History: Fiction or Science?

News & Views on All Topics
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:10 pm

Not-So-Ancient India

Either Fomenko is right OR the Ancient Indians were just too busy preparing for the next wedding season to write anything down.

No records even of Alexander the Great supposedly conquering India exist.

If you think some people you know are bad at geography, that's nothing compared to:
"Mediaeval authors occasionally placed India in Africa or Italy (!)"

Statues are almost never dated.

In-depth newchron analysis of the epic Mahabharata is covered in Fomenko's book The Chronology of India. Ptolemy's 'Geography.' The 'Atlas' of Ortelius(2003). Current datings of the Indian epic depend heavily on the dating of Homer's works. The peak of Sanskrit literature was probably XI century A.D.

Excerpts from Chronology 1, Chapter 7, Section 8,pp. 465-7


The Scaligerian history of the East is closely related
to the history of Europe and Egypt as presented by
Scaliger and Petavius. Thus, all possible alterations
of the European chronology automatically affect the
chronology of "ancient" India. Let us give a brief sum-
mary of the Scaligerian chronology of India. The his-
torian N. Gousseva writes that "historical science runs
into such problems in India as the researchers of the
ancient history of other countries and peoples can-
not even conceive of [this confession was made in
1968 - A. F.]. The primary difficulty here is the ab-
solute lack of dated monuments.
([ 433], page 5). Ap-
parently) all of the main "chronological landmarks"
in Indian history are a product of a rather recent age,
and they are directly dependent on the previously
compiled Scaligerian chronology of Rome, Greece,
and Egypt. Hence the obvious necessity for the revi-
sion of the Scaligerian history of India.

The historian D. Kosambi reports:
"There is virtually nothing of what we know as
historical literature in India... all we have is a vague
oral tradition and an extremely limited number of
documented data, which is of a much greater value
to us than that obtained from legends and myths.
This tradition gives us no opportunity of recon-
structing the names of all the rulers. The meagre rem-
nants that we do possess are so nebulous that no date
preceding the Muslim period [before the VIII century
A.D. - A. F.] can be regarded as precise... the works
of the court chroniclers didn't reach our time; only
Cashmere and Camba can be regarded as an excep-
tion of sorts... all of this leads some rather earnest
and eminent scientists claim that India has no history
of its own
([433], pages 19-20).

For instance, this is what the historians tell us
about the "ancient" culture of the Indus valley:
"Written memorials of the Indus culture defy de-
cipherment to this day. .. not a single finding can be as-
sociated with an actual person or historical episode.
don't even know the language that was spoken by the
inhabitants of the Indus valley."
([433], pages 65-66).

We are told that the Scaligerian chronology of (an-
cient" India contains gaps larger than 600 years ([433],
pages 65-66). As does the Scaligerian "ancient" Europe,
India "suddenly" rolls back to barbarism around the
beginning of the new era, and then "resumes" its as-
cension to the mediaeval "position of eminence";
which is suspiciously similar to the fate of the culture
of "ancient" Europe, allegedly forgotten by everyone
and only achieved once again in the Middle Ages.

The VII century A.D. is the time when the alleged
"renaissance" of the Indian culture allegedly began -
rather gradually, based on the Aryan culture (possi-
bly the Christian-Arian ideology). The famous "an-
cient" Indian "Aryans" can apparently be identified as
the Arian Christians of the XI-XIII century, accord-
ing to our reconstruction.
The mysterious Aryans
began to haunt an antediluvian age courtesy of Sca-
ligerian chronology.

Furthermore, it turns out ([433]) that the texts
concerning the cult of Krishna in India are of a rela-
tively recent origin
. Specialists in the history of reli-
gions have long since confirmed the existence of a
vast number of parallels between Krishna and Christ
([544], Volume 4). This is why certain statements
made by latter day historians reek of ambiguity, such
as "the complete biography of Krishna was completed
as late as the XII century A.D."
([433], page 122). It is
possible that the Indian Krishna cult is nothing but
the cult of Jesus, brought to India by the Christian
missionaries of the XI-XII century.

It is assumed that the god Krishna is mentioned
in the Bible ([519]) Volume 4, page 17). According to
some Indian sources, the god "Krishna" can virtually
be identified with Christ ([519], Volume 4).

Mediaeval authors occasionally placed India in
Africa or Italy (!)
. See more details in CHRON5. We
should point out another very odd fact of Scaligerian
history in this respect. It is presumed that the "an-
cient" Alexander the Great reached India and defeated
the Indian king Porus, having conquered many lands
in India ([433]). One would think an event of this cal-
ibre would leave some trace in Indian history at the
very least. However, this doesn't seem to be the case.
"This invasion. .. appears to have remained unnoticed
by the Indian tradition, although some foreign his-
torians consider it to be the only large-scale event in
the ancient history of India"
([433], page 143).

One feels like asking the obvious question of
whether the "India" of the mediaeval manuscripts re-
ally is the same country as the modern India? Could
it have been an altogether different country that
Alexander had conquered?

We are told further on that many vital issues con-
cerning the "ancient" history of India are based on the
manuscripts found as late as the XX century. It turns
out, for instance, that:"the main source of knowledge
in what concerns the governmental system of India
and the policy of the state in the epoch of Maghadhi's
ascension is the Arthashastra - the book. .. that had
only been found in 1905, after many a century of
utter oblivion" ([433], page 146) . It turns out that this
book is basically an Indian version of the famous me-
diaeval oeuvre of Machiavelli. However, in this case
the "ancient Indian Arthashastra" couldn't have been
written before the Renaissance. This could have hap-
pened in the XVII-XVIII century, or even the XIX.

The Scaligerian history of India resembles its
European cousin in that it rolled back to barbarism
in the beginning of the new era, and had to ('resume"
its "long ascension to the heights of civilization"
([ 433]). We are also told that the "first significant
Sanskrit inscription was found in Ghirnar and dates
from roughly 150 A.D." ([433], page 172). However,
we instantly discover that the heyday of Sanskrit lit-
erature in India began around the XI century A.D.
This is most probably a result of the chronological
shift of a thousand years that we so familiar with by
now. A propos, could "Sanskrit" stand for "Saint
Script" or the Holy Writ?

The Scaligerian history of mediaeval India also
contains a great number of centenarian chronologi-
cal gaps, and is confusing and chaotic.

"The apathy of the Brahmans to everything real in
the past and the present... had erased the history of
India from human memory
. .. . The reconstruction of
the history and the realities. .. of the ancient India. . .
we have to rely on the reports of the Greek geogra-
phers and Arab travellers... there isn't a single Indian
source that would equal the reports of the foreigners
in value". ([433], page 180).

Thus, the Scaligerian history of India is wholly de-
pendent on the consensual chronology of Rome and
Greece and will have to be reconstructed in turn.

Historians characterize the dynastic history of
India thusly: "The names of individual kings are ob-
scured by the quaint haze of legends. We possess noth-
that would remotely resemble palace chronicles"
( [ 433], page 192). We fail to see the quaintness of his-
torical haze. Could it reside in the freedom it gives to
one's fantasy?

The famous Mahabharata, a collection of the "an-
cient" Indian epos, is relegated to a distant B.C. epoch
by the Scaligerian historians. On the other hand, the
work is supposed to have been based on the "ancient"
Greek epos. A large number of parallels between the
Mahabharata and the poems of Homer were discov-
ered quite a while ago ([519]). Historians claim that
the Indians were "rephrasing Homer" ([ 520], page 13).
If this be the case, the dating of the Mahabharata be-
comes completely dependent on the datings of the
poems written by the "ancient" Homer.
We have al-
ready demonstrated that events that occurred in (an-
cient" Greece were most probably really mediaeval,
that is, dating to the XIII-XVI century A.D.

An in-depth analysis of the Mahabharata, the great
body of epic text, as seen from the stance of the new
chronology, is performed in our new book titled [i]The
Chronology of India. Ptolemy's 'Geography.' The
'Atlas' of Ortelius [/i], 2003.
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:10 pm

This is (maybe) why China censors Google

In Chronology 2, one of the prefaces is a 9-page article by Dr. Eugen Gabowitsch called "Ages in Chaos." The preface can be read in its entirety at Google Books (click on the first link at http://books.google.com/books?q=Gabowit ... utput=html )

It's a good article that says "Fomenko Is Not Alone" among scholars, and gives a short summary of dissent by 4 chronologers: Issac Newton, Jean Hardouin, Robert Baldauf , and Wilhelm Kammeier . The bio of the latest of the four, Kammeier (died 1959) I think is the most interesting.

Before I get to the Kammeier bio, there's a comment by Gabowitsch concerning Chinese history that absolutely FLOORED me. I have no evidence, and this is just a preface Gabowitsch wrote for Fomenko's book, having NOTHING (as far as I know) to do with Fomenko's own research, or even the rest of the book. (Gabowitsch, for one, misspells "Gandhi"...but the editor should have caught that, right?)

So, I don't know if Gabowitsch's research is as thorough as Fomenko's, but here's part of the preface:
Excerpts from Chronology 2, preface by Eugen Gabowitsch, pp. xv-xvi


Next we must explicate the fact that history is still
being created. Most people say a critical watershed in
the entire historical formation is the Gregorian Cal-
endar reform of 1582. However, in many cases the ve-
racious historical period begins a great deal later.
Three years ago we suggested 1650 as the beginning
of the veracious period in history, all prior epochs
being in need of thorough research and chronologi-
cal verification. Having been in close touch with the
Russian community of unorthodox historians for
quite a few years, I can say that even this dating is far
too optimistic; history is still being created, and this
process may even be happening a great deal more
rapidly nowadays. India, for instance, is attempting
to introduce a new model of the Indian past - much
more grandiose, yet free from conflicts, wars, vio-
lence and all "anti-Ghandian" phenomena in general.
This politically correct version of history is being
taught in Indian schools today.

China can be taken as another example. The Great Wall,
for instance, has only been built after 1950 - its
prior existence is but an old European myth.

The reaction of utter surprise and astonishment is very nat-
ural. I have published a paper with the results of my
research that lead one to the abovementioned con-
clusion; there is another book in existence, written by
a professional historian, that says the very same thing.
However, this literature never gets read by the masses;
everyone reads newspapers and watches films, which
adhere to the model where the Great Wall of China
has existed for the last 2000 years. There isn't a sin-
gle old Chinese drawing of the wall- the oldest ones
come from European books. It has been different for
the last 50 years or so; the Chinese Communists built
an actual wall, and now declare it to be more ancient
than even the most daring estimates of historians.

Another example is the invention of the printing
press by the Germans in the XV century, 1440 being
the earliest estimation. There is nothing odd about
this invention being made in Europe around that
time - after all, all European languages use phonetic
alphabets. However, consensual history is trying to
convince us that somebody invented printing moulds
in China 300 years before, in the XI century - for
tens of thousands of hieroglyphs, no less. The inven-
tion had promptly been forgotten, serving no other
purpose than going down in history. The more plau-
sible version is that a European (possibly Dutch) book
about the invention of the printing press in Germany
became translated into Chinese around the XVII cen-
tury and became part of Chinese history.

One must also recollect the alleged invention of the
logarithms in China that took place 500 years before
they were invented in the Netherlands. The compar-
ison of two publications, European and Chinese,
demonstrates that a misprint from Napier's table of
natural logarithms (first published in 1620) was re-
peated in a Chinese book that is presumed to be 500
years older. Is that the natural way of making history,
one wonders?
The Spanish Armada of 300 great ves-
sels also became an important part of Chinese history.
Every Chinese history book reports about the con-
struction of a gigantic 300-vessel armada in 1405;
some of the ships are said to have been 150 metres
long, which is quite impossible for wooden ships.
This fleet was presumably sent to India, the Arabic
countries and so on; the expedition recurred six or
seven times, its purpose remaining unclear. This is ob-
viously the Great Spanish Armada transformed into
a Chinese myth.

As a matter of fact, if one does a bit of research,
one shall see the very same process taking place now
in Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan
and the Ukraine. I come from Estonia, and I know
the Estonians to have the longest history in the world
- tribes of proto- Estonians have presumably inhab-
ited the territory of modern Estonia in 5000 B.C.
It is quite naturally a myth that cannot be verified;
yet the creation of such myths is still taking place in
virtually every country in the world. Everyone tries
to trace their history as far back into the illusionary
past as possible. This is the historical mindset of the
XX century.

The most important period in the making of his-
tory falls on the XVIII century. This is when the Rus-
sian, the German and the Chinese history was created;
the creation of Chinese history in particular has been
transparent to the extreme, since it amounted to the
translation of historical books in different European
languages into Chinese. All of them have become na-
tive a long time ago, incorporated into Chinese his-
tory. Chinese writing is not phonetic; the language of
the original becomes thoroughly lost in translation,
that is. Nearly every major European chronicle, like-
wise every invention made in Europe, became re-
flected in Chinese history.

The origins of the real Chinese history date to the
XIV century A.D. the earliest, which is ridiculously late
from the consensual point of view. Prior to that, his-
tory in the traditional European understanding had
been nonexistent in China, and may be referred to as
"moral history." This also applies to Indian history -
according to a certain Japanese scientist, modern
Indian history is like a telephone directory, with a
hodgepodge of names culled from a plethora of
chronicles without a single correct dating or indeed
any historical events at all.

One can plainly see that a critical approach to his-
tory is very much called for; one must however say
that critical schools of historians are anything but a
recent phenomenon - it suffices to mention Sir Isaac
Newton, who had been one of the most vehement
critics of consensual history in his epoch. The Russian
critical tradition begins with Nikolai Morozov, whose
fundamental critique entitled "Christ" was published
in the 1930's. Nowadays Fomenko and his team of sci-
entists possess unsurpassable mathematical and sta-
tistical tools that they successfully use for the critical
analysis of historical data, discovering more and more
irrefutable facts that prove consensual history to have
just about as much in common in reality as a book
of nursery rhymes. Their latest fundamental work is
being translated into English, and the first two vol-
umes are now widely available; one cannot recom-
mend those enough, since their release is doubtlessly
a very important step towards the understanding of
human history as it is, which is miles and miles apart
from what we have grown accustomed to believe.

Okay, here's the section on Wilhelm Kammeier ;
the best paragraph may be
"According to Kammeier, the key goal of this pro-
longed and massive campaign for the falsification of
historical documents had been the concealment, dis-
tortion and arbitrary extension of the pre-Christian
history, with all the achievements of the pagan epoch
ascribed thereto. Apart from that, "legal" acknowl-
edgement of the possession rights must have been in
high demand among the new feudal rulers, whose property was acquired from lawful pagan owners rather recently, and in a violent manner.
Falsified donation doc-
uments were necessary to declare ancient rights of pos-
session; their authorship could be traced to one of the
great Christian rulers of antiquity - fictitious entities
invented for this specific purpose in many cases."
Excerpts from Chronology 2, preface by Eugen Gabowitsch, pp. xix-xxi

Wilhelm Kammeier

In case of Wilhelm Kammeier, a German critic of
historical sources, we don't know so much as the date
of his birth; he was born between 1890 and 1900. He
died in 1959 in Arnstadt (Thuringia) former East
Germany). He was a lawyer by trade, and had worked
in Hanover as a notary. He had taken part in World
War II and was taken prisoner. After that, he had lived
in Arnstadt, which became the new home of his fam-
ily after the destruction of their Hanover residence
during the war. All his post-war life he had been af-
flicted by poverty and state repressions. Very proba-
bly his death resulted from chronic malnutrition.

The job of a notary provided Kammeier with an
excellent basis for the critical research of old docu-
ments) which he became fascinated with in 1923. By
1926 he had completed his 292-page manuscript en-
titled "The Universal Falsification of History", where
he subjects historical documents serving as the basis
for the mediaeval history of Germany to rigorous
criticisms. However, it had taken him many years to
find a publisher for this critique.

He sent a brief summary of the key points related
in the manuscript to the Prussian Academy of Scien-
ces with a request to be given the opportunity of mak-
ing a public speech in front of the historians. This re-
quest was rejected under a formal pretext that private
persons weren't allowed to address the Academy, with
no substantial argumentation given.
The mere fact
that Kammeier had not held an office in an academic
institution sufficed for the rejection of a well-rea-
soned critique.

Kammeier's manuscript got published only as late
as 1935.
This was followed by a brochure, where the
criticisms of historical sources were taken further,
encompassing the entire mediaeval period in Europe,
and seven more brochures on the same subject.
work ([g9]) has long ago become a bibliographic
rarity. It was published again in a small number of
copies as part of the book ([ g 1 0]) that also includes
the following works of Wilhelm Kammeier dating
from 1936-1939: "Enigmas of Global History - an
Answer to my Critics", "The Mystery of Mediaeval
Rome","Dogmatic Christianity and the Falsification of
History", and "The Foundation of the Roman Ecu-
menical Church"

Finally, Kammeier's manuscript on the "sources"
of the early Christianity and their falsification, pre-
viously unpublished and presumed lost, came out as
a book ([g11]).

Official science had only been reacting to Kam-
meier's works during the first few years that followed
the release of his first book - critically, of course. One
of his critics, a certain Professor Heimpel, accused
Kammeier of having no positive conception of his-
tory. A critic must naturally be concerned with the
positive historical picture first and foremost, regard-
less of whether or not it is a work of fiction through
and through: "If we see the entire historical concep-
tion of the Middle Ages disintegrate and transform
into a spot of impenetrable darkness, or indeed a gi-
gantic question mark, we shall naturally end up with
feeling inner resentment against Kammeier's criti-
cisms, well-reasoned or not".

Kammeier's counter-argumentation was that it
hadn't been his fault that the history of Germany and
the entire Ancient World proved a work of fiction to
a tremendous extent, the literary and documental
sources of the epoch being forgeries. He only pleaded
guilty of discovering this historical falsification, men-
tioning the necessity to live with a new historical truth
that new generations of historians would inevitably
face (as we know, they still shudder at the mere
thought), alluding to Schopenhauer's concept about
truth needing no permission for its existence. Once
perceived, the truth becomes an elemental force: in-
telligent persons shall try to turn this force to their
benefit instead of opposing it.

However, after the reasoned refutation of the his-
torians' criticisms by Kammeier, the learned scholars
have switched to the tried and viable tactics of ob-
struction and concealment (after all, things that re-
main unknown to the general public may as well be
nonexistent). The world war that broke out around
that time had aided this obstruction greatly.
Kammeier's participation in military action, his cap-
tivity and the unsettled state of his post-war life had
interrupted his active research for a long time.

The only job Kammeier managed to find in the
East Germany was that of a schoolteacher. As soon as
circumstances allowed, he resumed his research of the
"ancient" documents, concentrating all of his atten-
tion on the documental foundations of the history of
early Christianity. It is quite possible that he had
counted on a benevolent attitude towards this topic
from the part of Socialist historiography in an athe-
istic country that the East Germany was striving to be-
come. Instead of that, as soon as he had offered his cri-
tique of early Christian documents to the historians
of the German Democratic Republic, he became a
victim of repressions
: he lost his job, the manuscript
of his book ( [gll ]) was confiscated and had been pre-
sumed lost for a long time; his estate was nationalised,
and his family forced to dwell in hunger and poverty.

Kammeier's research of the "ancient" documents
begins with the trivial remark that every donation
document (the most common kind of mediaeval doc-
uments; donations could assume the form of estate,
privileges, ranks etc), must contain information about
the nature of the gift, the date of the donation, the
names of the benefactor and the receiver and the place
where the document was written. Documents with
blank fields (date, name of the donation's receiver etc)
are null and void from the legal point of view
, and can
only serve as historical sources indirectly (in the re-
search of historical falsifications, for instance).

Documents kept in libraries often fail to corre-
spond to these criteria:

One finds documents with no date, or a date that
was obviously introduced later - alternatively, the
date can be incomplete or transcribed in a manner
that fails to correspond with the presumed epoch of
the document's creation.

Documents dating to the same day would often be
"signed" in different geographical location.

The analysis of places and dates leaves us with the
following picture: all German emperors, regardless
of age, health and basic human logic, don't reside in
any capital, but keep on the move all the time, occa-
sionally covering gigantic distances in a single day, in
order to make more and more donations to their loyal

It would be interesting to feed all such data to a
computer in order to compile analytical overviews of
the movement speed of the German feudal rulers and
their supernormal Wanderlust. However, the tables
that the historians have already compiled, demonstrate
that German emperors often managed to be present
in two mutually distant geographical locations on the
same day. For instance, Emperor Conrad is presumed
to have been present in 2 or 3 different cities at the same
annual Christian feast for 50 years in a row.

The family name of the donation's recipient is ab-
from a great number of documents (this is the
case with up to half of all surviving documents for
some epochs) - one can therefore speak of headers
at best, valid official documents being a far cry.
Naturally, Kammeier wasn't the first to discover
forgeries during the research of ancient (or presum-
ably ancient) documents. His primary merit is that
he had managed to recognize the more or less sys-
tematic large-scale activities of whole generations of
hoaxers serving the Catholic Church or individual
feudal rulers and grasp the real scale of the historical
falsification campaign, which had been great enough
to surprise historians even before his time.

These hoaxers have destroyed a great many of old
originals and replaced them by forgeries. Old text
would often be erased with new one taking its place
on an ancient parchment, which would make the for-
gery look like an "authentic ancient relic" in the eyes
of the hoaxers. It would often take a very minor al-
teration to change the original meaning of an old
document completely.

According to Kammeier, the key goal of this pro-
longed and massive campaign for the falsification of
historical documents had been the concealment, dis-
tortion and arbitrary extension of the pre-Christian
history, with all the achievements of the pagan epoch
ascribed thereto. Apart from that, "legal" acknowl-
edgement of the possession rights must have been in
high demand among the new feudal rulers, whose
property was acquired from lawful pagan owners
rather recently, and in a violent manner.

Falsified donation documents were necessary to declare
ancient rights of possession; their authorship could be
traced to one of the great Christian rulers of antiquity
- fictitious entities invented for this specific purpose in
many cases.

The general condition of historical sources at the
moment can be described as follows: the number of
forgeries is mind-boggling, and every "ancient" work
of history lacks an original (this is hardly a chance oc-
However, historians keep on using forger-
ies in lieu of official documentation - possibly due to
the fact that their inveracity has not been proven ir-
refutably yet, or that such irrefutable proof does in fact
exist, but remains concealed from the scientific com-

One can find the following corollaries made by
Kammeier in the course of his research of mediaeval
documents in

The humanists took part in the massive falsifica-
tion of history alongside the Catholic clergy striving
to create some proof of the historical significance at-
tributed to their church; this process falls on the XV
century for the most part.

The documents related to the pagan "German"
history have been destroyed and replaced by Gallic
and Romanic forgeries.

The existence of Catholic Pontiffs before the so-
called Avignon captivity is of a figmental nature
through and through.

Historical events that preceded the XIII century are
beyond reconstruction, since all of the earlier docu-
ments have been destroyed and replaced by counter-

The pre-Papal wars between national churches
were subsequently presented as struggle against the
heretics and the apostates.

"Ancient" literature is as much of a forgery as the
mediaeval documents. One of such fake literary works
is "Germany" by Tacitus.

The Catholic clergy can be credited with the in-
vention of the New Testament, or at least a radical re-
arrangement thereof.

The church keeps on manufacturing counterfeited
"ancient" manuscripts in order to "prove" the au-
thenticity of Evangelical texts and their great age with
the aid of the new findings.

" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

User avatar
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:54 pm
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

Great stuff, Crac. I'm forwarding some of it to a bud of mine who bought the Fomenko book, but because of his work schedule found it "a bit daunting of a read."

I think your keen observations, snippets and additional research may snap him back into the proper mode, and maybe I'll finally get his intelligent take on the text.
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:10 pm

Rumpl4skn wrote: a bud of mine who bought the Fomenko book, but because of his work schedule found it "a bit daunting of a read."
If he's short on time or motivation, I'd recommend reading from Chron 1: the Preface by Fomenko, and then read the first & last chapters (Chapter 1 & Chapter 7).

The preface tells who the hell the author is & why he got interested in the subject, the first chapter gives an excellent introduction of how modern western history was formed (Scaliger et al & Catholic Church) with problems of modern dating methods like carbon-14 dating, & the final chapter has juicy details about how "ancient" history is really medieval history.

HOWEVER, after reading Chapter 1, the chapters aren't too bad read independently anyhow...in case he has heavy interests in other areas -like astronomy(chapters 2 & 4 ) , the Apocalypse (chapter 3), or statistical analysis(chapter 6) - the chapter & subchapter titles in the table of contents have clearly worded titles as far as skipping around goes.
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:10 pm

Great Wall of China:
LENGTH: 1500 to 4000 miles ,
DEPTH: up to 15 feet (one site said average is 5 meters)
HEIGHT: up to 48 feet (one site said average is 10 meters)

I'm still not sure how I feel about this whole "great wall" was built in 20th century hypothesis yet. This is what I've got so far:

1) some rough dimensions (mentioned above),
2) a translated paragraph from German by Eugen Gabowitsch,
3) perhaps randomly a short story(fiction?) by FRANZ KAFKA called "The Great Wall of China"which was written in 1917, but not published until 1931...seven years after Kafka's death. (Kafka apparently didn't want his unpublished stuff to be published according to www.kafka.org/index.php?works "In fact, misgivings about his work caused Kafka before his death to request that all of his unpublished manuscripts be destroyed; his literary executor, Max Brod, disregarded his instructions." )

The feelings I get from the enormous dimensions, reiterated by Gabowitsch's article, is about the same that Bill Hicks got when he looked out the Texas School Book Depository window where Oswald allegedly shot JFK in Dealey Plaza: NO F'ING WAY! But that's just a gut, emotional reaction.

I found the Gabowitsch article in German, used Babelfish to find the part of the article talking about The Wall, and then used the better online translator http://translation2.paralink.com/ a few times (500 characters max) that Ormond mentioned months ago.

The short story...I skimmed it, & it is dull. I haven't really read Kafka, so maybe there's some hidden genius. I mention it only because Kafka writes like the wall is just then being constructed. [EDIT:...and the people don't know what dynasty/ruler currently exists, and the "leadership" has the people build an enormous wall THAT DOES NOT PROTECT THEM from northern enemies who they know nothing about. ... so, it's not as dull as I first thought]

Translated Excerpt
Original German by Eugen Gabowitsch is at www.jesus1053.com/l2-wahl/l2-autoren/l3 ... china.html
(It's the next-to-last paragraph starting with "Wie alt ist die Chinesische Mauer in Wirklichkeit?" )

How old is the Great Wall of China in reality? The Great Wall of China (the big Great Wall of China) – the biggest building of the world, about 2,500 kms long (3500 to 5000, even 6500 according to other information by consideration of all branch lines) became around 215 before Chr. as a bulwark (FLOW? Or WALL) builds against the Internal-Asian nomads and in the cent. 15/16 renews. She should be 5 ms wide up to 16 ms high, in the upper edge.

By the way, also this information sways. Thus wrote Morosow ("Christ", B. 6, page 121): " Only the thought that the famous Great Wall of China which is 6-7 m high and until three meters wide which has the length of 3,000 kms and was already started in the year 246 B.C. by emperor Shi-Choangti, was finished only after 1866 years to 1620 A.D., is so senseless that he prepares only frustration for a serious thinking historian "

In the Bertelsmann encyclopedia in 15 tapes, in 1990, B. 3, stands: " The distance of the most western point with Jiuquan (province Gansu) up to most eastern with Shanhaiguan (by the yellow sea) amounts to about 2,500 kms, however, one can count because of the bends, branching out and strengthening arms on a total length of 5000-10000 kms. The western part mostly exists of rammed earth, eastern from stones. "

The today's history books prefer about the construction of the wall nothing – or to write at least nothing chronologically binding. At most one thinks a sentence as " All emperors of the Ming dynasty were weak with the exception of emperor So-und in such a way who allowed to renovate the big Great Wall of China. "
And the third edition of the big Soviet encyclopaedia, B. 4, S., 1109, wrote in 1971: " The first segments were built in 4-3 cent. B.C.

After union of China (221 B.C.) emperor Tsing Shi-Chuandhi ordered to establish the continuous wall to protect the northwest borders of the empire of the attacks of the nomadic tribes. Later became the wall several times weitergebaut and was renovated. " No information more to the final establishment of the wall in 17. Cent.!

What concerns the dimensions of the wall, these will return so: " After some acceptances the length is less than 4,000 kms., after others – more than 5,000 kms.; the height is 6.6 ms, on some distances – to 10 ms.), the width of the lower part is about 6.5 ms, the upper – approx. 5.5 ms. "
And just these dimensions allow to doubt that the big Great Wall of China from nomads should protect: for it a 1-2 m wide wall would be more than enough.

Only in the age of the artillery it had a sense; to protect the border with such a massive wall.
The nomads against it could have conquered the wall with concentrated attack at practically every place because no army of the world would have several thousand kms. long wall can defend against concentrated attacks in in ahead not known places.

Just therefore my F*N, that the big Great Wall of China only in the 16-17. Cent. after the splitting off of China was built by big action arias (-Tartarei). She served not the defense of the land against the nomads, but marked the new state border and – we dare to suppose – he served as a state monument – after many centuries of the affiliation to the Russian-Turkish "Mongol's empire" gained – state independence.

Just because the military advantages of the Russian armies lay in the artillery and not in the superiority according to figures, the big Great Wall of China – should protect at least symbolically - against the Russians well. Other arguments of F*N:
Why were established no such walls between the single Chinese states which fought 2000 years? Because after the real establishment in 17. Cent. no such more states existed (China was united among the Manchu).

Why no other big constructions from the Chinese history are known? E.G., big fortresses, how in Russia. The answer is the same one: because after 17. Cent. no more Internal-Chinese wars took place.
Why became the big Great Wall of China on some maps from 18. Cent. illustrated? Because it was established along the border.
If she existed, however, earlier, one would have mentioned in the suitable state contract that the new border was agreed along the quite existing wall.

"The Great Wall of China" (short story) by Franz Kafka
written 1917, published first posthumously in 1931

The Great Wall of China was finished at its northernmost location. The construction work moved up from the south-east and south-west and joined at this point. The system of building in sections was also followed on a small scale within the two great armies of workers, the eastern and western. It was carried out in the following manner: groups of about twenty workers were formed, each of which had to take on a section of the wall, about five hundred metres. A neighbouring group then built a wall of similar length to meet it. But afterwards, when the sections were fully joined, construction was not continued on any further at the end of this thousand-metre section. Instead the groups of workers were shipped off again to build the wall in completely different regions. Naturally, with this method many large gaps arose, which were filled in only gradually and slowly, many of them not until after it had already been reported that the building of the wall was complete. In fact, there are said to be gaps which have never been built in at all, although that’s merely an assertion which probably belongs among the many legends which have arisen about the structure and which, for individual people at least, are impossible to prove with their own eyes and according to their own standards, because the structure is so immense.

Now, at first one might think it would have been more advantageous in every way to build in continuous sections or at least continuously within two main sections. For the wall was conceived as a protection against the people of the north, as was commonly announced and universally known. But how can protection be provided by a wall which is not built continuously? In fact, not only can such a wall not protect, but the structure itself is in constant danger. Those parts of the wall left standing abandoned in particular regions could easily be destroyed again and again by the nomads, especially by those back then who, worried about the building of the wall, changed their place of residence with incredible speed, like grasshoppers, and thus perhaps had an even better overall view of how the construction was proceeding than we did, the people who built it.

However, there was no other way to carry out the construction except the way it happened. In order to understand this, one must consider the following: the wall was to be a protection for centuries; thus, the essential prerequisites for the work were the most careful construction, the use of the architectural wisdom of all known ages and peoples, and an enduring sense of personal responsibility in the builders. Of course, for the more humble tasks one could use ignorant day labourers from the people—the men, women, and children who offered their services for good money. But the supervision of even four day labourers required a knowledgeable man, an educated expert in construction, someone who was capable of feeling sympathy deep in his heart for what was at stake here. And the higher the challenge, the greater the demands. And such men were in fact available—if not the crowds of them which this construction could have used, at least in great numbers.

They did not set about this task recklessly. Fifty years before the start of construction it was announced throughout the whole region of China which was to be enclosed within the wall that architecture and especially masonry were the most important areas of knowledge, and everything else was recognized only to the extent that it had some relationship to those. I still remember very well how as small children who could hardly walk we stood in our teacher’s little garden and had to construct a sort of wall out of pebbles, and how the teacher gathered up his coat and ran against the wall, naturally making everything collapse, and then scolded us so much for the weakness of our construction that we ran off in all directions howling to our parents. A tiny incident, but an indication of the spirit of the times.

I was lucky that at twenty years of age, when I passed the final examination of the lowest school, the construction of the wall was just starting. I say lucky because many who earlier had attained the highest limit of education available to them for years had no idea what to do with their knowledge and wandered around uselessly, with the most splendid architectural plans in their heads, and a great many of them just went downhill from there. But the ones who finally got to work as supervisors on the construction, even if they had the lowest rank, were really worthy of their position. They were masons who had given much thought to the construction and never stopped thinking about it, men who, right from the first stone which they sunk into the ground, had a sense of themselves as part of the wall. Such masons, of course, were driven not only by the desire to carry out the work as thoroughly as possible but also by impatience to see the structure standing there in its complete final perfection. Day labourers do not experience this impatience. They are driven only by their pay. The higher supervisors and, indeed, even the middle supervisors, see enough from their various perspectives on the growth of the wall to keep their spirits energized. But the subordinate supervisors, men who were mentally far above their small, more trivial tasks, had to be catered to in other ways. One could not, for example, let them lay one building block on top of another in an uninhabited region of the mountains, hundreds of miles from their homes, for months or even years at a time. The hopelessness of such a hard task, which could not be completed even in a long human lifetime, would have caused them distress and, more than anything else, made them worthless for work. For that reason they chose the system of building in sections. Five hundred metres could be completed in something like five years, by which time naturally the supervisors were as a rule too exhausted and had lost all faith in themselves, in the building, and in the world.

Thus, while they were still experiencing the elation of the celebrations for the joining up of a thousand metres of the wall, they were shipped far, far away. On their journey they saw here and there finished sections of the wall rising up; they passed through the quarters of the higher administrators, who gave them gifts as badges of honour, and they heard the rejoicing of new armies of workers streaming past them out of the depths of the land, saw forests being laid low, wood designated as scaffolding for the wall, witnessed mountains being broken up into rocks for the wall, and heard in the holy places the hymns of the pious praying for the construction to be finished. All this calmed their impatience. The quiet life of home, where they spent some time, reinvigorated them. The high regard which all those doing the building enjoyed, the devout humility with which people listened to their reports, the trust that simple quiet citizens had that the wall would be completed someday—all this tuned the strings of their souls. Then, like eternally hopeful children, they took leave of their home. The enthusiasm for labouring once again at the people’s work became irresistible. They set out from their houses earlier than necessary, and half the village accompanied them for a long way. On all the roads there were groups of people, pennants, banners—they had never seen how great and rich and beautiful and endearing their country was. Every countryman was a brother for whom they were building a protective wall and who would thank him with everything he had and was for all his life. Unity! Unity! Shoulder to shoulder, a coordinated movement of the people, their blood no longer confined in the limited circulation of the body but rolling sweetly and yet still returning through the infinite extent of China.

In view of all this, the system of piecemeal building becomes understandable. But there were still other reasons, too. And there is nothing strange in the fact that I have held off on this point for so long. It is the central issue in the whole construction of the wall, no matter how unimportant it appears at first. If I want to convey the ideas and experiences of that time and make them intelligible, I cannot probe deeply enough into this particular question.

First, one must realize that at that time certain achievements were brought to fruition which rank only slightly behind the Tower of Babel, although in the pleasure they gave to God, at least by human reckoning, they made an impression exactly the opposite of that structure. I mention this because at the time construction was beginning a scholar wrote a book in which he drew this comparison very precisely. In it he tried to show that the Tower of Babel had failed to attain its goal not for the reasons commonly asserted, or at least that the most important cause was not among these well-known ones. He not only based his proofs on texts and reports, but also claimed to have carried out personal inspections of the location and thus to have found that the structure collapsed and had to collapse because of the weakness of its foundation. And it is true that in this respect our age was far superior to that one long ago. Almost every educated person in our age was a mason by profession and infallible when it came to the business of laying foundations.

But it was not at all the scholar’s aim to prove this. He claimed that the great wall alone would for the first time in the age of human beings create a secure foundation for a new Tower of Babel. So first the wall and then the tower. In those days the book was in everyone’s hands, but I confess that even today I do not understand exactly how he imagined this tower. How could the wall, which never once took the form of a circle but only a sort of quarter or half circle, provide the foundation for a tower? But it could be meant only in a spiritual sense. But then why the wall, which was still something real, a product of the efforts and lives of hundreds of thousands of people? And why were there plans in the book—admittedly hazy plans—sketching the tower, as well as detailed proposals about how the energies of the people could be channelled into powerfully new work.

There was a great deal of mental confusion at the time—his book is only one example—perhaps simply because so many people were trying as hard as they could to join together for a single purpose. Human nature, which is fundamentally careless and by nature like the whirling dust, endures no restraint. If it restricts itself, it will soon begin to shake the restraints madly and tear up walls, chains, and even itself all over the place.

It is possible that even these considerations, which argued against building the wall in the first place, were not ignored by the leadership when they decided on piecemeal construction. We—and here I’m really speaking on behalf of many—actually first found out about it by spelling out the orders from the highest levels of management and learned for ourselves that without the leadership neither our school learning nor our human understanding would have been adequate for the small position we had within the enormous totality.

In the office of the leadership—where it was and who sat there no one I asked knows or knew—in this office I imagine that all human thoughts and wishes revolve in a circle, and all human aims and fulfilments in a circle going in the opposite direction. And through the window the reflection of the divine worlds fell onto the hands of the leadership as they drew up the plans. And for this reason the incorruptible observer will reject the notion that if the leadership had seriously wanted a continuous construction of the wall, they would not have been able to overcome the difficulties standing in the way. So the only conclusion left is that the leadership deliberately chose piecemeal construction. But building in sections was something merely makeshift and impractical. So the conclusion remains that the leadership wanted something impractical. An odd conclusion! True enough, and yet from another perspective it had some inherent justification.

Nowadays one can perhaps speak about it without danger. At that time for many people, even the best, there was a secret principle: Try with all your powers to understand the orders of the leadership, but only up to a certain limit—then stop thinking about them. A very reasonable principle, which incidentally found an even wider interpretation in a later often repeated comparison: Stop further thinking about it, not because it could harm you—it is not at all certain that it will harm you. In this matter one cannot speak in general about harming or not harming. What will happen to you is like a river in spring. It rises, grows stronger, eats away powerfully at the land along its shores, and still maintains its own course down into the sea and is more welcome as a fitter partner for the sea. Reflect upon the orders of the leadership as far as that. But then the river overflows its banks, loses its form and shape, slows down its forward movement, tries, contrary to its destiny, to form small seas inland, damages the fields, and yet cannot maintain its expansion long, but runs back within its banks, in fact, even dries up miserably in the hot time of year which follows. Do not reflect on the orders of the leadership to that extent.

Now, this comparison may perhaps have been extraordinarily apt during the construction of the wall, but it has at most only a limited relevance to my present report. For my investigation is only historical. There is no lightning strike flashing any more from storm clouds which have long since vanished, and thus I may seek an explanation for the piecemeal construction which goes further than the one people were satisfied with back then. The limits which my ability to think sets for me are certainly narrow enough, but the region one would have to pass through here is endless.

Against whom was the great wall to provide protection? Against the people of the north. I come from south-east China. No northern people can threaten us there. We read about them in the books of the ancients. The atrocities which their nature prompts them to commit make us heave a sigh on our peaceful porches. In the faithfully accurate pictures of artists we see the faces of this damnation, with their mouths flung open, the sharp pointed teeth stuck in their jaws, their straining eyes, which seem to be squinting for someone to seize, whom their jaws will crush and rip to pieces. When children are naughty, we hold up these pictures in front of them, and they immediately burst into tears and run into our arms. But we know nothing else about these northern lands. We have never seen them, and if we remain in our village, we never will see them, even if they charge straight at us and hunt us on their wild horses. The land is so huge, it would not permit them to reach us, and they would lose themselves in empty air.

So if things are like this, why do we leave our homes, the river and bridges, our mothers and fathers, our crying wives, our children in need of education, and go to school in the distant city, with our thoughts on the wall to the north, even further away? Why? Ask the leadership. They know us. As they mull over their immense concerns, they know about us, understand our small worries, see us all sitting together in our humble huts, and approve or disapprove of the prayer which the father of the house says in the evening surrounded by his family. And if I may be permitted such ideas about the leadership, then I must say that in my view the leadership existed even earlier. It did not come together like some high mandarins hastily summoned to a meeting by a beautiful dream of the future, something hastily concluded, a meeting which saw to it that the general population was driven from their beds by a knocking on the door so that they could carry out the decision, even if it was only to set up an lantern in honour of a god who had shown favour to the masters the day before, so that he could thrash them in some dark corner the next day, when the lantern had only just died out. On the contrary, I imagine the leadership has always existed, along with the decision to construct the wall as well. Innocent northern people believed they were the cause; the admirable innocent emperor believed he had given orders for it. We who were builders of the wall know otherwise and are silent.

Even during the construction of the wall and afterwards, right up to the present day, I have devoted myself almost exclusively to the histories of different people. There are certain questions for which one can, to some extent, get to the heart of the matter only in this way. Using this method I have found that we Chinese possess certain popular and state institutions which are uniquely clear and, then again, others which are uniquely obscure. Tracking down the reasons for these, especially for the latter phenomena, always appealed to me, and still does, and the construction of the wall is fundamentally concerned with these issues.

Now, among our most obscure institutions one can certainly include the empire itself. Of course, in Peking, right in the court, there is some clarity about it, although even this is more apparent than real. And the teachers of constitutional law and history in the schools of higher learning give out that they are precisely informed about these things and that they are able to pass this knowledge on to their students. The deeper one descends into the lower schools, understandably the more the doubts about the students’ own knowledge disappear, and a superficial education surges up as high as a mountain around a few precepts drilled into them for centuries, sayings which, in fact, have lost nothing of their eternal truth, but which remain also eternally unrecognised in the mist and fog.

But, in my view, it’s precisely the empire we should be asking the people about, because in them the empire has its final support. It’s true that in this matter I can speak once again only about my own homeland. Other than the agricultural deities and the service to them, which so beautifully and variously fills up the entire year, our thinking concerns itself only with the emperor. But not with the present emperor. We’d rather think about the present one if we knew who he was or anything definite about him. We were naturally always trying—and it’s the single curiosity which satisfies us—to find out something or other about him, but, no matter how strange this sounds, it was hardly possible to learn anything, either from pilgrims, even though they wandered through much of our land, or from the close or remote villages, or from boatmen, although they have travelled not merely on our little waterways but also on the sacred rivers. True, we heard a great deal, but could gather nothing from the many details.

Our land is so huge, that no fairy tale can adequately deal with its size. Heaven hardly covers it all. And Peking is only a point, the imperial palace only a tiny dot. It’s true that, by contrast, throughout all the different levels of the world the emperor, as emperor, is great. But the living emperor, a man like us, lies on a peaceful bed, just as we do. It is, no doubt, of ample proportions, but it could be merely narrow and short. Like us, he sometime stretches out his limbs and, if he is very tired, yawns with his delicately delineated mouth. But how are we to know about that thousands of miles to the south, where we almost border on the Tibetan highlands? Besides, any report which came, even if it reached us, would get there much too late and would be long out of date. Around the emperor the glittering and yet mysterious court throngs—malice and enmity clothed as servants and friends, the counterbalance to the imperial power, with their poisoned arrows always trying to shoot the emperor down from his side of the balance scales. The empire is immortal, but the individual emperor falls and collapses. Even entire dynasties finally sink down and breathe their one last death rattle. The people will never know anything about these struggles and sufferings. Like those who have come too late, like strangers to the city, they stand at the end of the thickly populated side alleyways, quietly living off the provisions they have brought with them, while far off in the market place right in the middle foreground the execution of their master is taking place.

There is a legend which expresses this relationship well. The Emperor—so they say—has sent a message, directly from his death bed, to you alone, his pathetic subject, a tiny shadow which has taken refuge at the furthest distance from the imperial sun. He ordered the herald to kneel down beside his bed and whispered the message into his ear. He thought it was so important that he had the herald repeat it back to him. He confirmed the accuracy of the verbal message by nodding his head. And in front of the entire crowd of those who’ve come to witness his death—all the obstructing walls have been broken down and all the great ones of his empire are standing in a circle on the broad and high soaring flights of stairs—in front of all of them he dispatched his herald. The messenger started off at once, a powerful, tireless man. Sticking one arm out and then another, he makes his way through the crowd. If he runs into resistance, he points to his breast where there is a sign of the sun. So he moves forward easily, unlike anyone else. But the crowd is so huge; its dwelling places are infinite. If there were an open field, how he would fly along, and soon you would hear the marvelous pounding of his fist on your door. But instead of that, how futile are all his efforts. He is still forcing his way through the private rooms of the innermost palace. He will never he win his way through. And if he did manage that, nothing would have been achieved. He would have to fight his way down the steps, and, if he managed to do that, nothing would have been achieved. He would have to stride through the courtyards, and after the courtyards the second palace encircling the first, and, then again, stairs and courtyards, and then, once again, a palace, and so on for thousands of years. And if he finally did burst through the outermost door—but that can never, never happen—the royal capital city, the centre of the world, is still there in front of him, piled high and full of sediment. No one pushes his way through here, certainly not with a message from a dead man. But you sit at your window and dream of that message when evening comes.

That’s exactly how our people look at the emperor, hopelessly and full of hope. They don’t know which emperor is on the throne, and there are even doubts about the name of the dynasty. In the schools they learn a great deal about things like the succession, but the common uncertainty in this respect is so great that even the best pupils are drawn into it. In our villages emperors long since dead are set on the throne, and one of them who still lives on only in songs had one of his announcements issued a little while ago, which the priest read out from the altar. Battles from our most ancient history are now fought for the first time, and with a glowing face your neighbour charges into your house with the report. The imperial wives, over indulged on silk cushions, alienated from noble customs by shrewd courtiers, swollen with thirst for power, driven by greed, excessive in their lust, are always committing their evil acts over again. The further back they are in time, the more terrible all their colours glow, and with a loud cry of grief our village eventually gets to learn how an empress thousands of years ago drank her husband’s blood in lengthy gulps.

That, then, is how the people deal with the rulers from the past, but they mix up the present rulers with the dead ones. If once, once in a person’s lifetime an imperial official travelling around the province comes into our village, sets out some demands or other in the name of the rulers, checks the tax lists, attends a school class, interrogates the priest about our comings and goings, and then, before climbing into his sedan chair, summarizes everything in a long sermon to the assembled local population, at that point a smile crosses every face, one man looks furtively at another and bends over his children, so as not to let the official see him. How, people think, can he speak of a dead man as if he were alive. This emperor already died a long time ago, the dynasty has been extinguished, the official is having fun with us. But we’ll act as if we didn’t notice, so that we don’t hurt his feelings. However, in all seriousness we’ll obey only our present ruler, for anything else would be a sin. And behind the official’s sedan chair as it hurries away there arises from the already decomposed urn someone or other arbitrarily endorsed as ruler of the village.

Similarly, with us people are, as a rule, little affected by political revolutions and contemporary wars. Here I recall an incident from my youth. In a neighbouring but still very far distant province a rebellion broke out. I cannot remember the causes any more. Besides, they are not important here. In that province reasons for rebellion arise every new day—they are an excitable people. Well, on one occasion a rebel pamphlet was brought to my father’s house by a beggar who had travelled through that province. It happened to be a holiday. Our living room was full of guests. The priest sat in their midst and studied the pamphlet. Suddenly everyone started laughing, the sheet was torn to pieces in the general confusion, and the beggar was chased out of the room with blows, although he had already been richly rewarded. Everyone scattered and ran out into the beautiful day. Why? The dialect of the neighbouring province is essentially different from ours, and these differences manifest themselves also in certain forms of the written language, which for us have an antiquated character. Well, the priest had scarcely read two pages like that, and people had already decided. Old matters heard long ago, and long since got over. And although—as I recall from my memory—a horrifying way of life seemed to speak irrefutably through the beggar, people laughed and shook their head and were unwilling to hear any more. That’s how ready people are among us to obliterate the present.

If one wanted to conclude from such phenomena that we basically have no emperor at all, one would not be far from the truth. I need to say it again and again: There is perhaps no people more faithful to the emperor than we are in the south, but the emperor derives no benefits from our loyalty. It’s true that on the way out of our village there stands on a little pillar the sacred dragon, which, for as long as men can remember, has paid tribute by blowing its fiery breath straight in the direction of Peking. But for the people in the village Peking itself is much stranger than living in the next world. Could there really be a village where houses stand right beside each other covering the fields and reaching further than the view from our hills, with men standing shoulder to shoulder between these houses day and night? Rather than imagining such a city, it’s easier for us to believe that Peking and its emperor are one, something like a cloud, peacefully moving along under the sun as the ages pass.

Now, the consequence of such opinions is a life which is to some extent free and uncontrolled. Not in any way immoral—purity of morals like those in my homeland I have hardly ever come across in my travels. But nonetheless a life that stands under no present laws and only pays attention to the wisdom and advice which reach across to us from ancient times.

I guard again generalizations and do not claim that things like this go on in all ten thousand villages of our province or, indeed, in all five hundred provinces of China. But on the basis of the many writings which I have read concerning this subject, as well as on the basis of my many observations, especially since the construction of the wall with its human material provided an opportunity for a man of feeling to travel through the souls of almost all the provinces—on the basis of all this perhaps I may truly state that with respect to the emperor the prevailing idea again and again reveals a certain universal essential feature common to the conception in my homeland. Now, I have no desire at all to let this conception stand as a virtue—quite the contrary. It’s true that in the main things the blame rests with the government, which in the oldest empire on earth right up to the present day has not been able or has, among other things, neglected to cultivate the institution of empire sufficiently clearly so that it is immediately and ceaselessly effective right up to the most remote frontiers of the empire. On the other hand, however, there is in this also a weakness in the people’s power of imagining or believing, which has not succeeded in pulling the empire out of its deep contemplative state in Peking and making it something fully vital and present in the hearts of subjects, who nonetheless want nothing better than to feel its touch once and then die from the experience.

So this conception is really not a virtue. It’s all the more striking that this very weakness appears to be one of the most important ways of unifying our people. Indeed, if one may go so far as to use the expression, it is the very ground itself on which we live. To provide a detailed account of why we have a flaw here would amount not just to rattling our consciences but, what is much more serious, to making our feet tremble. And therefore I do not wish to go any further in the investigation of these questions at the present time.
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:10 pm

China: Another Brick in the (Great) Wall ?

I used Google Translate on the entire Gabowitsch article that I partially posted earlier (parts are still confusing, but still useful), and I found another article in German that - for whatever reason (less academic style?) - is more coherent after automatic translation.

First article mentions a strange phenomenon (no names..because names have no meaning, or something ?) in Chinese writing...which is really some form of international symbol writing ? I have no idea if that makes any sense.

But the second article is pretty clear:

That second point could be a smoking gun if true.
No old grafitti ?
In Thousands of Years?
On a 4000-Mile-Long Wall?

(Shit, I happened to be passing through Cincinatti a few months ago, and in one of the poorer neighborhoods, a bridge above the highway had spraypainted in white capital letters "COLIN POWELL = VANILLA ICE." )

1. Article I posted earlier using Google Translate would be called:
"China: as and as is correct the chronology of the Chinese antiquity developed"
http://www.jesus1053.com/l2-wahl/l2-aut ... china.html

Selected translated paragraphs from section
"When did Chinese writing really develop"
But we turn back for the view of the Chinese writing!
First of all, is it actually no Chinese, but international writing, which can be used not only in different parts of China, where several dialects, even languages are used, but also in Japan and Korea, and at all everywhere in the world, (and becomes). Because this writing does not know phonetic indications, it is not capable of presenting words which do not possess a meaning. Such words, e.g. all names, are replaced by a number of words with meaning (by names - imitations). Therefore the Europeans can identify hardly the European geographical names into Chinese discussion as such (against-recognize).

The Chinese do not know names in our sense - names, which will not purely phonetically pass a meaning on to have and. The word “China” does not exist for it, only the word combination “middle realm”. Their capital call it “the northern capital”. From Washington they make or somewhat something similar, which possesses any meaning for them for Wan Shing Tong. Therefore one after such names - mockups in a Chinese book cannot determine, in which language the book was originally written: in Japanese, Chinese or latin. Thus all translations become Chinese books immediately.
2. Second article using Google Translate (much more coherent) is :
"The large wall as a myth:
The establishment history of the Chinese wall and its Mythologisierung

Translated excerpts:
And straight these charmful pictures force to ask the following question to us: "The large wall was not in the earlier times so beautifully and for artists not so terribly attractive? Why didn't the Chinese painters paint pictures of the large wall comparable with the today's photos?" Nevertheless the 100 left (approx. 50 km) represented, which between Peking and the wall lie, no distance for the enormous Chinese realm.

We leaf dynasties, even whole picture roles through the plentifully illustrated book [10] and find there numerous beautiful paintings from many centuries, mainly from Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (=Tzing, until 1911) -. Among them are also numerous hilly landscapes, walls and towers in Peking, city gates and other attachments, but not one picture of the towers of the large wall or at least a small section of it. Thus the existence of the large wall was in the last centuries no matter of course and we may questions to history and chronology of this building place. In particular in view of the existing doubt about the correctness of of the Chinese chronology (S. in addition my two articles [6, 7] into „time jumps ", 1999, number 1).
But as it was with the photographers of the first half 20. Jh.? Since approx. 1880 became the photography an industrially supported activity, which was used also by many journalists, who worked in China. Also did they shoot no photos of the large wall, before the Second World War? I am very grateful to each reader, that looks for such pictures in old pictorials. First I can only report that I did not succeed in numerous books concerning the Chinese wall to find old photos.
In the book „Russia, existed " (Moscow, pc. the never - Petersburg Krasnojarsk, 1997), of the well-known Russian writer Alexander Buschkow, which as Russian Simenon - which is celebrated author of the usually-sold Russian detective stories -, the hypothesis was expressed the fact that the large Chinese wall was a work of the chairman Mao Tse tung and before the Second World War mainly in the heads and not in natura existed.

This assumption throws already asked the question about the exact operational sequence of the restoration work in the second half 20. Jh. The information about it is rather poor. Nevertheless we found some out.

„In the Qing time the wall lost finally its meaning and purged, since it ran in the middle by the enormous realm. Only the beginning of the tourism age help her to a new function as visitor magnet and source of income. 1957 (my emphasis) were restored a first section with Badaling. With increasing host of visitors further restorations followed with Mutianyu, Simarai, Jin Shanling, Shanhaiguan etc. “[5, P. 166]

„From 1966 to 1976, during the culture revolution, large parts (the large wall) of the destruction rage of the red guards fell to the victim. However the new government ensured for the fact that the damages caused by them eliminated the overeager revolutionary again. Thus the bulwark points itself to the restoration in several sections again in its old condition… “[11, P. 28]

„Who wants to drive an only little routistic piece of wall to visit, should to Mutianyu, to 70 km northeast the capital. To the 1986 (my emphasis) restored wall section hardly errs in
Visitor. Mutianyu was a strategically important base for the defense of Peking. In order to prevent that enemies up to the foot of the barrier could penetrate it was built, still several shorter walls, which were long some dozen up to several hundred meters. Breath-robbing is the process of the barrier, which pulls itself toward the west up to 1000 m a high summit. “[5, P. 167].

To still another restored section the Chinese travel books lure in such a way: „Northeast from Peking that is appropriate for about 250 km approximately 200,000 inhabitants counting small towns Chengde in a valley lain landschaftlich delightfully. One can accomplish the trip easily in two days. A long afternoon and a long morning are sufficient for the inspections. One comes to a well four-hour course travel by wonderful mountain country shank. The travel with the bus is not less interesting, and who has the possibility for it, a distance with the course and one should put back with the bus. Protecting the bus travel passes one the probably imposantesten and landschaftlich at the most beautiful convenient section of the large wall. It is called Jin Shanling (golden ridge) and is appropriate for 120 km far away from the capital in the administrative district Miyun (at the border to the province lever). This restored part (my emphasis) of the wall is more than 20 km long and can 100 military towers show. Pleasant is here the complete absence any Touristenrummels… “[5, P. 193].

For the hypothesis of building the large wall in the time of the communist rule in China speaks the propagandistic role, which was assigned to the large wall on the part of the Chinese communists: „In China one regards the large wall as a symbol for the unbesiegbaren national spirit (and such a symbol had to be perpetuated naturally in the stone!). Since the Opiumkrieg of 1840 the Chinese people fought incessantly and persistent for its liberty and independence. When our people turned out in the thirties of this century by the aggression of the Japanese militarism into an extremely dangerous situation, it tuned in a loud voice the strong, march song of the Freiwilligen' on: , Raise you, which it not when slave live want! Let us with our meat and blood our new large wall build… '(this appeal was put to the establishment of the People's Republic of China 1949 as an appeal for establishment enormous stone wall into practice?) and offered verbissenen eight-year old resistance, until the panischen aggressors from the country had hunted. In the year 1949 in China the hundred-year time interval of the aggression and suppression was terminated by foreign powers, and the Chinese people rose in the east of the world equal a large wall (or over finally a large wall not only in the heads to establish but also purely materialistically on the appropriate area?). “[2, P. ii]
In the year 1980 (thus already after the culture revolution)the national office formed a scientific group to the protection of antique cultural monuments together with the culture Ministry for the study of the large wall. With the people municipality Bakeshiying in the circle Luanping, province Hebei, discovered this group some dozen of left a long wall section, which works extremely impressive and than the Badaling wall is not less well received around the fortress Juyongguan with Beijing. This section was called therefore second Badaling wall. Actually this place Shalingkou, also mentioned, is called Jinshanling and forms a part of the defense with Gubeikou. “[2, P. 40]

It can be only admired that such a beautiful wall section, which lies in no uninhabited part of China remained unknown so long. There I can only assume that this section before the Mao time did not exist. It cannot be excluded that this section in the Mao time, but still before the culture revolution - perhaps on the initiative of the local party leadership, which wanted to make itself later with the own wall loved in Peking - was built. Then it began the culture revolution and the initiators of the building of the Wall was killed before they could communicate to Peking that also they can show a wall. But we look at, as the Chinese explain this find:

„Initial did not exist with Gubeikou a wall section, because at present the arguing realms and the Qin as well as the Han dynasty ran the large wall far north of Gubeikou. Only as in the year 555, protecting for the northern Qi-dynasty, which was built more than 5000 left long Mauerstrecke from Shaanxi to Shanhaiguan, a wall section developed also with Gubeikov. But the wall was rather low at that time and consisted only of a mixture of sand and pebbles. Therefore hardly remnants remained received. “

Thus clearly, it was not anything to see but nothing at all and therefore also none of the wall in the area knew. But it does not explain yet, when the section was built and why one needed a high scientific commission, in order the wall section to discover (perhaps a kind assumption of the finished wall section, those was shifted by the culture revolution several years?). Unfortunately also the following lines do not answer these questions, as the reader can convince itself:

„Only in the Ming dynasty the Gubeikou passport won strategic meaning. At that time the Gubeikou wall formed, just as the wall became with Juyongguan, an important entrance to the capital Beijing and guarded by strong troop units and locked. The again discovered wall with Shalingkou is a part of the Gubeikou passport. “(P. 40). And no word over the time of building!

I regard this case as a rather safe proof for the building activities in the Mao time, which one cannot define no more than restoration work. With same right one would know each house, which one builds today in Cologne, when the restoration „Roman " building define one. No, those Chinese communists did not only restore the large wall. They to a large extent completely again built this wall

In the heads of humans, in its conceptions - it was, in reality however - it was hardly, at least not in form by the whole Chinese north pulling of a wall of thousands of kilometers length. There were fortresses and towers, it gave barriers and short wall sections, perhaps also some something longer, but it did not exist a large wall.

In France became end 19. Jh. even an extra booklet published, in which it was justified why the large wall not only does not exist had never existed, but also: the brochure [12] of l'Abbé Larrieu. We summarize in few words, that one must hold oneself in the question before-bleached of the large wall as per Larrieu:
The large wall described by Martini and other authors existed not only not, but never existed.
It gave a Chinese emperor, who had the idea of a large wall, which should begin of Léao tong and end in the west of the province Kansou.
This idea was never carried out, but it experienced the beginning of an execution.

One can prove that the execution of this idea was begun, there one on the entire accepted line of the large wall low, square towers finds from each other convenient and never, from earth or from with bricks covered the earth, but in large distance by a wall, whatever kind always, with one another connected.
This is the most exact conception, which one can make oneself from before-bleached the large wall! … This is reduced the vorgebliche large wall, to their actual size! …

The Chinese, whom the author asked, gave only answer, the famous Ouang left tchang tcheng nothing else was, as evenly this earthen wall. An alleged second wall, which is to begin north of Peking and run towards the west, is likewise only a flat earthen barrier. It gives therefore also no this wall to guarding soldier, only Grüppchen isolated here and there along the line.

Contrary to Martini and to the Chinese annals Larrieu that wall planned of Tsing che hoang ti at all and the towers were not only built by the Ming dynasty, thinks above all because Marco Polo the wall in its report on a journey with no word mentioned. Now, &aumll; ber Marco Polo we know in the meantime that it had never been with large probability in China (in the today's sense of this word). Nevertheless the opinion of l'Abbé Larrieu is very important, because it concrete proofs for the existence of the wall would have found, it no more need would have had be based upon Marco Polo.

Only in France did not prevail end 19. Jh. doubt about the existence of the large wall. The Russian writer A. Busch already mentioned supports his hypothesis by the observations of a Russian clergyman Archimandrits P. Ith Kafarow (Archimandrit is a high orthodox clergyman, the highest church degree for a monk, honour title of a monastery chief of many years; Kafarow of the leaders one was supposed the large orthodox monastery). This led 19 in and the seventies sixties. Jh. the Russian orthodox mission in Peking and was interested in stories and legends, which were told in connection with the large wall. After arrangement with several high officials, who promised him their full support, Kafarow undertook several long journeys, in order to visit the wall. In vain. He did not find anything that could present 10,000 left a long wall.
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:10 pm

(Note:Chronology 2 is a much more difficult read than Chronology 1. Each chapter is a gigantic outline of numbered points showing parallels between two or three wars at a time, with occasional commentary or photos that are more interesting.)



Trojan War = Tarquinian War = Gothic War

"ancient" Achilles = the mediaeval Belisarius
"ancient" Hector = the mediaeval Gothic king Vittigis

or something like that

The most interesting part of this section was explaining the Trojan Horse story that either sounds really stupid or makes no sense at all. Seems there was a bad translation along the way. Instead of "horse" it should have been some grey object (a broken aqeduct large enough for a man to walk through) that seemed "resembled a grey horse" that was critical to victory and allowed them to sneak in.

Oh and about those singing Homers with the FANTASTIC MEMORIES (Chron2, Chap2,pp. 152-3).
"The nursery tale about a gigantic hollow equine statue is just as preposterous as the Scaligerian tale of Homer's seven hundred pages melodiously sung aloud by the "ancient" Greek shepherds for five hundred years before they could be written down, five hundred years after the fall of Troy."
Excerpts from Chronology 2, Chapter 2

from pp 110-111
8a. The Gothic War. As we shall demonstrate in
the next section, the only way Belisarius could
seize Naples = The New City (or the double of
the ancient Troy, qv below) was due to excep-
tional cunning - getting into the city via an
aqueduct. Thus, the entire plan was based on
the use of an aqueduct - the "Trojan horse':
the "aquatic or equine duct" ([237]). See
details below.

from page 155

54a. The Trojan War. The idea to use "the likeness
of a horse" in the siege of Troy belonged to the
Greek named Ulysses or Ulixes, also known as
Odysseus. He may have been a double of
Achilles, and the phonetic proximity of their
names does indeed suggest it - Ulysses/Ulixes/
Achilles. As we already know, a special brigade
of 300-1000 men was hidden inside "a grey
object resembling a horse"; this had been kept
secret from the Trojans. The location where
the warriors had entered this "horse» lay be-
yond the city walls.

. 54b. The Gothic- Tarquinian War. In the Gothic war
the idea of using the old aqueduct had be-
longed to the Romean Greek Belisarius. The
parallelisms discovered previously imply Beli-
sarius and Achilles to be phantom reflections
of one and the same mediaeval personality.
We shall discuss it in more detail below. This
"special brigade" had remained hidden in the
aqueduct) which was kept secret from every-
one, even the rest of the troops. The warriors
had entered the aqueduct through an opening
that was located outside the walls of the city.

from pages 152-154

Mere common sense suggests that one should
hardly believe that the "ancient" Greeks could really
have made a gigantic hollow statue of a horse that
could hold a thousand warriors in the XIII century
B.C., as well as the tale of silly gullible Trojans taking
troubles to pull this statue into the city. The nursery
tale about a gigantic hollow equine statue is just as
preposterous as the Scaligerian tale of Homer's seven
hundred pages melodiously sung aloud by the "an-
cient" Greek shepherds for five hundred years before
they could be written down, five hundred years after
the fall of Troy.

Let's sum up.
a) The Greeks had used some grey object resemblmg
a horse
to conquer Troy.
b) We are told about the gigantic size of this "horse
c) The "horse" had huge legs.
d) Some of the chroniclers say it was made of
wood, others name copper, glass and wax. We see a
variety of contradictory opinions here.
e) The horse is supposed to have made its way into
the city somehow.
Let us now turn to the Gothic version.

. 52b. The Gothic- Tarquinian War. The VI century
chroniclers give a sober and realistic answer to
the abovementioned question about the
Trojan Horse and its identity. Naturally, there
is no talk of a horse there
. What we're told is
that Belisarius had used his cunning to take
advantage of a certain circumstance (1196),
Volume I; also [695)). Apparently, there was
an old dilapidated aqueduct going through the
sturdy walls of mediaeval Naples. A large pipe
made of stone - a pipe, not a dale. The aque-
duct began outside the city limits and used to
supply water for the New City (Naples) at
some point. There was a stone stopper with a
small hole for the water at wall level. The
aqueduct didn't function and had remained
abandoned for a long time ([ 196], Volume 1).
A special brigade of some 400 armed Ro-
mean Greeks secretly entered the opening in
the aqueduct that ldy well outside city limils
(another version tells us of 300 cavalry sol-
diers and a hundred infantrymen). At any
rate, "Operation Aqueduct" is often men-
tioned together with cavalry by the chroni-
clers who tell us of the Gothic War. This en-
tire operation had been kept secret from
everyone else in the Graeco-Romean army,
let alone the besieged. The Greeks reached
the vallum, broke the plug with the utmost
caution, signalled to the main body of the
troops situated outside and opened the gates
to the army of Belisarius that rushed into the
city. The defenders of Naples barely had the
time to wake and call to arms. This is how
the New City (Nea-Polis) fell.

The Gothic War historians describe the aque-
duct as an enormous pipe supported by mas-
sive propugnacula, wide enough for a human
to stand in.
One can still see the ruins of an
enormous aqueduct in Istanbul (qv in
fig. 2.67 and (1464), page 72). Nowadays it is
called the Aqueduct of Valens
- it is possible
that this is the very same conduit that the
crusaders had used in the time of the Gothic
War, or the storm of the New Rome = Con-
stantinople = Troy
. Ancient authors could
also have easily compared the aqueduct to a
gigantic animal (a horse?) with stanchions
for legs that delivered water into the city An-
other thing that comes to mind in this respect
is the facl that the same word is used to refer
to an icebreaker (pier) and an ox - "byk." The
decrepit conduit could have been called a
"great beast" poetically, see fig. 2.68. We arc
therefore of the opinion that the famous
Trojan Horse is a metaphor used for the
water conduit or aqueduct that the Greeks
had used in Iheir siege of the New City with
such success. Let us trace this parallel further.

53a. The Trojan War. The Latin for "horse." The
Lalin word for "horse" or "mare" is "equa"
("equae"). See [237), pages 350-351.

53b. The Gothic- Tarquinian War. The Latin for
"water." The Latin word for "water" is " aqua"
("aquae"). See {237], page 374. We see a great
similarity between the two words. A reference
to the Latin language is quite in order here,
since most of the Trojan chronicles that
reached our age were written in Latin. Apart
from that, we should consider Byzantium
(Romea) and the New Rome and also possi-
bly a part of Italy as the arena of war.

Image Image
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

User avatar
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:54 pm

He may have been a double of
Achilles, and the phonetic proximity of their
names does indeed suggest it - Ulysses/Ulixes/
I've seen multiple examples of this in this thread. I understand what he's saying basically, but is there a linguistic basis for this? Erh... I don't even know what I'm asking exactly. I guess... is he arguing that the earliest scribes would try to spell things to the best of their phonetic ability and therefore names would be more subject to distortion?

It's just that Ulysses to Achilles seems like somewhat of a stretch to me, but that's in my completely uneducated perception. So, any clarification in this regard would be helpful.
User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:10 pm

Banta wrote:
He may have been a double of
Achilles, and the phonetic proximity of their
names does indeed suggest it - Ulysses/Ulixes/
I've seen multiple examples of this in this thread. I understand what he's saying basically, but is there a linguistic basis for this? Erh... I don't even know what I'm asking exactly. I guess... is he arguing that the earliest scribes would try to spell things to the best of their phonetic ability and therefore names would be more subject to distortion?

It's just that Ulysses to Achilles seems like somewhat of a stretch to me, but that's in my completely uneducated perception. So, any clarification in this regard would be helpful.
Remove the vowels. Imagine how an abbreviator short on space would repeat a name used throughout a story.

I think Fomenko is essentially saying that the written records today have similarities to the children's game "telephone"" : over centuries, and a number of translations in different languages, translators made guesses along the way, or interpreted a particular name a different way.

I think earlier I had a snippet in an earlier post about how paper was a luxury, so before the invention of cheaper paper, the supposedly "ancient" authors (I thought this was just Hebrew before, but I guess it makes sense for all "ancients") shortened their writings to "unvocalized" language removing the vowels to save space....like in written unvocalized Hebrew from the earliest versions of the Old Testament. Also, different translators may have inserted different vowels when translating names. Hence. Maybe just maybe (at least as a guess, before looking at more parallelisms),

L SS S = CH LL S ?

The comparison (in this case) doesn't make much sense to me either, unless the original handwritten writings have similarities, or unless the unvocalized versions were just "LS" for both. (What is "Ulixes" unvocalized: LXS ?...could Achilles be XLS ? it's a stretch.) Other such comparisons might make more sense, such as from page 156.
60a. The Trojan War. The closest friend and com-
rade-in-arms that Achilles had was called
Patroclus, whose name transcribes as PTRCL
without vocalizations. Another version of his
name that we encounter in the Trojan chroni-
cles is Partasis ([851], page 143), which tran-
scribes as PRTS or BRTS unvocalized. How-
ever, this consonant skeleton may well assume
the form of "Brutus': which is very similar to
the Russian word for "brother': which is "brat".
Thus, the "ancient" Achilles had a friend called
Patroclus- Partasis- Brutus- Brat (Brother).
I think Fomenko includes the volcalizations/unvolcalization comparisons as an interesting conjecture...but he doesn't depend on them too much. He includes them as one point in a long outline that is a chapter long, almost like an introduction of the people he will be comparing later in the chapter.
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

User avatar
Jerry Fletcher
Posts: 837
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:14 am
Location: Studio BS

Nice work, Crac - you're on fire.

As if you're friends didn't already think you were nuts.

Anyway, as a student of media in the information age, I became fascinated with the concept of an entire social structure and cultural paradigm based on hoaxed media describing a 'lost antiquity.'

Who could possibly pull off such an enduring scam?

After a few lost months, a million links, and a lot of reading, I came to the conclusion that the origins of the media psyop we refer to as 'western culture' could be seen in the cultural 'explosion' of the 15th century Florentine Renaissance which was fueled by the 'rediscovery' of classical antiquity.

Emerging on the heels of the Venetian Empire, which made the wealth of global trade available to the privileged residents of the Mediterranean, the 'discoveries' of 'Ancient Rome' and such supported the validity of the new social institutions introduced during this period, namely, banking, academia, and 'Roman Style' civil government.

I came to the conclusion that much of work toward instituting the institutions of western humanism was done by members of the extremely influential and powerful Medici Family from Florence.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Medici family was a powerful and influential Florentine family from the 13th to 17th century.

The family produced three popes (Leo X, Clement VII, and Leo XI), numerous rulers of Florence (notably Lorenzo il Magnifico, patron of some of the most famous works of renaissance art), and later members of the French and English royalty.

Like other Signore families they dominated their city's government. They were able to bring Florence under their family's power allowing for an environment where art and humanism could flourish.

They led the birth of the Italian Renaissance along with the other great signore families of Italy like the Visconti and Sforza families of Milan, the Este of Ferrara, the Gonzaga of Mantua, and others.

The Medici Bank was one of the most prosperous and most respected in Europe. There are some estimates that the Medici family was for a period of time the wealthiest family in Europe. From this base, the family acquired political power initially in Florence, and later in wider Italy and Europe.

A notable contribution to the profession of accounting was the improvement of the general ledger system through the development of the double-entry bookkeeping system for tracking credits and debits.

This system was first used by accountants working for the Medici family in Florence.

From: Medici - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici
They have quite a history, the Medici family, one rarely mentioned in history textbooks. I also think it's very interesting that echoes of this family name can be heard in modern words like 'Media' and 'Medicine' - even 'Medieval'.

The Medici family come from the agricultural Mugello region, north to Florence, being mentioned for the first time in a document of 1260. The origin of the name is uncertain although its Italian meaning is "doctor".

Members of the family rose to some prominence in the early 14th century in the trade of wool, especially towards France and Spain. Despite the presence of some Medicis in the city's government institutions, they were still far less notable than outstanding families such as the Albizzi or the Strozzi. One Salvestro de' Medici was speaker of the woolmakers' guild during the Ciompi revolt, and one Antonio was sentenced to death in 1396.

The involvement in another plot in 1400 caused all branches of the family to be banned from Florence's politics for twenty years, with the exception of two: from one of the latter, that of Averardo (Bicci) de' Medici, originated the Medici dynasty.

15th century Averardo's son, Giovanni di Bicci, increased the wealth of the family through his creation of the Medici Bank, and became one of the richest men in the city.

Although never holding any political charge, he gained a strong popular support to the family when he supported the introduction of a proportional taxing system.

His son Cosimo the Elder took over in 1434 as gran maestro, and the Medici became unofficial heads of state of the Florentine republic. The "senior" branch of the family — those descended from Cosimo the Elder — ruled until the assassination of Alessandro de' Medici, first Duke of Florence, in 1537.

This century-long rule was only interrupted on two occasions (between 1494–1512 and 1527–1530), when popular revolts sent the Medici into exile. Power then passed to the "junior" branch — those descended from Lorenzo the Elder, younger son of Giovanni di Bicci, starting with his great-great-grandson Cosimo I the Great.

The Medici's rise to power was chronicled in detail by Benedetto Dei. Cosimo and his father started the Medici foundations in banking, manufacturing - including a form of franchises - wealth, art, cultural patronage, and in the Papacy that ensured their success for generations.

At least half, probably more, of Florence’s people were employed by them and their foundational branches in business.

From: Medici - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici
Regardless, they struck me as some of the best psyop artists iin history - not that anybody else cared or would consider me any less insane for this particular nutbag theory.

I recently ran across a BBC special that I found l particularly fascinating. In addition to being the only 'classics professor' to ever play a role in a Jerry Fletcher personal fantasy sequence, a Ms. Bettany Hughes narrates a series of audios about the Medici family that supports the idea of a renaissance scam perpetrated by the Florentine elite.

Informative and entertaining! Check it out:

Bettany Hughes begins a three part re-evaluation of one of the most creative and complicated partnerships in the western world

The Renaissance was not a unified, predetermined event that washed the values of the ancient world into the mainstream of the new. It was a far more fragile, random entity than that. The one great constant? The presence of a Medici at every turn of the story.

The Medici were the gatekeepers to the ancient world.  Their nurturing of University understanding, the collection of Roman and Greek manuscripts for their library and their sponsorship of humanist artist made them the lynchpin of the Renaissance as the medieval world began to re-examine the relationship between man, God and the world.  

Set between the founding of the Medici Bank in 1397 and the aftermath of the Bonfire of the Vanities in 1494, this is a critical, intimate, yet spectacular portrait of the two halves of the equation that added up to the most extraordinary celebration of the power of mankind, presented by a broadcaster and historian who inhabits their world and the world they allowed to re-enter Western thought. 

This series is about that symbiotic relationship and the vast change in our perceptions that stemmed from it.

Episode 1: Bankers to the Renaissance

The Medici are synonymous with the Renaissance, but why did these bankers act as patrons to artists like Michelangelo and Donatello - was it a love of art or something more sinister?


Episode 2: Renaissance, what renaissance?

Classicist Bettany Hughes continues her journey through the beauty and the blood-letting of Renaissance Florence.  Could it be that the Renaissance as we know it wasn't a renaissance at all? Could Donatello's David really be a political statement for the Medici?  And what has Liverpool got to do with it?  Bettany finds that the Renaissance is more than it's cracked up to be.


Episode 3: Smart women, gay men and false gods

Historian Bettany Hughes concludes her journey through the beauty and the blood of renaissance Florence.  This week she finds that, contrary to popular belief, it was smart women, gay men and false gods who made the corner stones of western civilization.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/amo ... dici.shtml
Fun stuff, and definitely supportive of Fomenko's position .
User avatar
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:44 am
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

Hmm - definitely 'classic'. ;)

The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:10 pm

Analyzing Old Maps

Interesting anomalies on old maps. I think Fomenko is saying that alleged 11th & 12th century A.D. maps are primitive, and progress in cartography was roughly linear until the 18th century; therefore, "ancient" maps that look a little "too good" were probably created much later. (In the excerpts, I'm leaving out the methodology...you know, he's analyzing old maps for accuracies/inaccuracies.)

After the excerpt, so you get the idea of what a 500-year old world map looks like, I'm including a world map by Petrus Apianus, allegedly 1520 A.D.... The excerpt says something about a huge regions of China & Burma are labeled "Judiah" on this map, but I'm just not seeing the label. Neat map to look at, regardless .

Excerpts from Chronology 1, Chapter 5, pp. 238-247

Each geographical map reflects the state
of the science of the humankind in the respective
epoch of its compilation. Maps are obviously getting
better as scientific ideas develop, which means as a
whole, the quantity of erroneous geographical data de-
, and the quantity of correct data increases.
Having studied many ancient maps, we composed an
optimum map-code,
Due to the role that maps have always played in
navigation and military science, this map improve-
ment principle is quite comprehensible and simply
reflects vital practical needs.
We found out that the sequence of mediaeval maps
begins in the XI-XII century A.D. with absolutely prim-
itive maps
, very far from reality. Then the quality of
maps improves more or less evenly until we finally
come across fairly correct maps and globes of the XVI
century A.D. At the same time, this quality improve-
ment has been developing quite slowly.

Thus, for instance, the geographical knowledge in
Europe of the XVI century A.D. was still very far from
the contemporary.The map of 1522, compiled by
Occupario and kept in the State Historical Museum
of the city of Moscow, depicts Europe and Asia in
proportions blatantly different from the contempo-
rary ones. Namely, Greenland is represented as a
peninsula in Europe; the Scandinavian Peninsula
stretches out as a thin stripe; the Bosporus and the
Dardanelles are greatly extended and enlarged; the
Black Sea is skewed along the vertical axis; the Caspian
Sea is horizontally elongated and literally beyond
recognition, etc. The only region depicted more or less
correctly is the Mediterranean coast, although Greece
is represented as a triangle without Peloponnesus.

1) The well-known map from the Geographia by
, the Basler publication of 1545 (see, for ex-
ample, [252], page 97), is considered today to be "very
ancient." However, it falls not into the II century A.D.,
but the XV-XVI century A.D., or the epoch of the
book's publication by the "ancient" Ptolemy, which
makes us recall a perfectly similar situation with the
Almagest by Ptolemy
, q.v. in CHRON3. We reproduce
this map in fig. 5.44.

2) An equally famous "ancient" map entitled Tab-
ula Pentingeriana
, presented, for example, in [544],
Volume 3, pages 232-233, falls not into the beginning
of A.D., the epoch of Augustus, but into the XIII-XV
century A.D.
, with a deviation from the Scaligerian
dating of more than one thousand years.
In fig. 5.45 we present the famous map by Hans
Rust, dating to 1480 ([ 1160], page 39). This map is
remarkable in many respects. It shows the authentic
level of geographical knowledge towards the end of
the XV century, - repeat, the fifteenth century! It is
clearly evident that this level is still extremely low and
This is not a map yet, but rather a "painted
list", verbal enumeration of countries, peoples, and
certain cities. Certainly, certain geographical regions
can already be recognised, albeit hardly. This is ap-
parently the very beginning of cartography, its first
clumsy steps. This is why all allegedly "ancient", pic-
turesque maps of much higher level, now presented
as those of XIV-XV century, were "transposed into the
past" only owing to the Scaligerian chronology, while
their actual place is in the XVII-XVIII century
Some more remarkable mediaeval maps: fig. 5.48
shows the map of the world by Petrus Apianus, made
allegedly in 1520
(11459), sheet XXIll, map 6]). Let
us point out that America is already painted. Enor-
mous regions of China and Burma located to the East
of India are named Judiah. See names Iudia and Iudi-
on the map, fig. 5.49. The Far East is named India
Superior. It is interesting that Siberia is named Scythia:
Scitia Extra. The European part of Russia is named
, fig. 5.50.

Fig. 5.51 shows a map of alleged[y 1538, Solinus,
Basel ([ 1459), map 71). One should notice that the en-
tire Europe to the North of Greece is named Moskovia
fig. 5.52. This map has many other interesting names,
which do not fit the Scaligeridn version of history
and geography.

Fig. 5.53 presents a raree map of Jerusalem of the
allleged XIV century ([ 1177), page 475}. We see Chris-
tian crosses on the buildings of Jerusalem. It is very
interesting that at the same time, to the left below, an
Ottoman mosque with two high minarets
is shown,
fig. 5.54. Apparently, this medieval map depicts Czar-
Grad (King-City) = Jerusalem of the Gospels, with
Ottoman mosques and Christian temples. Such maps,
poorly fitting the Scaligerian version of history, must
invoke irritation in contemporary historians
. In this
case, commentators named this image "a stylized map
of Jerusalem
", as if calling to distrust the information
presented on the map ([ U77), page 475).

Fig. 5.55 shows the. map of the World compiled by
Isidore, in the alleged VII century A.V., but published
in the book of the alleged XV century ([ 11771,
page 302). We see an extremely primitive map. most
likely drawn in the XV century for the first time the
earliest, and reflecting the ideas of the XV century
cartographers about the structure of the world.

In fig. 5.56 we see a fragment of the map of the
world by Gregor Reisch, allegedly dating to 1515
(11009]. page 65). According to its level, it was most
likely created later than the beginning of the XVI cen-
tury. America is present. Russia is called Tartaria.
White Russia (Belaya Rus') is shown in the north of
Russia. Moreover, there are several Tartarias on the
map, q.v. in fig. 5.57.

Fig. 5.58 represents the map of the world by Mac-
robius, an "ancient" late Roman philosopher. The
map, however, has only appeared in the book allegully
dating from 1483 ([1009], page 16).lt is clearly evi-
dent that the level of geographical ideals is still very
primitive. Most likely, this map reflects the concepts
of cartographers of the XV-XVI century.

Fig. 5.59 shows a fragment of the map of "the Holy
Land," allegedly dating from 1556 ([ 1189 L page 94).
We see the city of Saint George next to Asur!
To the
left, a city named Indi - probably the "city of India"
- is marked. Of interest are the city names of Skan-
dalium and Skandaria, containing the root Skanda
or Scandia.

Fig. 5.60 shows a fragment of an ancient map of
1649, on which the German river Moselle is named
River Mosa, i.e.. probably the river of Moses ([ 11891,
page 171). Why and when such Biblical geographical
names appeared, and how they became blurred sub-
sequently in the territory of the Western Europe, is
discussed in CHRON6.

Fig. 5.61 shows a fragment of a well-known map
of the world by Schedel, allegedly dating from 1493
([1459], map 44). A still extremely low level of geo-
graphical ideas towards the end of the XV century is
dearly visible, see fig. 5.62.
Petrus Apianus world map, allegedly 1520 A.D.
high-resolution (2000 x 1403) version can be found by clicking on
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... us_map.jpg

Last edited by Cracrocrates on Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

Post Reply