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

Appendix
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

Author's Preface
This book is the continuation of "Polovetskoe Field Absinth". Better to say, I intended to
complement "…Absinth", but it resulted in a new book about the Great Steppe history as well.
Absinth is a peculiar grass: not everyone but only elite appreciate it: for me it is the spirit of
motherland. It is a silent message from forsaken country, lost nowadays, which was formerly
called the Great Steppe or the Steppe of Kipchaks (Desht-I-Kipchak). Our forefathers used to
hang a leather bag with a pinch of dry absinth on their necks before a long journey - for good
luck. "An incense for the soul" - they used to say. There wasn't another native odor except for
emshan-grass odor - a silent call of motherland - for a steppe inhabitant.
Unfortunately, nowadays this bewitching odor is known to very few. We've been weaned
away from it.
And we have forgotten everything - our family tree, our forefathers, ourselves… Some time
in the Great Steppe it was considered a good sign to send a bunch of dry absinth instead of a
letter or a gift - a call for meeting or return. Remember?

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

That's by Maikov. The poet put the parting words into Syrchan-khan's mouth, who called
for his brother Otrok to return home, to native steppes, from the Caucasus…
In IV century our nation boldly turned the page of European history - it delivered people
from Roman slavery, gave freedom to them… Our forefathers - and nobody else! - opened
modern religious symbols to European pagans, Europeans heard of the Heavenly God from
Turkic Kipchaks for the first time and learnt their present prayers.
 These were the Turki who taught the Europeans new metallurgical technologies: to smelt
iron and make goods thereof. By the example of Altai newcomers European menfolk refused
to wear skirts and took to pants…

Dozens of world nations used to speak and keep on speaking Turkic language - from
Yakutia to Western Europe. And even in Africa - in Tunisia and Morocco - there are some
settlements where one can hear Turkic speech.
The Turkish are the most numerous and well-known - there are over 50 million of them.
Turkey plays an important part in modern world, everybody knows it, which cannot be said of
tofalars (there are several hundreds of them). Very few have heard of a nation which could be
accommodated within a couple of villages. They live in wild Siberian taiga having the
slightest notion of their neighbors. But at the same time it is quiet possible that tofalars, who
have led a lonesome life for centuries and have rarely contacted with other nations, are the
keepers of the most ancient Turkic language and the purest Turkic blood. Only in the most
necessary cases.
Turkic world is great… There are nations who have forgotten native language and history
long ago but retained the appearance of their forefathers and their customs: Ukrainians,
Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, noticeable part of the French, Germans, Russians, Englishmen…
And there are those who haven't forgotten a single thing and clearly remember even distant
pages of our history - they keep it in their songs, legends and narratives. To tell the truth,
neighborhood with other nations affected their appearance: Kazakhs, Kirghizes, Tuvinians…
Their faces have little in common with their forefathers' faces, although their inner life is
extraordinarily rich in priceless treasures of the past.
How can such "variety" be estimated? Is it good or evil? Misfortune or happiness?.. None
of world languages has as much dialects as Turkic does: people have one blood but their
speech differs. Why?
This question cannot be answered easily. Though everything is kept within a natural course
of events and has its explanation.
Unfortunately, countries and nations history has been always written for politics sake. And
quiet often the Truth had to step back before an undisguised fabrication under political
pressure. Perhaps that's because true Turkic history hasn't been written yet; there are only
separate fragments thereof. And an ocean of lie around… But there is no nation without
History. And no history without Nation!

We are the Kipchaks!

There is a well-known statement of Goebbels expressing the essence of politics: 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… A familiar situation, isn't it? It seems we've turned into slaves
long ago and didn't notice that!
Our scientists have been learning C.P.S.U. history and didn't know the history of Turkic
nation. They simply haven't investigated it in Russia - it was prohibited.
Of course there will be some objections - those objections being right! - they say a lot has
been written. That's true. But can one believe in everything that's been written? One Turki
doesn't recognize another, he can't remember his forefathers. Small splinter is posed as an
entire independent nation. They invent whatever they like. Kumyk, for instance, writes in his
thesis that Kumyks are not the descendants of great steppe inhabitants but Laks and
Dargintses from Kumuh settlement which were made Turkic. Shame on such a "science".
As a rule the Turki are humiliated by the Turki themselves! And we shouldn't blame
anyone. I'm indignant not because I'm Kumyk but because my forefathers were the Kipchaks,
their history is my history and I don't need another one…
And our Karachai neighbors go to another extreme - they rank the Turki among the Alans
(i.e. Iranian language Ossetins), they originate the history of their nation and all the Turki
from them. Moreover, they are proving that of Turkic world originates in Karachai, as though
our ancestors lived there… One could possibly smile reading all this nonsense but it has been
edited in thousands of copies, and children are brought up with it.
Certainly not all scientists are blind but, unfortunately, similar "knowledge" was seeded
amidst the nation. It was ordered by local masters who cared not for the truth but for an
opportunity to keep their position. They would do anything for that. Dagestan Kumyks, for
example, "proved" their aboriginal position amongst the Caucasus nations in that way.

Karachais' disavowal of Turkic heritage is also humanly clear: they suffered from genocide
- repressions of the forties have not been forgotten. Thus they invented an opportune rescue
formula in case of other genocide: to arrogate themselves to Ossetins - for Ossetins were
never affected in Russia… A slight ruse developed into a blatant lie.

Fear, cowardice, "slight ruses" became the part of flesh and blood of some Turki, hence are
bitter fruits in science and in life - one has always to play up, abase himself and try to please
somebody… Thus the Turki started to neglect the Pride, Dignity and Honor, while nation can
be respected only for those features.
Nowadays there are three hundred thousand of Kumyks, a little less than two hundred
thousand of Karachais and only several tens of thousand of Balkarians… Over two hundred
years ago we were a single nation (Lermontov and Tolstoi used to call us Caucasian Tatars),
we lived in one country being the heiress of Khazaria, - in Caucasian Shamkhalia which was
colonized by tsarist Russia in XIX century.
To tell the truth, Karachais and Balkarians are still called "tavlu-kumuk", i.e. "mountain
Kumyks". The difference is that they live in mountains while we live in steppe. And that's all!
Karachais, Balkarians, Kumyks, Crimean Tatars, Gagauzes, Terekements are absolutely the
same relating to language and culture… Even clans are the same. In my opinion, Russians
living in Armenia and Estonia differ rather noticeably between each other. Although the Turki
are different "nations" and Russians are a single one. Why?

Shamhalia were formerly called the Kipchaks, Khazars, Caucasian Tatars. Later on local
Cossaks (from Stavropol And Tver) became the Slavs, indeed, until XIX century they were
also Caucasian Tatars, spoke our language, others still speak their native language. (For
example, it is enough to read "The Cossaks" by Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi where Turkic origin
of Cossaks is clearly described and their native language is mentioned. Since 1863 a lot of
Caucasian Kipchaks turned their backs on their forefathers, started speaking only Russian and
entire villages became a part of Russian colonial forces. )
A cruel fate awaited for Shamkhalia inhabitants. Those unwilling to serve as Tsar's soldiers
were evicted form the Caucasus by authorities - almost 4 million people were deprived of
motherland. They were not sold for slavery - they were deported - released "free of charge" -
to Turkey, Jordan, Syria. There are settlements where Caucasian dialect of Turkic language
has not been forgotten; it still can be heard astonishing the neighbors. Luckily foreign
Kumyks don't invent a new history for themselves, they still remember their Motherland left
as the fates decree with a heavy heart.
We cannon say the same of Gagauzes who were also forced to leave the Caucasus two
centuries ago. It seems they have forgotten their Shamkhalia and everything on earth: their
modern history is in strange compliance with official Russian history. As if nothing was going
on until XIX century.
 Kumyks, Balkarians, Karachais, Gagauzes (the Cossaks should be mentioned specially) are
not numerous, weak, their intelligentsia is few in number. And that makes the positions of
Tatar and Bachkir historians more vulnerable: I reckon their universities and academies not
worth a pin for even they don't tell the truth about the Turki. Or are they playing their game?
They came to believe in the "Mongolian-Tatar yoke" which never actually took place. It
was invented in XIX century, during the rise of Slavophilism. The author of this invention is a
schoolteacher who is even mentioned in writings by N.M. Karamzin. This invention satisfied
a great many people.
Indeed, is Turkic time counted from Chingis-khan? Does our state system originate from
the Golden Horde? Do academic ignoramuses have the right to turn a visiting Arab merchant
named Ibn Fadlan, having disgustingly written of the Turki, into a prophet of Turkic spiritual
conception?
Have we become that stupid to forget everything?! Is our spiritual fall that intense?.. And
our memory that short?
It seems that's true - certain inventors, from Kazakhstan for instance, "prove" a boring
conception of "nomadic" civilizations…One cannot invent anything more absurd. There were
no Turkic "nomadic civilizations" in the Great Steppe and there couldn't be any - these are
alternative terms! Mongols were the nomads while the Kipchaks never were… and don't feel
like being them even in Kazakh writings!
Our forefathers led a settled life, were engaged in farming and cattle-breeding, they were
excellent craftsmen, built fortified settlements, irrigative canals, roads and crossings… Most
ancient cast-iron shovels (plough prototype) were found in Altai, the Turki used them at the
beginning of Common Era. Many so called "Old Russian" towns and settlements in the
Steppe were founded by the Turki in IV - V centuries when the Great Migration of nations
was over.
"Nomad Civilizations" theory was created by politicized scientists. After conquest of the
Steppe it was important to deprive the Turkic nation of achievements of its culture, to turn it
into a crowd. It was not by chance that an article named "The Turki" was not included into
Big Soviet Encyclopedia, although other nations, even African, were not neglected by the
authors…
Lately many facts were not evident, but today it is illegal and offensive for independent
Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. Those states and partly Russia, Ukraine, Kirghizstan and
Kazakhstan are historical successors of the great steppe country, ancient Desht-I-Kipchak,
where no nomads ever lived.
Arabs used to call the Great Steppe "the Country of Towns" as Ibn Battuta and other
travelers wrote. And Varangians on both sides of the route "from the Varangians to the
Greeks"(Dnepr basin) named it "the Kingdom of Towns" - "Gardarik" in their language…
"Nomads" and "Country of Towns" - a manifest contradiction!
Let's have a look at our national cookery, its farinaceous foods and let's compare:
beshbarmak - flour - grain - agriculture… and nomads. What is it? Nonsense! Because it was
their own steppe grain. Millet and barley were traditionally cultivated by the Kipchaks in the
fields, they were estimated above all: these cultures were accommodated to inclement Altai
nature to a great extent. And, besides, oats and buckwheat, which cereals were called "Tatar"
in Russia.

Many invented "truths" should have been revised long ago.

Besides, sooner or later, we'll have to name our nation as it was formerly called. We are the
Kipchaks and should remain them… What names have not been the Turki named in historical
chronicles: Avars, Barsils, Bulgarians, Bourgognes, Huns, Pechenegs and dozens of others!
That chaos was of great importance for politicians because it "proved" existence of separate
tribes and nations in the Great Steppe. Thus sole Turkic state system was concealed while
Chinese governors used to study it as far back as before Common Era.
A great deal has been forgotten behind secular lies…
In my books I definitely call the inhabitants of Desht-I-Kipchak only the Kipchaks or
steppe inhabitants. And I urge all the rest to do the same. Because our country was called the
Steppe of the Kipchaks which means the nation has (according to generally accepted rules!)
one and only name - "the Kipchaks", which it called itself.

I know that "Kipchak" is only one among Turkic clans and not even the most noble. Never
mind! It gave the name to our Steppe, so let us ennoble it and thus ennoble the whole history
of nations having absorbed the culture of the Great Steppe.

Nowadays we - the Kipchaks - are divided into more than fifty "small nations". We've been
cut to pieces. That's because some have forgotten their native language, others have kept it
with slight changes. But, as is well known, not language but the spirit is a distinguishing
feature of a nation! Language is given to a man to express feelings and thoughts of his soul
aloud. Language has no power over words - they come out of heart.
Here is an example of such words; they are by Fyodor Tyutchev who, although he was
called a Slav, was from the Turkic clan of braziers, Tucci, by birth. Only Kipchak's soul could
exclaim:

Although we were parted

By hostile destiny,
We are still a single nation,
Sons of one mother;
But still we are the brothers
That's what they hate in us!

In the words of "Russian" Turki one can find the warmth of hearth and smell of absinth…
troops of riders and droves, herds, flocks… the song that was sung before my great-great-
great-great-grandfather's cradle… The work is called "The Slavs", it was written when Russia
was turning away from its Turkic origin and inventing a Slavic one for politics sake. (That
was the period of abrupt aggravation of relations with Turkey, the height of Russian-Turkish
wars to which Russia was skillfully instigated, above all, by the Greeks who were dreaming of
return of Asia Minor and)

In XVIII - XIX centuries, after Prince Dolgorukov's, generalissimo Suvorov's and other
commanders' punitive expeditions to a former Steppe, tens of millions Kipchaks were given
Russian names. They were forcedly christened with the Greek Cross and were "registered" as
Russians. Parish schools were opened where children were taught in Russian, most gifted
were separated from parents and sent to Petersburg.
Ethnic cleansing has been carried out in Russia for centuries. But we cannot deceive
ourselves, in any case Russia will remember its ancestors - the Kipchaks - who have never
dishonored it. Voice of blood and mentality should awaken.
Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Czechs, Hungarians, Austrians, Bavarians, Saxons, inhabitants
of Northern Italy, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Western France, England, Northern Europe…
America and Australia will recognize their Kipchak past… That's right, many of Americans'
and Australians' ancestors some time were regarded as excellent riders, spoke Turkic
language… And they called themselves "the Kipchaks".
 Disgraced world race
When will you become a nation?
When will the times of your discord and adversity be over,
And a call for unification will strike up,
And that what divides us will collapse?..

We are the people with one blood and one history… So let's remember Altai and our Great
Steppe.

Altai Cradle

Traces of ancient people, as far as we know, were found in Central Africa and Indo-China -
two centers of civilizations origin. Hence are two human races - Negroid and Mongoloid -
apparently.
Evolution of civilizations slowly led to division of people into nations. Firstly it was
connected only with environment around people. For instance, mountain-dwellers'
psychology and attitude have been evolving for thousands years and differed from those of
shore inhabitants. And forest inhabitants' culture and worldview were considerably different.
Features of every nation were forming for thousands years, their identity was polishing - that's
because one needs dozens lines, hundreds color hues in order to paint a portrait of a nation.
Today scientists count over four thousand nations divided into three races. When and how
did Europeans appear? No one knows. But, somehow or other, Turkic Kipchaks are among
the Europeans.
To tell truth, faces of certain Turki have Mongoloid features but it hasn't always been the
same. Their ancestors didn't have any. That's known for sure. On the cover of our book one
can see the fragment of the carpet found in Altai. It is two and a half thousand years old.
Scrutinize it closely - a true Turki from remote ages.
Anthropologists have recreated an exact appearance of ancient Kipchak according to found
skulls and extant sculptures. And its verbal portrait was left by the Chinese, they were aware
of "dinlins" - a nation living in Altai - long before the Common Era. The Chinese were
impressed by appearance of their northern neighbors - blue-eyed, white-haired, "with faces
like marmosets'" as it is written in ancient manuscript. In a word, it's a direct opposite to the
Chinese themselves.
Observant Chinese marked different body proportions and skull form. They called the
Kipchaks "round-headed". And enlarged temporal uniquely marks our faces making them
"broad faces" even today. That's right. Some consider us to be short-legged; others think we
have feet with high insteps… What can be done? That is the will of God. Every nation has its
identity, its distinctions kept by their ancestors.
Today the Kipchaks are different in appearance - there are many black-haired and browned-
eyed people. There are certain historic reasons for that. However, the nation has kept the
essentials - soul and hot blood, they've never changed and remained as they were.
An irrepressible soul, sometimes too shy, ungovernable or even reckless more often, always
dreamy and very vulnerable.

What does the word "Kipchak" mean? We don't know for certain, it is a subject of much
controversy. It is translated in different ways: "the one feeling tight", "unhappy" and
otherwise. I reckon all possible and impossible interpretations will do. Because a single word
won't explain what "snow in the fire and in the wind" means.
A volcano? A storm? One of the elements? It's nor unlikely… Kipchak's soul means
freedom above all. Only freedom and open space really gift it with happiness… So let the
word "Kipchak" be interpreted as anybody wishes, but… Those who don't need freedom don't
have Kipchak blood!
No, we haven't kept our blood clean in the tumult of life for we didn't cherish the traditions.
We loved foreign women greedily, we set free our own ones too generously. Assimilation and
blood mixture didn't strengthen the nation but led to weakening thereof.
Mongolian and Chinese inheritance is noticeable in certain Kipchaks: as though Mongols
and the Chinese have dissolved in part of us. There are many Turki with Iranian appearance
and many Iranians resembling the Turki. In Iran entire provinces - millions people! - speak
Turkic language, they are Azerbaijanians although they are registered as Iranians.
There are inexplicabilities in the Northern Caucuses as well. For example, there are lots of
people with classic Kipchak appearance among Ossetins or Chechens. As though the heroes
of a picture of distant past have come alive. But not many of them remember Turkic
language… There was a time when the whole Turkic settlements "voluntarily" changed their
nationality. But their toponymy didn't change. Nowadays only past-names remind of the
past…

Thank Tengri, Turkic spirit didn't fade away all over Desht-I-Kipchak! I felt it in some
Tatars, Bashkirs, Altai inhabitants, Khakases, I saw their sleepy eyebrows awaking and their
extinct eyes rising. It seems Turkic traditions are nowhere that strong as they are in
Azerbaijan. A unique country with great cultural and economic opportunities. It keeps
something that's been forgotten in Europe - ancestors' culture!
And European Kipchaks are an indifferent nation: due to inquisition (From the I Roman
Council of 494 Western Church started a secret war against the Turki. In VII century
ideological aggression became the program of Pope Gregory the Great and was realized
during next three centuries. It was noticeably changed in medieval Europe during the period
of inquisition when mass annihilation of traces of Turkic culture was finished: incineration of
books, destruction of temples, mass executions. In Russia that period is connected with
Romanov dynasty.). Roman and Byzantine churches have been bringing up steppe Europeans
indifferent to themselves and their history for centuries. Hence is this inertia. A broken nation!
But not lost yet.
If only they could hear ancient songs and weeps of Altai which echoes keep famous
Azerbaijan mougams. Here it is - the Great Brotherhood of the Kipchaks; it can be expressed
only by a song. Words without music are too cold and inexpressive for a Turki.
Kirghiz Kipchaks also have a composed appearance, but in other ways. Why, have the
mountains pacified those people?.. Or Chinese composure cooled Turkic blood here?
Kirghiz's conciliation is in his character and behavior: they never feel tight in mountain
valleys!..
Kirghizes are the keepers of ancient wisdom of the Kipchaks. The same as Altai
inhabitants… and Khakases… Our forefathers deified the mountains. In the mountains, in
their eternal peace, people have been searching for the secret of the universe for Altai is an
ancient Turkic Motherland (Ancestors meant other territory when they used the word "Altai".
As a matter of fact, it was the whole Southern Siberia including Baikal and Transbaikalia in
the East and Pamirs in the West. I will call it "Ancient Altai" in my book). Consequently souls
of departed Kipchaks rush for the mountains.
That's because the Turki built the barrows, temples and searched for places for interments
of heroes at the tops of the mountains. People followed the traditions since olden days, but,
unfortunately, those traditions have been forgotten in many respects.
Khakases, Altai inhabitants, Tuvinians, Buryats who lacked steppe expanses remained the
keepers of secrets and antiquities of Turkic world forever. For sure, their historic memory has
become weaker, much has been forgotten, but every day they set their feet on earth keeping
warmth of forefathers' pace, they can see the same mountains and sky of divine beauty.
Ancient lines remind of that:

Near quiet mountains with their excellent view and fresh verdure,
Having left for places that favor the heart only with delight,
In the osiers thick and tart to meditate
Near foamy waters of small cold forest lakes,
Being convinced of detachment from feelings and eyesight
To recognize the world around as it formerly was
Having forgotten the pleasure to feel the grace in the soul,
These are the places for meetings!

Of course, not every Altai mountain was in sight. We'll never know why a mountain
became sacred, not everyone will have a chance to know it. But every Turki should know the
tops esteemed by their forefathers: Kaylasa, Khan-Tengri, Uch-Sumer, Borus…
Indeed, Steppe is our motherland and Altai is our cradle.
Two and a half thousand years ago here, in Altai, the Turki could see Eternal Blue Sky
which was called Tengri… And we should visit Altai at least once in a lifetime in order to
drink its spring water and have a look at the sky here, the cleanest sky in the world, - so as to
change ourselves.

In Altai, on the bank of Ulalinka river, in the sixties A.P. Okladnikov, an academician,
found the most ancient site on the territory of Russia. It is two hundred thousand years old!
That's when the culture which gave rise to many nations - Ugro-Finns, Koreans, the Turki and
many others - began.
To tell the truth, today Ulalinka site is "contested" by certain archeologists who insist that
they've found elder traces of the "great-Turki". So be it. But the merit of Okladnikov and his
colleagues is not in the find itself: he was the first who traced the development of Turkic
culture since extreme antiquity. That's what his research is important for: the scientist has
brought together moment and eternity!
Okladnikov had to face many difficulties on the path to his discovery. Censors, like sharks,
watched for every branch in science! It wasn't allowed even to mention Turkic culture! But
parables were allowed. Thus "Altai" and "Siberian" cultures appeared. Similar parables are
widespread: "Mihailovskaya", "Dyakovskaya" and other cultures were invented though
everybody knows: there is no culture without nation.
Another brilliant archeologist, professor S.I. Rudenko, also passed a "strength test". In my
opinion he didn't say a half of what he has known and found. He also wasn't allowed. But due
to talent of this scientist one can easily restore certain pages of what wasn't said about Altai.
I am sure sometime Rudenko and Okladnikov will become classics of archeology (Of
Turkic ideology in particular! And although Rudenko ascribed some findings to Iranian-
speaking Scythians, that doesn't change a thing. That was researcher's tactics which gave him
an opportunity to proceed with Altai exploration during the period of struggle with Turkic
favoritism). Students will be taught ethics of scientists according to their works. Here one can
see science, civil position and boldness which hereditary Turki lacked.
There were many upright researchers in Russia, but they were always guarded by academic
"generals" being far from real science. But they managed to work avoiding their importunate
control. But for Turkic scientists it was a hundred times harder: they were supervised by
specially appointed "internationalists" who were always ready to accuse of Turkic favoritism
which meant prison, exile and debar from work at best. But what "Turkic favoritism" means
nobody knows. And what's the difference between bad "Turkic favoritism" and good "Slavs
favoritism". It's pointless all the same!.. How many works were jettisoned due to stupid
politics!
For example, works of Kazakh academician A.H. Margulan haven't been published. They
could have become a delight. The scientist discovered dozens of ancient Turkic towns! With
channels, temples, squares… He was forced to give up his work for Moscow and Alma-Ata
wished to see "wild nomads" and hordes of "nasty Tatars" instead of Turkic towns and
achievements of steppe inhabitants in the Great Steppe.

Altai and the Great Steppe have not been explored sufficiently. Scientists took what was on
the surface: casual findings. But found fragments are convincing.
Generous Altai slowly disclosed its treasures to the people. Copper pieces very simple by
sight pointed at the time of metallurgy appearance. The Bronze Age didn't make Altai
inhabitants great - they were the same as the others. But there are other remarkable things
about the Bronze Age: the first nations migration took place - tribes which thereafter
populated the north of Europe left Altai. They have the same origin as the Turki.
History of those times can be clearly seen in the excavations of Sintasht and Arkaim, most
ancient towns of fore-Ural - there are dozens of traces of metallurgy: from smelting furnaces
to copper pieces. It may be that Turkic civilization began at fore-Ural.
But another thing is more likely. Ural was just a starting line while the influence of Altai
played the dominant role. Two and a half thousand years ago Tengri God gave rise to the Iron
Age for Turkic people. A fantastic event! We don't know who was the first metallurgist.
Perhaps his name was Temir. He deserves a monument. He and his great invention - the first
metallurgic furnace in the world!
That would be good to build a museum there. Such museum cannot be created in any other
country of the world. Only in Altai, for Altai was the first. Although people were using iron
formerly: but they didn't smelt iron ore and only burned it out instead, such technology was
invented by the Hitts two thousand years B.C. The Turki invented the fusion! Natural
observation helped them. Metallurgist became one of the most respected occupations since
then. Those keeping its secret were in special favor. Temyrkhanovs, Temirbulatovs, Temirovs
- those tukhums (clans) were regarded as magicians.
Metallurgic secrets were passed from fathers to sons and remained the main secret of the
Kipchaks. There was a belief: a man initiated into metallurgy is marked with divine wisdom,
the great Tengri-khan turned its look towards him. He was prohibited to marry a maid from
another ("non-metallurgical") clan not to blab out the secret in his sleep.
Abundance of metal led the Turki to scientific and technical revolution: discovery of
metallurgic furnace can be compared only with invention of wheel in its importance and
consequences… A great state raised on the "iron" foundation.
The Kipchaks conquered neighboring nations easily. And thus they proved that history of
their victories is the history of iron's victory over bronze. That's where beginnings of nations
migration were hidden!
Sabre, pike and dagger appeared when our ancestors saddled a horse. Nobody in the whole
world managed to do it so smartly and easily - they invented iron bit. And later - chain armor,
pointed helmets…
It wasn't an easy task to prepare the first bridle, the first saddle with stirrups, harness…
However, they managed to do it. A new way of living appeared after horses had been
domesticated - being equally suitable for towns and steppe villages. A horse became a part of
the Turki. Not accidentally, secret wish of the Kipchak was to saddle a horse. All the rest
could wait. A horse is in the first place, which means a matter calling for a feat.
A horse widened open space, led far away, behind the horizon. And besides a new
agriculture appeared with its assistance! Altai land has been farmed with cast-iron shovels
since then, and rich harvest was gathered with iron sickles.
Scientific and research revolution and its findings noticeably increased food supplies which
in its turn led to real population explosion. Iron gave strength to the people. Secret of steppe
culture lay in powerful economics. Certain historians neglect this fact, they want to see
nobody except "nomads" in the Steppe.
Later on the rest of the world simply imitated inventions of the Kipchaks but they didn't
contrive them again.
Such way of life changed even the "wardrobe" of the nation: the Turki invented new clothes
suitable for the riders. Wide trousers, boots, hoods, caftans and many other things appeared in
Altai. Right up to heel for the boot. And the Kipchaks were distinguishable for their clothes.
Their look is recognizable on ancient pictures, in verbal portraits and archeological findings.
One can speak a lot of quality and beauty of Kipchak attires. Such delicate work. For
example, in Pazyryk barrows archeologists found silk, laces, felt, tussore. Nice and practical
clothes ware made thereof. Nobody was able to do the same in Europe…
I urge the opponents to make note of that fact: it turns out that there were not only
settlements in the Great Steppe but the towns inhabited by craftsmen, jewelers, weavers,
seamstresses, carpet-makers, blacksmiths, potters dealing with porcelain and other masters.
People are trying to forget them, though their wares are kept today.
Archeological findings can also tell a lot of other Turkic "calling cards". Log constructions
appeared for the first time in Altai: attics, tower-rooms, huts. They let the people leave the
caves and settle where they pleased. Turkic architecture grew like branches of a tree. Its
features are recognizable, like everything having remained for ages… Unfortunately, it is also
neglected. But it exists!
For example, attics were notable for their easement, they were built octahedral. Octahedron
is a basic geometrical element of Turkic architecture. It provides a maximum area with a
minimal perimeter. Better to say, one gets the shortest wall and the most spacious house.
Materials and fuel economy, that's what "octahedral" tradition in architecture borne.
And the stove inside the house? It is also a Turkic invention worth admiration. Especially in
frosty weather… A hearth providing "long" warmth and fuel economy.
Brick - new building material - was invented especially for the oven. Later they learned to
build palaces and defense walls of bricks in Altai. In case of need brick building was
demolished, and waste bricks were used again… Another kind of economy.
Different nations keep the memory of many Turkic inventions not having any idea of it.
Borrowed items are still named in Turkic. For example, these are money, kopeck, book, cast
iron, damask steel, stove, furnace, brick, hut… Dozens and dozens of words - sausage, for
example. Or yoghurt which became so popular in Europe, it also came from steppe
inhabitants: it means "sour milk" in Turkic.
And ancient so called Russian "attires" - they are also from the Kipchaks. Slavic clothes
were absolutely different - for example Novgorod archeological findings are the evidence of
it. Armyak, epancha, caftan, shushun, fur, klobuk and others - here they are, forgotten echoes
of forgotten Turkic history… Nothing has been lost!
At last, it's time for us to comprehend a simple truth: national culture is not invented by
historians or politicians, it is not abstract but exact and specific in its details… Therefore
national history is not a free narration but a science! Strict and exact, as mathematics or
physics… Unfortunately history is free in Russia, each governor used to write it in his own
way…

The Great Nations Migration

 The time has come and it became too tight in Altai: too many people lived there, land
couldn't feed them all. That was a very hard time - time to look to the future.
Roads led to four parts of the world from Altai. Which road to take? What choice can be
made?

In the I century Altai was the whole world for our forefathers. That was Motherland, and
Southern Siberia mountains, and Baikal (Bai - kul). It was really the whole world where
Turkic culture predominated. Altai was also called "Tengri-tau" ("Divine mountain" in Turkic)
or Eden ("Forefather's land"). From that place the Turki made their first steps into the world,
that was the starting point of our geography.
"Straightly" meant to go East, South - to the right, North - to the left and West - backwards.
Left routes (to the North) were short, they were hidden by taiga and morasses. Not many
were enticed by those routes, they came to Lena river ("Ilin" means "Eastern" in Turkic) and
settled there. Those Turki are presently known as "Yakuts". Routs along Yenesei river
("Enesai" means "Mother river") and Ob ("abe" means "grandmother" in Turkic, i.e.
"Grandmother river") also were not neglected.
To the east of Altai there lay almost impassable Far-Eastern forests and morasses. Nobody
was willing to move there from Altai lands.

There were Southern routes, but they also didn't decide the fate of the nation which felt
cramped. Turkic riders entered India. Thus famous Sun Tsarist Dynasty originated. The Turki
also founded a huge Kushan khanate having united the lands of Middle Asia, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Northern India.
It should be mentioned that I-III centuries and the whole "Indian period" of Turkic history
have been absolutely forgotten by the Turki, but haven't been forgotten in India and Iran. In
these countries Kanishka-khan (78 - 123) with pure soul and stable belief is still deified. He
was the founder of northern branch of Buddhism and worshiped Heavenly God - the Great
Tengri.
Kanishka remained the symbol of the Kipchak and the whole Turkic culture in faraway
India. Turki have been known there for a long time, they are a mysterious nation which
unexpectedly appeared from the North and unexpectedly disappeared. But it disappeared
having left archeological traces - sculptures, relief and other works of art as well as temples
and cloisters. And literary legends of the Nags - people worshipping snakes. Who knows,
maybe legendary Aryans are also from Altai?
In the time of Kanishka tsar (however, Khan Erke or Kanerka - as his name was minted on
coins - would be correct) Altai lived for Kushan (Kashmir) - thousands of tengrian-palmers
came there from the North in order to bow to saint places founded by Kanishka.
That was the time when the Turki provided their own - new for Buddhists! - ceremony of
Tengri-khan - Heavenly God worship. This fact is recorded in Buddhist and Indian history.
People remember and honor those Turki until now in the East keeping the legends of their
sacred Shambhala country (Shambkala) ( Shambkala ("sacred fortress" in Turkic) is
sometimes pronounced as Shambala and connected with The Himalayas. Such version gives
rise to many questions because in the legends the matter concerns not The Himalayas well
known in India but the country located far in the North. Altai is located far away in the North
from India, it was considered a spiritual center of the East for a long time, the same as The
Himalayas. Besides, they smelted iron and made crosses thereof in Altai while ancient traces
of ferrous metallurgy haven't been found in Tibet.), which lay far in the North and where saint
people lived… That's about the Turki again! Sacred Shambkala country was located in Altai
mountains where there are seven snowy tops and where divine iron cross - world vadzhra - is
kept… It is still the same. But the Turki are the only ones who don't remember it.
 Roads beaten to India two thousand years ago haven't become overgrown with grass. Biysk
route is still in use. But it became shorter and these are not palmers who use it. Another
ancient road to Tibet - Nerchinsk route - also remains intact…

It is only to the West from Altai where beaten roads were absent for a long time. Mountain-
dwellers' psychology was one of the reasons of it: people were afraid of new steppe and
searched for the routes only in familiar mountains.
They left for the steppe only at worst. A conflict of beliefs occurred in Altai two and a half
thousand years ago: paganism was changed by religion. Tengrianity became widespread. But
Heavenly God wasn't accepted by everybody, the dissidents departed. They left for the steppe,
they were called "Scythians" (it comes from "scytians", i.e. "wanderer", apparently). Official
Scythian history is interpreted otherwise Russian academic science persistently considers the
Scythians among Iranian nations not providing any written monuments. They only refer to
Herodotus emphatically ignoring conflicting archeological findings. However study of
Scythian monuments shows that so-called "unknown writings" thereon, taken for intricate
ornamental patterns sometimes, are nothing but runic Turkic writings. Certain words and
phrases in ancient Turkic language can be clearly read. That (as well as customs of steppe
people described by Herodotus) allows to contend that Scythians were the Turki and not
Iranians who had another written language and culture). But in Black Sea steppe and in Altai
mountains "Scythian" archeological monuments look absolutely the same. What's the
difference between Scythians and the Turki? There is no any.

And nevertheless the Scythians are "ownerless" - asserts Russian science forgetting
Karamzin's admonition: "Nations don't fall from the moon and don't disappear without a
trace…" And what if Scythians have remained? What if they are called "Chuvashes" today?
This Turkic nation is too strange. They live in the center of Kipchak world but not together
with it. They have always stood aside.
Lately spiritual culture of the Chuvashes who are called Christians today was absolutely
different, non-Christian. People haven't forgotten it. It strangely reminds of ancient Turkic
culture in Altai: Turkic beliefs have no analogues. The Chuvash language is peculiar, it is
melodious, tuneful and very ancient, not every Turki can understand it… The Chuvashes are a
living page of Turkic history, unfortunately, unread by world science as yet.
Another part of Scythians remained in Ukraine, apparently. They've forgotten native
language but barely perceptible details of their life remind of distant part of the nation. For
example, original ornamental patterns of national embroidery are the same as Chuvash. They
bear important information which is hereinafter discussed. Or funeral ceremonies… In a
word, "Scythian" pages are full of Turkic mysteries.
But following Altai pages are easily read: the Great Nations Migration of II - V centuries
has clearly written them. Destiny opened the only way to the future for overpeopled Altai -
through the steppe. There simply were no other ways. Only steppe remained almost unsettled
territory being able to accept numerous people.
But it took decades of incredible efforts and hard work before mountain-dwellers were able
to live in steppe. Surrounded by environment new for them, where everything was not the
same as in familiar mountains! It is an extremely important geographic prerequisite being the
key to understanding of the whole Turkic history.
Lack of forest, for instance, forced to search for new building materials. Climate compelled
invention of dwellings of new type and creation of other forms of life. There were many
things to think about - water, fuel, pastures, storage of supplies. Steppe could only accept
strong, smart and hard-working nation. Formerly people rarely settled there for steppe life is
too hard and nature is unfriendly and specific there.
 However, certain historians who've never seen the steppe "send" there different nations
easily removing them for thousands of kilometers. They don't even mind that an unprepared
person won't be able to do anything in the steppe - he will definitely perish.
One couldn't pass a hundred kilometers there without a horse. Firstly, footwear will become
worn out. Secondly, not being able to orient oneself and having no skills of steppe life one
will never survive there: it is a natural zone of the Earth which is one of the hardest for a man.
It is simpler even in the desert - at least there's no snow there and frosts never occur.
But our historians "moved" entire nations to the steppe (with carts and cattle). Those
armchair scientists have no idea of the fact that steppe means inclement winter with
unbearable blizzards; that steppe also means hot summer with sizzling hot winds; that our
steppe means total absence of people and reference points. Thus it appeared before the Turki,
frightening them.

Dozens of years passed before the Kipchaks managed to settle down there and called it
"Our steppe". And they took their way to the West through the steppe.

Great Nations Migration is a grand event. What was it like? It is a mistake to consider it a
chaotic movement of unorganized crowd. "Nomad civilizations" theory, according to which
people wandered through the steppe in search of pastures for cattle, is too primitive. It doesn't
take reality into account. And it is absolutely unsuitable for the Turki with their high culture.
Life was rather more complicated.
Perhaps nations were prompted for migration by invention of a new - land! - mean of
transport. Carts, drays and huts on the wheels… Maybe everything started otherwise - not
with inventions. We will never know what actually happened: what was at first and what
happened next. Another thing is clear: it was neither a crowd, neither file of people nor a
horde of nomads that moved to the West in II century.
Due to archeological findings it is known that new settlements, towns and villages were
founded in steppe, roads and crossings were built… Territory developing was taking place -
an unhurried and laborious work. Settlement doesn't mean "Hun raids" as many assert. And
not even a cavalry charge. The Turki were getting deeper into the steppe by forty kilometers a
year (!) on average. A distance of one horse march, however, it wasn't the same every year.
And that is natural. Their way from Altai to Atlantic Ocean lasted for two and a half centuries.

It hung heavy for two and a half centuries. People came to a new place, settled it and
thereafter their elder children moved forward in order to start it over again. By tradition
younger children stayed with their parents (by the way, people have been keeping this ancient
tradition until now).
The Great Nations Migration, whatever is said, was a well thought-out movement forward.
It couldn't have started all of a sudden. They were preparing it for seven centuries! From the
moment of invention of metallurgic furnace by the Turki. The Great Steppe wasn't crossed by
the roads and irrigative channels at once. Postal communication (pits) wasn't established
immediately. Dozens of years passed in working and searching for right solutions… Until at
least a country between seven rivers appeared in the Steppe which became the prototype of
Shambkala, as well as other oases in the steppe. (Academician A.H. Margulan wasn't
permitted to explore them).
They didn't appear as if by magic. They were built by the people who knew how to build
and what to build.
Of course it doesn't fit in "wild nomads" theory… But one can still find remains of that
Turkic civilization in the Great Steppe. Besides, there are Chinese, Persian, Arab chronicles
where it is mentioned.
 Two thousand years ago a wonderful country with amazing culture arose to the West of
Altai. It was quickly turning into the center of world spiritual life. That is also an established
fact of world history.
People came to study there!.. A Jew named Jesuah was among the first newcomers,
apparently. His memories of inevitable arrival of the riders - God's messengers - are reflected
in the Revelation, the most ancient book of Christianity. Later the name "Jesuah" turned into
"Jesus Christ"… He couldn't have met mounted troops and clergy worshipping the Heavenly
God anywhere except for Altai.

The Kipchaks yielded to nobody in spiritual, material or military activity. That is witnessed
not only by ancient chronicles of the East but also by legends and narratives of various
nations. A legend called "Aktash", for example, tells of a legendary Aktash-khan who was the
first among the Turki who came to Volga and "conquered all the lands from Idel to the
Caucasus". Neighbors sought for alliance with him… Also there are other stories in which
light is shed on the past.
But can any Turki call the names of great figures of that time today? Where can one read of
their actions and campaigns?!
Information of the Turkic country is available in famous Encyclopedia Britannica. But
Europe is interested in Turkic (Kipchak) question as much as Eurocentric idea permits. It sees
the whole world as an addition to Europe.
Thus we don't know what Balamir-khan has done. How did Kharaton tsar rise? How was
wide Donat immortalized? There's not a single line about them in "nomad" monographs.
It seems the authors are even afraid to suppose that Kipchak tsars - Balamir, Kharaton,
Donat - took steppe inhabitants out to Europe; that Byzantine and Rome rulers were declined
before the Turki. The truth of Attila - the greatest of all great Turki, the proud of our nation -
also hasn't been told.

Attila completed the Great Migration of the Turki: Europe was groveling at his feet; it paid
a levy… But today those events are described otherwise. The Turki don't know their history
and they get just what's been left for them.
It was neither Roman host nor united European army that defeated Attila - he was defeated
by his own greatness. That's a heavy burden. It crushed Attila, he deprived his nation of
peace! After his death one hundred eighty four (!) sons were left, the girls were nor taken into
account. Could the pretenders to the throne keep still having Attila's blood in their veins?
Certainly not. Cruel internal wars commenced… The Turki were fighting with themselves.
Until slave's collar was put on their necks.
The nation was split.
Thus, from those splinters, the history of the Burgundies, Savoyes, Croats, Bavarians,
Saxons, Catalans, Serbs, Czechs, Bulgarians and other "small nations" of Europe started,
while in many European historians' opinions those nations all of sudden appeared out of
nothing… As if by magic.
After Attila the Great Steppe was divided into hostile chaganats, uluses and clans…
Everybody was fighting with everybody. Internal wars never subsided. They've been lasting
until now. Every new generation was born and departed with hostility against their fellow
creatures.

Thus the brothers argued between each other,

And they washed up their swords,
And they slashed each other to death,
And, slashing, they swore and cursed,
 And one brother called another a cheat,
And finally all to a man passed away…

And their grandsons keep on fighting until now,

For the truth
On their way to a total destruction.

These are the words by Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoi, a Russian poet. His family tree,
blazonry and his poems in which he deeply and pathetically reproduced ancient steppe
legends witness of his Turkic origin.

Our Spiritual Wealth

Much has was written about Huns, i.e. the Kipchaks, as though they swept across Europe
and disappeared… And how did those wild hordes appeared? Who brought them up, who
gave them clothes, who fed them? Who taught them military art, who armed them at last?
Considerable material expenses were required.
The strongest forces in the world couldn't appear all of a sudden! "Who doesn't raise colt
will never ride a horse" - as Turkic proverb says. The Kipchaks were raising "their colt" for
seven hundred years and then they became the riders who stirred up the world… A lot of
questions were to be put in order to disclose two thousand-years-old events.

Having become interested in Altai geology I understood why new metallurgic technology
appeared there: ore here is very rich in iron and useful admixtures… Then my attention was
attracted by the words "Bagatur-Tendri" which remained only in Chinese chronicles. That was
the name the Turki have given to Heavenly God who had disclosed the secrets of iron two and
a half thousand years ago.
And another question occurred: what do we know of ancient Turkic spiritual culture?
People started to put together the crumbs of information relating to Tengri-khan.
Cult of a new God was connected with iron, apparently. But why was it so? It wasn't by
accident that in the past iron was called a "heavenly metal"… Wasn't this cult "created" due to
meteorites? Heavenly stones acquainted people with "metal of the sky"! Then a cult of
Blacksmith-God appeared which developed into belief of people acquainted with force of
heavenly metal… Religion could have started only from concreteness! Belief in Heavenly
God, in his retributive protective iron sword.
At first the Turki used to be the pagans. But new God changed them. Tengri became the
heart of Turkic spiritual culture. The Most High made the nation invincible.
Altai, which has granted the spirit of Heavenly God to the Turki, is the sacred place of
Turkic nation! Ancestors deified the Motherland calling it heaven on earth. That acute feeling
remained in blood of the Kipchaks. Nostalgia is a Turkic disease. It appeared when there was
no Turkic language and speech was conceived. Those days people looked at Altai tops with
delight and couldn't exist without them.
Ancient Turki worshipped Uch-Sumer, the mountain of three tops. Legends have been
composed about it. The center of the world! Praying and celebrations were performed there…
Natives haven't been hunting and speaking loudly near that mountain until now - that's a holy
place. It is indicative that in Buddhist mythology Sumeru mountain is a universal
cosmogonical symbol.
Later on people began to worship other Altai tops - Khan-Tengri, Borus… They trusted
ritual drawings and sacred texts to those holy mountains. Words and shapes on stone merged
together and became a spiritual tradition for centuries. Hence solemnity of prayers and
decoration of temples… Hence books and chronicles illustrations…
But Kailasa mountain in Tibet was worshipped especially. It was the place of pilgrimage for
thousands people. According to a legend, Tengri-khan used to come down there, to Kailasa.
Contours of sacred Kailasa and Uch-Sumer tremulously delighted people who believed in
Heavenly God. Those mountains prompted an idea of temple architecture to the Turki,
apparently… Its simplicity and elegancy really amaze. These are the links of a single chain
which originated in Altai.
Traditions of mountains worship haven't been forgotten in the Steppe, that's for sure; people
created the "copies" of sacred mountains on the plains. At first they built the barrows -
handmade mounds, they gathered for a prayer near them. Afterwards temple became the
symbol of a sacred mountain. But they still did their prayers near the temple, on a special
ground… In the Steppe everything was as formerly in Altai: traditions were kept and
enriched.
The Kipchaks, keeping Heavenly God in their souls, embodied it on the stones. That was a
reminder of the God, it cleansed the soul and inclined to contact with the Creator. Hence
"icon" or "aicone" appeared… Profundity and freedom of thought of our ancestors are
striking, as a matter of fact, the whole world was a temple for them covered with a dome of
Eternal Blue Sky - Tengri.
And the deeper the Turki perceived the shape of Tengri-khan, the more they turned to it:
"God", "Alla", "Khodai", "Lord" - they used to call to the Most High… Every word had its
meaning. Later those Turkic words, a bit modified, became a part of lexicon of other religions
and nations.

I was discovering the Motherland slowly - it was forgotten and profaned. But still it was
mine!.. And thus I loved it more and more. I remember how I was impressed by the lines by
Ivan Alexeevich Bunin. I recognized myself and all of us in his verses.

They sneer at themselves,

O, Motherland, they reprobate you
With your simplicity and
Squalid look of black huts…

Thus a calm and impudent son

Is ashamed of his mother -
Who's tired, shy and mournful -
Among his city friends,

He looks with a pitiful smile

At the one who's dragged herself for hundreds miles
And kept the last penny
For their date.

Unfortunately, we've been "looking at the Steppe with a pitiful smile" for ages, without an
understanding that it is our Great Motherland. We didn't know much about it, so we believed
all the lies and turned aside from its "last penny"… I want the changes to come, I'm waiting
for them and I write all my books for their sake: let my nation turn into invigorative koumiss
out of tasteless milk again. Let the Pride awaken in them.

Turkic roots are stretching from the depth of thousands years. Fragments of ancient Turkic
literary works remained. Their language arouses a delight due to its profundity and vividness.
And where are the books themselves? They've disappeared mysteriously. But their return is
inevitable. For example, archives of Armenia and Georgia contain a lot of valuable material.
There are ancient volumes written with Armenian script, but in Turkic language.

Something must have remained in India, Tibet, Iran - those countries were contacting with
the Great Steppe for a long while. For instance, ancient Turkic texts written in Brahmi are
known to science. Buddhists keep them as sacred relics.
In Europe there are other archives that will delight any scientists studying Turkic culture:
for example, people remembered Turkic runes in Balkan Mountains until XIX centuries.
Monks used them in cryptography.
Kipchaks traditions in Russian culture haven't been studied yet. And they are rather intense.
One can remember the lines by Derzhavin: "Tatar songs from hiding, as a beam, I'll keep for
posterity" (marked by me - M.A.).

For example, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin used to retell Turkic tales: his kingdom of
Saltan-Tsar and Buyan-Island have an exact geography - Kazan khanate. As well as the cove -
it is a reference to Crimea… Creative work of Pushkin, as we see, is deeply rooted. Those
roots are two thousand years old. Turkic poetry existed at that time, it was translated by
Pushkin, and nowadays it delights everybody.
Turkic traditions are typical for creative activity of Derzhavin, Aksakov, Gogol, Turgenev,
Tyutchev, Bunin, Nabokov, Bulgakov and other classics whose forefathers came out of the
Great Steppe. This is an absolutely clear page of literary criticism.

European Kipchaks

A map is an important historical document containing information as a thick book does. But
one must be able to read it: the Grate Nations Migration left its trace on the map. At that times
- in II - V centuries - a great steppe country - Desht-I-Kipchak appeared with its settlements,
towns, villages, road stations.
Turkic culture was dominative from Baikal to the Alps - over the whole steppe zone. Those
days Europe "originated" in Siberia! Centuries passed, it seems everything's disappeared.
But… the map keeps what people don't remember.
Nikolai Rerich noticed that:

We don't know. But they know.

The stones know. Even the trees know.
And remember.
Remember, who gave names to mountains and rivers.
Who built former towns.
Who gave names to immemorial countries.
Words mysterious to us.
They are all full of sense.

Let's take the borders of Desht-I-Kipchak. They are safe! E.M. Murzaev, a prominent
toponymycist, asserts: in Russian the word "barrow" used to mean "boarder" or "boundary"
formerly. Why? Because barrows were a distinctive feature of Turkic lands. And over the
barrows lay foreign lands.
In the North the border of Desht-I-Kipchak was fixed by Moskva-river: the Northern bank
belonged to the Finns and Ugros, the Southern belonged to the Turkish (Evidently, an
explanation is necessary. For example, in XII century the border didn't constitute a strict line,
as today. That was a vast zone (zone of communication, exchange and peace) where
neighbors' interests were represented equally. These were Moskva-river, Oka and contiguous
lands before the Slavs came there, that's why Turkic memorials adjoin Ugro-Finnic ones. For
example, at first Nizhni Novgorod had a Turkic name - Bulgar - and was famous for its fairs
for ages. European and Persian merchants often visited Bulgarian fairy.). Within Moscow
several barrow groups are known, most of which are located on the Southern (right) bank.
They also remained in former "Turkic" Moscow region - toponymy shows it. For example -
Kolomenskoe, its ancient name Kolloma means "protection, security" in Turkic. Kapotnya
means "High Settlement" (or "High Grass"), Kuntsevo means "Shelter" or "Coaching inn"…
It is evident that those words are not of Slavic origin… But there are no barrows to the North
of Moskva-river - another nation with another culture lived there, toponymy has other roots
which are not Slavic either.
In distant south Turkic country reached Iran, which is witnessed by barrows again. Border
remained practically unchanged, the Turki still live there, but they are called Iranian
Azerbaijanians.
Between the northern and southern borders of Desht-I-Kipchak one can discover thousands
Turkic place-names - a real treasury for toponymy! For example - opposite Moscow Kremlin,
on the right bank, Balchug is located. There is no such a word in Russian, but in Turkic it
means "morass", "mud". A real Turkic place-name.
There are plenty of similar examples. As a rule, names of many ancient towns of steppe
Russia have Turkic roots: Orel - "sloping road", Tula - "full", Bryansk (Birinchi, Bryanechsk)
- "the first", "the main", Saratov (Sarytau) - "yellow mountain", Simbirsk (Simbir) - "lonely
grave"… Kashira, Kolomna, Kaluga, Voronezh, Penza, Chelyabinsk, Kurgan… Lots different
names, and each reminds forgetful Kipchaks of their Motherland.
Maps retained the traces of aggressive wars of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the First. They
show how Russia expanded at the cost of its neighbors. Map keeps a shady history which
rewritten chronicles endeavor to rehabilitate. And you realize that it wasn't by accident that
Kipenzai, a Turkic town, which was marked on European maps, became Russian Penza,
Shapashkar became Cheboksary, Buruninezh became Voronezh, Sarytau became Saratov,
Chelyaba became Chelyabinsk…

In the time of Attila lands lying faraway from Altai were called "Alman" which means
"distant" in Turkic. Hence "Allemande" name - modern Germany. Many "German tribes"
were blue-eyed, broad-faced, with an obvious Kipchak appearance, and they spoke Turkic
which is proved by their runic writing, ancient customs and national memory.
The same can be said of part of population of France and Italy, England and Austria,
Yugoslavia and Czechia. Judging by the archives, almost until the end of XVI century Turkic
was spoken there. To tell the truth, during the Inquisition Western Church performed a "great
cleansing" of the archives but fortunately certain documents remained intact. They allow to
assert an unusual thing - the Turki lived in Central Europe… And the Turki remained there
having forgotten themselves…
It is clear that Turkic place-names remained on European maps. History of certain countries
and nations is read according to them rather clearly.
Here is the route of Burgund family. Burgund Ulus came to Europe from the Islands of
Baikal mountain ridge - thus an eastern name "Burgund" appeared. After that they lived in
near-Caspian steppes and later part of them settled in Caucasian foothills - in Karachai, where
Burgund settlement is located. And in 435 an ulus headed by Attila's father reached modern
France and founded Burgundy - Burgun-jurt… French Burgunds retained dishes of Turkic
national cookery, certain details of garments and utensils, traditions and customs also haven't
been forgotten. But native language has been lost.
 We can also follow the traces of Savoy ulus. That place-name is also a point on the line on
the map which originates in Altai… It also concurs with the Great Migration. And the word
"tering" may serve as a compass for a historical travel of that kind.
"Tering" means "something plentiful" in Turkic. For example, they used to call a vast,
fertile valley that way. One can come across that place-name from Balhash (that lake was
formerly called Tering-Kul) to Central Europe. Is it a coincidence? Certainly not. According
to Western European literature, Terings (Tyurings), Burgunds and other "German tribes" were
Attila's companions. They were all excellent riders and they carried war under banners with
crosses… Thus the lines about the Terings, of their skills in horse breeding, written by a
historian studying Jordan don't seem that strange… Native Europeans didn't breed horses at
that time. And they didn't drink koumiss while the Turki were very fond of it.

Let's have a look at the nap of Danube - a great deal of Kipchak names. By the way, in
Turkic the word "Balkans" means "chain of mountains covered with forest". One of
Azerbaijan regions has the same name; marvelous mountains covered with forests are situated
there.
They say Montenegrins are nicknamed "Karataevtsians" in the Balkans. Why is
it so? One cannot answer not knowing Turkic language. But the answer is simple. "Kara"
means "black", "tau" means "mountains". It turns out that "Montenegrins" and
"Karataevtsians" mean the same.
The number of Turkic place-names on the map of Eurasia is a little less than the number of
stars in the sky. But still it is hard to read about them. To tell the truth, several books were
issued which related to that matter. But they were issued abroad. A narrow circle of scientists
is in the know. One of them is Eduard Makarovich Murzaev, a famous geographer. He wrote
that book called "Turkic Place-Names", possibly, the most important book in his life… The
book was edited only in five hundred copies which was a kind of mockery.
The borders of the Great Steppe can be also vividly seen in England. They remind of
Anglo-Saxon campaigns there which were headed by the Turki in V-VI centuries (Saki or
Saxon ulus?).

Having defeated the aboriginals, the Kipchaks founded their "islander" state and built a city
called Kent, which gave the name to a jurt which, in its turn, became a kingdom later. "Kent"
means "fortress made of stone" in Turkic. That was a bridgehead for movement into the heart
of islands. On the opposite side, on the continent over the channel, they built a town called
Calais ("Kala" is also "fortress" in Turkic, but not made out of stone and having a wall); and
as far as we know Anglo-Saxon campaigns started there and that was the place where a
crossing over Straight of Dover was prepared. The map confirms this information.
But the most interesting thing, according to toponymy, lies on the surface. "Eng" means
"extract" in an ancient Turkic word-combination. Doesn't the word "England" originate from
"Extracted land"?.. A controversial point, isn't it? Maybe. But the islands were called Albion
until the Turki came there!
There's another fact - at first for reflection, and then for a dispute - in England Church
didn't recognize the Pope, only George the Great managed to gain the confidence. Englishmen
followed traditions only of Eastern ceremonies. Why? How did they appear on the islands?
They were called Arians, why? The first abbot had a Turkic name "Aidan" (which means
"light"), he taught the aboriginals to believe in Heavenly God. Pastor made his way through
the islands with a translator. One can wonder again: why?
Besides, how did barrows which have become a point of interest long ago, appear in
faraway England? Similar barrows are located in other lands of the Great Steppe. But there
are none in Scotland… And do the Englishmen know that polo, their favorite game (with
sticks on the horses), appeared in Altai before the Great Nations Migration? They played not
with a wooden ball, but with their enemy's head covered into a leather sack. The Turki haven't
forgotten that game, as well as many others.
Kipchak blood didn't cool down in veins of certain Englishmen. Appearance and behavior
disclose their roots… It seems English Kipchaks have forgotten the proverb used by their
ancestors long before Anglo-Saxon campaigns: "Don't wear foreign pants". One can't be
hidden in them.
The Kipchaks as though left the history having conquered half of the world. After each
significant internal war uluses left Desht-I-Kipchak one after another either turning into a
"new" nation or assimilating with other ones. The Turki melted away as snow in the sun.

Neither earth nor see have opened wide,

Pestilence and infections haven't weakened us, so who and why -
O, my Turkic nation, - give me an answer, who and why has
Brought your law and power to ruins?

You, by yourself, in front of your land,

In front of the Chagan which wished to serve you,
In front of yourself - you've sinned a sin:
You've chosen Evil as a mortal lot.

For there was no armored one

Who's come to defeat you, take you and brake you up!
For there was no one whose sward was sharper than yours,
To conquer you, make you bow down and raze you to the ground!
O my Turkic nation…

Anatoli Prelovskiy, a poet, translated the posthumous message of Kyul-Tegin, a Turkic

leader, in this way. It seems it was yesterday when the text was struck in ancient runes on the
stone, while it is more than a thousand years old.
Why, did Evil really enter into us?.. No! Evil isn't everlasting. A word from enemy's mouth

was poisonous for the Kipchaks, so let the true word be their medicine.

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

Appendix

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 Tatar-Mongols 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-I-Kipchak, 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 Moskva-river!
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 the

se 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…
Miniatures 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…
History 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 happened 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 Shan
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 that 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-I-Kipchak.
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
advance-guard 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-to-day 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 store-rooms, 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 n

ewcomers "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 provides 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-for-word).). 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, Wisdom, you scare a fool and an ignoramus.

O, Wisdom, you chasten the careless and the idle.
 O, Wisdom, you give joy to the laid-back.
O, Wisdom, you 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 half-empty. 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, Tur

kic 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 others…But 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 Right 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 Roman 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 chronicles…Everything seems to be in its right place,
everything is known, everything 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 have 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 Christianity… 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
Constantinople… 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 part 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 tujun-maqi? 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)
(bar- aja? ~ 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 little-known 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-
ari- consisting 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 broad-faced. 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 Greek

s; 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
stir 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…
There 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
advantages 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 that 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
that 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 their 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-I-Kipchak 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 self-assured 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 who 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
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.
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 Mongolian 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
uchyuze-dzer: 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 Chingis-Khan! 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 from 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,
Arslan-Murza-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,
Golenischev-Kutuzovs, 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 Europeans,
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-I-Kipchak. 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
Prince 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 remained 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, Tugurkan-Khan 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
assimilated 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.
Fletcher J. About the Russian State… SPb., 1906.

Appendix
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 of 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 those 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
icon-painting 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, thirty-six 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
suppositions 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
propitiate… 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 rebellion 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 themselves, 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 T

urkic 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 followers 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 keeps 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-I-Kipchak. 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 Syrchan-Khan 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 Amaras".
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
"Tengri-Khan", "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 Sciences. № 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 //
Byzantium-Studying 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 Sai
nt 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 long-
awaited 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.

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

Appendix

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