Food of Ra – Chronology – All from the beginning…. About our Motherland - Great Tartary Emperors of Tartary

You shouldn't argue, I'm a numismatist, I know what I'm talking about. Although, of course, the quantity could have been mixed up, but it didn’t seem to be mixed up, it’s just that everything wasn’t so simple there (the hryvnias were different), the story is always like that.

Here, read, I found it especially for you:

Written monuments have preserved the ancient Russian names of metal coins - kuna and nogata and the names of smaller payment units equal to half a kuna - rezana, vereveritsa, whose relationship to the kuna is defined differently, etc. Kuna - coin. The kuna was the dirham, and the denarius that replaced it, and the Russian silver coin, and this cannot surprise us, since the transition to a new weight and even type of payment unit does not at all require the abandonment of the usual name. Probably, ancient Slavs For the first time, the Roman denarius was called cuna, just as the tribes of Northern Europe, on the basis of the circulation of the Roman denarius, had a consonant name for the coin coin, derived from the Latin cuneus - forged. Displacing the term “silver”, the word kuna became entrenched in Slavic languages ​​for a long time. general meaning"money" as well as the latter came from the later name of the coin.

The name nogata, derived from the Arabic “nagd” (good, choice coin), originally arose in connection with the need to distinguish more benign dirhams from the worse ones circulating next to them. Rezana and vereveritsa are considered as different parts (trimmings) of kuna; but in a number of cases, the veritel can also be the skin of a squirrel.

Hryvnia. During the circulation of foreign coins, the oldest Russian monetary concept, the hryvnia, was formed, which went through a very complex path of development and change and has survived to this day in the popular name of the small nickel coin, the grivna.

The concept of "hryvnia" is believed to have originally been associated with a neck hoop made of precious metal, well known in the material culture of the Slavs and their neighbors. Although, it is quite difficult to explain the origin of this term. But, in the translated monuments of the Church Slavonic language, the hryvnia was the name given to a metal neck decoration - a necklace worn by men and women. It is clear that this etymological meaning of the word “hryvnia” is an adjective from “mane” = “neck”.

Then it acquired a new weight value, corresponding to a certain amount (weight) of silver (hryvnia of silver); since this quantity could be composed of a known number of identical coins, a piece count, a number, became next to the weight. Hryvnia, consisting of coins (hryvnia kun), is a certain number of coins.

The silver hryvnia (weight) and the kun hryvnia (counting) became payment and monetary concepts: the first in the 11th century. and later payment bars of different types began to correspond, which had already received a well-defined shape and stable weight.

Hryvnia kun. At the beginning of its existence, the hryvnia, in all likelihood, was a single concept in terms of weight for silver in general and for coins in particular. However, then its complication and division began, due both to changes in the weight of foreign coins coming to Rus', and to the evolution of the hryvnia itself as a unit of weight. The weight comes off the number; in the language of the Ancient Acts, “old” and “new” hryvnias appear, as well as “old” and “new” kunas. The weight difference between the Kyiv and Novgorod hryvnias is apparently a very ancient, and perhaps primordial, phenomenon.

As for the ratio of the hryvnia of silver and the hryvnia to the kun, the written monuments testify, as one might think, not to the initial ratio that existed, perhaps, back in Roman times, but to those ratios that were formed in the process of the evolution of the hryvnia, under the influence of changes in weight of components in different times coin circulation fund of kun coins. A hryvnia of silver became equal in value to several hryvnia kunas. So, for the 12th century. it was established to be equal to four hryvnia kun; the hryvnia kun itself corresponded to a certain, but not constant number of payment units: 20 nogat in the 11th and 12th centuries. and 25 kunam or 50 rezan only in the 11th century, but already 50 kunam in the 12th century. Thus, over the course of a century, one unit of the system remained unchanged as part of the hryvnia kun, while the other was halved.

The fragmentation of the ancient Russian state interrupted the short-term minting of Russian coins. Money turnover in Rus' for a long time it was served in the north by the Western European denarius and everywhere by silver in hryvnia ingots, and the latter gradually occupied an increasing place, up to the complete displacement, or rather, absorption of coins, which served mainly as raw materials and measure for casting early ingots . Replenishment of the stock of circulating coins in the country ceased at the beginning of the 12th century. in connection with the widespread cessation in the West of the minting of the denarius familiar to Rus'. There, of course, new types of coins replaced it, but in Rus' they no longer received any recognition.

Let's continue about Tartary. There is an interesting document: Historical information about Tartaria and family tree Rulers of Tartary. France, 1719. Source: “Atlas Historique, ou Nouvelle Introduction à l"Histoire”. Surprisingly, there is no translation of the text to the left and right of the map anywhere. But there is a kind Russian girl Anna, who lives in France and kindly translated all the inscriptions.

Tartary, which until then had been a very little-studied country, is presented here exactly along natural boundaries for both Geographers and Chronologists. We have this map, thanks to the efforts of the famous M. Witsen, who copied it exactly; the famous 400-league Wall that separates Tartaria from China did not prevent the Tatars from entering China. capture it and dominate there, as happened in 1645. Since then, there have been many autonomies in Tartary, which have neither a name nor an exact location.
In the center of this vast country there are free peoples who have absolutely no fixed habitat, but who live in villages on carts and pitch tents.
These powerful tribes are located in groups called Hordes.
There are various kingdoms contained within Tartary and it is said that over a thousand years ago the art of printing was discovered in the Kingdom of Tangat.

It is not easy to pinpoint the exact date when Tartary headed all the countries located between Tanais (Don River) and Borysthenes (Dnieper River), which is called Little Tartaria.
But as for China, the war that Tartatia waged with this country began 2341 years before the 1st Era (BC)

According to Pierre Martin, in 1655 it was already 4,000 years since Tartaria continuously waged war with China.
In 1280, the Tartars finally became rulers of China and the family (possibly a dynasty)* of Iwen began their reign, which lasted 89 years.
In 1369, the Tartars were expelled from China and rule passed to the Independent Nathon and the Mim dynasty.
In 1645, the Tartars made their commander-in-chief King Kinchi, also called the Great Khan, who again captured China. And today, it is the descendants of the Prince of Tartary who rule in China.

Like this. Agree, a complete coincidence with the official history of the conquest of China. At school they don’t say anything about a country that has been at war with China for 4,000 years. Maybe this is why the first emperor of the Qin dynasty ordered the burning of all ancient manuscripts in China in 213 BC. What were you afraid of? Please note that the family tree begins with ChingizKan. But official history says that he was born 400 years earlier than these events. So they are telling us about the wrong Genghis Khan?

LEARNED THE TRUTH MYSELF — SHARE WITH A FRIEND!

According to the multi-volume fundamental encyclopedic publication "Britannica", published since 1768, on the territory modern Russia in the 18th century there were two states: small - Muscovy with its capital in the city of Moscow, and then in St. Petersburg (the area of ​​this state was 1,103,485 sq. miles) and large - Grand Tartaria with its capital in Tobolsk (the area of ​​this state was 3,050,000 sq. miles).

The authenticity of this information is confirmed by geographical maps of that time, containing the corresponding geographical names.

It is noteworthy that according to the maps of I684, Ukraine was then Vkraina and was part of Poland, and Moldavia, together with the Crimean peninsula and the lands north of it, were a single territory called Little Tartary.

But the most curious thing is not this, but the fact that the vaunted European Union, which then included Muscovy, having enlisted its support, in the 18th century started a redistribution of property, for which the united troops of the then NATO attacked the Siberian-Far Eastern lands of Grand Tartaria and in the course of long bloody battles conquered it. After that historical event actually started recent history peace. The last king of Great Tartaria was someone whom we now know as Emelyan Pugachev. After the redistribution of state property of Great Tartary and a thorough census of world history, this big war for the conquest of the largest state on the planet began to be called in all new books nothing more than "suppression of the uprising of Emelyan Pugachev".

In this regard, it is useful to understand several facts:

1. Despite the presence of ancient maps indicating the boundaries of Great Tartary, for 250 years now official historians around the world have been bashfully silent that such a state even existed!!! However, ancient books and maps prove that it was!

2. The Tsar of Great Tartary, Emelyan Pugachev, is presented to us as the leader of the rebellious peasants and Cossacks, who was defeated not by the united troops of the coalition, which at that time included the European Union and the United States (which was a British colony until 1776), but exclusively by the regular troops of Romanov’s Muscovy led by commander Alexander Suvorov. At the same time, all information about the “rebel” Pugachev was carefully distorted, and his trial took place not just anywhere, but in Moscow in the Throne Hall of the Kremlin Palace!!! If Emelyan Pugachev really was a simple Cossack, an impostor, the leader of some gang, then would he really be tried as a tsar in the famous Throne Hall of the Kremlin? - modern Russian historians ask.

3. According to the chronicle of the times of Emelyan Pugachev, the New Testament of Jesus Christ was in use in Great Tartary. The Jews were considered at that time nothing more than trash - very bad people. After the fall of Great Tartary and the conquest of the peoples inhabiting it, not only the history of this state was rewritten, but, at the same time, a rewritten religion was imposed on the conquered peoples - the books of the Jewish Old Testament were added to the New Testament of Jesus Christ, and they were placed at the forefront .

Reference: In 1650-1660, in Muscovy under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (father of Peter the Great), the so-called “schism of the church” occurred. The reason for the split of the believing people into two parts (Old Believers and Nikonians) was the smuggling of Jewish religious books at the level of the state faith. In 1663 the so-called Moscow Bible. In it, the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) was added to the New Testament, while the New Testament was perceived as a “continuation” of the Old Testament. “The Old Believers accused the religious reformer Nikon of allowing the Jews to translate the holy books, and the Nikonians accused the Old Believers of allowing the Jews to conduct worship... Both sides considered the council of 1666-1667 "Jewish congregation", and in the official resolution the council accused its opponents of being victims of “false Jewish words”... Rumors circulated everywhere that state power had been given to “cursed Jewish rulers”, and the Tsar entered into a pernicious “Western” marriage, intoxicated by the love potions of doctors -Jews." Although the Moscow Bible appeared, it was not accepted by society. The people doubted the correctness of the new books and perceived their introduction as an attempt to enslave the country. The churches continued to use the Slavic versions of the New Testament, the Apostle and the Psalter.

Regarding rumors from more than two centuries ago, they say, "state power has been given "cursed Jewish rulers"" , I note: these rumors were not without foundation.

What was the genetic background of the Moscow kings?

Reference: Catherine I (Marta Samuilovna Skavronskaya (Kruse) - Russian empress from 1721 as the wife of the reigning emperor, from 1725 as the reigning empress, second wife of Peter I the Great, mother of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. In her honor, Peter I established the Order of St. Catherine (in 1713) and named the city of Yekaterinburg in the Urals (in 1723).

Ask yourself: What kind of tribe were the first All-Russian autocrats?

Are they Germans?
Slavs?
Jews?

One thing is absolutely certain: they were not Russian!

Compare.

This is a lifetime portrait of E.I. Pugacheva. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was exhibited in the White Chamber of the Rostov Kremlin. Oil. Rephotographed by S.M. Prokudin-Gorsky. 1911 .

KNOWLEDGE AS A THREAT!

Continuing this topic, two short stories:

Story 1.

Why the outstanding Russian scientist Mikhailo Lomonosov was once sentencedto the death penalty?

Everyone probably knows that M. Lomonosov was the first Russian academician. There are legends about his persecution. But someone may be hearing for the first time that they demanded that he be sentenced to death, and even the Church in the person of the “Holy Synod.”

Why was Mikhail Lomonosov sentenced to death? And who was interested in the theft of Mikhail Lomonosov’s scientific library and in the concealment, and, most likely, in the destruction of his numerous manuscripts on the history of Rus', on which he worked throughout his life?

To understand what a fierce struggle for the history of Russia was waged in the 18th century in academic circles, just look at the book by M.T. Belyavsky “M.V. Lomonosov and the founding of Moscow University" , which was published by Moscow University in 1955 for the 200th anniversary of its founding. It turns out that the struggle for Russian history was an essential part of the struggle of Russian society of the 18th century for the right to have domestic science. At that time, this right was in great question.

M.V. Lomonosov fell into disgrace due to his disagreements with German scientists, which formed the backbone of the Academy of Sciences in the 18th century. Under Empress Anna Ioannovna, a stream of foreigners poured into Russia.
Beginning in 1725, when the Russian Academy was created, and until 1841, the foundation of Russian history was remade by the following “benefactors” of the Russian people, who arrived from Europe and spoke little Russian, but quickly became experts in Russian history, filling the historical department of the Russian Academy:

Kohl Peter (1725), Fischer Johann Eberhard (1732), Kramer Adolf Bernhard (1732), Lotter Johann Georg (1733), Leroy Pierre-Louis (1735), Merling Georg (1736), Brem Johann Friedrich (1737), Tauber Johann Gaspard (1738), Crusius Christian Gottfried (1740), Moderach Karl Friedrich (1749), Stritter Johann Gottgilf (1779), Hackmann Johann Friedrich (1782), Busse Johann Heinrich (1795), Vauvillier Jean-François (1798), Klaproth Heinrich Julius (1804), Hermann Karl Gottlob Melchior (1805), Krug Johann Philipp (1805), Lerberg August Christian (1807), Köhler Heinrich Karl Ernst (1817), Fran Christian Martin (1818), Graefe Christian Friedrich (1820), Schmidt Issac Jacob (1829), Schöngren Johann Andreas (1829), Charmois France-Bernard (1832), Fleischer Heinrich Leberecht (1835), Lenz Robert Christianovich (1835), Brosset Marie-Felicité (1837), Dorn Johann Albrecht Bernhard (1839) . The year of entry of the named foreigner into the Russian Academy is indicated in brackets.

Lomonosov led an irreconcilable struggle against the distortions of Russian history, and he found himself in the very thick of this struggle. In 1749 - 1750, he opposed the historical views of Miller and Bayer, as well as the “Norman theory” of the formation of Russia imposed by the Germans. He criticized Miller's dissertation “On the origin of the name and people of Russia”, as well as Bayer's works on Russian history. Lomonosov often quarreled with foreign colleagues who worked at the Academy of Sciences. Here and there he is quoted as saying: “What vile dirty tricks wouldn’t such brute let loose in Russian antiquities!” It is alleged that the phrase is addressed to Schlözer, who was especially zealous in “creating” the “history of Russia.”

M. Lomonosov was supported by many Russian scientists. Member of the Academy of Sciences, outstanding Russian mechanical engineer A.K. Martov filed a complaint with the Senate about the dominance of foreigners in Russian academic science. Russian students, translators and clerical workers, as well as astronomer Delisle, joined Martov’s complaint. It was signed by I. Gorlitsky, D. Grekov, M. Kovrin, V. Nosov, A. Polyakov, P. Shishkarev.

« The meaning and purpose of their complaint is completely clear- destruction of the domination of the reactionary clique and turning the Academy of Sciences into a RUSSIAN Academy not only in name. However, the court clique came to the aid of the reactionary scientific clique. The head of the commission created by the Senate to investigate the charges was Prince Yusupov. “The commission saw in the speech of A.K. Martov, I.V. Gorlitsky, D. Grekov, P. Shishkarev, V. Nosov, A. Polyakov, M. Kovrin, Lebedev and others a “revolt of the mob” that rose up against the authorities.” What is noteworthy is the courage and tenacity with which they defended their accusations. The Russian scientists who filed the complaint wrote to the Senate: “We have proven the charges on the first 8 points and will prove the remaining 30 if we get access to the cases.” “But they could not prove anything, since they were arrested for “obstinacy” and “insulting the commission.” A number of them (I.V. Gorlitsky, A. Polyakov and others) WERE SHACKED AND “CHAINED.” They remained in this situation for about two years, but they could not be forced to give up their testimony. The decision of the commission was truly monstrous: to reward Schumacher and Taubert, to EXECUTE GORLITSKY, CRUELLY PUNISHES GREKOV, POLYAKOV, NOSOV WITH FLAPES AND EXILE TO SIBERIA, POPOV, SHISKAREV AND OTHERS TO LEAVE UNDER ARREST UNTIL THE CASE IS DECISIONED BY THE FUTURE PRESIDENT OF THE ACADEMY.”

Formally, Lomonosov was not among those who filed a complaint against Schumacher, but his entire behavior during the investigation shows that Miller was hardly mistaken when he asserted: "Mr. Adjunct Lomonosov was one of those who filed a complaint against Mr. Councilor Schumacher and thereby caused the appointment of an investigative commission". Lamansky was probably not far from the truth, claiming that Martov’s statement was written mostly by Lomonosov. During the work of the commission, Lomonosov actively supported Martov... This is what caused his violent clashes with Schumacher’s most zealous minions - Winzheim, Truskot, Miller.

The Synod of the Orthodox Christian Church also accused the great Russian scientist of distributing anti-clerical works in his manuscript under Art. 18 and 149 of the Military Article of Peter I, which provided for the death penalty.

Representatives of the clergy demanded the burning of Lomonosov.

Such severity, apparently, was caused by the too great success of Lomonosov’s freethinking, anti-church writings, which indicated a noticeable weakening of the authority of the church among the people. Archimandrite D. Sechenov, the confessor of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, was seriously alarmed by the decline of faith and the weakening interest in the church and religion in Russian society. It is characteristic that it was Archimandrite D. Sechenov, in his libel against Lomonosov, who demanded the burning of the scientist .

The commission stated that Lomonosov "for repeated discourteous, dishonest and nasty actions towards both the academy, the commission, AND THE GERMAN LAND" subject to the DEATH PENALTY, or, in extreme cases, PUNISHMENT BY lashes AND DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS AND STATE. By decree of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Mikhail Lomonosov was found guilty, but was released from punishment. His salary was only halved, and he had to ask the professors for forgiveness “for the insolence he committed.”

Gerard Friedrich Miller personally composed a mocking “repentance”, which Lomonosov was obliged to publicly pronounce and sign. Mikhail Vasilyevich, in order to be able to continue scientific research, was forced to abandon his views. But the German professors did not rest on this. They continued to seek the removal of Lomonosov and his supporters from the Academy.

Around 1751, Lomonosov began work on Ancient Russian History. He sought to refute the theses of Bayer and Miller about the “great darkness of ignorance” that allegedly reigned in Ancient Rus'. Of particular interest in this work of his is the first part “About Russia before Rurik”, which sets out the doctrine of the ethnogenesis of peoples of Eastern Europe and above all the Slavs-Russians. Lomonosov pointed out the constant movement of the Slavs from east to west.

German history professors decided to achieve the removal of Lomonosov and his supporters from the Academy. This " scientific activity" unfolded not only in Russia.

Lomonosov was a world-famous scientist. He was well known abroad. Therefore, every effort was made to discredit Lomonosov before the world scientific community. All means were used. They tried in every possible way to downplay the significance of Lomonosov’s works not only in history, but also in the field natural sciences, where his authority was very high. In particular, Lomonosov was a member of several foreign Academies - the Swedish Academy since 1756, the Bologna Academy since 1764.

“In Germany, Miller inspired protests against Lomonosov’s discoveries and demanded his removal from the Academy.”. This could not be done at that time. However, Lomonosov's opponents managed to achieve the appointment of Schletser as ACADEMIC IN RUSSIAN HISTORY. “Schletser... called Lomonosov "a rude ignorant who knew nothing except his chronicles". So, as we see, Lomonosov was accused of KNOWLEDGE OF RUSSIAN CHRONICLES.

“Contrary to Lomonosov’s protests, Catherine II appointed Schletser an academician. AT THE SAME TIME, HE NOT ONLY RECEIVED FOR UNCONTROLLED USE ALL DOCUMENTS LOCATED IN THE ACADEMY, BUT ALSO THE RIGHT TO DEMAND EVERYTHING THAT HE CONSIDERED NECESSARY FROM THE IMPERIAL LIBRARY AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS. Schletser received the right to present his works directly to Catherine... In the draft note compiled by Lomonosov “for memory” and accidentally avoiding confiscation, the feelings of anger and bitterness caused by this decision are clearly expressed: “There is nothing to cherish. Everything is open to the extravagant Schletser. There is nothing in the Russian library more secrets"".

Miller and his associates had complete power not only in the university itself in St. Petersburg, but also in the gymnasium that trained future students. The gymnasium was run by Miller, Bayer and Fischer, p.77. In the gymnasium "THE TEACHERS DID NOT KNOW RUSSIAN... THE STUDENTS DID NOT KNOW GERMAN. ALL TEACHING WAS EXCLUSIVELY IN LATIN... For thirty years (1726-1755) the gymnasium did not prepare a single person for entering the university" . From this the following conclusion was drawn. It was stated that “the only way out is to write students out of Germany, since it’s supposed to be impossible to prepare them from Russians anyway”.

This struggle continued throughout Lomonosov's life. “Thanks to the efforts of Lomonosov, several Russian academicians and adjuncts appeared in the academy.” However "in 1763, following the denunciation of Taubert, Miller, Shtelin, Epinousse and others, another Empress of Russia, Catherine II, "EVEN REMOVED LOMONOSOV FROM THE ACADEMY COMPLETELY". But soon the decree on his resignation was canceled. The reason was Lomonosov's popularity in Russia and recognition of his merits by foreign academies. However, Lomonosov was removed from the leadership of the geographical department, and Miller was appointed there instead. An attempt has been made "PUT LOMONOSOV'S MATERIALS ON LANGUAGE AND HISTORY AT SCHLEZER'S DISPOSAL".

The last fact is very significant. If even during Lomonosov’s lifetime attempts were made to get to his archive on Russian history, then what can we say about the fate of this unique archive after Lomonosov’s death. As expected, LOMONOSOV'S ARCHIVE WAS IMMEDIATELY CONFISCATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS DEATH AND DISAPPEARED WITHOUT A TRACE. We quote: "THE LOMONOSOV ARCHIVE, CONFISCATED BY CATHERINE II, WAS FOREVER LOST. THE DAY AFTER HIS DEATH, THE LIBRARY AND ALL LOMONOSOV'S PAPERS WERE, BY ORDER OF KATHERINE, SEALED BY GR. ORLOV, TRANSPORTED TO HIS PALACE AND THE BESS DISAPPEARED ICE" , p.20. A letter from Taubert to Miller has been preserved. In this letter “without hiding his joy, Taubert reports the death of Lomonosov and adds: “ON THE OTHER DAY AFTER HIS DEATH, Count Orlov ordered seals to be attached to his office. Without a doubt, there must be papers in it that they do not want to be released into the wrong hands.”.

The death of Mikhail Lomonosov was also sudden and mysterious, and rumors circulated about his deliberate poisoning. Obviously, what could not be done publicly, his numerous enemies completed secretly and secretly.
Thus, the “creators of Russian history” - Miller and Schletser - got to the Lomonosov archive. After which these archives naturally disappeared. But, AFTER A SEVEN YEAR DELAY, Lomonosov's work on Russian history was finally published - and it is absolutely clear that under the complete control of Miller and Schlozer. And that's only the first volume. Most likely, rewritten by Miller in the right key. And the remaining volumes simply “disappeared”. And so it turned out that the one we have at our disposal today "Lomonosov's work on history" is strangely and wonderfully consistent with Miller's view of history. It’s not even clear why Lomonosov argued so fiercely with Miller for so many years? Why did he accuse Miller of falsifying Russian history, when he himself, in his published “History”, so OBEDIENTLY AGREES with Miller on all points? He obsequiously agrees with him in every line.

The history of Russia, published by Miller based on Lomonosov's drafts, can be said to be written as a carbon copy, and is practically no different from Miller's version of Russian history. The same applies to another Russian historian - Tatishchev, again published by Miller only after Tatishchev's death! Karamzin, on the other hand, rewrote Miller almost word for word, although Karamzin’s texts were repeatedly edited and altered after his death. One of the last such alterations occurred after 1917, when all information was removed from his texts about the Varangian yoke. Obviously, therefore, the new political power, tried to smooth out the discontent of the people from the dominance of foreigners in the Bolshevik government.

Consequently, what was PRINTED UNDER THE NAME OF LOMONOSOV IS NOT AT ALL WHAT LOMONOSOV ACTUALLY WROTE.

It must be assumed that Miller rewrote the first part of Lomonosov’s work with great pleasure after his death. So to speak, “carefully prepared for printing.” The rest was destroyed. There was almost certainly a lot of interesting and important information about the ancient past of our people. Something that neither Miller, nor Schletser, nor other “Russian historians” could ever publish.

The Norman theory is still adhered to by Western scientists. And if we remember that for criticizing Miller, Lomonosov was sentenced to death by hanging (although the church proposed to burn him) and served a year in prison awaiting the verdict until the royal pardon came, then it is clear that the leadership was interested in falsifying Russian history Russian state. Russian history wrote by foreigners who were specially discharged from Europe by Emperor Peter I for this purpose. And already in the time of Elizabeth, Miller became the most important “chronicler,” who also became famous for the fact that, under the guise of an imperial charter, he traveled to Russian monasteries and destroyed all surviving ancient historical documents.

The German historian Miller, the author of the “masterpiece” of Russian history, tells us that Ivan IV was from the Rurik family. Having performed such a simple operation, it was no longer difficult for Miller to integrate the broken Rurik family with their non-existent history into the history of Russia. It would be more accurate to cross out the history of the Russian kingdom and replace it with the history of the Kyiv principality, in order to then make a statement that Kyiv - the mother of Russian cities.

The Ruriks were never kings in Russia, because such a royal family never existed. There was a rootless conqueror Rurik, who tried to sit on the Russian throne, but was killed by Svyatopolk Yaropolkovich. The falsification of Russian history catches the eye immediately when reading the “Russian” “chronicles”. It is striking to see the abundance of names of princes who ruled in different places in Russia, which we consider to be the centers of Russia. If, for example, some prince of Chernigov or Novgorod found himself on the Russian throne, then there should have been some kind of continuity in the dynasty. But this is not the case, i.e. we are dealing either with a hoax, or with a conqueror who has reigned on the Russian throne.

Our mutilated and perverted history of Russia, even through the thickness of Miller’s repeated hoaxes, screams about the dominance of foreigners. The history of Russia, like the history of all Mankind, was invented by the above-mentioned “historian specialists”. They were not only specialists in falsifying histories, they were also specialists in fabricating and falsifying chronicles.

As one of our community members, Lyudmila Shikanova, correctly noted in her commentary: More and more facts are emerging that the history of Russia was deliberately distorted. There is a lot of evidence of the high culture and literacy of our ancestors in ancient times. Birch bark letters were found written in the Glagolitic alphabet (our native alphabet, and not in the Cyrillic alphabet imposed on us) and the letters were written by ordinary peasants. But for some reason it is hidden. We know the detailed history of our country only from the reign of the Ruriks, and we know almost nothing about what happened before that. Why is this being done and who benefits from it, that is the question. And now in our schools and higher education educational institutions pupils and students study the history of Russia using textbooks, largely written with the money of the overseas philanthropist George Soros. And as we know, “he who pays for the banquet calls the tune!”

"Insolence"! That's how it was. To the stake for collecting bits and pieces of the history of our land, against the German will. I remember how Moscow academicians, fed on grants, twitched when the remains of Tsar Ivan Leopoldovna’s son were found in Kholmogory without permission from above. And what arguments did they come up with (in 2010) that are worse than the current accusations against Razvozzhaev “for illegally crossing the border”, it turns out, scientific discovery can be recognized as such by the state (and the church) if committed exclusively with the money of the state and under its strict control. And you’re talking about some Germans of the 18th century... Where should we put these?

The original was taken from

Great Tartary, a huge country that occupied almost the entire Eurasian continent and existed at the end of the 18th century, was just a country, and not a territory, as some “researchers” are trying to imagine. They argue their point of view by the fact that the English word country means both country and territory, which means that Great Tartary was just a territory, and not a country at all. Well, that’s what Western cartographers called this part of Asia. Indeed, the English word country means both country and territory. However, this approach to the topic of the existence or non-existence of a huge power on the Eurasian continent raises several questions.

Firstly, why do critics of the existence of the state of Great Tartary take the English language as a basis? After all, a large number of encyclopedias in the 17th and 18th centuries were published in French, which was the international language at that time, and only then were they translated into English. The first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was published only at the end of the 18th century - in 1771. And in the French encyclopedias that appeared at the beginning of the 18th century, Great Tartary is called precisely a country - PaÏs in Middle French, and this word has one meaning - country.

Secondly, in the same Encyclopedia Britannica, in the “Geography” section, there is a table in which the authors of the encyclopedia listed all the countries known to them and indicated their areas and capitals. And the capital Tartary is named there, but, as we understand, the territory cannot have a capital.

Thus, according to the compilers of the encyclopedia, there are three Tartaries in Asia. Moscow with its capital in Tobolsk - an area of ​​3,050,000 square miles (three times larger than the state of Russia with its capital in St. Petersburg - 1,103,485 square miles). Independent Tartary with its capital at Samarkand and an area of ​​778,290 square miles and Chinese Tartary with its capital at Chinuan with an area of ​​644,000 square miles.

The authors of the British encyclopedia could not say anything about the states located east of Moscow Tartaria, but they existed, and this is mentioned in passing in the French encyclopedias. But before the suppression of the “Pugachev uprising”, and in fact, a war of conquest with the remnants of Great Tartary, no one was allowed there and therefore either there is little or no information about it, or this information is of the most superficial nature, more like a retelling of rumors and gossip. The only thing that all authors absolutely agree on is that this country is huge.

Here, for example, is what is said about Great Tartary in the Dutch encyclopedia in French from 7 volumes “Historical Atlas or a new introduction to history, chronology and geography, ancient and modern...” by Henri Abraham Chatelain (1684-1743), first published in Amsterdam in 1705. It presents new maps of that time, articles about the history of the emergence of states and empires of the world, their rise and fall and their rulers. In the fifth volume of this encyclopedia, on page 87, there is a map of Great Tartary with explanations in the upper right corner that read:

“This Tartary is called Great to distinguish it from Little, which is part of Europe. Its extent is considerable when taken from the border of Circassia (Circassie) to the canal or strait of Picko, which, from observations made by the Jesuits sent to Siam, lies at a longitude much less than the 69 to 192 degrees at which it is usually placed .

Very few people live in this country in proportion to its vast [territory]: there are few cities and many deserts. In many places the land is uncultivated and only closer to the center does it produce the best rhubarb in the world. There are many polar bears, ermines and sables, the fur of which forms the basis of the country's trade."

Let's face it, not a lot. This is all that hordes of various spies from “merchants” to Jesuits who flooded the countries bordering Great Tartary, where strangers were not allowed. And after the Romanovs defeated it in the World War (and that was exactly World War, since all of “progressive” Europe helped the Romanovs destroy the last Vedic Empire), it was decided to erase the Great Tartaria from the memory of civilization and, naturally, no one began to make efforts to clarify and expand knowledge about this huge country.

Moreover, the “Russian” historian Miller’s statement about Siberia as a “non-historical land” is known, as is his activity in turning it into such, so we are unlikely to learn any details about the life of the state of Great Tartary, for example, where his capital.

However, fragmentary information has been preserved about its flag, coat of arms, symbols, as well as about its rulers - the Great Khans, whose names were written as Le Grand Cham (Cam, Kam) de Tartarie or Empereur de Tartarie. It should be noted here that the spelling of the word khan in French has nothing to do with the biblical Ham, the son of Noah. The fact is that in French the combination ch gives the sound sh, and the combination am is read as an. So foreigners called them khans, not boors.

The rulers of Great Tartary are spoken of in the same “Historical Atlas” of Shatlan, where in volume 5 on page 94 the genealogical tree of the Genghisids is given - Genealogy of the ancient emperors of Tartary, descendants of Genghis Khan (Genealogie Des Anciens Empereurs Tartares, Descendus De Genghiscan).

And further to page 110 there is a text about the khans of Tartaria, starting with Genghis Khan. It should be noted here that you will not find any Mongols or Tatars in the text; we are always talking about the Mogols and Tartars. And again, note that the letter r in the last word is not readable only in English, but in the rest - French, Spanish, German and, naturally, Latin, it is readable. So we are talking about Tartars, not Tatars, no matter how sad it may be for critics of the existence of the state of Great Tartary.

At the bottom of the Chingizid family tree is a rather sketchy map of Great Tartaria (Tartaria Magna) with the following historical notes:

“Tartaria, which until now was a country completely unknown to both geographers and historians, is represented here exactly within its natural boundaries thanks to the efforts of the famous Mr. Witsen, who granted us an exact map, from which an exact copy was made.

The famous 400 league wall that separates it from China failed to stop the Tartars from invading and, to the chagrin of the Chinese, becoming masters of their country in 1645. However, there are still many rulers in Tartaria, whose names or places of residence are still unknown.

In the center of this vast country are free peoples who have no permanent residence, but who live in the open country on carts and tents. These people are distributed into troops called Hordes.

It is believed that Tartary consists of several kingdoms and it is said that more than a thousand years ago the art of typography was invented in the kingdom of Tangut. It is difficult to say exactly when the Tartars became masters of the entire country, which is located between Tanais and Borysthenes and which today is called Little Tartary.

But as for China, the war waged by the Tartars with this country began in 2341 BC. According to the Jesuit Father Mareni, who in 1655 claimed that the Tartars had been continuously at war with the Chinese for 4,000 years.

In 1280, the Tartars became masters of China and then the Iven family began to rule there for 89 years.

Until 1369, the Chinese expelled Tartarus and the throne was occupied by rulers by nationality and from the Mim clan (Min. - E.L.).

In 1645, the Tartars, under the leadership of King Xunchi, who is called the Great Khan, recaptured Chinese Empire. The family of the Tartar prince reigns there to this day..."

In general, although these historical notes for the most part leave us somewhat bewildered by their fragmentation, superficiality and, in general, illiteracy in describing the huge rich country, they raise more questions than they answer. Yes, and more and more is said about China than about Tartary, but there are still some interesting points.

It talks about the existence of several Tartar rulers, and therefore, possibly, states, but who they are and what kind of states they are, what the relationship is between them and the metropolis, where their capitals are located, is unknown to the authors for the reason stated above. Therefore, in the notes we are talking more and more about China, which in the 17th century was flooded by Jesuits and who could obtain information both about China’s relations with its northern neighbor, and some crumbs about its northernmost neighbor. Although these crumbs are surprising.

For example, we were amazed by the information about the war between the Tartars and the Chinese, which lasted not even decades - millennia! It lasted even after a difficult war with China, which took place more than 7,000 years ago and in honor of the victory in which our ancestors introduced new calendar- from the Creation of the World in the Star Temple.

It is quite possible that the Jesuit did not mean full-scale fighting, but some conflicts and skirmishes, but constant and over such a long period of time. But these are just assumptions, not yet based on anything. So, it seems that our former leaders got carried away by declaring the Chinese “brothers forever.” Alas, the authors of the encyclopedia did not bother to name the reason why the Tartars were in conflict with the Chinese for so long and so persistently sought to conquer them. Most likely, they did not know, and perhaps even then they began to create the image of a “terrible northern totalitarian monster” that attacks “little proud birds.”

I was also very surprised by the mention of book printing in Tangut, as we understand it, one of the states of Tartary, 1000 years ago. It is a pity that no details are provided either.

Another interesting link to the source of the “accurate map” of Tartary is Mr. Witsen. We are talking about Nicolaes Witsen (1641-1717). He was a descendant of an influential Dutch family, a famous scientist, cartographer, collector, writer, diplomat and was repeatedly elected to the post of burgomaster of Amsterdam. Witsen visited Russia several times and even wrote the book “Journey to Muscovy 1664-1665.”

Several years ago, his book “Northern and Eastern Tartary” was published in Russia in three volumes. During the life of the Dutchman, it was an extensive commentary on the detailed map of Siberia that Witsen published.

Alas, Nicholas Witsen did not write anything worthwhile about Great Tartary. Neither about the organization of this state, nor about its politics, nor about the economy, nor about its great people - nothing. Only a description of wild tribes, which he calls wild Tartars, living on the border with China, as well as a description of other peoples, for example, Circassians, Georgians, Uzbeks, Kalmyks, etc.

The peoples of Tartary described by Witsen are wild and barbaric, and only a few are sedentary, and even those live in huts or pits covered with animal skins. In addition, they are not even pagans who worship idols, but generally profess some kind of primitive beliefs, worshiping killed animals hanging on trees. The Tartars have cities, but almost all of them are nomadic. That is, the huge number of cities depicted in Remezov’s Drawing Book of Siberia, who built them and how, and what the people living in them did, Witsen passes over in silence. In general, all tartars are wild, wild and wild again.


Since this work, far from cheap, was sent to many libraries in Russia, it seems to us that here we are dealing with a well-thought-out sabotage. Since it is no longer possible to hide information about Great Tartaria - too much of it has spilled out on the Internet, those who are opposed to people being able to find out the truth about the past and not just the past, but the great past of their country, decided to do something simple - if you can’t win, lead. So they released a craft very much in the spirit of foreign encyclopedias of the 17th and 18th centuries, in which all sorts of fables and half-true stories of various travelers were told about Tartary, who often had not even been to the places they were talking about.

To the question of where Shatlan got such detailed information about Genghis Khan and his descendants for his “Historical Atlas”, the answer may be the following - from the same place where others took it.

For example, in 1710, the book “The History of the Great Genghis Khan, the first emperor of the ancient Mughals and Tartars” (Le Histoire de Genghizcan le Grand, premier empereur des anciens Mogules et Tartares), written by François Pétis (1622-95), was published )), translator of the French royal court of Louis XIV from Arabic and Turkish.

Full title of the book: “The history of Genghis Khan, the first emperor of the ancient Mughals and Tartars in four books, containing a description of his life, development and conquests, with a short history his successors to this day, the way of life, customs and laws of the ancient Mughals and Tartars, and the geography of the vast countries such as Mogolistan, Turkestan, Capschac, Yugurestan and Eastern and Western Tartary." Twelve years later, this book was translated into English by Penelope Aubin (1679-1731), an English novelist, poet, playwright and translator.

If you look at the very end of the book, there is a section in which the author-sources from whom the compilers borrowed material about Genghis Khan are indicated. And, to tell the truth, there are quite a lot of these authors. Separately there are Asian authors, mainly Arabic (27 pages in small print indicating the works, the year of their creation and brief information about the author) and European - Latin, Greek, ancient and modern authors of the book (12 pages).

There was surprisingly a lot of information about Genghis Khan, but there was some shortage of images of the first Tartar emperor, who founded the greatest empire in the world, which lasted for quite a long time, which is very strange. However, they exist, and we present some images of Genghis Khan from ancient miniatures and engravings that were found on the Internet.

The following drawings are presented: Coronation of Genghis Khan. Miniature from the “Book of the Diversity of the World” by the Italian merchant Marco Polo (1254-1324). Dream of Genghis Khan. The White Knight predicts his coronation. Coronation of Genghis Khan. Miniature from the “Flower Garden of Histories of the Lands of the East” (or “History of the Tartars”) by Hayton (Hetum) (mid-1240s-1310s). Death of Genghis Khan. Miniature from “The Book” of Marco Polo.



The following drawings are presented here: Genghis Khan on his deathbed. Engraving from “Universal Cosmography” by Sebastian Munster, Switzerland, 1588. Genghis Khan. Engraving from an unknown ancient book. Genghis Khan drinks with bayazid. Undated engraving. Genghis Khan. Pierre Duflo, 1780

As can be seen from these images, the Europeans represented Genghis Khan as a white man, and not at all a Mongoloid, in the 14th century, in the 18th century, and it doesn’t matter that they could confuse Genghis Khan and Tamerlane (the Bayezids sat on the Ottoman throne more than a century after Genghis Khan and with them Tamerlane, his successor, fought). So, it is possible that he is depicted in the engraving. But what is written is written (Genghis khan drinking with bayezid's woman).

In any case, we get another proof (from what we have collected) that Tamerlane was also a white man, and not a Mongoloid. By the way, the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I was a red-haired and light-eyed man. The Turks made us happy again. We have already told you that they built a museum for the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman I, in the city of Sögut. There is also a small gallery of busts of almost all the founders of empires that are currently known in the world. They placed copies of these busts in Istanbul, including a bust of Genghis Khan. He is also depicted as being of white race.

The European features of Genghis Khan are fully explained by the fact that the people of the white race who lived in a huge country, which foreigners called Great Tartary, were previously called Scythia, and they, accordingly, Scythians. One has only to look at the reconstruction of the appearance of the Scythians based on the results of excavations of Scythian mounds and at how the Scythians themselves portrayed themselves, and all questions about how they looked are removed. The fact that Scythia is Great Tartary was mentioned by famous European encyclopedists, whose works we translated and published on our website: “World Geography” by Dubville, “ The World History"Dionysius Petavius ​​and "Atlas of Asia" by Nicholas Sanson. This is also mentioned in “The History of the Great Genghis Khan, the first emperor of the ancient Mughals and Tartars” by Francois Petit.

Here, for example, is what he writes about the origins of Genghis Khan:

“He was the son of a khan named Pisouca or Yesouca, who ruled in ancient Mogolistan, a country that was located in Great Tartary, the province of Karakatai. This Great Tartary in Asia, as well as Little Tartary in Europe, is nothing other than the countries that in the past were called Scythia. There were then many kingdoms, but now they are divided among so many rulers that it is almost impossible to provide a complete list of their numbers or names.

The first is Capschac, which consists of many great provinces, among which is Getes, which lies east of the Moguls and north of Transoxiana and the country bordered by the river Sibon or Ox.

The second part is Zagatay, which the ancients called Transoxiana, and the Arabs called Maouarannabar.

The third part is Caracatay, which includes Turkestan, the country of the Naimans, the country of the Gelayrs, from which came part of the Keraites, the country of the Uyghurs (Yugures), Tangut, Khotban (Khotban or Kbyta or Koutan) , the country of the Kalmyks and the kingdom of Courge, which borders China and the sea.

The fourth part consists of ancient Mogolistan, which is Gog and Magog, and whose location is very variously described by historians as the country that Genghis Khan actually owned:

Some locate it in Asia Minor, others in Lydia, others in Colchis [as the Greeks called the South Caucasus. - E.L.] and Iberia and some travelers placed it in the country of the first Scythians, beyond China in northeast Asia, trying to support the assumption that the children of Magog, the second son of Japheth, came from northern Europe to northern Asia, where they gave the name the country in which they settled. In general, this country is located in the very east, north of China, and has always been densely populated. Eastern writers call the people who live in it Moguls, and Europeans give them other names” (pp. 4-5. Hereinafter translation of the English version of “The History of Genghis Khan”).

A few more mentions of Scythia from this source. When Genghis Khan was born, he was predicted to soon become the “Great Khan of all Scythia” (p. 14). The Nestorians, of whom there were quite a few in Tartary, wrote letters to their superiors that they had “converted most of the peoples of Scythia” and that Ounghcan, the ruler of the Kereites, was the same presbyter John who founded a Christian state in Asia and wrote letters to the Pope and European monarchs , which, to put it mildly, did not correspond to reality, which is what the 4-volume book about the life of Genghis Khan notes, emphasizing that he only allowed Christians to live on his land and practice their religion (p. 26).

There are several more interesting facts that are described in the book, for example, the transformation of the Scythians into Tartarus:

“Since several Scythian peoples who became subjects of Temujin gradually began to be called by a common name, either Moguls or Tartars, but the latter name, in the end, took root more, and now all Scythians are called Tartars, as in the West , and in the southern parts of Asia.

In truth, the name Tata or Tatar is not so unknown in the east and north. The Chinese have been using it for a long time. Before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and for some time after, they fought with the people who were known to them under the name Tata. These were no doubt the Soumoguls and other peoples, since the name Tartarus was not known anywhere before the time of Genghis Khan. It should also be noted that the Chinese alphabet does not have the letter r, so they pronounce tata instead of tartar” (p. 63).

“The name Karakatai was given to the country of the Scythians after the brutal war between the Scythians and the Chinese. At first, the Scythians were victorious and, in order to consolidate their success, entered the Chinese kingdom, but, having lost one important battle, they were forced to retreat and return to their country. The King of China decided not to lose the advantage of this victory and sent two of his military leaders after them, who defeated them and forced them into obedience.

He did more than that. Fearing that the Scythians would rebel, he made the two generals who defeated the Scythians their khans or rulers, and they began to build forts and fortified cities to be colonized by the Chinese troops he sent to intimidate them. These troops were supposed to protect the country and keep the people in obedience, but over time their descendants forgot Chinese customs and, living among the Scythians, they themselves became Scythians. And ultimately, China became their worst enemy.

When the king of China placed his generals over the sandy Scythia, he gave it the name Karakatay, consonant with the name of his country Cathay, to signify the conquest he had accomplished. And, as this country became an acquired possession, he added the epithet kara, the word which the Tartars and Turks use for the color black, to distinguish one country from another, and the fact that Caracatay is a barren and inhospitable country, and Cathay, that is , China (China) is a beautiful country, abundant and full of all sorts of pleasant things” (p. 66).

Genghis Khan's father-in-law was a Naiman khan named Tayancan, one of the strongest khans of Karakatai, who declared war on his son-in-law. And guess which people “The History of Genghis Khan” by Francois Petit refers them to? “These Naimans were a people whom the ancients called the Scythians-Issedons and their capital was Issedon of Scythia, which contemporaries call Succuir” (p. 67).

Of course, some geographical and other information that is given in this book and claims to be accurate is not at all accurate, and, of course, they cannot be completely trusted, but some crumbs are of interest. We must pay tribute to the author, who cites several points of view at once, as in the case of the location of the country of Mogolistan, and shows us what confusion and vacillation reigned in European geographical science at that time in relation to the vast Asian expanses. In addition, at the very beginning of the book, he honestly admits that the majority of European authors performed the pronunciation of proper names at their own discretion, in other words, at their own discretion. Instead of Ahdallah they wrote Gabdole, instead of Emir Almoumini - Miramomolin. And even Marco Polo did not escape this - instead of Genghiscan, he wrote Cingiscan. So let’s keep this in mind and continue to read “The History of Genghis Khan”...

Actually, yes, the spelling of names in this book differs from those accepted in modern history. So, for example, we are accustomed to believe that Genghis Khan’s father’s name was Yesugey, but here he is called Pisouca or Yesouca, his first wife was called Borte, but here she is called Purta Cougine, the founder of the Borjigin family, where Genghis Khan came from, Bodonchar is considered, who is here called Buzengir, The khan of the Kereyites, who played an important role in the life of Genghis Khan, is called Van Khan, and in the book he is Ounghcan.

The only thing where there is no discrepancy is the real name of the “shaker of the Universe,” for Genghis Khan is the title that he received at the kurultai in the spring of 1206, and his name was Temujin. All authors are unanimous - his father named him after the commander Temugincan, whom he defeated. However, previously unknown to us, the defeated khan was the commander of the united forces of the Somogols or Tartars from Karakatai, who often attacked his country. There was a bloody battle in which Genghis Khan's father won, and in honor of this victory he gave the name of the military leader to his soon-to-be-born son. An interesting fact here is that an equal sign is put between the Tartars and the Mughals, albeit with the prefix “so” or “su”.

To tell the truth, European historians had a rather vague idea of ​​who the Mughals and Tartars were, and where their name came from. For example, the Catholic Franciscan monk Giovanni Plano Carpini (1182-1252), who is believed to have been the very first to visit the Mogul empire and met with Batu, wrote: “In the eastern regions there is a certain country... Mongal. In the old days there were four peoples in this country: one of them was called Yeka-Mongal, that is, the great Mongals; the second is the Su-Mongal, that is, the water Mongals; They themselves called themselves Tartars after the name of a certain river that flows through their land and is called Tartarus.”

The Italian outlined his experience of visiting the empire in the manuscripts Historia Mongalorum quos nos Tartaros appellamus (“History of the Mongals, whom we call Tatars”) and Liber Tartarorum (“Book of the Tartars”).

Another Franciscan, a certain Brother Benedict, complements him: “Moal [in Tartar] - land, Mongols - means [name] of the inhabitants of the earth. However, [they] themselves call themselves Tartars from [the name of] a large and swift river that crosses their land and is called Tatar. For tata in their language means [in Latin] “to drag,” and tartar means “pulling.”

The Benedictine monk Matthew of Paris (1200-1259), an Englishman, despite his “surname”, the creator of the “Great Chronicle” (“Chronica majora”), wrote about the Tartars: “And they are called Tartars from [the name of] a river flowing through the mountains them, through which they have already passed, called Tartarus ... ".

Surprisingly, the Tartar River can actually be found on medieval maps.

Some maps also show several cities of this people, including the cities of Tartarus and Mongul. It is noteworthy that they disappear on maps after the 17th century. Researchers correlate the Tartar River with the modern Kolyma or Lena rivers. So Petit was right in placing Mogolistan to the north, like the country of the “first Scythians.” That is, the Mughals with the Tartars and the “first Scythians” came from the very north. Perhaps even from the territory of Hyperborea.

Let us return, however, to Petit’s book about Genghis Khan. In addition to the different spellings of proper names, it also contains some information about the life of Genghis Khan that differs from the generally accepted one. So, for example, in Petit’s book it is said that Temujin got married at 14, not at 16, that his first child was a daughter, not a son, that the Merkits kidnapped his first wife, but did not keep it for themselves, but gave her to the Kereit khan Van Khan , who “treated her like a daughter” and returned her to Temujin. The differences, in fact, are not very significant, but Petit provides information that has not yet been provided anywhere.

“In the seventh century there were two types of Moguls. Some were called by the Mughals Dirlighin, and others Niron. The continuation of this story will show why they were called that. The Dirlighin Mughals were the people of Kongorat, Berlas, Mercout, Courlas and many others. And the inhabitants of Merkit, Tangut, Mercat, Zhumogul, Nironcaiat, Yecamogul (Merkit, Tanjout, Mercaty, Joumogul, Nironcaiat, Yecamogul) and some others were called Niron Mughals, among whom the Ekamogols and Nironcaiat belonged to the family of Genghis Khan.

The word "kayat" means blacksmith. Cabalcan, the great-grandfather of Genghis Khan, added the word kayat to the name Niron to distinguish himself from the other khans of the Niron tribe. His own tribe became known by this name. From that time on, this name, as an honorary title, remained not only with the tribe, but also with the khan himself. The origin of this word goes back to certain people who lived in the most remote northern parts of Mogolistan, who were called Kayat, because their leaders established the production of metal products in a mountain called Arkenekom, which earned this Mughal tribe great respect and respect. highly appreciated, as the entire Mughal country benefited from this invention. After that they called these people blacksmiths from Arkenekom.

And because The ancestors of Genghis Khan, being his relatives, due to alliances with this people, some writers made public the fact that this prince was the son of a blacksmith and was himself engaged in this craft.

What else allowed them to make such a mistake was the fact that every Mughal family, in order to preserve the memory of these illustrious founders or blacksmiths, had the custom of celebrating the first day of the year, during which they built a forge with bellows, in which they lit a fire and heated a piece of iron that they struck with hammers on an anvil. This forging was preceded and concluded with prayers.

These writers, no doubt unaware of the significance of this ritual and not knowing why Genghis Khan's family bore the surname Kayat, were convinced that this khan was a blacksmith and that, in gratitude to God, who raised him to the throne, he established this custom.

However, those historians who, driven by curiosity, conducted their research in antiquity, formed a different opinion about him. They all talk about his father, Pisouca Behader*, as the most powerful khan of the ancient Mughals. They say that he ruled two large kingdoms, married Oulon Aikeh, the daughter of one of the khans, his relative, who won many victories over his enemies.**

It can be seen quite clearly that the low birth attributed to him comes from the ignorance or malice of these authors, while his father was descended from Buzengir, called the Just, whose fame was so great, both in the eastern and northern parts Asia, that there was no significant prince there who would not be happy to become related to him or to be his ally. We can be sure that Genghis Khan, son of Pisouca, was born a prince or khan.

* Mughal emperors numbering 21 ruled in Persia for 150 years, among whom was Genghis Khan, son of Pisouca.