Part I

       "Moscow Stories"

    We should begin the story of Desht-I-Kipchak and its tragedy from the nearest and well-known place - I mean Russia, which as the fates decree became a historical successor of the Turkic country doesn't feel like agreeing with that.     
    It is ridiculous, though: thousands and thousands evident Mongoloids live in Siberia in whose appearance one cannot find any Slavic features, but they call themselves Russians, speak only Russian language and have Russian names. Today even evident Asiatics are called Slavs in Russia. And there are millions Slavs with pure Russian appearance there.
    However one shouldn't be astonished at anything concerning Russian history (as well as European) - it has become a riddle long ago: logic of certain events has been trampled down, and the facts were consigned to oblivion. For example, 196 nations lived in tsarist Russia. This number has considerably reduced in the course of the years of Soviet power. Human nationality was dealt with as his property, at authorities' discretion…
    The Cossacks were the first who lost their name in the time of the soviet regime. Those steppe inhabitants' descendants were called the Russians right after the decree of dispossession of Cossacks was issued; they became the first Soviet "new Russians". To tell the truth, Kuban and Stavropol Cossacks were ascribed to the Ukrainians at first, and only after that they "became" Russians… Who are they - today's Russians - indeed?

    A great deal has been said about it. Poets, writers, philosophers searched for "suitable" answers to a simple question. But one should know the truth in order to answer. Everything is obvious: "Ancient Russian nationality with an eastern Slavic self-consciousness was formed during the period of unity of ancient Russian early feudal Kiev state (Kiev Russia of IX - XII centuries)" - that's an official viewpoint. But…
    What was before Kiev Russia? It didn't appear for good reason. Who were they, those people, who to the Dnepr bank in IX century? Where from? And was Kiev (Slavic) state that united to allow a new nation to be formed there? It usually takes centuries and centuries.
    Another thing is also incomprehensible, why were Kiev inhabitants always called Ukrainians and not Russians: for, it seems, Russia means Kiev? And finally, why is Russian and Ukrainian culture that different?

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

    Plinius the Elder (24 - 79), a Roman scientist and writer, was the first who called the Slaves a European nation in his treatise in many volumes named "Natural History". That is a real encyclopedia of ancient world! Scientists of future generations were brought up with it. Ancient Slavs were called "Wends".     
    Another Roman historian - Tacito (58 - 117) - confirmed and enriched the information about Wends - a nation which lived in the north of Europe, between Vistula and Oder. New registered history of the Slavs, or it's better to say "Wends", appeared in world history after that. And everything that was written by Russian historians later is a fib.
   
The Slavs and Russes didn't even live alongside - they were divided by the Baltic Sea. They were different in many aspects: way of living, appearance, turn of mind. For example, Varangians earned their living through sea trade, feats of arms, while the Slavs were the plowmen, cattle-breeders and - later - nomadic farmers.
    Furthermore, annalistic sources marked that "Russes used to wage war against the Slavs", "the Slavs paid levy to Russes"… Those two nations were of different levels of social development. Their unification wasn't possible even in theory.    
    In IX century Russes inconvenienced Byzantium. To tell the truth, certain Russian historians assert in the simplicity of their souls that all those inconveniences were caused by some "Slavic Russes". However nobody, except for them, has ever spoken of such a strange "nation".
    To discuss "Slavic Russes" is all the same as to discuss "Greek Arabs" or "Roman Moors". This is absurd in the view of common sense. Bat, alas, mythical "Slavic Russes" adjoin mythical Tatar-Mongols in Russian history.
    "Russes don't have any ploughed fields and they feed on what they bring from Slavic lands", - Ibn Ruste, an eastern chronicler, marked in X Century. "30 - 200 of them (Russes) usually go to the Slavs and violently take lots of things for their sake", Gardizi, another writer of those times, repeated.
    It turns out these were not the Slavs who fastened a shield to the gates of Tsargrad - that was a Varangian shield.

     Saint Cyril and Methodius - Who Were They?

     Another story about "Slavic" first teachers, saint brothers Cyril and Methodius, is also significant. Monuments were raised and holidays are celebrated in their honor. But who has ever proved that they had been the Slavs?
    Brothers were born afar from Slavic lands, in a Great Bulgaria chaganat. They spoke Turkic language - or Protobulgarian language, as it was sometimes called in Europe - and wrote in it as well. What was Slavic in them? They invented a new written language for their native Turkic language instead of an old - runic - one.
    Those two brothers are another mystery of Russian history. Some consider them Greeks, others think they were Slavs, while they gained an understanding in Russian language just as in Chinese or Zulu - they simply didn't know it. Saint Cyril didn't invent Slavic Cyrillic alphabet - he invented Glagolitic alphabet. And these are not the same things. It is known that since olden days Turkic Kipchaks have been using runic written language which graphics differed from Greek and Latin letters adopted in Europe. Intending to make their written language look like European brothers simply changed the runes into letters. And that's the whole invention.
    Glagolitic alphabet contained certain letters corresponding with specific sounds of Turkic language. That's because there are forty symbols in Glagolitic alphabet, almost as in runic one, while in Slavic alphabet number of symbols is noticeably lower.
    From where and how did this episode concerning "Slavic teachers" appear in Russian history? It turns out it appeared due to a mistake (or a deliberate distortion?) in the translation of ancient text. At first it wasn't emphasized, but later it became a historical fact. It is said in the Church Slavonic translation of the Acts of Cyril and Methodius: "Cyril was taught Russian reading and writing by a Russ in Kherson". That phrase gave rise to everything.
    It is evident that Cyril wasn't Russian which isn't denied by Orthodox publicism. Another thing is worse - that phrase is absent in the Greek original!
    What's the matter? It came to light: in Russian language original word "Sursian" was changed by the word "Russian". And they are not the same. In IX century "Sursian" meant "Syrian". Dealing with Syrian books was common for Cyril and other enlighteners.
    And there was no trace of any Russian book… How could books appear when written language didn't exist?
    The legend of "Slavic teachers" has been confirmed neither by Byzantine nor by other documents. N.M Karamzin borrowed that fact of "enlightenment" from Nestor, the chronicler, being fully aware of his unreliability. Great Russian historian was surely embarrassed by the fact that Mikhail, the emperor, who's supposedly sent Cyril and Methodius in 898 to translate books into Slavic language, had been killed in 867 and couldn't have sent them to Moravia.
    And besides, how could he order to translate books into Slavic language while Slavic alphabet didn't exist, the Slavs couldn't read and translators didn't know Slavic language?... Who needed those books?

    Another question: what language was spoken in Moravia? Certain evidences show that it was Turkic language. At least inscriptions found there have been made with Turkic runes. If that is true, nobody needed Slavic books in Moravia at all.
    Cyrillic "Slavic peculiar alphabet" appeared after Cyril's death! One can assert that for, as it is evident from the Hagiography, the elder took the name "Cyril" several days before his death, on St. Cyril day, when he fell ill and adopted a saint schema. Before that his name was Constantine, he led his life with it…
    It turns out even the word "Cyrillic" couldn't exist at that time, not to mention a dialogue between two persons who lived in different times.
    However, medieval historians had no doubts in this regard. For example Dobner, a Bohemian, wrote as follows: true Cyrillic alphabet is Glagolitic one. "Glagolitic letters are crude and incoherent, they have all signs of antiquity and are not similar with any other. Cyrillic letters are nothing else than Greek ones and they couldn't pass for a new invention in IX century. There are only seven non-Greek letters among them which were taken from Glagolitic Alphabet".
    Documents witness of one thing and Russian legends - of another. Thus it turns out that as if two Cyrils and two Methodiuses existed - true and imaginary.
   
    To tell the truth N.M. Karamzin marked that Glagolitic alphabets have not been accepted by Slavic languages as though due to "frizzy signs" but he was evidently cunning. Cyrillic alphabets are "frizzy" as well. Of course there was another reason and it couldn't happen that great Karamzin was not in the know.
    Cyrillic alphabet became obligatory only during XVIII century when everything connected with the Turki was to be annihilated while Slavic style was rising. New alphabet was merely a political trick of Moscow governors! In order to make the following generations unable to read ancient books… So that the nation could start its "Slavic" history from nothing. Later those methods were also resorted to. Thus several Caucasian nations were deprived of their literary monument when in order to breach the ties between the generations Arab graphics was specially introduced to Moslems and later it was changed by Latin and Cyrillic graphics, one after another…
   
    Annihilating even mentions of Turkic culture Russian historians and politicians committed a common forgery. Example with "Slavic" writing language is rather convincing. But unfortunately it is not the only one.
    Having made the Kipchaks - Cyril and Methodius - "Slavic teachers" Russian chroniclers sent elder Cyril (Constantine, to put it more precisely) to Kiev with a Christian mission, neglecting the fact that traces of those great people of their time were also found in non-Russian sources in which no Kiev voyage has ever been mentioned.

        "Mist" over the Christening of Russia

    History of the Baptism of Kiev Russia is also not clear. That isn't even a deceit! These are all conjectures and assumptions, apparently. Including the christening date.
    Disputes in this regard have been continuing for ages. Although it is known that officially christening happened in 449 when Scythian Diocese, to which Kiev belonged, was established by Ephesian Council. It is not difficult to understand that this fact doesn't correspond with Slavic origin of Russian history, hence a fabrication was necessary.
    Legend of St. Andrew who christened unborn Russia was invented. (This myth appeared in XII century, apparently). But the acts of Andrew the apostle are authoritatively described in "History" by Eusevius Cesarean with a reference to Origen, although only a visit to Scythia is described there ("Scythia" is a collective Greek word with a geographical tinge more likely, but not historical or ethnographical. That was the name of the lands lying to the north of Black Sea and of the nations living there. The Greeks "due to their ignorance" (N.M. Karamzin's expression) called the nations of different origin (!) Celts and Scythians and all the rest - Western or Eastern Europe inhabitants. ).
    St. Andrew's journey through Ancient Russia, by a choice word of L. Muller, a well-known German historian, makes one laugh and regret: this is an "anecdote which existed in Russia long since". In the book called "The Christening of Russia" tireless Muller observed the way the legend was created. Its creators were inspired only by ignorance. The Slavs needed their own historic roots. Thus St. Andrew's journey through Russia became overgrown with details.
    German historian calculated the date of appearance of the first variant of "the journey" - the times of Vladimir Monomakh, 1102 exactly.
    How did this evident fabrication appear in Russia? It came from Byzantium. Legend of Andrew the apostle was also composed there, as though he visited the place of future Constantinople and founded the first Christian community there. But they recollected his "coming" rarely.
   
Historical science has no information concerning who was the head of Russian Church, in what language services were held, how did christening of Russia happen and where was it performed. Flatness of any statements is irrelevant here. Because not everything is known for certain!
    But archeologists have ascertained it exactly - temples existed in Kiev long before the official date of Christening of Russia, for example - Elias the Prophet Temple on Pochaina stream, which was mentioned by Muller and other authors as well. Temples existed but what were they?.. Whom was the service held there for?
    Temples also existed after the seizure of Helgom (by Oleg). At that time, in 882, a century before the official date of Christening of Russia, that Varangian robber imposed his belief on Kiev inhabitants, but they stubbornly resisted keeping the faith to Heavenly God - the Great Tengri.
    Isn't it the reason why Ukrainians were called "Khokhols" - due to their special souls and their devotion to God. The word "Khokhol" has a sublime Turkic translation: "heaven's son". In spite of fear and death "heaven's sons" used to gather on St. George Island and go to St. Elias Temple on Pochaina stream. There were Christians even in the retinue of Russian princes who have conquered Kiev. How did it happen?
   
Rewriting History

    Secrets, mysteries… They are everywhere. That's why inaccuracies appeared on first pages of official Russian History in relation to most important events. But those "inaccuracies" were favorable for the politicians. The Great Steppe - an entire country - the biggest on the earth at that time! - was to be concealed.
   
        Let's emphasize once again: the Russes, as it should be, had Varangian names later rewritten in Slavic style due to painstaking of Russian chroniclers: Helga became Olga, Ingvar became Igor, Valdemar became Vladimir. Helga and Helg, Valdemar, Gunnar, Vermund, Faulf, Ingald - Kiev rulers of X century - appear in documents.
The Slavs were not engaged in government in Kiev, they were far away from the throne. It is witnessed by the text of an agreement concluded between Kiev princes and Byzantium in 911.
    The agreement began as follows: "We, being of Russian origin, Carl, Ingelot, Farlov, Veremid, Rulav, Gudy, Raul, Karn, Frelav, Ryuar, Akturuyan, Lidulfost, Stemid…" These were the ones who represented Russia during negotiations, were in power and were authorized to speak in the name of Russia.
    "Names of first Russian people - the Varangians and their retinue - are mostly of Scandinavian origin" - another famous Russian historian, V. O. Klyuchevskiy (1841 - 1911), asserted… It goes without saying they were the Varangians. And they spoke the Swedish language. There are several lines in aforementioned agreement which are rather interesting - they evidence of impossibility for the Russes and the Greek to be "purchased slaves". In other words the Greeks and the Russes acknowledged themselves as slave-traders.
    But that article of the agreement didn't cover the Slavs. The Slavs were "living goods", the loot and a source of income for the Russes. The Russes dealt in them at slave markets which was described in writings by Constantine Bagryanorodniy, the Byzantine emperor, and other authors. The words "Slav" and "Slave" were the synonyms in Europe, which remained in European languages - "slave", for instance. However, the Turki, Finns, Varangians and Greeks themselves were also put to slave market as articles. Everything happened as the fates decree.
    But N.M. Karamzin's opinion of Slavic language in the agreement of 911 is not convincing, to put it mildly. That agreement could have been executed in any world language but not in Slavic - masters didn't write in the language of their slaves.
    Another thing is more likely: if there existed the second (vanished) copy of the agreement, it has been executed in Turkic language. Byzantine and Scythian records, i.e. the Great Steppe records, had been kept in that language for about five centuries. Varangians could also become proficient in Turkic language during the years of government. It was the language of international communication in Central Europe.
    By the way, Karamzin reports the same several pages later: "About a half of X century two languages were spoken in Russia… Scandinavian language was called Russian; it was used in conversations between our Princes and Grandees of Norman origin, but it was abandoned by them little by little as the Bulgarians have forgotten their language between the Slavs".

But one ought to be very careful reading Karamzin: traps for the credulous are almost on every page of his writings. And the quotation stated above is also not complete - and who were the Bulgarians if they've forgotten their language? Which was their native language?
    Again, Karamzin provides an answer: "… many considered them Slavs, but the Bulgarians had previously spoken a special language. Their ancient names are not Slavic at all but they are similar to the Turkish ones… as well as their customs… Historians specialized in Byzantine name the Ugros and the Bulgarians the Huns". That's absolutely right for khans who reigned over Bulgaria, while there were no any in Greece or Slavic lands, - these were only the Turki whose ruler was called so.
    It's a vicious circle. Karamzin has skillfully hidden by a fence of words the fact that can be put in a single phrase - the Bulgarians are the Turkic Kipchaks. Kipchak language was the official language of Kiev Russia, and after Varangians had come two languages have been spoken for a while: Scandinavian and Turkic languages… And thus everything is in its right place, logic concerning these events appeared.
    Poor Russian history… It is far from being clear as it seems to be. A lot of interesting happened in it which wasn't included in the books and what is called life… And V.L. Yanin is absolutely right saying that "clarification of historical conceptions of deep-rooted myths is possible only by methods of historical criticism".
    History should be clarified as a cesspool from time to time.
    And the despotism was started by Vladimir Monomakh who withdrew Nestor's Chronicle from Pecherskiy Cloister and took it to his Vydubitskiy Cloister where it was transferred to Father Superior Sylvester. And he was the first who "rewrote" the history of Russia.

    Prince Vladimir who has been brought up in Slavic traditions was dissatisfied for he couldn't see Slavic Russia.
    A new text appeared in two years which was created by the elder son of Vladimir Monomakh, prince Mstislav, the most resolute Russian editor. A grandson of the English king, a son-in-law of the Swedish king, a pupil of Novgorod boyars, prince Mstislav has written Russian history at his discretion: Novgorod being closer to Kiev Russia in its new edition.
    Due to the pains of writing prince Novgorod eclipsed Kiev. The whole Turkic history of that town was made null and void. It was thrown away, and Kiev became three hundred years younger. And at the same time the role of Varangians was shown in the new light. Do you remember: "Come and reign over us and become our masters"?
    And Kiev was never conquered by Helg. Ascold, the Kiev chagan, was never killed. There was nothing but invented Kiy and his brothers.
    Prince Mstislav, a "Slavic Norman" author left such awkwardness that one can be struck dumb, but it became an early history of Russian state. He has crossed out everything relating to the Turki from Nestor's Chronicles - everything on which the true history if Kiev based. Mstislav, that evil editor, even made a list of Slavic tribes who've allegedly founded Kiev Russia. No one has ever heard or spoken of those invented "ancient field inhabitants" before.
    Perpetual rewriting of history was continuing in order not to let people know the truth and their roots - historical science has been lying claim to the title of "the most ancient profession" persistently long since. In soviet times, before the eyes of one generation, that dirty work was made six times. Six times life was represented in a new way, certain events were estimated oppositely. So as to forget everything and become oblivious… Who needs that inconvenient truth?
    For instance, why should people know that ethnic structure has never changed in the Great Steppe. It remained for centuries as it has been formed after the nations' migration. Only the names were changed. Avars, Barsils, Bulgarians, Burgunds, Huns, Hun-Guros, Kipchaks, Kotiguros… and another two dozens of names of the Turkic nation were named by the history. That seeming chaos was to "confirm" existence of wild tribes and nations in the Great Steppe and in Altai. But one has to read Chinese chronicles in order to understand the opposite: a horde used to give its name to a conquered nation having got power. That's all. No new tribes and nations. And "wild" ones particularly…
    For example, Prokopiy Caesarian marked in his book named "War against Goths": two Hun king's sons divided the power and the nationals after his death. Each of them gave his name to his nation. The sons' names were Utigur and Kurtigur. That's the history of "appearance" of two Turkic nations - Utigurs and Kutigurs.
   
    Turning one nation into another was a common thing in the Great Steppe. It was a tradition. And in case one doesn't know it how can he judge the Turki and their culture? A nation "appeared" and in a couple of decades it "disappeared", another "new" Turkic nation came to its lands. An absurdity? A queerness? No, that's ignorance which was posed as the knowledge of "nomadic civilization".

    After all, the position of certain scientists is not clear - those who used to study the Steppe but neglected obvious in a pointed manner - the unity of the Steppe on the one hand, and the difference between the culture of Turkic Kiev and Slavic Novgorod on the other. All was ascribed to the Slavs. What for? These are not the same things!
    They've put themselves, their nation and their ancestors in an awkward situation. And besides they showed disrespect towards their neighbors. These are not only the Turki who were made wild and unknown by Russian politicians who have usurped their history and culture. They treated Ugro-Finnic nations the same. Belarusian and Ukrainian history has been distorted; those nations were deprived of their best sons. For instance, Belarusian printing pioneer Ivan Fedorovich was given a new Russian name - "Fedorov", as well as Glinka, the composer, Dostoevskiy, the writer, and dozens of others… The sky over Belarus has no stars.

        Kipchak Kiev

    New interpretation of events intensifies the desire to invent another new thing… That can be witnessed by the history Kiev - there's no limit for perfection there.
    "Chroniclers" dated information of Kiev foundation back to 854, while archeologists persuade that people settled there in V century. That is confirmed by Arab sources. Thus a time period of 350 years was reduced to zero in Russian chronicles.
    What does this method mean? It means Peter the First could possibly be Stalin's crony, they participated in the Battle of Poltava together and then gave rise to repressions… A queerness? But Kiev example is of the same kind.
    Truncation of time is a proven method of official Russian historians. That wasn't accidentally that introduction to "The Story of Temporal Years" has been rewritten five times. They were searching for a way out - how to make the Slavs Russians. And they found it. It was unusually simple: some things just have been crossed out, others have been corrected and the names of Varangian rulers have been changed. And the history of Kiev Russia became Slavic… A perfect method to dupe everyone.
    But can one agree with such a beginning of history of a new country (Slavic Russia) and a new nation? Russian nation… Certainly not. Some more serious reasons and circumstances should exist which allow the Slavs to raise their heads and after all, having come to power, to call themselves a Russian nation.
    We cannot do without a review of basic events of those times in this regard.

    In XI century the star of Byzantium drooped, the state was declining rapidly. Rome won a victory in the struggle for domination in Christian Church, which affected political and economical situation. Byzantine power was decaying. The Greeks forcedly renounced a lot. For example, items of luxury which were delivered to their country by the Russes. The Slavic slaves also didn't meet a ready sale.
    Reaction of the Russes also didn't keep waiting: they lost their interest towards the Byzantines. The route "From the Varangians to the Greeks" was rapidly falling into decay and at the same time the Russes grew poorer. They have ceased their trading with Persia, which had been performed through the Turki, by then. And then a fatal loss of Byzantium.
    Unconcealed beggary of Kiev (Varangian) governors may be confirmed by the fact that in the middle of XII century they even ceased to mint coins… But in the depths of this chaos and decay new life was slowly ripening. People say: "Sacred place is never empty".
   
     And at that time the Slavs rushed to the deserted Varangian towns on the former route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" - to Pskov, Smolensk, Novgorod which then became Novgorod instead of former Varangian Holmgrad (Unity of Holmgrad and Novgorod is denied by Russian science. There are certain reasons, apparently. However nobody's willing to explain where did Holmgrad disappear? The town was an advanced post of the Varangians during their conquering Upper Dnepr basin. And how did the Slavs manage to build Novgorod having no town-planning skills? ). The Slavs surely appeared in Polotsk principality as well as in faraway Kiev. That customs town was also declining as well as the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks".
    Kiev princes have lost former support of Ruotsi - Scandinavia. Their neighbors made use of that: weak Novgorod prince started a campaign against Kiev. And he conquered it easily. There was no Kiev at that time. Decaying town surrendered without any resistance. Everything was decided during a short combat on the pier; new master of the town was determined there.
    One can find an interesting expression in the chronicles about appeared Slavs who "were leading an animal life". Those days the skirmishes between "new" and "old" Kiev inhabitants became more often, apparently, a new word "katsap" appeared which meant "bearded goat" in Turkic. The Slavs were called so due to their "animal nature" and smell. And the answer was: "khokhol", which seemed to be a dirty word, but no one new its real meaning, that's for certain.    
    Time and events were implacably working in the Slav's favor, fortune manifestly smiled them - it was their hour of triumph in a ruined country! The worse was the situation around, the better it was for the Slavs. Especially when Kiev was "controlled" by prince Vladimir, the one from Novgorod, Varangian in his blood and Slav in his soul. Forest newcomers rapidly filled a social niche formerly created and cleared by the Russes for them. Varangians left Russia for the Slavs. They left it "free of charge". Or rather as a payment for their former obedience and slavery.
   
But did Kiev Russia inhabitants have a feeling of national unity? Could Russian nation be formed there - as it is asserted by Russian historians?
    Reality indicates to the opposite: in XII century Kiev state split to the principalities. What principalities, how and why? That's another question but the fact remains - a state, Slavic or any other, ceased to exist! It perished in a painful agony having lasted several decades at most.
    Elm deeds of Novgorod bring it out clearly. Those deeds, according to academician V.L. Yanin, "gave rise to a new approach for solving a series of problems which former interpretation seemed to be indisputable".
    Indeed, modern conception of a procedure of Old Russian state formation should be altered radically. In fact it was an attempt to unify the nations of two DIFFERENT cultures - Turkic and Slavic. Kiev and Novgorod cultures "differed in many aspects". Novgorod language, for example, was a dialect of the Wends, or "Southern Baltic Slavs", as Yanin calls them. Kiev natives had absolutely another language.
    As we can see Kiev Russia, inherited by the Slavs, wasn't a product of their policy. That's why it couldn't have lasted for a long time: it rose like a comet in the sky, and then it faded out.
    Russia rapidly faded out, it didn't just split - it split to hostile principalities: rulers and nations, as far as we know, cannot exist without mutual obligations between each other. It is a hard work - to come to power. But to retain the power is a work hundred times harder.

    That's how it happened… But for some reason no one is disturbed due to lack of logic in traditional Russian history. For example, why do Ukrainians differ from Novgorod inhabitants or Vysatichs? They differ not only in their appearance. Differences can be found everywhere - in clothes, cookery, songs, dances, buildings… anything.
    It comes as no surprise, Russia and Ukraine are far from being the same. They've been communicating for a while until the middle of XIII century, for about seventy years (And Russian nation appeared in the course of seventy years (?!), according to official Russian science. It is astonishing. And incredible.), and later it was stopped. It was recommenced in 1620. But how?
    Documents confirming reunification of Ukraine and Russia show that absolutely different nations were "reunifying", which didn't understand each other and communicated through the interpreters. Thus there were two translators, Bilyal Baitsa, a Turki, and Stepan Konchinskiy, in the Moscow embassy in Ukraine, headed by V. Buturlin. They went to "foreign Circassians" (thus the Cossacks were called in Russia) and "lituins" (i.e. western Ukrainians). The former spoke Turkic, and the latter spoke one of Slavic dialects which "Russian" Slavs didn't completely understand.
    At first "reunification" of two nations faced a great many difficulties - an evident confrontation was one of them. And the idea of "reunification" was expounded by Catherine II in one of her instructions: "We ought to easily make them Russified and stop staring like wolves in a forest…" What is it if not a colonization of Ukraine?
    The Russians abolished hetman's power "to make hetmans' times and names disappear - not simply to cancel that position". Besides, Ukrainian Church was beheaded for the Russians doubted it - their hierarchs didn't regard the "khokhols" as their coreligionists. Although the priests weren't dispersed and defrocked, but they were appointed to church offices (Matskevich and others).
    Alexander II put an end to a "union for all times" on May 30th, 1876, when he promulgated a law which prohibited to speak Ukrainian language, print books in it and to teach it at schools; even songs were also prohibited… Thus Ukrainian speech became clearer and clearer to Russians from year to year.
    While the Ukrainians really have a Slavic and not any other origin, why don't other "Russian" Slavs, Novgorod inhabitants for instance, wear papakhas, top-boots, wide trousers, Russian shirts as the Turki did? Why don't they sing those emotional songs that the Turki used to sing, why don't they perform those weird dances? Why a horse is nothing more than a wretched nag or a carrier for a Novgorod inhabitant while for a Kipchak (be it called a Ukrainian, a Russian or anything else) a horse is a continuation of his body and soul, his another "self"?
    There are thousands of questions but they all relate to malevolent falsification of History. A lie has stricken its roots so deeply no one is able to tell the truth from a lie. Although everything is in sight: it is Kipchak culture that remained in Ukraine!

    Having been established in XVII century, relations between Moscow Russia and Ukraine have at once become ambiguous which remains until now: one thing is said, another is done. Moscow and its head have always regarded "Cossack land" inhabitants as their enemies who, according to V.N. Tatischev, "have organized many rebellions and performed many actions which caused damage to Russia". That's why the Russians aimed to make Ukraine obey the Tsar, and Ukraine resisted in reply.
    Due to the differences in political culture the heads of two "sister" nations simply didn't understand each other. And they didn't trust each other either. V.N. Tatischev, as well as V.O. Klyuchevskiy wrote that. Isn't it indicative that after the unification of Ukraine with Russia "none of the hetmans has lived his last years safely and no their blazonry remained in Minor Russia". And at the same time the word "hetman" means "bearer of spirit", "bearer of honor" of a nation in Turkic!
    And it is also indicative that "cherkasine" nickname, which means "Ukrainian" has been meaning "traitor" for Moscow rulers for a long time. Catherine II wrote in an Instruction to Peter Rumyantsev, "the main Minor Russian commander", that "Russian nation has become accustomed to show evident contempt for Minor Russia inhabitants". The latter returned the same (Of course there are other historical witnesses of difficulty and hopelessness of the situation in which Ukraine was due to provoked split of society. But this is the subject of another book. )…
    That feeling of mutual antipathy between two "sister" nations was clearly expressed in XIX century by Johan Koel, the German traveler: "Aversion that Minor Russia inhabitants have for Great Russia inhabitants is so great it can be fairly characterized as national hatred".
    Unconsciousness is a dreadful disease, and Russia has it. And it's not the only one. Famous French historian Mark Ferro wrote an amazing book called "How History is Represented to the Children in Different World Countries". It turns out that everybody tells stories about himself! That is a generally accepted norm of "official" history.
    In India, for instance, in Mark Ferro's opinion, history lacks a main point, it is basically a myth. Arab history is a "history in pictures". The Persians put their history in the center of world civilization. "Armenia, which was defeated many times, willingly glorifies its history and puts it into shape of martyrdom". Almost every country tells ITS history to the children! Thus Russian historians shouldn't be blamed, they've invented not more than others. Maybe, a little bit more.
    But… there is no future without past, the past turns into future - time is permanent. History is the Record of Time and all events in it. Interrupting or distorting the Record people don't change the time, they don't stop the course of events, they just bring up poorer generations without memory which means such generations are not able to look into the future.
    But sometimes unconsciousness may do good. It is a medicine but with admixtures of poison, it cures spiritual wounds of the nation that has suffered a great many misfortunes due to which previous way of life was demolished. And in some time poison accumulates and unconsciousness starts to do harm… Of course it is hard to recollect the past, but it is necessary in order to remain a nation and not to dissolve among the neighbors.
   
     "Seek for another's - loose your own", - an ancient Turkic proverb says. Kipchak khan Kurya ordered to engrave those words on the cup made of the skull of Russian prince Svyatoslav after his inglorious campaign against the Great Steppe.

    It is impossible to create a nation. One can compile a single book of ten ones, but it is impossible to form a nation of ten "ethnic parts": a crowd without historical roots and traditions isn't a nation. It also relates to American and any other "new" nations. It is an ideological or political society and nothing more.
    World nations differ not only in their appearance, not only in their culture, customs, habits and conduct. According to Biologists they also have differences on genetic level. That's why the Chinese cannot be born by the black men.
    That's because different natures have different cultures. Thus there are four thousand nations on our planet: they seem to be equal but they are different.
    And the signs uniting people into nations have been known from time immemorial. Biological peculiarities divide people into races - into nations. Nature (or breed?) of each of us is being investigated across the generations… That is the truth known always and everywhere.
    But not in official Russia. Here investigation of human is not recognized although the latest achievements in that branch of science are strikingly interesting. Political dogmas hinder, apparently. And Israelis studying themselves and their genetics made amazing discoveries according to skin pattern of the tips of their fingers. It turned out that not only every man is individual according to this sign, but entire nations also are! Every nation has its print. Thus, according to skin pattern, Israelis learned to determine: a Jew - not a Jew.
    Is it a step on the road to racism? Not at all, there's no reason to be afraid of it. Another thing is in question: we - people - are living creatures above all, and after that we are the members of society. One thing is primary, another is secondary. Perception of our own nature and identity will permit us to comprehend the sources of social and other phenomenon of life. This knowledge is very important. Not only national history, but all social processes also originate from it.
    "Biological face" is out of governments' control. For example, the Turki even have different tissue and bone protein in comparison with the Slavs, Vepses and other nations of forest zone. Altai and steppe nature has created a special type of man with its health, attitude, traditions and culture. A very stubborn type. And this is a Kipchak nature! It is individual. And its individuality is shown not only in national culture, but also in skin pattern on the tips of the fingers. And whatever name one can give to a genetic Kipchak (Kumyk, Russian, Ukrainian or any other) his "biological face" remains invariable… It makes him look like his parents and ancestors. "Seed and breed are interrelated", - ancient people noticed. Today they are trying to abolish this rule supposing that civilized nations cannot be secluded… That's a controversial position but unfortunately it exists.
    In ethnography, as well as in physics, everything is subject to certain rules, even the differences between the characters of the nations, their conduct and adherence to certain drinks and dishes… In a word, nothing happens accidentally in the lives of the nations.

    Groundlessness of American "nation" stuck together in a hurry originates from neglect of biological laws; people are divided into ethnic communities inside this nation (Italian, Chinese and other quarters exist in any big city). Although it is very sad, one can notice the same in Russian circles (the same communities).
    Since Ivan the Terrible unfriendliness, aggression and disrespect towards their new brothers and neighbors have occurred between the people of Moscow Russia. For example, oprichnina was carried out by the Turkic Kipchaks who were accepted into "Russians". And there are thousands of similar examples. Unfortunately, recurrence of this old disease has been taking place until now. The latest example is a mass slaughter near the White House and in Ostankino in autumn of 1993. These are also the repressions of 1937, civil war and down on historical ladder through violent suppressions of popular uprisings headed by Pugachev, Bolotnikov, Bulavin, Razin and strelets. This is oprichnina and many other episodes when the Russians were willingly annihilating each other. They were annihilating each other as real enemies, not having a feeling of own blood. No other nation in the world - no other one! - has ever tormented itself this way.
    That's what ethnographic experiments lead to. They lead to self-destruction of a nation and to pitiless aggression against itself.

    … Of course not everybody will be impressed by these lines. No matter how patriotic are certain readers, they were written not to humiliate them. But ancient Kiev really didn't bear relation neither to Varangians who have conquered a built town, nor to the Slavs. Kiev is a significant page of Turkic history which also became the history of Russia, it was written in runes as well as in letters.
    First Russian chroniclers have known that, that's why following rulers corrected the chronicles that thoroughly.
    In IX century Kiev inhabitants spoke "odd language", their native language, for they were the Turkic Kipchaks. Kiev means "town of son-in-law" in Turkic. It is a settlement of V century; it was formerly called Bashtau. Then it became a customs town on the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" which extended through the territory of chaganat called Ukraine (However, it is also possible that the name of the city descends from "kya" or "kia". In Turkic language - and again Turkic is the only one! - this word means "bordering", "located on the border". Maybe this word is even more suitable to be the name of the town which has been standing on the river since V century and operating frontier and customs functions. It was the northern gate to the Turkic land - Desht-I-Kipchak, one of which chaganats was called "Ukraine", which meant "border", "located near the border" in Turkic. It is interesting that "Kiy" place-name can be met rather often. For example, that was the name of the town on the frontier between Khazaria and the Great. Bulgaria, it was also a customs town, Kiev village is located there now. And what about Kiy - an island in White Sea, near the Solovetskiy Cloister? It was also used in frontier purposes. As is well-known, the cloister was built by the Turki.). A chagan reigned there.
   
    Rulers of neighboring chaganats - Avaria, the Great Bulgaria, Khazaria, Bulgaria of the Volga - had the same title. Together they formed the country which was called DESHT-I-KIPCHAK (Kipchak Steppe or Polovetskoe Field). And fortunately, it hasn't been forgotten.
    1500 anniversary of Kiev foundation was recently celebrated in Ukraine. Thank God - they remember the truth! Prayers of Kiev Russia were broadcasted on the radio with the refrain: "Hodai aldynda beten adem achyk bulsun". Unfortunately some know-all began to explain the prayer and its Church Slavonic language… A simple soul!
    Any greenhorn Turki is able to translate this "ancient Slavic" text without explanations: "Every man should appear before God with an open soul". And there are no other translations. They really prayed only in Turkic in Kiev Russia, looking into the sky in the east. Turkic runic writings on the walls of ancient temples in Kiev and the whole Ukraine also remained, as well as ancient prayers… Kipchak Ukrainians retained them.
    Desht-I-Kipchak country was formed up to V century - in 370, after a mighty fight for Don with strong Alans the Turki came out to European steppe. That's when European page of Kipchak history was opened. That country is a geographical result of the Great Nations Migration. It existed until XVIII century, until Azov campaigns of Peter I and further conquest of Minor Russia. But steppe inhabitants' descendants don't even perfectly understand its name. Why?
    Scanty information about Russian Motherland is provided by the Encyclopedia: "Desht-I-Kipchak (Kipchak Steppe) is the name of the steppes from Irtysh to Danube, from Crimea to the Great Bulgaria where the Kipchaks (Polovtsians) roamed, taken from Arab and Persian texts of XI-XV centuries". And there is no other information about Turkic country which border was lying on Moskva-river!
    Even the word "desht" is ascribed to Iranians for some reason, in spite of the fact that there are no steppes in Iran. Neither of Encyclopedia authors wonders why did the Kipchaks need an Iranian word to call their Motherland?
    Yes, the word was borrowed from the Sanskrit by the Turki, but it got another meaning there - deep and figurative meaning! In ancient Turkic language the word "tashta" had several meanings, including "foreign land". People who've left Altai - their Motherland - for an unknown steppe, foreign lands, couldn't have found a better word.
    Foreign land became a new Motherland for the Turkic Kipchaks. Hence is Desht-I-Kipchak. There are no other words… Hence is the word "steppe", it still comforts a Kipchak soul (From an ancient Turkic word "isiteppe" - "comforting", "sheltering".).

Pictures on the Pages of the Chronicles

    History of Russia and Kiev is rather strange… But the traces of truth remained, and they remained in the foreground. Those traces are the pictures in the chronicles, they are more expressive than words. But nobody guessed to correct them. Editors of Russian history cared mostly for the text, and they simply lost sight of the pictures.
    Books by B.A. Rybakov, the Russian academician, exemplify that in the best way. They are notable for excellent polygraphy and beautiful illustrations - these are possibly the most valuable things. On those pictures one can see people wearing Kipchak clothes, Kipchak armor, with Kipchak arms, near the buildings of Kipchak architecture, sitting on Kipchak furniture, using Kipchak crockery. Faces on the pictures are the faces of real Kipchaks: broad, with high cheek-bones. One wouldn't be confused. But the author easily calls them Russians, even not the Ukrainians.
    And the portrait of a man, as well as of a nation, is created according to his objects - the details. Sometimes one feature is enough to recognize it. A Mexican is known for a wide-brimmed hat, a Japanese - for a kimono.    
    Of course we cannot reproach such a famous author with ignorance of elements of ethnical history. His analysis of different documents, for example of Radzivillovskaya (Lavrentievskaya) chronicle, or its Russian copy to put it more preciously, rich in illustrations, witnesses of his deep understanding of the problem. The text is dated back to 1130 - 1140. It contains dozens of miniatures - a real treasure.
    B.A. Rybakov is certainly right when he asserts that the artist had a "complete manuscript abundantly illustrated by Kiev artists". He probably had. But the text was shortened or burned in Vladimir. Copied pictures remained safe.
    Isn't it strange that only documents of Northern Russia, written in Slavic language, can be found on the shelves of archives of Russian history? And where are the Turkic codes?
    It is ridiculous to suppose that they never existed. Why, weren't there any cloisters on southern lands? Weren't there any enlightened people? Were there no towns? Novgorod is all right, but why is Bryansk (Birnichi) neglected? Cultural traditions of that ancient Kipchak town haven't been studied adequately, though it appeared earlier than Novgorod - in IV - V centuries. The town was a spiritual centre of the Great Steppe and its capital. For Europe it was the University of Life.
    Of course sooner or later towns of south of Russia and the Great Steppe will let hear from themselves. It's indecently for it to keep silence any longer - cultural stratum is huge. And it is to be opened: new countries appeared, they are the young growth of an old Kipchak tree. Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan will want to know their true history. Their ancestors made their contribution on world culture, so why should it be concealed?
    According to Rybakov, the Russians started to ornament their chronicles with color miniatures in X century … That's a keen observation! It conjectures that Russian chronicles hadn't been ornamented with color miniatures until 997.
    And did Russian chronicles ever exist? The author passes it over with silence.
    Thus, by a single phrase, the academician kind of takes away the readers from the main point: there were no Russian chronicles in X century, consequently, there was nothing to ornament. Ancient Kiev (Ukraine and the whole Great Steppe, in other words) interested Moscow historians in order not to learn the truth, but to conceal it.
    Foreign and Russian scientists are being perplexed looking at Russian archives which were carefully cleared of the documents of Kiev Russia. A great many things were ruined… For example M.I. Carger regretfully marked in his two-volume edition of the book "Ancient Kiev" that almost all things having been found by archeologists disappeared mysteriously.
    For example, burial places were found in frameworks dated back to before-Vladimir times, they were the same as in Altai, with a horse, with servants and utensils. But they never scrutinized them, they tried to talk and write about them as little as possible, and then they forgot everything. As if nothing has ever been found.
    Once an intact burial place was found by the archeologists under the southern apse of Dessiatinnaya Church. It used to be a barrow, apparently, and then a brick temple was erected on it - one of the most ancient temples in Kiev. The burial place was rich. An ornament made in animal style, traditional for the Kipchaks, is perceptible on the horse's harness (archeologists often came across such ornaments in Altai). Equilateral crosses worn next to skin were found - they were taken over from the Turki. And many other findings… However, it seemed unconvincing to Moscow historians.
    Even Turkic runic writings on the walls of ancient temples didn't convince them.
    And academician Rybakov is also biased against Kiev miniatures. They were put in ancient Chinese chronicles, that's for sure. They couldn't be absent there. Visual line was deemed a good tradition for the Kipchaks. This tradition is the continuation of rock paintings. Their own. Conventionalized. Turkic. And, it should be mentioned, similar to those in the chronicles with regard to the way of writing.
    One can still see those paintings on Altai and Southern Siberia rocks - from where the Kipchaks came to Dnepr, Don, Danube and to Central and Western Europe. They can also be seen on the jewelry found on the barrows by the archeologists. They haven't disappeared! Soslan Baichorov, Doctor of Science, a Karachai, published a work called "Ancient Turkic Runic Monuments of Europe"; it contains a lot of interesting facts.
   
     In a word, one can easily make sure that the traditions of Turkic culture, which are clearly described in Kiev books, were formed long before the Varangians: they've been grinding for hundreds and thousands of years. Miniatures from the chronicles are that important for they provide a clear picture of Kiev life, its archaic features. For example, arms, buildings, armor, head-dress, furniture, clothes and many other things have not been forgotten by the artist who painted those things as if from nature - he has seen them in his life.
    Paintings from nature give rise to doubts in relation to authenticity of rewritten texts. For example, arms and armor found on the barrows far away from Kiev are absolutely the same as the paintings in the chronicles.
    It means a painting contradicts with text. That's true indeed, for Russian Slavs (except for prince's armed forces) were armed otherwise - they had arms for foot! The Kipchaks didn't wage a war on feet. The paintings are really important! Miniatures from the chronicles are "the windows to a disappeared world", as it was called by one of researchers. An excellent image. If there are windows it means one can look through them.
    Firstly one can have a look at the subject of the pictures. According to eastern tradition only the main things were embodied. Author's (or the one's who has given an order) attitude to a certain event is evident in the subjects. Author's spirits. This quality - selection of main things - was a distinguishing feature of the Turkic, as well as the whole eastern culture. The main thing of the subject is put into the center of painting, and spectator's attention is fixed on it. An ancient tradition.
    In the paintings of Kiev chronicles the main thing was also put in the centre so as to make the spectator look there. Look and analyze comparing with the text.
   
     In Russia during the years of Slavonicism prince Mstislav was the first who became familiar with an occupation of a copyist sitting in the great prince's scriptorium - sort of court publishing house. Everything was organized in a big way: unyielding monks were replaced for yielding men of the world. And his crowned father sketched a summary of the future "Kiev" history (Monomakh's "sermon"). Docile son put the idea on paper.
    He put it on paper having created a special style of chronicles writing. Should one be surprised that the chronicles, as well as the whole Russian history, are abound only in victories and feats, even those which never happened. All the rest is concealed. Alas, that's a tradition too.
    But, as far as we know, victories may be glorious and they may also be of other types. Here is one of them, expounded by N.M. Karamzin: "Year 1905. Victories. At last Grand Duke and Vladimir encouraged a despondent spirit of their nation due to the victories… Polovtsian leaders, Itlar and Kitan, having buried the hatchet, took Monomakh's son Svyatoslav to be an ataman. Kitan safely lived in the country near the town wall; Itlar stayed in Peryaslavl with Ratibor, the grandee". Thus Kiev prince took occasion. On February 24th, late at night, the Russians, having stolen to the camp of Kitan-khan, knifed him in his sleep. "Iltar, who knew nothing, was preparing to have breakfast with his hospitable masters when Olbeg, Ratibor's son, shot an arrow at his chest through the hole made in the upper side of the attic for that purpose; unlucky Itlar with many famous friends became the victim of an infamous plot which seemed an allowed "rues" to the best of Russian Princes of those times".
    "The best of princes of those times" acted that way.
    Reality of life - one cannot turn his back on it. Facts are more important than words. Facts have always required Russian governors to interpret the events otherwise. They required for inventions! Docile son of Vladimir Monomakh showed eagerness for it: he was rewriting pages after pages.
    Prince Mstislav cannot be reproached with lack of talent, he skillfully polished the roughness of life. Indeed, the first Russian editor-in-chief! He invented a new method of annalistic illustration: they started to put a sort of appraisal near the painting. Fables' symbolism became important. It happened as follows.
    Year 1111. Monomakh's campaign against Northern Donets and Salnitsa. As usual, cavalry is painted, but near it one can see the dog running away - it symbolized running Kipchaks.
    Year 1112. Svyatopolk's son defeated the yatvyags. Beaten bear is painted on the margin - the symbol of Lithuanian Marshy Woodlands.
    Year 1120. The Turki and the Berendeis attacked Russia and were put to flight. Frightened monkey is added to a traditional painting.
    Year 1127. Mstislav sent the troops against Polotsk. Izyaslav, his son, took prince Bryachislav prisoner. A cat having caught a mouse is added to an ancient miniature.
    Here it is, Russian chronicles writing, it never missed. The paintings stroke the keynote to public opinion: people either were illiterate or couldn't read in Turkic, they responded to the painting but not to the text. Certainly a frightened monkey and a cat with a mouse didn't improve chronicles writing, but those clear and insolent symbols worked.
    Usage of Aesopian language in the chronicles was rejected after prince Mstislav's death; while the traditions of a Kipchak book were not ( Not to be unfounded, I'll remind that the word "book" is Turkic; the Kipchaks borrowed it from the Chinese; literal translation - "in a roll", "in a chronicle"). For example, a small town was still depicted as a tower which was distinguished due to a certain symbol - its future emblem. Warriors were still painted as riders with crooked eastern sabers, but the foot with berdyszes were near them.
    After that little men appeared on the margin of the chronicles instead of animals. Very expressive little men. They kept silence mysteriously - although imperceptible, but still the participants of the events. The Russes were the same - imperceptible inspirers of events in Russia, their directors, ideologists hidden in the wings of political theatre. They are the same everywhere - those colonial leaders with a foreign nature: kind of side by side, but not together.
    There are many mysterious things in the pictures of Radzivillovskaya chronicle. Sometimes it is not even clear who is who. The artist kind of doesn't care, for example, about outward appearance of Russian and Kipchak warriors, about certain details of his pictures. The warriors should differ, weather by color or by dress; after all, they are the enemies representing the nations of different cultures. But there is nothing of the kind! All are the same.
    Is it a discrepancy? Something like that. But… excavations of Turkic barrows provided enough archeological material in order that one can imagine appearance of the Turki, his arms and his horse's harness. What a steppe warrior looked has been known long before it appeared on the pages of the chronicles. And archeologists also know what a Russian warrior looked. Anyone will be able to compare them, and even a child will be able to draw right conclusions.
   
    Professor A.S. Pletneva, a famous specialist in steppe nations of ancient Russia, marked: "In most man's burial places they've put a horse with a harness and arms together with the dead. Usually we can find only metallic parts of those categories of items: iron bit and stirrups, saddle-girth buckles, iron arrow-heads, saber blades. Moreover, almost in every burial place we find small iron knives and fire steels. All said items are notable for extraordinary uniformity of sizes and shapes. Such standardization is typical for nomads of the whole European steppe right up to Ural. Types of those items have been changing all over and simultaneously. All this allows to make a conclusion that in winter camps of Polovtsians (as well as other steppe inhabitants) blacksmith's work was well organized with traditional steppe methods and criterions (bold supplied. - M.A.)".
    Indeed, the Kipchaks had their appearance, their way of life with "traditional steppe methods and criterions". These conclusions are well reasoned by A.S. Pletneva, no doubt. That's true - culture different from all other cultures of the world dominated in the Great Steppe.
    Of course features of that culture were also shown by other Russian scientists. Professor S.I. Rudenko, for instance, has excellently explored a number of Altai barrows and has written a real scientific poem about ornaments which covered certain findings in abundance.
    It turns out that practical Turki didn't ornament their sabers, pikes, helmets, chain armors harnesses for no particular reasons. Ornament meant belonging of an item to its owner from this or that clan; it was a sort of sign. Thus unity of the nation was emphasized. Even ornaments were standardized by the Turki. Because the ornaments contained in-for-ma-ti-on

    This information was originally and ably interpreted by A.A. Trofimov, a Chuvash scientist, - a very observant person. He ascertained that ancestors used to encipher words and phrases in the ornaments. Artist's skills let him lick the runic writings into shape of ornate pattern. Having analyzed embroidery of the Ukrainians, Cossacks, Chuvashes Trofimov read them and made an unexpected conclusion that these were the ornaments which had been used as an identity card in great antiquity. They contained not simple beauty! That beauty was clear only to the nearest: cryptographic writing!
    That is the main purpose of Turkic ornament being the mark "own - foreigner".   

    Having learnt more about Turkic culture one can easily make sure that the Turki were painted on the miniatures in Kiev chronicles more often. The Slavs and the Russes were rarely painted. They can be easily distinguished. Russes had another arms, another clothes - everything differed, which was proved by Pletneva, Rudenko and other scientists in their works; but they didn't call the Turki their name.
    Archeologists haven't found any centers of blacksmith's works in the zones of Slavic settlements, which would be similar to those found in Turkic settlements. Although Rybakov proudly mentioned a sword hammered by a Russian master in his books. As if it belonged to Svyatoslav. To tell the truth, there is one known detail on it - a runic inscription on the blade… Maybe the Slavs used to make swords somewhere (Found Slavic metallurgic centers give rise to nothing but indignation. They were found on the territory of Desht-I-Kipchak - near Dnepr! At that the furnaces are Turkic, as in Altai. Turkic metallurgy was called Slavic?! Another thing happened, apparently, and we can agree with it: so-called marsh metallurgy was cultivated in Slavic lands - a technology allowing to obtain metal out of marsh slash rich in iron.) but it is obvious they haven't written with the runes on them for they had been enlightened by Cyril and Methodius.
    And the situation with another sword on which clearly perceptible runic inscription remained put Rybakov into an embarrassing position. Having "reconstructed" the text or, better to say, having added what was missing in his opinion, he read an inscription: "Lyudota koval". Thus he declared: the sword was made by a Russian armorer… But who could let a craftsman profane arms with his name? Only greatest craftsmen were allowed to put an identifying sign. Ancestors used to write only magic conjurations on the blade!
    And we don't "reconstruct" the inscription on that sword as Rybakov did, but simply read the Turkic runes without a fake, the translation is evident and it goes as follows: "Insidious intention (which should be collapsed) strike you down! Evil crafty designs wipe you out!" ("A? uj sigu ur. Al je").
    … History of arms, of its ornaments is an interesting subject which won't stand any fantasies and is still waiting for its researcher. History of cavalry - Turkic troops - is also waiting for him.
    For example these are miraculous heroes in the vision of Leo Dyakon, a Greek historian who has described Russian attack on Byzantium in 971: "Svyatoslav's warriors appeared on horses for the first time then (bold supplied. - M.A.), but they couldn't ride them".

    Such observations put us to a nonplus: why, how did the Russians defeat Khazaria in 965 without horses? They managed somehow. It must have been too hard - not knowing dzhigit skills - to wage a war against born riders.

    And speaking without irony, was it Svyatoslav who has waged a war against the Khazars? Or it was a union of Svyatoslav and Bulgarian chagan?.. It seems something is wrong in Russian history. Maybe the answer is simple: these were the Turki who have defeated Smender - the capital of Khazaria, and the Russians ascribed another's victory to themselves… Alas, this has been also happening in Russian history - some victories seem to be unlikely easy.
    However, another thing is also possible. That has never happened! Most likely Khazaria has died as a result of natural cataclysm: big trouble occurred - Itil (Volga) river changed its bed - the mouth was moved far to the north. Droughts and hunger occurred in rich Khazaria which sealed the fate of the chaganat. But in any case Svyatoslav had nothing to do with it.
    The Kipchaks - inhabitants of Ukraine chaganat, Ukrainians - but not the Slavs formed Kiev cavalry. The Russes have set the Turki on to fight and fratricide commenced. A brother was fighting against his brother: one under the Russian flag, another - under his native one. That was fixed in the miniatures if the chronicles. That's why warriors - Turkic and Russian ones - were painted the same.
    That fratricide gave rise to the Reign of the Russes. Kiev Russia history started there… Miniatures from the chronicles are the real "windows to disappeared world". And if one manages to wash them, he will able to see a lot.

    And one of the pictures is strikingly different - other Turki are painted on it: they have caps with brims on their heads instead of helmets. What is it? And who are they?
    The cap looks like Kazakh or Kirghiz man's head-dress which hasn't been forgotten yet. It means people from eastern chaganats of Desht-I-Kipchak are on those pictures. They were called the Pechenegs. They didn't wear papakhas. Outer head-dress of the Turki contained important information about the owner. Form, size and material of head-dress informed about estate and patrimonial belongings…
    There were many interesting things in the pictures of the chronicles. A life of the whole nation.
    Miniatures, as the letters of ancient writing, tell a lot about departed generations. Some consider them primitive, too simple. But that's a mistake - each detail was written out carefully, it hid the sense and reproduced author's feelings…

    Ancient pictures have a delicate light - they invite you for contemplation. There is nothing unnecessary on them. Similar paintings remained in Chinese and Japanese culture. Artists also always left a white spot there - a place for spectator's imagination. So that a spectator becomes a "co-author" and his picture becomes the most expressive and recognizable in the world. But he was the only one who could see it! Is it our ancestors' fault that we - their timid descendants - have become that callous?
    The Great Steppe was also notable for its implements - also with their standards… Those "domestic small items" also provide important information about Kipchak culture. And whatever this culture is called - Polotsk, Pechenegs', Bulgarian, Andrew's or otherwise - it had always only one - Turkic - origin.
    … Domestic items of Kipchaks are shown on pictures of Kiev chronicles. A moot point? But the Slavs, judging by Novgorod findings of academician V.L. Yanin, had another way of life.
    For example, let's have a look at the cup which is given to prince Yaropolk as a sign of making piece with prince Vsevolod (the same cups were found on the barrows thousands of kilometers from Kiev). It was called "charon", it is still in use. Koumiss or Airan - drink of peace - is given in it.
    The armchair in which Kiev prince is sitting was called "tver". Attila used to sit in the same one in V century, when the Slavs wandered through Europe. And nowadays the Turki leave a "high place" - tver ( By the way, the word "throne" has the same Turkic root and means "go up to an honorable seat") - for an "eminent guest".
    And now let's have a look at the heading-dress of Kiev princes - that is an important distinguishing feature of Turkic national clothes. Kipchak nobility used to wear them… History of Monomakh's hat is interesting in this relation: it had absolutely nothing to do with Byzantium. "Byzantine version" of its origin was invented later after Vladimir Monomakh's death…
    Clothes on the pictures. Haven's the scientists investigated them? Wasn't anyone surprised by the fact that Russian men wear Turkic caftans? The Kipchaks used to put on caftans and klobuks for solemn performances.
    Caftans were sewed two-ply of thin felt. There were different cuts. Archeologists have even come across felt tail-coats - they were worn more than two thousand years ago in Altai. Khan's caftan was sewed with sleeves sable fur-lined and ermine embossing. Decorative plates and buttons were fixed over furs, which ornamented the clothes…
    Unexplored is all around!
    And that's because Turkic national clothes were casually "borrowed" by the Russians. And meanwhile armyak, epancha, caftan, bashlyk, shushun, fur coat, klobuk and many other items are the words with a Turkic root and they have their historical owner. Let's compare the national clothes of Cossacks (of course not tsarist soldier's blouses, but real, ancient clothes!) and the Kumyks - it is absolutely the same to the smallest detail. Because it belonged to one nation.
    Cossacks are called Russians today, they've rejected their ancestors, but does that give the right to call their history and clothes "Russian"?

    Besides, pictures from Ancient Kiev are interesting because the Russes are also painted there. This is the most interesting thing! Added little men are dressed otherwise - they have European clothes. They have another appearance. That's what the Russes looked in life!
    The horn in man's hands on the margin also isn't a Kipchak one. The Kipchaks didn't curve their horns, they left them straight. And another Kipchak horn is on the picture of 1153. Those ancient horns can still be heard in Altai, Khakassia, Kirghizia, Carpathians (where Gutsuls live), in a word, where descendants of steppe nation remained.    
    Even the scene of the funeral, skillfully depicted on one of the miniatures, makes one think: did the Russes and the Slavs bury in coffins? Or in graves? It is a Kipchak ceremony. Bottom of a grave was to be covered with fir boughs - a Turkic sacred tree.
    
     Burial ceremony is conservative, it is rarely changed. Some time the Kipchaks used to set fire to their fellows' remains according to the eastern tradition. Then they rejected it and started to build wooden graves. The Khazars were the first who started to bury in coffins in Europe which became known from Chinese chronicles. But they added ashes or white lime under the coffin in the grave following an ancient tradition…

        In XI - XII centuries, when formation of Russian culture commenced, three nations took part in that complicated process. They exchanged with their ceremonies and traditions - they retained the best. And that was normal. After that the Finns and the Turki have been forgotten, and everything was ascribed to the Slavs!
    But avidity caused a great deal of curios incidents.
    For example, they borrowed the three epic heroes from the Turki. They are a personification of Russia and its might according to V. Vasnetsov, an artist. Indeed? Gorynia, Dubynia and Usynia - these were the names of those heroes before they became Elias Muromets, Dobrynia Nikitich and Alesha Popovich. They were the enemies of the Slavs: Gorynia was able to "rock a mountain with his little finger", Dubynia "dealt with oaks", Usynia has "stolen a river with his mouth and fishes with his moustache".
    Study of those characters really shocked the literary critics: it turned out Russian heroes have been taken form "Turkic trinomial group - Fiery Serpent, Serpent of the Depths, Water Serpent". That is a three-headed serpent - the one who is so roughly treated in Russian epics and fairy tales.
    A serpent is a recognized Turkish symbol - it is our symbol. Steppe inhabitants still address to a respected person with the words "Gorynych" or "Ajidakhaka". By the way, the word "hero" is also Turkic; it became Russian not long ago. As well as "Baba-Yaga".
    Who is "Baba-Yaga"? A forest old witch eating children? Not at all. In Kipchak folklore that mythological character was a man named "Babay-Aga", he flew in a mortar and brought luck to people. Any place where Babay-Aga landed became sacred… That kind character was worshipped in Central Asia in great antiquity, and it seems it was closely connected with a notion of future character of Buddha… The character of Kaschei the Immortal has also been distorted while he had never done harm to anyone. He is "immortal" for he is a cloud. Steppe inhabitants used to tease a black cloud (or a flying serpent) which gave no rain that way…

    Of course culture borrowings have always existed with neighboring nations; that is good. That is really good as against stealing and craftiness. Here is another example.
    The Kipchaks had one fairy tail - now it is considered to be a Russian folk tail - about a kolobok. The fairy tail had a moral. And what moral does "Russian" kolobok have? A Sly fox managed to eat the kolobok having outwitted everyone. No moral. Because it's not known what the word "kolobok" means. In Russian it means nothing. There is no such a word in Russian language. And in Turkic kolobok means a small ball mould of what a dung-beetle usually rolls.
    Kolobok fell into the fox's mouth after a long walk: "DON'T BE AS SLY as a fox, otherwise you have to eat a kolobok". Here it is, the lost moral of the fairy tail. But do these words relate only to the fox? Is it the only one eating its kolobok? Poor mother Russia.
    And "Ryaba-Hen" (speckled hen) has also lost its original meaning. As well as "Tower-Room"… And other tales "borrowed" from the Turki.

    Russia became Slavic since Peter I, which was especially noticeable in XIX century, A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevskiy, K.S. Aksakov (by the way, they were Turkic Kipchaks) offered really racist theory to society. According to their idea of Slavophilism it is asserted that only the Slavs are real Russians from now on.
    Turkic culture was stigmatized as a leprous culture, people started to be ashamed of it. Volga became a Russian river since then, although the Russians have never lived there. Birch, izba, kvass and everything on earth became Russian. Even winter. And, of course, kolobok…

    Main Sources

Bernstein S.B. Constantine the Philosopher and Methodius. M., 1984.
Van-Veik N. History of Old Slavonic Language. M., 1957.
Ancient Russia. Legends. Epics. Chronicles. M., 1963.
[Constantine Porfirorodniy] Church History of Euseviy Pamfil. Vol. I. Spb., 1858.
Inostrantsev K.A. Hunnu and Huns. L., 1926.
Jordan O. About Origin and Acts of the Geths. L., 1926.
Istrin V.A. 1100 Years of Slavic Alphabet. M., 1988.
Karamzin N.M. History of Russian State. Vol. I-V. M., 1989 - 1996.
Carger M.I. Ancient Kiev. Vol.1-2. M.; L., 1958; 1961.
[Constantine Porfirorodniy] Church History of Eusebius Pamfilus. Vol. I. Spb., 1858.
(first issue) // Proceedings of National Academy of Material Culture History. Issue 91. M.; L., 1934.
Pipes R. Russia under the Old Regime. M., 1993.
Pletneva S.A. The Polovtsians. M., 1990.
Radzivillovskaya Chronicle; Photomechanical Reproduction of Radzivillovskaya (Konigsberg) Chronicle. SPb., 1902.
Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X - XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15th, 1991). Part I - III, M., 1991.
Rybakov B.A. Kiev Russia and Russian Principalities of XII - XIII centuries, M., 1982.
Rybakov B.A. Handicraft of Ancient Russia. M., 1948.
Rybakov B.A. Russian Chronicles and the Author of "The Lay of Igor's Warfare". M., 1972.
Rybakov B.A. Paganism of Ancient Russia. M., 1987.
Samashev Z.S. Rock Paintings of Upper Irtysh Banks. Alma-Ata, 1992.
[Simokkata] Feofilakt Simokkata. History. M., 1957.
Tacito Collected Works in Two Volumes. SPb., 1993.
Chichurov I.S. Byzantine Historical Works. M., 1980.
Shakhmatov A.A. Ancient Fates of Russian Nation. Pg., 1919.
Shakhmatov A.A. Essay of Modern Russian Literary Language. L., 1925.

	Adji Murad. Asia's Europa. Volume 1 (Europa, Turkic, the Great Steppe)   Author's Preface We are the Kipchaks! Altai Cradle The Great Nations Migration Our Spiritual Wealth European Kipchaks Part One “Moscow Stories” Saint Cyril and Methodius - Who Were They? “Mist” over the Baptism of Russia Rewriting History Kipchak Kiev Pictures on the Pages of the Chronicles Main Sources Part Two The World of the Wild Field Wild Field – The Great Steppe Main Sources Part Three Tengri-Khan and Christ, His Foster Son The Vanished Heritage Splits and Splitters Main Sources Part Four Desht-I-Kipchak – an Unknown Country? Main Sources Appendix Near St. George Spring “Gyurdzhi's Day” Different Georges The Voice of Forgotten Motherland The Mystery of the Cross “Iron Gates” Gregoris - George Diocletian Who Suffered Not Being Guilty Every Nation Has Its Own George Beginning of the Catastrophe The Great Enlightener of Armenia Contradictions Let the Christians Be the Christians again “Where Will this Lead? Where to Go?” Dzhalgan Settlement Spring of the Known Legend Notes and Comments to the Appendix Bibliography