of antiquity and finding them; he explained the findings (Thoroughness of the works by S.I. Rudenko allowed me to speak about ancient Turkic culture being a humble follower unconditionally believing his Master) e wasn't inventing or "reconstructing" as a vain historian; he was explaining because he was also an engineer and the Doctor of Technical Sciences. The range of his interests was really wide. From the anthropological type of Altai people to the ornaments on carpets and clothes - how and with what they were made? There are only a few such broad-minded persons in science. It doesn't matter that Rudenko didn't call his "Altai inhabitants" the Turki - that wasn't allowed those days (the country was fighting against it). He found a neutral term - "Scythians" although he comprehended that the Turkic culture was in question. And he softly-softly was making it clear in his works about the Huns Professor gathered the proofs, evidences and facts which take one's breath away. And that is enough Rudenko's findings allowed him to speak not only about the log dwellings of the Turki but also about the cattle-pens. Even found earthenware crockery witnessed of the settled way of life of its owners. And a separate book can be written about the "metallurgical" findings. Of course iron is an ancient metal; even Egyptian Pharaohs knew it. In the Caucasus and in the Minor Asia iron was produced from iron ore but it wasn't smelt but burnt getting the so-called "ball iron" suitable for forging. In Altai the Turki invented their own technology which is used in the whole world until now. Siberians hit upon an idea not to burn out iron but to smelt it in furnaces getting cast iron and steel. That gave a considerable advantage and increased the output of metal. By the way, "cast iron" is the Turkic word as well as "damask steel". They are the monuments of those remote times when the new epoch of human history commenced. For the Truki iron was not a precious thing as for Egyptian Pharaohs, it turned into an operating metal. Altai inhabitants would hide their blacksmith furnaces from alien eyes but these were the blacksmith furnaces and iron items which accompanied them on their way to Europe. Blacksmith furnaces were built near iron ore fields. On the territory of modern Belgorod region, for example, due to Anatoli Grigorievich Nikolaenko, an enthusiastic student of a local lore, an entire metallurgical "plant" was found which was built by the Turki in V - VI centuries. Thousands of furnaces were smoking there. And this is not the only finding in the Great Steppe. There's no need to describe the history of iron, apparently, which was estimated equally with gold; these facts are well-known. Another thing is not sufficiently known - opinions of the contemporaries about the Turki of those times - the eve of the Great Nations Migrations. One can come across eloquent opinions. The neighbors were interested how and why unknown forces were gathered with the Kipchaks?

What allowed them to win?.. To lead a happy life? To have a strong army? Numerous families? Wellbeing couldn't have arisen by accident, "all of a sudden". The Chinese, for example, marked a surprisingly high level of the Turkic economy development. China was the first country which felt the strength of the "new" Kipchaks who, having defeated its army, made China pay levy to them. China with population of many millions and secular dynastic traditions was powerless: it provided everything ordered by the Turki. Turan nations of the Middle Asia also felt the slashes of the Turkic sabers. They were also forced to pay levy. According to the Chinese in 165 B.C. strong Turans (the Alans, apparently?) left their motherland for new lands. Later they appeared near the Caucasus foothills. There are similar witnesses of rise of the Turki to the top of power and magnificence in Iranian literature; one can speak of them for a long time European literary sources cover a later period and they are eloquent to the certain extent. In "History" by Menandr Protector, for instance, it is told about the travel of a Zimarkh, the Byzantine dignitary, to the Turkic country. The Byzantine was amazed - iron being precious (he used the word "precious") in Europe was offered by common street traders here! This single fact taken from a series shows that a scientific and technical revolution is evident - a real turnover (Of course this statement will give rise to disputes. They say iron has been known in Europe long since. Maybe. But one thing is to know, and the other - to have it. Judging by Zimarkh's notes there was no excess "precious" black metal in Europe. At least the Europeans didn't sell it to anybody but, on the contrary, they tried to get it by fair means or foul. Metallurgic centers on the territory of the Old World also haven't been found. Being hurt by that injustice, ambitious Europeans name the Alps, to tell the truth, but at that they forget that even if there was iron production there it was insignificant - there was no technology! One - two hundred kilograms of metal a year could hardly affect the European economy and the strength of its army. If there was iron it was delivered in minor quantities from the Minor Asia and the Caucasus, the regions which would remain the subject of rivalry between Persia and Rome for a long time.) wich was performed by the Turki in Altai and after that it became widespread in China and in the whole Europe. Be it good or bad but the nations and countries defeated by the Kipchaks joined to achievements of high technology: generally speaking they left the Bronze Age and entered the Iron Age. One shouldn't deny this fact. One should be proud of it - scientific and technical achievements of one nation and country became the common property of the people. Similar things have happened in human history. And not only once. It is natural that literary sources witnessing of the great "iron" epoch of the Turki appeared later than the furnaces. And archeologists found what was hidden from alien eyes. For example, the finding of the cast-iron plough in Altai speaks for itself, and the plough is over two thousand years old. Nothing of that kind ever happened in the world. And that plough, or the new cultivation technology came to Europe together with the Kipchaks Barbarians and destroyers brought it But what did they destroy? Hoe-mattock agriculture in Europe! It is unlikely that anybody has performed more discoveries than academician A.P. Okladnikov Columbus of Siberian archeology. The trouble is that that outstanding archeologist - organizer was working during the years of struggle against Turkism; there was a special way of thinking unacceptable for a normal human being. Scientists and authorities were deceiving each other. Okladnikov rarely pointed out what nation lived in Altai and what happened to it. That was forbidden for anyone willing to play the game. "A vanished nation" - that was a conventional name chosen by him. And sometimes he deliberately emphasized the fact that these were not the Turki living in Altai. He said the Turki lead a nomadic life and they were the Mongoloids and his mythical "Altai inhabitants" and "Siberians" lead a settled life in log huts and were the Europeoids, which was a clear allusion to Slavic settlements. And that "allusion" was comprehended by the Slavophiles in the Kremlin. One should think that those incoherent phrases were meant not for science but for those "running science". For the politicians it is important to see only what they want to see. There's no need to argue with them. The most important thing is that archeologists recognized new agricultural methods relating to the "vanished nation" and confirmed that by specific findings. That's all! All the rest is trifle and nonsense. And if there was "not primitive hoe-mattock cultivating in Altai but highly developed plough one", continues academician Okladnikov, there was an "application of pulling power of cattle". Of course there was And I would like to pay special attention to it. That idea came to Okladnikov's mind after the excavations of Ulan-Bator settlement on the bank of Unga river left by people more than a

hundred and a half years ago. An amazing place! Firstly, Ulan-Bator settlement was inhabited by the Europeiods, it has been existing for dozens of centuries. Secondly, craftsmen lived there who made millstones for hand mills among other inventory. It turns out people of Ulan-Bator settlement had something to mill. A jug of millet seeds was found near one mill. It means the "vanished nation" was dealing with millet being a crop for them. Prisk, the Byzantine ambassador, also mentioned millet and rye. Cattle-breeders and farmers richly lived in the settlement. This only fact tells a lot about the way of life of Altai inhabitants. But, no doubt, the nomads were also among them - for distant pastures. And how could they do without summer nomads' camps? Or without haymaking? It turns out there were tilt carts and herders used to live in them during pasture seasons. Rock paintings confirm that. The Turki preferred a horse to all other animals. It was deified which is shown by burial places. Horse harness was always ornamented with crosses - the signs of Tengri - Heavenly God. For a real Turki there was no creature purer than a horse; there wasn't a grander creature. Its smell was better than any nectar. By the way, in Turkic language there are forty epithets meaning the color of a horse Let us think about it - forty epithets Professor Rudenko wrote: "It is necessary to recognize that Altai inhabitants of that times had saddle-horses which were equal to the best horses of ancient world known due to excavations if not left them far behind". What can be added to the expert's words if the chronicles of Persia and India witness of the same? A horse became flesh and blood of a Kipchak and replied with faithfulness to the nation - it lead the Turki to the steppe, opened its bewitching expanses. In fact, the whole life of steppe inhabitant since "Hun" times was lead on a horse or close to it. That was the way of life! Neither nation of the world had anything of that kind. For their "horse" way of life - with a horse and on a horse - Altai inhabitants invented the clothes. A saddle with stirrups, a heel for a boot and many other items appeared because some fidgety Turki understood that having saddled a horse he would see the world better. That's why "to saddle a horse" was the first sacred will of a Kipchak. Cemetery of Ulan-Bor also surprised the archeologists with burial ceremony. They hadn't met that ceremony before. In Siberia departed were buried together with different items since olden days. Even the poorest person was to be let to another world with at least two arrows in his grave. On Ulan-Bor cemetery they found nothing. In neither grave. Neither a bead, nor cheap ornaments. Just the bones. It is evident that Ulan-Bor inhabitants had another religious conception formerly unknown for science - it was deprived of a cult of subject. It means these were not the pagans living there! Scientists tried to connect it with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity and Manichaeism. All in vain. There was no connection. Although there was something in common. The buried were lying in coffins made of whole larch trunks; they were lying on their backs, their heads to the East. A certain religion was present; it was witnessed by other findings. Thus, for example, several times the scientists have met stone plates with images of the clergymen in long dresses with a fluffy head of hair, with rods and a caducei (Caducei - a rod in the view of a winged stick embraced with two serpents. Caducei was an attribute of a God's herald (high clergyman); it was also used as a modern flag of truce, it was the sign of the messengers having a privilege from arrest sent to the enemy's camp) in their hands, sometimes with rapids(Ripid - round image of a cherub on a pole with which a member of higher orders of clergy blesses the Holy Gifts during a liturgy. Ripids mean presence of the angels in spiritual sense.). In the same place, on ancient rock paintings there is an image of altar with a chalice (Chalice - liturgical vessel for wine consecration and communion, a cup on a high tem, often made of precious metal and jobbing stones) standing on it together with the figures of clergymen on ritual dressing (robes). Ceremonial paintings were found not only near Yenisei: an unknown religion, as it turned out later, had been becoming widespread almost in the whole Southern Siberia where the Turki lived. They looked unlikely. The most ancient finding was a stone fish of ritual meaning. There were three equilateral crosses on its belly. These are the sun heavenly crosses! They are depicted on a fish which, according to an ancient eastern tradition, had a sign of a heavenly deity An extremely important finding! But having answered one question it gave rise to dozens of others For example, why did the Pope, who was supposedly God's deputy on the Earth, have an ancient ring with an image of that fish on his finger?

That ring is handed over from generation to generation in Vatican. It is the symbol of the origin in Christianity. Then what did that symbol have to do with a wild Altai nation? And it appeared much earlier than in Rome or Greece? And why in Altai? In later ritual findings the "heavenly" fish was accompanied by a sun deer. Okladnikov supposed that the Turki have formed their own vision of the world three thousand years ago: fish was a water inhabitant, a serpent lived in the nether world, they embodied the "lower and middle world", a deer represented the "higher" world - the heavenly element. Later a cross became the symbol of Altai mental culture. An equilateral one. And not a cross, to put it more preciously; it cannot be called a cross. Four lines joined each other at right angles in the holy center. The upper perpendicular - the deer's line, two side lines represented a fish and man himself, the lower line was the line of a serpent. Thus there was the sign embodying the world harmony - it was called adzhi. Archeologists found equilateral "crosses" made of gold or iron in the burial places of the Kipchaks more than once; their size was similar with size of St. George order or the German Cross. That tradition was born long before Attila But how and when did all those ritual religious images appear in the Southern Siberia? With clerics in long robes? With a chalice? With a "cross"? Okladnikov dated that period rather strangely. Within the interval: end of the past - beginning of Common Era; IX century is the latest possible date. A strange estimation, indeed! But that approximation isn't casual: in the country where atheism has become an official ideology discussion of religious issues wasn't in favor Items of a religious cult - the same chalices or caducei - clearly witnessed of Christian rituals on their Orthodox variety. Presence of a "cross" on the images dispelled the last doubts. Everything seemed to be clear But what Christianity before Common Era (!) could be in question? They were excavating the "wild" Asian culture Thus archeologists had to slip out. They had to act in compliance with the rules accepted in Soviet science; the works were financed and publications were guaranteed. Okladnikov applied another usual method of Soviet science: in case a discovery wasn't in accordance with an ideological conception of the wild Turkic nomads, they invented another nation Sogdians - who have supposedly come from Tajikistan - became such a nation in Ulan-Bor. Why from Tajikistan? Lamps similar with those having been found in Ulan-Bor were fond there. That was enough to make a statement about the "Sogdians". Academician A.P. Okladnikov was not only a good archeologist; he was a "politically correct" scientist, especially when he wrote: "Deep Asia was the motherland of Turkic nomad tribes which have been also rushing for the West, up to Dnepr and Danube, at all times". Thus - in a versatile Soviet language being unacceptable for normal science - he described the borders of Desht-I-Kpchak which are in full accordance with the descriptions by Jordan and other historians and archeological data. Turkic world originated in "deep Asia"; the cradle of Turkic civilization was discovered and investigated by Soviet archeologists, perhaps, against their will. Their findings confirmed the formation of a unique culture which master was never called. In Soviet Union the new culture was called "Siberian" and it was ascribed to the "vanished" nation. Let it be. Facts are the top of priorities. For example, in one of the caves archeologists found a sculpture having seen which they suspected it to be a fake - it looked too accurate from the modern viewpoint. It had a woman face, that impression was growing in the candlelight, but as soon as one went away to the edge of the cave the oval of the face would change. An image of a warrior was seen in the stone. A brave face of a strong man. A very delicate work. The artist has cut it of a natural stalagmite and left his work in that sacred cave for centuries. What was the most surprising thing? The lock, hair, hanging down form the shaven head - a "tuft". An outlined oval face, shortened chin with a dimple and a lock on the left side of the head. Here it is a khokhol (in Russian language the words "khokhol" and "tuft" are close in pronunciation). The most ancient sculpture in its honor: a "heavenly man" whom the warriors worshipped. Words of oaths for faithfulness to the Turkic nation were said there. The Turki borrowed a tradition to leave a lock on a shaven head from Krishna followers, apparently, who were the personification of sanctity in the East. Among the Kumyks, as the aged told, people with a tuft on a shaven head could be met in the beginning of XX century. They left it with a boy who was about to die. They thought that God would see a lock from above and not let a person be lost another time. Ancient art of the Southern Siberia is more convincing than words. Maybe not all the images and sculptures were made by a Tutkic hand. Maybe international origin is present in the "Siberian culture".

Furthermore, the Turki borrowed certain things from the Chinese, Persians, Tibetans with whom they used to keep in touch. But In II century, when the Great Nations Migration began, when towns and villages in the "deep Asia" became empty - towns and villages near which typical everyday items, rock paintings, statues were found, - nobody has breathed life in those lands - the Kipchaks left for Europe, and their culture departed with them. However, it hasn't departed; it remained. But its scope was changed. Stone images are a marvelous sight. Everything is sedate and solemn in them. The paintings on rocks along Lena River remained well; time had mercy on them. Okladnikov: "Images of horses and riders are often the main subject here. Horses are often ornamented with plumes and tassels under bridles. Sharp scallops of a cut mane are seen on their necks. Sometimes the horses are put into a special armor which, as well as armor on the figures of the riders, is reproduced by transverse lines. Spears with flags are seen in riders' hands". It might seem that was enough to hear the clatter of horses' hoofs, to see the riders themselves having trusted one's imagination. These are the images of the Great Nations Migration, after all! But everything is in silence. Even the poets kept silence. And those rock paintings coincide with written evidences of European historians who have seen Kipchak warriors in IV century for the first time. Isn't that interesting? Doesn't that explain and prove anything? In Shishkino village near Lena River a battle scene is excellently depicted on the rock: riders with flags in their hands; their horses in rich harnesses. Even the smallest details of riders' clothes were painted. Are these the unknown warriors? Who, which nation of the world apart from the Kipchaks had a similar army? How long should they keep silence in taiga backwoods? Let us have a look at the flags of the riders. All of them are fixed to a staff, three transverse "tails" are fixed from the side - these tails were fluttering on the move, during the galloping. Flags with two tails were also met. It turns out the cult of a flag existed three years ago with the Turki for a flag was deemed to be a talisman of an ulus, the spirit being the guardian of the family that lived there; it helped to gain victories. Thus a flag became a relic: they made sacrifices to it; it was the centre of the family, its spirit And God forbid if anything happens to it. It led to mental death of a family; it wasn't recognized even by people living. To let a flag fall and especially to break a staff was an evil omen. Hence are the phrases "broken spirit", "to loose heart", apparently(It is interesting that in the paintings from Radzivillovskaya Chronicle in the battle scenes the lost part could be distinguished by a flag which was always inclined) A flag ("tuh" in Turkic) was the reflection of the Turkic philosophy. Should one be surprised at the fact that in Europe flags of the Turkic type became widespread after IV century and remained until now. As well as attitude towards a flag being a relic, although the origins of that tradition have been forgotten. Rock paintings of "deep Asia" gibe answer to many "European" questions Besides the series of images sometimes one can come across the writings - runic inscriptions - conjurations. They were made by the authors of paintings and sculptures. Here is an autograph of the "vanished nation". It shouldn't be invented Everything (including Altai letters) appeared in Europe at the same time in IV century. Even flags with a cross (An equilateral cross was the totem sign of Kerei ulus. Attila belonged to that family, apparently, the cross was on its flag. Each Turkic ulus had its sign, its guardian, its tree, its bird. Kerei family is known with almost all Turkic nations). Archeological monuments, discovered, for instance, by Hungarian scientists, are very similar to "vanished" Siberian ones, they seem to be their copies; the only difference is that they are younger The Great Nations Migration couldn't leave without a trace, otherwise it couldn't be called Great! In Hungarian burials of the warriors archeologists found the plates with a "Siberian" ornament. Those plates are double: the upper (silver or golden) plate was fixed to the lower (copper or bronze) one. There were no such plates in Siberia. But the sabers, the harness ornament, arrow-heads and belt plaques were absolutely the same with Siberian ones. It turned out the "vanished nation" retained its customs in Europe. And at the same time the Kipchaks discovered many new things there. Their culture wasn't dead, it wasn't dissolved but kept on developing. Later the district where those amazing plates have been produced was found between Dnepr and Don; it was called Lebediya (Kumaniya in Turkic). People worshipped swans there (in Russian the word swan is pronounced as "lebed"). And that technology of "double" gilding has been invented much earlier. It is fixed in the findings of Pazyryksk barrows. Two and a half thousand years ago Altai inhabitants

dealt with gold and mercury: they covered items with golden foil (using mercury solutions). By the way, in the Middle Ages the Europeans used to gild the domes of churches the same way. And isn't the finding near the foot of a rock near Krasnoyarsk surprising? The map of starry sky is depicted there. The Great Bear, the North Star are vividly seen Five thousand years ago someone needed to "draw" that map. People were just learning to deal with bronze those days, coming from the dense Stone Age. And the map of starry sky. That is fantastic. Another finding also nonpluses; the one from Azhirai-Adzhirai sanctuary. A crocodile eating the Sun is depicted there. How did they know about a tropical monster in Altai?.. It turns out the map of starry sky had an actual practical purpose - it helped to wander. Even common bricks also bear serious information for archeologists. Buildings in the "deep Asia" were made of the same bricks as the sites of ancient settlements on the Lower Don. For example, an entire underground town of V - VI ages in Aksai! Now there is a museum there with the stand of exhibited bricks of all conceivable and inconceivable shapes, sizes and ages. On Don, as well as in Altai, they produced similar bricks - with images (stamps) of absolutely the same animals and riders. Ancient Bulgarian capital Pereslava was made of bricks with the same "trade marks"; maybe that was the town where Prisk came. There are rock paintings in Bulgaria which seem to be the copies of known Altai ones All this is far from being casual coincidences. By the way, "brick" (in Russian pronounced as "kirpich") is the Turkic word. It comes from the word "kirpech" - "loam from an oven". Archeologists suggest that a brick should be called another "identity card" of the Turki. Why not? Especially since the Turki knew about palace architecture. Near Abakan, the Siberian town, a "building of a palace type", as it was humbly called by archeologists, has been excavated. Almost two thousand years ago And how many palaces are still under the ground due to public ignorance? Thoughts are in a whirl after reading the books by professor S.I. Rudenko and academician A.P.Okladnikov. The latter, during the years of censorial terror, plucked up his courage and not long before his death entered the immortality as the scientist having written the truth: "It turns out that ancient Turkic Siberia is closer connected with the West than with the East. Its cultures were found richer and brighter than one could have expected. On Baikal banks, on Angara and Lena the ways of cultures of East and West met and parted, original cultural hearths, powerful for those times, existed; and the history of Eurasia cannot be understood not taking those hearth into consideration As we can see due to the findings from Baikal lands those connections lead to Don And Danube". The truth about the Kipchaks, without any reservations, was openly declared for the first time. Europe originated in Siberia, indeed! Main Sources Akishev K. A. Issyk Barrow: Art of the Sachs of Kazakhstan. M., 1978. Bernstam A. N. Essay of Huns History. L., 1951. Blok M. History Apologia, or the Occupation of a Historian. M., 1986. Vertoradova V. V. Discovery of Inscription with Unknown letters on Kara-Tel // Buddhist Monuments on Kara-Tel in the Old Termez. M., 1982. Diringer D. The Alphabet. M., 1963. Jordan. About the Origin and Deeds of the Geths. Getica. M., 1960. History of Siberia. Vol. I. L., 1968. Litvinskiy B. A. Ancient Nomads of the "Roof of the World". M., 1972. Maslov S. E. Monuments of Ancient Turkic Writing Language. M.; L., 1951 Maslov S.E. Monuments of Ancient Turkic Language of Mongolia and Kirgizia. M.; L., 1959. Maslov S.E. Uygursk Manuscript Documents of S. F. Oldenburg Expedition // Notes of Oriental Studies Institute of Academy of Sciences of the USSR, I, 1932. [Marcellin]. Ammian Marcellin. History. Issues 1 - 3. Kiev., 1906 - 1908. Okladnikov A. P. Shishkino Writings, Irkutsk, 1959. Okladnikov A. P., Zaporozhskaya V. D. Lena Writings. M.; L., 1959. Pigulevskaya N. V. The Middle East. Byzantium. The Slavs. L., 1976. Pigulevskaya N. V. Syrian Sources for the History of USSR Nations. M.; L. 1941. [Prisk] The Legends of Prisk Paniyskiy // Scientific Notes of the 2nd Department of Academy of Sciences. Book VII. Issue 1. SPb., 1811. Prisk. Roman Embassy to Attila. SPb., 1842.

Pugachenkova G. A. Khalchayan: about the Problems of Artistic Culture of the Northern Bactria. Tashkent, 1966. Pugachenkova G. A. Arts of Bactria of Kushan Epoch. M., 1979. Radlov V. V. Siberian Antiquities: Materials for Siberian Archeology. 3. 1888; 5. 1891; 15. 1902. Radlov V. V. Experience of the Dictionary of Turkic Dialects. Vol. I - IV. SPb., 1893 - 1911. Rudenko S. I. The Second Pazyryksk Barrow: Results of Expedition's Work L., 1948. Rudenko S. I. The Most Ancient Artistic Carpets and Cloths from Certain Barrows of the Mountain Altai in the World. M., 1968. Rudenko S. I. Culture of the Mountain Altai Inhabitants during the Scythian Times. M.; L., 1953. Rudenko S. I. Culture of the Central Altai Inhabitants during the Scythian Times. M.; L., 1960. Rudenko S. I. Culture of the Huns and Noinulian Barrows. M.; L., 1962. Thomsen W. Deciphered Orchon and Yenisei Inscriptions / Translated by V. RAdlov // Notes of the Eastern Department of Russian Archeological Association. Vol. VIII. Issue III - IV. 1894. Pages 327 331. Tugusheva L. Y. Uigur Version of Suan-Tzan Biography. M., 1991.

Part III
Tengri-Khan and Christ, His Foster Son In consciousness of billions of people Europe is the bulwark of Christianity. And it seems it has always been so for that was religion that has formed that culture which is known as "European" for about a thousand and a half years. And whatever differences there are between the worlds of a German, an Englishman, a French, an Italian or a Russian, the unity of belief binds them uniting into one single thing which is called a European. Which also means a Christian. Rome is deemed to be the cradle of European Christianity since, as the Catholic doctrine asserts, apostle Peter was the first head of the Church there who has supposedly headed the college of the twelve apostles after Christ's departure - the highest instance of the Church. That's why Popes still consider themselves the leaders of the Christian world. That version of the "apostolic throne" in Rome was put forward by Damassius I, the Roman bishop (366 - 384 - years of papacy), who had a very high prestige. The clergy of the Western provinces of the Empire supported him for it understood that innovation as consolidation of the Church as a governing institution. It is obvious that no documents have been provided for the "apostolic throne", they were accepted on trust as well as many other religious innovations of those times. Although Eastern provinces of the Empire were in a strong opposition to self-exaltation of Rome. Later similar opposed opinions were also expressed by the Protestants who have found serious reasons to doubt that seeming entity. One cannot ignore their reasons. That's true, no documents confirming the supremacy of apostle Peter over the other apostles remained. Christ also never spoke about that. Why was Pope Damasius that sure? Furthermore, neither in the epistle of the year 58 addressed to the Romans, nor in other epistles written in Rome itself apostle Paul from Tars doesn't even mention the presence of Peter there let alone his papacy. Know he that fact he couldn't have passed it over in silence. And according to official information provided by the Roman Church itself apostle Peter was supposedly the head of the Roman Church until the year 67 It turns out one apostle hasn't been noticing the other in Rome for many years. He didn't even know about him. Who actually was the first bishop in Rome? That's not known. Who was the second? The tenth? That's not known either. When was the Church founded and how did the first Christian communities appear in the Eternal City; how big were they? These questions are opened for disputes and discussions. They are covered with mystery. Not only evidences are absent but even indirect confirmations or lame hints. There was nothing. But there is a tradition to think so and not otherwise, not analyzing the reliability of the facts that, perhaps, have never taken place. The first records of Popes appeared only in IV century. To tell the truth, opposite almost every name there the words "no information" or "information not available" can be seen. But the list of Popes appeared after the lapse of several centuries. Of course this information is not reliable from the historical viewpoint; they are valuable for another

reason - they allow to analyze the history of the Church as a power institution. That approach reveals the things usually "not mentioned" in the church literature It seems the names of the first Popes as well as another information about them have been usually pronounced not very confidently. No one would guarantee the truthfulness of the things said, but no one would reject them. That is true, not only the supremacy of the Catholic Church itself is doubtful, but also know information about the early Christianity. And it looks like a tail to a certain extent - there are too many rosy colors. Certain Christian legends and stories, as the historians have found out, appeared centuries after what is supposed to have happened. Later the texts were edited many times. The New Testament or any other book of the Bible is a good example of it. They were "corrected" by the editors in black gowns more than once for political reasons For at first the Christian Church was intended to be and created as a power institution standing over the colonies of the former Roman Empire. The legends of its divine origin appeared much later - with the appearance of the image of Heavenly God. Before that there wasn't a religion as such: there wasn't even a canon, i.e. the ceremonies in the early Christianity! It was a small sect of Judaism. For example, in Rome with its population of 300 thousand people there were several dozens of Christians at most. But everybody knew them and tried to stay away from them considering that they had performed ritual infanticides. There were even witnesses having seen the Christians eating human flesh and drinking human blood. And their famous "agapes" were called the orgies by the people; legends were written about them. All that can be called a religious ceremony with great reserve People were against the early Christians for the reason that the Christians negated existence of gods and any morals! They caked themselves the atheists, hid in the catacombs; they were deemed to be the dregs of society Thus it happened until IV century. Rome would tolerate the atheists persecuting them from time to time. In the year 380 everything changed in Rome. After the unsuccessful attempts to impose the new religion (Mitreism) on the pagan society, the emperor Feodosius was forced to recognize the head of the Christian community - Damasius I. That Pope went to down to history in 366; he occupied the "throne of St. Peter" by force having killed more than 160 of his opponents, and started to apply new ceremonies in the Christian communities which they hadn't known. As a matter of fact the new Christianity originated in Rome, it was rising from day to day, making its way to the society with great difficulties. Bloody conflicts became usual for, as it was marked by the Latin historian Ammian Marcellin (330 400), "the one getting the dignity of the bishop could be sure he would have plenty of gold (bold provided. - M.A.)". Some was deliberately sending gold and arms to the Christian Church. And even providing the troops to it It turns innovation came to the Christian Church not by itself. Having realized his power and strength, Pope Damasius made a list of books of the Holy Scripture and ordered the church writer Hieronimus "to work" with the texts of the New Testament; there were more than hundred of them those days. Other biblical books were also written by the Roman and Byzantine writers. One the icons the Savior was depicted in the image of a Lamb until the end of VII century. It was only in 691 (692?) when the Trull Council ordered to paint Christ as a human being instead of an "old lamb" Pope Damasius gathered the people who knew all the new Christian ceremonies around him (later they've become the doctors of the Church): Wasil, Gregory Nasiansine, John Chrysostom, Hieronimus, Ambrosium, Augustin and othersBut where could they gain the knowledge in theology while there wasn't an opportunity either in Europe or in Palestine? What language did the new ecclesiastics speck? Where were they born? Unfortunately, the historians neglected this important information. And it is not injudicious to remind that only in the year 312 a prayer in the name of Heavenly God was read for the European audience for the first time. Christ wasn't mentioned in it That holy prayer was read in the Turkic language. It means the Turki who worshipped Heavenly God were the only ones possessing theological knowledge those days. The were the only ones, indeed. Europe was pagan! And the Christians were the atheists. At that time, in IV century, modern Europe was born - the bulwark of the Christian world. Events of the Church were fixed in the chronicles. Rosy colors are kind washed out in them and the world becomes a reality. In Byzantium and in Caucasus the new belief was recognized by the local rulers only in IV century (a little bit earlier than in Rome) having got a sort of "assistance"

If one thinks over the events of those tough years, or all the logic of what has happened he cannot stay calm: the River of Time somehow unexpectedly turned aside in Europe. The Roman Empire has fallen while those times (after the glorious victories of the emperor Diocletian) it was supposed to live in the Golden Age and stability. Another new mental culture appeared on the continent which was violently persecuted yesterday; Jupiter, the highest God of the Roman Empire, its highest guardian, was thrown out of temples!.. Could this happen by itself? No. It's never like that There is a plain legend according to which it is deemed that Christianity, as a sprout, penetrated into the souls of the pagans and grew into a religion there. But it is unlikely; the whole history of religions evidences of another thing: crusades, inquisition, wars of the Arab caliphate. Religion is the part of ideology and the latter is the element of politics, or power, to put it more preciously, which has been becoming firmly established only by force. Gold and sword are always near; they embody power Let us remember what was happening in Europe then? The Great Nations Migration. The Turkic Kipchaks came there in the beginning of IV century, they dictated their will, they turned the River of Time in Europe at their discretion This "forgotten" but undisputable historic fact gives lost orderliness to the whole human history: it ties the events of the early Middle Ages with a logic thread marking conjectures and concealments. These were the Turki who brought an equilateral cross to Europe on their flags, they prayed to Heavenly God; and the historians of antiquity (Prisk, Jordan and others) called Attila, his father Mundzuk and other Kipchaks "the Christians" although it is evident that this is not the correct word here. They weren't the Christians. Before their acquaintance with the "barbarians" the Christians didn't know not only Heavenly God, but either a cross - their modern symbol. They didn't know the sign if the cross, churches, icons, peal, modern prayers. Once again, there was no Christian religion!.. Not only the symbol of belief was absent but also the canon, i.e. the devotions! And what religion without a canon and a symbol can be called into question?.. Earlier Christianity was notable for pared-down ceremonies, it they ever existed at all. For example, circumcision was obligatory for men. What was the ritual of a prayer like? It is not known. Church literature keeps silence. Historical literature is more concrete It convinces of the fact that the cross was brought not by Christ but Attila. Alas, that's really so Nowadays there are many crosses - Latin, Greek, patriarchal, St. Andrew's and a dozen of others, - but nobody would manage to say which is connected with Christ? Neither of them! In fact Christ didn't bear a cross to Calvary but a T-beam - they used to execute on them. St. Apostle Barnabas, as well as all ancient Christian authors, taught: "You have a cross in the letter "T". And early Christians called an equilateral Turkic cross "the sign of the beast". One can read the Bible dozens of times, but there is not a single word there about the fact that some of the Christians made the sign of the cross. Even Christ. They really didn't have neither a cross, not a sign of the cross! The first (or the earliest) Christianity, which is deemed to appear in the times of Christ, remained until now as a belief. And this is perhaps the most astonishing fact in the history of religions The relict of belief! Its traces can be found in Palestine and Minor Asia and not in Rome. And they are the only left by Christ on the road of Christianity. There are no other traces. Let's think about it, could the followers of Christ's teaching accept his disciples together with him? Never. The disciples ran away in a cowardly manner during the savage punishment of Christ. How can one follow them after they have betrayed their master and left him alone in a deadly moment? In neither religion, for neither nation a betrayal has ever been respected and esteemed. That's why the Old Testament, on which Christ based, became the teaching of the first Christians. And the ceremony passed from the Jews to them. The words "Christian" and "Jew" were of the same meaning; they didn't differ. That's why early Christianity was the sect of Judaism. Amidst the Jews there were other sects apart from the Christians, zelots for example. The Christians were different from other Jews just because they believed in soon arrival of Messiah - thus was pronounced the name of Hero - Savior (but not Christ!) who was supposed to save Europe from the Roman yoke, thus was written in Apocalypse. The evidences to the things aforesaid are in the history of communities called Jewish in Russia. They are the most ancient branch of the Christian religion, the first one! At first it found its followers in Palestine, later, due to refusal to take part in Judaic War (66 - 73) the Jews turned the Christians

out to the Minor Asia. After that they settled in Rome. (Because Rome was considered to be the cradle of Christianity in Europe. But which Christianity?) Apostle Paul addressed his "Epistle to the Romans" to them - to those Jewish Christians! In faraway Rome, the capital of the Empire, Paul saw the followers of Christ's teaching. The fourth chapter of that "Epistle" is dedicated to circumcision being obligatory for the Christians. For example, there are the following words there: "And he got the sign of circumcision as a righteous mark through belief". Or: "This bliss relates to circumcision". That sacred ceremony of initiation which Christ has also passed is performed on the eighth day. Circumcision was deemed to be christening, i.e. becoming a Christian. Jewish Christians are still notable for astonishing conservatism, they recognize no innovations in their belief. They honor only religion accepted from Christ's hands. Unfortunately (or luckily) not much is known about this most ancient branch of Christianity; its followers have been persecuted by the official Church since IV century. However some notes by the travelers remained. In XIX century there was a Privolnoye settlement in Baku province (Djalalabad region now) which inhabitants are still adhered to the most ancient, "pure" Christian traditions. An eyewitness described them as follows: "Heresy of the Jewish, as we know, appeared in Russia in XV century in Novgorod for the first time, from where it got to Moscow; a Jew Skharia brought it to Novgorod. The essence of that early teaching, as we can judge by available scant sources, is in negation of basic dogmas of Christianity (trinity, divine nature of Jesus Christ), certain sacraments, spiritual hierarchy, obeisance to icons, monkhood, and from the other hand - in recognition of Judaic ceremonies. Heresy of the Jews was convicted at Moscow Council in 1504 and put down". They punished the followers of the true Christianity especially violently in XIX century in Russia. At that time that found a response in Russian souls and mass banishment and killing of the followers of that teaching began. That was the time when Privolnoye settlement and other settlements appeared in Baku province; their founders were the natives of the Central Russia ( The Karaites - the Turki living in the Crimea and in Lithuania are of a special interest for an historian of religions. They are also the followers of the Old Testament. But can they be called "Jewish"? Or they are the bearers of a more ancient teaching which appeared before Christianity and even Judaism? The latter is more likely. In Altai and in other Siberian regions where the Turki lived (not connected with Palestine) ancient folk legends remained which nonplus the scientists, - as a matter of fact these are the fragments of the Old Testament, its outline. Where from? The priest Stephan Landyshev, the Russian missionary, was the first who found them in XIX century and published them. A striking similarity with biblical legends about creation of the world, creation of man, the Fall, true belief etc.). Privolnoye inhabitants, no doubt, didn't call themselves with an irritating word "Jewish", they said: "We are the Sabbatarians". Otherwise, the followers of pure Judaism. All doubtful extraneous features which appeared later in Christ's teaching, including the New Testament, they decidedly rejected seeing heresy in them. Because those books were not from Christ! Indeed, they were not from him. Canonization of Christian books, including New Testament, commenced from the end of IV century which was called the "Golden Age" for East and West. That was an epoch of united church Councils, theological disputes and even hand-to-hand fighting in the name of consolidation of a new belief. Everything was mixed up - lust for power and ambition, greed and envy, - bishops knew what to fight for And there was nothing "apostolic" Except for the names. Church was built by the people who were common but not simple-minded. The name "Jesus Christ" appeared in II century; before that the hero was called Joshua. Many facts about him became known due to pains of apostle Paul who lived after Christ. But he, as the Church asserts, as though "used to see and listen to" Christ, even talk to him having a certain ecstatic experience Later the number of "talkers" and "eyewitnesses" of Christ became dozens of times more. And each of them tried to report about his "meeting" Books were written as well as the Gospels not recognized later (Apocrypha). During the prayers "pure" Christians, according to Christ's precept, use only ancient Jewish words. Churches in Privolnoye settlement, according to the witnesses, looked like synagogues. Church or cathedral features were absent in their architecture. Again, that is natural. Besides the synagogues, the Christians, having become a little bit farther form Judaism, couldn't and didn't have the right to invent other ritual places. Privolnoye settlement inhabitants emphasized Saturday in the course of the whole year as a holiday, the same as Purim, Jewish Easter with matzoth and some other holidays.

"Pure" Christians don't ever cross themselves - they simply don't have the sign of the cross. But exterior observers used to talk about licentiousness, or about free relations inside a community, which wasn't recognized as a sin. That is an ancient Judaic tradition. People live according to their laws, with their morals. And they call a church another construction - not one to which official Christians are accustomed. Sabbatarians lived according to the ancient testaments of the Bible! As it was in the time of Christ. Inside the "Christian" synagogue (which literally means "house for a meeting") there were vast rectangular halls, further in the hall there was a bookcase curtained with a coverlet. The synagogues their purpose and arrangement - were repeated by the first Christians! There was no church architecture in the time if Christ. Unfortunately, representatives of the official Church have never performed an investigation of the Jewish ceremonies; that was excused for the reason that heresy is out of its interest But what is "heresy" in this particular case? Who deviated from Christ's symbol? Were these the Jewish?.. It seems nobody has ever asked this question. It's a pity. Because the sources of Christianity are littered with undisguised aversion which has been accumulating for centuries. The Jewish reject "traditional Christians" because of their innovation, insisting that it is impossible to correct Christ. Which are those innovations? What are they? When did they appear? And why? Early Christians don't recognize divine nature of Christ and Trinity. In other words they reject the most important dogmas of official Christianity. What does it witness about? That those dogmas appeared after Christ, apparently. It means they came to religion form the Evil One, Sabbatarians reckon. And that's true, at the beginning of IV century at Ecumenical Council I of the year 325 Constantine, the Byzantine emperor, ordered the Christians to respect the Christ equally with God. He really ordered basing its conception of "consubstantiality" as follows: "one shouldn't object to determinations of the autocrat directed to protection of the truth". A weighty statement The first important church dogma appeared under tough pressure of temporal power. Is this approach correct for a spiritual meditation? Theologians should answer. But the most important testament of Christ was uttered by the emperor Constantine who wasn't a Christian! He was the high pagan priest in his life. And what is a dogma? That is the corner stone of religion, its base. It is notable that Constantine's idea wasn't new; it has been already stated in 268, discussed and rejected as it was recognized as a heretical one. Constantine's suggestion was not a dogma but rather an excellent political finding of Byzantium compared with which the Grecian horse of ancient Greeks is a miserable child's play. The Greeks have skillfully hidden the poison of delayed-action then: they killed the Turkic religion. "God is eternal for it is the World and the Creator of the World", - ancient Turki used to say. Consequently Christ isn't equal to God just because he was born, and a birth is connected with origin. He couldn't die for the same reason - death is connected with the end. If he was dead on the cross it turns out God dies together with him. And this is absurd since God is eternal And this is a double absurd. In Matthew's Gospel it is said in the very first line: "The family tree of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" How should that phrase be interpreted? What about God? Ignorance of Constantine - the pagan! - led the Church to absurdity. Sabbatarians were the first who objected it. Certain church officials and even separate Churches followed them. All in vain. They weren't heard. For example, the bishop Arius tried to explain Constantine and others that a son cannot be his father at the same time. But the reasoned voice drowned in the scream of opponents who saw other things in that dogma - expanding of Greek power over other territories. Those territories where people believed in Heavenly God. In other words, over the Turkic lands! The Greeks prepared their new wooden horse to be sent there. They dreamt to get into the churches of the Turki with a laureate wreath, being their spiritual brothers and, usurping their culture, to subdue them. It happened almost that way. Byzantium, having become the leader of the Christian world, ignored everything being an obstacle on the way to their secret goal And that is not a religion - that is politics! Pure, or better to say, dirty politics. Self-assured Turki, being accustomed to see white as white and black as black didn't suspect

a craft. The Romans were the only ones who guessed it and at first they secretly supported the Greeks. Creating the state church the emperor Constantine became firmly established in the Mediterranean region and that fact, for sure, started to bother Rome. Especially since Byzantium began to perform different plays demonstrating personal friendship of its emperor with God - as though "God marvelously, through the visions, disclosed intention of the enemies" to him, "favored him with theophany repeatedly". That was a real mess But thus the character of saint emperor was created. Eusebius, a well-known historian, used to write about him as of the "saint", although neglecting the fact that the "saint" smothered his nearest relatives - his wife and his son - with his own hands. And after that it is assumed to call Constantine the main hero of Christianity - "the emperor equal to an apostle", "The Great" in the history of the Church. In 430 Nestor, the bishop, doubted another dogma of Christianity, so called "unity of divine Trinity". Theological disputes became the screen for simpletons again. In practice a material problem was to be solved: who is to predominate over Mediterranean region - either Byzantium or Egypt. Both parties searched for allies through the Church. Eusebius ascertained, anticipating those events, that: " envy didn't loose sight of our welfare; it caused the bishops to quarrel and, under the pretext of defense, gave rise to disagreement and discord between them. After that, as though out of sparkles, a great fire was set on and, commencing from the head, from Alexandrine Church, spread over the whole Egypt, Lybia and beyond the bounds of Finaida The look of those events was driven to such indecency that Righ t Worthy divine doctrine became the most abusive mockery" It took a long time for the parties to meet, and the combat was heated. Egyptians won a victory at the Ephesian Council II in 449. They beat the Greeks unmercifully, at that the head of Council kicked one of dissidents with his legs. But Byzantines gained revenge in 451 At that time the Act under which "divinity should more likely be trine than binary" was adopted at Halchidon Council. Another Grecian horse! Saint Trinity was present in Turkic religion. Now the Greeks turned to it The dispute was not finally settled at the Council of Chalcedon and not all Churches accepted the "doctrine of divine Trinity". Debates about Trinity continue until now - Nestorians (Trinity's opponents) remain in Christianity Entire communities and landed Churches. How can opinion of another Byzantine politician (or someone else) which failed to settle during a thousand and a half years be considered an essential dogma of world religion? Theologians have to make another decision; it's an internal matter of the Church. But Turkic understanding of conception of Trinity and trine was completely different. Besides, the Greeks borrowed only exterior form. And again they made a philosophic category absurd. One would think: why should Polovtsians mind discords in the circles of Christians? After all, they were free in their choice It turned out that everything was not that simple - everything was too much interrelated. Europe turned to Heavenly God - Tengri-Khan in IV century. Europeans rejected all other religions modern as well as ancient - because they realized that Polovtsians won not because of their arm or unknown combat tactics - these were progressing. The force of the Turki was in their spirit! They won due to force of Heavenly God. To steal a foreign God, that's what Byzantine emperor, dreaming of world supremacy, intended to do. That's why he invented "new" Christianity in which omnipotent God, the Creator of this world, would present. That became the subject of disputes at church Councils; the split in early Christian communities happened for that reason. Everything was made imperceptibly and gradually. The stealing of God It thrilled the minds of Byzantium rulers and later of Ro man ones. Tengirchilik was the name of the Turkic religion. What kind of a belief is it? Why there is not a single word in the church history about it? Why do the describers of European life demonstrate their emphatic ignorance of that ancient religion of mankind?.. Why do they all keep silence presenting the Turki as "nasty Tatars" having no cultural sources? But in Siberia remained several monuments embodying the Turkic clergy. Ritual inventory was also found And all that was before the appearance of legends about Christ. Those are very important findings which allow an unprejudiced person to start thinking and to have another look at the roots of European spiritual culture But there is another thing!

History of Buddhism, for instance. IV Council of I century is described there as well as the split and acceptance of Tengirchilik traditions borrowed from the Turki by some Buddhists (the northern branch). That is really interesting information but unfortunately it is not called for by scientists studying religions. There is also the history of Armenian, Albanian and Georgian Christian churches where the early period of Christianity is stated otherwise as compared with power-loving Greeks or Romans who have put themselves in the center of the world. Finally, there are Syrian and Copt churches which also reject supremacy of the Greeks as well as the whole scheme of development of spiritual culture of Europe usual for a European Independent Persian and Arab chronicles are very interesting How can one neglect all these facts? When and where was the new tradition formed? That tradition split early Christian communities, brought them new ceremonies and gave rise to a new European religion which is known to everybody. It originated in the Caucasus - in Armenia, to put it more preciously - in the year 301. It is indicative: they suppose that divine service there was performed in Syrian (?) language but according to other ceremonies which wre different as compared with the rest of the Christian world. However, it is not clear why the Armenians assert that Syrian language was their religious language? And what made them reject it?.. All this is to be confirmed. And the facts witness of other things. There are ancient holy books in Armenia which were written in Armenian graphics but in Turkic language. It seems Turkic and not Syrian language was the language of divine service for Armenians for the prayers of early Armenia were written in it (This supposition is in accordance with the history of the Georgian Church. Ancient church written language there was called "khutsuri", it appeared at the same time with Christianity, i.e. in the beginning of IV century. There are thirty-eight letters in it, as well as in Turkic language. An interesting comparison: after the government of David the Builder, who, as we know, invited the Kipchaks to his army, mkhedruli (written language of the warriors) appeared in Georgia, and it also contained thirty-eight letters. By XVIII century the number of the letters was increased up to forty. Those two written languages were notable for the fact the church one was also called "angular" reminding of ancient runes. But according to folk legends written language of the warriors was deemed to be more ancient. There are no direct evidences of Turkic roots of both languages; the question hasn't been investigated by science. But what language could speak the Kipchaks having got Georgia? It is evident that only Turkic. It became the part of the Georgian language.). There are weighty confirmations, but they are to be considered later. The Armenian Church, as we know, exists since 301 keeping its individuality. Armenian nation scattered over the whole world united around it. Much is known about its sources. For example, in "History of Armenia" by Moses Khorenskiy communication between the Armenians and the Turki is marked from the edge of II century; those Armenians were developing the steppes near Khazar (Caspian). There is information that the Turki waged wars as the mercenaries in the army of Khosroi I, the Armenian ruler. And Favst Buzand was openly speaking about participation of the Turki in the events connected with establishment of Christianity in flat Caspian region in the beginning of IV century. Armenian, Albanian and Iberian churches were formed then. Patriarchy which united those three first Churches in the world was in Derbent - the world center of "new" Christianity! Byzantium joined them in 311 - 312 and Rome did it much later. At that time Derbent was under the power of the Turki; Christian churches, the most ancient in the world, remained there! The beginning of "renewal" of early Christianity was set by Armenian George the Enlightener and his grandson, bishop Gregoris (known as St. George). His speech gave rise to spiritual communication between "Western" and "Eastern" cultures, which led to the traditional Christianity. A grand event. It didn't leave without a trace. It was fixed not only by historians but also by people's memory which turns all important events into legends. In the beginning of IV century the first version of the legend about St. George appeared, apparently. Mythological interpretation was put on a strict historical base in it. And the church biography of St. George provides only mythical information. It is not in accordance with historic reality. Everything is invented there: all events are fragrantly contradictory. However, it can also be explained. In the year 494 at the Roman Council I Gelacius, the Pope, prohibited to mention the name and deeds of that saint. For that reason it is not known that St. George was the first European who

accepted Heavenly God and acquainted Europe with Him. He was the first Christian who was christened with water. George is the only saint being recognized by both: Christians and Moslems. (Khyzri, Djirdjis, Khyzr-Ilias are the Moslem names). This information was dangerous for Rome and for Byzantium as well. Because it contained the truth about the Turki and their culture. Thus they prohibited even to mention the name and the deeds of the great saint who, having visited the Kipchaks, opened the knowledge of the divine Truth to the western world. The fate of George and the fate of Gregoris, the Armenian bishop, are strangely similar. It is one and the same person: "Gregoris" is the secular name of St. George. (The tradition to change secular names for the church ones appeared in VI century. The name "George" instead of former "Gregoris" appeared at that time.) Constantine, the Byzantine emperor, built a church in his honor in IV century - this fact is fixed in history of the Church. As well as another fact: this church is known as St. George Church since VI century!.. In later legends about St. George historical reality is evident: a serpent was the symbol of the Turki in medieval Europe. Peaceful nature of their "duel" (there was a theological dialogue, apparently?) is witnessed by the early text of the legend, the story by the ancient chronicler Favst Buzand and Apocrypha Ecclesiastics were met! This fact is described in the appendix to this book in detail. In the beginning of IV century, due to the Turki, Transcaucasia was no longer a Roman colony. Divine afflatus of George the Enlightener gave rise to a "new", "traditional" Christianity here (it is confirmed by the famous decree of the Roman emperor Galerius of the year 311). Armenians were the first ones who recognized the Turki as God's servants! They understood that, having accepted the Turkic God, they could get a strong ally. Bishop Gregoris went to search for a spiritual union which could have consolidated the military one. Later the Turki were also visited by an Armenian bishop Kardost and an embassy of seven clergies headed by him. They lived for 14 years with the Kipchaks and issued "The Scripture in Hun Language". Bishop Kardost was changed by bishop Makar. A representative of the Armenian Church was permanently living in Derbent, and an Armenian quarter appeared in the city This information makes one sure that only the Turkic language could be religious in Armenia. It wasn't forgotten until VI - VII centuries. Armenians adopted a lot from the Turki at that time. For example, they still cross themselves according to Tengirchilik traditions putting two fingers together - a thumb and a third finger. That is the symbol of pacification in the East. Armenian Church also retained other traditions of Tengirchilik. But the most important thing is that it has been always acting in defence of the purest look of Heavenly God. That is an undoubted feat of the wise Armenian clergy. Armenian nation is one of the few which opposed to the strong pressure of the Greek and didn't equal Christ to Tengri! They retained their Church in primeval purity. They even still have a cross of Tengirchilik. And that should give rise to admiration. The head of Armenian apostolic church carried a Tengirchilik rod with two serpents through the centuries. And the title granted by the Turki some time. "Catholicos" (without a Greek "-os" ending, of course) is translated from ancient Turkic as "ally", "companion" Alas, that is a forgotten history. The history of union of East and West - the Turki and the Armenians were the first in it. And what kind of belief is it - Tengirchilik? According to Jean-Paul Rus, the famous expert in the religions, the Turki who lived in Altai worshipped "heaven man", "sun man" - Tengri - long before the Common Era. Chinese historians mark the appearance of the cult of Tengri with the Turki not later than in V - III centuries B.C. Rock paintings with religious themes fully confirm the information provided by the French scientist and Chinese chroniclesEverything seems to be in its right place, everything is known, everythi ng was fixed in different and independent sources. But it is neglected for some reason. Although Tengri-Khan has never been the spiritual property of the Turki. He is the priceless wealth of other nations of the Central Asia. Its image is the most ancient mythological image of the East. For he is the spirit of heaven. The lord of heaven and of the world. The Turki say "Tengri" or "Tangri", the Buryats - "Tangari", the Mongolians - "Tanger", the Chuvashes - "Tura". The Turki themselves have several variants of pronunciation of his name: from "Danyir", "Dandyr" to "Donar" The sounds seem to be different, but the sense of the word is the same for all nations: the spirit, male divine origin. The title "khan" points to its superior role in the

Universe. For the Eastern culture hierarchy of celestials is obligatory. (The same as the hierarchy of masters of the nether world). For the Turki heaven was divided into nine circles; and a deep sense was seen in it. Hence is hierarchy in the churches - Tengirchilik clergy had nine ranks. Everything is from God. Everything is the same with God. Each circle of heaven reflected a dichotomy (i.e. division by two): light and dark, benevolent and demonic. It means God can be kind and strict, saving and retributive. He sees everything; and human fate depends only upon him, God will treat him according to his deeds and thoughts. And that is the deep wisdom of Tengirchilik religion; it doesn't humiliate man, it raises him, it prepares him for a deed, for a treat. Anyone of us makes himself happy or unhappy by his conduct. Our sorrow and joy come for ourselves For one cannon deceive God. He is the High Judge and he rewards according to the merits. A simple wisdom. The Buddhists were the first who comprehended the profundity of that simple philosophy. And they accepted it. Nowhere, in neither country of the world, there is another wisdom as clear as that one Of course, Turkic religion wasn't formed right away; it was developing gradually until the number of circles reached nine. Nine was the figure of Tengri. Three is contained three times in it; here it is - the image of Divine Trinity united in three shapes. The Turki comprehended the Trinity as the space of spirit: contemplating, saving and retributive God in one shape. He is one but he shows himself in different ways. People knew: God sees everything and it depends upon your deeds whether he is going to save you or to punish. The Christians, knowing no basics of theology (and maybe knowingly!) disfigured the Trinity of Tengirchilik. At first they made it "double" having equated Christ to God. Then their "Trinity" appeared. And later the fourth element was added to it, and the whole conception of monotheism was left out The Turki ascribed natural, superhuman forces only to will of Tengri. That's why He was called the Most High. If He wishes man can move mountains. Even feelings and passion are given to man by will of omnipotent Tengri - the Lord of the world. Indeed, everything is from Him: "Good and evil, poverty and wealth are given only by God". The Turki used to cut these words with the runes on rocks as an oath - everybody, young and old, remembered that first commandment of life. "Akhta chin ash Izhesi", i.e. "Father, God of spiritual food" - was the beginning of an ancient Turkic prayer in the name of the Most High Tengri. And cannot those sounds being holy for an ancient Turki be recognized in the Russian prayer "Our Father"?.. An interesting question, isn't it?.. It could ha ve interested the theologians and they, having access to old church literature, could have reconstructed the whole text of the prayer. In old times it was read only in Turkic language in Russia. There is a work by G. Derfer, the German scientist, relating to this point; he traced the formation of the term "Tengri" from its early shaman image to the highest form of development. In the opinion of the scientist one of the first monotheistic religions of mankind is in question. If not the very first. Turkic spiritual culture gave rise to a philosophical construction which is known as a religion nowadays: spirit dominates, not a subject. The Europeans didn't completely understand the idea of monotheism and they still don't. In many respects it is explained by the pagan traditions of the Ancient Greece and Rome to which polytheism was peculiar; they couldn't abandon the ancient traditions. (Stereotype of thinking mattered!) Hence is a disfigured understanding of Trinity and the term "Heavenly God" in Ch ristianity Hence is deification of hundreds and hundreds of saints whose deeds one can hardly remember now. It is interesting that the words Father God appeared in the IV century in Christianity; there weren't and there aren't such words in Judaism. Thus the Christians used to call the Judaic tsar David from whom Jesus Christ was supposed to originate; he is called David's son in the Bible. It turns out Heavenly God wasn't in question in communities of the early Christians. A concrete person was in question! A living person - tsar David. Literally: religion of the Kipchaks opened the way to understanding of the divine truth. Tengri traditions are eternal. Some time the clergy and the pulpit controlled compliance therewith. Tengirchilik religion had its canon. S. N. Atabaev, the Kazakh professor, has done a lot for investigation of Turkic spiritual culture; unfortunately his works are not known to public. Another Kazakh professor, B. E. Kumekov, really succeeded in research of the Kipchak culture. There are other works by other researchers No, Tengirchilik is not a blank page of science.

Unfortunately, the Turki were too self-assured and too careless with others; they lived holding a hope for better future not realizing that the future won't come by itself; it should be created, one should work at it. Ideology, even if it is really good, requires efforts: trees in the garden are to be treated for vermin spoil big trees. Having recognized Christ as Tengri's son, the Turki created their Christian Church in IV century to please their allies (the Church of Caucasian Albania is in question, apparently), its representative attended Ecumenical Council II in 381, which was fixed in the acts of the Council. Certainly he was at the Council of 325. The Great Steppe didn't feel the mortal danger in the named cognation of Tengri and Christ. It missed the fatal stroke itself And maybe all this had another simple explanation: the Turkic clergy knew other sons of Tengri-Khan, and European politicians took that fact into consideration for their plans. Gaesar is one of the three sons of Tengri. He was an envoy sent by heaven, he was born by an ordinary woman on the Earth, in childhood he showed really good abilities, he banished the demons Much is known about him, huge treatises were written. "Gaesariade" is popular in the East; it goes back to pre-Buddhist traditions with its roots And in Europe it is strangely neglected. Otherwise even laymen would have wondered why Christ's deeds seem to be the copies of those from ancient books. Sometimes coincidences are almost textual. Gasar lived much earlier than Christ, which is witnessed by a big religious mythological layer of the Eastern culture. It turns out the Greeks were writing the "biography" of their Christ not inventing it. Maybe they had "Gasariads" before them or Buddha's biography from which they borrowed certain facts; and other facts they indented. The Turki have never understood the Greek politicians who used to say one thing and do another. The word "honor" was unknown to them; hence they were ready for everything inclining the Turki to unification against Rome and Egypt. Yes, they paid levy, but in fact, playing with morbid ambition of the Turki, they treated them as mercenaries They commanded abasing themselves. Isn't the appearance of Byzantium, its separation from Rome and rise the evidences of aforesaid? Byzantium would have remained the colony of Rome forever without a powerful ally - The Greeks had no troops, they couldn't wage a war, their army was hired. And all of a sudden in 312 they defeated the Roman army. Near Rome!.. An unexpected cavalry attack took the legionaries unawares. How could that happen? Where did Constantine, the emperor, take a cavalry? When were the Greeks taught the basics of dzhigit skills? And who taught them? Those questions are not casual. And is it casual that not long before that victory Constantine saw a Turkic cross in his dream and heard the voice "You'll win with it"? Is it casual that on Byzantine coins Turkic symbols appeared and the day of rest was changed by Sunday as it was in the Great Steppe? Is it casual that just after that victory the prayer in the name of Tengri - Heavenly God - was for the first time officially read in Byzantium? Was it casually that Christianity became the official religion of Byzantium at that time?.. And of course it is casual that Turkic language became the "language of soldiers" in the Greek army. They gave orders in it! The Greek army waged a war under the flags with a cross The same as the Turki. Of course there were explanations to everything. Assistance of the Kipchaks, Jordan writes, "was used so that [Constantine] is able to found a famous town in his name to make it a rival to Rome: they entered into an alliance with the emperor and brought 40 thousand of their [warriors] to struggle against different tribes. Their army remains in the Empire until now; it is called the federates" This chain of historical events cannot be ignored. In fact, the Byzantines paid levy to the Kipchaks, it was "a kind of gift" and the Turki worked it off in full. The weak paid for safety, defence and protection. And the strong (as they should have done according to the Turkic outlook) acted honestly, as an ally. Thus the Kipchaks were strengthening in Europe. And no one has the right to judge them for immeasurable magnanimity; it was another tradition of the Great Steppe. Byzantine example inspired Rome. The Romans also began to search for approaches to the Turki trying to find their weakest parts first of all. But Rome had another position. Its rulers still didn't recognize Tengri. To tell the truth, the emperor Galerius in 311 was forced to make a step on the way to partial legalization of the "new" Christianity. Choosing between life and death, he expressed benevolence to the Turkic variant. But halved measures weren't suitable any longer. In 380 Rome was forced to obey, and the emperor Feodosius proclaimed Christianity as the national religion and thus added the Western Empire to a new All-European spiritual culture in which the Greeks were dominating. That was the morning of

Byzantium directly after which the height of its fame followed. The center of Europe moved to Constantinople from Rome The Pope became dependent from the Greek patriarchy. And the Romans themselves receded into the background in spiritual life of Europe having got a scornful cognomen - "Catholics" which meant "the ones having joined" in Turkic. These were the Turki who, having assumed the part of a guardian and a preceptor of Byzantium, opened the road to the position in Europe which it still cannot forget. It seems that fact gives rise to hatred to the Turki which hasn't been hidden in Europe in the course of several centuries. Having ascribed the achievements of foreign culture to them, Greek rulers didn't think about a shameful exposure which is inevitable As the saying goes, - "One in fetters won't go far". Greek emperors ascribed a great deal of things to them at that time. Including a cross, having called it Byzantine. And even a double eagle which was the symbol of one family (ulus) in II century B.C., - it was on the flags while the Turki were smashing China. A majestic bird expressed the structure of the Turkic society where a chagan and an isha were ruling as equals. The former possessed temporal power but didn't own any property. Isha dealt with treasury. A chagan was elected from the number of khans; isha obtained his rights as a successor. The steppe democracy Turkic religion was also based on it. Election commenced in the settlements - from the circle of settlements. A chagan, a metropolitan-abys, a ruler of lands and an ataman of the yurt appeared by election. Power of the elected was consecrated by the clergy. That ceremony was called "abishik" ("apizik"). Of course the Turki could teach one many things; a lot could be borrowed from them. The Byzantines took the fancy of the double eagle and made it the emblem of Constantino ple Later it flushed above Russia: Peter I violently robbed the Steppe. Many things have been forgotten since the time known as the Middle Ages. But the traces of the past remained! Icons, iconostases, churches with their unique architecture, icon-lamps, incense, brocade clothes of the clergy, prayers with kowtows - these were the attributes of Tengirchilik. They lead to the Christian Church. They are the only and the most reliable evidence of acceptance of the Turkic canon by the Christians. There are no other evidences and there cannot be any. Of course, centuries have passed, ritual part of a service has changed, but the traces remained. They are like a genetic code, like the patterns on human skin, they cannot be washed, one cannot get rid of them. The main traces are the "Apostolic Rules". That is the name of the code of resolutions determining the hierarchy of the church titles, the procedure of performance of holidays, fasts, prayers In a word, the consent of the whole divine service. That is an "instruction" according to which the Christian Church was built. There is no another document being more important than that, although there are many disputes concerning its origin. Not going into the essence of those disputes we should mention that "Apostolic Rules" have been written by a Turkic hand - by the bishop Dionysus the Small who lived in V - VI centuries He was called a "Scythian abbot" in Europe. Here is the line from the "Christianity" encyclopedia: "In 500 510 Dionysus issued the code of apostolic and church rules in two editions". The Christian procedure of divine service became similar with that of Tengirchilik since then. It is copied from it!.. History is an interesting thing. One can argue, scream and prove something in it, but disputes and proves are idle words while there are facts which cannot be refuted. Church historians may stamp their feet as loud as possible but still they can't say "no" here. Dionysus the Small, the Turki, taught the Europeans the sacraments of the new religion while another Turki, Jordan, at the same time, being in the same city of Rome, was inventing a new history of his nation from dictation representing it as wild and ignorant. Dionysus the Small translated holy books into Greek and Latin because nobody knew languages and - which is the most important thing the texts themselves better than him in Greece as well as in Rome. Besides, he calculated the modern calendar; that one according to which it is XXI century today. That was an outstanding astronomer and mathematician of his time. Jordan was also an enlightened person, but in other things. Two contemporaries - two histories! And both about the Turki. Isn't it interesting? Later Rome changed the "Apostolic Rules" written by father Dionysus the Small. And the Greeks also succeeded in it. Hence are their secular disputes and struggle: each Church, covering up the traces of the past, proved its understanding of correctness of the apostolic traditions But can one deceive God who has given those traditions and ceremonies to people? The Europeans got it from the

Turkic lips, which is witnessed even by encyclopedias. Umai - the female origin of the earth, the patroness of the infants, mother of fertility, was also respected by the Turki together with Heavenly Tengri. She was depicted with an infant on her on her hands. The Christians disfigured her image having borrowed it; - they called her the Blessed Virgin (Mother of God). Of course, connection of cultures and nations has always existed, every nation has the right to interpret the images borrowed from the neighbors in its own way. Hence is similarity of the ceremonies and different interpretation thereof. It is enough to remember, for instance, gonfalon and religious procession. Gonfalon means "sign of defence" in Turkic. The sense of a religious procession with gonfalons is the prayer for defence; Tengirchilik followers have it as well as Buddhists and Christians. And the word "God"? It also came form the East. It means "clarification", "to find peace" in Turkic. Or "icon"; it turns out that is also a specific word (* By the way, before Trull Council (691 - 695), i.e. till the end of VII century, they painted an ewe (a lamb) instead of Christ on the icons; they bowed to it. And it was the 82nd rule accepted at that Council that for the first time ordered to paint "Christ as a human being instead of an old lamb". It turns out known icons supposed to be early Christian ones had nothing to do with Christianity? It means not Christ is painted on them?.. But who? ) But we will speak about it in detail in the next chapter. The main symbol of the Christians - a cross (It should be mentioned that there are a lot of interpretations of appearance of a cross and its meaning. Each Church interprets it in its way. The Orthodox Christians, for example, call its vertical line the line of love to God, and the horizontal line the line of love to man, neglecting the fact that a cross appeared in Christianity in IV century; or the fact that in Orthodoxy it is eight-pointed, i.e. it is not a crossing of two lines.) - probably deserves special attention. The Turki had an equilateral cross and it was called "adji" or "khach". Here is the phrase dotting all "i's" and crossing all "t's"; it is by an outstanding Christian author of III century, Felix Minitsius: "As for the crosses, we don't respect them at all; we, the Christians, don't need them. You, the pagans, for whom wooden idols are sacred, you respect wooden crosses, perhaps as the parts of your deities, and your flags, banners, military badges - what are they if not the crosses, gilded and decorated? " Are any comments necessary? And that phrase is not the only one remaining in ancient chronicles. An equilateral cross is the sign of Heavenly Tengri, which means it is also the sign of a Turki. The pagans called it "the sign of the beast" at first. A Turki - the follower of Tengirchilik, having nobly finished a prayer, crossed himself and said: "Amen", tying himself with a cross and Tengri Uttering "amen" he showed with a gesture and a sound that his soul belongs to the Lord, i.e. to God It turns out the word "amen" also contains a specific sense. But we should mention that a Christian, crossing himself, also makes the sign of the Tengirchilik cross. With the Turkic adji!.. A casual coincidence? No. Tengirchilik followers emphasized their bondage to God by the adji sign - they used to wear equilateral crosses on their necks. The Christians borrowed that tradition. Sometimes the Kipchaks would paint a cross on their foreheads either with paint or as a tattoo. N.M. Karamzin mentions that custom but not giving any explanations. And it could also be met earlier in a Byzantine manuscript of 588: "When the autocrator asked the Turki who had black tattoos of a cross on their foreheads why had they borne that sign, the Turki answered" that it guards them against misfortune and diseases. The Christians also started to paint a cross (it was equilateral in all cases) on the forehead: after the Eucharist the priest paints a cross with a brush on the parishioner's forehead We can continue with examples of borrowings, but our book is not about them. Another thing is more interesting. A cross appeared in Christian ceremonies in IV century. In outward appearance it was absolutely the same as the Turkic one; later it was called Byzantine. And the history of the Latin cross started in V - VI centuries; at first it was a T-cross. Later, by VII century, an Orthodox cross appeared, which is a combination of a T-cross and adji. It is not inconceivable that the sign of Tengri wasn't invented by the Turki; maybe it was borrowed by them from the Tibetan culture. The Tibetans call it "vadzhra", the symbol of the strength, a kind of diamond. "Adji" is its distorted pronunciation because in ancient Turkic language the words usually didn't start with the sound "v". Vadzhra was the weapon of the Highest Deity - shining beams of grace dispersing form the Single Center. Hard as a diamond, pure as the sun, vadzhra protected against evil spirits which have always been afraid of light.

Hence is a Tengirchilik tradition - to gild adji, to decorate it with precious stones for they are the signs of Heavenly, Sunny nature "A life-giving cross" are the best words for it. The mysteries of a cross take away to the depths of thousands of years, into the heart of Indian mythology. There, in India, the famous Sun Dynasty was in power (an ancient royal family); Ikshvaku was its founder. According to Indian legends (!) he was a Turki. His grandfather had the name Adja It seems this material is enough for a new investigation. The Christians borrowed a cross and the tradition of respecting thereof. But they did it blindly, not thinking over deep philosophical and historical sense of the cross. And their cross is a kind of a block an instrument of death, and it is immoral to gild it and bestrew it with precious stones Equilateral crosses were stamped on Turkic gravestones, a great deal of which remained in the Great Steppe since IV century due to omnipotent Time. Tengirchilik adji also remained on the clothes of Orthodox priests Here they are, obvious witnesses of the past! Grave monuments, clothes of the clergy, church plate are surprisingly conservative. Fashion doesn't change here. And the sources of that "fashion" are in Altai Nothing ever leaves without a trace and nothing appears from nowhere! In order to repeat that truth we could cite the historian of the Gospel who has the settlement of the Balkans by the Turki in 376 and marked their relics in astonishment as well as the clothes of the clergy Everything is coinciding to everyone's surprise! These were the long black robes for which Turkic clergy was notable at ordinary days. Festive, solemn clothes were different. The steppe taught the Turki a lot. It was an inclement school of survival for them, it was testing their courage and sharpness; new ideas were born there. Maybe steppe barrows were the prototypes of the first Tengirchilik temples Unfortunately neither of the scientists has ever seriously investigated the ceremonial part of steppe barrows. The barrows were just pillaged. However, there are several legends according to which a barrow didn't "die" together with the deceased. It remained alive: people visited it and prayed there paying tribute to the departed. And here is an example to confirm that idea. During the excavations in Kiev under Dessiatine Church a barrow frame was found on which the brick church has been standing more than a thousand years. And that is not the only example It seems a barrow really played a pa rt of the temple. In "Altai" times the whole world around people was the temple of Tengri; it was covered with the vault of Eternal Blue Sky. Thus it remained with the Khakases, Altai inhabitants, Kumandines, Tofalars who didn't leave their motherland and didn't learn to build temples. They retained their ancient ceremonies which usually take place near the sacred mountains. A Turkic temple was called "kilisa". The name is taken from the sacred mountain Kaylasa - the abode of Gods. It seems at first Kaylasa gave the idea of a barrow to the Turki and later the idea of a temple followed, or the idea of architecture, to put it more preciously. Turkic temples appeared during the years of the Great Nations Migration. But people prayed not inside but near them. (It is interesting, until VII - VIII centuries the Christians also didn't enter the premises but prayed near it in the street!) Walls of a kilisa were decorated the same way as the sacred mountains were decorated formerly. Here are the sources of church painting - in rock paintings! Kilisa was inaccessible for mere mortals; only a clergy could enter it. But he didn't have the right even to breathe there: he would run outdoors to breathe in and out. It seems this custom contains an evident similarity in construction of the first temples and barrows; the latter also had an entry to the burial-vault Of course a special research is necessary. The topic is realizable (V. E. Voitov partly stated the stages of its formation in the mentioned work.). The Turki built the temples on brick foundations which were in the form of an equilateral cross. And after they've learnt to construct beautiful buildings they forgot about the barrows being inexpressive in their appearance. The temples copied the shapes of sacred mountains as they were directed into the sky; they started to spread desired grandeur. The bells called people for a prayer to the great Tengri with their tuneful sounds. The altars were oriented to the East - to Altai. Later it has also become a Christian tradition. Archeologists write about ancient Kipchak temples as follows: the "are situated in the center of barrow groups and were notable for small sizes Broken internal outlines form the shape of a cross The church is oriented to the East". Why to "the East"? Because Altai lay there Why "in the center of barrow groups"? It seems this needs no explanations - new was close to old.

Unfortunately time has the power over wooden buildings. Only brick foundations remained from many Tengirchilik temples How can we know anything about their architecture? It turns out we can. That architecture was borrowed by the Armenians and it was developed in Armenia; but in stone. Who has built the first temples for the Armenians? Why were they oriented to the East? Why did they have a cross in their foundation? Answers to those questions are on the walls of ancient Armenian temples - Turkic tamgas are there! The signs of the builders. On the walls of different temples up to twenty-three signs were counted. Runic writings were found in Zvartnotz, Dvina, Kotavank, Dzhvari and other settlements! It seems the stones tell where to look. Everything is visible! The Armenians look at them, publish them and don't see them - they are Turkic. And if one casts jaundice aside and takes a strict look, for instance, at the known inscription on the wall of an ancient temple in Kotavank (it is in better state as compared with others) ancient Turkic runic inscription becomes interesting not only for the Turki. When one reads it from right to left it goes like this: "Accept for community of the monk". And two tamgas of the people having made that hereditary gift are near it. There is a similar inscription on the walls of the ancient temple in Shogkhagavank as well as on the ruins of the temple in Kaput settlement in the Northern Iran. It turns out ancient Turkic religious architecture remained. It remained regardless of evil and injustice And there are unexplored temples of Derbent and the whole flat Daghestan. In Tatarstan and Bashkortostan there are also amazing historic places. Or in Kazakhstan, near Aktyubinsk; a forgotten Turkic cloister is situated there; only wind remembers it. An archeologist has never trod in this place. Nobody has ever studied archeology of those antiquities thus origin of Gothic in Europe is not known as well as its Turkic roots It's a pity; similarity is evident even in small items. The Turki built octahedral walls of the temples. The domes were also constructed of eight pieces. Where is it from? Form a kuren which was octahedral, and from a terem. And the kokoshnik on the building had a religious meaning having even become an element of national clothes In a word, many interesting things are waiting for their researcher. There are really many traces of Turkic spiritual heritage. It is possible to turn to another field of culture. Take, for example, famous church singings; they used to be the musical language of Tengirchilik some time. Very impressive and deep music. And it is a Turkic method which was known in Altai two thousand years ago and remained until now. To tell the truth, in Russia it is called "Russian", although the Russians have become aware of those heavenly singings in the time of Kiev Russia. And the Italians borrowed it earlier, in VI century, and they don't conceal the fact of borrowing I'm sure many of the readers don't even know what is in question here. In Russian those singings were called the singings of "flags" or "hooks" (pronounced as "kryuk" in Russian) Maybe. Let us open the ancient Turkic dictionary. Both these words mean the same. In first case it is the translation of the Turkic word "flag" which means a "mark", a "sign". In second case that is the reproduction of the ancient Turkic word kerk. Those unsatisfied with explanations may compare the graphics of the "hooks" themselves with ancient Turkic writing. All the questions should be no longer relevant after that Majestic spirit of Altai remained even in singing. Two and a half thousand years ago Tibet has become the center of pilgrimages for the Turki. Everyone had a dream to see the sacred mountain Kaylasa. But nobody would take the risk to climb that mountain; they were afraid to provoke God's wrath. People lived on the bank of the sacred lake Manas and looked at Kaylasa, read prayers, held philosophical discussions. Thus the idea of monkhood was born. It should be mentioned here that the idea of cloisters and monkhood is not Turkic. The Turki borrowed it from the Tibetans and later they brought it to Europe. And that was the greatness of the Great Nations Migration! The word "abbot", as well as "monastery", appeared in Europe after VI century. Benedict Nursian (480 - 543), the founder of Benedict Order, was among the first who pronounced it, but of course he didn't say something new. In his order he copied the rules according to which communities of monks lived in Tibet, Altai and the Great Steppe. How could he know about that spiritual tradition of the East if not from the Turki? In Tengirchilik monkhood had two forms - hermits and service Those two forms got the rights in Christianity.

It is not known who was Benedict Nursian by birth. But he grew among the Turki who have taken the side of the Romans and considered themselves the Romans. And here are some interesting facts from the life of another innovator of monkhood, the founder of the first monastery in the West. Pakhomius the Great (? - 348) was a Egyptian, served in the army of the emperor Constantine; as we know the backbone of that army was formed of the Turki. Pakhomius wasn't a theologian, he didn't know the Greek language, but he knew Turkic well, apparently He took the rules for his monastery from the Kipchaks; many Turkic words have been in use by Egyptian and European monks since then. This fact was partly confirmed in the beginning of V century by one of the main theorists of monastic life in Europe - John Cassian, the Turki by nationality, native of Bulgarian chaganat. "A monk should avoid women and bishops in every possible way", - the elder teaches. Christian bishops, which is very important! It turns out Pakhomius was hiding from an Alexandrine bishop Athanasius not by accident Christianity was alien to the first monks; they stood aside and believed only in Tengri. But finally they were forced to step back. In 451 the Greeks and Egyptians passed the monasteries and communities of the monks to the Christian jurisdiction. But European monks retained even the Turkic clothes! Their clothes are worth mentioning. One would think, where are a black gown and a cap from? A gown was called caftan, it was obligatory for Tengirchilik followers during a religious rite. Over the shoulders of any Kipchak there was a bashlyk - a woolen pointed hood. Clerics also couldn't do without a hood for their religious rite took place under the sky; they had to have firm clothes in any weather. Monks of Tengirchilik united a caftan and a bashlyk. Thus modern clothes of a monk appeared. Ancient Kipchak culture Books are to be written about it. The truth about the Great Steppe hasn't been told in full. The Greeks were the first who started to distort it Nowadays many things are derived "from the Greek roots" in Christianity. But one can easily find the Turkic traces, say, in icons' painting What is known about Kipchak icons' painting today? Absolutely nothing! While these are the priceless masterpieces by Andrew Rublev, these are the works by tens and thousands of unknown steppe painters which are known as ancient Russian now. And in the meantime Russian school of icons painting appeared in XVII century after the split of the Church (Of course there are other, "non-Turkic" opinions on this point. They were expressed by academician V. L. Yanin, professor V. N. Lazarev and other prominent scientists. But none of them, as though due to ignorance, has ever mentioned the religion preceding Christianity in their works. None of them has said a word about Buddhist icons and ancient traditions of icons painting in the East Not negating the importance of the works of abovementioned authors, it remains only to regret about their narrow-mindedness in the field and evident Europocentrism tendency. ). Russian priest Habakkuk said about it as follows: "They paint the image of Emmanuil: puffy face, dark red lips, fat arms and muscles Good old icon-painters painted the saints otherwise: face, arms and all the feelings have become thinner". Those good old icon-painters were the Turki! An icon played an important part in a Tengirchilik church, it was a noticeable attribute there: "open your soul", "speak the truth" - these are the translations of the word from ancient Turkic. Due to this unique ability an icon has become a part of Buddhist ceremony in I century, it has become the sacred piece of art of the East. It is not a Christian invention at all. There were no ancient Russian icons, there were only Kipchak icons in Europe (whatever it is called!) (V. E. Voitov partly stated the stages of its formation in the mentioned work.). And it is witnesses by the documents of the Christian Church itself, aforementioned Trull Council and its famous 82nd rule. Representation of Christ's face in Christianity originates from it. And there is no desire even to mention Greek icons (gloomy, puffy faces, sad paintings and total poverty of plot). Although tastes differ, as far as we know. And doesn't the term "Eden" - the Christian symbol of paradise - give food for thought? Why is Eden in the East? Why was it shown to the north from Palestine even on the ancient maps? Why is it the land of forebears? Why does the word "adam" mean "the first ancestor" in Turkic?.. Finally, why did all these "whys" appear? For example, in medieval Europe there were the legends about a Christian country situated in

remote Asia, - the country of presbyter John. Plano Carpini, William Rubruk, Marco Polo and other Europeans went in search for it when they needed allies in their struggle against Islam. Was the presbyter John a Turki since they searched for him in Altai? It seems so. That is a real historical person, apparently; they say there are copies of Popes' letters addressed to him in Vatican Indeed, there are many mysterious facts in Turkic history. There are certain facts that seems to have nothing to do with the Turki How did Christ turn to his Father? "Eloi!" - he exclaimed on his cross. But that was the Turkic name of Tengri-Khan!.. What is it a new mystery or another ignorance of Turkic customs? It turns out the Turki had five ways to address the Most High. The first one was Tengri; the others were: Boga (Bozhat), Ala (Alla, Eloi), Khodai (Kodai), Goz-Bodi. Each form had its shade; each of them remained until now. "Alla Byle!" ("God be with you!") - the Kipchak riders would cry out rushing to the attack Maybe Byzantine and Roman emperors paid their attention to it, for they willingly called the Turki into their army - they wanted to be closer to God, to be guarded by Him. Easter cakes, colored eggs, New Year's tree, Father Frost - they are the attributes of Tengirchilik. One would think, a Christmas tree And it is a fir - not an oak, a cedar or a pine! Nowadays its appearance is connected with the name of Christ. But there are no firs in Palestine or in Egypt. The first Christians couldn't see a fir as well as a polar bear or a kangaroo. It means the famous holiday of the Christmas tree is an "alien" holiday in Christianity. The famous world map (England, 1260). As well as other maps of that time it placed Heaven in the East, where Ancient Altai was And for the Turki a fir has become a sacred tree long ago. And only for them but for other Siberian nations as well. A fir was placed inside the house. They used to celebrate holidays in its honor three four thousand years ago. A very ancient tradition, it is connected with Yer-su. They used to worship that God before Tengirchilik was accepted. It lived in the center of the Earth, "where according to the legend the hub of the universe is situated and where a gigantic fir grows reaching the house of Ulgen with its top" - the house of the aged in a rich caftan. Ancient Turkic legends don't contain much information about Ulgen. Always - in winter an in summer - he wears a caftan, he has a thick white beard up to his knees. Ulgen was the head of white spirits. He would sit in a golden palace ruling over the sun and the moon. On December 25th, when the day won the victory over the night in a very hard struggle and the sun remained over the Earth a little bit longer, ancient Turki turned to Ulgen with a prayer. They thanked him for the returned sun. Later, in the times of Tengri, that day has become the day of Epiphany for the Turki - it was the main holiday during a year! And to make the prayers heard, according to another ancient tradition, people decorated "Ulgen's tree". They tied bright ribbons on a fir and put lavish gifts under it. They would have fun due to victory of the sun over darkness all night long. They would sing and dance in a ring around a fir. Hence is a stable belief which remained until now that all the inmost dreams of the New Year's night would come true. And Ulgen never let down: after the holiday the night would begin to decline. No doubt, Ulgen is the Father Frost. It is no wonder that a fir, having connected people with the world of Ulgen, was respected by the ancient Turki. It means "route", "road" in the Turkic language. Like an arrow, a fir showed the way to Ulgen. All those things intensified the sacred force of the image. It seems another ancient Turkic tradition originated here - graves of the clergies were covered with boughs of a fir. Why? He departed the kingdom of Yer-Su where a fir was highly respected. In Europe Christmas holiday has been celebrated since Attila's times. At first it was called a "wild Hun holiday". European pagans didn't understand it. The same as they didn't understand a fairy tail "About the Ryaba-hen (speckled hen)" which was to be told to little children during that night. Why was it a Ryaba-hen? Because each its feather meant day and night - the light and the dark, and the hen itself was the symbol of a year. It lay its egg which wasn't a common but a golden egg on December 25th - the day of Epiphany: the sun is also golden that day. Father (Frost), Mother (Blizzard) tried to crush it but they would never succeed. And a mouse was running by - it was the Day of a Mouse (the shortest night was on June 25th) - it wagged with its tail, the egg fell down and

crushed And everything started to decline. The Turki had such a cognitive fairy tail. December 25th - Tengri's birthday - became Christmas (?) in medieval Europe for some reason. While Christ was born on January 6th. I doubt whether anybody is able to explain anything here However, ancient culture of Altai with its undisclosed mysteries and unknown secrets is really interesting. A custom to celebrate the holiday of spring, the Christian Easter, also has Altai roots. The Turki celebrated it in another way as compared with the Jews and first Christians. Following the Bible covenants, they still eat matzoth there - unleavened thin bread. Tengirchilik followers had it in another way, they baked Easter cakes. An Easter cake embodied the male origin. It was made in respective form, recipes of pastry were invented for the purpose not to reach certain flavor but to make an Easter cake hard and "fit", i.e. make it big in size. And God forbid if it falls down - it was an ill omen. The top of ready Easter cake was covered with white cream and they poured the seeds of colored millet onto it. Two colored eggs were put near it. The ceremony of the male origin - a phallus - worship has been known in the East from time immemorial, it was a sacred ceremony. In other words, it was connected with tillage - the origin of the future yield - and in general with birth of everything new and wishful. The most important ceremony of life continuation. It should be mentioned that Easter traditions in their modern form also came to Europe and, the same as firs, were the lot only of the Kipchaks at first The whole European culture was changing; it was on its way to its present form. The Vanished Heritage Known information concerning the spiritual heritage of the Turki is really scant. And that is strange. Where has everything disappeared? It existed and it vanished One cannot read in the books about, one cannot see it on the stands of the museums. But still it exists! At least it existed. History allows to open the past anew; this History may be regarded in two ways: as the list of dates and events, as a description of battles and changes of the dynasties (which is certainly necessary) or as an evolution of ideas, feelings of the nations, states of their minds during this or that epoch. This is the only way to see the real, living history and not an invented life of the ancestors. Details, small features make the picture full. Absence of a single stroke, of a single paint on its linen discloses the false. Words cannot be crossed out from a song, as the saying goes. Life is the top of perfection. As we know, criminalists manage to reveal the most difficult crimes by barely perceptible traces. And can criminalistics methods be applied in history? Maybe this is the right moment for that?.. They could begin from the search of "disappeared" Turkic cultural wealth. It couldn't disappear not having left any traces. Even the pronunciation of certain words becomes the trace which leads to the goal. Here are the examples. Abbot - this word is derived from an Aramaic word "abo" or "avva"; it is supposed that thus they addressed to a master of the synagogue. A superior of a cloister (of Benedict or Cisterian orders) has been called so since V century. The word "abbot" has become the part of church everyday language since Attila's times. In the language of the ancient Turki the word "abata" (abata < aba + -ta affix) meant "close to a father". That expression reflected the idea of abbey: the followers of Benedict Nursian settled near the "saint father". A certain ritual existed. European abbeys copied the rules of ancient Turkic and Lamaism monasteries which followed the traditions of Tengirchilik. The rules divided the monasteries into two types: for philosophy study and for perception of the believers. In Kazakhstan, for example, sacred places remained in which names the word "abat" can be met. And in Aktyubinsk region, in Abat-Baytak, there are the buildings of ancient temples, traces of monks' cells; pilgrims visit these places. Acathistus - church songs of praise. An acathistus written in VII century on account of delivery of Constantinople from barbarian invasion by the Blessed Virgin is considered to be the most ancient in Christianity. According to the official version the word originates from the Greek word akathistos and means "not sitting" because, they say, an acathistus is performed standing. A questionable interpretation.

Because, for instance, Greeks called reading and singing of preaches standing "stadeis" (standing). Another thing is correct. The word "acathistus" is an adaptation of an ancient Turkic expression aq apizik (abisik) (dedication, a special prayer). It expresses the essence of an acathistus! The second word - apizik - is worthy of notice in the expression aq apizik. In case of unction for the reign or ordaining the Tengirchilik followers performed the ceremony of ordaining called "apizik" (apizik, abisik), the Turki even had an expression: "?l ornili? abisikig teg" (" as an unction for reign"). It was written in brahmi language (it appeared in I thousand years B.C.), which points to antiquity of the Turkic expression and ceremony. As we can see, the word "not sitting" inappropriate for a prayer is an attempt to explain an unknown Turkic expression accepted in Tengirchilik (aq apizik ~ akapizik ~ akapis ~ akaphis ~ acathistus ~ akathistos). That singing of praise of Heavenly God was borrowed by the Church form the Turki in VII century, according to its documents, on the initiative of Pope Gregory the Great. Altar - a place for sacrifice. It is considered that the word is Latin - altaria, altarium: coming from altus (high) and ara (rising) "risen place". A table played a part of an altar in Christian synagogue; at that table "the love-feast" (agape) took place. Since IV century, i.e. since the churches appeared with the Christians, the name "altar" was given to a part of the church turned to the East and fenced by the icons. The most ancient altar churches are known in Caucasus, Caucasus Albania and Iberia. New Christian altars were made according to the Turkic example and by the Turkic workers. In is not by accident that Council of the year 363 decided: "Not to make so-called agape in God's places or in churches". The word "altar" is an adaptation of an ancient Turkic expression ala tor, consisting of the words ala (Taking - one of the forms of addressing to Heavenly God) and tor (place of honor, place opposite the entrance). It means "the place of honor of the Taking" (ala tor ~ alator ~ altar ~ altaria). This interpretation expresses the purpose of the altar and corresponds with religious customs of Tengirchilik. Christians borrowed the item and its meaning. Amen - "let it be right", the final word of a prayer. They consider it to be from the Old Testament. But the theologians themselves mark that in the New Testament "amen" has another meaning as compared with Jewish books. That contradiction is easily removed: Christians took not only the ceremony of the divine service from Tengirchilik but also many terms accompanying it. In Turkic amin means "I am safe", "I am guarded". The tradition to say amin (amin) at the end of the prayer has been marked in great antiquity with the Turki. Its history is in the cult which has been formed long before Common Era: they turned to the souls of the ancestors (amin) for help and protection. The Chuvashes, for example, have a prayerful formula: "Amin, Tura, help us!" ("Tura" is the way the Chuvashes address to Tengri). Thus conclusion of the prayer with the word "amen" gets its natural explanation. Eulogia - leavened bread consecrated on the Easter; Host is another name. It is considered to originate from the Greek word artos - "bread" (in Russian the word is also pronounced as "artos"). But let us fix out attention upon a very important detail: the Eastern Church uses only leavened bread for that sacrament, and the Western Church - only unleavened bread (azyme). Why? That fundamental differences in one of the most important Christian sacraments are to be explained, but an explanation has never been given. Where does this tradition originate? It is also from Tengirchilik. Tengirchilik followers used to bring leavened bread to the churches as a gift to Tengri on spring holidays; that was an ancient Turkic religious ceremony known long before Common Era. It has become obligatory for Easter celebration in the Eastern Church - hence an Easter cake comes. At the same time an unknown Turkic word artut (heave-offering, gift, present) entered the Church language and turned into "bread" comprehended by the Greeks (artut ~ artut ~ artus ~ artos ~ artos (eulogia)). It should be mentioned that the Turki still bake only leavened bread; they can't bale otherwise. God - high essence given the strongest reasoning power, absolute perfection, omnipotence, who has created the world and rules over it. The word God (pronounced as "God" in Russian) is usually connected with the Mongolian "Burkhan". But the word "God", as we know, was known in the Russian language long before the

arrival of the Mongols. Sometimes the name of the Most High is taken from Sanskrit: in Vedic mythology "Bhaga" (bhaga) is a deity whose name is translated as "fate", "happiness", "property". But that version is not reasoned; only assonance has been found in it. And that's all. It is more convincing to search for the word "God" in the ancient Turkic bodi which is confirmed by an ancient Buddhist tradition. It is known that in I century in Buddhism after the Council IV which has approved Tengirchilik ceremonies of the divine service, "Mahayana" (wide chariot), a new teaching, became widespread as an opposition to ancient "Khinayana" (narrow chariot). It appeared under Kinishka tsar - Erk-Khan, the lord of the Kushan Empire. "Bodhi" (Clarification, Awakening) has become the most important term of Buddhism meaning the highest consciousness, spiritual clarification, achievement of wisdom. It Turkic language that word was pronounced as "bodi" (bodi). Here is a quotation from the Sutra "Golden Glitter": "Bodi tegma tujunmaqi? jana sozlagali boltuqmaz" ("Insight called bodhi cannot be expressed with words"). While in Asia the word "bodi" has been transformed into "bogdokhan" (ruler having achieved Clarification), "bogdo-gegen" (the Light august), in Europe unacquainted with the Western culture it meant not "Heaven Light" but only the name of the Most High - God. The words pronounced as "Bog", "Bokh", "Bozhe", "Bozhich" are met only with the nations which history is connected with Turkic. It is indicative that the Turkic word boq (bo?) meant "to find peace, calm". It may also be that an expression "to join one's Maker", comprehended as "to die in God" today, is a distortion of the Turkic expression bodi bosa-. It is formed of two words: bodi (Clarification) and bosa- (to leave), or "to leave in Clarification". Bursa - hospice for poor students. The word is taken from the Latin word bursa - "bag", "purse" explaining it by the fact that in the Middle Ages that was the name of a fund of any union. A doubtful explanation. The idea of similar institutions and their name was borrowed from the Turki in V century and there is a series of evidences thereof. Translation of the ancient Turkic word bursa? (bursan ~ bursa) means "monks' community", which gives the correct sense of the word "bursa". Lord (pronounced as "Gospodi" in Russian) - one of the Russian forms of addressing to God. For some reasone it is taken from ho (ancient nominative of address). But another explanation is more convincing. According to the postulates of the Eastern philosophy, on his way to perfection man passes through five stages of perception. As if he lives five lives in one. In each stage he has his own idea about the Truth given by Eternal Blue Sky. Hence are five visions and five forms of addressing to the Most High: Tengri, Alla, God, Khodai, Lord. In the stem of the word "Lord" there is an expression koz bodi made of two ancient Turkic words koz (eye) and bodi (Insight). A believer asks for "Insight" to be given by the Most High. Tengirchilik and Buddhism urge him to it. As we know in Christianity the objects of religion are absolutely different, they are finding salvation in humility. Spirit - in the Russian language (in which it is pronounced as "dukh") it is understood as "internal moral strength". Here is an obvious borrowing from the ancient Turkic word tu? - "flag". It is known that a flag is covered with a halo of holiness for Asian nations. The guarding spirit lives in a flag, it gives people military success and their existence. A flag was the sacred talisman for the Turki. In Europe a flag in its modern form appeared only after arrival of the Turki. As a result of Russian phonetic adaptation the word tu? turned into "spirit" (pronounced as "dukh" in Russian) (tu? ~ tug ~ dug ~ dukh (spirit)) but it retained its sense which was put by the Turki in it. It was a bad omen to drop a flag or to break it. Hence are the phrases "to raise competitive spirit", "competitive spirit has fallen", "broken-down". They are all word-for-word translations of Turkic expressions, their loan transcription. Heresy - in Christianity - digression from the church doctrine, or an error in figurative sense. Origin of this word is connected with the Greek word haireses - "selected way of thought", "special dogmas". Although here is an obvious interpretation of an ancient Turkic expression jer-esiz. It consists of two words: jer- (to reject) and esiz (evil). After insignificant phonetic changes an unknown Turkic expression has turned into the words "choice", "special dogma" familiar for the Greeks (jer- esiz ~ eresiz ~ heresy ~ hairesis). Another version of etymology of that word is also possible, it is also Turkic - jer-asi. The combination

jer- + -asi affix (< -a + si) means "something that should be rejected" (jer-asi ~ eresy ~ heresy ~ hairesis). Icon - from the Greek word "image", the image of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints. But icon-painting couldn't begin from the times of Christ just because Christianity was the branch of Judaism to which an icon hasn't been peculiar. Only in VI century first icons appeared in Byzantium. In the end of VII century (Nicene Council II, 783 - 787) icons became obligatory attributes of the Christian cult in Europe. One of the icons worshippers was Saint John Damascin; it seems he was a Turki by birth. He lived in VIII century and had a name Mansur. In 787 the Oecumenical Council proclaimed him the "herald of the truth". First icons were marked in church everyday life in IV century in Armenia, the Caucasian Albania and Iberia. It is indicative that an icon is obligatory for the northern branch of Buddhism based, as we know, on Tengirchilik traditions. Buddha is depicted with his hand risen in a gesture of pacification: thumb and third finger are put together. In Tengirchilik it is called the gesture of two fingers. It was borrowed and retained by the Armenian Church and other Churches which were the first to borrow spiritual traditions of the Turki. For the Turki the cult of sacred images is connected with rock paintings. According to remained legends they helped man to make up his mind to communicate with God, to reach Clarification. Ancient "rack" tradition of combining a prayer and an image was expressed in two ancient Turkic words: aj- (speak) and koni (truly). The word koni was often used in religious terminology of the ancient Turki: for example, koni kertu nom (true teaching). Borrowing the ceremony of icons worshipping from Tengirchilik, the Christians, which is seen from their explanation (!), accepted only external part, they didn't understand the hidden essence of an icon (hence are iconoclastic distempers!). As a result the Trukic precept "speak the truth" or "open your soul" has turned into a poor Greek "image". The word "icon" sounds the same perhaps in all European languages (aj- koni ~ aiconi ~ icon ~ eikon). Heirmos - in Christianity - liturgical singing of the morning canon connecting the songs from the Holy Scripture and the troparions. The title is deemed to be connected therewith: from the Greek word heirmos - "interlacement". Here, the same as in the case with an icon, we can see an example of external borrowing. Heirmons appeared among the Byzantine hymns not earlier than VII century. The word "heirmos" has the Turkic root jir (song) + -maz affix; literally it means "our songs". It is evident that as a result of the phonetic adaptation Turkic "yurmaz" has turned into the Greek "heirmos" (jir-maz ~ irmaz ~ irmoz ~ heirmos). As we know, singing is an obligatory element of the Turkic spiritual culture, especially for the tradition of Tengirchilik. It was marked by the Pope Gregory the Great who has borrowed that ceremony from the Turkic followers of Tengirchilik: hence is Gregorian singing in the Catholic Church. Origin of the word "heirmos" from the "Turkic" song is also confirmed by the fact that the sacred book "Heirmology" contains prayers designed only for singing. One of the first authors of the heirmoses was Saint John Damaskin (Mansur). Censer (pronounced as "kadilo in Russian") - a vessel for incense during a Christian service. In antiquity it had the form of a cup fixed on a wooden handle; it was called catsia. (Thus an incensory of the Russian Old Believers is still made). Today a censer is fixed with a chain, they put burning coal into it and pour incense onto it. According to ancient beliefs incense frightens the evil spirits away. The name "catsia" goes back to the complex word qa cajti (qa cajti ~ cachaiti ~ catsaiti ~ catsai ~ catsia) which consists of two ancient Turkic words qa (vessel) and cajti (relic). The translation of that word - "vessel with a relic" - reflects not only the purpose of the catsia, but also devout attitude to incense placed in it. Kamelaukion - in Christianity - headdress of the clergy. In IX century that was the name of the emperors' wreaths and the Pope's tiara. The clergy wear a kamelaukion since XV century. Origin of the word is connected with the Greek word kamelos (camel). The name is supposed to go back to the name of the hat made of camel-hair (kamelos). An unconvincing version. How is a camel connected with emperor's wreath and Pope's tiara? Another borrowing from Tengirchilik is evident. The name of the headdress goes back to qam jelvi,

consisting of two ancient Turkic words: qam (clergyman) and jelvi (religious rite). The scenes of the religious rite remained in rock paintings of Altai. It is known that a Turkic clergyman would always wear headdress of that king during a religious rite. The Christians didn't have a similar headdress. Having accepted it in their ceremonies, the Christians began to search for an explanation to an unknown title. Apart from an awkward Greek "camel" nothing was suggested. Klobuk - headdress of the monks consisting of a kamelaukion and a crepe. Modern form is taken by the Russian Church from the Greeks in XVII century. Earlier that cover was made not of the light material but of thick one. It was the copy of a bashlyk for the monks in IV century. No doubt that a klobuk is of the Turkic origin. The Christians themselves derive it from the Turkic word "cap" - a hat. However, that is not correct. The basis for that name is the expression qul ba? consisting of two ancient Turkic words: qul ("God's slave") and ba? ("coverlet"). In other words, "coverlet of God's slave". The name also witnesses of the form of the klobuk and expresses its symbolic meaning. Bell - Christians connect its appearance with the name of the bishop Paulinius (353 - 431); they say the look of the wildflowers suggested the idea to him. But that is more than fondly. Due to ignorance the Latin name of the bell (campana) (pronounced as "colocol" in Russian) is explained by the name of the province where they started to found them. The documents witness of absolutely other things. In Italy bells appeared in the time of Pope Sabinian, near the year 604, in France - in the year 550. The Greeks weren't acquainted with bells until IX century. Parishioners were called there by the beater (wooden board) or the riveter (iron strip). Tibet is the motherland of the bells; they were invented by Abloma, the son of Aboteni and his fourth wife Dzhamir Gimbare. That is witnessed by the legends of the East which were created before Common Era. Armenians were the first to borrow the tradition to gather the parishioners with the bells from the Turki. In Echmiadzine - the spiritual center of the Armenian Apostolic Church - the ancient bell from Tibet is kept; it was presented by the Turki, apparently. It isn't by accident that the Russian word colocol, the German word Glock and the French word cloche have the same root. But an explanation according to which it is formed by the Latin word clocca isn't suitable. Here a Latin adaptation of the foreign word is evident - the word which replaced the former campana. The name is taken from the expression qalik qol-, it consists of two ancient Turkic words: qalik (cky, heavens) and qol- (ask, beg). Translation "beg the heavens" points to the purpose of the bell (qalik qol ~ calyccol ~ calykol ~ colocol (bell)). These are the right words, indeed: "A bell is mysteriously connected with holy forces and human souls; it awakens the earth and the sky". However, another interpretation of that word is also possible and it is also connected with the Turkic language: qol (meaning "hand") and oqi- (to call), "to call with a hand". The history of Italian word "campana" also looks otherwise - it has nothing to do with Italian provinces. The name was made of two ancient Turkic words: cam (clergyman) and pan (board), which means "clergyman's board". That expresses the purpose of the beater (campana ~ campan ~ cam pan). Furthermore, it explains why the word campana was replaced by the word clocca when real bells appeared. And that's not all. In the Church Rules, apart form the word "campana" the word "heavy" is used; it is considered to be the translation of the Greek word "baraya" ("heavy"). It is deemed that big bells were called thus due to their strong sound. Here is an obvious combination of two ancient Turkic words: bar- (disappear) and aja? (sin) (baraja? ~ barayag ~ baraya). The translation "sin, disappear" expresses the symbolic essence of the ring when the bells sound on the days of glorious events in churches. On Easter, for instance. In the northern branch of Buddhism there is a special ceremony of destruction of sins. That ceremony is performed near the entrance to the cloister. By the way, a sleight-bell is the attribute of the Buddhist altar; it is the symbol of the highest wisdom. Kondak - genre of Byzantine church poetry. The word is considered to go back to the Greek word kontakion - "brief".

In the Christian Church Roman Sweet-Singer was the creator of the kondaks; born in Syria, he lived in V - VI centuries. However, the earliest pieces are ascribed to Methodius, the bishop from Lykia, who died in 311. Kondak as a genre of church creativity rose due to the Turki in the Western world. It is witnessed by Syrian sources of VI century. That allows to suppose that the term "kondak", as well as "heirmos", is of the Turkic origin. It comes from the ancient Turkic word kondgar- (to direct to the right way). The combination kondgar- + -k affix means "direction to the right way". That's why the kondaks state the contest of a holiday or life of the saint! Such interpretation is more appropriate as compared with the Greek "brief" (kondgar ~ kondgark ~ kondark ~ kondak ~ kontakion). In Russia singing manuscripts of XI - XIV centuries included a collection of kondaks and were called "kondakar". That phonetic adaptation is closer to the Turkic origin than the Greek (kondgark ~ kondgark ~ kondagark ~ kondakar). Kondakar writing hasn't been enciphered, unfortunately. And the reason of the failure lies in ignorance of the Turkic traditions. Europe isn't willing to see that kondakar writing has Turkic roots. Koukul - head cover of the monks. As against a klobuk it covers the head and falls onto both shoulders, breast and back and it is all covered with images of the holy equilateral crosses. A koukul is the sign of kindness, reminding a monk of placability and infantile simplicity. No doubt that a koukul, as well as a klobuk, is of the Turkic origin, the word consists of two words: ku (to guard) and qul ("God's slave"). The translation "to guard God's slave" witnesses of the direct purpose of a kloubuk and expresses its symbolical essence. Labarum - the name of the flag with a cross which was approved by the emperor Constantine. Origin of the word "labarum" is deemed to be unknown. The cult of the cross came to Europe together with the Turkic Kipchaks. An equilateral cross is the symbol of Tengri. Byzantium, borrowing the ceremonies of worshipping the Heavenly God and adopting Christianity to them, also imitated the cult of the cross. That's why in IV century an equilateral cross appeared on the flags of Constantine. "Labarum" is an evident adaptation of the Turkic expression ala barim (ala barim ~ alabarym ~ alabarum ~ labarum). In its stem there are the words ala (meaning "evil thoughts", "intrigues") and barim (perdition), formed by combination if the verb bar- (to disappear, to die) + -im affix. The translation of that expression - "death of evil thoughts" - reflects the situation after which littleknown Greek Constantine became the great emperor. Having the Turkic army behind, it wasn't difficult to do that. Monastery - communities of the monks or the nuns. First western monasteries appeared one thousand years after the Buddhist ones, in III - IV centuries. Those were the settlements of the hermits in Egypt and they looked like fortresses. But only in the middle of V century, according to the rules of Oecumenical Council IV (year 451) the monks were reckoned among the Christians and put into the jurisdiction of the diocesan eparch. This fact means that the idea of monkery couldn't appear in the Christian society. But the official version derives the word "monastery" from the Greek word "monos" (one), hence is monasterion (hermit's cell). But that fails to be in accordance with the history of the monasteries. Another lame Greek "adaptation" is evident! The ancient Turki had the prayer manastar ?irz-a ("forgive my sins"). That formula came from Sanskrit. The first word manastar deserves special attention. It consists of two words: manasa (soul) and tar (to save), which is translated as "save the soul". The Turki used to read that short prayer in the monasteries or near the sacred places, apparently. It expresses the feelings of those having searched for salvation from worldly nasty in the monasteries. Nimbus - image of shining around a head (the symbol of sanctity). Its origin hasn't been determined. In Europe the word "nimbus" is usually derived from the Latin word nimbus (cloud). In the meantime a nimbus is one of the most ancient symbols of the Eastern culture meaning the outflow of vital energy, wisdom, shining of sanctity. Nimbuses were of different shapes and color. The term is an evident adaptation of the ancient Turkic expression ja? im ba (ja? im ba ~ janimba ~ nimba ~ nimbus) consisting of three words: ja? (shine), im (sign) and ba- (to tie up).

The translation is clear - "surround with the sign of the light", "make it bright". It is a precept for icon-painters. Orarion - long ribbon which a Christian clergyman wears on his shoulders. The historians of the Church haven't determined when an orarion had become the vestments of the clergy. Their views in relation to origin of the word "orarion" are also different. According to a bad tradition the word "orarion" is deemed to be Greek. Some insist on the Greek words "to see", "to observe". Others derive it form the words "keeping safe", "care" meaning that people having an orarion care for the souls of the believers. There is also the Latin version - orarium from orare (to pray). Such discrepancy is explicable. That is a Turkic word, in its stem there are the words or- ariconsisting of or- (to tie, to braid) and ari (to clear) (or- ari- ~ orary ~ orari ~ orarion). In the expression or- ari- special attention should be focused on the word ari-. In ancient Turkic religious texts the word ari- means "to clear of the sins". Here is a quotation: "jazuqu? ari?a mujan bul?a s?n" ("your sins will be erased and you will find justice"). Thus the translation of the word "orarion" from ancient Turkic language expresses the symbolic essence of the worn vestments. The slightest reserve is absent here. Putting an orarion on the clergy puts its ends down and having read a prayer he ties an orarion round himself showing his mental purity. That is the tradition of Tengirchilik. Pagan - polytheism adherent, an idolater. The word "pagan" (pronounced as "yazychnik" in Russian) has an evident ancient Turkic stem jaz(to sin). The combination jaz- + igci affix is translated as "sinner". (jaz- + igci ~ yazygchi ~ yazychig ~ yazychnik (pagan)). Another version of etymology of that word is also possible: the Turkic stem jazinc (sin) +nik, the Russian affix (jazinc + -nik ~ yazynchnik ~ yazychnik (pagan)). But that is less likely. Thus one could say that the Russian word "pagan" is a borrowing of the Turkic word "sinner". As we can see, the criminalists have a lot to do in relation to historical investigations. Their methods are suitable here. And we have taken only one area of the "crimes" - religious crimes Where has the Turkic cultural wealth disappeared? That question doesn't seem that strange as it was before. Bur the religious history wasn't over with "lost" words; it is to be continued. Splits and Splitters By the end of the first thousand years the lands of Europe were split into two hostile parts - Rome and Constantinople came to hate each other. The reasons for their secret and open hostility were old. Firstly, there were economic reasons. Byzantine has been successfully communicating with the Turki for a long time: the famous Silk Route had its final point in Byzantium crossing Desht-I-Kipchak. The route from the Varangians to the Greeks also led to Byzantium through Desht-I-Kipchak. Successful trade with eastern neighbors strengthened the positions of the Greeks in their confrontation with Rome. Thus Rome was seeking for the changes being advantageous for it. Second reason of confrontation between Rome and Constantinople was not less important religious controversies. They formed the basis of the whole political life of Europe: "Who's got power has also got belief". These words were the motto. World domination was in question - pretensions of two powers who were only hiding their wishes behind the theological disputes: not God but the golden calf inspired the rulers. Having accepted Christianity in IV century both Rome and Constantinople turned into the masters from the slaves and they were ready for anything to purify their slavish past after Attila's death. The Greek emperors were the first who understood how to do that - using religion which was accepted by force by both countries and which it was very important to bring under their control. Religion was the only thing which pointed them to the past. In the Central and Western Europe the Romans succeeded having called many Kipchaks on their side. The Eastern Europe remained under the Greeks' control who were skillfully balancing between Rome and steppe inhabitants. And since in Europe political pressure was performed through the Church, the rulers of two hostile countries turned their looks to it hoping to have an impact on their enemies and their neighbors, to rise through it and to create their future and the past. Christianity was becoming a political instrument to an increasing extent. Just a political instrument. Up to IX century temporal power in Rome had the affairs of the papacy under its control - church innovations, dogmas and rules were determined, as a rule, by temporal politicians to whom the

Church used to serve. And that was explicable. After Attila's glorious victories the Western empire couldn't reinstate itself for a long while - it was attacked by the "barbarians" and numerous "barbarian kingdoms" which appeared in Europe. Only in the year 591, having buried the hatchet, Roman authorities managed to have a break. And the Church which center was in Byzantine those days, started to act, - Pope was obliged to agree his actions with the Ecumenical Patriarchy but he didn't always do it. In VII - VIII centuries the Roma Church, having got a benediction of the Pope Gregory the Great, started a secret excellent ideological aggression to the north, to the Turki, where Tengirchilik was dominating (or "Heteroousian" religion, according to Christian terminology). Thousands and thousands of people were taken prisoners by Rome. And they didn't even know it! Pope started a dialogue with the king of Spain, found many things in common with martial Brunghilda - the queen of Austrasia, he has become "the boy next door" in the southern lands of the British Isles. The whole Western Europe felt peacemaking activity of Rome - everybody was tired of the wars. Skillfully using established relations, not making them visible, Pope was getting power turning papacy into an active power institution Secret army, court, finances And the main weapon was a word (ideology). Pope Gregory the Great intended to create a state over the states The Western Church was secretly and vigorously building it for three hundred years. Just when everything was ready, Pope Nicolas I (858 - 867) declared about the independent Roman Church. That was a very heavy stroke for the prestige of Byzantium. Hard-won independence! It couldn't be neglected; it couldn't be disrespected. In Byzantium, since the emperor Constantine, the Church was behind the emperor's back relying on his strength and power. It was resting on the laurels. Its dependence was revealed in everything, it avoided active politics. Its power was quiet. Struggling for leadership Rome has chosen the most difficult but the most profitable way: it relied only on itself. Gradually strengthening its power, its finances and at the same time making the canon of Tengirchilik simpler, it was forming its ceremonies and its service. In other words, it was looking for its face, its identity. That was the only way to get the church leadership having deprived Byzantium of it and to become the master of Europe again. In the Western Church they easily rejected old ceremonies and invented new ones which were closer to the Europeans in spiritual sense. And although the image of the Turkic Heavenly God was still present in its pantheon it wasn't in the foreground any more. It was rather a background for Christ, Mary and different saints. Religion was moving far from its divine essence. Its external, ceremonial part prevailed in the innovations of Rome. However, it should have happened that way: otherwise papacy wouldn't have got its face and the right for its own church policy which couldn't be neglected. In the Middle Ages special attention was focused on the ceremonial part. The paradox was that external pomposity led the people away from God. Rome, struggling for power, was growing poor in spiritual sense: wealth and luxury were killing it and calling for the congregations of the dissidents. Constantinople was loosing one position after another to Rome - the Greek policy was even not conservative but numb. Greek rulers were quietly freeloading on religion being like a bear in the lair who lives in winter due to fat accumulated in summer. However in history it couldn't have lasted for a long time - ideas also grow old. Life, taking its idleness and conservatism into consideration, won't stand stagnation; otherwise it turns into a slough. Byzantium was doomed. Sooner or later the country was to fall into that infamous slough: its wealth was fully dependent on Desht-I-Kipchak. It couldn't have neglected the Turki. That's why the Greeks stood a little bit to the east for the West and a little bit to the west for the East. Of course there were certain innovations in the Greek Church as well, but they were inconsequent, unreasoned (aniconism, for example). Constantinople was forced to show restraint, laudable conservatism which finally led Europe to division of the single Christian Church into Byzantine and Roman Churches. It happened on July 16th, 1054, when the deed of mutual excommunication was signed. East and West declared to the world that they have different world outlooks. That grand event was the final point of the policy which was followed by both sides this or that way since IV century - from the moment settlement of the Turki in Europe and acceptance of Christianity in the colonies of the Roman Empire and in Rome itself as well (As a matter of fact, Christianity in its modern (!) sense was

accepted by Europe only by XIII century. The last pagan countries disappeared, canon still being in force without any material alterations was formed in general and accepted. Although some differences (significant and insignificant) remained in the current Churches until now.). The first big conflict inside the Church arose. Unfortunately it was not the only one for Europe: church and political controversies have always been forming a certain diplomatic background filled by the mutual accusations of heresy. There was a feeling that each European Church had a certain divine truth to determine what went right and what went wrong. Pope Gelacius I, for example, at the Council in Rome solemnly proclaimed himself "Christ's deputy on the Earth" on May 13th, 495. Just like that. The churchmen retained the right to call heresy anything they liked. Wars, secret murders, public executions were justified by the struggle against heresy The policy was dirty and it was far from being ecclesiastic! Stench was over Europe. For example, what was the meaning of the church find which was called "inquisition" later? Or what have the Councils and church courts always been urging to?.. Much has been written about them, but it was all one-sided. For the sake of Rome or Byzantium. It was nowhere determined what actually was called heresy. Church ideologists skillfully created the opinions of millions of people; people were forced to consider that there was the enemy of Christ against whom pious Church was struggling. The enemy was deemed to act against the Church and against "Christ's deputy on the Earth", i.e. against living God Everything was mixed up and called the unknown (Turkic!) word "heresy". Brushwood was not the source of the fires of the inquisition. Those were the Kipchaks who, having been brought up with other spiritual traditions, were burning in the fires being sure that Christ wasn't a god; they were tortured and tormented; they were forced to give up their belief in Heavenly God - Tebgri; churchmen were destroying the Turkic divine literature having translated it into their languages and using the abstract word "heresy" as a cover Thus the Turki were being made disaccustomed to their culture and history for centuries. And it seems they were made so. Generally speaking, Rome was preparing the massacre of St. Bartholomew many centuries before the year 1572 killing everyone not agreeing with its spiritual policy. Hands of certain Roman and Byzantine hypocrites are covered with blood. Only in France over 30 thousand of people were killed during that "night" (by the way, it lasted for several days), those people were the enemies of the Roman Christianity; of course the Genevans didn't recognize their Tengirchilik roots, apparently - time was the reason - but they didn't loose their hatred to Rome passing the dislike to Catholicism across the generations. Any European could hardly explain the reasons of his dislike of the Catholics - half of Europe simply always hated them. No explanations were necessary. Repressions, falsifications, blackmail, threatening were the policy of the Church. Before the massacre of St. Bartholomew and after it as well It was loosing in the open dialogue with its opponents thus an absurd rule appeared in Christianity - "to believe without thinking". The Christians were prohibited to discuss the dogmas of belief. The Catholics made more than 60 alterations of the Tengirchilik canon for the sake of their policy. Sometimes "novelty" was taken from Mitraism - the religion being the competitor of Christianity; some time it was widespread in the Roman Empire. But certain innovations weren't recognized at one stroke even by the Roman Church. For example origin of the Holy Spirit, the dogma appeared in the end of VII century as an addition to those accepted in IV century. At first it was recognized by the Spaniards and in 1009 it was accepted by Rome. This and other examples (and there are many of them!) show that the history of the Great Steppe has been forgotten in Italy, France, Spain, England - it was wiped out by the inquisitors. But it's not dead! It has been living all these centuries with Attila's descendants passing from generation to generation. It is neglected but it hasn't been forgotten. Division of the Church is the division of the fields of supremacy. And nothing more. And this division was formed by XI - XII centuries because the Kipchaks have let it happen: they were desperately resisting the Fate and thus made their inevitable end nearer - their endless brawls were to exhaust the great nation. They, as though being childish, wanted to prove something to somebody. And generosity is disastrous in the world of adults; it requires a very high price. In VI century, for example, the Kipchaks threw down a challenge to the rest of Europe. Religious bigots of Rome organized the massacre of the Jews and their proscription from Palestine: Rome was strengthening its positions through purification of Christianity from Judaism on which the Greeks

insisted. And they partly succeeded in it. It should be mentioned that Christianity didn't stand the Jewish nation in good stead. It roughly intruded into the spiritual life of the Jews having invented the one they didn't have - Christ!.. He was supposed to be God's son. But there is no Father God in Judaism. Thus a son couldn't appear. And that is clear from the original text of the Old Testament. The Jews learnt that history (or the details of the life of the Jew who was called Jesus Christ in II century, to put it more preciously) much later (Desire to connect that event with Joseph Flabius (37 - 100), the ancient Jewish historian who has taken the side of Rome in the Jewish War, is not in compliance, for example, with Apocalypse. Even with its edited (!) version. Interferences in the texts by ancient authors were traditional for the Christian clergy - they corrected everything and everybody. Thus "editing" of the translations of the Old Testament and other holy books has been practiced since IX century . So what can be said about Joseph Flabius.). Not before the Oecumenical Council II of the year 381 at which the Gospels - the New Testament were approved. Before that there were more than a hundred of variants of his life contradicting with each other - the so-called Apocrypha. It turns out the history about Christ is a Greek invention. And not a Jewish one. The first Christian communities appeared, as we know, on the territory of the Minor Asia (Byzantium!) and not in Palestine. And those communities didn't break with Judaism. Isn't it indicative - almost all the "sacred" texts of the first Christians were written in the Greek language and with the Greek letters?.. In VI century Rome started a campaign against Palestine in order not to arrange theological disputes there but to beat the Jews to spite Byzantium. But in politics, as well as in chess, one should make a move after the opponent. The Greeks kept silent cowardly; the Kipchaks replied for them: they gave a shelter to the Jewish nation beaten without being guilty, to spite Rome but to their own detriment. Desht-I-Kipchak gave a hand to the weak showing that the Turki were following the commandment "The kind are blessed". Jewish quarters with the synagogues appeared in the steppe settlements in VI century. The Jews were granted the rights of the citizens and not the slaves and they were allowed to take part in the life of Desht-I-Kipchak apart from military service which was impossible due to their physical state and, besides, they couldn't follow their Moses' laws there. Neither nation was as free as the Jews. In Khazaria, for example, the Jews were trading. They communicated with their fellows hiding from the Roman legionaries in Spain. In a word, the Turki fully trusted them and suffered for that reason. Their protection was the reason of discussion of "Judaisation" of the Khazar chaganat and, consequently, of isolation of Desht-I-Kipchak itself as "Jewish" disease bearer. Though no traces of "Judaisation" were ever found by the archeologists. But the opinion about it is stable. Sometimes the interest of the Khazars to the Jewish belief is mentioned in historical works of that time, but they are read only in the context of acceptance of the outcast Jews by the Turki - one thing has no sense without the other. And besides, one should remember that the words "Christian" and "Jews" were the synonyms for the Turki. Khazar chagan has become interested in Christianity by example of the ruler of the Caucasian Albania, which is quiet possible: there was the Caucasian patriarchal throne in Derbent Anyway, the chronicles never mention Judaism of the Turki while they mention Christianity (The example of the Karaites is convincing. They are Jewish but not the Jews.). The story about the choice of belief by the chagan is another falsification. It is not by accident that the legend having the same plot but with the "positive" end was written by the same hand for Russian Kiev. Of course the neighborhood of two free nations - the Kipchaks and the Jews - led to a mutual profit. The Jews showed themselves as good craftsmen and traders. The Kipchaks guarded their settlements as their own ones. It is important to mention that the Turki lived in peace with their neighbors and didn't intend to suppress their culture or to appropriate it. But they loved foreign women. Without any exaggeration, that was only the magnanimity of the Kipchaks that saved the Jews from inevitable death to which they were doomed by the Europeans. Unfortunately, that has also been forgotten, although there are many Jews having Turkic appearance nowadays - blue-eyed and broadfaced. The "traces" of community of two nations And even those blue -eyed Jews represent their saviors as the scoundrels. Historians (including the Jewish ones) sooner or later will have to take the Great steppe country from the strong paws of oblivion - that is our common Motherland; they will have to investigate the

cobwebs of intrigues and conjectures forming a material part of the history. Byzantine, Roman, Russian historiographs have erased Desht-I-Kipchak from the map. As though there were no Kipchaks who gave the belief in Heavenly God to Europe. However, the Chinese have also done the same; they were conquered by the Turki earlier than the Europeans. The time came and the Chinese rose their heads. They started their politics playing with honesty and trustfulness of the Turki. Their motto was simple: "Who wants to rule over the Firmament should extirpate punishment (i.e. weapons) and who wants to subdue his enemies by force holds the virtue away". That Chinese wisdom is related to the Christian "love for the nearest" Such words led to disorder in the Turkic society, deprived the people of their physical power which nobody could resist earlier. The Chinese skillfully set the Turkic rulers on to fight; they were the first who hit upon the idea to fight with the enemy with his own hands. The microbe of the discord, like rust, has become the part of the Turkic society since then; it was absorbed with mother milk. And it was all because they believed the foreign words. A lot of eastern lands of Desht-I-Kipchak became the part of the Chinese Empire without a fight. On those lands the Turki lived - those Turki who were willing to live under the Chinese emperor They "loved their nearest", put the weapons away in order "not to make the virtues far". And the border between China was moved far to the north from the Great Wall. The Chinese made their speeches and acted; the Turki just sat and listened. Free people of the Steppe forgot that Tengri-Khan had made the Turkic nation free and had given the face and the vast Steppe to it Those who believed in foreign words lost everything for they believed to a foreign God. To tell the truth, the chagan of the eastern Turki - Kutlug - retook the lands appropriated by the Chinese. That was a happy time when Kutlug warriors were recognized by other chagans. Order was set in Desht-I-Kipchak for several years. But after Kutlug (also known as Elterish - the uniting chagan) fratricide came back to the Steppe And everything started over again. Should one be surprised that since VIII century Byzantium was trying to step back from the weakening ally. But Byzantine emperor was nothing without Turkic support: having started acting by himself he fell - provincial nobility threw him down and Esaurian (Syrian) dynasty came to power in Tsargrad. New Byzantine emperors declared aniconism (Aniconism - religious tendency in Byzantium in VII IX centuries which rejected icons worshipping basing on the commandments from the Old Testament. In the course of aniconism thousands of monuments of the spiritual art which were created mostly by the Turkic craftsmen or according to the traditions of Tengirchilik were destroyed. ). Thus they were strengthening their positions having started the changes in the Church alienating the Turki from it. Declaring the turning out of the Turkic icons, the authorities didn't want a breakup but gradual submission of Desht-I-Kipchak : in IX century the Greeks laid down conditions for the first time. And they succeeded in it. The shadow of the clouds from Constantinople covered the Eastern Europe. Presence of the Jews in Desht-I-Kipchak made it darker - isolation of the Kipchaks was going on. Everything was for Rome's sake that time; again, as a hundred years ago, it was appearing in the world scene reviving the former empire: total submission of Europe through the Christian Church was a matter of time. Byzantine churchmen realized their defeat and couldn't resist to it. Meanwhile the Turki, having been involved into a feud by the Chinese and the Europeans, were in a desperate situation: their former might had disappeared completely. They should have protected themselves against exterior enemies and they were fighting only with internal ones - a brother was killing a brother. That's why, having seized the right moment, the Varangians easily won the Ukraine chaganat from "ill" Desht-I-Kipchak. That's why the "Russians" inexperienced in steppe fighting started a campaign against the rulers of pallid Khazaria. "There are no bonds more sacred than fraternity". A microbe of the discord is a judgment: the Most High deprived the steppe nation of mind. Unfortunately, many pages of Desht-I-Kipchak history are to remain blank - those events cannot be restored. The documents have been destroyed. Only fragments remained in the archives - information about the Greeks who were committing genocide against the Kipchaks of the Great Bulgaria chaganat in VIII - IX centuries. They "registered" their Kipchak servants as the Greeks; they added the

boundary lands of the Bulgarians to them. There are archival evidences about how the conceited descendants of Gomer burnt spiritual literature apart form the icons, frescos and statuettes. The storages of the "ancient Bulgarian books". Where can one fond the traces of the rich libraries with which Europe was bringing up?.. And they threw thousands of books written in the runes into the fires! The fact which isn't refuted even by "Christianity" encyclopedia; for instance, it is reported there that in XIX century the Greeks burnt one of the last libraries of the "ancient Bulgarian" books That's where the Turkic heritage has disappeared In our opinion, these were the Greeks who called the Kipchak language "ancient Bulgarian" during the years of another genocide and, having included a couple of dozens of Slavic words in it, proclaimed it "Church Slavonic". They, as well as the Romans, were physically destroying the alien clergy which used to follow the traditions of Tengirchilik Persecution was violent - it was performed by the great masters in black robes. Disembodied information remained in the archives just by accident that's why the Great Steppe is called the crowd of the "wild nomads" and "pagan Tatars". As though nothing else about it remained. The ancient Turki worshipped God solemnly, turning to Him with a pure soul. And with divine singing. That's why the Turkic spiritual spring became popular at first among the Armenian, Albanian, Iberian bishops and later among the Byzantine, Roman and other ones: they saw the new, true belief there. And they accepted its holiness. Europeans heard the prayers in the name of heavenly God in the Great Steppe. They took the ceremonies of worshipping from the Great Steppe So many things have been forgotten! As a matter of fact, the Turkic culture was going into oblivion in different ways in different places but everywhere is was meanly and doubly. Pope Gregory the Great (590 - 604 years of papacy) was the first who became accustomed to cutting its roots in the Western Europe. The personification of the craftiness. Gregory is from a noble senatorial family, he had a good legal education and excellent administrative skills. After his father's death he inherited an untold wealth which he fully invested in reconstruction of the monasteries which were languishing in poverty. He lured the Black Monks and they became his secret and reliable support in the state - his ears and eyes. Gregory didn't spare the funds for strengthening of his power - economic and political issues troubled the Pope as well as theological ones. In 592, having buried the hatchet with the Kipchaks who settled in the north of the Apennines Peninsula (Langobards, the ancestors of the modern Milaneses) he declared papacy the center of the Turkic spiritual culture in Europe (Although it hasn't been proved that the Langobards were the Turki, no one has disproved that after the Great Nations Migration the Central Europe was settled by the Turki; they were the majority of the population. Judging be the notes of Paul Barnefridus (VIII century) the Langobards came form the East. As well as the Goths, Izigoths, Hepids, Huns and Terings they spoke one language and were different form each other only in appearance. It is notable that one of the earliest literary monuments of that "nation" known as "Skeireins" is dated back to V century. As well as remained Goths' runic monuments, it hasn't been read by the experts. All those texts can be read by the Turkologists - the experts in ancient Turkic runic writing. And that reveals a lot! As well as the fact that all the nations worshipped only Heavenly God not recognizing Christ - the Christians called them Heteroousians. It is clear that traditions which were borrowed by the Romans from them are of the Turkic origin - at least they had no differences with the Turki. In part that is confirmed by other medieval authors alluding to cognation of the Langobards and the ancient Bulgarians. It seems the Langobards is one of the Kipchak uluses which was looking for its face in endless wars waged in Europe after Attila's death. ). Pope started an intricate game of the "learned ignorance" - Rome turned into a humble child who has declared his desire to grasp the divine truth. They sent a legion of the Pope's agents to the Turki, basically formed of the Black Monks. They penetrated into the Turkic temples - to the relics! - without any difficulties because Pope Gregory has been calling himself "the bishop of the Langobards but not the Romans" since 591. Did he mean the Turki?! He also called himself "the servant of God's servants" How could an ambitious Kipchak stand that? He - being a "God's servant" - found the Pope as his servant. But that wasn't all. Gregory the Great, having come to the Turki, bowed down to them and humbly tied cape worn by the slaves over his Pope's clothes. "Here I Am, the servant of God's servants!..." - he introduced himself. The Kipchaks believed that sly dog. Black Monks were sent to the Turki not by accident. It seems they were the Turki having taken the

side of Rome, they knew the language and the customs of the Great Steppe and didn't suspect that vile part chosen by the Pope for them. And the part was simple - to grow accustomed, to take root, to win the sympathy. In other words, to become their own people. But at that they had to implicitly spread distemper, to judge old ceremonies, to suggest new ones and to play with the national piety In a word, to s tir up. Pope Gregory counted everything correctly: speaking about God's son the Monks softyl-softly "imposed" his cult. Sooner or later, Pope reckoned, the Kipchaks would get accustomed to Christ and to Rome as well Since they are friends and brothers. Confidence of relationship was increased for the reason that the Romans were willingly getting borrowings. For example, the tradition of the church singing which the Tengirchilik followers had at all times appeared in Christianity at that time. Furthermore, they began to perform the divine service according to "Apostolic rules" of Tengirchilik which were written by Dionysus the Small for them In the Christian Church everything was the same as with Tengirchilik, but for the sake of Christ. The smile of humility didn't leave the Pope's face. In fact the Roman agents weren't destroying the temples - they were hiding in corners like mould. Pope Gregory instructed the delegates in his secret message: "The nation, having lately known Christianity but being accustomed to its temples (bold provided. - M.A.) would come to them as though following a custom in order to worship the true God", i.e. Christ. Pope's host was acting near the Turkic altars without a fuss. Thus it lasted for two centuries - until the Pope Nicolas the Great. A slave's cape has become the part of the Catholic Church everyday life since then - now it is ornamented with precious stones and golden embroidery A rag which opened the way to the Turkic souls for the Romans. Pope Gregory started an actual ideological aggression. An intrusion missed by the simple-minded Turki - they still don't understand anything. They were choked in the embraces of friendship. The nation was perishing not seeing the enemy's face. In diplomacy, in the intrigues the Turki are the ignoramuses - they could wage a war only in an open fight - with arms and on a horse. So that wind whistles in their ears. Traditions of the Great Steppe are partly guilty in it - they didn't suppose meanness which was normal in the relations between the native Europeans. Rome had rich experience of the backstage fight - it could add the poison to the glass of wine even to the closest friends. Cited above Felix Minucius wrote about the Roman art as follows: "They build altars even to unknown unheard-of deities. Thus, appropriation of the relics of all the nations led to owning their kingdoms". As we see, the history repeated with the Turki. Pope Gregory the Great invented nothing new; he was acting according to an old reliable former which has already helped the Roman many times. Even the form of the order of Gregory the Great (later the Roman church started to award with it its glorious heroes) was the same that of all the Turkic ones known before Attila. They took everything they could. Oblivion of the Turkic culture in Europe continued: it wasn't officially prohibited - they just stopped mentioning it; it was forgotten by itself (The same thing is happening in modern Russia where children don't know anything about the pioneers, Lenin, Stalin who were the example for their parents. Lenin wasn't officially prohibited, they just stopped to tell children about him. And thus they don't know him.). By VIII century the policy of obtrusion of Christianity started by the Pope Gregory the Great yielded the first fruit - a lot of the Turki have taken the side of papacy, they've become its main weapon and instrument in the struggle against Tengri and the whole Turkic spiritual culture. They defeated their fellows. Of course truthful books are to be written about the epoch of destruction of the Great Steppe. Now it is known only from the Christian historians. That victory of the Catholics is called the victory over Heteroousians knowingly ignoring the fact that the Egyptian bishop Arius had nothing to do with the Northern Europe and that the Turkic religion (monotheism!) existed eight centuries before Arius was born! There are many facts of how the Catholics were strengthening their positions in the Northern Italy, on the continent, in the Southern England. Although, not everything was calm; there were certain communities which uncovered the craftsmen of Rome and resisted to it. These are the Turkic Bogomils whose movement was formed by X century on the territory of the Central Europe, the Turkic Qatars and the Turkic Albigences who continued the struggle for the purity of belief in Heavenly God. Qatars, for instance, returned Tengirchilik to themselves due to which they (inhabitants of modern France, Italy, Spain, Germany) were called the Khazars or the Bulgarians. But the forces were unequal. It seems to be the "inessential" historic detail which was repeatedly mentioned even in historical novels. In medieval Europe there was a rule for the noble families - an obligatory ritual combat with a

dragon. Not having defeated a dragon, a young fellow couldn't be called a knight of an aristocrat; the doors to the neighboring castles were closed for him But what dragon did he have to defeat? What or who was meant by that mythical image? The Turki, certainly. There were no living dragons in Europe. The image of the dragon or the serpent, as we know, was the symbol of the Turkic culture. It means a young fellow had to publicly disown his ancestors, to kill his memory. Killing of his own ancestors was meant by that ritual killing of the dragon!.. Those were really smart people in Vatican Or another example. The Turki, being accustomed only to an open fight, considered it a shame to make a thrusting stroke with a saber or a dagger - it was deemed to be a stroke on the quiet. The Great Steppe recognized only an open slashing stroke. Even in a stalemate the Turki had to slash but not thrust: the enemy has to see the stroke according to the rules of the fight. And that peculiarity of the Turkic psychology was marked by the Romans. They started to use swords, stilettos and hangers against the Turki in medieval towns. Thrust weapon. It had an evident advantage as compared with a saber in the fights in the narrow streets. According to the traditions of the Steppe it was also indecent to sit on a horse in front of the house; one had to get to the ground and lead a horse by the bridle. In the premises the Turki was forbidden to draw his arms. Everything was taken by the Romans into consideration. Europe wasn't about to combat fairly A saber lost to a sword. The Europeans explained the victory of their arms by the fact that a sword copied the Latin cross in its shape. As though that symbolized the victory of Christ. There were the crusades in the European history which also were actually regarded otherwise as compared with the "Roman" version (that is the subject for a new book on modern history) Only by XV century the Catholics gained a total victory over Tengirchilik - its last hearths were suppressed and coated with blood of the parishioners. The word "Tengri" disappeared from the church lexicon as a heretical one. (The name of father God!) But the Turkic obstinacy remained. In XVI century another spiritual movement - Protestantism was formed in the Central Europe Its originators were gradually expressing their position negating everything connected with Rome. And not proposing forgotten Tengirchilik. By that time there were no holidays dedicated to Father God in the Christian Church! Europe depersonalized Heavenly God and called its victory over it Renaissance Certainly another book should be written about it. After the christening Russia was getting familiar with the prayers in the Church Slavonic language which basics were formed by the Turkic one. It was acquainting turning its face to the East - according to the traditions of Tengirchilik. And it was writing prayers in Turkic! Ancient church books are the evidence. Isn't it indicative that even the Russian editions of Athanasius Nikitin, the Tver merchant who has visited the lands over three seas in 1466 - 1472, contained the text of a prayer in the Turkic language: And the Russian land - God save it. God save it! There is no another country as beautiful as that, Although the begs of the Russian land are unjust. Let the Russian land come right And let the justice live there! The prayer is finished with word "God" like any prayer of Tengirchilik. That was the Turkic clergy in Russia. It seems they didn't know about the tragedy of the European Turki in Desht-I-Kipchak: Rome and Constantinople didn't make a show of their victories: The barrier between East and West was practically impassable. Especially from the eastern side: it wasn't customary to go to Europe, it was indecent to talk about it since it has stepped back from God. Only when everything settled down and the Greeks signed the Florentine union in XV century Pope turned his look far to the East - where the sun rises. As though he remembered that "the light begins in the East". The papacy conceived a new ideological intervention having called it "The Third Rome". The conception of the "third Rome" is rather simple - to create an affiliate of the Roman Empire in the Eastern Europe. In the Florentine union Byzantine recognized itself as a subordinate of the Pope having become "the second Rome" for the Central Europe. They needed the third one in order to have power over the lands up to Ural and further to the east. And the main object was to destroy the sworn

enemy of Pope - Desht-I-Kipchak - with its hated Tengirchilik. Pope's analysts were looking towards Poland, Lithuania and Russia. Who was going to win? Those countries, from their point of view, were suitable for the prepared role. In Russia the idea of the "third Rome" was for the first time declared by the Pskov monk Philophei in the beginning of XVI century. And it became the political theory of Moscow Russia. With that they connected a conviction that Russia is the most blameless and pious kingdom in the whole world The Greeks, having taken the role of producers for the further tragedy guarded the "third Rome " as well as they could; they felt that Moscow was ready to get a new role at any cost. But according to the scenario it had to "surpass everyone in piety". Thus they began to borrow the pages of the Turkic history and put them to the Russian one. Falsification, evident deceit can be clearly read in the history of the church split of the year 1666. That is the top of all lies skillfully ignored by the Russian historians. At that time, in the end of 1666 the ringing of bells changed in Moscow all of a sudden. "They ring for a church singing as if the fire is set on", - people used to say. Why was the ringing changed? On the 1st of December the Church Council approved two important events: firstly, the split of the former eparchy, secondly, appearance of the Christian Church - Russian Orthodox one which was called Greek-Russian Church at that time. Those were outstanding events! But not much has been written about those events in Russian historiography; the split is the insignificant matter. Neither of known works contains information about the reasons of the "split" and what has split. Authors lead the matter to the church reform of the patriarchy Nikon, to the ceremony missing the most important - changing of the ideology of the Church and division of society according to belief. And that is not a church split - that is the stage of the Roman politics directed to strengthening of its domination in the east of Europe That was Renaissance, after all! Formerly the Pope conquered nations and countries with the assistance of the Turkic monks and Turkic knights having united them in VI century into spiritual knightly Orders (Orders, indeed! In Turkic "order" means "given from above" or "from khan's abode".). In the east of Europe he used the Greeks and the Russians. His policy was different here while the enemy was the same - spiritual culture of the Great Steppe, its last fading hearth. It seems nothing unusual has been written about the split in the Russian literature: an ordinary reform, they corrected the mistakes in the texts and began to put fingers together otherwise while praying. What else can be discussed here?.. But was that the main thing - with how many fingers, two or three, should the Christians cross themselves? Certainly not ( No doubt, the ceremonial part of the service in the Middle Ages was of extremely high importance, sometimes it was even of critical importance. But we are not interested in the external part of religion here. ). So what has "split" after all? The word "split" stipulates the presence of the whole which was divided into parts due to circumstances. Tengirchilik taught humility to the fate and silent passion bearing in the name of perception of the divine truth In Russia that observe of the religious medal was carefully polished. Varangian rulers emphasized that since it led the nation to humility and passivity. Having accepted the Turkic belief in the end of X century Varangains enlisted the world with the Turki. And, no doubt, that was their political wisdom. They weren't interested in the divine truth the same as the Greeks. It is not casual that Boris and Gleb were the first ones sainted in Russia - the whole holiness of their deed was that they let themselves to be killed with humility. Humility - the most important postulate of Tengirchilik was carried to the point of absurdity in Russia at one stroke. However, here the most pious thoughts have been always getting on with the materialistic behavior. In XI - XII centuries in the churches of Kiev Russia political melodies started to sound - that was happening for the first time there In the depths of Tengirchilik brotherhood discord was arising due to the Russians. Remaining a western country in its roots, the Varangian Russia accepted an alien eastern spiritual culture. In the "steppe" church which was called "Scythian" at the Ephesian Council II (449) East and West were kind of brought together. They failed to compromise; their split was a matter of time. The most eastern - both in geographical and spiritual sense - eparchy, Scythia, was isolated at that time. They didn't forget the Jews guarded by it. They remembered the past magnificence of Attila. The Romans and the Greeks couldn't forget a great deal of things Only Caucasian Churches which remained faithful to God together with the Kipchaks, were keeping in touch with the Turki. And that was called the Eastern Church in former times.

To tell the Truth, the Caucasus was under the Roman pressure; they tried to incline its pastors to belief in Christ. It Armenia that effort was partly successful; the community of the Christian Catholics appeared there in 1198, then it escaped and settled in Venice in 1717 The re couldn't be a "small" split in big Russia. There was another scope - the Europeans had to industriously prepare a split during a long time. And they did it not missing any trifles Tengirchilik followers were notable for their freedom -they didn't have an administration like papacy. The most important questions were settled "in a round" according to the eastern tradition they held Councils which were convened as was needed. The Turki didn't administrate their spiritual life, they had another custom. And that was their defect - hoping for God they blundered. The Turkic allergy kind of forgot that Europe was alien for them having its own rules! Another weakness of Tengirchilik was the fact that, as against the western Church, where the divine service was performed in Latin, it used local languages. Desire to make a service comprehensible turned out to be a disaster - it was a mess which led to dissociation and split the flock into national regions and states. In other words, the spiritual institution of the Great Steppe was destroyed; it wasn't united and monolithic any more And that was also considered in Vatican. Pope's secret service was acting excellently. Having faced the European culture Tengirchilik suffered great losses due to lack of organization first of all. In Europe Roman rules and laws were really established. The West didn't accept the freedom of mind of the Great Steppe; it didn't bear it in its clergy. Their views towards culture and values it revealed at the Nicene Council of the year 325 and than at the Council of Chalcedon of 451. The Church was recognized as an organization above all! The Greeks guessed that the Turki wouldn't take the part of the head of the Christian Church; Byzantine emperor Constantine headed it. And not the Turki to whom Constantine paid the levy! In Rome the Christian Church was also headed by the emperor until IX century. But that has never happened in Desht-I-Kipchak! The Turkic khans didn't even think about the power over the Church which was understood as power over God. The khans simply weren't allowed to take part in discussion of the church issues. Secular and spiritual were leading independent lives in the Great Steppe. At first it was the same in Russia. The first one who felt tight under the roof of the Church was the prince Andrew Bogolyubskiy (1111 - 1174); he was the only one in the whole "steppe" eparchy who didn't see the force of the religious spirit but saw the force of its power instead. (Here they are, the Varangians! Here it is, the West!) Since that moment the desire to override the Church or at least its part didn't leave the Russian prince the same as it hasn't left the Greek emperor Constantine some time ago. And later - the Pope Gregory the Great. But neither by the building of a rich church in Vladimir, nor even by the theft of a precious Kiev relic - the icon of the Blessed virgin - for him he proved anything It was evident he lacked the Roman patience and the Greek craftiness. He was too straightforward (due to the Kipchak blood of his mother). And although the prince ordered to paint himself with a nimbus over his head he didn't become more saint. He was prohibited to meddle with the church affairs. The conflict between the Church and temporal power in Russia matured by XII century having been formed in its depths. It was inevitable: two psychologies, two world outlooks - the Eastern and the Western ones - faced each other Not going into details let us just mention that prince Andrew paid with his impudence, God punished him "he wanted to be an autocrat" - were the words of his contemporaries who violently murdered him at night of June 30th, 1174. God also saved the Tengirchilik belief during the Mongol government in Desht-I-Kipchak which was called the Golden Horde. To tell the truth, the Mongolians didn't intend to put anything under their control - Tengirchilik was close to them. Baty-khan, having come to power, wished to be christened, his son Sartakh was a clergyman - he rose to the rank of a deacon. The Mongols weren't liberal in everything, they delivered the Russian clergy from the payment of levy and guarded the churches and monasteries against the Russian princes who used to slip their hands in the church's pockets like in their own ones. The Golden Age of Orthodoxy coincided with the Mongolian dominion in Russia. Mongolian Code of Laws gave protection to Moscow and delivered it from levy in exchange for a promise to pray for the khan and his family Monasteries gained a great deal of a dvantages due to the Mongolian mercy. In XIV century the Russians built the monasteries in the number equal to how many of them were built during the previous four centuries after they have rejected paganism. By the year 1550 there were more than two hundred of monasteries in Russia. Unfortunately, Russian historiography doesn't emphasize that fact insisting on the sufferings of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Mongolians.

At that they wittingly forget to add that the Russian Church didn't exist at that time; it was formed only by 1589, more than a hundred years after the so-called Mongol-Tatar yoke. Byzantium was skillfully inciting Moscow for breakup with the Steppe. Having signed the Florentine union in 1439, the Greeks turned into a secret weapon of Rome. These were the Greek rulers who began to "correct" the Russian spiritual life and also politics after that. They strengthened the opinion as though Russia has accepted a cross not from the Steppe but from Byzantine. They weren't embarrassed by the fact the christening of Russia wasn't fixed in the history of the Greek Church! For the Greeks it was important to tie the young and inexperienced state with the church bonds; to win it over due to ideology. And, unfortunately, they succeeded in it. Graecophilism started since 1393 when the Greek patriarchy wrote a letter to Moscow to prince Wasil in which he said "there are rumors" that there is the Church in Russia but without a tsar: "It is unacceptable for the Christians to have a Church and not to have a tsar. Tsardom and Church are closely connected and it is impossible to separate them". The West began to play up to the Moscow rulers, flatter them being willing to see an ally against the Turki in them. That letter gave rise to a big political game. They began to convince Moscow of its magnificence and special role. As a metter of fact, the spiritual institution of the Great Steppe was recognized by the Christians as far back as V century (Ephesian Council II, the year 449), it had several centers (Astrakhan, Bryansk, Kazan, Kiev, Vladimir-Suzdal, Ryazan-Murom, Eletsk, Saraysk, Tambov and others) after the lapse of some time; patriarchy's residence was located in the Great Steppe. Albanian (purely Christian) Church at the Caucasus existed independently; it was established in 304 and existed until 1836. There was no Church in Russia - the Greeks were cunning here. Hence their "there are rumors" that there is a Church although they knew there wasn't any. Only by 1448 Moscow obtained the right for the metropolis (Metropolitans were the bishops of the towns, their power often covered the communities of the bordering region. Metropolis is the part of the eparchy (church-administrative region).). Jonah was its first bishop; Russian antocephaly (church independence) started from him. But under the supervision of the Turkic clergy. Prayers were read in the Turkic language in Moscow and in Russia. All the divine services were performed in it. Only its metropolis allowed Moscow to chose the language of the divine service. That was the tradition of the Steppe (ancient Orthodox) Church (According to the steppe customs other rules were established in the Russian Church. For example, a khan, with whom a member of higher orders of clergy lived (the head of the Church) was called a tsar in the Steppe from olden times. A tsar had power over the chagans, he was the supreme ruler of Desht-I-Kipchak. But only for the time while the head of the Church lived with him blessing him for this or that deed. And the Kipchaks contradict to the supreme power - their vow didn't allow disobedience. "Where there is a tsar a Horde is near", they said in the Steppe.). In XVI century, having learnt many things about the culture of the Great Steppe, the Greeks suggested the way for the Russian princes to capture the Church. With its help and with help of the tsar's scepter great power can be got, they convinced. And they were absolutely right But how could one capture the spiritual power? They needed to start a war against Kazan and Astrakhan khanates and, having weakened the eparchy, to move the patriarchy to Moscow. In that case Moscow prince would have become the ruler of Desht-I-Kipchak and the tsar of the whole Russia When the military troubles were "settled down", Kazan and Astrakhan fell. And in 1589 (under the prince Fyodor) they established an eparchy in Moscow. Thus, at bottom of fact, Moscow was becoming the capital of the empire and the spiritual center of the Turkic lands!.. Tsar's authorities inspired, turn the heads and it was important to strengthen the success. Thus started what was called "interlunation" by the historians .It happened because of the Russians themselves who have given rise to grand political changes and regrouping of power in the society. Those were very anxious times. Boris Godunov, the native of the Steppe, who excellently knew the Turkic traditions, having got rid of Fyodor, called himself "the Russian tsar" having shown the qualities of an active politician. He turned to the Greek pastors and trusted them for "generous alms" (as it is written in the document) to execute not quite legal transaction. Four Greek patriarchies, not even having read the papers (they didn't have time to translate them) put their signatures on the Russian original. They recognized the fifth person - he Moscow patriarchy - as equal to them. And that was all! Nothing else was needed. The Russian Church was established, it entered the international scene and legally obtained the rights equal to those of the Turki.

Turning during that memorable year 1589 to the Russian tsar, Constantinopolitan patriarchy Jeremiah uttered the words which really impressed the tsar. V.O. Klyuchevskiy reproduced them as follows: "Old Rome has fallen due to heresy; the second Rome - Constantinople - is owned by the Hagarian grandsons; and the third Rome - the Russian kingdom - has surpassed everyone in piety". These were really cautious words: they've become the part of the Roman policy. After that sacramental words if the Greek patriarchy certain facts of further Russian history become clear - the Greek determines the course of certain events. For example, who would knock together the armies in the Russian - Turkish wars. Why Russian cannon-fodder would be that cheap at the European military markets A great deal of things in the history of XVI - XVIII and following centuries (the period of Romanovs government) is represented in other shades as compared with Europocentric literature: it becomes evident that Russian tsars lived according to the Greek standards! Russia believed in its role of Byzantium's successor and the ruler of the Orthodox world. However, similar ambitions were peculiar for it before, when the Greeks, through the marriage of Sophia Paleologus (niece of the latest emperor) with the Moscow prince Ivan III, entered the Kremlin and strengthened themselves there having proclaimed Russia Byzantium's successor and having begun to stir the Russian up against the Turki - against Kazan and Astrakhan khanates. Open despotism promptly turned into the policy of Moscow. Which, of course, gave rise to protest of the local clergy, which was shown in the collision of the metropolitan Philip and Ivan the Terrible. The metropolitan couldn't see the meaningless annihilation of the nation. And he demanded "from the prince to stop oprichnina". For aggressive policy was led under cover of oprichnina and the power of Ivan the Terrible was strengthening! Everything was mixed up in a political sense - due to the Greeks. Earlier, before their meddling, ethnic unity even wasn't in question in Russia. There were no national problems. It is enough to turn to the family trees of the Russian nobility to make sure that over a half of the nobles are the natives of the Steppe and not the Slavs or the Russians. Ivan the Terrible wanted to equalize the country by oprichnina. And oprichnina was just exhausting Russia and not curing it. However, the tsar ignored the metropolitan's demand to stop oprichnina. And Malyuta Skuratov put an end to it - he choked Philip. Thus the Moscow prince subdued the Church by force and assigned the title of a "tsar" to himself! He succeeded in it in part: they were afraid of him but they didn't listen to him. Having called himself a tsar, Ivan IV immersed into an illusion of spiritual freedom. He generously awarded the priests and the monasteries which supported him in his struggle against the choked metropolitan. But the impostor has forgotten that he is also mortal and God would make answer for innocent blood. As a matter of fact, the Varangian dynasty of Ryurikoviches in Moscow came to an end very soon "One cannon deceive God", - common people used to say and cross themselves with relief. Tengirchilik remained standing again, it restrained itself as though during a fight still remaining common for the Slavic Russian and the Turkic Steppe. Physical strength is not good help in spiritual disputes in Russia - the Greeks quickly understood that. They've become alert due to the fact that in Moscow John Neronov began to gather the adherents of the peace achievement of independence by the Russian Church. But the unity of the Russian clergy wasn't planned by the Greeks; they counted on other things. Only Alexei Mikhaylovich, the Moscow tsar, was aware of the plans of his idols. To perform everything without blood and choking. Just having become the Russian tsar, Alexei Mikhailovich declared himself the worshipper of Ivan the Terrible and wasn't up to repeat his mistakes. He asked God for forgiveness for the abuse of monarchy on the grave of the killed metropolitan Philip. And having prayed for forgiveness of the sins, he started to act. He turned Moscow into the center of "Moscovites" - bureaucracy was established everywhere. A great deal of "departments" appeared those days. Dozens of them. Only one thing was missing - the Church Department And the tsar decided to create the Christian Church to rule over it by example of the Byzantine emperors. Opponents of the belief in Heavenly God accustomed Moscow to Christianity from afar. They made the boyar Morozov the tutor of tsarevitch Alexei; Morozov hated Russia and the Steppe and recognized only the West. How did they manage to do it?! In any case, that wasn't accidentally.

In a word, the pupil surpassed his tutor; tsar sought a council from him until his death So let us think: was the anxious time really anxious? Was it by accident that after the series of failures with False-Demetriuses (foreign tsars) Mikhail Romanov took the Russian throne in 1613? How did he do that? Why was the former family Turkic until the middle of XIV century - Kobyl (dandy, fop) at first, then - Koshkins and at the close of XVI century - Zakharyin-Yuryevs, Zakharyin-Koshkins? And how did Romanov name appear? It is known that the father of the first Russian tsar from the Romanov dynasty, patriarchy Philaret (Fyodor Zakharyiev-Yuryev) was close to the Greek patriarchy And that reveals certain things. Appearance of Romanov name in particular. In Latin that word means "Roman", considering the former events the change of "Koshkin" name into "Romanov" gets an evident political implication which couldn't be neglected in Rome. The Europeans have become regular visitors at Moscow in the time of Romanovs, they used to go there as if it was their home. Alexei Mikhailovich himself, especially after his visit to Poland, was regarded almost as a Catholic. He even changed his clothes for the western ones and demanded on other grandees to do the same. European spirit was indomitably penetrating the pores of the Kremlin! Into every chink. Doors and windows were wide open there. The Greeks behaved as the masters: they taught and gave advises not in a whisper but at the top of their voices Pope's messengers visited there like the inspectors. Of course, nobody would never determine in detail how it was happening. But the fact remains that Russia started to turn away from the past, in other words, it started to turn away from itself accepting a new way of life advantageous for the West. (That was the reason of split, in our opinion.) But in order to get what they wanted they needed a Church Council where Tengirchilik could be officially rejected and Russia could become a Christian country by example of the western ones. That Council took place in 1654; the split commenced at that time. And in 1666 they approved of what has already happened drawing a line under the decisions of the Council of 1654. They invited the Greek patriarchies - Paisius Alexandrian and Makar Antikhian - to run the new Council. They invited them knowing that both of them were dethroned due to their sympathy to Rome. But nevertheless they were invited. And they came. Two secret Jesuits, two evident swindlers decided the fate Tengirchilik be the silent benediction of the Kremlin. By the will of the Council and with its hands they split Russia and the Steppe - the last bulwark of belief in Heavenly God - that's what split at that time!.. Ii seems the star above Rome was shining really bright those days. Tsar Alexei substituted the free Church by the Church Order and his son Peter I even withdrew the word "church" form everyday life having changed it with another official title - Orthodox Confession Department. Tsar Alexei regarded Nikon as a voevode for his Church Order; Nikon was the Moscow patriarchy since 1652 and showed himself as a self-willed person dreaming of power. Spiritual ideals were alien and incomprehensible for ignorant Nikon. He cared for power and nothing else. Just having taken the patriarchy's pulpit, he started to change everything according to the Greek rules destroying everything relating to the Turki. He introduced the Greek clothes in the Russian Church and Greek food in the patriarchy's cookery Everything was taken fro the aliens. And the Greeks, looking back at Rome, prudently led their policy: after the loss of Byzantine in 1453 they regarded Russia as an ally against the Turki. They were doing a great deal of things during a long period of time in order to win the inexperienced Russians over. One could be envious of their diligence. In 1650, for example, in the monastery on Athos they publicly burnt ancient church books written in Turkic language. An entire library! Thus they wished the new books for Russia. A little bit earlier the Greeks invented another "news" for the Russian history. It turns out, the famous Monomach's hat, the symbol of Russian autocracy, was made in Byzantium. That was supposed to be a present of the emperor Constantine to the Kiev prince Vladimir. An unscrupulous lie, but it has also become the page of the Russian history proving the traditional character of the relationship between Russian and Byzantium. The Greeks were disgracefully cunning in small and bi items proving the political theory of the "third Rome". The split in relation between the Steppe and Russia was industriously performed by them during a long period of time; neither Russian tsar nor Nikon were aware of all the secret peculiarities thereof. The patriarchy was ordered to correct the church books, to introduce new ranks and ceremonies. In other words, to create a new Church. The Christian one! And Nikon gave orders since he was sure he was reforming the old Tengirchilik Church! One would think, free Russian led a free policy But no, as a matter of fact there was no freedom they followed the instructions left by Rome. One of them was as follows:

" d) the tsar should carefully speak about the union so tha t the matter doesn't start form him but let the Russians themselves be the first to suggest several insignificant changes of the subjects of their belief, which requires some reforms and thus make the way to the union; e) to issue a law so that the Russian Church is in accordance with the rules of the Greek Councils and to order the execution of the laws to reliable people being the adherents of the union: disputes will arise, the tsar will know about them, convene a Council and after that there will be an opportunity to proceed to the union; f) to hint at the privileges to the black clergy, at the awards to the white clergy, at freedom for people and at the slavery of the Greeks to everyone". Approval of the union itself, i.e. official recognition of the Roman power over Russia didn't happen. However, the ceremony of approval would have been a useless farce. As a matter of fact the union was accepted by Moscow: Pope's instruction relating to the reform of the Russian Church was followed! Russia became a Christian country. And for that time they needed nothing else. Conflict between the Eastern and the Western ideologies arose not by accident. Tengirchilik was bringing a person up making him ready for a feat, for an action; in other words a person was ready for development. Its philosophy of the reincarnation of the soul accepted by the Buddhists has never deprived man of hope. Even after death, having been purified on hell or in heaven and judged by the Most High, man is born again - Tengirchilik clergy taught. Man is given a chance to correct his former sins - that's the wisdom of Tengri's teaching about the eternity of the soul. The great Tengri teaches that each man creates heaven or hell for him with his own hands. Everything depends only upon him and his behavior That's why all the Turki appreciated actions and deeds of man above all. Christianity, having made the law of Tengirchilik simpler, calls man to save his soul, i.e. it calls him to inactivity. The less you do the less you sin. The future is determined as eternal heaven or hell. And that's all! To call, to wait, to have fear, to love the nearest, to save yourself, to humble, not to grumble, to turn another cheek, to suffer, to see pleasure in pains and poverty and so on and so forth These were supposed to be Christ's testaments. So that the people peacefully wait for the end of their days and loved absolutely everyone. Even the scoundrels in the Greek sandals and Roman togas who were put into luxury and lechery. What else could be invented to conquer the nations?! Is there a better ideology for an empty head of a slave?.. In fact, the Greeks and the Romans gained revenge for Attila, for their former shame having turned the great riders into a miserable race of slaves which doesn't look into the Eternal Blue Sky. The Greeks forced to change the divine pantheon in Russian at the Moscow Council of 1666. The main figure in the new Church was not God but Christ. The West insisted on his supremacy. Inexperienced Russia fondly but violently understood that major ideological doctrine - everything was about how to write "Joshua" or "Jesus". The Russians didn't see the difference between "God" and "not a God" but they felt it since they had two beliefs: they believed in Heavenly God but remained adherent to the ancient Slavonic beliefs - "beliefs of their fathers". They haven't been forgotten until now. The Russian Orthodox Church still recognizes some pagan cults (Shrovetide and others). And at the Council of 1666 nobody understood that another ideology was hidden behind Christ. Rome proved that its arguments were weightier. By that time Moscow has also recognized them! It didn't call the Pope the Lord of the World as etiquette requires However, it seems t hat trifle was forgiven. The main thing was the Theological Board instead of the free theological institute Here they are "a few unimportant subjects of the belief", as it is written in the Pope's instruction. But, again according to the instruction, the patriarchy Nikon paid attention to them but not the tsar himself!.. All secrets were being revealed even in detail. Pope's instructions did their best. Six major innovations were written into the former law in Russia. Of course six doesn't equal sixty as it was with the Catholics. But in spiritual life one word is enough to destroy everything. Six innovations! And what innovations Crossing with two fingers was replaced by that with three. Why? Two fingers is the sign of Tengirchilik ( The Greek patriarchy Makar told Nikon that everyone who crosses himself with two fingers imitates the heretics (i.e. the Turki) and should be cursed.). It was also prohibited to write "Joshua"; it was ordered to write and pronounce "Jesus" - in the European manner. With no explanations! It is set in the old books: during the christening, wedding ceremony and consecration of the church

to lead the procession clockwise. Nikon ordered to do it in the opposite direction The trifles? Certainly not. In 1479 during the consecration of Dormitory Church the Greek metropolitan Gerontious began to walk not as Tengirchilik followers - clockwise - but in the opposite direction when the great prince Ivan III stopped him saying that it would lead to God's anger. However, in 1666 Moscow, having forgotten about inevitable God's anger, led the Russian Church against God's will. Ideology of the belief was changing on account of that trifles in Russia, it was becoming pro-tsarist and westernized! Moscow that was dreaming about the laurels of the leader of the Orthodox world obtained freedom of action. It wasn't by accident that Nikon founded New Jerusalem Monastery and the town New Jerusalem in 1656! In his opinion it was the future capital of the Christian world Thus the new history began in Russia; it was connected, according to Klyuchevskiy, with "colonization of other lands and nations". Nobody was embarrassed by the fact that the new "Moscow" Church was of no sense as a bearer of morals of society since it was said: "If the pastor isn't free the flock isn't free either". And pastor was the first one who wasn't free. Moscow "confessor", as any voevode, was appointed and dismissed by tsar's whims. And what is more, the Russian clergymen denounced the secrets of confessions to the authorities. They were deprived of their dignities if they didn't - they were simply kicked out. Of course, the pious Russian nation, having been brought up with the Kipchak traditions, would have never accepted the western innovations proclaimed by the patriarchy Nikon if he didn't have the tsar's bludgeon in his hands That force defeated Russia. The Theological Board was acting in Moscow: the officials of Patriarchy's and Diocesan Departments (those bureaus were created!) were rewriting and correcting ancient divine books and introducing the new ceremonies into the liturgy. "Correction of divine in itself couldn't defile those books, - wrote the famous theologian, professor N.D. Uspenskiy, if the printed editions were suitable but that high quality was absent in aforementioned western editions". And all the alterations were taken from the Greek books printed in the Latin printing-houses in Venice! The Greek Arsenius administered correction of the books; he used to change Orthodoxy for Catholicism and vice verse and was judged for swindle. That "convict", the "sly Greek" (as it is written in literature about him) established the school where he taught the youth Greek and Latin and rules of life by tsar Alexei's order. The Turki used to rewrite divine books by hand in old times. But how? With monks' pains. Their skill was deemed to be sacred. Any slip in a book was regarded almost as a sin. According to the experts, ancient books contain less mistakes as compared with the modern printing ones. What correction were in question at the Moscow Councils of 1654 and 1666? Having access to the monastery's library, B. Kutuzov, the historian and theologian, compared old and new texts. The results were surprising: the "old" ones are more accurate and deeper. And there are fewer mistakes in them. One cannot object to astonishing results of B. Kutuzov - they are concrete. That work is very well-founded. Apart form it works by other theologians are also known; for example - by the professor N.D. Uspenskiy. The "new" books seemed to work for a split. That is evidenced by numerous examples. For example, it was written in the old text: "We pray to You, God, and let the evil spirit leave the one crossing himself; and in the new one: " let it leave the crossing one, we pray to you, the evil spirit". People were terrified having read that: "We don't want to pray to the evil spirit". What is it - a mistake, a provocation? Or an open humiliation of the Russians? No, all those things had another explanation - "reformers" didn't know the language in which they were correcting the texts! They came from abroad and didn't understand the Russian texts in which the Turkic words and phrases were mixed with the Russian ones. That was the specific character of the Church Slavonic language! Thus an everlasting mess in Russian spiritual life started with ignorance of the Russian culture and neglect of its Turkic roots. The first martyrs for the true belief in Russia were the priests Jon Neronov, Loggin, Daniel, Habakkum and the bishop Paul Kolomenskiy who mentioned during a conversation with almighty Nikon that "they didn't accept the new belief". Beating was Nikon's reply. An exile and tortures followed and, having heard the last "no" the latter-day Moscow Christians burnt the great martyrs in 1682. The Russian Church was under full control of the Greeks by that time; the power was given to I.

and S. Likhud brothers, the pupils of the Jesuit colleges of Venice and Padova. They were performing "Nikon's" reform in Russia In other words, they finally established the Greek-Russian Church! Thus was called the organization known as the Russian Orthodox Church today. In 1687 one of the brothers headed the Theological Hellene - Greek Academy - the center of training of the staff for the state's and the Church's needs (today that is Moscow Theological Academy in Trinity-Sergiev Laura). Brothers also created a network of Hellene - Greek schools having begun with Epiphany Monastery and Monastery of the Savior The western world outlook was implied even at secular schools. God-loving Russia was irrepressibly changing turning into Christian Russia. In order to make the pious Russian nation accept the new belief and new books, in order to give power to Christian rulers, the Council of 1666 decided: "To execute the opponents of the Church's decisions violently: to imprison them, to exile, to beat them with beef sinews, cut their noses and ears off, cut their tongues and hands". The ones who have declared themselves the sages were acting in madness. "The third Rome", "pious Christian kingdom" was preparing a base for itself. Before the splitting Council - in 1664 - the tsar started to act toughly. Military expeditions of the prince Ivan Prozorovskiy and the colonel Alexander Lopukhine showed their valor in full. They annihilated the chapels, churches, monasteries together with their inhabitants. But the stubborn nation didn't accept the new "Jesuit" belief; it opposed to the utmost. So annihilation of the old clergy commenced. They killed just for putting two fingers together and looking into Heaven during a prayer! Or for mentioning of Heavenly God Russia was getting mad to pleasure Europe. Alterations affected everything - they used to rewrite liturgical music which marked the grandeur of the liturgy itself for the Turki. They were doing it in Italian manner, of course. But even being distorted it makes a strong impression, especially at Eastertide showing the heavenly magnificence which it contained and was deprived of. They also repainted the Turkic icons. They rejected the old elegant school in icon-painting which Andrei Rublev followed and stuck to the new "Moscow" school - with puffed up Greek faces. They even put the formulations against which were all the Russian clergymen into the Rules of the Greek Russian Christian Church. This only fact witnesses about much things that were happening in Russia at that time. The theory of the "third Rome" has fallen - having created the Christian Church, the Greeks made Russia not the keeper of the traditions but the destroyer thereof: "The harbinger of the further reign of the Holy Spirit on the Earth simply turned into one of the monarchies - a common state but with new imperial pretensions". Thus the historians write about those events. Tsar Alexei was industriously and purposefully "cutting the window to Europe". In the course of those years Islam became especially popular among the Russian Turki. Defeated but not crushed, they didn't wish to betray Tengri-Khan. They didn't want to recognize Christ who, in their opinion, was carrying Russian arms. Knowing that Allah and Tengri were the names of Heavenly God more and more Kipchaks (to spite the "Greek" Moscow) started to learn other ceremonies of worship of Heavenly God in XVII century. And today the Moslem Kipchaks are the only ones who address Allah with the names Tengri or Khodai. That is absolutely right. Thus the ancestors used to pray before Common Era when there was no Christianity or Islam but was invincible Alla, the Most High Tengri-Khan. So they turned to him (The subject of Islam is very important for the Turkic culture. We are not to discuss it in this book. Another big book is necessary which the author is about to write. The work it has already begun.). In ancient times the word "Alla" meant "giving and taking away" for the Turki. For that reason people turned their palms to Heaven saying: "Alla". That expression remained with the Chuvashes, Buryats and Khakases (not being Muslins): it goes from "al" (hand). And doesn't the famous Arabian "In the name of Allah, kind and merciful" come from here? These are the words of a Tengirchilik follower! In the Arab translation they are the continuation of the famous ancient Turkic phrase "Alla - giving and taking away". Its latest and final pronunciation. Why not? Islam was propagated by the Turki, leading Islamite scientists were also basically from their circles The idea of Islam - the pure belief! - could be born only with the people knowing the image of

Heavenly God and having seen the outrage upon Him. In the culture of pagan Arabs, as well as the Greeks and Romans, there was no such an image. Only the Turki, having worshipped Tengri from of old, seeing the outrage upon belief performed by the Greeks, found a new way to the Most High through Islam (Egypt and the Arabian East were the most predisposed to deviation from the Greek Christianity. Disappointment in belief in Christ of the Arabs started in V century (since the Council of Chalcedon of 451). At that time the Greeks, being afraid of strengthening of the positions of Egypt in the Mediterranean region, skillfully defiled the Alexandrian (Egyptian) Church and its hierarchs. At that Council it became clear that Europe has been creating a new power institution under cover of religion. And nothing else! Byzantium was trying to subdue the former colonies of the eastern regions of the Roman Empire by fair means or foul, but Egypt didn't want another subjection. And, knowing the morals of the Greeks, it took the same course - created and propagated the new religion - but a pure one! - Islam, with assistance of the Tengirchilik Kipchaks in VII century. The former numerous Alexandrian flock accepted it. Belief only in Tengri (Alla) who was called "Allah" in the Arabian manner, united the East before the increasing aggression of the West. It should be mentioned in this connection that early Islam (its canon) is considerably different from modern. It isn't unlikely that it was close to Tengirchilik in form and in spirit.). "Gracious" means "regarding with favor", or "giving" in other words. "Merciful" means "ready to help", i.e. "taking the worries and troubles away". That sense is contained in the short Turkic phrase "Alla" which was heard in Altai mountains two and a half thousand years ago for the first time. Hence is another known expression "God's hand". The Kipchaks of the Russian Empire, those who accepted Islam, saved themselves as the nation of Desht-I-Kipchak. And those who believed the "Greek" cross "disappeared" - they became the Russians. They were christened by force in XVIII - XIX centuries, they were given Russian names and registered as Russians. There are millions of them. They are not the steppe inhabitants but the Slavs now. The Great Steppe has been forgotten, its traditions are not clear. Ryazan, Penza, Simbirsk, Saratov, Samara, Don, Tula, Kursk, Belgorod, Tambov, Caucasian, Siberian and other yesterday's Kipchaks live with another history now. Having neither roots nor ancestors. The memory about the Greek terror against Desht-I-Kipchak remains in churches reconstructed into mosques by the Turki. There are Tengirchilik signs on the ancient walls and a six-pointed star was added - the symbol pointing to the change of belief. To please the Greeks Russia even changed the form of an under cross. They were equilateral earlier What does that mean? An unexpected conclusion: it turns out not all the Russian Old Believers are the "keepers of the true belief", as they call themselves. They have a Greek cross! They accepted it and remained safe during the tsar's persecutions. An eight-pointed cross And that says everything. Formerly neither the Russians nor the Turki called themselves the Christians; it was in another way: "Do you believe in God?" If you do, you are with us. Thus there was no international strife in Russia. "God help us!", - the ancestors used to rush to attack. They lived "for God's sake" They believed in God and worshipped an equilateral cross. After the Council of 1666 Russia has been mutilating its spiritual culture for almost 250 years, it has been wiping it out from the nation. But even being violently wounded, belief in God didn't die: people practiced a religion secretly, they left for the forests, moors and Siberia, they suffered cold and hunger but they gave the image of heavenly God to the ir children Although much has been forgotten in the course of centuries. Peter I was especially violent, he started his reign from a campaign against the Cossacks in the Great Steppe where holy belief in Heavenly God strongly lived in purity those days. The idea of Azov campaigns has been nurtured with the Greeks and the Romans for a long time - that was the colonization of the Steppe and the final stroke against the belief in God. Under Peter the Caucasian Kipchaks - the bearers of the pure belief - were regarded as a drunken company, like runaway criminals - the Russian riffraff. Since that times people have been thinking that the Cossacks are the fugitives. Peter even chose a seal for the Cossack army to mock at them - a naked Cossack on an empty pipe - everything has been drunk away. And in good old days not a drunkard but a deer was the symbol of Don; a heavenly deer who appeared in Altai with the Kipchaks. They built route posts and stones for it of which modern Cossacks, it seems, have never heard. A deer is the most ancient symbol of belief in the Great Steppe. In order to suppress the Don liberty Peter sent prince Dolgorukiy. S.M. Solovyev, the famous

Russian historian, wrote about those terrible events as follows: "On the 4th of November Dolgorukiy came here; the thieves came out to fight but they couldn't resist the tsar's army and turned back to their settlement; the winners entered there also, dislodged the Cossacks from the settlement and turned them out to Don slashing them with no mercy; 3000 people were killed, many drowned, some were shot while they were swimming and those who managed to reach the other bank froze Reshetov settlement was set on fire, but that was the last fire. Don calmed down". "The thieves" were taught a good lesson - they started to call the Tengirchilik mutineers with that word. And there were other similar lessons which taught the Kipchaks nothing. That's them - the Kipchaks - the indefatigable and abrupt nation. Unfortunately, neither official authorities nor the official Russian Church were remorseful of the performed split. Only the holy fathers of the "Nomadic Council", the real Orthodox Church, decided in 1928: "Unjust oaths and curses on the ancient Orthodox ceremony and piety are invalid and detestable; the Great Moscow Council of 1666 - 1667 is not "Great" but Russian, predatory council. For those abusing the ancient ceremony and piety: anathema". Much has been forgotten, indeed. But not everything. Main Sources Akataev S.N. World Outlook Syncretism of the Kazakhs. Issues I-II. Alma-Ata., 1993-1994. Banzarov D. The Black Belief or Shamanism with the Mongols SPb., 1891. Bedwell G. Church History. M., 1996. Belikov D.N. Origin of Christianity with the Goths and Bishop Ulfila actions. Kazan., 1887. [Buzand] History of Armenia by Favtos Buzand. Yerevan., 1953. Velihanov C.C. Collected Works in 5 Volumes. Volume 1. Alma-Ata., 1961. Karamzin N.M. History of Russian State. Vol. I-V. M., 1989 - 1996. Carger M.I. Ancient Kiev. Vol.1-2. M.; L., 1958; 1961. [Constantine Porfirorodniy] Proceedings of Byzantium Writers about Northern Black Sea Coast (first issue) // Proceedings of National Academy of Material Culture History. Issue 91. M.; L., 1934. Pipes R. Russia under the Old Regime. M., 1993. Pletneva S.A. The Polovtsians. M., 1990. Radzivillovskaya Chronicle; Photomechanical Reproduction of Radzivillovskaya (Konigsberg) Chronicle. SPb., 1902. Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X - XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15th, 1991). Part I - III, M., 1991. Rybakov B.A. Kiev Russia and Russian Principalities of XII - XIII centuries, M., 1982. Rybakov B.A. Handicraft of Ancient Russia. M., 1948. Rybakov B.A. Russian Chronicles and the author of "The Lay of Igor's Warfare". M., 1972. Rybakov B.A. Paganism of Ancient Russia. M., 1987. Samashev Z.S. Rock Paintings of Upper Irtysh Banks. Alma-Ata, 1992. [Simokkata] Feofilakt Simokkata. History. M., 1957. Tacito Collected Works in Two Volumes. SPb., 1993. Chichurov I.S. Byzantine Historical Works. M., 1980. Shakhmatov A.A. Ancient Fates of Russian Nation. Pg., 1919. Shakhmatov A.A. Essay of Modern Russian Literary Language. L., 1925.

Part IV
Desht-I-Kipchak - an Unknown Land? What is the essence of a feat? An act not everyone would dare for - not everyone is able for it. For tens and hundreds of years information is being accumulated, which brings up the only one who dares throw down a challenge to the settled opinion of society. And prove his case. Even if hi is not understood by the contemporaries - other generations will come to an understanding. The truth never suffers. The baron Vladimir Gustavovich Tisengausen (1825 - 1902) performed his scientific feat imperceptibly for his fellow countrymen. He published a unique work with a prosaic title "Collection of Materials Relating to the history of the "Golden Horde" in which the time obscure not only for Russia is

analyzed. As a matter of fact that period in the world history still remains a "blank spot". Was there the Tatar-Mongol yoke? And what was it like? "Lack of well-grounded, maybe full and critically analyzed history of the Golden Horde, - wrote Tisengausen in 1884, - is one of the most important and significant blanks in our native way of life description". One cannot assert that anything has changed since then; and, however one cannot neglect the fact that nobody has ever performed such a huge work (In this connection we can mention, perhaps, only the works by B.D. Grekov and L.N. Gumilev in which an attempt of deviation from the standard approach to the "steppe" subject has been made.). Desht-I-Kipchak is the land unknown in Russia. History of the Turki is an unknown science. As if they've never existed. Why? An idle question. Even if an encyclopedia contains no information about the Turkic nation, its culture and language The Slavs have existed and the Turki haven't. And is there any reason for astonishment - the book by Tisengausen, published in XIX century, passed by the censor and dedicated to centuries-old non-Russian events was also subject to "repression" in 1937. In the National Library there is only the first volume of the aforementioned work published in 1884, and the second one was reissued in 1941. They reissued it having edited and abridged, and the original was obliterated. But Tisengausen wasn't the first one who tried to put together everything known about Desht-IKipchak or the Horde as it was often called in Russia In the 30s of XIX century Russian Academy of Science announced a competition for the book about the Golden Horde. All in vain - nobody wished to take part. They declared about prize money. All in vain again: the competition stipulated very difficult conditions - "to take the Russian sources into consideration in all their volume". It is impossible to do that! One cannot bring something evidencing to the point of view of authorities in relation to the south of Russia not sinning against the truth and not calling his scientific honor into question. Their position is too far from the truth! Seizure of a neighboring country is nothing else but a seizure. Unfortunately, at those times Europe, being proud of its enlightenment, pronouncedly ignored the results of sciences of other countries - especially from the East. And the Russian science has been strongly affected by the Western one since XVIII century - Europocentrism approved by Rome and its place of the remote area of Europe suited it. Hence is emphatic neglect in relation to everything Turkic , i.e. more ancient - in other words, to its roots. Westernization was the reason of that. No one needs another Russia in Europe. At last the only work was put on the table of the head of the jury in Petersburg - it was written by Joseph von Hammer-Purgstal. To tell the truth, the German scientist disregarded the main condition of the competition: he didn't trouble himself with the Russian sources not just because he didn't know the language but because they seemed too discrepant to him. His book was written on the basis of foreign sources - Arabian, European, Chinese and Persian ones. But even references to more than 400 historical documents didn't convince the head of the jury of the Russian Academy of Sciences. As one might expect it couldn't approve that research work. The proud German treated the suggestion to reconsider his "wrong" position with disdain. In four years his work was published. And what is more, he demanded on the members of the jury to provide the reviews of his off-cast work, published them accompanying with bilious remarks convicting of pettiness of the reviewers. Their names were dishonored in the scientific world and the honor of the Russian science was put into question However, the word "honor" might be high-flown here - it is not in its right place. Broken out scandal resulted in inclusion of Hammer's work into the censored lists so that it has become a bibliographic rarity in Russia; and the interest of the Academy to the dangerous subject has noticeably decreased. Time cures. Everything can be forgotten and covered by the mist of forgetfulness - the discomfiture has also been forgotten. Little by little Russian historians were also getting into the "steppe" subject; but they worked under surveillance of the censors. Because of the danger of generalizing they were allowed to take only small episodes of the events. They could deal with only insignificant splits of the past. And they did it with trembling hands. For example, one of the scientists thoughtfully marked: "There are unknown dashes and dots on many coins of the Russian princes". And a few lines below he made a discouraging conclusion from his observation: that was ancient Russian writing. And besides he gave a translation of "unknown dashes and dots" adapting it to the known "Vladimir on the table and here is his silver"Academician B. Rybakov also contributed his priceless share by translation of the inscriptions from ancient Russian stack-stands. To tell the truth, in contrast to the said "translator", the academician, as usual,

reconstructed the text adding the "missing" letters. Looking at this science one could only sigh with sorrow. "Ancient Russian" texts made with "unknown dashes and dots" often turned our to be the Turkic runic writing. It is impossible to translate them not knowing the ancient Turkic language. Real (without politics!) scientific works relating to the history of the Steppe and of the Turki have never been written, although there are theses on this subject. From time to time unassuming articles and short translations appeared but scientists simply weren't allowed to reconstruct the course of events. Their "small works" were basically added to the works by the eastern and western authors having visited the lands of the Golden Horde: Plano Carpini, Marco Polo, Ibn Battutu, William Rubruk and others. In the Steppe the Russians were allowed to search for remains just of the Slavic settlements or Scythian ones at worst. Authorities forced even the big scientists - V.N. Tatischev and N.M. Karamzin - to invent new "fundamental" histories of Russia (The Kipchak, the native of the noble Crimean family, N.M. Karamzin kind of imitated the destiny of another Kipchak historian, Jordan. His comments are also the key for the keen; sometimes they are in evident contradiction with the main text written by the tsar's order.). So can we have a grudge against S.M. Solovyev or V.O. Klyuchevskiy - their followers? They were given the base for their works (like Monomakh's teaching) and they were choosing vivid details proving an opportunity to discuss several small items and to take the reader away from the main point - the base itself with its disfigured "official" architecture. Architects of the history of Russia have always been sitting in the offices of the censors, their names have always been unknown, but they were the only ones laying down the conditions. They made Russia the country of "double standard" and its science of "double morals" Since XV century the foreigners have become regular visitors at Moscow, they left interesting and instructive notes fixing the things which could be used by the West in its policy in them. Inaccuracies are seldom met in them. A part of those notes was, of course, of entertaining character and certain were written by those willing to flatter. They remained! And according to that evidences independent from Moscow authorities another impression about Russia and its look is made as compared with what "double" Russian science says. Almost every foreigner visiting Russia in XVI century marked slyness and mendacity of its inhabitants. "People in Moscow, they say, are more sly and crafty than anywhere else and are especially treacherous while performing obligations" - one of the guests wrote. "Concerning their keeping of the word the Russians mostly ignore it as soon as they can gain something by deceit or breach of their obligations", - wrote another. " Neither Russian believes anything and he would never say something one can rely on. These features make the Russians contemptible in the eyes of their neighbors", - J. Fletcher marked in XVI century. Bondage or slavery are the only explanations of the unexpected turns in Russian Historical works at which reasonable people only laugh. There are too many examples. The most significant is the book by marquis Astolph de Quistine who thoroughly examined the work by Karamzin translated into French in XIX century Who was it who needed that translation? The French scientist wrote about the "History of the Russian State" by Karamzin as follows: "If only the Russians knew everything an attentive reader can find in the book by that flattering historian whom they glorify; they should have hated him and begged the tsar to prohibit reading all the Russian historians and first of all Karamzin so that the past remains in the beneficial dark of oblivion for the welfare of the despot and happiness of the nation". That's a good advice! "If only they knew" But how could they know? The society is slowly rotting "for the reason it believed the words of no meaning", wrote de Quistine about Russia. Controversies are about to kill the society "in order to feed on its corpse". He was a real soothsayer, that selfassured French. In XX century Russia has become the country "which one leaves with great pleasure and returns to with great sorrow". It has become a bad country for its nation! But, de Quistine draws a conclusion, "Providence gathers these inactive forces in the east of Europe not in vain. Sometimes the sleeping giant is to awake and the force will put an end to the kingdom of the words". Thus it would be since a lie is not eternal. We have already mentioned mythical Slavic Russians of which a part of the Russians was formed under unclear circumstances A real absurd But it has become a part of the academic science. The new "change" has begun in XVIII century - the Turki were officially becoming the Russians. The

number of the Slaves in certain Russian settlements increased hundreds and thousands of times. Not genocide but something else was performed in the country; there isn't even a name for it. An entire nation was proclaimed non-existing - that was the Turkic nation! Another part of the Russians appeared from the Tatar-Mongols. That was the whole Southern Russia lying to the south from the Moskva River to the Caucasus! Tens of millions of people! The term "Tatar-Mongols" was introduced. They frightened the children in schools with it calling them a monster which destroyed the wellbeing of Russia and is the reason of all its troubles and sufferings. But what kind of a hybrid is it - the "Tatar-Mongols"? And who has invented it? For the first time that absurdity was formed by P.A. Naumov, the schoolteacher, in 1823. He wrote in his brochure as follows: " All the historians agree that those mighty conquerors were not the Tatars but the Mongols", - the aforementioned author described the events of XIII century, while the Mongols "approaching to the boundaries of our country and the countries of the Western Asia became stronger on account of the local Tatars, i.e. the nations of the Turkish tribe". Thus a stunning idea came to Naumov's mind: to call them Tatar-Mongols. The schoolteacher had neither knowledge nor imagination to do something else. But the scientists of Petersburg liked his logics and the label stuck to the Turki was introduced to the scientific lexicon in 1823. "Tatar-Mongol" yoke was also suitable for Moscow authorities due to its terrifying vagueness It borne something really ominous and frightening. Did anybody except Karamzin think about the fact that the nation "Tatars" didn't exist in XIII century. "Neither of modern Tatar nations calls itself the Tatars", - the great Russian historian marked in XIX century. So who are they, the Tatars? The word "Tatars" was borrowed from the Kipchaks and the latter borrowed it from the Chinese. Thus one of the nations of the Central Asia was called in antiquity; it lived on the border between China and Mongolia. That nation was closer to the Mongols in its culture. Later the word "Tatars" had a collective meaning for the Chinese the same as it happened with the "Huns" and "Barbarians" in Europe. In III century B.C. the Chinese fenced off the Tatars with the Great Chinese Wall. But according to the late Chinese conceptions the Tatars were divided into white, black and wild; in other words nobody has ever seen ethnic unity in them. After China was conquered by Chingis-Khan the word "Tatars" obtained another meaning there and related only to the Mongols who have headed the Horde. There was no difference between the Mongols and the Tatars for the Russians, both were the people form the East for them. The Russians started to call the Tatars everybody coming from the East and the Germans everybody coming from the West. The destiny of the real Tatars was tragic: at first they were pressed by Yesugey-Batagur, the father of Chingis-Khan, the Tatars poisoned him for that, but the son fittingly avenged. Temuchin wrote in the "Secret History of the Mongols": "We defeated the hated enemies - the Tatars, those murderers of our fathers and grandfathers when we annihilated the whole Tatar nation as a deserved punishment for their murderous deeds". Only a few managed to save form the mighty revenge. That's because it is incorrect to talk about the union between the Mongols and the Tatars. There was no union! And there could never be. There was a subjection of remaining Tatars to the Mongols. These two words cannot stand together even in theory And it is especially incorrect to call the Kipchaks with that curse knowing they've "been never concerned with the Mongol Tatars from the Central Asia". The Kipchaks were formerly called "Polovtsyans" in Russia, and in Europe they were called "Kumans". Why did Russian rulers need to humiliate and split Kipchak nation into small Turkic nations, invent the names and nicknames for them? In order to rule dividing? To divide and to rule! The merit of Vladimir Gustavovich Tisengausen was that he tool the risk to make that misunderstanding clear. A misunderstanding, indeed! Carefully, without any comments, he proposed the facts. But "bare" facts, as it turns out, tell more than thick books. Baron Tisengausen took only the documents, they follow one another being mutually complementary - this is what his book is notable for. It might be that the author did it that monotonous not by accident; recurrence of the subjects really tires; a man in the street would never come through it Wasn't that the way to muddle the church censors up? If one manages to surmount those obstacles, the book opens the wonderful world of the great country described by the foreigners to a keen reader. Tisengausen provided the extracts from the ancient manuscripts which were saved by a miracle and the past days came alive! Desht-O-Kipchak started to fuss, the steppe was agitated full of the absinth smell. One could even hear the songs

having read the notices by Ibn-Battuta. Collected manuscripts are unique; main force of the book is in their polyphony. For example, Shapfi chronicle is kept in Paris National Library; there is the single copy of it. Each author, as far as we know, has its own style and methods of working: Tisengausen preferred historical documents. One should simply read this book - read and think about it. Because the travelers wrote what they saw, they had no time for fantasies which are usual for historians; a traveler sees the world in a different way every day, and he has a road to go. The only thing to do is to write. The first volume of "Collection of Materials Relating to the history of the "Golden Horde" is rather thick; it remained as it was issued by the author. Practically everything "extracted from the Arabian works" is gathered in it. Many pages of the volume are speckled with elegant Arabic characters; interlinear translation is given near. Authenticity of the facts cannot be called into question: the work has been done with academic formalism, any word contained in it can be checked. "The second volume of the collection, - as it is written in the preface, - will include the extracts from the works by Persian, Tatar and Turkish writers". But one can only guess which of those extracts were crossed out by the Soviet censors and which remained. Tisengausen's story begins with the chronicle by Ibn al-Asira, the competent person who used to question the eyewitnesses, visit the places of events before he started his difficult story "about the invasion of the Tatars to Muslin countries". "For several years I objected to announcement of that event, - he begins his joyless story with a real eastern tact, - considering it horrible and having aversion to expound it; I used to start and stop several times. Is it easy for anyone to tell the world about death of Muslins and pleasantly to remember about it?" And then frightful description of invasion into the Middle Asia and all destructions caused by the Tatars to the East is set forth. The trouble was "as a cloud blown by the wind". Having defeated the Lezghins and conquered Transcaucasia, as it is written in the chronicle, the Tatars turned to the Northern Caucasus where the Alans lived in the foothills. They knew about an unavoidable storm and were ready for it. They entered into the union with the Kipchaks and accepted the battle together. Pressing Tatars - that cloud blown by the wind - could do nothing and in a little while asked for a break Here we shall interrupt the story by Ibn al-Asir in order to finally clarify the question - who were the Tatars? For the West natives ethnic accuracy is of great importance. The Mongols are the Mongols, the Tatars are the Tatars and the Turki are the Turki; one shouldn't mix them up. There's no reason. They are different! The word "Mongol" is known since X - XI centuries, that is reported by the Mongols themselves. It is not known what that nation was formerly called. Its history was connected with the Turki and Altai, apparently, - neighborhood of two nations cannot leave without a trace. It is very likely that the Turki, having arrived to the steppe from Altai, borrowed certain things from the Mongols - those steppe nomads (Of course they used to communicate earlier. The Mongols wandered to the south of Altai. The tribe ongutam was notable among them. The Chinese called them "the white Tatars"; they were close to the Chinese in appearance and culture. There were also the "black Tatars" who lived in the forests and were different for other cultural traditions "The Mongols", as we can see, is a complicated subject of ethnography - they are many-sided regardless of similarity in their appearances But they are not in question now.). They took the lessons of life in the plain The neighbors! That was the Mongolian army moving from the Central Asia to the west, although the Turki led the war for the most part: the Turkic speech dominated in the army. But that was the Mongolian army! For example, Baty had 330 000 warriors and only 4000 Mongols among them There is a secret rule in the world: the army belongs to the one under whose flag it wages a war. The one who pays them, who makes the plans of the conquers, who is defeated or keeps the loots. He is the master. On this point everything seems to be clear. And is it correct to call Temuchin a Mongolian? It is another question. Chingis-Khan, they say, had blue eyes and a red beard. He headed the Mongol troops, he waged a war under the Mongolian flag, his victories belong to the Mongolian Empire (By the way, the army of the emperor Napoleon was headed by the marshal Murat, the Kipchak by birth, but nobody has hit upon an idea to call the French the Kipchaks. Although inhabitants of certain provinces of France should be called the Kipchaks who have forgotten their kinship.). So what? His father and mother were the Turki But when and how has

their son turned into the Mongol? Known portraits of the great commander with narrow eyes is nothing more than imagination of the artists - the Mongols paint all the people of the world with narrow eyes. They just cannot do it in a different way. Here is another question (painful and instructive for the Turki!) - how did Temuchin, who was nicknamed Chingis-Khan appear in the camp of the Mongols? Why did he lead a war against his nation? It seems the answer is obvious and very annoying By God's will Chingis -Khan was born a genius of the military art, his talent belonged not to him, not to the Turki but to the whole world. Talent of a human is a God's gift. The great commander created his great masterpieces - new battle tactics, new methods of siege of fortresses and other things. Hence are his victories But could the commander show his talent remaining among the Turki who were fighting between each other? Never! His fellow countrymen would have annihilated him as they have annihilated dozens of less gifted persons. That's why the Turki should be grateful to the Mongols who gave an opportunity for another genius to live The brilliant neglected by one nation ornamented the crown of another! Temuchin was recognized as the man of that thousand years. The man of the previous thousand years was another Turki - Attila. S.M. Solovyev was willing to explain the absurdity with the "Tatar-Mongols", but what he has written didn't clarify most things. "It might be, - Solovyev wrote in XIX century, - someone would reproach me on account of that name which leads to the mixture (bold provided - M.A.) of different nations since the nation known as "the Tatars" nowadays belongs to the Turkish tribe. One cannot deprive the Russian history of the word with which our ancestors called their enslavers; ancient and modern Russian people don't know the Mongols but only the Tatars". Excellent! That's true. Let the Russian people call their enslavers as they wish. But should the swearing be extended to the Turkic nation which has already suffered from those "Tatars"? Why should the Bulgarian nation and nations of other chaganats of Desht-I-Kipchak be nicknamed and why should other Turkic "nations" be called with those nicknames? National discord between two suffered nations - the Kipchaks and the Russians - has been rousing in Russia for centuries. National policy which is humiliating for everybody is carried out. One nation is set off against all other ones (And meanwhile Kazan khan was oppressed to a greater extent as compared with Moscow prince under the Mongols. Both, the price and the khan, as we know, bought the right for power from the Great Khan in Sarai-Berk, but in contrast to Moscow prince Kazan khan would never recover the costs He had no profits due to levy taking.). It has been forgotten that the Slavs and the Turki are the inhabitants of one country, and the more they hate each other the weaker Russia is. Only a third party can gain advantages on account of hostility - the party that sets on to fight. At first these were the Greeks, and later - many others. It is evident from the splendid story by Ibn al-Asir that the Mongols and the Kipchaks - two different nations - faced each other in a battlefield in the Northern Caucasus for the first time! The break asked by the Mongols was suddenly over for the Alans. Their allies, the Kipchaks, refused to wage a war. "Both of us have the same roots", - said the Mongols having sent the Kipchaks from their army for negotiations. The Caucasian Kipchaks believed them, they accepted the gifts from their brothers and turned round the horses listening to the assurances in everlasting friendship. As soon as they were out if sight, the Mongols attacked the Alans and easily won the victory. Then they ran after the Kipchaks and attacked them also. "They took twice as much as they have brought them (the Kipchaks)", - the Arabian chronicler reports. So there was blood everywhere One would think what was reprehensible about the fact that the Turki refused to lead a fratricidal war? Well, they were deceived by the Mongols, so does it mean anything? But the Russians interpreted that fact being tragic for the Turki just as betrayal of the Kipchaks Whom did they betray? Themselves? In the book "The Polovtsians" professor S.A. Pletneva writes about "the first betrayal" of the Kipchaks. A serous accusation for the nation suffered from the Mongols! But as it comes clear, there wasn't either the first or the second betrayal; they were invented by Russian historians in order to slander Desht-I-Kipchak and the whole Turkic nation once again. Nobody has ever checked the authenticity of the stories about "the betrayals"( It should be mentioned that expressions like "betrayal", "cowardice", "treachery" etc., which are almost obligatory for the Russian historical works about the nation of the Great Steppe do not belong to the scientific lexicon. These are the political definitions! They were suggested to the German Hammer so that he becomes the winner of the competition of the Russian Academy of Sciences As we can see , although the scientific scandal of 1835 has been forgotten, it didn't teach anything: deception lasts until now.). In the chronicle by Ibn al-Asir, to which Pletneva also refers, there is no even a hint at the betrayal

of the Kipchaks who, maybe, showed themselves too credulous, too artless but they were not the betrayals It seems this is the time to restore the unbiased truth about the Great Steppe. It is enough to swear them - there's no reason! On May 30th, 1223 the Kipchaks led the next battle against the Mongols together with the Russians. Ibn al-Asir told about the favorite method of the Mongols who, as though they were hastily stepping back, stretched the enemy's troops and promptly defeated it (Here it is, the wisdom of Chingis-Khan, his military talent! New fighting tactics which was never seen in Russia.). Thus that happened again. The troop which was "stepping back" lead the pursuers to Kalka where main forces of the Mongols were waiting for them. There the fighting commenced "Those wh o saved themselves returned to their native land having a sorry sight due to the long way and defeat", - wrote the wise Arab. The Russians represent everything in a different way once again: they blamed the Turki for the result of the battle of Kalka. And only them! And they were called the betrayals again A surprising permanency. Even Karamzin expressed his opinion: "Craven Polovtsians couldn't resist the Mongols: they were mixed up, they opened their rear" But any reasonable man, having read it, is entitled to ask: what rear could have a pursuing army stretching for dozens of kilometers? It was the pursuit! And is this the "cowardice" of the Kipchaks being the reason of the defeat? Considering the fact that even Karamzin writes that two Russian princes - Kiev and Chernigov - didn't even take part in the fight. They were afraid. They were waiting in the shelter with their retinues, and Mstislav Galicius, heading the battle, turned out to be a good-for-nothing commander: that commander-in-chief was defeated for the reason of his own lack of talent. Aforementioned Pletneva surpassed Karamzin and his "betrayal" having invented "the second betrayal" and "the flight from the battlefield" for the Kipchaks. But that is enough! There must be a place for justice in the deceptions. Firstly, there was no battlefield. And secondly, were the steppe inhabitants put to flight? John Fletcher, the Englishman already cited by us (of course, not the battle of Kalka is in question), wrote about the Kipchak warriors as follows: "They despise death and they would rather dye than be defeated by the enemy and, having been defeated, they gnaw their weapons in case they cannot fight any longer or help themselves". And he continues: "A Russian soldier, having started to step back, finds his life-saving only in flight". So who was put to flight at Kalka? Who opened its rear? It turns out that was Mstislav Galicius! That was him. The eyewitnesses saw that commander running away having left his army; he wished to use the "glory of the victory". Having declared himself the Russian leader, having 80 thousand warriors, he was defeated by the Mongols who had only 20 thousand. He didn't manage to make the most of the fourfold superiority! Mstislav Galicius is also guilty in death of thousands of Russians after the lost battle. He was running away from Kalka and having crossed Dnepr he "ordered to destroy all the boats so that the Mongols were not able to follow him". That was written by Karamzin who couldn't conceal the truth. And nothing can be added to his words Only the tenth part of the Russian levies escaped; 6 princes and 70 boyars were killed in the battlefield among others. But the "Tatar-Mongol" yoke and disappearance of the Kipchaks as the nation started not with that defeat. As it is fixed by Ibn al-Asir, Allah reward him for his noble truth, the battle of Kalka had a grave continuation: having been left by the Russians, the Turki didn't disappear, they didn't waver but, having waited for a while, they gathered together and shattered the Mongols near Itil. Only a handful of the Mongol army remained safe; khan Sudebei, the conqueror of the Middle Asia and Transcaucasia led it away. It is strange, isn't it? "Craven", "cowardice", "running away from the battlefield" Kipchaks defeated the invincible Mongols And poor Russians didn't know about that? Or they did but kept it secret through their old habit? By the way, the Mongols prefer not to mention that continuation of the battle of Kalka regarding it as a casualty. It might be so But khan Sudebei returned from the Great Steppe with light luggage. Now it seems clear why de Quistine offered to "prohibit reading all the Russian historians and first of all Karamzin". It is really better to stay in the dark than to live close to a lie presented as the truth. The words of Karamzin sound like a mockery: "History is the sacred book of the nations, the mirror of their lives, the tablet of their revelations and rules, the testament of the ancestors to the descendants". Unfortunately, the Russian "tablet of revelations and rules" has been written according to the

traditions of the Greek historiography where a lie is necessary. And isn't it the reason Russia has no "testament of the ancestors" due to the authors?! Let us not forget that, as a matter of fact, the memory of the nation, its culture and enlightenment are in question. An ignorant nation is a crowd. Ignorance provoked by science is treason. People have been often playing with purity of Turkic souls. They believed when they were deceived In XIII century the Mongols succeeded in that: Chingis -Khan headed their army and at first the Kipchaks didn't regard the Mongols as the enemies. But after the battles in the Caucasus and at Kalka they recognized duplicity of the Mongols and thus they defeated them without mercy. The defeat at Itil was like a cold shower: even Chingis-Khan understood he would never succeed in an open fight with the Great Steppe. Everything was decided by accident as it has already happened in the history of nations. Once Mangush, the son of Kotyan-khan, was hunting in the steppe. He met Akkubul-khan in the fields; he was an old rival of their family. They'd better pass one another!.. History could have taken another way. But they didn't, they faced each other. In a word, Akkubuk killed the young fellow in the fight. As soon as the sorrowful news reached Dnepr - the lands of Kotyan-khan - he gathered the army in Zaporozhye and moved it to Don, to the lands of Akkubul-khan. Zaporozhye troopers had a really good time at Don. Wounded Akkubul hardly saved himself and, having found no strength for the riposte, sent Ansarar, his brother, to ask the Mongols for assistance. He brought the Mongols to Don. That wasn't an invasion but an INVITATION of 1228 - in five years after Kalka - that was fatal for Desht-I-Kipchak. The Mongols deceived again, they didn't forget anything to the quarreling Kipchaks, they didn't have mercy on Akkubul - it was too late for the Turki to gather the army. Desht-I-Kipchak got the new name under the Mongol government in Russia - the Golden Horde. It turned in the remote region of the Mongolian Empire from the flourishing country; and the Empire was acting basically due to the Kipchaks. And that was another absurdity in the Turkic history - they always have the keys of their manacles in their own pockets (Some time ago, serving to Rome and Byzantium, the Kipchaks killed Attila's empire themselves. And then were the Mongols. Everything repeated History hasn't taught the Turki anything.). Two and a half centuries of the Mongol slavery broke down the Truki as the nation: many things were forgotten by themselves; many things were forgotten by force. Fear and desire to gain favor were becoming the part of the character of the steppe nation. Like a dog stretching to his master's hand, they were stretching to the Mongol-Tatars, and they started to lick Moscow boots. After all, it is good that the word "Desht-I-Kipchak" was deleted from the European maps - there was less of shame. And it just disappeared To tell the truth, independent Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan appeared - legal successors of Desht-I-Kipchak, its history and culture But will the people there remember the Great Steppe, their "disappeared" Motherland? Power of the Mongols covered almost all the Turkic lands. Persian author Djuvaini excellently described that in the 50s of XIII century in the book "History of the Conquest of the World". No doubt, baron Tisengausen read that book; he was interested in everything relating to Desht-I-Kipchak. People have been often playing with purity of Turkic souls. They believed when they were deceived In XIII century the Mongols succeeded in that: Chingis -Khan headed their army and at first the Kipchaks didn't regard the Mongols as the enemies. But after the battles in the Caucasus and at Kalka they recognized duplicity of the Mongols and thus they defeated them without mercy. The defeat at Itil was like a cold shower: even Chingis-Khan understood he would never succeed in an open fight with the Great Steppe. Everything was decided by accident as it has already been happening in the history of nations. Once Mangush, the son of Kotyan-khan, was hunting in the steppe. He met Akkubul-khan in the fields; he was an old rival of their family. They'd better pass one another!.. History could have taken another way. But they didn't, they faced each other. In a word, Akkubuk killed the young fellow in the fight. As soon as the sorrowful news reached Dnepr - the lands of Kotyan-khan - he gathered the army in Zaporozhye and moved it to Don, to the lands of Akkubul-khan. The troopers had a really good time at Don. Wounded Akkubul hardly saved himself and, having found no strength for the riposte, sent Ansarar, his brother, to ask the Mongols for assistance. He brought the Mongols to Don. That wasn't an invasion but an INVITATION of 1228 - in five years after Kalka - that was fatal for Desht-I-Kipchak. The Mongols deceived again, they didn't forget anything to the altercating Kipchaks, they didn't have mercy on Akkubul - it was too late for the Turki to gather the army. Desht-I-Kipchak got the new name under the Mongol government in Russia - the Golden Horde. It

turned in the remote region of the Mongolian Empire from the flourishing country; and the Empire was acting basically due to the Kipchaks. And that was another absurdity in the Turkic history - they always have the keys of their manacles in their own pockets(Some time ago, serving to Rome and Byzantium, the Kipchaks killed Attila's empire themselves. And then were the Mongols. Everything repeated History hasn't taught the Turki anything.). Two and a half centuries of the Mongol slavery broke down the Truki as the nation: many things were forgotten by themselves; many things were forgotten by force. Fear and desire to gain favor were becoming the part of the character of the steppe nation. Like a dog stretching to his master's hand, they were stretching to the Mongol-Tatars, and they started to lick Moscow boots. After all, it is good that the word "Desht-I-Kipchak" was deleted from the European maps - there was less of shame. And it just disappeared To tell the truth, independent A zerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan appeared - legal successors of Desht-I-Kipchak, its history and culture But will the people there remember the Great Steppe, their "disappeared" Motherland? Power of the Mongols covered almost all the Turkic lands. Persian author Djuvaini excellently described that in the 50s of XIII century in the book "History of the Conquest of the World". No doubt, baron Tisengausen read that book; he was interested in everything relating to Desht-I-Kipchak. In Djuvaini's story one can find admiration for trustful Kipchak "losers" who underwent terrible ordeals sent by fate, and they held out with dignity arising Djuvaini's delight. The author of the Chinese work "History of the First Four Khans of Chingis-Khan Family" also said many good words. Russia was the only country where truthful words concerning its southern neighbor that suffered a terrible in trouble in XIII century have never been heard. Under the Mongols Eastern-European steppes have become "ancient Russian". That is asserted by Russian science (For example, professor Pletneva interprets invasion of the Mongols into Desht-I-Kipchak as the "seizure of the southern Russian steppes"!!! And nothing else. It goes without saying she's not the only one adhering to that official Russian position.). But how long have the Turkic steppes belonged to them? In what war and against whom have they been conquered? Invasion of the Mongols to Russia was of peculiar character. Here is the text confirming that: "Before the Mongols came numerous Russian principalities of the Varangian origin that recognized the power of the Great Kiev Prince only theoretically, in fact didn't form the united state, and the name of the united Russian nation cannot be applied to the tribes of the Slavic origin that lived there. Those tribes were united due to the impact of Mongolian dominion and formed the Moscow Principality which has become the Russian Empire afterwards (bold provided. - M.A.)". These are the words of the famous Mongolian historian Kharadavan. It turns out those were the Mongols who created Moscow Principality, strengthened it and introduced into its political sphere of influence. They needed an ally in the north of Europe being the enemy of the Great Steppe at the same time. The union between the Mongols and the Russians is also evident for another reason - there has never been a single(!) Mongol ruler in Russia. Russians princes have been always governing themselves Alas, these are the facts evident from the M ongolian and the Russian chronicles. The Mongols were interested in levy in Russia; they would come for it twice a year. And they collected it skillfully! The Church was exempted from paying levy. In 1270 Mengu-Timur-Khan issued an order which started with the words: "No one should dare disgrace the churches and offend the metropolitans in Russia" Uzbek-Khan expanded the privileges of the clergy introducing the death penalty for the infringers not considering the fact "whether they are the Russians or the Mongolians". The Mongols needed Moscow Principality to collect levy; thus they created it by XIV century. Tver princes were rarely allowed to perform that procedure. So the horrors about the Tatar-Mongol yoke proceeded not from the mythical "Tatars". The Mongol khan presented the insignia - the hat - to his "deputy" in Russia. Hence is an expression "Heavy Monomakh's hat" It was presented to the Moscow Prince in XIV century when the town has become the collector of levy. The Great Khan presented it to his deputy in the Russian lands for faithful service. The hat has become the symbol of autocracy in Russia (In the end of XV - beginning of XVI centuries the Greeks invented a legend according to which that symbol of autocracy was supposed to be sent by the Byzantine emperor Constantine II Monomakh to Vladimir, the Kiev Prince But that is another absurdity.). The Great Khan and other khans had the same hats. At the same time the neighbors invented the word moscal - thus they called the "Moscow collectors". Moscow notably prospered under the prince Ivan I (? - 1340), who was nicknamed Kalita (The word

"Kolita" is Turkic. "Kol" means "hand", "iti" means "to collect". Thus it means "collector".). He was the great man, the real politician, the collector of the whole Russia who has made political and economic bases of the Moscow State. A metropolis was opened in Moscow during his reign. However, 1472 was the main year in the history of the Moscow Principality when they brought the late bride Sophia Paleologus, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor. The marriage of Ivan III opened the doors to Europe for Moscow making the principality a successor of non-existing Byzantium A very promising diplomatic act; it gave Moscow delivery of power of the Horde! Russia was rising not due to trade, not due to a war, but due to humility towards the Mongols and cruelty towards the Russians. That completely suited the Greeks who were intending to take the place of the Mongols in Russia Moscow Principality was growing rapidly adding the lands of their neighbors to it. Nothing could stop it. Luxury and debauchery stroke all the visitants. The town lived "on the corpse of society", as marquise de Quistine has mentioned. Climent Adams, the Englishman, who visited Russia in 1553, was dazzled with magnificence of the prince's chambers: "There was a small table in the middle of the chamber A great many precious items, vases, bowls, cups made of the best gold lay there" To tell the truth, splendor embarrassed those having seen other starving Russian principalities. Certain princes couldn't even buy clothes, and the people used to "walk from one village into another in order to get some coal" Foreigners marked that also. Formerly just a part of levy collected in Moscow was transferred to the Horde. Something was due to it for its work, something was simply theft, and something was collected over excessively. The town had the money. And after that the whole levy collected in Russia usually appeared in the Kremlin cellars That made them think about defence of the Kremlin. About their own army! Paying levy, the Moscow Principality formerly bought defence for itself. However humiliating was that procedure, it was the payment for guarding of the borders. For example, Alexander Nevsky would have never gained a victory on the ice of the lake. Russian foot (not an army!) were winning under the hooting of the "beastly knights". Cavalry was dominating in the ending of the battle of April 5th, 1242; the steppe inhabitants left not a ghost of a chance to the enemies of Russia (This is a lie what is ascribed to Alexander Nevsky; it doesn't comply, for example, with history of Sweden and modern Finland. Those two countries were the parties in the battle of Neva. And the Russians didn't take part in it. The Russians saw its ending from the other bank of Neva. Alexander with his patrol was among the observers (about fifty riders); he wasn't heading the Russian army since Russia couldn't have one. It paid levy to be defended.). In the beginning of XIV century the Mongols demanded on the Russians to pay levy in silver. But silver wasn't extracted in Russia. They had to get it from abroad. Thus Russia joined international trade. Moscow Russia knew only fairs before - not trade but exchange of goods (Of course somebody may find author's estimation of establishment of trade relations in Moscow Russia subjective. One can remember Sadko, western merchants who used to visit ancient Novgorod and Kiev That's right. But that is not Moscow Russia! Moscow Principality cannot be regarded as the historical successor of Kiev Russia or White Russia. Thus their history cannot be ascribed to them - these are different nations and different countries. They might be Slavic according to the terminology of Russian historians, but still they are different. For example, coins have existed in Kiev Russia for ages; and Moscow learnt about the money only due to the Horde. Its first rubles were the cut pieces of a silver wire; they also cut small coins - kopecks - from it. By the way, "kopeck" is the Turkic word, it means "small things" in figurative sense.). In Sarai-Berk, the capital of the Golden Horde, the Russians established a big trade colony and started the trade being protected by the Mongols. The fact that Russian trade was established with assistance of the Great Steppe is witnessed by the list of words relating to trade, finances, goods, storage and transportation. The whole merchant trade has Turkic roots. There were no Russian "trade" words. It is evident even from the notes by Athanasius Nikitin. Of course he wasn't the first Russian merchant who has seen the foreign lands, but he was the first one who wrote about them. It seems all other merchants were undereducated. Turkic words stand near the Russian ones in his notes. But academic Russia stubbornly rejects the evident calling bilingual writing "macaronic language". They say "Turkic slang was the spoken language among the merchants" Even the evident is presented with slyness. But here is an extract from the text by Athanasius Nikitin: "And in India "pachektur, a uchyuzedzer: sikish ilarsen iki shitel; akechany ilya atrsenyatle zhetel ber; bulara dostor: a kul karavash uchyuz char funa khub bem funa khubesia; kapkara am chyuk kichi khosh". In what language was this

text written? Where are the Turkic slang and Russian spoken language? And here is the translation: In India "women are considered to be cheap and inexpensive: if you want to get acquainted - that would cost two shetels; want to give money for "nothing" - you'll have to give six shetels. That is their custom. Slaves, both male and female, are cheap: four funs - good, five funs - good and black". In the notes by Athanasius Nikitin Turkic and Russian words stand near each other; they are like the hands of one person. Because two nations lived close to each other; bilingual speaking was normal for communication between a learner and a teacher. We can take other examples. It's the same everywhere: examples of cooperation between the Kipchaks and the Moscovites. For instance the word "treasury" is a direct borrowing, money and customs come from the word "tamga" which meant a state seal put on the goods as a sign of customs payment. Tchervonets is from "shirvana" (golden coin). Goods (articles of trade) meant "cattle" or "property". Comrade means "business partner", "assistant". Share, suitcase, trunk, bag The same can be said about the words relating to clothes of a traveling merchant - pocket, trousers, hat, cap, caftan, boot, heel and dozens of others. The same is with the words relating to transport and communications of those times: driver, post, cart, tilt cart, hut, tarantass. Even the word "book" was borrowed when drowsing Russia, having taken off its bast shoes, was ready for international examination. That's what the Russians have got due to the "Tatar-Mongol yoke". And prosperous Moscow in addition! In fact, was there the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" in Russia? And what was it? Speaking about that hard period one shouldn't forget about another important circumstance Moscow acted as Horde's agent among the northern principalities. Its western neighbors wrote about its customs as follows: "That nation (the Moscovites) is sly and treacherous, insincere and inconstant; having returned to its motherland and having become (our) rulers there, they impudently devastated our regions". But Russia had the reasons to act in that way: it was protected by the Mongolians, which gave confidence to it. The Moscovites had to show themselves. And they did. Hence - from the support of the Horde! - are all the successes: remote small town of Vladimir principality turned into an important and expanding town of the Mongolian Empire. Governing methods used there were absolutely the same as those the Mongols had. As a matter of fact, it was created in accordance with it and with assistance of the Mongols Horde's traditions have become strongly established there for centuries. The town was supposed to collect levy and suppress the neighboring nations. In order to rule, suppress, collect, take away Moscow needed new people - the officials. They were formed of the nobles - serving, intelligent, nimble - enticed from the Horde for the most part. These were not the wages but unrestricted opportunities of personal power that made the nobles willing to be engaged in Moscow bureaucracy. They made their living not with a plough or a saber but stealing and taking bribes. Bureaucracy is normal for Russian life; it survived everyone and everything. It is over the nationalities and out of politics - and thus it is eternal. In case of each change of the rulers the Moscovites solemnly swore an oath: not to attempt tsar's life, "not to wish somebody else in the Moscow State", not to get in contact, not to betray, to suppress, to denounce And many other things included the secret ritual fixed in the formulas of Russian allegiance. It originated in XVI century. Under Alexei Mikhailovich it reached its climax and under Peter it was perfect which hasn't changed in future: serving people were changed in Russia but their habits remained the same. No one has ever taught a Russian bureaucrat anything bad or nasty, he gained an understanding in everything by himself demonstrating excellent self-organization. He could disfigure any undertaking so that good becomes evil; but the evil which is advantageous for the Moscovite. And that is another peculiarity of the Moscovites. As a matter of fact it is a profession of execution of orders and regulations which reach the remote corners of the country and cover them with the Kremlin's power. Authorities have always estimated service higher than nationality or parentage of the officer. "History of Russia is the history of nobility", - historians would say about that epoch In a word, the Turki had a longing to come to Moscow - certain were invited, and certain came themselves. "That is a sly person, - thus was written bout Ivan the Terrible in the treatise "About the Customs of the Tatars, Lithuanians and the Moscovites", - he granted an award to returning deserters, even the empty and useless ones: freedom to a slave, nobility to a commoner, forgiveness of debts to a debtor,

remission of fault to a scoundrel". They simply had to serve to the tsar But it is hard to call a service what the deserters were doing: they didn't get wages for their deeds! What kind of service is that? At first it was important for them to please the prince - to learn to serve, endure any offences. "And if they do everything according to his wish they are awarded not with money but with an office of a master" Fantastic slyness! There are no limits for actions of an "office personnel". Two candidates were appointed to one office at the same time: one hade to displace another through eagerness and denunciation. And in case of suit, it was settled by fisticuffs. There was a clublaw. They fought for an office in Moscow. A looser paid a penalty to the treasury Expanding capital of Russia enticed many Kipchaks. First of all they became "the Moscovites" - they went to serve, abase themselves and fight for the right to abuse others. A good half of Russia nobility are the Turki, the natives of the Steppe. Which is witnessed by academic researches, for example "Russian Family Names of the Turkic Origin" by N.A. Baskakov. Horde's traditions appeared in Moscow together with the Turki. Appearance of the city was changing rapidly: Turkic architecture was becoming firmly established there. To tell the truth, similarity in architectures is not surprising: the migrants, according to a tradition of all the colonists of the world, took the names of left abodes and their appearance to new places. Moscow borrowed many Mongolian institutions it didn't have: tax authorities, communication, repression instruments. Repression instruments were a prison, manacles, servitude and others. Those words also came from the Golden Horde Considering the position of Moscow as an agent of the Horde in Russia, the whole Russian history should be read otherwise. For example, why was Ivan the Terrible willing to defeat the Kazan khanate? Why did he conquer the Astrakhan khanate which had nothing to do with Russia and the Slavs? As well as the Western Siberia? Or why did he choke the metropolitan Philip? Why did he appropriate the name "tsar"? Many things are put into their right places. Just because the Greeks suggested the Moscow prince should regard himself as an heir of the Mongol khan! No, that wasn't by accident when Sophia Paleologus and her numerous suite appeared in Moscow. The West started to act. And it succeeded Ivan the terrible was so enamored he completely lost his head, he didn't wish to be the heir of the Byzantine emperor although he could have been with a certain reserve. But he saw himself only a new khan. He was attracted not by mythical power in dead Byzantium but actual one in living Steppe. According to contemporaries he "hatched out of the Mongol khan like a baby bird out of shell". "Baby bird" regarded Kazan and Astrakhan as his patrimonies that didn't pay levy to him - their master. Preparations for the campaign against Kazan began. In 1545 the Russians, having no military experience, were beaten. After that they were beaten several times again. Finally, having hired Don Cossacks, they took Kazan by storm and drowned the town in blood. Mutilated bodies of women, children and old men were floating down Itil which has been already called Volga - the great Russian river - to frighten. It seems Kharadavan, the Mongolian historian, discussing Mongolian political culture in this connection, is right asserting that it has played a "wholesome part in Russian history". In pre-Peter Moscow the "way of life" had a mark of Horde s impact while "that was what old Russia was based on, what gave steadiness and strength to it", the author draws a conclusion. Gregory Kotoshikhin, the officer of Moscow Embassy Department, who has escaped to Sweden, also left some information about political culture in Moscow State when Ivan the Terrible called himself "the white tsar", i.e. the tsar who has accepted the crown from the Mongols. Why was he "white"? Here is another simple story. Giving the lands "up to those places which Mongolian horses can reach" to his elder son Dzhuchi, Chingis-Khan ordered to rise a white flag, to call Desht-I-Kipchak Dzhuchi s Kingdom and its master - the White Khan. Russian rulers, following that tradition, started to call themselves white tsars or white khans in the beginning of XVI century, which was directly connected with "white bone" (Twist of fate. The expression "white bone" is the word-for-word (loan) translation from Turkic: "ak" means white, "suek" means bone, which means "grateful".). In other words, they boasted about cognation with ChingisKhan! Moscow emphasized its domination in Russia even in that way. And Moscow demonstrated its domination, it was gathering an army of officials - its main and terrible force. As Kotoshikhin marked, before he started his service there were about one hundred of clerks and about a thousand of their assistants, by the end of the century their number increased up to 4657 persons. About three thousand of them had offices in Moscow departments. They used to stir up trouble. They had the force everybody was afraid of. This Moscow army would confuse anyone with

its paper maelstrom. Moscow copied Sarai-Berk - the capital of the Horde - not only in its deeds but also in its architecture. Radial planning was made there - each street began from the Kremlin and reached the remotest building not missing anything big or small. The streets led from the city turning into the roads connecting the capital with remote areas There were no obstacles for a look cast fro m the Kremlin. Bureaucratic cobweb covered the city and the whole country. The stone Kremlin was built in a Turkic style widespread in Desht-I-Kipchak (By the way, the word "kremlin" could also be interesting for toponymy. In Turkic it means "fortress", "fortress wall". And in Russian?.. However, it isn't unlikely that the word appeared in the Turkic language from Mongol.). And that wasn't by accident either. Moscow of that time had almost no differences from Kazan or any other big city of the Steppe: its hip (!) architecture was the same with one described by the Byzantine messenger Prisk in Attila s times. However, they didn't think about architectural look of Moscow those days: they didn't have time for it and it was formed by itself, by analogy with the known. And the arrived Turki knew only Turkic, "Desht-I-Kipchak" methods. And they built according to them. Departments, boards - that's what city authorities were interested in. Not their appearance, but their inside essence. Everything was like that - anxious and rapid at the same time. The Kremlin wanted to apply new "control and compulsion methods" in Russian territories; it wanted to tie everything to Moscow. It was important to strengthen in the position of the ruler at any cost, to show its force and necessity. Notes by Possevino, Pope s ambassador with Ivan IV, are indicative. The tsar was sure, wrote the ambassador, that he was "the most powerful and wise ruler in the whole world", "the heir of the Mongolian Empire" (Moscow was regarded as an heir of the Mongols before the tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, i.e. from almost one hundred years) (That historical fact hasn't been considered in Russian historiography, apparently, while it contains an answer to the question why Rome has started to meddle in Russian policy. Or rather why did the dynasty of Ryurikoviches was that unexpectedly over and the dynasty of Romanovs, who turned to the West and not to the East, began. Apart from the Church problems Rome had several other ones: Europe didn't want Russia to be strengthened, it was afraid of new invasion from the East and did everything in order to tame the possible conqueror and chain it And it succeeded in it completely.). At that time that humiliating name - "Tatars" - was assigned to the Turki not to mix them up with "white Mongols". There was a great deal of the Tatars - Volga, Tula, Crimean, Siberian, Ryazan, Don, Belgorod, Caucasian and others. All the Kipchaks were called "Tatars". Or rather not all of them but those not willing to serve Moscow, those hoping to keep their faces and retain the honor of their ancestors. Deserting Kipchaks were called in another way - "the Russians". They are those Russians into whom the Tatar-Mongols have turned. Jerome Gorsay, the Englishman, wrote as follows: "The tsar and his cronies, unmerciful Tatars" New Russians led a free life in Russia, they were the robbers and the judges simultaneously. And the Russians, having proclaimed themselves the Slavs some time, were openly turning into the Mongols. And again they "succeeded" in it. Especially under the new tsar Simeon Beckbulatovich, when even Ivan the Terrible (New Russia tsar Simeon Beckbulatovich (? - 1616) was the son of the Kazan khan. Ivan the Terrible invited him supposedly to divide the throne; while actually a swindle was planned - they wrote off the debts and obligations of Russia before other countries at the cost of Sain-Bulat. Moscow treasury was increased by untold wealth. And the new tsar obtained Tver Principality for participation in the swindle. And everyone hated the insidious "Tatars" a hundred times more Poor Bulats, Akhmats and Murats; they were to remember their Russian names very soon. ) was concealing his routes in 1575. Fyodor turned into Bulat, Peter - into Akhmat, Matthew - into Murat. Family names remind of those reckless days in Russia. In "Collection of Materials Relating to History of the Golden Horde" there is the translation of the work by Ibn abdez-Zakhir, the man versed in politics; he was the secretary of the Egyptian sultan Beibaras. So he is supposed to know the rulers Egypt was dealing with. However, before analyzing that extract, it is necessary to introduce sultan Beibaras -the sublime person. He is one of those Turkic children who were sold for slavery to the Middle East by the Mongols. There those little slaves were brought up as warriors - the Mamelukes. By the way, the ancestors of marshal Murat were the Mamelukes. Boys were excellent in the military skills. As a result of one of the battles Beibaras got power and proclaimed himself the founder of the

Empire of the Mamelukes which reigned over the Middle East for two and a half centuries. As a real Turki, he has been always seeking for relations with his motherland. And only due to nostalgic burst. Once he defeated the Mongolian army which encroached on the lands of the Mamelukes; and at that time he was trying to establish the relations with the Mongols by himself. Notes of the sultan's secretary are interesting due to the fact they lift the veil of secret from spiritual life of the Horde - it troubled the Moslem sultan. He wrote a letter to Berki-Khan who was the first among Chingis-Khan descendants who has accepted Islam. It is evident from the reports of Ibn abdez-Zakhir that things were changing rapidly in the Golden Horde in relation to politics. Fear, curiosity and longing for changes shattered peace and quite of the khan. He was rushing about wishing to find a calm bay in the ocean of life. Having been dreaming to strengthen himself in the Steppe for centuries, Berki was looking for the way to the souls of the Kipchaks who didn't feel themselves conquered (the army was fully controlled by the Turki and was able to get out of subordination at any time). Baty-Khan, his predecessor, believed that if they accepted the spiritual values of the Steppe inhabitants, the Kipchaks would recognize him as their legal ruler. Also Baty was thinking about Christianity in the Steppe but he didn't know whether it should be Roman or Greek. It surprised him that there were several branches in Christianity and they were in contradiction with each other. Who was right?.. That reason was enough not to unite the Great Steppe, not to suppress it. Tengirchilik also had its "inconveniences" in the opinion of the Buddhist Mongols. Baty-Khan didn't find a way out. Berke did: to enter Allah's world for both - the Mongols and the Turki. He even founded the capital of the Golden Horde in new place acting with the feeling of "innovation". As a matter of fact, his decision was absolutely right. But the Kipchaks wouldn't have given their relics without a fight. The strain in society was increasing - the idea of the sacred war was present. Wise Beibars supported the Mongolian ruler. He induced him to the "sacred war against the infidels, although they were his relatives". By sultan's persistence it was evident that he was the first who needed that war. A troop from Egypt was sent to the Horde to help the khan (and for reconnaissance of his forces!). But Beiberas was over-diligent, which, however, is very likely for the Kipchak having no sense of proportion. The Mongols estimated the provoking generosity of the sultan in the right way. They subtly felt that Beibar's interest to the Horde lay not only in his love to religion. After all, he is a warrior not a mullah. Sultan's gifts surprised with luxury, the main was "the Koran in the cover of red satin embroidered with gold, in a leather case padded with silk; the lectern for it made of ivory and ebony lined with silver". They also sent "arrows of amazing decoration in leather cases; black servants; surprising parrots, wild donkeys, several swift-footed horses, rare Nubian camels, a giraffe" and many other items regardless of loads of jewelry from the sultan's storerooms. That was all accepted by Berke. But, having thought a little, he added that he didn't believe in Islam yet. "The sultan again sent the messengers to Berke trying to make him come over to the side of Islam". A political intrigue set in, the Greeks and the Romans were engaged in it for they didn't want Egypt to become stronger and were afraid of "Islamization" of the Western Europe. Once the Greeks even caught up the messengers of Berke-Khan and were inclining them to the Greek Christianity during a long time. Everything witnessed of the fact that a conflict between the Bible and the Koran was about to happen. But delay took place due to desperate ignorance of the Mongols. One can judge about it by the following example: during the negotiations Berke asked the Egyptian ambassadors about Nil, explaining: "I heard that a human bone is put over Nil and people walk on it". Well-educated ambassadors exchanged glances and politely said they hadn't seen it. Also observant ambassadors didn't notice any signs of Islam with the Mongols. Following ambassadors didn't notice them either. There were mosques in the town but those were the people from Persian and Arab quarters who went there Information collected by baron Tisenghausen convince of the fact that attempts to turn the Kipchaks to the new belief were successful in part: in the Crimea and in some places on Itil (Volga). No, that was Baty-Khan who stroke the most terrible blow to the Kipchaks, not the Russians! He ordered to annihilate the nobility. The hunt for human heads began in the Horde in 1243 - the Kipchak nation was to be beheaded. By the highest standards the role of aristocracy consists in increase of sacred relics of society. In keeping society's morals. Baty stroke the blow to the inmost things: the

nation was to be turned into a crowd. Even aristocracy that physically survived was dying in a spiritual sense having lost its position in society. This is the regularity of life It is felt, for instance, in modern Karachai, Dagestan, Tatarstan where communities with ancient and formerly highly respected families remained. But materialistic conduct is the feature of their modern representatives. They are not ready for an act, for a feat in the name of the nation any more. Degenerated aristocracy is the same as nothing. Formerly the Kipchak society was divided into estates. Its highest part had seven levels of estates. Differences were in the conduct above all. By the conduct they judged about nobility, position and rights of a person in society. There were adats which it was deemed a shame to breach. The society exiled the people not respecting the adats and their shame was redeemed with blood. Nobility and khans had a lot of obligations. When the Mongols annihilated aristocracy of the Kipchak nations, the COSSACKS remained in Desht-I-Kipchak - the free estate. Those were the Cossacks who formed the Mongolian army and acted as its living force. The name "Kazakhstan" appeared those days; it meant "The Cossack Land". It meant that no real Turkic aristocrats remained in the lands conquered by the Mongols. That name keeps a very deep sense Turkic nobility left for the southern lands beyond the reach of the Mongols dry steppes of the Middle Asia (modern Uzbekistan), the Northern Caucasus and Europe. Considerable part of the Turkic nobility disappeared for its nation forever. Genealogical books of the Russian nobility tell about it rather well: "General Armorial of Noble Families of the Russian Empire", or "History of the Families of the Russian Nobility", or "Russian Genealogical Book". Historical novels are nothing as compared with them. For example Ermolovs, the nobles, the family of Alexei Petrovich Ermolov, the hero of the Caucasian War, begin the story of their genealogy as follows: "The ancestor of that family, ArslanMurza-Ermola, christened as John, as it is shown in the presented family tree, left for the Great Prince Wasil Ivanovich from the Golden Horde in 1506" Russia got rich fantastically at the expense of the Turkic nation; the talents were flowing like water saving themselves from the Mongolian barbarism. Princes Kurakins appeared under Ivan the Terrible in Russia; that is the family of Andrew Kuraka, who was the offspring if the Mongolian Bulgak-Khan, the recognized ancestor of the great Russian princes Kurakins and Golitsins, as well as Bulgakovs noble family. Dashkovs, the nobles are also the natives of the Horde. As well as Saburovs, Mansurovs, Terbeevs, Godunovs (from Cheta murza who left the Horde in 1330), Glinskiys (from Mamai), Kolokoltsevs, Talyzins (from Kuchuk Tagaldyzin murza) It is desirable to discuss each family separately for they have done a lot for Russia. Every Russian patriot has heard about Admiral Ushakov while only a few know about his Turkic birth. That is the family of Redeg-Khan from the Horde. Cherkasskiy princes are from the family of Inal-Khan. "As a sign of nationality, - it is written in their genealogy book, - I sent to the sovereign my son Saltman and my daughter Maria, who was then married with the tsar Ivan Vasilievich, and Saltman was christened as Michael and granted the title of the boyar". Yushkovs, Suvorovs, Apraksins (from Salakhmir), Davydovs, Yusupovs, Arakcheevs, GolenischevKutuzovs, Bibikovs, Chirikovs Chirikovs, for example, are from the family of Berke -Khan, Baty's brother. Polivanovs, Kochubeis, Kozakovs Kopylovs, Aksakovs ("aksak" means "lame"), Musin-Pushkins, Ogarkovs (Leo Ogar was the first who came from the Golden Horde in 1397 - "a tall person and a brave warrior"). Baranovs It is written in their genealogical book as follows: "Zhdan murza, the ancestor of the Baranov family, also known as Baran ("baran" means "ram" in Russian) and christened as Daniel came from the Crimea in 1430". Karaulovs, Ogarevs, Akhmatovs, Bakaevs, Gogol, Berdyaevs, Turgenevs "The ancestor of Turgenev family, Leo Turgen, christened as John, left for the great prince Wasil Ioannovich from the Golden Horde" That family was from the aristocratic community of the Horde as well as Ogarev family (their Russian ancestor - "Kutlamamet murza, also known as Ogar"). Karamzins (from Kara-Murza), Almazovs (from Almaza, christened and Eropheus, he came from the Horde in 1638), Urusovs, Tukhachevskiys (Indris, the native of the Golden Horde, was their ancestor in Russia), Kozhevnikovs (from Kozhai murza, in Russia since 1509), Bykovs, Ievlevs, Kobyakovs,

Shubins, Taneevs, Shuklins, Timiryazevs (there was Ibraghim Timiryazev who came to Russia in 1408 from the Horde). Chaadaves, Tarakanovs and it will take a long time to continue. Dozens of the so -called Russian families had the Turkic ancestors. Should one be surprised that the Turki have become the bearers of more than three hundred common Russian names Breath-taking changes! But that is Russian history where everything is abrupt. Observations of Yuri Tynyanov in his "Cannibals" are very expressive; he describes the descendants of Radshi-Khan known in Russia as Pushkins. It turns out not only the Tatars were becoming "the Slavs" but also the Western Europeans. For example, the German Gundret-Markt became Markov, Pagencampf became Pogankov, the Czech Garrah became Gorokhov, the Italian Basco became Baskov, the Dane Cos von Dalen became the Russian Kozodavlev. "Hazy great Russian noble state accepted and expelled people, - Tynyanov writes, - dug in the papers, rustled with true and false documents, observed the order of precedence, rummaged in beds. Because they needed a family tree and the easiest thing in a family tree are the first pages, then it becomes harder and harder." First pages - the indisputable ones - were read in Turkic. Some people succeeded in falsification of the "family trees" usually taken from Prussian or other faraway archives which it was impossible to verify. It is difficult to say who is who in Russia. And it is impossible to understand anything. What can be said if the family tree of Romanovs, the Russian tsars, begins from the Turki. Broad faces of the tsars with high cheek-bones, eyes color, body proportions convince of their Turkic origin like the documents. As a matter of fact, appearance is the best "document" of a person. And the main thing which makes one believe in the evident Turkic origin of Romanovs is their hatred towards everything Turkic That is the most reliable evidence. In XVIII century the rulers of Russia created the modern ethnographic map; they did it at their discretion, as they wished: the whole provinces were registered as the Slavic ones. Thus Russia has become what was called by a Kipchak from Turgen family: "Russia is for thousands of versts around". At that time, in XVIII century - just about two hundred years ago! - inhabitants of Tambov, Tula, Orel, Ryazan, Bryansk, Voronezh, Saratov and other regions were called "the Tatars" That was the former population of the Golden Horde! They are the Polovtsians. They are the Kipchaks Isn't it interesting that ancient cemeteries in Ryazan, Orel or Tula are still called "Tatar" (That arouses a protest of anybody who is inadvertently familiar, for example, with the book "Struggle of Moscow State with the Tatars" by A.A. Novoselskiy. In that book, openly and between the lines, rather interesting information is provided, which, maybe apart from intention of the author who cites historical documents, allowed us to come to conclusions being in contradiction with the official viewpoint about the history of south of Russia. Works by other Russian authors which are on the list of used sources, strengthened our belief in our own conclusions, or rather in their relevancy. ). Russian cemeteries appeared there just in XVIII century together with Russian settlements. And "ethnic misunderstandings" followed. The face of Desht-I-Kipchak was being changed in a keen manner; it wasn't even always perceptible. Say, in XIX century they proceeded to total plowing of the steppe (In the national cookery of the Kipchaks meat and mild dishes prevail and flour and cereal products take the second d place. And that is not a whim. That is the physiology of the nation: to lead a healthy life an organism of the Turki needs meet, sour milk, yoghurt, cheese, mutton broth at first and then porridge. Plowing the pastures, the colonizers made a blow to health of the nation destroying the originality of steppe inhabitants.). The Kipchaks were deprived if the pastures; they disturbed their way of life, the lands which were common became private property of the new Russians who cultivated them in a new "agricultural" manner Otherwise their states would be taken away. By the way, that situation was described in "Dead Souls" by N.V. Gogol. Chichikov, the small officer, was buying his souls to take them away to the Steppe. Another method was also in use. It is seen in Bashkortostan history - agricultural repartition followed the hostilities there. They began in spring, "scorched earth" tactics was implied - they used to burn the villages. They were gradually depriving the free steppe nation of its districts and villages. A lot of military leaders were notable in that quiet "war": the Kipchaks were driven into the mines and designated to the plants as the slaves. The Bashkirs still remember Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov Allah reward his deserts; he has deserved it. A. Donelli, the American professor, issued a sorrowful book "Conquest of Bashkiria by Russia in 1552 - 1740" where terrible facts are provided Russian historians used to write about how Bashkiria voluntarily joined Russia. And famous rebels in Bashkiria were mentioned in passing.

Plowing the lands of Desht-I-Kipchak, they "plowed" the monuments of ancient steppe culture barrows, cemeteries, stone statues, remains of settlements. Not at once, of course, not all of a sudden. However, the time has come and they all disappeared without a trace. And there is nothing to witness of originality of the steppe nation. In Orel, for example, on the place of an ancient Kipchak cemetery which graves were destroyed by a bulldozer, a plant has been built. Who can prove now that a cemetery was there? Rumors are alive but they are not the evidence. On May 5th, 1997 the president of Russian Federation signed a Decree; that wasn't discussed by the media. It contains the list (of two newspaper pages) "of monuments of history and culture excluded from the list of monuments of history and culture of federal (All-Russian) importance." They were condemned to destruction by the state; and that list contains a great deal of the Turkic monuments! And to make it imperceptible they were placed near flat-museums of revolutionary activists. An essay by Ibn Battuta, who was called "Arabian Marco Polo" by the Eu ropeans, shines like a star in the book by V.G. Tisengausen. That attentive Arab, skilful observer of life, and (frankly speaking) a gifted scout, made a traveling to the Golden Horde in 1335 and left "The Gift to the Observers Interested in World Countries and Wonders of Traveling" for the descendants. Excellent travel notes! A real dossier. While Marco Polo acquainted Europe with the "Book" in which he described the steppe east in 1298, Ibn Battuta did the same for the Arabic countries. They are the two great witnesses of Desht-IKipchak. They didn't think about politics, predilections or insincerity: they wrote what they saw. Customs, ceremonies, way of life. Ibn-Battuta wrote as follows: "That region where we stopped belongs to the steppe known as Desht-I-Kipchak". Noble-minded Arab retained the name of the land which has never existed according to the Russian "histories". He retained the name of the vanished nation. "Desht-I-Kipchak was the country that stretched for eight months of travel lengthwise and for six months of travel in breadth, - Ibn-Battuta continued, - Allah knows it better!" A traveler could see a lot during those eight months of travel - an entire world. Danube, Dnestr, Dnepr, Don, Itil, Yaik, Irtysh, Ob, Yenisei and Lena flew in the land of the Kipchaks which is unknown in Russia. Ibn-Battuta and Marco Polo showed there was no Wild Field to the south of Moscow. But there was the country which history was covered with fog. That country was really original. For example, here is an extract from Ibn-Battuta: "I saw a church, moved to it, found a monk inside and on the wall I saw an image of an Arab man in a turban, belted with a sword and with a spear in his hand. An icon-lamp was burning in front of it. I asked the Monk: "What image is this?" He answered: "That is the image of Ali the prophet", - I was surprised with his answer" A good illustration of toleration and wisdom of the Kipchaks, those gentle children of the Great Steppe who, as we can see, bore direct relation to Islam. Regardless of everything, in V, in XII, in XVI centuries they kept on living "according to their rules" in the alien European lands - ancient steppe adats were above all for the nation Steppe inhabitants kind of didn't see the hostility of the world around, they didn't understand their maladjustment to it. It is astonishing. Their number decreased, their lands were vanishing, but they didn't see it. Life has taught nothing those stubborn adherents of the steppe culture being proud of themselves. After all, were they able to know a friend from an enemy? Black from white? That question is not unnecessary in the history of the Kipchaks Especially when their relations with Moscow were in question. Everything was in mist! Just through the prism of the centuries it is evident how Moscow was skillfully demoralizing the Steppe by example of the West - it always got away with it. Steppe inhabitants didn't see anything. It is possible that the fact that Moscow policy was led by the migrants from the Great Steppe who have become the Russians is important. Maybe, there is another reason But in 1570 Ivan the Terrible incited Saryk-Azman (ataman of a little yurt from Don) to rob Polish and Nogai caravans. And the ataman started to do it for money. Don was in great trouble those days Thus the Cossacks were enticed by an unjust deed. They started to tame them leading the policy of threats and bribery. "Bribery" was delivered through Saryk-Aman, and "threats" - through Nogai khans. Moscow lured the Don Kipchaks with generous charities the same as the Greeks dealt with Attila's warriors (the Turkic federates) in their time. The history repeated again. Everything was annoyingly

simple and cheap but the policy was led with distant aims in view: again the Kipchaks were needed as "cannon-fodder". Ivan the Terrible, having conquered Kazan and Astrakhan, moved to the Caucasus: Moscow had serious plans at that time. Military successes turned its head and, no doubt, that was noticed in Europe. Rome was worried by impossibility to control Ivan the Terrible who was ready to act independently. Anxiety became stronger when Russian army turned to the Caucasus which was called a Caspian province (!) of the Roman Catholic Church at that time. It became evident: in the campaigns against the Caucasus Moscow had aims beyond the bounds of the Great Steppe. From 1560 to 1600 the Russian organized ten campaigns. But they were defeated ten times and failed to reach the mountains. After that Moscow, which pride was hurt, made a genius move in its foreign policy. In order to crush the minor enemy - as it regarded the Caucasian Kipchaks - it persuaded the Big Nogai Horde from Kazakhstan to come from Asia to Europe for money since the climate was softer and the lands were better there, remembering the main rule of diplomacy: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Later, under Peter, in 1708, according to the advice of count P.M. Apraksin, the Russians brought the Kalmyks to Europe from Mongolia. Don and Caucasian Kipchaks quickly sensed the newcomers: bloody wars for survival started in the Steppe. Don and Terek were separated from each other; the newcomers cut their lands from Volga to the Crimea Everybody waged a war at that time except for the Moscow Prin ce who took the position of "happy third" waiting for the enemies to become weak. Trustful Nogai and Kalmyk leaders didn't even understand how they've become fully dependant from Moscow. Choosing their khan the Nogai would ask for permission of the Russian tsar. And choosing Ishterek-Khan the following instruction came from Moscow: "And later for the Nogai Horde to appoint the prince in Astrakhan before the boyars and the voevodes, according to their law, and not in their yurts, in order to make them act in compliance with the monarch's will and keep them in slavery forever (bold provided. - M. A.)". Moscow waged a war with Don, Terek, the Crimea using the Nogai and the Kalmyks; it divided the Kipchaks, it dismembered the steppe nation. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", indeed. But it waged a war remaining the ally of Don and the Caucasus. Its double "divide and rule" policy was mentioned perhaps only in the Crimea. It is not surprising that in the beginning of XVII century building of the Russian fortresses commenced in the Upper Don as though for protection against the Crimean army. And the Kipchaks were promised evident advantages due to those fortresses - at first they used to buy the surplus of the harvest from the Cossacks. That was suitable for them. The distant defence system was being constructed since 1613: Sokolsk, Dobry, Belokolodsk and other Russian towns appeared in the Steppe. And Moscow markets were crammed with "steppe" goods - carcasses, for example, were sold not by weight but by eye. By its every action Moscow attracted the Steppe to it enticing it into the range of its interests and immersing it into the bog of its policy. In January, 1646 its first "quiet" invasion to Don began. It seemed they went there with peace having released 3205 free men to settle among the Cossacks but near the new Russian towns. But the Russians weren't accepted on Don - their flight from there commenced promptly. The following year they sent another 2367 persons to settle there, but they ran away even faster (This statistics is provided in the book "Attempts of Moscow Government to Increase the number of the Cossacks on Don in the Middle of XVII Century" by V.G. Druzhinin. It is shown with figures there that the Russians would run not to Don but from it.). In 1653 the owner of Romanov settlement (and not only him) complained the ataman that the dragoons from Sokolsk caused violence: "They break and steal, beat and rob on the roads, travel having gathered together, take hay away from mowing, seizure the lands by force". They Kipchaks put the impudent guests in their place. But not for a long time. Everything repeated the following year. Those settlements are also interesting for another reason: they started to invite the Turki to Russian army there - at first to unit transport, and then as the soldiers. New and new Cossacks left their nation becoming the serving Russian people. In 1671 they were allowed even to swear to the Russian tsar and get generous tsar's wages. Although they rema ined the nationals of their country According to the steppe adat one could swear only once during the life and keep the faith to the swear until the end. And that was taken into consideration in Moscow while creating "the fifth column" in the Great Steppe! And together with the tsar's wages they obtained the name - a Cossack, which meant not the

steppe estate as it has formerly been but a "participant of the Cossack army". And they started to write the word "Cossack" in Russian with the character "a" instead of "o". After that everything was predictable During the Azov campaigns Peter I finally conquered the Don Cossacks with their own hands and introduced appointment of the atamans on Don in 1723. That meant that an ataman was not to be elected as it has always been but appointed by Moscow. That was it. The end of the Cossack freedom - there was no place for bribery any longer; they had only threats They appointed only Russian atamans to be in command of the Cossacks. At first the appointed atamans obliged the Cossacks to learn the Russian language, otherwise nobody could be accepted in the army. And how could a Cossack do without military service? He was deprived of all the advantages and privileges which military service provided. That's why the Cossacks would stick to service. In XVIII - XIX centuries there were kind of two Dons on Don - men were obliged to speak Russian (the language of the service) and women still spoke their native Turkic language. It is interesting that the Cossacks still haven't forgotten their native language on Don, Ural; it is called their "home" language but it is hidden now like something improper. On September 9th, 1769 an order was issued, which caused the substitution of the Cossack national clothes for Russian uniform. So that they don't look like their ancestors. As though their skin was torn off History retained the information about how certain Cossacks would fall down naked, wallow beaten on the Earth, freeze in the snow but would never put the Russian uniform on. On August 18th, 1801 another order was issued, which obliged the Cossacks to wear Russian uniform both at home and during the service. Later all other Cossack troops were obliged to do the same. Was it really like that?.. Russian historiography archly keeps silent on this point inventing the histories of the Cossacks one after another. But there are some things which cannot be ignored or concealed, - the archives. National archives where official acts are maintained. Not everyone has access there. And there it is evident that Ivan the Terrible and other Russian tsars (before Peter I) dealt with the Cossacks only through the Embassy Department since Desht-I-Kipchak was a foreign state! And the Cossacks weren't the nationals of Russia! In XVII century appeared a version according to which the Cossacks were fugitive Russian peasants. Who has invented that absurdity? There were no enough serf peasants in Russia to settle Don, Volga, Yaik, lower Dnepr, the Caucasus. In the course of the years a "scientific theory" concerning the eastern Slavs, whose culture was the copy of the Turkic one, was formed They were making the Slavs of the Kipchaks in different ways. Some were ascribed to the Cossacks and sent to suppress their brothers with weapons. Disobedient settlements were sent to Siberia and taught to be not just the Russians but obedient Russians under surveillance of the appointed atamans. Thousands of Zaporozhye and Don Cossacks were taken to the morasses of Petersburg and sent to the Caucasus "Slavic" Mother Russia was rising on bones of the steppe nation. The steppe nation was disappearing in other countries in surprisingly the same way. In Georgia, for example, though there was less blood there The theme of Georgia is very interesting in general: in XI century, under David the Builder, about one hundred and forty thousand of Kipchak families moved there. They formed the core of David's army and united separate principalities of Iberia into a single strong Georgian state "Gyurdzhi" was the Turkic name of that country of the bleu-eyed Georgians who radiated strength and warmth of the Great Steppe. There is no doubt that some facts from relations between the Georgians and the Kipchaks have been forgotten, others have been distorted. But there are untouched original facts. For example, judging by their family tree, Dadishlikiani princes are the descendants of the Kipchaks. And it is evident they are not the only ones. Contacts of the Steppe and the Caucasus really have a very long history. In IX - XIII centuries the Kipchaks sent women, children and the aged to the mountains from the separated Steppe. Gzak-Khan, for example, was hiding his son there - little Konchak. That Konchak who took the Russian tsar Igor prisoner and set Chernigov Principality on fire Did the Kipchaks disappear as a separate nation of Georgia? Of course they did. In the course of the centuries they joined the Georgian culture, became intimate with it; they are called the Georgians or the Svans. Although the roots have been forgotten, the History hasn't, which allows to establish the relations between, say, Azerbaijan and Georgia, in another way - since these are sister nations. The same historical foundation, though covered with Baltic sand, can be seen in Lithuania and Poland where a great deal of Polish and Lithuanian princes also have "steppe" family trees. And they

are the Turkic Kipchaks wearing alien masks at a masquerade of life Emblems and seals are of a great interest for an historian in this connection: Almost every second of them contains a tamga or another symbol pointing to the eastern origin of the family - time has no power over the traditions of armory. A tamga gives the key to solution of the family trees of, say, Dzyaduleviches, Tugan-Baranovskiys and other families which are evidently non-Turkic. Attention should be paid For example, TugurkanKhan descendants are called Polovtsian-Rozhinskiys today; they've been living in Lithuania since XIII century. The Kipchaks gave "birth" to more than one nation, indeed. For instance - to the Caucasian Albania - the mysterious country about which not much is known. Unfortunately, that subject hasn't been seriously investigated. But sooner or later some of the young scientists would wonder why the symbol of the Caucasian Albania copies the tamga of the Turkic Alban family? That family moved to the Caucasus from Altai during the Great Nations Migration. Part of it still remains in Kazakhstan (According to the genealogical book of Alban family, they moved to the steppes of Kazakhstan 150 years before Common Era; they came from the Chuya Valley. It seems they are most ancient and respected family; it relates to the elder group of tribes. Respected (families, apparently?) kyzyl boric, konyr boric, aytbozim, segyz sary, kurman, alzhan, kystyk were among the Albans.) And how did the Lezghins manage to know about Tengri? (Their Church worshipped Tengri until 1836 following the eastern tradition). The Udins (descendants of the Albans living in Azerbaijan) retained the spiritual culture of the Caucasian Albania. They also have another attitude towards Christ as compared with Rome or Moscow. They Church has always been standing on the same positions with the Armenian one And are the numerous Turkic adoptions in the Lezghin language casual? Why can ancient dialect of the Turkic language be heard in certain Lezghin words and phrases? (A thesis on this subject has been written.) So who are they, those mysterious Lezghins? No doubt, they are a separate nation. And at the same time they are a mysterious nation having answers to many questions of the "Kipchak" history. The Turki move in mysterious ways on our planet For example, certain Kipchak yurts in the Northern Caucasus have became Ossetian by the order of Moscow, and their inhabitants have become the Ossetins although they don't even look like them. A great deal of the Turki has been ascribed to the Chechens, Ingushes, Kabardinians, Circassians The Kipchaks were assimilate d with other nations. And they were assimilating, having been deprived of the Great Steppe. Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin is right: history should be the sacred book for nations, the mirror of their life and deeds, the percept of the ancestors to the descendants. Let this book be the beginning of such history for the Turkic (Kipchak) nation which has lost itself having presented a great culture to the world. And marquise de Quistine was also right when he wrote after the trip to Russia: "Seeing them and thinking what was existence for those poor things, I asked myself what has man done to God, for what were those people condemned to living in Russia?". For not being faith to God! For edification of others Main Sources Baskakov N.A. Russian Family Names of the Turkic Origin. M., 1993. [Berberini] The Travel to Moscow of Raphael Berberini. SPb., 1843. Herberstein S. Notes about the Moscow Acts. SPb., 1908. Gorsey D. Notes about Moscow of XVI century. SPb., 1909. Donneli A.S. Conquest of Bashkiria by Russia. 1552 - 1740. Ufa, 1995. Jovius P. The Book about Moscovite Embassy. SPB., 1908. Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State. Vol. I - V. M., 1989 - 1996. [Quistine] Notes about Russia by the French Traveler Marquise de Quistine. M., 1990. Margulan A.K. Ancient Culture of the Central Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata, 1960. Margulan A.K. From the History of the Towns and Building Skills of Ancient Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata, 1950. Mekhovskiy M. The Treatise about Two Sarmatians. M.; L., 1936. Murzaev E.M. Turkic Geographical Names. M., 1996. [Nikitin] Voyage over Three Sees of Athanasius Nikitin 1466 - 1472. M.; L., 1948.

[Nikitin] Voyage over Three Sees of Athanasius Nikitin 1466 - 1472. L., 1986. Novoselskiy A.A. Struggle of Muscovy with the Tatars in XVII century. M.; L., 1948. Possevino A. Muscovy. Historical works about Russia. M., 1983. Semenov V. Library of Foreign Writers about Russia. Vol.1-2. SPb., 1836 - 1847. Skrzhynskaya E.C. Barbaro and Contarini about Russia. L., 1971. Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials Relating to History of the Golden Horde. Extracts from Arabic Works. Vol. I. SPb., 1884. Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials Relating to History of the Golden Horde. Extracts from Arabic Works. Vol. II. M.; L., 1941.

Near St. George Spring "Gyurdzhi's Day" Saint George The most famous saint of the Great Steppe. His actual deeds are hidden in the fog of the Church policy We have no memory and we have forgotten the truth about that outstanding peace-maker and enlightener. We remember him only as a killing rider Ruthless image of a murderer - how can it be connected with a saint? Was George, the guardian of the Kipchaks, like that? Not at all. In fact, what do we know about him? In the sixth year of the eighth thousand, Under that tsar, under Theodore That was the beginning of "The Poem about Brave George" in Russia. (1) ( See references marked with a number in the section "Notes and Comments to the Appendix". (Editor's note ) ). And they used to sing long songs in his honor - George the Beloved. And there were holidays in his honor - people hoped for best on George's Day. But in the Great Steppe George was worshipped in another way. The Kipchaks called him their highest guardian; they addressed entreaties and wishes, prayers and exorcisms to him. He was the mediator between God and man! "Help us, Saint George", - they used to say; and he helped, he guarded them. He was the second after Tengri in the Great Steppe. Tuesday was a hard day for the Kipchaks: one couldn't start on his journey or begin an important deed. They advised even not no eat and smile. No smiles, it's a hard day, "Saint George's day", - the steppe inhabitants used to say. According to folk beliefs our glorious guardian died on Tuesday. Why has Saint George been especially respected in the Great Steppe since olden days? There is an old story about it The Turkic proverb "Our Gorge is stronger than their Nicola" isn't casual; it was usually mentioned speaking about their northern fellow countrymen The image o f Saint George only seems to be known. Let us remember the famous "St. George and the Dragon". A legend is a cryptography; thus the nations retained the most important from their lives and passed it to other generations from lips to lips. A myth - our ancestors said - conceals the truth from foreign ears. A message is enciphered in "St. George and the Dragon" and one should see living people in the legendary symbols; one should understand the symbols of their lives. The cryptography is opened only to t hose being consecrated And who can be asked for consecration? The plot of the legend is known. A big serpent got the habit of marauding in one eastern town. He crawled from the morasses and took young inhabitants away. At last the time has come and the ruler also took leave of his daughter, beautiful Elisabeth. She was sitting near the road in tears waiting for her bitter fate, and George, Christ's warrior who was riding nearby, saw her. He wished to protect the young lady. When the monster appeared George didn't start a fight, he put his spear and sword away. He moved towards the enemy unarmed. He fell down on his knees behind the serpent and started to pray. The serpent became quiet. Minutes passed and soon the monster who was weak due to the prayer bent before the warrior. And the saved young lady put a lead made of her belt on the serpent and took it to the town. Having seen that miracle, all the inhabitants listened to George's sermon and

accepted christening. Thus George proved that a word is stronger than a sword. So he became a saint, because there was a word - God - which wasn't known in Europe. The most ancient text of the legend didn't remain. It couldn't have remained since at first the passing thereof to new generations depended on the skills of the tellers - some things were added, others were erased. But the outline of the legend wasn't changed - they were afraid to sin (2) Before analysis of the symbols of the legend it is important to recognize the epoch in which George lived. Not much is known about those times; much water has flowed under the bridges: floods washed the countries away, they drowned the nations in the abyss of obscurity. The warrior died on Tuesday, May 6th, 303, the official Church asserts. Unfortunately, there wasn't a single calendar those days; time was counted in different ways in different countries. There are several versions concerning the dates of birth and death of Saint George. But they are just the versions. That's why it would be correct, in my opinion, to say as follows: "A young man died in the beginning of IV century; that man is known as George now". He died as an immature young fellow who was about twenty years old. The saint lived in a glorious time: he was in the center of grand events by God's will; those events made his name the part of history. I'll remind you that IV century is the century of the Great Nations Migration; it determined the political advantages on the continent. One of the early legends about George was written in Greek in IV - V centuries, judging by orthography. That is the famous palimpsest: new text is put over the deleted one. Let us not discuss the reliability of the text. We'll just mention one very important detail which is invariable for all the legends about him: George said his word near an eastern town since he was a native of the East, of Cappadocia - a vast region of Transcaucasia and Minor Asia. (3). Besides, there is no doubt that the warrior was from a noble family, he got an excellent education and Christian upbringing. On ancient icons he was depicted as a courageous and staunch aristocrat in whose eyes one could see will, strength and wit. To tell the truth, in ancient times he was depicted without a horse and without a dragon. He wasn't a rider! And the palimpsest of V century, telling about George's life, never mentions a fight between a rider and a dragon. In Russia the most ancient icon of Saint George was found accidentally in 1935 when repair works were performed in the Kremlin. (4). A restorer saw a striking thing: a warrior with a spear. Scarlet cloak hardly covered his lamellar armor. That new image embodied magnificence and solemnity. A hilt of the sword was at the left. The painting was dated back to XI - XII centuries. "The icon from Dormitory Church, - wrote one of the outstanding experts in ancient paintings, professor V.N. Lazarev - is notable for unique beauty of coloring. Thick, clear, rich paints are elected so to underline the mental firmness and courage of the young warrior. George's figure is clear on the golden background of the light color. He wears brown armor which plates are divided with gold. The cloak is of rich vermilion color, the sleeve of the shirt is blue, the belt of the cloak is dark green, the sheath of the sword is oral green. In combination with whitish color of skin these paintings form that color spectrum in which there is not a single trace of the gloomy Byzantine palette" (bold provided. M.A.). (5). That icon is the most ancient in the Kremlin and the oddest one at the same time. It was hidden from people's eyes several centuries ago. "Why, for what reason was it in disfavor"? - I thought. It seems that George didn't suite anyone. In XII - XIV centuries there was the fashion (the Western Church has changed the ancient iconpainting tradition) in Europe - they started to paint Saint George on a horse and with a spear, killing a serpent. As though thus he was seen by the crusaders in Palestine in 1099. A miracle seen during the storm of Jerusalem has become a part of culture of the Western Europe - George was deemed to be a knight in a white cloak with a red cross. (6). Richard the Lion-Heart considered him to be his guardian. George has become the saint patron of England bringing the spirit of knights into its life. It is evident the Western innovations were also in fashion in Russia. It is possible that the image of Saint George on a horse was taken by the Russian to Kulikovo field for the first time. To tell the truth, the battle of 1380 is estimated in different ways. (7). According to J. Fletcher a military cunning took place there. (8). Before that in Russia George was painted as a warrior but not killing anybody. Because the killing couldn't be the feat of a saint. For example, on the famous Old Ladoga Icon (XII century) the maid leads the pacified serpent with her belt. The same as in the ancient legend. And more often the warrior was painted alone - full-

length or waist-high Why did they need to distort the ancient plot? Why was George killing a serpent that attractive? The answer is simple - a serpent is the symbol of the Great Steppe. It was on its flags and emblems of its cities: for example, Kazan had one serpent and Kharkov had even two. According to the legends of the Kipchaks people originated from Begsh Serpent, he - the personification of male strength and wisdom - was very close to the steppe inhabitants. (9). Killing of the ancestors - that's what an icon meant (in its steppe interpretation). The Russians came to Kulikovo Field with it, the knights - the crusaders "cleansed" Europe of the Turkci culture with it. An icon has become the secret weapon of the Western Church, certain Kipchaks read a verdict in it: Saint George turns away from them. Saint George himself, the guardian of the Turki A subtle stroke, but it justified itself: the warriors whose belief was varying, deserve a defeat. Thus it happened on Kulikovo Field. Sometimes they added a little man on the new icon; he would sit behind George and keep silent mysteriously. He leant on the warrior's back with his hand either blessing him to the killing or in order not to fall down from the horse It can be interpreted in different ways. On later icons a man behind the rider wasn't painted. And didn't they start to use a new word which meant "to deceive" with the same root as the word "George" in Russian after Kulikovo Field? A strange word. To deceit with the image of George? Since 1380 Moscow turned to the killing rider whom they considered to be the Victorious, in a little while his sculpture appeared on the top of the main tower of the Kremlin (part of that sculpture remained). In 1497 Prince Ivan III engraved his image on the "big" seal of the city. And later, having called Moscow the capital of the whole Russia, Moscow princes added the magic image into the emblem of the city The rider has become the participant of urban life; however, he was called Michael until XVIII century. Different Georges In Russia George is called "Victorious", in other countries - the Patron of Warriors, the Great Martyr, the Passion Bearer. George is the most important saint for the Ossetins: they raise him uncommonly. The same rider, but he is different - the grey-haired elder on a three-legged winged horse "Uastyrdzhy", - the Ossetins aspirate. And that takes their breath away. That is the most ancient image of Saint George; it was formed before his birth. Culture of the Ossetins (the Alans, as they were formerly called) is ancient; its roots are in the Persian lands. Legendary heroes were known there and in Tibet long before Common Era. Modern Kersaspa, Cedar, Geser, Khizr, Khadyr are of that kind. Young men imaged as the elders - thus they were made by rumours. (10). After acquaintance of the Ossetins with Christianity one thing happened, the thing which has been often happening in the history of the nations, - ancient spiritual values were supplemented with new ones. In conscience of the Alans nobility, purity, deeds of Saint George made him similar with former heroes: the single collective image appeared - Uastyrdzhy. Neither nation of the world worshipped George the same as the ancient Alans. Their ceremonies cannot be mixed up - they are Ossetin. One can see in them pleasure, hope and infinite respect towards the aged, the memory of the ancestors, which saved the Ossetins during hard times Uastyrdzhy united "today" and "eternity" in him. In Islamic interpretation the feat of Saint George (or Djirdjisa according to Islamic tradition) is different. It is connected with the name of God (Allah), ancient eastern characters are also present in it: immortal and wise Khazyr and Ilyas - they give those their qualities to Uastyrdzhy. The Moslems supplemented and enriched the story about the great fighter for belief, revealed new shapes of his deeds. That "supplementing" tradition is natural, invisible ties of times and cultures are in it. For example, the Slavs call Saint George "cattle beater" or even "cattle god". At the same time they see the features of ancient Yarila and Yarovit - their spring deities of fertility - in him Images of George are so different They don't look the same. Each nation which worships him has its own warrior not being the same as others. And at the same time he is the one for everybody Why? Explanation is in depth and immensity of the image. In my opinion it is accurately presented on another Moscow icon - an icon from the Historical Museum collection. Here Saint George is standing praying to God with his cut off head in his hands There is no image

more impressive than that. It contains the power of spirit and devotion to belief, life and death everything is mixed up, everything is inseparably connected in unity which name is a Human Being. The Voice of Forgotten Motherland I saw his grave at night in Moscow for the first time - a dream has come and the voice said where to search. I didn't know what it looked like but I knew it existed Prophetic dream wasn't accidental. It was preceded by the work during which the archival search subdued all my thoughts, time and imagination: hundreds of pages of the books, thousands of kilometers of the roads, long hours of sleepless thoughts cannot leave without a trace. It seems separate lines of the search started to come together at that time; later they drew that picture in my dream. One would think, a man died, which means his grave should exist. But that assertion was of no sense in relation to Saint George: six burial places are known today. Or even more? However, thirtysix more can be called - not a single one of them is connected with biography of the saint, not a single on of them complies with historical documents. It simply happened that someone wanted it to be like that. A historical fun? No! It turns out in Christian Churches there are about ten heads of John the Forerunner. Each church insists on authenticity of its relic. Six graves of one man is not the limit. But the historians of the church don't consider it funny; they refer to imperfection of human mind for which a great many things are marvelous It may be. (11). In order to explain my position I'll say I consider George to be a real historical person who has performed a deed for which he was recognized as a saint. It means George and his deeds are interesting only as they were mentioned by God. Nothing can be changed in them! Otherwise they won't be holy and will loose their divinity. The image of George stroke me not with amount of its forms but with depressing obscurity: primitive routines alternate with high poetry; vulgar invention - with serious research. I started my work not with study of his life. I was attracted just by the Great Steppe like a traveler is attracted by an unexplored island. Thus that was to proceed if once I hadn't seen a wayfarer on the road and hadn't come up to him - that was Saint George Unexplored islands exist in order to be explored, apparently. Intending to recall the forgotten events I wrote two books about my nation - the Kipchaks. (12). After each journey the thoughts about the Steppe came deeper and deeper into my mind; they awakened the genetic memory. Being carried away with deeds of the ancestors, I used to catch the crumbs of our precious past in the river of Time; that was our memory falling into pieces: Azerbaijan, Bashkiria, Kazakhstan, the Northern Caucasus, Siberia, the Ukraine, Don Russia. My search had no limits. And once I managed to get the notes of the ancient eastern chronicler Favst Buzand. (13). He lived in V century, during the Great Nations Migration - the steppe culture was becoming the property of Europe at that time. In the course of those years the Kipchak leaders were confidently sitting on their horses. Monarchs sought for inclination of the Kipchak tsar under whose heel the whole world was. Much has been written about Attila's empire - the whole black paint was put to the paper in order to humiliate the steppe nation and defile it But has someone ever thought about the "wild hordes"? Or "the nomads"? The Kipchaks built hundreds of towns and settlements, thousands of kilometers of the roads, crossings over the biggest rivers. (14). European historians were allowed to write any nonsense about the steppe inhabitants. But not about their high culture which allowed the Turki to conquer and explore vast areas. Notes of Favst Buzand relate to the period when the steppe inhabitants became known in the Caucasus. IV century was beginning. The Caucasus was turning into the theater of operations being grand in their consequences. Of course, not the whole Caucasus but its eastern lands - those that lay nearer to the Steppe and were called "Hun Passage" later. That narrow part of the steppe between the sea and the mountains was kept safe by nature in modern Dagestan; it kept it to make a wonder. And it was made there! The chronicler reported about that. As far as we know, the steppe inhabitants were a nation which was fond of a horse. A horse led them through the steppe; it was indispensable in towns and settlements; in the mountains its advantages disappeared. That's why the Kipchak army didn't move to the Caucasian mountains and stayed near the town of Derbent, on the steppe shore of the Caspian Sea, in the "Hun Passage" to put it more preciously.

Derbent was not just a town being an obstacle on the way of the Great Nations Migration for them: near its walls the steppe inhabitants faced a civilization formerly unknown to them. Persia and the Roman Empire began (or ended) there. The roads led deep into the Middle East and Europe from Derbent That was the only convenient land route from Asia to Europe in the whole Caucasus - the future Silk Route. East joined West on those lands. The more I learnt about Derbent, the stronger I felt there was a blind-spot concerning "Derbent" in European history. The notes of Favst Buzand cast light on that mystery. The historian wrote about Gregoris, a young Christian preacher from Armenia, who was the first who dared come there, to the appeared steppe inhabitants. Of course a great many researchers read Favst Buzanr. But it seems not a single one of them mentioned that the name of the man who brought the Christian ideas to the Steppe was Gregoris while the steppe inhabitants called him Djarghan or Gyurdzhi. In Russian his name is pronounced either as "George" or as "Yegor". What is it, discordance of the names or something else?.. It relates to one and the same person who has performed a deed which nobody has ever performed except for him! Thus a specific historical person appeared on the scene of my search. I didn't know much about him - he wasn't a rider like my ancestors but was the first Christian preacher among them; the bearer of the Western culture, in other words. At first a vague conjecture disappeared just after it came to my mind; in a little while it came back with pain. I was taken prisoner by Saint George. To tell the truth, not many things were clear - Saint George (Gregoris, to put it more preciously) was the first of the Europeans who came to the Kipchak camp with peace and unarmed; all the following events were to be seriously verified. And my entire hypothesis about the Great Steppe could be verified at the same time There is a rule in science, as far as we know: in case a hypothesis allows to forecast the result it is called a theory. (Kiev 1500th anniversary celebrated in the Ukraine not long ago was the first pleasant result of that verification). The Mystery of the Cross I began, of course, with St. George Cross! It is an exact copy of the crosses known in Altai before Common Era. And a great deal of questions arose. Why is it called "St. George"? How did it appear in Christianity? Where? Under what circumstances? Trying to find the answers I understood that the history of the cross is not that simple as we used to think. Yes, we know that today a cross is the symbol of Christianity. But it hasn't always been like that. Until IV century - i.e. until arrival of the Kipchaks! - Christians didn't know a cross and tried to avoid it (for the first time I read about in Brockhaus and Efron dictionary). I'll quote the famous Christian author of III century, Felix Minucius, again: "Concerning the crosses, we don't worship them, we - the Christians - don't need them; you, the pagans, for whom wooden idols are sacred, you worship wooden crosses. Maybe, as the parts of your deities, and your flags, standards and military signs - what are they if not the crosses, golden and decorated ones?" (15). How can these words comply with what we know? But there was no doubt about the main thing the Christians didn't recognize a cross until IV century. That's how and from whom Europe has got its cross - from the Turki, those steppe inhabitants whom it called "wild" and "pagan" later. (16). The Kipchaks, according to the archeologists, worshipped an equilateral cross as recently as in Common Era. The Buddhists (the northern branch) had a cross in their ceremonies since I century; they still paint it on their talismans and amulets (to tell the truth, they call it otherwise) Science has no doubt about Asian origin of the cult of the cross. Thus I had the right to suppose that George was the first one (or among the first) who learnt about the Kipchak culture, the worship of Heavenly God and the cross by them. He accepted that culture having created (by the example of the Buddhists!) a new branch in Christianity. That's why the Christians called an equilateral cross "George's" in his honor But all those suppositi ons were to be proved; it was necessary to find confirmations for them. However, the working hypothesis has been formed. Churches, prayers, icons, bells almost all the church attributes and their history roused my interest; it turned out they appeared in the eastern Christianity in IV century, they appeared from the steppe inhabitants who have been crossing themselves from of old as a sign of purification and subjection to the Single God - Tengri. (17). Early Christians didn't do that. In order to become sure, I found the followers of Tengirchilik in Altai, on Ural, in Siberia; they remained there. I gathered what was written by the scientists about the great Tengri Now I can

assert that Tengirchilik followers cross themselves. But they do it in a different way as compared with the Christians, although exactly as it was painted on ancient icons: they don't make a pinch with their fingers but touch their forehead with a thumb and a third finger having elegantly put them together. No doubt, I was not the only on one who met Tengirchilik followers. For example, C.C. Valikhanov, saw Tengirchilik ceremonies remained in Kazakhstan by a miracle: "If one spills milk the Kirghiz would clean [everything] in order not to leave them [profaned] and propitia te crossing and bowing They do the same when they go through horse stables If they see a blacksmith's anvil they come up to it and cross themselves". It is interesting that among the findings in the barrows of Ancient Altai dated back to V - III centuries B.C. there are many horse ornaments in the shape of golden equilateral crosses. Here it is - the living history of the Great Steppe! The sources of it. It is striking (or, I could say, indicative) - today the Christians call the Tengirchilik followers - those ancient keepers of belief in Heavenly God - "pagans" and "shamanists" Immersing into the mysteries of the cross, I learnt another thing. In India - motherland of many nations - it is called not a cross but a vadzhra. Vadzhra means the shining rays of divine grace coming form the Single center. That's why Tengirchilik followers marked a circle in the middle of the cross - it was the symbol of sun, the center of the universe! Rays come to four sides from it. It means in ancient times a cross was formed not as a result of crossing of two lines; it was formed of four rays and the sun. Hence is a tradition - to gild the crosses, to decorate them with precious stones; they are the sign of Heavenly, Sunny nature Later the Church, having borrowed that tradition of Tengirchilik followers, didn't think about the fact that in Christianity a cross symbolized another thing: an instrument of torture and death. (18). Everything witnessed of the fact that George really was the first inhabitant of the Roman Empire who learnt about the spiritual life of the Kipchaks - Tengirchilik followers and accepted it. That's why the Turkic equilateral cross has become George's Cross! And that happened exactly in the beginning of IV century, which is reported by the history of Christianity A cross appeared after young Gregoris met the Kipchaks - not earlier and not later. A religious symbol couldn't be an element of a casual coincidence. An equilateral cross is evidence - it was raised and started to shine on the churches of Armenia, the Caucasian Albania, Iberia That has never happened before. And later, according to the notes by Favst Buzand, an irreparable and horrible thing happened near Derbent. Young Gregoris died in a terrible way: he was tied to a tail of the wild horse that was set to the steppe on the seashore Who made that execution? That's not clear. The chronicler didn't describe the details clearly, he just established a fact. The place of the tragedy - the town of Derbent - is the only clear thing in his text. "Iron Gates" Grigoris, Djarang, Gyurdzhi, George There were too many coincidences in that story. Sometimes everything seeded to me mystical, the words would become warm or cold, empty or palpable. Sometimes I even felt fear when all of sudden in the book I have got just by accident I found things I failed to find in dozens of other books (as though someone was carefully observing the course of my work) What was that? A regularity? Or something else? It is hard to say, but I simply didn't have the right to remain indifferent. Knowledge doesn't appear from nowhere, it are given to man and one cannot reject it In a word, an expedition was necessary. I decided to go to Derbent at all costs and search for the grave of Saint George there just because I saw it in a dream and knew something about it In the opinion of local archeologists, Derbent is five thousand years old, it was the capital of the Silk Route for a long time and an object of many wars. The fortress guarded the only way from the Eastern Europe to the Southern Asia in the Caucasus - as a matter of fact, it was built for that purpose. Nowadays it certainly doesn't guard anything. Other roads appeared long ago; those roads moved the Silk Route and its fortresses to the past. (19). Former Derbent went in two walls separating the town from the south and from the north: four hundred meters in width, two kilometers lengthwise - that was the whole town. Its walls remained until now; they still stretch from the mountain, which has become the part of the ancient fortress, up to the seashore. Some time the walls stretched to the sea, then they were partly destroyed. They also destroyed the gates which fed the town and gave the name to it - "Iron Gates". Derbent population wasn't high in number - just several thousand - a big city simply couldn't be located in a stone bed. But unassailable walls helped a small group of inhabitants to stand any siege. Trade was carried out there day and night. That ancient tradition remained - the towns begins and

ends with the bazaar for the most part of the visitors. One cannot assert that desolation has come to the modern Derbent. But at the same time one cannot say that the town is prosperous as in bygone days. It is proud as the elder forgotten by his relatives. It leads its life - its inhabitants inherited beautiful faces of their ancestors but they don't remember their great deeds. People have been being weaned away from the history of their nation and their town, and they have obediently forgotten everything. Derbent was the biggest town in the Caucasian Albania - an ancient state with high culture. Its nation was among the first in the Caucasus who found the image of Heavenly God It is not by accident that Derbent is called "the sacred land", the Prophet himself spoke about the town But where are the descendants of those heavenly Albans? There are no nations with that name in the Caucasus: everything has been forgotten! Nowadays, even looking at the Albanian churches and ruins of the fortresses, they - the people with Albanian appearance, never remember their ancestors! They talk about Iranian or Arabian rulers who were supposed to build those churches and fortresses there. When I said that Saint George (or Gregoris) was the first bishop of the Albanian Church before Islam was known there they looked at me as if I was speaking Chinese. Not many people there know that up to the middle of VI century the patriarchy's throne of the Caucasus (and maybe of the whole Christian world?!) was located in their town. That in the center of Derbent - to the south from the northern wall - Saint George, their spiritual father, was killed. Formerly a church in the memory of Saint George was there (20). When and how were the ties between the times torn and people became indifferent even to themselves? I don't know. Sometimes offence or even shame arose, especially in relation to scientists who find only Iranian and Arabic inscriptions in ancient Derbent but markedly neglect Albanian and Turkic ones which are near. It seems someone needs to look at the world in that way - with a sidelong glance. So that other people are deemed to be a wild nation having no written language I needed assistants for the expedition but how could they be found among forgetful people? To turn to the local scientists?.. Even if they knew anything about Saint George and his grave, they would have announced that long before me. And it was impossible to get through Derbent labyrinths all alone, without assistants - it is much easier to find a needle in a haystack than a grave stone there. Derbent and its neighborhood is a huge cemetery without exaggeration: thousands of different graves around - known and forgotten. This world made old a lot of people and hasn't become old itself I understood that after George's dreadful death his body (or his remains, to put it more preciously) couldn't be taken far away. His grave is near his place of death - but not in the town. One of ancient names of Derbent - "Geore's Gates" (Djargan - Djar-Khan - Geore-Khan - Geore) - was a circumstantial evidence. Of course, the words "Derbent neighborhood" sounded earnestly in Moscow, but that reference point wasn't enough at the scene. It was necessary to narrow the bounds of the search: in case Derbent neighborhood was called "Hun passage", I reasoned, according to the toponymic rules I was to search for a settlement or a region which name is similar with the word "Djargan". There were also other variant of Turkic pronunciation: "Gyurgi", "Gyurdzhi", "Djyurdji". History was keeping the one and only sound among those "Dzhs" Gregoris - George Why was I interested in those sounds? I'm going to explain it. Favst Buzand called the preacher Gregoris, I supposed that was a secular name of the young man although changed in a little while in a Greek manner. It couldn't be different (i.e. a church name) so it means it should have sounded otherwise in the Church history. The Turki called him Djargan which is similar with the words "courageous", "temerity". It is evident that the name had a certain sense - only a brave person could go to the camp of the superior enemy and preach his ideas and beliefs there. "Gregoris" and "Djargan" - no similarity, at first sight. Although if written with Latin and Greek characters the names look almost the same and are read the same as well. (I'll remind that "-is" ending in "Gregoris" name is the tribute to the later Greek fashion). Another thing is also possible, I thought, - the name George simply didn't exist at that time, it could appear after the preacher's death. As well as his other names: Djirdjis, Gyurgy, Yuri, Egorius, Yurai, Jiri, Gevorge, Ezi, Georg, Uastyrzhi There are many names, indeed, but they all (which should be surprising but it isn't) relate to one person. However, I put "Grigoris" and "Djargan" on the first places in this range I thought that right also because the Byzantium emperor Constantine, founding a famous church of Saint George, at first gave

the name of Gregory to it. The fact one shouldn't neglect That was the time when everything, including the churches, was building in a new way in the new capital of the empire. The church in the name of Saint Gregory was perhaps the first undertaking of Constantine - the ally of the Kipchaks! But it was changed by the name of George in VI century. Why? Historians suppose that "under influence of the expanding cult of the Victorious not only in the manuscripts but also in practice the churches initially built in the name of Gregory were renamed at first in the masses and later in official spheres". (21). It is possible And nevertheless ancient churches were initially called in the name of Gregory - Gregoris! Why, after all? It is interesting that until VI century church figures retained their names obtained during the christening ceremony, i.e. their secular names. John II (533 - 535 years of papacy) was the first who violated that tradition and changed his name. His name was Mercury and, having become the Pope, he considered his name to be obscenely pagan. Since that time a custom was included to the ceremonial of the Pope election: dean of the College of Cardinals, having made sure that the elected agrees to take the throne in Vatican, asks him the question: "What name would you like to get?" It means the tradition to change secular names for church ones appeared in Christianity in VI century. And maybe in VI century change of the secular "Gregoris" for the church "George" wasn't unexpected - for people and for churches built in the names of the saint. My increasing hope was corroborated by other arguments For example, the name George itself. It is not known in the ancient history. It is time to wonder whether it has ever existed. I met it in the works by Herodotus for the first time; he reported about the Scythians - Georgous - the inhabitants of Herra - the steppe country. It seems other Greeks haven't mention "georges" and haven't called themselves with that name. But during the early Middle Ages in the Caucasus and later in Byzantine "George" was gradually becoming fashionable in the reigning dynasties. An unexpected rise of interest Where was it from? Wasn't it from the Great Steppe where that name has always been respected?.. There is another indirect confirmation of the steppe origin of the name George: in the whole (!) history of papacy there was not a single Pope with the name George. That was a Barbarian name! And everything Barbarian wasn't in respect there since certain times. Those observations allow if not to assert than to hope that the name George is of steppe, Kipchak origin. Or a European version of the Turkic name Dhargan or Gyurdzhi. And why did the European name of Georgia appear (the Land of Saint George)? (22). And why the Europeans say "Saint George" about cities and churches called in the name of Saint George There must be an explanation. If not mine, than somebody else's. Having that simple luggage I came to Dagestan, to the town of Derbent. I shouldn't make a secret of the fact that abundance of historical monuments and total indifference towards them were striking. The frame of mind was getting worse from day do day: wherever I went, sooner or later I faced cold indifference and hidden mockery. Some things happened by chance in the person of a very silent young man; he knew my former essays in "Around the World" magazine. That was a real mountaineer worthy of deep respect. He asked no questions and did everything I needed with a smile. But at first, of course, he generously entertained me in a cozy garden. That was a custom. And I was leisurely, as a guest on the Caucasus should do, asking questions about Derbent, about its neighborhood, about the news and in a little while I humbly asked about the settlements with the name interesting for me. - Here it is. On the top, - Khasplat said calmly and pointed to the mountain opposite the arbor in which we were dining. I couldn't believe my ears. I swear, I could have stood a thunderbolt easier. I thought Phasplat was joking. It is never like that. But Khasplat wasn't joking; there couldn't be any jokes since I haven't said anything about my search. Dzhalgan settlement was located on the top of the highest mountain. That was in a surprising accordance with ancient (apocryphal) texts describing the burial place of Saint George. It was also in accordance with a Turkic tradition being peculiar for them in Altai Everything coincided. In order to hide my excitement I tried to proceed with the interrupted feast, but I failed. And thus I revealed my secret to Khasplat which, it seems, was no longer a secret. Diocletian Who Suffered Not Being Guilty By that time Saint George was very close to me, I could speak about him and his time for hours.

That was, among other reasons, due to the book by professor A.I. Kirpichnikov written last century. It is called "Saint George and George the Brave". My handbook: not a single researcher has ever written about Saint George at greater length. Kirpichnikov gathered and analyzed almost everything which was known about Saint George in the world. As a result of a long-term work he came to the univocal conclusion: "official" church knowledge about the feat of the saint is nothing more than a myth. They are far from reality. Many things are not in compliance with each other. According to the "official" version George died in 303 during the bloody persecutions against the Christians organized by the Roman emperor Diocletian: they cut the saint's head off after tortures. But in fact it couldn't have been like that. (23). In order to prove it I had to deepen in literature of the times of Diocletian. He led an uncommon life: born in a family of the slave who got manumission, but he was born under a lucky star - his fate led him through the life up to the emperor's throne. When he was young he was famous for his wisdom and avoided unnecessary blood - he respected a word not less than a sword. For more than twenty years the grand Roman Empire listened to his quiet but firm voice. There is no reason to speak about his "indifference" towards the Christians - there were no religious conflicts during the twenty years of his reign. (24). The Empire was leading its measured life under Diocletian: it was suppressing, reconciling, conquering. He treated the Christians, who caused no danger, not worse than, say, Mitreists, Chaldean astrologer or bearer of other beliefs (there were many of them in the Empire), - he treated them calmly. The Christians didn't hold important offices at court. And that was all right. Thus it continued until the year 303 when the disturbance began. The Christians were the instigators of the troubles and thus in 303 an order was issued in Rome according to which the mutineers were deprived of civil rights. There were no executions; there was just disability. Two other orders followed: one of "religious" character and another - about isolation of the preachers calling for insurrection. That was a natural reaction of Rome for the insurrection in dependent Armenia. The Christians were suspected to be the organizers of the insurrection; thus there couldn't be another reaction to their actions. (Armenia, where Christianity was turning into a political power having become a religion, really bothered perspicacious Diocletian). The emperor was wise again - he pardoned the mutineers by his new order. The opponents neglected his fine gesture. In 304 the troubles have become of a threatening character: useless words grew silent - that was the time for executioners' axes to speak But they persecuted not for belief but for "revolutionary activity" - for betrayal and instigation for rebellion And in what country have the authorities ever acted otherwise? The documents show that bloody executions commenced in Rome a year later the "official" execution of George An awkwardness? No, just the beginning thereof. But that fact alone allows to doubt the authenticity of the official church version! In the books by Eusebius, Lactancius and other contemporaries of Diocletian there is not a single word about George or his martyr death. There was no George among those who suffered due to persecutions (their names are mentioned!)! From the statements of the eyewitnesses it is clear that Diocletian hasn't even heard the name of George It turns out professor Kirpichnikov was right when he was surprised with evident liberty of "official" stories about the saint. Thus a correct question arises - who tortured George? Who took him to an execution? The answer is clear. It is written in an ancient manuscript of IV - V centuries, in the aforementioned palimpsest. It is clearly said there: Persian ruler Dadian was George's torturer. That manuscript - the most ancient one about George which remained in Europe - has been never kept secret! Favst Buzand also points out that name. To tell the truth he calls the executioner Sanesan but such variant reading of the eastern names is common in history. Dadian is still the only one who is cursed in the Georgian legends about Saint George. The same is with ancient Serbian, Croatian and Bulgarian legends. In Western Europe even Latin texts of IX century witness of misdeeds of the Persian ruler Dadian but not Diocletian. Diocletian suffered not being guilty - that's for sure. In one of the European legends about Saint George the stunning words are written: "Diocletian is the Persian tsar". And another Greek finding of the same epoch made the saint warrior the participant of the war of Diocletian against Persia neglecting the fact that George was hardly ten - twelve years old at that time. In that Byzantine poem the Roman emperor is represented as the tormentor, but the Persian also hasn't been forgotten - he was made almost the relative of Diocletian Total absurd. Of course different comments can be provided but it is evident that ignorant descendants ascribed certain things which have never happened to Diocletian. They slandered a good person. But was the

consonance of the names the only reason: Diocletian - Dadian?.. A.I. Kirpichnikov mentioned that the copyists of Saint George's biography were "compromising with their conscience". Not just a confusion is evident, not a naive fantasy of the frightened monk, but planned actions which were notable for consistency and acute craftiness. Against whom did the "demons with unpleasant hearts" direct their arrows? Every Nation Has Its Own George In order to understand that let us remember the famous "look at their acts since the faces are known by the acts". In the end of V century (!) the Western Church announced the list of prohibited books: the works about Saint George were in the first row there. Newly-invented versions (with Diocletian) were not censored and everything in contradiction with them was prohibited Did that happen by chance? Certainly not. Could the prohibitions destroy human memory? People invented new legends enciphering the truth in mythology. A struggle between the truth and fancy has been going on around the image of Saint George for centuries in Europe. Many talented persons of keen intellect suffered but we are obliged to those persecutions for appearance of that literature about George which is kept in the libraries of the world They tried to prohibit the truth but it wasn't prohibited, they tried to brake it but it wasn't broken; it simply gave birth to new poems and stories. As far as we know, neither silver nor gold can tempt a true believer. Trying to keep the memory of Saint George full of belief but not invented by Rome, people were simply creating another warrior, calling his name in a different way. For some people George has become the guardian of the cattle-breeders, for others he turned into a farmer. For some nations he is the defender of the warriors, for other he the one struggling with a dragon. These differences are very notable and thus it's time to think: aren't they different Georges? An explanation is simple here: every nation made him its saint, approached him to its history, its way of life and thus saved him not only in the spiritual pantheon but also in everyday culture. That's why information of different nations about Saint George varies. That's why literary works about him are similar to each other and at the same time different in different countries. Hence another thing becomes clear - why there are too many "graves" of Saint George. The official biography asserts that according to the will of George (!) himself (that is inexplicable) the relics of the saint were delivered to his mother's motherland - to Palestine. There, in the town of Lidda, they lie in the church built in the honor of one great martyr. And in the course of time that absurdity has obtained the force of the law. But there are no historical documents (even circumstantial ones) confirming the presence of Saint George Church in Palestine in IV century. More or less authentic evidences about the churches in his honor mention Armenia, Byzantium, Syria but not Palestine. And there are no historical evidences of the town of Lidda as the motherland of George as well as of origin of his mother. Why did Lidda appear? When?.. That version, no doubt, was strengthened by the "miraculous discovery" of an underground church in Jerusalem. It was given the name of George. That happened in the 30s of XIX century. The reason for the name was the finding - a miniature with a rider who (not a Church) was called George at first. No one has ever thought that the theme of the rider in the image of George arose after the lapse of thousands of years after the saint's death But logic and belief, as far as we know, are seldom in consent with each other. (25). Other places are also called the places of the last rapture of the great martyr. The Armenian monastery in Mugni, for example, declares about the relics of the saint. But that cloister was built and consecrated one hundred years after the death of George - not earlier than in XVI century, which is witnessed by its architecture and known historical documents Thus the claims of the Armenians are unfounded for that reason. It should be mentioned, everything is inexplicable in Mugni. In the side-alter there, to the left, there is a grave stone under which, according to the legend, the body of the great martyr lay. As though the great Nerses brought it here from Nicodimia (where, according to the official version, Diocletian executed George). However, Vartan, the Armenian geographer, witnessed otherwise: not a body but the cut head was brought there. So what was lying under the grave stone? Nobody knows. Later the mysterious relic is supposed to be taken to Tbilisi by the Armenians, put to Bocharmsk Cloister and carried to Alaverd Cathedral from there. But the Armenian Mugni remains the place of pilgrimages not only for the Christians but for the Moslems as well especially during the holidays of Saint George And thank God! The history of Ksenofont Monastery on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea is even more strange;

the ashes of Saint George are also supposed to lie there. How did they get there, to the Greeks? It is not known. When? Nobody can tell. But, judging by the documents and the style of architecture, the monastery was founded in XV century, it isn't connected with the times of George the same as the Armenian town of Mugni. Consequently, authenticity of its relics also needs to be seriously proved; and it is unlikely that any evidences can be found. Other "impostors" shouldn't be even mentioned here. That is like the folk beliefs: they say Saint George is buried in this or that cave. When? Why? But there are similar legends in the Caucasus - in Ossetia and Abkhazia. They can also be found in Serbia and Montenegro. Let's leave them on their authors' conscience and turn to Rome, to the famous church in the name of great martyr Saint George near the foothills of Palatinsk Hill. The documents report "it was found in the end of IV century". "The true head of the great martyr Saint George from Cappadocia, the famous tribune of Diocletian, who suffered under that emperor" is kept in its sacristy. A handsome and convincing inscription. But other evidences remained according to which the relic appeared there just in the middle of VIII century. According to Anastasius, the Pope's librarian, Pope Zacharias, the Greek by birth, the last of the "eastern" Popes (741 - 752 years of papacy) delivered those ashes there from Lateran Cathedral where the relic was lying in a small shrine. But was it there, in the cathedral? There is no information on this point. And I think the question is appropriate. Lateran Palace is one of the most ancient buildings; it was built in the times of Nero. It was the Popes' residence until 1340. The Church at court was deemed to be the main one in Europe. Only the heads of apostles Peter and Paul put into the altar part and kept as peculiar relics of Christianity have always been notable. But there is not a single line about Saint George and his feat in ancient chronicles of Rome. It is not known when and wherefrom the relic which was called "the head of Saint George" appeared in Lateran Palace in VIII century. As we can see, apart from Lidda there are other serious candidates for the burial place of the great martyr. To tell the truth, absence of historical evidences and simple logic in the arguments of the candidates doesn't allow to agree with their important statements Alas, "the one in manacles won't go far" - a lie cannot turn into the truth even during a thousand years. Beginning of the Catastrophe Another interesting detail seemed very important to me. Whatever unbelievable inventions the legends about George were decorated with, everywhere he was called Cappadocian. Persistence with which ancient authors underlined the Persian name of the tormentor and Cappadocian roots of Saint George made me turn to the map of those times. Otherwise it is impossible to understand the events which happened in the beginning of IV century on the border between the Roman Empire and Persia. In 297 Diocletian defeated the Persians in Armenia having forced them to leave five provinces on the other side of the Tigris. Everything went successfully for Rome which expanded its territories and reestablished peace on the eastern borders, which has never happened there. Rhetoricians proclaimed the time of Diocletian "the return of the Golden Age". And soon that Golden Age has come. But not for Rome. Nobody except for experienced Diocletian troubled due to that victory over the Persians. And an inevitable trouble was coming - like a roller, like a hurricane one would never escape from: the rebellion which rose in Armenia in a little while was just its faraway alarm. Rumours about an unknown cavalry noticed near the northern borders of the Roman Empire and Persia were enriched with frightening details. Soon a concrete name of "the Huns" was on everybody's lips! (26). Diocletian took a sober view of things, but he was oppressed by his own weakness. It also was hard to stand loathsome smiles of yesterday's friends: the vassals didn't conceal their evil intentions. The Christians, who were notable for gentleness and humility, were the first who showed themselves; they declared that the old gods are powerless in the empire Of course, the reb ellion in Armenia was suppressed; "church Apostles were put to prisons and dungeons", but that couldn't change anything. The emperor bothered not about the public declarations of the Christians which frightened nobody. He was at a loss for another reason - appearance of the "new" Christians, that fifth column of the empire. Having turned away from their Judaic gods, they stepped back from the old traditions. They declared about a new god. And the name was the only thing in common between their new belief and former Christianity! Another force appeared on the political scene; it untied the secret enemies of Rome. Wise Diocletian was feeling danger with every fiber of his skin. He had a foreboding of a fall and he couldn't prevent it. The Roman Empire was declining.

The Armenian and Albanian Churches acted as the founders of the new Christianity. They urged to praying in churches (but not in synagogues or catacombs as it formerly was), rejection of circumcision, worship of a cross, crossing themse lves, icons worship During those years many things came to Christianity from the Caucasus. (27). There, in the Caucasus, Heavenly God, who hasn't been known in Europe, was recognized. The Caucasus was the real threat for pagan Rome. No doubt, Diocletian, being a politician, guessed about the reasons of all those innovations: a third force joined the age-old struggle for domination between Rome and Persia, and that force was frightful due to its obscurity. The "new" Christians regarded the Kipchaks, those eastern newcomers, as their allies. They accepted their spiritual ceremonies for the sake of a union with them, in order to prove their devotion. How could Rome reply? The ancient rule of politics - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - wasn't suitable. The enemies were all around - there was danger from the inside and from the outside. Diocletian wished only one thing - to save the empire, but he comprehended his vulnerability: steppe inhabitants outnumbered his army. A cruel war was right behind. And thus wild Diocletian decided to start it having defeated the internal resistance. Although he avoided unneeded blood, he made a desperate step: he introduced the executions of all the "new" Christianity adherents in 304. Not all the Christians but only "new" ones. That is a very important detail which explains a lot. But the things were no longer under his control - Rome was late And they started to talk about the end of the world in "the capital of the world" and "the guarantor of stability of everything existing on the earth". The secret was uncovered. People saw the will of fate even in a sudden disease of the Emperor. Diocletian left the throne and, according to bitter tongues, succeeded in cabbage growing in his estate. Who were the enemies of Rome? Who united them and who directed their actions which lead to such an unexpected outcome? Unfortunately Eusebius, as well as other eyewitnesses of those events, write in brief about them. I managed to find just an insignificant mention of the rebellion which led to persecution of the Christians. To tell the truth, its place was provided - Melitina. (28). Although I knew that Melitina is not just the Caucasus and even not just the Cappadocian province. Melitina is the birthplace of Saint George! (29). Another coincidence? Another fluke? But aren't they too frequent?.. Those "coincidences" allowed to think about the search of a person who took the risk of being in opposition to Rome, - an educated organizer, a wise person with a good name being a Christian. Did he have actual power? No. But he needed it. He had education, intellect and belief. That was enough. Why did I emphasize those three qualities? Only an educated person could read and understand Christian texts. Only an intelligent person is able to compare what he has read with reality. And nobody except for a true believer could see God's will in it. Today we don't know for sure whether believers had the Gospel at that time. Opinions of historians vary, but most likely they didn't. But the author's edition Apocalypse ("Revelation of Saint John the Evangelist") was in the lists. (30). Here are the first words from it: "Revelation of Jesus Christ given by God to him in order to show his slaves what is to happen soon (bold provided. - M.A.). And he showed having sent it with His Angel to John, His slave". It turns out Saint John expounded the message about the Savior's arrival, which was brought to the Mediterranean region by Jesus Christ, in writing. Riders are often mentioned in that ancient Christian book. They gave me the key to solution. "I took a look and saw a white horse and a rider on it with a bow; he was given a halo and he same as victorious and in order to win". "And another sorrel horse appeared and the one sitting on it was to take peace away from the earth so that people kill each other; and he was given a big sword". "I took a look and saw a pale horse and the rider called "death" on it, and hell followed him and he was given power over the fourth part of the earth" Thus the Christians saw the messengers of God's Agent. The riders! With bows and sabers. They've been waiting for deliverers from the Roman despotism from afar (31). As a matter of fact waiting for them was the ideology of Christianity at that time - the hope for soon arrival of Messiah, God's Agent. The text of Apocalypse is full of messianic moods and belief in soon deliverance. It was very important for me to comprehend the essence of religion which was rising those days!.. A great many things could become clearer. I tried to put myself in the place of a believer of keen mind who knows Christian literature. He hears about appearance of the riders of whom Christ said, they

came from afar, what is he to do? And he has to do something - time is getting short. The riders are near - they are around Derbent. The rumours about them agitated the Christian communities - Christ's prophecy has come true, here it is!.. A religious man out of the uncommon would see a special sign in it; he would leave in search for the divine riders. They are going to save Christianity and the Christians. That's why just the Christians (and nobody else) appeared at the political scene at that time. But who was that first one? The Great Enlightener of Armenia And now let us return to the real events in the Caucasus from the supposed (hypothetic) ones: Favst Buzand and other historians accurately described what has happened. The young bishop Gregoris came to the camp of the enemies who have occupied Derbent. He introduced himself to the Kipchak tsar and, standing before the troops, started to preach Christ's teaching about salvation Stop! Let us interrupt the story of Favst Buzand. There is no logic in it! Could Gregoris address to the Kipchak tsar all of a sudden? Who would allow him - that immature alien - to do that?.. It seems something very important preceded that and the chronicler didn't know about it It was important to understand how Gregoris addressed to the Kipchak tsar, what dialect he spoke? Armenian and Turkic languages are absolutely different And a sermon in Armenian before the Turki would have been an empty sound Presence of the translator didn't help since, as far as we know, language is the beginning of virtue! It turns out a sermon wasn't in question there. Something else was. For example, an important statement: he could be introduced to the tsar only in that case. Maybe Gregoris pronounced several learnt Turkic phrases. Maybe he delivered a message written in the Turkic language. (Just in the Turkic language. That was required by the diplomatic etiquette and necessity to be understood.) But what could be the sense of his words? Grigoris himself, his biography helped me to understand that He was the grandson of Gregory the Enlightener - the legendary person in Armenia - it seems the caliber of his great apostolic deed hasn't been understood to the full extent either in Armenia or in the world. That was him, Gregory - Gregoris' grandfather - who was the first of the Christians who saw God's Sign in the shape of the cross; later he arrived to Caesaria in the chariot decorated with gold and precious stones accompanied with princes and a magnificent army. In order to give a cross to Europe! Because he, Gregory the Enlightener, having remembered Apocalypse, connected the Turkic cross with the message about Messiah in his mind for the first time And Heaven confirmed the accuracy of his thought. Gregory the Enlightener was born in 157, he is the Persian, the descendant of the Parthian tsar, Apanak's son. His father, taking part in a palace intrigue, killed Khozroi - the Armenian leader. Murderer's family should have been annihilated in accordance with the law. But a wet nurse pulled the innocent baby Gregory out if the hands of the executioners and disappeared with him. She was wandering with the baby in her hands for a long time hiding from the persecutors, and at last the road led her to the house of Burdar and Sofia - the people who were rich not only in money but also in compassion. Sofia, the real Christian, undertook to bring Gregory up. Fortune smiled to the youth in everything. His inborn nobility was delightful and attracted people Gregory's sermons to the glory of Christianity were being passed from mouth to mouth; they were discussed in huts and in palaces But, as it often happens, his glory gave rise to envy, especially among the rulers. Their patience was exhausted by March 30th, 287 - it seems they remembered the crime of Gregory's father by that time. That was enough to exile the preacher. Gregory's biography is under veil. Where exactly was he? It is not known. In the saint's biography concerning those days it is just said that he was put into a ditch with snakes for fourteen years I involuntarily stirred up when snakes were mentioned; it made me remember "serpent towns" form Scandinavian novels. (32). Especially since "serpent" tortures haven't been performed in Transcaucasia either before or after Gregory. It remained only to suppose that a known legend was in question which real sense has been forgotten in the course of centuries. The term "serpent ditch" hid an evident circumlocution connected with the Turki. The Kipchaks again? Of course. The tsar Tridiat - the ruler of Armenia of those times - exiled Gregory, the

dangerous preacher, to them The tsar simply didn't have any other decision. They couldn't kill Gregory; that could give rise to troubles in a restless country. To put him to prison in Armenia meant to promote the popularity of the preacher who wouldn't have kept silent in prison. To send him to the West, closer to Rome? But Christian moods prevailing there would have only done the exile good. An exile to Persia was also counter-indicative: the Persian by birth, descendant of Apanak who has killed the Armenian tsar had a chance to turn into a national hero in Persia. Tiridat had the only way out - to sell Gregory into slavery in secret or simply to send him to the Kipchaks. They wouldn't have respected the son of the person who has killed the tsar Khozroi - the first ally of the steppe inhabitants in the Caucasus! Gregory was sitting in the exile for fourteen years. Actually, he was "sitting"! And how? For that "sitting" the steppe inhabitants would dig deep holes where they would put the prisoners - that was according to the Steppe tradition (the word "prison" is the derivative of the Turkic "to sit"). But of course snakes weren't thrown there. That ditch was called "serpent" later by the Armenians who listened to Gregory after his return from the exile. And, we should give them due, one cannot give a more precise name to the Turkic prison. On June 15th, 301 the Turki set Gregory free. And he returned to Armenia being the Enlightener! The years of exile didn't pass in vain. Of course steppe inhabitants didn't reveal the religious secrets to prisoner Gregory. However, being an intelligent and observant person, he noticed a great many things not known in Europe. Gregory gradually learnt not only the language of the Turkic Kipchaks but also their spiritual culture. He saw equilateral crosses with steppe inhabitants, he felt the divine force of the sign of the cross and the whole Tengirchilik ceremony which was the difference between the Turkic and the European culture at that time Heavenly God made the Kipchaks invincible - that's what Gregory understood. There wasn't even the term "Heavenly God", "One God" in Christianity at that time. But the Turki had it. In Old Testament (spiritual book of the Jews and the Christians) polytheism was in question. (33). Maybe in the exile saint martyr George was granted a prophetical idea to unite the saving cross with the message about Messiah. Nobody else was ready to accept that gift. Nobody was able to understand it. Having seen the image of Heavenly God, Gregory decided to make Armenia the ally of the Turki against the Romans and the Persians. Thus he has become the first Catholicos The word "Catholicos" (without the Greek "-os" ending) - is the derivative from the ancient Turkic "catyl" root and means "connector", "ally", "the acceded". It is interesting that the Church's patriarchies were called so only in the Caucasus; the Greeks have never used that word. Sacred relic of the Armenian Church is the copy of the Tengirchilik pacification gesture which was brought to the Caucasus and to Europe by the Turki The Armenian tsar Tiridat, who has exiled Gregory, solemnly accepted him upon his return having called him "God's Saint". God's Saint, exactly! The Armenian tsar bent his knees before his yesterday's prisoner in everyone's presence. Tiridat was the first who recognized the Enlightener. Thus the Armenians expressed their attitude to the idea of the union with the Kipchaks I realize what I have said. My words are in full accordance with official biography of Gregory the Enlightener, with the notes of Favst Buzand and other chroniclers of those times. I simply united the legends of the Turki and the Armenians and extended them to the real historical ground not adding and not excluding anything. That's why I'll continue. In order to accomplish what was planned, the grandson of the Enlightener, who was called Gregoris in his grandfather's honor, was engaged: being fifteen years old he was granted the title of a bishop - he went to the north, to meet God's Agent, being an important ecclesiastic.. And maybe the boy was simply sent to be brought up, which was in accordance with the Turkic traditions and corresponds with further course of events. With steppe inhabitants - and only with the Kipchaks! - young Gregoris recognized the ceremonies of Heavenly God worship. They were the only ones who showed him the saving cross, icons, prayers, ring bells calling for a prayer about which his grandfather had told him And the main thing - he was the first one who accepted baptism there and then crossed himself in sign of purification and subjection to God. (Adji Lake remained near Derbent as well as Gyurgi settlement near it). Thumb of his right hand he put together with his third finger, carried them to his forehead, lowered them to hid chest, put them to the left and then to the right shoulder Thus the Tengirchilik follower s

would do crossing themselves with Tengri's Holy Cross; thus the Armenian Christians have been doing since then. Putting together a thumb and a third finger is the gesture known as the "pacification gesture" since olden days in the East. It is depicted perhaps on every image of Buddha and Tengri. According to a legend, evil spirits cannot stand that sign - demons' power exhausts due to it. "You glorious and victorious warrior having made many miracles, having known one of the three faces of God", - a prayer in the honor of Saint George which is read the same everywhere expresses that idea. In conscience of the Europeans Saint George presented the Mediator between God and man He turned to the envoys of Heavenly God!.. He gave rise to the union between the Caucasian nations and the steppe world. The cross of Tengirchilik was the sign of that union; nowadays it is known as Saint George Cross. And what about the legend? It is to be discussed a little bit later Contradictions The truth is that at first the episode with a cross and rise of new Churches in the Caucasus didn't satisfy me. Slipshod chronology was perplexing: in different sources one and the same historical fact was dated with a variation of about thirty years. An evident contradiction of events appeared in my theory. For example, if the year 301 - the year of creation of the Armenian Church - is assumed to be the starting point, we have a picture into which the episode with the feat of George and finding of the cross by him in 302 doesn't fit. That was too early for it! It is logical for the 30s of IV century. Because during the first decades in Armenia and the Caucasian Albania there was a preparation for acceptance of new belief - the idea of new God was just finding its adherents, it entered people's conscience. Plowing up the pagan soil people built the churches and overthrew old gods; clergymen and parishioners were being prepared: great deeds are never performed during one day. However assumed chronology fails to correspond with real course of history. Contradictions are evident. Why? Because the finding of the Holy Cross in Armenia, according to its historical documents, happened on November 10th, 326. It means a cross was shining above the Armenian Church in a quarter of a century after its creation. To tell the truth, nowadays the Europeans connect the finding of the cross with another event which is supposed to happen in Palestine. "That Holiday was celebrated in honor of finding of Fair and Holy Tree of God's Cross by the tsarina Helen". However, even if everything was really like that, in any case they would have found just a T-beam on which Christ was crucified but not an equilateral cross. There was no cross at that time. Having compared many facts I came to a conclusion that chronological disorders which seemed frightful to me are vexingly banal. The date of Saint George's death - they year 303 - was simply invented by the Roman Church the same as many other facts of his biography. It was invented by the editors for whom it was important to connect George's fate with the Roman emperor Diocletian And there are no other explanations here. And thus another question arose: why did Favst Buzand call the Persian ruler "the commander of the numerous Hun army"? What was that - an inaccuracy of the translation? Or a mistake of the chronicler who was retelling from the words of others?.. Who was mistaken? Unfortunately I failed to find an answer. (23). But the fact remains: Dadian is the organizer of the murder of the bishop Gregoris; he is the copartner But what reasons forced the Persian ruler to make that cruel step? What has the young preacher done wrong? In my opinion Gregoris himself was the one who made for the crime; the reason was his successful missionary work in the Caucasus. Of course it was mentioned in Persia. Knowing about the Persian family tree of Gregory, it might be that Dadian was inclining him to propagation of Zoroastrianism - the religion of the Persians. Thus Persia got a chance to improve its cracked positions in the Caucasus A political intrigue was setting in, and Gregoris refused to take part in it. Being a real spiritual warrior, he couldn't betray Heavenly God. But "if two are at enmity one of them must die", - they say in the East. Intractable and inexperienced bishop was simply slandered by the Persians before the Kipchaks. They did it without any difficulties since steppe inhabitants would believe words like children. A cause was found, which decided the youth's fate. He was killed Killed in a violent way as a man who has committed a grave crime. The method of murder speaks for itself.

But and that "but" was the most difficult and the most inexplicable thing. It was impossible to understand why did the victim, who has possibly committed a grave crime, become the national hero of the Kipchaks?! Why hasn't anyone been ever respected and glorified more than him, Saint George? He is the next after God. It turns out there was an ancient custom in the Steppe; other researchers also paid their attention to it. (35). In case one of the enemies showed the miracles of bravery and heroism, if he was notable for exemplary noble deeds, he was not simply killed having been taken prisoner, he was violently killed with the words: "When you are re-born, honor us with being born in our lands". In those cases an execution would turn into a sacrifice of a hero. According to beliefs of the steppe inhabitants, in case the ceremony was accurately followed, the hero's soul satisfied with the last feast turned not into an enemy but into a guarding spirit for those who paid their last respect to him. They used to put a stone monument in his honor. Dadian, the Persian ruler (maybe not with his own hands), killed the bishop Gregoris, but the traditions of the Great Steppe made an innocent victim - Djargan, Gyurdzhi - the eternal hero He "being a foolhardy" - unlike the steppe inhabitants themselves who respected a saber, performed his great feat with a word. He met with a violent death. An alien was dying with Tengri's name on his lips; Tengri, Whom he served in his life and Whom he didn't betray in the moment of his death. Tengri's mark - godliness - was put on the hero. Having recognized that, the Kipchaks were amazed and they left him their guarding spirit forever. They simply couldn't do otherwise. That's why the image of the saint warrior is especially important for the European Kipchaks. That image couldn't appear with the Armenians or with the Greeks not because "no man is prophet in his own country, a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country". It simply happened that the feat of the hero bore no relation to those nations and thus they saw nothing more than a violent death in his execution. They didn't understand the highest sense of the ritual sacrifice. In Armenia Gregoris is remembered as the grandson of George the Enlightener and they don't have the slightest idea where his grave is. (36). The memory of Djargan's feat was kept only by the Great Steppe and the Kipchaks whose guardian he has become. Thus another thing becomes clear: why Saint George (Gevorg) came to the divine pantheon of the Armenian Church much later (in VII - VIII centuries, apparently) from Byzantium, when it has already been forgotten who was its originator. Two persons exist in Armenia since that time - alien Gevorg and native Gregoris. And nobody can guess that one is the reflection of the other That has already happened in history of the nations. It seems historians of the Church should bring their work into accord; dozens of events are in contradiction with each other. And any disparity gives rise to another one. If, say, by example of Church historians, the Great Steppe isn't taken into consideration, it is not clear when, where and how was Gregory, the Enlightener of Armenia - Gregoris' grandfather, conferred orders. He couldn't accept a cross in a synagogue And when and from whom did he accept it? (37). Who built and consecrated the first Armenian churches? They were really the churches! Why were they oriented to the East the same as Tengirchilik ones? They had a shape of the cross in their foundation - the same as the steppe inhabitants would build their ones. Why wouldn't believers enter them and pray near a church until VII - VIII centuries?.. How, in the course of one day, did the new church architecture appear in Armenia and why is it surprisingly similar with the Kipchak one? Finally, why did altars appear in them while the Christians didn't have them? And what is the Turkic tamga doing on the walls of ancient Armenian churches? Doesn't it suggest anything to historians? In a wall of one of the monasteries (near the Chapel of Vatchagan the Blessed III) there is a stone with an image of a rider in Turkic clothes and a headdress (the Kipchaks called it a klobuk), with a saddle without stirrups Who is that riding clergyman? And why does he remind of those who are carved on the rocks of Altai and the Southern Siberia?.. It is time for historians to bring many things to conformity with reality which looks with a silent reproach from the walls of ancient Armenian churches and monasteries. But that's not all Say, why are there two snakes on a staff of the head of the Armenian Church the same as Tengirchilik clergymen had? Is it connected with the "serpent ditch"? By the way, Tengirchilik (not Armenian, indeed!) staffs remained in the emblems of several Siberian towns which have been spiritual centers of the Turki from of old It is interesting , isn't it? God opened my eyes It is no sweat to make observations of that kind now in the Caucasus; they are in sight. Take the sign of the cross - the Armenians cross themselves according to a Tengirchilik tradition. Is it casual that reliquaries (receptacles for various kinds of relics) are still made in form of a hand with a pacification gesture? Being blessed the Armenians put their palms together in a

Tengirchilik way - as a cross. Giving the Lord's Supper a clergyman draws a Tengirchilik cross on a parishioner's forehead with a brush I won't even mention the outline of the cross accepted by the Christian Church - its Tengirchilik origin is evident Clothes of Armenian bishops are of Tengirchilik style. (38). Neither Europe nor the Middle East could give Armenia what they themselves didn't have! So where was Gregory the Enlightener conferred orders? The first clergyman in the Christian world?! In Derbent. Let the Christians Be the Christians again Without exaggeration, Saint George was the first Eurasian in the world. He learnt the spiritual traditions of the East and made Europe familiar with them. With understanding of that fact, in my opinion, one can see a mysterious sense of a very important order of the Roman emperor Galerius, signed in 311, when the idea of possible union with steppe inhabitants has already got its adherents. The emperor would stop the persecution of the Christians under one condition: "Let the Christians be the Christians again". Generations of historians were trying to explain the meaning of his words, but the mystery remained. (42). Having become entangled with the versions, researchers waved it away. They agreed that that was a "common Roman legal formula not binding the Christians in any way and meaning nothing in reality" Is it really like that? As a matter of fact it meant a lot!.. Because further in the text one can read: "We also wanted certain Christians who have rejected the teaching of their fathers to return to a good way of thinking, since for some reason they've been seized by such simplicity, enthralled by such insanity that they don't follow the ancient rules which, it may be, their fathers followed, but produce the laws for themselves at their discretion, whichever they want, they issue them and, in accordance with different viewpoints, they form different societies". I emphasize the word "different" here: the first split in Christianity is evident. It is impossible to fix it more accurately and shorter than the author did: Jewish Christians remained with their former positions and the "new" ones started to design a ceremony borrowed form the Turkic Tengirchilik followers. It was evident from Galerius' order that authorities, having understood the usefulness of violence, tried to return the Christians to "established rules" they formerly had in a peaceful manner. As we can see, everything coincides again: that was the new ceremony borrowed from the Caucasus which gave a cause to Diocletian's persecutions; and he himself was the one who abolished them. Galerius tried to neutralize the "internal enemy" by his order. And that is confirmed by materials of Ancyr Councils (years 314 and 358) where rules of the "new" Christianity (Arianism) were formulated for the first time. Thus everything seemed to be in its right place; the logic and the documents connected separate events into a single whole explaining the caliber of Saint George's feat. However, that didn't satisfy me. I was embarrassed with the fact that in the works issued, for example, in Russia, there is not a single line about the things which seemed evident for me I didn't accept the correctness of my own opinion: its evidence stumped me. Professor Kirpichnikov and his book helped. It turns out in 494 the Roman Council I PROHIBITED mentioning Saint George's activity. That's the reason of our ignorance and confusion around that pure soul and his feat in the name of the Great Steppe. The Christians weren't allowed to know and talk about his real life. "Let only God know George's case", - the Council decided. The Roman bishop Gelacius I condemned the disobedient persons bitterly. Thus church half-truth, legends and all other "explanations" appeared; their aim is to lead one further from the truth, from the Great Steppe That's why the Armenian Church didn't "know" Gregoris and his deed! Another history editor - a monk Simeon Metathrastus - intensified the trouble in X century. On the instructions of the Byzantine Church he edited all the biographies of the canonized saints. (43). It is a big secret what has been added and what has been crossed out Thus once again - and again "officially" - they changed the biography of George the warrior. Unfortunately, that wasn't the last "version" of it. Professor Kirpichnikov wrote about Metathrastus' additions in brief, as though it wasn't worthy of serious attention: church legends about the martyrs were always "reformed" according to a known form - hagiography was adjusted to the biblical plots. But the last and the biggest point, even not a point but a blot, was put in the church history in

1969: that's when the secret was revealed - George was EXCLUDED from the official list of saints of the Catholic Church "Where Will this Lead? Where to Go?" Luckily, Apocrypha remained; it is like a breath of fresh air. Apocryphal works are the literary works not recognized by the official Church: sagas, legends, songs, poems. They are called folk stories (they don't have an author but everybody knows them). It is possible to prohibit the books, to edit something on paper, but all the people cannot be forced to keep silence Contradictions were clearly expressed, maybe involuntarily, by Constantine Balmont, the great poet of the Great Steppe. That wasn't by accident that his contemporaries called him a genius: Saint George, having killed a dragon, Looked around in sorrow. He couldn't hear the dull moan, He couldn't be pure simply loving the light. With a light heart, in the name of God, He directed his spear and raised his shield, But there were so many thoughts, And he is struck; he is silent having struck. And the saint's horse wrathfully kicked The edge of the road with his hoof, He's come here by a well-trodden road, Where will this lead? Where to go? Saint George, Saint George, You've also tasted your highest hour! You were amazed before the strong serpent, You've faded out before the dead one! Maybe I understood the poet's words "in my own way" - while the serpent was alive George was also alive If the steppe inhabitants, or their free spirit, disappear - the image of George will "fade out". The Western Church has already "faded" it out - the image of God's Agent, the Mediator between God and man Regardless of the evil the apocryphal works kept what was to vanish according to intentions of Rome. They didn't deny the official version - they didn't notice it skillfully supplementing it with details which obtained a special sense. Using the book by professor Kirpichnikov I delved into translations of Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Latin works, I saw their colors and tints which hid the information. I was rereading the extracts from the work by Tabari, the eastern historian of IX century, with particular attention (being free from the Roman censorship, he was one of the first who provided the Moslem version of Saint George's feat). And there was a miracle: centuries-old events turned out to be visible and their participants didn't look like ethereal imaginary characters which they were made by the Church. The name of Saint George is on the lips of people of different creeds. Doesn't that reflect his magnificence?! He is higher than the Christian apostles! Steppe inhabitants addressed to him as "prophet's deputy" in their prayers, i.e. they considered him to be equal to their prophets. That George was dangerous for Rome which was dreaming to return domination over the world. Hence is Jesuit alteration of his biography and the whole history of the Great Steppe which has been lasting for centuries. Water was wearing away the stone, a worm was eating away the tree; everybody was busy with its business until the great feat was reduced to a primitive murder and the Steppe - to the crowd of the nomads. And the Kipchaks are the only ones who retained Saint George propagating the name of Tengri on the Earth in their apocryphal works. A lie never sticks to real relics! Steppe inhabitants remember him as a "belief upholder", "invincible passion bearer".

Dzhalgan Settlement I managed to get to Dzhalgan settlement with many difficulties. The place chosen for habitation was the most unsuitable in the whole neighborhood: on the top of the mountain, no roads, no tillage, not many pastures. But nevertheless people have been living there for a long time. It's better to get here by a landrover. And not in any weather. A very inconvenient place, although a plain is near as well as beautiful mountainsides and water. But Dzhalgan is located right there - on the top of the mountain! And it has always had other goals as compared with other neighboring settlements. Dzhalgan is the guard of sacred places. Everybody knows that. Settlement inhabitants kind of live aside from the rest of the world. Like another nation from another planet. Who are they? One can only guess. Near the settlement I noticed an ancient cemetery; there were the monuments deepened into the earth and there were ones which remained in rather good state. By their shape I understood that Persian culture was dominating in the settlement some time ago. Dzhalgan inhabitants speak Farsi. To tell the truth, their "Farsi" isn't understood by the Persians and be anybody else in the world. A separate language? A separate country? That may be. In Dagestan it isn't new. When I asked about their nationality they said they were the Azerbaijanians. And they added: "By the passport". But they are not like the Azerbaijanians judging by their language and appearance. The settlement has a different spirit. Low wattle and daub houses with flat roofs and windows facing the courtyard, tight stone fences reminded of Afghanistan. And people with expressive, peculiar faces looked like the Afghans. East and the Caucasus were all around; but the Caucasus was peculiar. Time has stopped in Dzhalgan long ago: the streets were of the fifteenth or even of the tenth century. Only electric poles returned imagination to reality. The settlement reminded of a big ground where a film was to be made The first one whom we saw was a woman bearing a jug with water somewhere from below. Arrival of the aliens put her on her guard. Of course I failed to have a talk with her. Not the linguistic barrier was the reason but her true Moslem upbringing - she didn't have the right to stop before the aliens. The second one we met was more amiable. That was an elderly peasant returning from the fields into the settlement sleeping because of summer heat. He invited us to his house where we chatted about "this and that" drinking tea - in the East it is not correct to deluge with questions and requests. It was necessary to talk to the host easily, to make him feel you are a guest and only having understood what a person you are a host would decide himself whether to help you or not. The rumour of our arrival was spreading in Dzhalgan; wireless telegraphy was working. One of the neighbors needed to ask our host about something and he, making excuses, called him from the table at which we were sitting. As a matter of fact we were sitting not at table but on the wattle and daub floor where desired coolness of stone could be felt. Before us was the motley tablecloth onto which the hostess put tea-bowls, a sugar basin and slices of cheese on the plate In a little while other people came; then we came out to the garden where branches were inclining because of ripe cherries They were really examining us. - We have a pir, - I heard at least what I've been seeking for. (Pir means a holy place). The grave of the saint warrior is the place of honor in Dzerbent. It is near the mosque. Some time a chapel was rising above the grave; it was mentioned by Favst Buzand. As the centuries went on the chapel was destroyed and reconstructed several times - today just the walls remained from it. And an old fig-tree which was planted near sacred places according to an ancient tradition. Of course that is not that fig-tree, not the first one - it is its granddaughter. It has been getting old the same as the chapel and replaced by a new one. Thank God, about a thousand and seven hundred years have passed. Just the gravestone over which time and elements have no power remained safe. In an arrow passage of half-destroyed walls there was a stone which seemed to be polished from one side: palms and lips of pilgrims left their noticeable trace on it Even stones yield to human belief. When I touched the headstone of Saint George standing on my knees an inexplicable thing happened. Warmth radiated by the stone was flowing in my hands pricking my fingers and filling my soul with joy and happiness. That was HIS warmth I've never felt such bliss in my life. Something returned to me and the stone revived under my hands; it seemed I touched a living human being. I even felt the suppressed breathing In a sacred grove - it is near the grave - some time ago the pilgrims would stop gathering for a prayer; those were Tengirchilik followers, Moslems, Christians who came there. They came there to have a rest, to make sacrifices in honor of the saint warrior who died for belief. An altar and a place

for cutting of animals remained. To tell the truth, people haven't come here for a long time. Since 1917. Surges of atheism overwhelming Russia reached the Caucasus. But they also haven't washed the grave of Saint George out - people looked after it secretly. Not announcing and not making a show of their care. But the sacred grove suffered. They ordered to cut it down. Luckily, the authorities weren't able to execute that order. To tell the truth, destructions took place all the same. In the 30s they blew Church of Saint George up; it stood where according to a legend the warrior was killed. Long ago they led a water pipe to the Church from Dzhalgan settlement and parishioners would make an ablution with his water before the grave! (Ablution before a prayer was obligatory for Tengirchilik followers). The water pipe existed for almost a thousand and seven hundred years. In 1938 it was destroyed. Nowadays there is the Lenin monument in the place of Saint George's death Only a spring in the sacred grove of Dzalgan settlement is immortal. Nursing mothers having no milk come there following a tradition. Those being sterile also drink holy water. Spring of the Known Legend I was sitting on a glade in the sacred grove watching that spring - cryptographic legends were becoming real. Apocryphal works of the Serbs, Bulgarians, Croatians and other descendants of the Kipchaks are in a surprising accordance with legends of their Asian brothers forgotten by them. However, it couldn't be otherwise. Church censorship didn't reach the eastern territories of the Great Steppe. Moslem Turkey, Iran, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Azerbaijan saved the message of Saint Khyzyr-Ilias - about George. And the truth cannot be different - it is one for everybody. "Be happy for the Church of the faithful is enlightened by you and glorified between the infidels (bold provided. - M.A.)", - the Serbs and the Ukrainians, the Cossacks and the Croatians, the Russians and the Bulgarians say in a prayer to George keeping the memory of how that saint has united East and West It remains to repeat again and again: human memory is eternal; it ke eps even what has been forgotten by people! It seems historians neglected a very important fact They didn't mention that the crosses were not the only symbols on the flags of the Kipchaks: a wolf's head, a swan, a deer were also there. And a serpent - Azhdarkha - was considered to be the common totemic sign. The image of a serpent or a dragon has always had a very deep sense in the East. For example in Chinese mythology a dragon (lun) is the embodiment of the light heavenly male strength; it is a kind creature whose appearance is deemed to be a good sign. For the Kipchaks it was the same - the guardian, the protector of the hearth. For the Russians it is the opposite; a firedrake is the devil incarnate in Russian folk stories. The Hindu have worshipped the divine snakes (the "nags") since ancient times; they are the masters of the underground world being able to revive the deceased. In the myths of the Mongolian nations a lou (a dragon) is the master of water and the thunderer. They consider him to be a heaven god - Tengri (Lou-Tengri). The image of Lou can be also met in Tibetan mythology; his cult even had an impact on Buddhist ceremonies. And for the Iranians Aji-Dakhaka (the dragon) is absolutely different. For them he is a foreign tsar who has usurped the power over Iran. Its character is interpreted otherwise: from a true Zoroastrianism follower to a competitor of Atar, the god of fire. It is interesting that here worship of Aji-Dakhaka remained for a long time. Local leaders traced their family trees back to him, they told family legends about the service of their ancestors at court of Aji-Dakhaka. Ajdarkha, the dragon of the Turkic mythology, is surprisingly similar with Iranian Aji-Dakhaka. According to a legend, a serpent which lived a hundred years turned into it. In the ancient Turkic legend Ajdarkha threatens the town with destruction. In order to save the town its inhabitants put young girls at his mercy. A hero defeats Ajdakhra saving the victim (tsar's daughter) whom he marries. In myths of the Azerbaijanians, the Caucasian Tatars and the Bashkirs Ajdarkha is also connected with water (a spring) or rain clouds Doesn't that ancient Turkic legend remind of another one which is very famous in Europe - the one about Saint George? (44). And now let us read the legend called "St. George and the Dragon" once again and take a different look at its symbols. The serpent appeared from the morasses. It was really like that: the way of the steppe inhabitants to Dzhargan's motherland lay through the Kurinsk Plain which was often a morass, especially after a flood. Hence is insistent mentioning of the morass in the legend. Concerning the fight, it is evident it was a theological, i.e. a mental fight. That's why the warrior

put his spear and shield away For a word is stronger than a sword. Wise Ajdarkha knew that; and then it was understood by Dzhargan. And whom did the young girl, for whose life George was fighting, symbolize? Only Armenia which was the first to unite with a strong neighbor with assistance of George and accept Christianity. That's why the girl led the serpent on a belt to her town and a cross rose above the Caucasian churches which had no altars. It is difficult to call that in question - there are archeological witnesses Unfortunately in a little while the serpent was killed in the town, which, alas, also corresponds with reality; the union with the Kipchaks wasn't long because of the Armenians. The town where according to the legend Saint George met the serpent remained; it is half-way from Armenia to Derbent. That is Gandzha, it was called Elizabethople for a long time in honor of Elisabeth whom George had saved. Gandzha was known in the Great Steppe as a godly place (* It is wrong to think that Gandzha, the town in Azerbaijan, was called Elizabethpole in XIX century in honor of the Russian Empress Elizabeth. The place-name "Elizabethpole" is more ancient; it has the Turkic origin and it was met in the early Middle Ages. Its appearance is connected with the Great Nations Migration; it marked the place where an important event connected with the culture of Monotheism took place. Here, on the Kura bank (at that time the river was called Kyr), the pagan West accepted the spiritual traditions of the Turki - Tengri, and gave birth to Monophysite Christianity. The place-name was formed of two Turkic words: "yel" - "road" and "sav" - "words". In other words, from that spiritual treasury ("gandzh" in Turkic) there lay "a road of a word" and the image of Heavenly God joined spiritual culture of the West having passed it over. Later, during the Byzantium expansion, they gave the Greek pronunciation to the town, the same as to many other towns of the Middle East, having added the "pole" ending. And thus it remained in western history. But for the East Gandzha has always been Gandzha (a treasury) since the name of the town is connected with Tengri, with His symbol - an equilateral cross which in 301 the Europeans took to Cappadocia being the part of the Roman Empire accompanied by a solemn escort of Turkic riders In fact, that was the beginning of Christianity. That's why the emblem of the town was formerly marked with sacred crosses, that's why the great Nizami Gyandzhevi wrote his unfading poem called "The Treasury of Mysteries" which can be "uncharmed" "not by anyone", according to Navoi.).Who knows, maybe giving a new name to the town is connected with events which haven't been fixed in official documents but remained in people's memory? Was it by accident that the Dukhobors or "Spirit Wrestlers", members of a Russian peasant religious sect from "steppe" provinces left for that place when they were persecuted in Russia?.. By the way, there were two St. George Crosses on the emblem of Elizabethople province Why? I realize that some people may be irritated with my explanations and consider them to be mere "coincidences". Let that be. But it is sometimes mentioned in apocryphal works that not far from Saint George's grave a healing spring appeared. Moslem legends openly call Khyzyr-Ilias (George) the guard of spring of life who is forever young. Almost all the apocryphal stories contain an episode where he helps a woman with an infant: he cures the child and gives food to him. The story of the sacred grove is repeated more than once And I'm sitting in that grove and drinking water from that spring Everyone is near, I am looking at the people who occasionally come here with canisters for holy water "Coincidences"?! In the Anglo-Saxon medieval poem the warrior's face is dragged through the ground, which fully complies with the message of Favst Buzand the author of the poem has never heard about. The author begins with the statement: "The infidels wrote about Saint George in a wrong way in their books; we want to explain you where the truth is". And after that a story of the theological fight is set forth in which a word prevailed. Another "coincidence"?! "Kipchak" memory keeps precious details of life and death of the saint warrior passing them from generation to generation. For example, on George's Day the Bulgarians and the Serbs slaughter a lamb in the fields, on a plain and to eat it on the top of a mountain: they still do it in certain regions although they don't know why. At that they slaughter only a young lamb (an innocent victim) Explanation of the custom can be found in the Apocrypha: it reports of another "coincidence" - the saint was killed on a plain and buried on the top of the mountain. One would think: how do they know these details in the Central Europe? It is too far from Derbent But if one remembers that now Europe is inhabited by the descendants of those Kipchaks who were in the vanguard of the Great Nations Migration, everything falls into place. And if one doesn't forget that in Turkic one of the names of the saint warrior was pronounced as "Khyzr", it seems that origin of the word "Khazaria" becomes clear - the land where Saint George used

to preach and where he was buried. That Promised Land was revered by the Christians who have established their first Patriarchal Throne in Derbent. It is also appropriate that it was mentioned in the sacred Koran. Nothing happens by accident in the spiritual world!.. Later the natives of Khazaria created Georgia. The land of Saint George is alive. A great deal of interesting and forgotten things about our Great Steppe remained in the "Slavic", "Roman" and other countries none of the researchers of the Turki have ever visited. * * *

The spring which appeared after George's death originated in the cave; I looked into it and saw a low vault where clear water was dropping from the stalactites as though from swelled nipples. The drops were falling making a little lake with holy water. It seemed the Time was dropping its tears counting days, years and centuries with them. Indeed, nothing leaves without a trace: Tengri and Dzhargan - the two stars on the steppe horizon. They existed, they exist now and will always exist as long as Eternal Blue Sky and the Great Steppe exist. After that memorable expedition I wrote this book, made a film and opened the charitable foundation called "Saint George" ("Dzhargan") in Moscow. I want to recall the memory of the Great Steppe and George, the son of mankind, to build a mosque and a church jointly. Let the people come to his grave, let them see and know - the Truth exists since it is eternal! Notes and Comments to the Appendix 1. See details: Collection of Folk Songs by P.V. Kireevskiy, Vol.2. L., 1986, page 16. 2. Transformation of the legend called "St. George and the Dragon" is interesting. The older is the text, the more "exact" details it contains. It seems thus church authors intended to convince the readers of its authenticity. For example, at first a certain eastern town, near which walls everything has happened, was in question. Then the "certain" town obtained an exact address: "In Phoenicia, near the town of Berit, close to Palestine, among the Lebanese mountains there was a lake on which shore there lived a big venomous serpent" Geographical connection presupposes a geological confirmation of existence of the lake in a mountain desert, and it has never been provided. The biologists and the zoologists keep silent What was that serpent being the only one in the world? "Saint George, having crossed himself, sitting on a horse, attacked the serpent" - is written in the latter text of the legend. In its earlier versions it is said otherwise: having faced the serpent Saint George put off his arms and started to pray. Mixture of the old text and the new one leads to an evident awkwardness. In latter version George pierces the serpent with a spear and his horse tramples it down. So how could the young girl lead the killed "big" "venomous" serpent to the town on her belt? Let alone the fact that the warrior wasn't physically able to pierce a serpent with a spear for the length of a spear in the Roman army was just 95 centimeters. However, one shouldn't look for discrepancies in any legend - that is a literary work in which author's imagination isn't always in compliance with historical reality. 3. See details of Saint George's biography and development of his mythological character: Kirpichnikov A.I. Saint George and George the Brave. SPb., 1879; in brief - Mythological Dictionary. M., 1991. Pages 145 - 146. 4. See details: Lazarev V.N. New Monument of Easel Painting of XII century and Image of George the Warrior in Byzantium and Ancient Russian Arts // Byzantine Annals. Vol. VI. M., 1953. Page 186; The Moscow Kremlin. M., 1990. Page 49; Nenarokomova I.S. National Museums of the Moscow Kremlin. M., 1992. Pages 151 - 156. 5. Lazarev V.N. Stated work. Page 187. 6. Formerly Saint George was painted in a red cloak on the icons, and that contained a deep sense - a red cloak symbolized belonging to higher persons of the state, to the tsar's dynasty. People of the middle level usually wore a white cloak. That "disguise" of the saint can hardly be called accidental especially if one remembers the decisions of the Roman Council I and the whole further policy of the

Western Church in relation to Saint George, which is hereinafter discussed. 7. As a matter of fact the main thing which gives rise to doubts concerning the result of the Battle of Kulikovo is the absence of the traces of the battle itself. If a military conflict has really taken place in the fields, it was really limited. Not the Horde but its minor part acted against the Russians. 8. See details: Fletcher J. About the Russian State // On the Eve of Distemper. M., 1990. Pages 481 - 604. 9. Poor knowledge or rather total ignorance of history and culture of the steppe inhabitants has been the reason of curious amusing incidents more than once. For example, in literary works relating to the Hun epoch there are phrases like "serpent court", "serpent town", "serpent ditch" and other similar phrases. In their time those "serpent" fancies were the symbols of the Steppe known to the Europeans. Later their sense has been forgotten. And for example the former "serpent town" where Attila lived becomes "the town of the dead" in the interpretation of a modern translator - serpents are supposed to eat the corpses there. Thus it happened with the modern translation of the ancient Scandinavian "Song about Atli". "The town of the dead" instead of "the town of the Kipchaks"; an insignificant changing and no one will ever know about the steppe culture, about the Kipchaks who came from Altai and conquered the whole Europe. History is distorted by those "insignificant" changes; serpents appear which, as it turns out, eat not the corpses but history of entire nations. (See details: Epos of the Northern Europe, Ways of Evolution / Edited by N.S. Chemodanov. M., 1989. Pages 143 - 150). 10. See details: Kirpichnikov A.I. Stated works. Page 101; Mythological Dictionary (articles "Geser", "Uastyrdzhi", "Khadyr"). M., 1991. Page 151 - 152, 559, 580. 11. See details: Kryvelev I.A. History of Religions. Vol. 1. M., 1975, Page 243. Giving examples from the chronicles of the Western Church, the author writes: "In many cases the number of specimens of one and the same relic was big, which seemed unlikely; for example, there were more than ten heads of John the Forerunner". There was a time when every monastery acted almost as an owner of this or that "biblical" relic; they didn't even pay attention to doubtfulness of their origin. The way of obtaining a relic also wasn't important for the Christians. 12. About how I came to the term "steppe culture" and managed to find its distinctive features see: Adjiev M. We Are of the Polovtsian Origin! M., 1992; Adji M. Absinth of the Polovtsian Field. M., 1994. Here I'll remind that the first, the most ancient traces of a human being in Altai - they are about two hundred thousand years old - were discovered by archeological expeditions of academician A.P. Okladnikov and his colleagues. Those early findings are the beginning of chronology of the ancient culture; part of it was inherited by the Turki. Archeologists who researched the ancient culture of Altai often found crosses. But censorship prohibited to report about it. Monographs of professor S.I. Rudenko are indicative in this relation. The books published in 1953 didn't even mention crosses on its "Stalinist" pages. And in the edition of 1960 prepared during the "Khruschev's thaw" a detailed description with drawings and photographs is provided. To tell the truth, no explanation of the unique findings is given. Academician A.P. Okladnikov was more correct. He examined rock paintings of Altai where altars, clergymen in long clothes, caducies, ripidas and, of course, equilateral crosses were depicted. It seemed the scientist faced a Christian plot in its Orthodox edition! But all the signs witnessed of belonging of the image not simply to another culture, but also to pre-Christian times. A.P. Okladnikov didn't focus attention on that question, they didn't move on after the factual beginning - they weren't allowed to. And one can understand the censors: what religion could be in question if the archeologists were excavating a "wild", "Asian" culture? In this connection I can remember the reaction of Vatican on one of my articles. After a long analysis of it they delivered me a short message which I have remember for all my life: "We know Orthodoxy was preceded by some religion but we don't know which". For example, not many people know that the first Christian Church in the world is located in Derbent - the most ancient town of Russia. Some consider it too bold to include the history of the Caucasus into the history of Russia, although that was the place where a culture which is called Christian and Orthodox today started its way. Its appearance is directly connected with the Turkic culture and traditions of mountain nations which are neglected by Russian historians.

It is interesting that Altai itself symbolized paradise on earth for the Turki. That is often mentioned in folk epics. Toponymy witnesses of the same. And the most important thing is that memory of paradisiacal earths in a literal sense is kept by the ancestors of modern Altai inhabitants. Thus in ancient burial places found to the east from Altai the deceased lie their faces to the west, while to the west from Altai (and later in the whole Europe) they used to bury the deceased their faces to the east. To the north of Altai burial places are directed to the south. That strict orientation contains enciphered memory about paradise where, according to the legends of the ancient Turki, people would find everlasting bliss having left for the other world. Of course, "paradise on earth" is a separate subject for analysis. It contains much of what was present in spiritual life of the Turki during the centuries but remained unknown to the masses. Tengrianism spring ceremony which was later borrowed by the Christians for Easter holiday will probably be another part of that analysis. Easter cakes, colored eggs, cheese cakes - all these were the attributes of the Turkic spring holiday which brought joy and pleasure to everyone. Not many of the Kipchaks remember that an egg is the symbol of sky and earth, of sun and origin of life. But painted eggs are sill an obligatory attribute of the spring feast of steppe inhabitants. Curds, fresh and sour cheese (bashtak and kurut for Altai inhabitants) is the traditional food for cattle-breeders and, of course, an obligatory element of sacrificial food. Why do Orthodox Christians usually make a cheese "Easter cake" in the form of a pyramid? It turns out the sources of that tradition are in Tengrianism. During the prayers they used to put an image of a sacred mountain cut of cheese on an altar. That custom remained in Altai. (See details: Okladnikova E.A. Ritual Sculptures of Animals Made of Cheese of the Cumandic Altai-kiji // Plastic Arts and Paintings of Ancient Cultures. Novosibirsk, 1983. Page 161.) Today accented unwillingness to initiate the aliens into the secrets of their religion is marked by many researchers of the Turkic culture. Maybe that is the explanation of insufficient study of Turkic religious ceremonies and a primitive interpretation thereof in scientific literature. 13. See: History of Armenia by Favstos Buzand. Yerevan, 1953. Time has kept almost nothing about the author; we don't even know the dates of his life. Analysis of the text showed that the author lived in IV - V centuries and his work is one of the first ones written in Armenian alphabet which was formed be the year 406. Chronology is absent in the work which is natural for that epoch; their purpose consisted in descriptions of deeds of certain rulers. That's why counting out started from the moment of ascending the throne of this or that person. Another peculiarity of the work is the influence of the folk tradition on its style. Plenty of details which, probably, have never taken place, author's personal estimations reduce the historical value of the notes, and at the same time those peculiarities allow to relate the work to the most ancient literary monuments. I was very interested in the author's story about the great enlightener of Armenia - Gregory (Anak's son), about his children - Aristakes and Vrtanes. They were the descendants of Parthian tsars. There are interesting lines about Vrtanes' son, young Gregoris, "who had beautiful appearance full of spiritual and virtuous merits". Pages on which it is reported about Gregoris' visit to the Turkic Kipchaks are worthy of special attention: "And he went and introduced himself to the Mascut tsar, the sovereign of numerous Hun troops, he stood before them and started to propagate the Christ's Gospel, telling "Cognize God!" to them". (Favst Buzand. Stated work. Page 14). Of course one should be careful dealing with the works of the Middle Ages. Information was often distorted being passed from lips to lips before it appeared in the chronicler's field of vision. Apparently, thus it happened with "History" by Favst Buzand. But it is to be discussed later. 14. See: History of Siberia. Vol.1. L., 1968. Pages 244 - 250. 15. Quotation from the book Neikhardt A.A. The Mystery of the "Holy Cross". M., 1963. Page 21. For the first time an equilateral cross as a symbol of belief "was seen on the chest of Buddha's statue the statue of the legendary founder of religion which appeared 600 years before Christianity". In the opinion of believers, crosses were made for attraction of heaven's fire in order to destroy the intrigues of the evil spirits. Until IV century Christianity wasn't an independent religion and was considered to be a branch of Buddhism; that period is customary called Judaic - Christian. The same as followers of other branches

of Judaism (the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Zelots) Judaic-Christians neutrally treated a cross as the symbol of belief. Or they had nothing to do with it, to put it more preciously. They didn't even think about worship of it. To tell the truth, A.A. Neikhardt asserts that in Apocalypse - the earliest work of the New Testament - a cross is called "the sign of the Beast". (Neikhardt A.A. Stated work. Page 21). But it seems "not edited" ancient manuscripts are in question. At any rate, it is absent in the modern Russian translation of Apocalypse. However, a cross as an element of ornament was present in Europe. For example, in Ancient Greece jugs and vases were ornamented with designs which included a cross. But there is no reason to speak about the religious meaning if that sign. 16. Many interesting things about those times remained. For example, these are the lines by Agathius, the historian of IV century, who reported about the invasion of Huns to Europe during the epoch of the emperor Leo: "In antiquity Hun nations lived around Meotian Lake (modern Azov Sea. M.A.), from the eastern side and to the north of the Tanais river (modern Don. - M.A.); the same as other Barbarian nations they were hiding behind (-inside) the Imaon mountain which is situated in Asia (in the opinion of majority if researchers, Ural or the Caucasus is meant. - M.A.). They all are called (in Europe. - M.A.) the Scythians and the Huns, and separately their tribes are called Cotrigurs, Utigurs, Ultzurs and others are called the Burgundians" (quotation from: Pigulevskaya N. Syrian Sources for the History of the USSR Nations. M.; L., 1941. Page 107). I traced the way of one of the Kipchak families stated by Agathius - the Burgundians. As a matter of fact the route of the Great Nations Migration was repeated on a map. "Burgundu is a part of the ridge of the Baikal Mountains in Irkutsk province". "Burgun - wells in the region behind the Caspian Sea". "Burgustan - the mountain in 15 versts from Kislovodsk. Sometime the Christians lived there, which is witnessed by the ruins of towns and amount of coins, arms and small crosses found there". And finally, "Burgundy - the country" which history, being the history of the French province, begins since 435 in Europe. Quotations provided above are from Brockhaus and Efron Dictionary. Who are they, those Burgundians? It seems they a part of the vanguard of the Great Nations Migrations since they used to give names to unknown lands. It is also likely that they gave a new name to the Kipchaks in Europe the Huns (as it was suggested). And here is the phrase from a Byzantium document dated by the year 572: "the Huns, whom we usually call the Turki" (quotation from: Chichurov I.S. Byzantium Historical Works. M., 1980. Page 54). Similar phrases are often met in historical chronicles. It seems ancient chroniclers (not all of them, of course) realized that in spite of different names of tribes, the newcomers belonged to one nation - the Kipchaks. (This matter is considered in detail in clause 26). Toponymy of Eurasia includes hundreds of names which remained on the land of former Desht-IKipchak. An excellent book by E.M. Murzaev is dedicated to that subject. See: Murzaev E.M. Turkic Geographical Names. M., 1996. It remains to add that in Germany, where some time ago Attila found the allies who were the Francs, the Thurings, the Burgundians and others, there are also interesting works concerning the Turkic toponymy. See, for example: Scheinhardt H. Typen turkichen Ortnamen Beitrage zur Namenforschung. Heilberg, 1979. 17. I have already described the Turkic religion in detail in my book (see: Adji M. Absinth of the Polovtsian Field. M., 1994. Pages 195 - 283). Besides, religion of the Kipchaks is also described in other books. See, for example: Marco Polo. The Book. M., 1955; Jordan. About the Origin and Deeds of the Geths. M., 1960; Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials SPb., 1886. Historical notes remained which authors have visited the steppe inhabitants trying to understand their way of life. For example, John de Plano Carpini wrote about pietism of the Turki: "They believe in one God whom they recognize as the creator of everything visible and invisible and they also recognize him as the creator of bliss and torments in this world but they don't worship him with prayers, praises or any kind of a ceremony" (See: [Carpini] John de Plano Carpini. History of the Moguls. SPb., 1910. Page 7). These lines were written in 1246. The Turki didn't reveal their secrets to the Italian sent by the Pope, as well as to other aliens. To tell the truth, it seems they made an exception for William de Rubruk. Either unique personal qualities of the messenger of the Western Europe, or diplomatic talents helped him to know certain peculiarities of religious mysteries. Rubruk was surprised with religion of the steppe inhabitants; it was the same as Christianity to a great extent. But he was promptly corrected: "Don't you say our lord is a Christian. He is not a

Christian". And Rubruk mentioned in reply: "They were of such high pride that, although they might believe in Christ to a certain extent, they didn't wish to be called the Christians". (See: [Rubruk] William de Rubruk. The Traveling to Eastern Countries. SPb., 1910. Page 92). Here are other fragments: "I found a certain man who had a cross drawn with ink on his hand; thus I believed that he was a Christian since he answered as a Christian all my questions. So I asked him "Why don't you have a cross and an image of Jesus Christ here?" He answered: "That is not our custom"". (Ibid. Page 106). ""How do you believe in God?" They answered: "We believe only in one God". And I asked: "Do you believe He is the spirit or something material?" They said: "We believe He is the spirit". So I asked: "Do you believe He has never been of human nature?" They answered: "Never"". (Ibid. Page 108). "I saw a house above which there was a cross I entered it and saw an altar decorated really beautifully. On the golden material I saw embroidered and laid images of the Savior, the Blessed Virgin, Precursor and two angels, at that outlines of their bodies and clothes were embroidered with pearl. There also was a big silver cross with precious stones in its corners and in the middle of it, and many other church ornaments, and an oil lamp consisting of eight parts was burning before the altar." (Ibid. Page 117). European haughtiness of Rubruk played a trick on him. He didn't even notice the fact that the Steppe Inhabitants didn't know the name of Christ. He took unwillingness to be called the Christians as common pride. And thus, having no doubts in relation to correctness of his conclusions, he presented his dreams as reality. The image of Tengri-Khan he took for the image of the Savior and the image of Umai - for the image of Blessed Virgin. And the one naively called Precursor by Rubruk was Dzhargan (or Saint George) - nobody else, especially from the Christian pantheon, could be there; and the cult of Dzargan has always been important in the Steppe. Those three themes became widespread in the Steppe. For example, in stone icons or rock paintings. Tengri-Khan was the head of the divine pantheon. They always made a nimbus around God's image on Tengirchilik icons. A nimbus is the most ancient symbol in the East; it meant outflow of vital energy and wisdom. A nimbus was usually painted in blue or sky-blue color. In Christian painting a nimbus appeared only in the Middle Ages, at that it was painted in yellow and (at first) was of triangular shape However, let us return to the Rubruk's story. "He brought a beautiful silver cross made in Frankish style" (Ibid. Page 138). In other words that was a Tengirchilik cross. But Rubruk didn't understand that and thus, describing religious ceremonies of the steppe inhabitants, he perceived them not as Tengirchilik but as Christian. All the researchers marked striking toleration of the steppe inhabitants. Of course, they tried to explain it by wildness of the nation or indifference towards the questions of belief. However, the real reason is absolutely different: other religions were the variants of Tengirchilik for the Turki. By the way, that is also an explanation of a very interesting observation of V.V. Bartold who mentioned that "in the Middle Asia the Christians didn't call themselves with that name which didn't move to eastern languages and cannot be met in inscriptions of Semirechye and Syrian and Chinese monuments". (Bartold V.V. Collected Works. Vol. II. Part 2. M., 1964. Page 264). I was pleasantly surprised by acquaintance with works by N.L. Zhukovskaya. She also considers that Carpini, Rubruk and Marco Polo expressed their idea of a religion of the steppe inhabitants unknown for them in terms of Christianity. (See in detail: Zhukovskaya N.L. Folk Beliefs of the Mongols and Buddhism // Archeologists and Ethnography of Mongolia. Novosibirsk, 1978. Page 24). So, religion existed in the Steppe from of old and many of its ceremonies were surprisingly the same as those of Christianity. Speaking about borrowings it is rational to provide the following quotation. "They search for alien Gods everywhere and make them their own - Felix Minucius wrote about the Romans in III century, - they build altars even to unknown and unheard-of deities. Thus, appropriating the relics of all nations, they've become the lords of the kingdoms" (Quotation from: Ranovich A. Antique Critics of Christianity (fragments from Lucian, Celcius, Porphyrius and others). M., 1935. Page 111). The steppe inhabitants treated God otherwise; their attitude to Tengri hasn't been changing for centuries. Respecting beliefs of others, they considered their religion to be stronger than any other. "There are four great prophets which are respected and worshipped by people from different sects; the Christians worship Jesus Christ, the Saracens worship Mohammed, the Jews worship Moses and the idolaters worship the khan who is considered to be their main idol, - the khan of the steppe inhabitants told Marco Polo in XIII century. - I worship all the four and turn for help to that of them who is really the main in heaven" (bold provided. - M.A.). No doubt, the khan always turned only to Heavenly God, Tengri, not "that of them" but "who is really the main in heaven". The steppe master couldn't accept Christianity considering his religion to

be stronger. (See details of Marco Polo's observations in: The Traveling of Eighty Thousand Versts in Tataria and other Eastern Countries of Marco Polo, also Known as the Millionaire, the Noble form Venice. SPb., 1874. Pages 80-81). As we can see, the question about mutual influence of religions isn't that simple as most people think. Early Christian works (they are often quoted by the authors: Kryvelev A.I. Stated work; Ranovich A.B. About Early Christianity. M., 1959; Posnov M.E. History of the Christian Church. Brussels, 1964) contain many confirmations. For example, they describe the coins which were minted in Byzantine in the time of Constantine the Great with an image of the Sun (using Turkic terminology of Tengri-Khan). And the churches which were built by order of Constantine in honor of Tengri who was called "the Sun Man" in Europe. An equilateral cross, the same as "the Sun Man" (Tengri), were known in Byzantium since 306 from the first days of reign of Constantine the Great and beginning of the union between Byzantium and the Kipchaks. And in 313 in the Milanese edict Constantine even proclaimed introduction of the Day of the Sun (Sunday) as the day of rest and worship (see: Kerns E. By the Roads of Christianity. M., 1992. Page 97). Also they've been minting only the image of the Sun on the coins of Constantine. I am far from asserting that the symbol of the Sun is worshipped only by the Turki. Cult of the Sun is widely represented everywhere in the East. But Constantine searched for the union just with the Turki, which means "his Sun" was Tengri's reflection. It had a considerably different religious and philosophic basis which differed it from all the former ideas (Salt god, etc.) known in Europe. That idea is also corroborated by the fact that formerly the cult of the Sun existed only among the Christians in the Roman Empire. And in the time of Constantine it has become the national cult. In a little while a teaching about the Sun as the Highest God and the keeper of justice appeared in Byzantium. Researchers of Byzantine make concrete statements: "In Byzantium the cult of the Sun was affected by eastern solar cults to a great extent". As we can see, Turkic religion has left a noticeable trace in the whole European culture. 18. In this connection words of Augustin uttered a little bit later - in V century - are indicative. "The Christians - he wrote, - should less than whoever else reject anything good just because it belongs to one or another That's why to continue good customs practiced by the idolaters, to keep (bold provided - M.A.) the items of the cult and the buildings they used doesn't mean to borrow them; on the contrary, it means to take what doesn't belong to them" (Quotation from: Ranovich A.B. About Early Christianity. M., 1959. Page 382). Borrowed crosses, as well as other borrowings, were necessary and obligatory for Christianity of IV century; and it appeared at the political scene having no distinctive symbols. Having ruptured with Judaism and having rejected the Judaic tradition, Christianity turned into a religion having no ceremonies! That explains the fact that ceremonies of other beliefs were finding their continuation in Christianity starting exactly from IV century. For example, A. Garnak emphasized that Christianization of the Hellenic world started from the East "The light begins in the East", indeed. Observations of G.V. Vilinbakhov, who analyzed shapes of a cross in Byzantium, are indicative. The author writes cautiously: "Byzantine's tradition in its attitude to the shape of a cross which was revealed to Constantine, wasn't a single one, apparently" (see in detail: Vilinbakhov G.V. Tsar Constantine s Cross in Medieval Military Blazonry of Europe//Arts Monuments and Problems of Culture of the East. L., 1985. Page 188). And it isn't surprising that researchers who tried to represent that cross by way of an Orthodox one, were contradicting to the miniatures of the times of Constantine where a cross with expanding ends was placed in a circle the same as Tengirchilik followers used to do before Common Era. "A Greek cross being absolutely similar with a Byzantine one can be met in Buddhist temples as a solar sign - B.A. Uspenskiy who was analyzing the symbols of Orthodox churches, writes. - A swastika is of course a variant of a cross: as a matter of fact it is named a cross It is known in Christian arts as Crux gammata or a hooky cross. A swastika as a solar symbol (it represents the circulation of the Sun. - M.A.) was widespread in India It is necessary to remind that a series of ceremonies and symbols of the Christian Church has another and undoubtedly pagan origin. And that is conditioned by deliberate practice of the Church" (see in detail: Uspenskiy B.A. Solar -Lunar Symbols in the Look of the Russian Church // Millennium of the Baptism of Russia. "Theology and Spirituality" International Church Conference. Moscow, May 11-18th, 1987. Vol. 1. Part IV. M., 1989. Pages 306 - 310). And there is a great deal of similar examples. From time to time certain works appeared in Russia, which cast light upon the problem. An article about appearance of and equilateral cross on Turkic and Sogdian coins by E.V. Rtveladze and S.S. Tamkhodzhaev is a good example (Byzantine Annals. Vo.

35. M., 1973. page 232). That theme was also considered by N.L. Zhukovskaya, A.P. Okladnikov, S.I. Rudenko and other scientists who, unfortunately, managed to say only what they were allowed by censorship. 19. Of course the subject of Derbent - the most ancient town of Russia! - is worthy of a separate discussion. Books dedicated to its history were published in different times; but there are not many of them. See, for example: Kozubskiy E.I. History of the Town of Derbent. Temir-Khan-Shura, 1906; Markovin V. By the Roads and Paths of Dagestan. M., 1988; Khan-Magomedov S. Derbent. City Wall. Auls of Tabasaran. M., 1979. 20. Exploited Saint George Church in Derbent is a shameful page in history of the town. They started to build the Church on May 8th, 1849. That was a large building - a Church for 500 persons. The place for it was chosen near an Albanian church. "Digging it (the foundation - M.A.) in many places were seen earthen tubes necessary for water supply and in one place an almost safe construction (bold provided. - M.A.) with arches of burnt bricks, with remains of columns and plated floor was found. Judging by the number of water pipes and a basin dug there it is possible to suppose that the building was a bath-house" (see in detail: Kozubskiy E.I. History of the Town of Derbent. Temir-Khan-Shura, 1906. Page 221). Unfortunately the founding wasn't studied. In case it was there would have been no ambiguity of the basin and earthen pipes. Since IV century they started to build so-called baptisteries near Christian churches - buildings with basins where christening was performed. They were of rather big sizes. Since IX century baptisteries haven't been built - massive Christianization of population was completed. A laver in an antechurch has been playing a part of a basin for christening since then. Appearance of a baptistery in Christian ceremonies in IV century allows to suppose that before that the christening ceremony as such was absent. And it was borrowed from Tengirchilik. Actually in Judaism, which sect Judaic Christianity was, there is no ceremony of christening with water. It is time to ask was there John the Forerunner and the christening ceremony in his times? Of course they've chosen a place for a church in Derbent not by accident. And found ruins of an old construction are the best confirmation. Burnt bricks of the "safe construction" is an indirect evidence. It is known that before the arrival of the Turki the Caucasian architects weren't familiar with burnt brick. (In the opinion of academician A.P. Okladnikov, that building material is a kind of an identity card of the Turkic culture - from Siberia to the Central Europe). Who knows, maybe those were the ruins of the most ancient Christian church in the World! According to Derbent regional ethnographers there are other ancient buildings of Christian architecture in the town. There are many unexplored things in the neighborhood. For example, Adji Lake in which, it seems, Saint George was christened. Or the sacred place of Tengri where, it is likely, George crossed himself for the first time. 21. Kirpichnikov A.I. Stated works. Page 63. 22. The subject of Georgia requires a special research. When and why was Iberia called Georgia? I failed to find any scientific works on this subject. One can suppose that the new name appeared in XI century - during the reign of David the Builder who invited the Kipchak warriors. About forty thousand of their families moved to Transcaucasia at that time. They formed the core of David's army and united separate principalities into a single kingdom Saint George united them! George was worshipped by the Kipchaks and by Iberia inhabitants as well. No doubt, spiritual intimacy of those nations existed earlier, since Christianity has been accepted by Iberia inhabitants. Due to geographical conditions their relations developed not that fast as with the Caucasian Albania. But an equilateral cross - an exact copy of that of Tengirchilik - appeared on coins in Iberia. There were churches of a crucial shape with hip architecture. Worship of Saint George brought together arrived Kipchaks and local nations in Iberia. Since that time Iberia is called Gyurdzhi in Turkic, which means "The Land of Saint George" (see, for example: Tsintsivadze G.I. // Millennium of the Baptism of Russia. "Theology and Spirituality" International Church Conference. Moscow, May 11-18th, 1987. Vol. 1. Part IV. M., 1989. Page 65). Thus many historical facts of those years become clear. For example, why Konchak, the young Kipchak khan who had certain controversies with the Russian prince Igor, was hiding in Gyurdzhi. Why Georgian tsarina Tamara was buried in Dagestan (near a Kipchak settlement). Or why did SyrchanKhan send the messengers with a wisp of steppe absinth to Gyurdzhi when he wished to return Otrok, his brother:

You'd better sing him our songs, And when he doesn't answer You tie a bunch of dry absinth And hand it him - and he'll be back A great many things have got mixed up in history of the nations! 23. In our opinion that question was thoroughly analyzed by A.P. Lebedev in his book (see: Lebedev A.P. The Epoch of Persecution of the Christians. SPb., 1904). Analysis of Diocletian's deeds is preceded by the author's note about the sources of information: "These sources are: 1. Eighth Book of Church History by Eusebius That book was written by Eusebius as a contemporary who has seen Diocletian's persecutions. 2. Eusebius' work called "About Palestinian Martyrs". That work contains information about the events of persecution. 3. Lactancius' work about death of the persecutors. It was written by a contemporary who lived in Nicomidia, the capital of that time, where Diocletian himself lived. Information contained in the work is authentic in general" Neither of those works (and the list is not limited by them) contains a mention about George. A.P. Lebedev's book allows to see mutual relations between the Christians and Diocletian with the eyes of eyewitnesses. Eusebius writes: "Not only private persons could openly belong to a Christian society and declare about their Christian beliefs, but also emperor's officials and military men had the same liberty concerning Christianity". (Ibid. Page 137). "Diocletian's loyalty to the Christians was so big that one could think: is he going to join the Christians?". (Ibid. Page 142). Speaking about Saint George the name of Marcellius, which won't say much to a reader, should be mentioned. To all appearances, his history was put in the basis of the official church biography of Saint George. That Christian centurion refused to take part in celebrations of the emperor's birthday, threw off his military signs having said that as a Christian he couldn't keep on serving any longer. Thus he was sentenced to death (Ibid. Page 155). It is striking that none of the ancient authors openly called the reason of persecution against the Christians. It seems further editors and censors have done good work with the texts. Only Eusebius reports about the rebellion on the border with Armenia and about the fact that two attempts to set the emperor's palace on fire were suppressed. 24. Those cases when religious beliefs threatened safety of the Roman state were the only exceptions. Thus it happened, for example, with an order against the Chaldeans and the Manichees. Manichaeism as a religious sect, which appeared in Persia, bothered Diocletian. In his opinion it opened the way for political influence of the Persians in the Roman Empire. 25. See: Kirpichnikov A.I. State work. Pages 29, 63 - 65. Verkhovets Y.D. Detailed Description of Life, Suffering, Miracles of the Great Martyr Saint George and Worship of his Name. SPb., 1893. Page 84. There is no grave of Saint George in Palestine. It was possible to a find a single argument in favor of the Middle East - notes by Foka, the Greek writer of XII century, who asserted that he has seen not a grave but a church in honor of Saint George. Not Lidda but Ramlah was in question. 26. The idea of a wild crowd of separate tribes of nomads is far from reality. Confusion with names of steppe nations was created on purpose. That is clearly seen by the example of the Huns who are supposed to appear on the historical scene all of a sudden and disappear unexpectedly. K.A. Inostrantsev writes: "The name of the Huns has disappeared completely as it usually happens with the Tatars where the Horde, having got power, always gives its name to the whole nation". And later he draws a conclusion: "Similar changes of one nation into another are met quite often there. Not knowing that custom it is impossible to understand histories of those nations. Thus one must agree with the fact that during about ten years a nation that has occupied a vast area was wiped off the face of the earth, and a new unknown one appeared in its place". (See: Inostrantsev K.A. Hunnu and Huns. L., 1926. Page 8). K.A. Inostrantsev believes that those "political changes" "remained unknown to certain scientists" considering the constant ethnic structure. As a result the Turki had dozens of names: the Huns in China and the Polovtsians in Russia, for instance. They are mentioned in historical chronicles under the names of any kind.

That chaos in the names was a witness of existence of steppe tribes which obeyed to nobody and to nothing and made their living only by robbery. But it is enough to read Chinese chronicles to ascertain quite the opposite. "In China the Hunnu, - K.I. Inostranstev writes, - ware considered to be a nation which has created a vast state with established laws and a sole ruler but not a chaotic mass of different tribes of foreigners wandering somewhere in the North". (Inostrantsev K.A. Stated work. Page 15). That point of view is confirmed by archeological evidences of earlier and later times. For example, A.D. Gratch writes about the Turkic chagans of VI - X centuries: "The chagans consisted of big and comparatively stable for their epoch ethnic unions and not of temporal and ephemeral conglomerates". (See: Gratch A.D. Ancient Turkic Archeology in the USSR // Turkologist Conference in Leningrad. L., 1967. Page 52). 27. The first (or another?) division of believers began. The most ancient branch of Christianity was called Judaic Christianity. Judaic Christians who remained at the positions of Judaism, were called "Jewish" or "the Subbotarians" in Russia. That name was also met in the Roman Empire of III century while the words "Christian" and "Jew" were considered to the synonyms. "Sparcianus says about a Jewish boy but it is more correct to mean not a Jewish boy but a Christian one" (Lebedev A.P. Stated work. Page 223). Similar examples show that in Rome the Christians were the people (not only the Jews!) who used to come for a prayer into synagogues and follow the ceremonies of the Old Testament. Judaic Christianity followers retained their belief until now. They don't recognize the icons, they make circumcision and don't know the ceremony of christening with water. Detailed information about religious life of the Sabbatarians and their ceremonies see, for example: Zhabin I. Privolnoye Settlement of Baku Province of Lenkoransk District // Collection of Materials for Description of Regions and Tribes of the Caucasus. Issue 27. Tbilisi, 1900. Pages 42 - 94. 28. "In many years, because some were trying to obtain tsar's power in the so-called Malatiah country (Malatiah is the province of Cappadocia in the Minor Asia), others - in Syria, tsar's order about imprisonment of all the Church clergymen was issued". (See: Church History of Eusebius Pamfilus. Vol. I. Spb., 1858. Page 436). From the further text it is clear that that happened soon after the fire in Nicodimia, in Diocletian's residence, i.e. in the very beginning of his persecutions against the Christians. 29. Of course other places also claim for that role. But ancient Latin texts of IX century consistently name Malatiah (Melitene, modern Malatiah). See in detail: Kirpichnikov A.I. Stated work. Page 68. 30. Apocalypse was created in the year 68, later it was "finished" by unification of different historical works into a single one. In the later text, speaking about Messiah, they wrote "Christ" and not "a lamb". Apocalypse is the first document of early Christianity; it stands apart in the lists of theological literature. And though it is full of omens of that epoch, precious evidences of the main eyewitness of the events, official Church historians turn to it unwillingly. It seems something confuses the theologians: many things fail to comply with other documents relating to the history of Christianity. It should be mentioned that historians failed to come to a conclusion with regard to dating of different books of the New Testament; there are many disputable and unspecified things there (see in detail: Vipper R.Y. Appearance of Christian Literature. M.; L., 1946. Pages 103 - 107; Kovalev S.I. Basic Questions of the Origin of Christianity. M.; L., 1964. Pages 58 - 60; Kryvelev I.A. Stated work. Pages 126 - 143, 190 - 191). 31. Unfortunately history doesn't contain many descriptions of those events; almost nothing authentic remained. There is only logic and the message of Messiah connected with the Jew named Joshua. The message of salvation came to the Greeks from the Jews; it happened in the beginning of II century. At that time the Jewish name Joshua was arranged in a Greek way - Jesus called Christ, which meant "anointed" or "a person who has touched the divine nature" in Greek. Apocalypse which was written in Greek was addressed to the Jewish Christian sects in the Minor Asia. Christian dogmatics was set forth in Apocalypse. It was notable for the spirit of Christhood. At first the new belief found its followers in Jewish communities and later it has become international but within the limits of the Roman Empire. Independency of Christianity as a religion wasn't in question

until IV century. Those were the Jewish Christian sects which secretly rejected the regime in the Empire. They connected the fall of Rome with wait for the riders. In the opinion of the first Christians, the riders were to destroy the Roman government and save the nations having established an order according to the norms of king of heaven on the earth. The Christians were preparing themselves for their soon arrival! 32. See details in clause 9. 33. That's why a real Judaist will never call the name of God aloud. Starting from the Middle Ages translations of the Old Testament were edited many times and thus they fail to comply with the original! The original source itself has never been changed, of course. The Christian Church corrected only translations. Translations for the Christians! See detailed information: Kryvelev I.A. Stated work. Pages 68 - 124. 34. Researchers tried to answer that question. Unfortunately they were also forced to be limited to hypotheses. See, for example: Geyushev R.B. Christianity in the Caucasian Albania: According to Archeology and Written Sources. Baku, 1984; Dzhafarov Y.R. The Huns and Azerbaijan. Baku, 1985; Trever K.V. Essays on History and Culture of the Caucasian Albania. IV century B.C. - VII century A.D. M.; L., 1959. 35. See details: Okladnikov A.P. Preface // In the Book: Gratch A.D. Ancient Turkic Names of Tuva. M., 1961. Pages 6 - 8. 36. To tell the truth Favst Buzand writes that martyr's body "was carried by people who have come with him to Khaband on the border with Armenia, to the village called Ama ras". But who could give the sacred ashes to them?! Moses Kagankatvatsi intimates that saying that Gregoris' people "were escaping to Armenia". Practical reasons suggest that such a delicate load wouldn't have withstood transportation. It seems the lines about the burial in Amaras are a tribute to a tradition which required not to leave a body of a fellow countryman unburied. It was rather burning shame for those accompanying Gregoris than real events, which Favst Buzand followed. Especially since he writes that Gregoris "was buried near that church which was built by the first Gregory, Gregoris' grandfather, the great pontiff of the Armenian country. And every year the nations of those countries gather in that place and solemnly celebrate the day dedicated to the memory of his feat". A wish is openly presented as reality since it is in contradiction with other historical documents. For example, Moses Kagankatvatsi wrote that in V century when "pious Vachagan, the Aguanian tsar wished to get the ashes of Saint George" nobody knew the burial place (History of the Aguans by Moses Kagankatvatsi. SPb., 1861. Page 47). In these latter days R.B. Geyushev, using instructions of ancient authors, performed archeological excavations in the territory of Amaras Monastery. It would seem that fortune smiled him. But the grave found by him wasn't in accordance with the Christian burial ceremonies. "the skeleton was in a round box. It was lying squirmed. On one of the stones there was an inscription in the Armenian language which was engraved later, apparently (bold provided. - M.A.). It said: "This is the grave of Saint Gregoris, the wise man"". (Geyushev R.B. Stated work. Page 34). Thus that finding scuttled the version of "burial" of Gregoris in Amaras. That is a very important detail! The same as that a Christian grave should be oriented to the East. (The Persians buried their deceased their faces to the South). An there is one more thing: in case a hero was inhumed by the Kipchaks, some ritual construction should have been placed above the grave - for example, a mausoleum, a chapel or a barrow. That was required by the custom when an important person is in question. 37. Church point of view is known: Gregory the Enlightener accepted his priesthood in the Greek Caesarea, in Cappadocia. However, researchers seriously doubt that fact: that assertion is in a serious contradiction with historical realities. For example. N.Y. Marr writes as follows: "The Armenians themselves gave rise to doubts in relation to acceptance of priesthood by them from the Greek Caesarea especially since is was in contradiction with actual information about non -Greek origin of the actual local Christian Church in Armenia" (bold provided. - M.A.). N.Y. Marr, as well as other researchers, considered that the Greeks were the only ones who could insist on universal role of the Greek Church (Marr N. Christening if the Armenians, the Georgians, the Abkhazians and the Alans by Saint Gregory (the Arabic Version). SPb., 1905. Pages 155 - 156).

Indeed, how could the Greeks perform the ceremony of ordination in case it appeared in Greece later than in Armenia? The Greeks haven't known a Holy Cross yet when Gregory the Enlightener was conferred orders! It is interesting that Byzantium also borrowed church architecture from Armenia. Many researchers who marked the distinctive character of Christian architecture wondered where the sources of that originality were. How did church architecture with a crucial foundation and a central dome appear in Armenia? Where did that idea come from? They've never built anything like that there or in Byzantium. (See, for example: Bauer Elizabeth. The Armenians in the Byzantium Empire and their Impact on its Politics, Economics and Culture; Faensen Hubert. About Origin of Church Architecture with a Crucial Foundation and a Central Dome // Armenian Arts International Symposium II. Yerevan, 1978, [14], [67]). It seems an answer has been partly given in this book. In addition to what has been already said one can turn to archeological information. The most ancient churches of Armenia, the Caucasian Albania, Iberia retained an "identification mark" of the builders. Their "signatures" engraved on stone are very laconic - these are the ancient Turkic runes! (see in detail: The Armenians. 200 Years of Art and Architecture. Paris, 1995. Page 45). Inconsistency in the Greek version of "appropriation of the cross and true belief" are seen with the naked eye. Ignorance of its creators, whose main instruments were rudeness and permissiveness, strikes the eye. The Greeks who were writing the spiritual history of Europe not thinking about eternity were let down by their own arrogance As the Kipchaks say: "The one not mentioned by God will have nothing good". 38. Those Siberian images of Tengirchilik clergymen with caduceis, an altar with a chalice and crosses are reproduced in the book: Alt-Altaishe Kunstdenmaler. Briefe und Bildermaterial von J.R. Aspelins Reisen in Sibirien und der Mongolei 1887 - 1899. Helngfors, 1931. Pages 19 - 23. Pictures 98 - 102. 39. Apostolic rules executed by the bishop Dionisius the Small really copied the Tengirchilik norms of a divine service. That's why the Christians sent by the Pope to the Great Steppe (the monks Plano Carpini and William Rubruk) didn't understand why steppe inhabitants who had the churches didn't allow to call themselves the Christians. What was the spirit of Attila's people who brought a cross to the pagan Europe? The words "TengriKhan", "Tengirchilik" were often used by me and, as I want to be understood correctly, I will explain it once again: Turkic religion is known as Arianism in Christian literature. Arianism copies Tengirchilik. Simply stated, that is belief in God the Father, the Creator of this world. The struggle against Arianism was used by the West as a cover of its long and invisible war with the Steppe, with its spiritual wealth, declaring the dissidents "the heretics". Isn't it indicative that the first Christian who fairly interceded for purity and uncreativeness of the image of Heavenly God - the bishop Arius - was choked! That was done by Nicolas who was later canonized by the Greeks. That's why Nicolas has become a negative character identified with evil spirits in the legends of steppe inhabitants. 40. See in detail: Lebedev D. 19-years Cycle of Anatoly Laodicean (from the History of Ancient Easter Cycles) // Byzantium Annals. Vol. XVIII. SPb., 1913. Pages 148 - 389. It is interesting that the author, the same as many others, comes to a conclusion: "History of ancient Easter cycles as a matter of fact is the history of gradual rapture between the Christian Church and Judaism" (Lebedev D. Stated work. Page 150). 41. It is considered that supplement of the Nicene Creed with an article concerning the Holy Spirit took place at the Ecumenical Council II in the year 381. However many researchers doubt that fact since for the first time the text of Nicene Creed was found only among the deeds of Council of Chalcedon of 451 (see in detail: Kryvelev I.A. Stated works. Page 171). 42. See in detail: Lebedev D. Stated work. Page 269. Similar phrases which seem to be of no sense are also met in other documents of those times. 43. It is considered that description of "passions" of Saint George in the very first Biography was "too fabulous". And that's why the church authorities, being shocked by unbelievable whimsicality of his torments decided to bring the Biography "in accordance with common sense". But how can one

guess what the words "common sense" mean? 44. That idea of the Serpent is closely connected with Armenian myths of the vishaps (the dragons). In the Armenia epos these are the monsters being the usurpers of water sources; they force the people to sacrifice young girls to them; the heroes killing those dragons release waters and the young girls. Similar plot is contained in myths of Georgia and other Caucasian nations where the vishaps act (see in detail: Mythological Dictionary. M., 1991). Formerly N. Marr, the researcher of the Caucasus, published the images of the vishaps - gigantic stone statues which are met in desert highlands of Armenia near the sources and close to the pastures. An image of the monstrous fish was supplemented with images of water jets and ox-horns the symbols of "the lower world" as well as the signs of the Sun - crosses and birds. And the most striking thing is that the same stone statues were found in Siberia and in Altai! They were just elder. The same fish faces, wavy lines, an ox-horn above the faces with three big round eyes. Also there are three regular circles, and a cross is inscribed in each of them! And near it a snake is incused as a bigger and deeper gutter. The composition is crowned by a miniature figure of a deer with ramose horns near the three crosses. Here it is - the outline of the great cultural synthesis which appeared long ago when the basics of Eurasia were formed and the Caucasus was a pillar of the bridge between East and West! Bibliography Abaza V.A. History of Armenia. Yerevan, 1990. Akataev S.N. World Outlook Syncretism of the Kazakhs. Issues I-II. Alma-Ata., 1993-1994. Alekseev N.A. Traditional Turkic Beliefs of Turkic-Speaking Nations of Siberia. Novosibirsk, 1992. Aliev Igrar. Essays on Atropatene History. Baku, 1989. Ambroz A.K. Stirrups and Saddles of the Early Middle Ages as a Chronological Index (IV - VII centuries) // Soviet Archeology. 1973. 4. Anninskiy A. History of the Armenian Church (before XIX century). Kishinev, 1900. Attsiaauri N.K. Source Studying Problems of Expansion of Christianity in the Caucasus ("Deeds of Gregory the Enlightener" Cycle): Autoabstract. Tbilisi, 1989. Bakradze Dm. The Caucasus in the Ancient Monuments of Christianity. Tbilisi. Bartold V.V. Isol from Pisa (Moslem Information about the Chngisid Christians). SPb., 1892. Baskakov N.A. Russian Family Names of the Turkic Origin. M., 1993. Bakhmeteva A.N. Selected Lives of Saints. M., 1913. Belikov D.N. Origin of Christianity with the Goths and Bishop Ulfila actions. Kazan., 1887. [Berberini] The Travel to Moscow of Raphael Berberini. SPb., 1843. Bernstam A. N. Essay of Huns History. L., 1951. Bernstein S.B. Constantine the Philosopher and Methodius. M., 1984. Bira S.O. To "The Golden Book" by S. Damdin. Ulan Bator, 1974. Bichurin N.Y. (Jakinf). Collection of Information about the Nations which Lived in the Middle Asia in Ancient Times. Vol. I. M.; L., 1950. Blok Marc. History Apologia, or the Occupation of a Historian. M., 1986. [Buzand] History of Armenia by Favtos Buzand. Yerevan., 1953. Valikhanov C.C. Collected Works in 5 Volumes: vol. 1, 1961. Valter K. Biography, Cult and Iconography of Saint George // Georgian Arts IV International Symposium. Tbilisi, 1983. Van-Veik N. History of Old Slavonic Language. M., 1957. Vasilyev V.P. Buddhism. Its dogmas, History and Literature. Parts I, III. SPb., 1857; 1869. Vasilyev L.S. History of Religions of the East. M., 1983. Vaidenbaum E. The Guide through the Caucasus. Tbilisi. 1888. Verkhovets Y.D. Detailed Description of Life, Suffering, Miracles of the Great Martyr Saint George and Worship of his Name. SPb., 1893 Veselovskiy A.N. Investigations in the Field of Russian Spiritual Poems // Appendixes to Volume XXXVII of the Notes of the Emperor's Academy of Scie nces. 3. Issues II, III - V. S{b., 1880. Byzantium-Studying Essays. Tbilisi, 1978. Vilinbakhov G.V. Tsar Constantine s Cross in Medieval Military Blazonry of Europe//Arts Monuments and Problems of Culture of the East. L., 1985. Vilinbakhov G.V., Vilinbakhova T.B. Saint George: The Image of Saint George in Russia. SPb., 1995.

Vertoradova V. V. Discovery of Inscription with Unknown letters on Kara-Tel // Buddhist Monuments on Kara-Tel in the Old Termez. M., 1982. Vipper R.Y. Appearance of Christian Literature. M.; L., 1946 Voitov V.E. Ancient Turkic Pantheon and the Model of the Universe in Cultural and Commemoration Monuments of Mongolia of VI - VIII centuries. M., 1996. Voloshina I.E. Expansion of Christianity in Asianic Provinces of the Roman Empire (pre-Nicaean Period): Autoabstract. M., 1993. Ghan K. Notes of Ancient Greek and Roman Authors about the Caucasus. Parts I - II. Tbilisi, 1984. Garnak A. From the History of Early Christianity. M., 1907. Herberstein S. Notes about the Muscovy Acts. SPb., 1908. Geyushev R.B. Christianity in the Caucasian Albania: According to Archeology and Written Sources. Baku, 1984. Gibbon E. History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Parts I - II. M., 1883. Hlinka S. Review of History of the Armenian Nation. M., 1832. Gorsey D. Notes about Muscovy of XVI century. SPb., 1909. Gratch A.D. Ancient Turkic Names of Tuva. M., 1961. Gumilev L.N. The Ancient Turki. M., 1967. Guseinov R.A. Syrian Sources of Beliefs and Customs of the Oguz of VII - XII centuries // ByzantiumStudying Essays. Tbilisi, 1978. Debirov P.M. Stone Carving in Dagestan. M., 1966. Dzhafarov Y.R. The Huns and Azerbaijan. Baku, 1985. Johns A.K. Death of the Ancient Wirld. M., 1997. Diringer D. The Alphabet. M., 1963. Donelli A.S. Conquest of Bashkiria by Russia in 1552 - 1740. Ufa, 1995. Ancient Russia. Legends. Epics. Chronicles. M., 1963. Eugene (Bolkhovitinov) Historical Representation of Georgia in its Political, Church and Educational State. SPb., 1802. Eugene (Bolkhovitinov) Historical Discussions. M, 1817. [Eusebius] Church History of Eusebius Pamfilus. Vol. I. Spb., 1858. Egishe About Vardan and the Armenian War. Yerevan, 1971. Emelyuakh L.I. Origin of the Christian Cult. L., 1971. Zhukovskaya N.L. Folk Beliefs of the Mongols and Buddhism // Archeologists and Ethnography of Mongolia. Novosibirsk, 1978 Zaborov M.A. The Crusades. M., 1956. Zaborov M.A. Papacy and the Crusades. M., 1960. Zakiev M.Z. The Tatars: Problems of History and Language. Kazan, 1995. Zakharov A.A. Materials on Archeology of Siberia. Excavations of Academician V.V. Radlov in 1865 // Works of the National Historical Museum. Issue I. 1926. Abraham T., Efremova N. Moslem Sacred History. From Adam to Jesus: the Koran Stories about Messengers of God. M., 1996. From the History of Early Christianity: Collection of Articles by A. Garnak, Y. Wellgausen, A Yumekher. M., 1907. Inostrantsev K.A. On History of pre-Moslem Culture of the Middle Asia. Pg., 1917. Inostrantsev K.A. About Ancient Iranian Burial Customs and Building. SPb.,1909. Inostrantsev K.A. Turkestan Ossuariums and Astodans. SPb., 1907. Inostrantsev K.A. Hunnu and Huns. L., 1926. John de Plano Carpini. History of the Moguls. SPb., 1910. Jovius P. The Book about the Moscow Embassy. SPb., 1908. Jordan. About the Origin and Deeds of the Geths. Getica. M., 1960. History of Siberia. Vol. i. L., 1968. History of the Old Believer Church. Brief Essay. M., 1991. Istrin V.A. 1100 Years of Slavic Alphabet. M., 1988. Istrin V.A. The Story about the Indian Kingdom // Antiquities. Works of the Slavonic Committee Vol. I. M., 1985. [Kagankatvatsi] History of the Aguans by Moses Kagankatvatsi. SPb., 1861. Karamzin N.M. History of Russian State. Vol. I-V. M., 1989 - 1996. Carger M.I. Ancient Kiev. Vol.1-2. M.; L., 1958; 1961. [Carpini] John de Plano Carpini. History of the Moguls. SPb., 1911. Kerns E. By the Roads of Christianity. History of the Church. M., 1992

Kirpichnikov A.I. Saint George and George the Brave. SPb., 1879 Klements D.D. Antiquities of the Minusinsk Museum: Monuments of Metal Epochs. Tomsk. 1886. Klyuashtorniy S.G., Livshits V.A. Discovery and Research of Ancient Turkic and SOgdian Monuments of the Central Asia // Archeology and Ethnography of Mongolia. Novosibirks, 1978. Kovalskiy Y.V. Popes and Papacy. M., 1991. Kozubskiy E.I. History of the Town of Derbent. Temir-Khan-Shura, 1906. Komarov A.V. Caves and Ancient Graves in Dagestan // Works of Initiative Committee for Organization of the 5th Archeological Conference in Tbilisi. M., 1880. [Constantine Porfirorodniy] Proceedings of Byzantium Writers about Northern Black Sea Coast (first issue) // Proceedings of National Academy of Material Culture History. Issue 91. M.; L., 1934. Krachkovskiy I. Legend about Saint George in the Arabic Edition. SPb., 1911. Kryvelev I.A. History of Religions. Vol. 1. M., 1975. Kulakovskiy Y. History of Byzantium. Vol. I. Kiev 1910. [Quistine] Notes about Russia by the French Traveler Marquise de Quistine. M., 1990. Lavrskiy N. Cherkassk and its Antiquity. M., 1917. Lazarev V.N. New Monument of Easel Painting of XII century and Image of George the Warrior in Byzantium and Ancient Russian Arts // Byzantine Annals. Vol. VI. M., 1953. [Landyshev] Stephen Landyshev. Cosmology and Theogonia of the Pagan Altai Inhabitants. Kazan, 1886. Latyshev V.V. Notes of Ancient Greek and Latin Writers about Scythia and the Caucasus. Parts I - II. SPb., 1893 - 1906. Lebedev A.P. The Epoch of Persecution of the Christians. SPb., 1904. Lebedev D. 19-years Cycle of Anatoly Laodicean (from the history of ancient Easter cycles) // Byzantium Annals. Vol. XVIII. SPb., 1913. Litvinskiy B.A. Ancient Nomads of the Roof of the World. M., 1972. Loparev Khr. Modern Literature about Saint George // Byzantine Annals. Vol. XX. Issue I. SPb., 1913. Magomedov M.G. Living Ties of Epochs and Cultures. Makhachkala, 1990. Magomedov M.G. The Khazars in the Caucasus. Makhachkala, 1994. Makarenko N.E. Archeological Researches of 1907 - 1909 // Bulletin of the Emperor's Archeological Committee. Issue 43. SPb., 1911. Maslov S.E. Remains of Shamanism with the Yellow Uigurs. SPb., 1912 Maslov S. E. Monuments of Ancient Turkic Writing Language. M.; L., 1951 Maslov S.E. Uigursk Manuscript Documents of S. F. Oldenburg Expedition // Notes of Oriental Studies Institute of Academy of Sciences of the USSR, I, 1932. Mamedova F.D. About the Chronological System of "History of the Albans" by Moses Kagankatvatsi // Byzantine Annals. Vol. VI. M., 1953. Margulan A.K. Ancient Culture of the Central Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata, 1960. Margulan A.K. From the History of the Towns and Building Skills of Ancient Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata, 1950. Marr N. Arabic Extracts from the Syrian Chronicle of Mariba. SPb., 1902. Marr N. Christening if the Armenians, the Georgians, the Abkhazians and the Alans by Saint Gregory: Arabic Version of Agathangel. SPb., 1905. [Marcellin]. Ammian Marcellin. History. Issues 1 - 3. Kiev., 1906 - 1908. Armenian Arts International Symposium II. Yerevan, 1978: Bauer E. The Armenians in the Byzantium Empire and their Impact on its Politics, Economics and Culture. Bushghausen K. Fragment from the Gospel Valyatek K. About the Sources of Ripsime-Dzhvari Architectural Type. Galerkina O. About Certain Problems of Cultural Community of the Nations of "Christian" and "Moslem" East. Gombosh K. Ancient Armenian Carpets with Dragons. Eremyan A. About Relations between Armenian and Byzantium Architecture of IV - VII centuries. Kleinbauer Y. Traditions and Innovations of Designing of Zvartnots. Stavinskiy B.O. About Relations between the Middle Asia and Armenia in Ancient Times and about Common Elements in their Arts, Faensen H. About Origin of Church Architecture with a Crucial Foundation and a Central Dome Yakobson A. Arts of Khachkor Armenian Cross Stones.

Georgian Arts International Symposium II. Tbilisi, 1978.: Anguladze N. From the History of Relation between Sasanid and Georgian Arts. Asratyan M. Architecture of the Georgian and Armenian Churches with an Rectangular Altar Inside. Beridze V. Georgian Cult Architecture of IV - VII centuries. Blankov Z. About the Image of a Deer in the Arts of Eurasia Vagner G. The Inage of a Warrior - Rider in Statuary Art of Medieval Georgia and Ancient Russia. Van-Esbrok M. The Ark for Hallows of Sakhakdukhta. Vilinbakhov G. About the Traditions in the Georgian Symbols of the Standards. Ovchinnikov A. Achi Signature as One of the Displays of Interrelation between the Eastern Christian Spiritual Centers of the "Byzantine world" Tumanishvili Dm. The Theme of the "Free Cross" in Medieval Georgian Architecture. Chubinashvili G. About the Initial forms of Christian Church. Shandrovskaya V. The Image of Saint George on the Byzantine Seals. Mekhovskiy M. The Treatise about Two Sarmatians. M.; L., 1936. Murzaev E.M. Turkic Geographical Names. M., 1996. Neikhardt A.A. The Mystery of the "Holy Cross". M., 1968. Neikhardt A.A. Origin of the Cross. M., 1975. [Nikitin] Voyage over Three Sees of Athanasius Nikitin 1466 - 1472. L., 1986. Novoselskiy A.A. Struggle of Muscovy with the Tatars in XVII century. M.; L., 1948. Appeal of Georgia. Tbilisi, 1989. Okladnikov A. P. A Horse and a Flag on Lena Writings // Turcologist Collection. M.; L., 1951. 1. Okladnikov A. P. Deer the Golden Horn. M.; L., 1964. Okladnikov A. P. Shishkino Writings, Irkutsk, 1959. Okladnikov A. P., Zaporozhskaya V. D. Lena Writings. M.; L., 1959. Okladnikova E.A. Ritual Sculptures of Animals Made of Cheese of the Cumandic Altai-kiji // Plastic Arts and Paintings of Ancient Cultures. Novosibirsk, 1983 Opolovnikov A.V., Opolovnikova E.A. Wooden Architectonics of Yakutia, Yakutsk, 1983. [Ormanian] Malachias Ormanian, Patriarchy of Constantinople. The Armenian Church: its History, Teaching, Administration, Internal Structure, Liturgy, Literature, its Present. M., 1913. Pipes R. Russia under the Old Regime. M., 1993. Pigulevskaya N. The Middle East. Byzantium. The Slavs L., 1976. Pigulevskaya N. Syrian Sources for the History of the USSR Nations. M.; L., 1941 Pletneva S.A. The Polovtsians. M., 1990. Full Hagiography of the Georgian Church. Parts I - III. 1994. [Polo] Marco Polo. The Book. M., 1955. Possevino A. Muscovy. Historical works about Russia. M., 1983. Potanin G.N. Erke. The Cult of Heaven's Son in the Northern Asia. Tomsk, 1916. Potapov L.P. About Ancient Turkic Basics and Dating of the Altaic Shamanism // Ethnography of the Nations of Altai and the Western Siberia. Novosibirsk, 1978. Prelovskiy A. Poetry of the Ancient Turki of VI - XII centuries. M.,1993. Privalova E.L. Pavnisi. Tbilisi, 1977. Prisk. Roman Embassy to Attila. SPb., 1842. Procopius from Caesarea. The War with the Goths. M., 1950. Propp V.Y. George's fighting with a Serpent in the Light of Folklore // Folklore and Ethnography of Russian North. L., 1973. Pugachenkova G. A. Khalchayan: about the Problems of Artistic Culture of the Northern Bactria. Tashkent, 1966. Pugachenkova G. A. Arts of Bactria of Kushan Epoch. M., 1979. Radzivillovskaya Chronicle; Photomechanical Reproduction of Radzivillovskaya (Konigsberg) Chronicle. SPb., 1902. Radlov V. V. Siberian Antiquities: from the Notes of a Journey in Siberia. SPb., 1896. Radlov V.V About the Language of the Cumans. Concerning the Publication of the "Codex Cumanicus" Dictionary. SPb., 1884. Radlov V. V. Siberian Antiquities: Materials for Siberian Archeology. 3. 1888; 5. 1891; 15. 1902. Radlov V.V. Ethnographic Review of the Turkic Tribes of the Southern Siberia and Dzungaria. Tomsk, 1887.

Ranovich A. Origin of the Christian Sacraments. M.; L., 1931. Ranovich A. Antique Critics of Christianity:Fragments from Lucian, Celcius, Porphyrius and Others. M., 1935. Renan E. The Gospels and the Second Generation of Christianity. SPb., 1907. Renan E. The Apostles. CPb., 1907. Renan E. Apostle Paul. SPb., 1907. Renan E. Life of Jesus Christ. SPb., 1906. Renan E. History of Rise of Christianity. SPb., 1906. Rozhitsin V. "The Golden Legend": the Book about the Saint Martyrs. M.; K., 1925. [Rubruk] William de Rubruk. The Traveling to Eastern Countries. SPb., 1911. Rudenko S. I. The Second Pazyryksk Barrow: Results of Expedition's Work L., 1948. Rudenko S. I. The Most Ancient Artistic Carpets and Cloths from Certain Barrows of the Mountain Altai in the World. M., 1968. Rudenko S. I. Culture of the Mountain Altai Inhabitants during the Scythian Times. M.; L., 1953. Rudenko S. I. Culture of the Central Altai Inhabitants during the Scythian Times. M.; L., 1960. Rudenko S. I. Culture of the Huns and Noinulian Barrows. M.; L., 1962. Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X - XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15th, 1991). Part I - III, M., 1991. Rybakov B.A. Kiev Russia and Russian Principalities of XII - XIII centuries, M., 1982. Rybakov B.A. Russian Chronicles and the author of "The Story of Igor's Regiment". M., 1972. Rybakov B.A. Paganism of Ancient Russia. M., 1987. Rystenko A.V. The Legend about Saint George and the Dragon in Byzantine and Slavo-Russian Literature. Odessa, 1909. [Sabinin] Gobron (Michael) Sabinin. History of the Georgian Church until the End of VI century. SPb., 1877. Savvinskiy I.I. Ceremonial Peculiarities of the Armenian Church for the Sacraments and Burial of the Deceased. Astrakhan, 1905. Savinov D.G., Chlenova N.L. Western Bounds of Spread of the Route Stones and the Subjects if their Cultural and Ethnic Belonging // Archeology and Ethnography of Mongolia. Novosibirsk, 1978. Sagalaev A.M. Mythology and Beliefs of Altai Inhabitants, Central Asia Influences. Novosibirsk, 1984. Samashev Z.S. Rock Paintings of Upper Irtysh Banks. Alma-Ata, 1992. Collection of Materials for Description of Regions and Tribes of the Caucasus. Tbilisi, 1900. Issue 27. The Northern Caucasus in Ancient Times and in the Middle Ages. M., 1980. [Simokkata] Feofilact Simokkata. History. M., 1957. [Syrian] Ephraim the Syrian. About the Days of Christmas Celebration. About the Foundation of the First Churches in Jerusalem // Texts and Researches on Armenian and Georgian Philology. SPb., 1900. Skrzhynskaya E.C. Barbaro and Contarini about Russia. L., 1971. Sokolov P.P. "Octavius" by Minucius Felix and SPb., 1910. Surguladze I.K. Saint George in Georgian Religious Beliefs // Georgian Arts International Symposium IV. Tbilisi, 1983. Tabyshalieva A.S. Belief in Turkestan: Essay on History of Religions of the Middle Asia and Kazakhstan. Bishkek, 1933. Baptism of Christ in the Armenian Church Translated from the Armenian into Russian. SPb., 1799. [Tacito] Cornelius Tacito Collected Works in Two Volumes. SPb., 1993. Terenozhkin A.I., Mozolevskiy B.N. The Melitopol Barrow. Kiev, 1988. Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials Relating to History of the Golden Horde. Extracts from Arabic Works. Vol. I. SPb., 1884. Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials Relating to History of the Golden Horde. Extracts from Arabic Works. Vol. II. M.; L., 1941. Tolstov S.P. In the Ancient Deltas of Oks and Yaksart. M., 1962. Thomsen W. Deciphered Orchon and Yenisei Inscriptions / Translated by V. RAdlov // Notes of the Eastern Department of Russian Archeological Association. Vol. VIII. Issue III - IV. 1894. Pages 327 331. Trever K.V. Essays on History and Culture of the Caucasian Albania (IV century B.C. - VII century A.D.). M.; L., 1959. Trever K.V. Essays on History and Culture of Ancient Armenia (II century B.C. - IV century A.D.). M.; L., 1953. Tugusheva L. Y. Uigur Version of Suan-Tzan Biography. M., 1991.

Millennium of the Baptism of Russia. "Theology and Spirituality" International Church Conference. Moscow, May 11-18th, 1987. Vol. 1. Part IV. M., 1989. The Turkologic Conference: Philology and History of the Turkic Nations. L., 1967. The Turkologic Collection: Materials of the Conference of July 7 - 10th, 1967. L., 1970. The Turkologic Collective Volume. M., 1978. Uspenskiy F.I. Church and Political Activity of the Pope Gregory I. Kazan, 1901. Theodoritus, the Cyri Bishop. Church History. M., 1993. Fletcher J. About the Russian State SPb., 1906. Florovskiy G.V. The Eastern Fathers of IV Century. M., 1992. Khakhanov A. The Georgian Version of the Legend about Saint George. M., 1892. [Khorenatsi] Moses Khorenatsi. History of Armenia. Yerevan, 1990. Christianity. Encyclopedia. Vol. 1 - 3. M., 1993 - 1995. Tsibikov T.T. The Buddhist Pilgrim near the Relics of Tibet. Pg., 1919. Epos of the Northern Europe, Ways of Evolution / Edited by N.S. Chemodanov. M., 1989. Chinchibaeva L.V. About the Modern Religious Survivals of the Altai Inhabitants // Ethnography of the Nations of Altai and the Western Siberia. Novosibirsk, 1978. Chichurov I.S. Byzantine Historical Works. M., 1980. Chubinashvili G.N. Researches on the Armenian Architecture. Tbilisi, 1967. Shakhmatov A.A. Ancient Fates of Russian Nation. Pg., 1919. Shakhmatov A.A. Essay of Modern Russian Literary Language. L., 1925. Sherr I. The Nations Migration. SPb., 1898. Emin N. Brief Essay on History of the Armenian Eastern Church. M., 1872. Emin N.O. Essay on Religion and Beliefs of the Pagan Armenians. M., 1864. Emin N.O. Translations and Articles on Spiritual Armenian Literature (for 1859 - 1882) by N.O. Emin: Apocrypha, Hagiography, Lays and Others. M., 1897. The last page has been turned And let it be not the last in the book, I hope a continuation will follow so that the smell of absinth calls to take a new route: the history of the Turki is an unknown theme. A very long way is to be made. This is happiness to make it! Sometimes the heart can't stand gladness due to longawaited lines found among library and archival pages. A day turns lighter and the sky turns higher. There is a desire to live and create just for that. To tell the truth, now I mention another thing more often - the more I write, the more enemies and enviers appear. But I fancy that is a pleasure too since they are the obligatory companions of every deed. Another thing is worse - betrayals which one can never get accustomed to. I suffered from them in the Caucasus and Dagestan: I believed the empty people and then I burnt with dungeon and shame for those who have forgotten their promises Work is the only thing which helps to survive the let-offs and desperately dark days of frustration. And, of course, my friends and their disinterested help. A writer is nothing without friends and support. Especially if he is a Turkic writer who lives in Moscow. I realized that in Baku and Derbent I wish to dedicate this and all the other works to them - the real Kipchaks. I live for them.