Part II

Under the Canopy of Eternal Blue Sky

 

 

“BARBARIANS” OF WILD ROME

 

            Under Constantine, when the Greeks were burning antique manuscripts and destroying ancient temples in the heat of religious passions depriving themselves of the past, they did not know Heavenly God and did not pray Him in the Western Empire; up to 380 official Rome recognized only Jupiter, Juno, Mercury and its other Gods. Although freedom of conscience had been legalistically proclaimed there, other beliefs were not in favor and people were persecuted for dissent.

            Of course that was on purpose, that was Rome's policy – it existed hating the Kipchaks and dreaming of revenge; it did not even think of a spiritual union with its offender. Offence was choking it. It saw the Eastern Empire menacingly rising and becoming its competitor; it saw the Mediterranean and the rest of the world getting renewed, and in return it was strengthening its army preparing for pending events. It wanted to stop the wheel of history.

            Under the Emperor Valentinianus the Roman army fully recovered after that unexpected and dreadful defeat of 312; it came alive, took a deep breath and became as strong as it had never been.

            That Emperor is a mysterious person. Who was he? How did he ascend to the throne? Not much is known. Almost all his contemporaries paid attention to his appearance which was not peculiar to a Roman: fair-haired, blue-eyed, “with a sidelong and hard glance”. He easily managed to entice hirelings from Byzantium to his army; he had no difficulty communicating with them. How? That is not clear. Maybe he knew the Turkic language, and maybe Turkic blood was in his veins.

            Everything is possible; facts give rise to such thoughts. After all, he did not choose his parents.

            And his father was the native of the East, “he belonged to the Alemanni”, he came to Rome as a hireling and rose to the rank of a military leader. But their family tree cannot be understood without one important “clarification: “Alemanni” is the name of the Turkic ulus (tribe); that ulus became famous in the “Persian” times. It is of Aryan origin! It appeared in the Near East long before the Common Era and inhabited one of the regions – the most distant region from Altai which was later called with its name – Germany. (In the Turkic language the names “Germany” and “Alemannia” are synonymous).

            It is important to emphasize that the Emperor astonished the Romans with his “non-Roman” behavior; his actions shocked the nobility, but they would always forgive him. Even when he did something inadmissible. For example, in order to revive the army he introduced tough reforms advantageous for the “Barbarians” and lower classes. In Rome such thing happened for the first time. And everybody endured it without complaint. However, he did not conceal his abomination for the Roman aristocracy; he could hardly bear its dull and insipid society.

            Contemporaries were struck due to piety and spirituality which determined deeds of that person and also his unusually good breeding. In Rome he passed for a messenger of another world.

            One day the deputation of the Romans asked to convene a council in order to settle one important theological dispute connected with Christianity; many people were surprised with the answer: “That will not be right if I, a layman, tamper with such questions. Such questions are for clergymen who can meet as they wish”. That was typical for a Turki but not for a power-hungry Roman.

            In Turkic society a man of the world could not tamper with the deeds of the clergy. Under no circumstances. The clergymen, their opinions, were a standard of justice and rectitude; they were the only ones who determined what was right and what was wrong.

            The Emperor was interested only in the army and the state; he found himself a master there and gave no quarter to everybody. However, he made no important decisions without approval of the clergy… Another Turkic tradition.

            In 374 the fair-haired ruler of Rome faced the most serious ordeal – another wave of the Great Nations Migration came close to the Central Europe: Altaic scouts, about two dozens of riders, entered the Western Empire. They took the fancy of the lands of modern Hungary, Serbia and Austria and they called the horde there. Let us mention that those lands being almost uninhabited were deemed to be the eastern outpost of the Empire and were called Pannonia.

 

            ● Due to Western politicians the Turkic word horde obtained an everyday meaning – large unorganized group of people. A crowd. Which is absolutely wrong. In reality a “horde” meant a military and administrative organization with its structure and order. Later it became the name of headquarters of a ruler or a military leader. 

 

            An explanation is necessary here: the phrase “Altaic scouts entered” does not mean they were the first who entered. The Altaians knew the road there, which is confirmed by the family tree of the Emperor Valentinianus. It turns out there was a Nephritis Route which led from Altai to Europe; that is confirmed by archeological findings which cannot be called into question by serious researchers. In the IV century the scouts of the Great Nations Migration were in question – the number of people leaving Altai increased, and agitated Romans began to talk of an invasion.

Those days the West was living in agitation.

            Of course Rome could not stand a mass encroachment on its territories, although they had not been inhabited yet. But it was going to fight not for those wastelands but for its honor. Warlike Romans were indignant at obtrusiveness of the newcomers; they were shocked. They did not calm down even after the earthquake which happened during the second year of Valentinianus's reign. The sea overflowed the shores throwing ships and boats on roofs of the houses – that was the sign of misfortune. But it was disregarded, since they only wanted to win. 

            However, a victorious war did not happen in 374: the Roman army was defeated in the first battle. And Roman troops were let go. The Turki who wanted peace did not annihilate the enemy. For them it was important to gain a foothold and show seriousness of their intentions. The lands occupied by nobody they considered to be their lands. That is why that was a just war for them. They said as follows: “We need a war to achieve peace”. That is the phrase from the Code of Honor of the “Barbarians”; it was uttered by all the Turkic military leaders.

            The next year another war took place and Rome got the victory in it. They chose the moment for their blow correctly and defeated the enemy. But the feast was spoiled by the embassy of the Kipchaks that came to Valentinianus's headquarters without any signs of respect and laughed at the winner. How? That is not known for certain. It seems Valentinianus was a real Turki – he was too vulnerable and he understood certain expression without translation. The Emperor could not stand those jests; he shivered beside himself with anger, turned blue and died all at once…           

            And Altaic messengers were getting established on fertile lands lying along Danube.

            The name of the head of their horde is known but it was Europeanized and distorted, while the names of families are still pronounced in the Turkic way. Those were the families of Balts (“axe, poleaxe” in Turkic) and Amals (quiet, calm), which is witnessed by European chronicles where it is represented as the coming of a new “nation” – the Goths.

           

            ● It is to be noticed that for the Khakasses, those bearers of Turkic antiquity, the word “palty” (baltu) is a part of the expression meaning “intractable person”, and “amal” means “diplomacy”, which shows the figurativeness of the Turkic language and inevitable inconformity of terms in Turkic dialects that occurred later. To an extent, the same goes for the term “Goth”; it also obtained new meanings more than once.

 

            That name was explained by the fact that on the flag of the horde there was a lizard – the patron of the family and the source of spirit. Of course, that was not a new “nation”; those were the Turki. “Lizard's people”, participants of the Great Nations Migration, adhered to Altaic traditions in legal proceedings, burial ceremonies, written language and, of course, in belief, which is witnessed by Procopius, Jordan and other great chroniclers of those times.

 

            ● Some researchers correctly mentioned that the ancestors of the Goths used the word goth “in the form of Guten so as to denote themselves and emphasize their bravery and strength”, i.e. to call themselves a horde. That expression is derived from the ancient Turkic kut ~ gut ~ goth (vitality, spirit) or from the more ancient godha ~ goth (lizard).

            One of the most ancient Turkic eposes “Ay-Huuchin” tells of a conflict of the Goths (lizard's nation) with their neighbors. Not only Altaic culture but also conflicts between the Turki are described there in detail, although they are described in the form of a myth. After one such sanguinary conflict the Goths left Altai for the West.

 

            ● For some time past the Goths have been regarded as Germanic tribes in the West, not going into details of family trees of the Germans themselves. That is a sort of tradition. In the meantime Ammianus Marcellinus (VI century), Zosimus (V – early VI century) and Patricius Trajan (VII century) referred them to the Scythians. And Theophylactus Simocatta (VII century) described a Scythian whose native tribe were the Huns. It turns out early medieval authors did not divide the Scythians, Goths and Huns into different nations. Theophan the Confessor (VIII – early IX century) reminded that the Huns were the Turki. And Agathias (V century) referred the Burgundians to the Huns. Procopius (VI century) called the Burgundians the Germans… Unusual unanimity of the ancient neglected by the descendants.  

            Efforts of modern researchers to “brighten” this question led to confusion. As a result the Goths are referred to Germanic tribes and “Slavic” nations appeared while their Turkic origin was beyond dispute in the Middle Ages. For example, Bulgarians and Serbs (Montenegrins) were referred to the Turki (Huns) by the medieval authors; today they are called the Slavs.

            This confusion was made artificially, which was described by K. Inostrantsev in his work. Analyzing the history of the Huns he explains their “disappearance” from the historical scene: “The name of the Huns disappeared, as it usually happens with Tatars (Turki. – M.A.) where a horde getting power gives the name to the whole nation… Such turnings of one nation into another are frequent there. Not being aware of that custom it is absolutely impossible to understand the history of those nations. Thus one has to agree with the fact that during 10 years a nation living on vast territories was wiped out and instead another unknown nation appeared”.

            That valuable observation makes many oddities disappear – those oddities that were deliberately included into the history of the Turki.

 

            In the national cookery of the Goths, and the same goes for other Turki, meat and milk dishes prevailed along with horse beef which was eaten “avidly” and boiled dough. They would also drink koumiss – hopped mare's milk – with pleasure. In case of lack of fodder they slaughtered cattle and meet was dried in the sunlight and smoked. During the campaigns they eat cheese balls and curds which were diluted in water. This poor meal, as E. Gibbon mentioned, “kept those modest warriors not only strong but also sprightly for several days”. 

            Everything the Goths had was Turkic. Their society was divided into families of warriors, breeders and farmers… that was a rather complex society with its estates and families… There are no reasons to speak about their “wildness”. They were being born different from the Europeans – in another cultural area. They were not the same as them.

            And, as against the Romans and Greeks, they eat food using not their hands but forks and knives.

            Arrogance with which the Europeans describe the way of life of the Turki is rather a witness of their lack of knowledge of the eastern culture and natural conditions of the steppe – the native land of the newcomers. Another way of life is impossible there – without tilt carts, yurts and towers, without spoons and forks and obligatory neatness. That was an essential condition of survival. Water, firewood, implements were to be taken and carried somehow and kept carefully since there was nothing to use instead. The steppe was sparing in resources but lavish in destitution, hunger and epidemics. It accepts only strong people.

            Climate in the steppe is very rigorous, contrasting and unpredictable. The weather can change five times a day. Is not that the reason why the steppe area was the last area inhabited by people. Even Arctic Regions are compliant and lavish…

            In the West they write about the Turki with disgust calling them “dirty animals”, but that would be great if someone explains why the Romans remained pagans? Why did they loose all the battles? Was not culture of the “barbarians” higher than that of the civilized Romans? However, how can western scientists assess “wildness” of one nation and “civilization” of the other? 

            … August 9^th, 378 was not an exception for Rome. The army of the Empire, with what was left of its strength, decided to give and examination to the Turkic cavalry on the banks of Danube for another time, and again it overleapt itself. After that lost battle of Adrianople the Empire was deprived of its army, and it could be taken without a hand's turn. But that was done not by the “barbarians” who, as it turned out, did not need Rome, but by the Byzantine co-regent Theodosius I. He understood: having won the war, the West lost in terms of geopolitics. They had to save the day.

           

            ● In that decisive battle the army of the Empire was represented by the troops of Valens, the Emperor in the East. But for some reason they were not joined by western troops; to an extent that was due to the Turkic cavalry that was acting consistently… In Rome that defeat was called “manslaughter”, “the end of the world” and regarded as a collapse of Mediterranean political culture. That was right. That was when the Roman Empire fell. But we will go into details a little later.   

 

            By 380 Theodosius, having become the Roman Emperor, passed a bill condemning paganism through the Senate, and later – another one concerning the unity of the Christian belief in the territory of the former Roman Empire. That made the Emperor a practical ruler of Byzantium and Rome. Establishing Christianity he became the master of the neighboring country with a stroke of the pen. However, having the army and the Church at his disposal, that was not a difficult task, especially since the rival was nothing at that moment. The former Rome did not exist; it was the prisoner of its contradictions having fallen into clutches of the Christians.

 

            ● 388 is the official date of Rome's converting to Christianity.

 

            The news of submission to the Greeks and the Greek Church took the “Eternal City” unawares, it was exerting itself in vain but… success is never blamed. Byzantium carried all before one; it was acting steadily. Let those be the Greeks – the Romans decided. Of two evils they chose the least.

            The Emperor Theodosius conducted his policy as a subtle diplomat. In 382 he invited another horde to the Empire and granted rich estates to it provided that the farmers' children were to serve in his army. Thus he continued the discreditable practices of Constantine concerning “coordination” of the Great Nations Migrations or, more simply, he subdued it. He was playing dexterously. And circumstances redounded advantage to him in everything.

            His estates turned out to be an excellent invention suiting everybody. They attracted the Turki since they were small states where every khan was his own master. There they spoke the Turkic language, followed Turkic traditions, feasts, in a word, they were free and independent. There people obeyed neither the Empire, nor Desht-I-Kipchak.

            Freedom attracted and besotted freedom-loving Altaic people better than ripe wine. New families rushed to the Western Europe, the number of the Turki there was rapidly increasing.

            However, the Latins went berserk having learnt the news concerning estates, especially after Roman landowners were made obliged to give one third of their fields to the coming Kipchaks, and forest areas were to be divided in half… Politicians skillfully set people on to fight having blasphemously called that action “Hospitality”. In the Emperor's order that word was used.

 

            ● The order issued early in the V century, after Theodosius's death, was the continuation of his policy. But, of course, such system was not new, it had been applied earlier when the Great Nations Migration was gathering pace. For example, Marcus Aurelius (161 – 180) in 171 delivered new settlers to the Roman farmers.

 

            As we know, the history of many dukedoms and principalities started with those “barbarian” estates. In the Middle Ages there were hundreds of them. Pocket countries of knights were a page of the Turkic history which Theodosius started to write. This history was kept in the remotest refuge of conservatism – provincial towns and settlements of the West. And of course knightly romanticism that eclipsed the Turkic genealogy there has become part of literature and arts as an individual phenomenon… Knights and knighthood also appeared due to the Great Nations Migration.

            Khans or, more precisely, owners of estates were called gentiles – aliens. They had “barbarian names” and formed special regiments for the cavalry. It is also known that they all belonged to one family.

            Relations, origin and roots were top of priorities there; strangers had nothing to do there and they were not accepted. Everybody spoke one language there, used the same words and gestures, which is described in numerous tales of chivalry. That was the caste living under its – Turkic! – laws and rules. The Empire did not bother them. A horde is a horde.

            With regard to the word “gentiles” opinions of experts differ, but in one thing they agree: the word is derived from “barbarians of the fifth century who were the soldiers serving the Roman Empire at first, and later they conquered the Empire and were proud of their foreign gentility”. There are many theories concerning the word “gentiles” but nobody has ever connected it with those to whom it belonged – with the Turki. With participants of the Great Nations Migration.

            That was wrong… However those connections have not been welcomed in the West for some time past.

            And in the ancient Turkic language there was the word “kent” (ken) or “gent” (gen) meaning “fortress”, “castle” and the word “il” – “nation”. Thus it meant “nation living in a fortress”, but that is not a correct explanation, that is an “untranslatable pun” meaning not just a nation but people being able to fight for their own hand. Slashing fellows. Their life, like a fortress, was inaccessible for others. In their name one can hear restraint, strength, pride and valor – all at the same time. In a word, “people – fortresses”.

            To an extent this explanation is confirmed by names of European towns that appeared at that time (Ghent, Genoa, Geneva) and Kent county (England) and a dozen of others which history is connected with the nations migration. At first those were that barbarian estates. And another thing is indicative – the gentiles kept belief in Tengri, they followed Altaic religious traditions, for which Christians called them pagans.

            As we know, Europe called all the dissentients pagans.

            Later, with the passing of the years, the image of an alien was transformed and a new image was created according to the Turkic pattern. That was not the image of an alien. After all, generations were changing. The word “gentiles” was transformed into “gentleman” with a literary meaning “noble man”. It also has Altaic roots – in the Turkic language “men” means “me”, “personality”. Later such titled as “marquis”, “baron” and other appeared also having an Altaic root – aristocracy gradation was the same as in Altai.

            The Europeans treated khans that became gentlemen carefully, as though they were rare transplants in a garden. They were let put down roots and entrench themselves. And give harvest. Time was the best ally of the West.

            Of course, “Hospitality” was more suitable for the Kipchaks; it afforded them different opportunities in their new motherland. They were peaceful by nature, but they could fight for their own hand. In Rome and Constantinople people were aware of it and did not contradict new settlers. The Europeans hoped for time which was to make obstinate newcomers native sooner or later. Because everything is passing and changing, and the newcomers were very fond of beautiful women… Bridges of love were inevitable.

            What did the settlers of 382 look like? Witnesses of the Europeans are full of hidden jealousy and open disgust, which is clear. But if not being emotional, writings of Eunapius describe the Turkic clergy heading the horde with icons and a cross. They wore long black clothes and rode horses – solemnly and with deliberation. After them monks and nuns were coming followed by others – warriors, nobility and common people in carts.

            That was not a wild crowd, as “barbarians” are represented, but riders, people with household belongings leaving for new lands. They were not preparing for a feast; there was no splendor in that ceremony, that is for certain.

            By the way, from Eunapius's notes it is seen that he himself was a pagan and did not know the meaning of religious relics which were to become part of Christianity later. His emotions made his ignorance evident, which does not surprise: at that time official Rome had just accepted Christianity. The spirit of the people living in the Empire remained pagan and its morals was two-faced.

            It was looking at the world crossing its eyes because of fear; the world seemed to be the world of deceit and weakness. “They just put on their long black clothes and their slyness gained confidence. The barbarians became aware of respect of the Romans to that title, that is why they were not slack at using at. The Romans were so blind that they believed the barbarians”, - Eunapius wrote in despair. He did not even understand that the newcomers wore not fancy dresses; they attracted Western politicians not by their clothes, they granted them estates not for their slyness. That was perhaps national clothes of certain Turki.

            Again Rome had not a gaudy lot; it was screaming of its weakness and immense fear at the top of its voice… Like a helpless old man it condemned youth.

            From the first day the Emperor Theodosius understood the sentiments of the Romans, which was not difficult, but he knew that only those whose spirit was stronger could give belief to others. That is why, inviting the Turki and their clergy the Emperor counted for their help in strengthening Christianity, i.e. the new religion, among Roman pagans, which also meant strengthening of power of its leader – the Greek Church. Those were real plans of Byzantine that was becoming the political and religious leader of the West.

            “Hospitality” was necessary in order to attract the Turkic clergy. Especially since it was paid by the Romans and their lands.

            The policy of Byzantium of those times considered the interests of the Kipchaks to the last detail. And those simple-minded people answered with peacefulness, which was possibly explained by another fact: they were searching for changes too. Changes in themselves! That is why they willingly stepped into the new life allowing to invite and deceive them. Why?

            This can be seen in the following declaration: “I wish to erase the name “Romans” and to turn the Roman Empire into the Gothic (Turkic) Empire… But experience teaches me that our uncontrolled barbarism is incompatible with laws, and without laws a state cannot exist. That is why I am trying to revive the glory of Rome and multiply it due to might of the Goths (Turki). Let the descendants connect revival of Rome, and not destruction of it, with my name”. Those words were said in 410 by the gentleman Athaulf. It seems they contain everything for which those days were notable. One could not have said more precisely.

 

            ● The phrase written by the historian Orosius in the V century after a pious, sedate and serious inhabitant of Narbonne. They met in Palestine where they had come to meet Saint Jerome.

 

            It turns out barbarians were thinking about revival of Rome.

            Athaulf was right. Certain Turkic customs looked wildish there and became obsolete and turned people into slaves of unnecessary traditions. After all, there were different living conditions in Europe. The khan understood that customs should not weigh upon the new society and be fetters for it… Napoleon was absolutely right when he said later: “Customs sentence us to a lot of stupidities, but the biggest stupidity is to be their slaves”.

            Only in estates, like at liberty, life released “barbarians” from fetters of moribund traditions. It allowed establishing new ones. And that also explains a lot of what was happening at that time… However, they renewed not themselves but the West that was turning into their new motherland. The future required mutual influence, mutual changes and concessions – that was the life of the Turki and Latins of the IV century. That was akin to a sexual act when new Europe was conceived; not “Roman”, as it had formerly been, but “European” Europe. Of course it did not come to denying ancestors, their way of life and beginning everything from a “blank page”. But life is a ship which crew in every new port acts under the laws of that port.

            And the more the sailing of the Kipchaks lasted, the farther were the Altaic shores… And the past with them…

            Volumes of researches containing a lot of details and particulars but lacking objectiveness are dedicated to “barbarians” that destroyed Rome. Describing the strength of the West by force of habit, the authors forgot that by the end of the IV century that was not Rome of the Emperor Augustus. The Western Empire did not even have its army and was the country where a new – Christian! – culture was being established; people expected a lot from it.

            The Turki were reviving the glory of Rome defeated by them.

            They!.. The works dedicated to sources of knighthood show that gentlemen received guests sitting on carpets putting their legs under themselves. They slept in tents. They wore moustaches. They eat horse beef and drank koumiss. They had horse amusements, which showed their fiery temper. Malefactors were executed by tying them to a horse's tail and putting it into gallop. The most noble knights were buried in barrows together with their steeds and choked slaves. In decoration of their weapons one could read their own “knightly” ornaments reminding of Altaic patterns. They were exactly the same.

            Is not this information enough for an ethnographer? After all, first European kings and their retinues are the descendants of the knights.

            The Turkic past of secular and religious rulers was seen in their written language – they wrote with Altaic runes, from left to right. Later they learnt European rules… Documents are kept in museums of Italy, France, Spain. That is not a secret.

            Providing a great many specific historical peculiarities, it seems European authors, not being aware of Altai, did not call the Turki the Turki and invented new names even for khans: Birnart was called Bernard, Arnaut was called Arnold… However, keeping censorship introduced by the medieval Church in mind, one should not be surprised at it. Although signs of “knightly” culture had not formerly existed in the Roman Europe. Trifles and details are important for a researcher here.

            Even the fact that early in the Middle Ages a horse substituted an ox in the western agriculture; or that flocks of sheep and herds of horses were pastured in the fields of estates; or that millet, oats and rye were sown there… And those were the animals and agricultural plants traditional for the Turki and new for the West. How did they appear?

            Elasticity of the Great Nations Migration is striking: everything began as if on a sudden.

            Adhering to “Hospitality” two cultures of East and West were living together amicably in Europe. Military conflicts happened but they did not determine the new life.

            By the way, peacefulness of the Turki was also marked in Asia. They never broke the peace if they saw that a settlement lying on their way was surrounded by a wall or fence, i.e. it had an owner. For example, they did nothing to Khoresm and other towns of the Central Asia, on which was based a false opinion that they were not able to win fortresses. But that was wrong. The clergy did not approve of an unjust war; it maintained order in society and in politics. 

            A war was deemed to be unjust if it was waged against nations not inflicting damage on the Turki… Altaic people had their own code of honor of which all the warriors were aware; the West learnt of that code from the work by Saint Augustine called “The City of God”.

            Settlers of the V century were notable for their desire to serve Rome. For its sake certain settlers changed their national clothes and took Latin names. And they did so voluntarily.

 

            ● For instance, that is what Theoderich, the head of the horde of the Goths, did having become the lord of the Romans in the V century. Having got power in the Roman Empire, he, according to Jordan, “took off the clothes of his tribe and put on new vestments as the ruler of the Goths and Romans”, which was a Turkic tradition. That is what their rulers did obtaining power in India, Persia, Armenia. Two conditions were to be met and, in a sense, a person was changed.

 

            Peaceful march of the gentlemen on Rome is evident. There, for instance, laws had not been giving an incentive to marriages between the Turki and the Romans, and then mixed marriages became normal. The Latins were eagerly giving in marriage their best daughters. Everything Turkic was in fashion in Rome; even clothes which were warmer and nicer. Patricians were fond of woolen suits, trousers, bloomers, vestments, knee-high boots, which was mentioned perhaps by all the historians. By the way, from the Turki the West became aware of dress coats and camisoles; it turns out they are also of Altaic origin, which was proven by findings of archeologists, in particular of the professor S.I. Rudenko.

            Before the coming of “barbarians”, as we know, only togas were in fashion in Rome – pieces of cloths draped around the body. They did not wear underpants and did not sew clothes there. They simply could not…

            Everything was mixed up in the West; the Latin and the barbarous were close. To tell the truth, now they were fighting against the new fashion, and then admiring it. At times that was absurd. Thus in 397 people were sentenced to banishment for life and confiscation of property for wearing trousers, and in 416 even the slaves were prohibited to wear fur and leather clothes of “barbarians”. Later prohibitions were cancelled.

            Such changes were explained by new political conditions; it is the same as weather – in spring it is notable for impermanence even in nature… The Turki were invited to the Emperor's retinue and to positions of importance. How could that happen with savages?

            The owner of one estate, gentleman Arbogast, whose name meant “Red throat” in the Turkic language became the teacher of soldiers of the Roman army, its military leader. That roaring ruffian felt right at home at court – he was acting freely, and when they tried to remove him, the Emperor heard from him the following: “My power has nothing to do with your smile or puckered brows”.

            In a couple of days the Emperor was found choked in his bed.

            One contemporary of those events wrote: “The title of senator which in ancient times seemed to be top of all honors, turned into something miserable due to those fair-haired barbarians…”. That was for certain. It could not have happened otherwise: The strongest survived; it was imposing the rules of new life.

            Healthy blood was inflowing into the decrepit body of Rome. The West was recovering.

            Its vaunted patricians were not able to compete with the Kipchaks in military and public arts; none of its plebeians was that skilful in agriculture, cattle ranching, building protected towns and beautiful temples. That was the mixture of cultures or, more precisely, nurturance of a new culture. Newcomers were not afraid of dirty work; they washed their hands after it.

            The Romans, being effeminate and weak, lost in everything, even in love; all they had to do is hate the “barbarians”. And nothing else. Desertion which started after the defeat of 378 was increasing. Young Latins were afraid of service and thus went into hiding; they mutilated themselves so as to avoid the call-up, although secretion of recruits was subject to death penalty. Nothing could be done, and acceptance of Christianity did not bring any martial spirit to the army.

            Mass evasion from military reservations became common; the Latins did not feel alright among the Turki which formed the core of the army. They were not physically able to learn the lesson of military training.

            Salvianus, the presbyter of Massilia (Marseilles) left a description of those years full of horror. Towns that did not accept the Turki were unprotected even when enemies were near; “nobody stirred a finger to defend themselves from death”. Desperate cowards were living there… It is no wonder; behavior of the Romans was traditionally imperial, but they all wanted new life. Bygone power and glory depraved them.

            By the V century the dominance of the Turki in the West was absolute. The Empire was protected by the army that could be called the Roman army just theoretically. Even the military treasury (fiscus) was called fiscus barbaricus (in Latin “barbarian” means “alien”)… That made it possible for Saint Jerome to declare that the Romans were the weakest nation in the world since they were dependant on how barbarians would fight for them.

            Having called themselves Christians the Europeans did not become them. “A hood does not make one a monk”, - they used to say in Altai in such cases. Because the West was living full of hatred to their nearest – those nearest that fed and protected it. That was its real tragedy which in several centuries was revealed in the colonial policy. Colonialism could not be born out of nothing; it is the sequel of evil.

            The East was winning but in its own way. Altai and its traditions hindered it; they were like stones on the settlers' shoulders, they were that “uncontrolled barbarism” wistfully described by the gentleman Athaulf. Those were the traditions (adats) that did not allow Arbogast to ascend to the throne in Rome, although he had power – he was the head of the army. 

            According to “barbarian” laws he could not become the Emperor, i.e. the tsar since he did not belong to the tsarist family. He could choke anyone, he could become the Emperor under the Roman laws but… he did not dare change traditions of his ancestors; he was afraid of God. He let a Roman ascend to the throne and served him voluntarily.

           

            ● It was not the same with Theodoric, another possible Roman Emperor. As distinct from Arbogast, he belonged to a tsarist family, that is why he easily managed to get power. He put on Roman clothes and took a Roman name. And that was it. The tradition was established by the rulers of the dynasty of Achemenids in Persia and the Sun Dynasty in India, which is confirmed by findings of archeologists from the Middle East where those dynasties had been reigning long before the Common Era. They wore bloomers and over them they had “foreign” clothes.

 

            The Europeans quickly found that sore spot of the Kipchaks which could tie better that any rope. Their nobility, faith to their wards, laws and families were being used by the West in its interests. The rulers of Rome and Byzantine brought the “barbarians” nearer without fear, entrusted their security to them and listened to their advices. They did not trench upon power; they denied it themselves. Was that good or bad? That question is not to be discussed, but adherence to adats was leading the Turki to a political deadlock in the western states conquered by them. The East was loosing its face even when it was winning.

            And that was the fate. Their fate.

            The Turki did not have power for a very long time and… another difference between the nations of East and West. The Europeans took decorum for weakness and after that – for cowardice. Having grown bolder the Europeans started troubles. They, the Christians, did not love their nearest – those speaking the Turkic language. The Emperor's orders had no force, the same as blandishment. Caesar's descendants were oppressed by envy. Not willing to do military service and work for the state, they mutilated themselves, and the Turki – protectors and workers! – became the object of humiliation. The Roman nobility even demanded to deport the newcomers from the Empire or turn them into slaves.

            Rome was notable for madness; that was a good form to abuse a “barbarian”. On coins they minted the Emperor's figure stepping on the throat of a defeated man with the body of a snake. That stepped over the bonds of hospitality; that was pretence. In the V century everybody understood: the Kipchaks are an integral part of Europe, and Europe itself was the motherland even for the youth. The motion of the wheel of History could not be changed either by envy, or by malice.

            They had to reckon with reality.

            Those were difficult times; people were surrounded by meanness. The settlers were starving and freezing. And the Romans made their fortune on their troubles: in ten years they changed food for gold and children whom they took for slavery. Hopeless newcomers did not disdain to eat meat of killed dogs, but they did nothing to the Romans. And they did ask them for help, which was also regarded as weakness.

            After the Emperor Theodosius's death his sons, upon demand of the Roman nobility, tried to abolish “common gifts to the army”, i.e. the estates. But they failed, and the first generation of Latin Turki was born. Thousands of them. No one allowed to turn them into slaves or outcasts since their fathers were not the timid type.

            And the trouble was hurting as it was maturing, it was like an abscess; it stole up imperceptibly in 408, on the 25^th of December – the biggest Turkic feast – the day of Tengri. The Romans proceeded to executions of wives and children of the Kipchaks that were in the army then. Edward Gibbon described those events as follows: “On the same day, at the same time, as though on a signal, towns of Italia were blemished by similar detestable murders and robberies, at that families and property of the barbarians were being annihilated”.

            After that the newcomers, “having been driven to despair by dungeon which could put out of patience the most humble and gentle people”, rebelled. The country was set on fire.

           

            ● The Greeks that were afraid of the newcomers even more than the Romans, were acting “wiser”. After the defeat near Adrianople in 378 they gathered the Turkic youth on squares of towns having promised “handsome gifts in lands and money” and killed credulous young men.

 

            That was the last straw. A civil war began; it was headed by the gentleman Alaricus who was not fond of long talks; they besieged Rome. Those who did not understand the words understood sticks.

            That was when the citizens bethought themselves, senators and the elite apologized to the Turki and paid them in gold to make them quit the siege… The next year it all happened again. In 410 the Kipchaks besieged Rome for the third time. By that time they did not believe its lies, the city was conquered and the warriors did not restrain their temper. That was for the first time ever when the enemy was in the streets of the Eternal City.

            Enmity was likely to flood the new western society that had just been born; slaughter was inevitable, but they remembered the wise Roman who knew how to pacify the parties. The idea came to his mind due to the Turkic word “katalyk” (ally). “Catholic doctrine of the Church”, or Catholicism, appeared. And that man's name was Damasus, he was the first Christian bishop of Rome.

            He called the bishops' cathedra “Apostolic See”. That was amazing. Damasus, the same as the Emperor Constantine, was a politician and not a clergyman. He also took the route of creation but made it not to Palestine; the bishop was trying to prove that Rome was the bulwark of belief emphasizing the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. There, in the Roman catacombs, Damasus was “searching for” and “found ancient monuments” remaining after the sectaries – Jews.

            He found memorable inscriptions that were supposed to mark the tombs of Christian martyrs. Due to his efforts the History of Christianity became more “ancient” although Rome had never been Christian before. The true dating of burial places is absolutely different. But… “Christian Rome – the capital of Catholicism – was growing from underground”, as western historians describe those days.

            Confrontation of Rome and Constantinople began from “findings” of Damasus; that confrontation was to determine European politics during the future centuries. Capitals of the West, as it turned out, regarded distribution of belief in different ways. Thus Christianity, not having been fully formed, became a political instrument and settled down to a course of an inevitable split of the Church. That course was destined.

            It should de mentioned that, accepting the office as an elder, Damasus was learning the rules of belief from the Turki personally communicating with them, through ambassadors and through correspondence. Near the bishop there were great people that were later called “Doctors of the Church”, its founders. Basil, Gregorios Nazianzenos, Jerome, Ambrosius - it is unlikely that these names tell a lot to readers inexperienced in history. The same as the name of the bishop Augustine.

            And they added a page to the Turkic history. Their own page. An inimitable and imperishable one.     

            The Christian history refers Basil and Gregory to the teachers of the Eastern Church, their secular names have been forgotten, however, it is known, that they were brought up in the Turkic area, possibly, in Derbent. That was the only place where one could get higher theological education. That is witnessed not even by their biographies, but by knowledge of the basics of belief that they were preaching. That was the religion which roots were not connected with former beliefs of Greece or Rome.

            Many researchers paid their attention to it. Only the Caucasus with its saint town Derbent or Egypt with its “Indian communities” at the very least could bring them up. It was impossible to get extensive knowledge anywhere else.

            It is not known whether they were Christians in the modern sense of this term, but they were aware of the philosophy of Monotheism. They shared knowledge not only with the Roman bishop Damasus. They exerted influence on Jerome, the Kipchak of Danube, who became the nearest counselor of the bishop, the second person in the Roman Church, having accepted Christianity. He was notable for spacious mind; he edited and translated books from the Turkic language into Latin – a hard work for a pagan country that Rome was since it did not want to part from paganism. But Jerome was successfully doing his work.

            The Holy Writ, known as the Vulgate, is the beginning of the Christian literature. As a matter of fact, in the West the Christian Bible began with it. Jerome was doing that work for twenty years under Damasus's order. In Greece there was no such book; key points of Christianity were highlighted there in a different way.

            The Vulgate (literally meaning “common”, “peoples”) was not the translation of Altaic books. That was something more. It explained to common people, i.e. to the Romans, the Holy Writ of Heavenly God in the language clear for them. It was enlightening them, the same as some time before that Turkic books were enlightening nations of India, Iran, Armenia, Egypt… In this connection the following detail is interesting: the Latin conception of the essence of God was different from that in Greece; in 1545, at the Council of Trent, the Church canonized it as the only one in Christianity.

 

            ● That event was preceded by discussions in the course of which the conception of the essence of the dispute was changed at least ten times. It is known that there were 10 editions of Jerome's translations. After which – in about 12 centuries! – the Council of Trent canonized the text of translation as “the only Church translation”. However, what wonder, if Jerome himself was among those that were fighting for “freedom of research for the sake of the Church”, i.e. interpretation of Christian postulates for the sake of politics.

 

            They ascribed invention of Glagolitic alphabet, i.e. of the Church written language, to Jerome. That is possible. At any rate, in the library of Vatican on an ancient fresco there is his image with an open book written with Glagolitic characters. That was the new Church alphabet which later became the base for the Latin alphabet and Greek written language.

            At the same time variants of the Glagolitic alphabet appeared in Egypt and Byzantium, which confirms that the Turkic written language or, more precisely, its calligraphy was changing wittingly. It was being given the European shape; and the changes were controlled from the spiritual center. It seems the center was in Derbent where the Patriarchal See of all Christian Churches was located.

            To tell the truth, in several centuries the Pope Innocent IV in his letter of 1248 unexpectedly declared the opposite – according to him those were the Slavs who invented the Glagolitic alphabet. Which was evidently a strained argument since in the IV century nobody knew the word “Slavs”, there was no such nation; it appeared in five hundred years… Innocent neglected the history of the IV century perpetuated in the Pope's library – in the fresco depicting Saint Jerome.

            Nothing leaves without a trace, especially the Great Culture. And whatever the Popes say, eastern roots of the culture which was being established in the West by teachers and Holy Fathers of the Church are evident in everything. Their deeds cannot be concealed.

            In this connection the biography of Saint Augustine is interesting; that was the man who would not accept the Christian dogmas for a long time. He remained the adherent to Monotheism. His soul was full of the philosophy of “Gnosticism”. He was preaching the teaching of One God in Rome.

            The Christian writings seemed “childish and rough” to Augustine; the Greek perturbed him since they were “ordering not convincing”. “I am sure that those who are teaching but not commanding are to believe”, - he used to say. And in his words there was the truth.

            After hesitation in 387 he received the Christian baptism, but it took that great philosopher several years to become a Christian. And that was due to Ambrosius, the saint Kipchak, who argued the opponent into the necessity to revive and not destroy the glory of Rome.

            In the new Christian Church, the same as in the new army, the Turki were successfully finding themselves there. They had no rivals. The Latins with their imperial souls were behind in everything. The bishop Ambrosius was living under the Turkic traditions and did not conceal that, for instance, he thought that the Emperor was not entitled to subdue the Church. “The Emperor is not over the Church but in the Church”, - he used to say citing the tsar Kanishka almost letter for letter.

            The bishop was serving in Milan. Under the influence of “frantic Ambrosius” (as his contemporaries used to call him) the Emperor moved his residence there in 381. The town in the north became the center of spiritual science; Altaic books were translated there, paper from the East was brought there. The Turkic speech was highly respected, since there were Kipchak quarters in the town.

            However, for Milan that turned out to be the reason of troubles more than once. That is where were rushing the compatriots of the Turki – the enemies of the Roman Empire willing to punish their congeners for their “betrayal” of the white belief of Altai, as they used to say. Attila's campaign is the best confirmation.

 

            ● The Huns headed by Attila entered Milan (Mediolan) in the middle of the V century and broke it to pieces; in less than one hundred years the city was conquered by another Turkic ulus – the Burgundians, until in thirty years the Kipchaks represented by the Langobards conquered not only Milan but also the most of the territory of Italy. That is when the enmity between the South and the North of Italy has begun.

 

            As it was fairly mentioned, “permanent fight of the tribes of the infinite barbarian world which was steadily approaching both parts of the Empire allowed the latter to use barbarian forces struggling against the barbarians”. In the fight of the Turki between each other Rome was on the winning side; it was rising. Unfortunately for the East, that eternal civil strife led the West to the political Olympus.

            And the more intense the fighting was, the deeper were getting the roots of the idea of Catholicism (the union) expressed by Damasus. Those were different sides of the same coin. The union with Rome attracted certain Turki more than the war with their tribesmen. Hence is the rise of Catholicism of the early Middle Ages.

            … No, in the West “barbarians” did not look like poor relations nestling in a foreign home: they knew that those whose spirit and body were strong were the masters.

            In 404 they deprived Rome of the right for the capital having declared Ravenna the main city of the country. They built it in keeping with the best traditions of the eastern architecture of which the East was unaware. “In the architectonics of Ravenna there were artistic views connected with “barbarian” culture having nothing in common with the Byzantine architecture”, - as it is correctly written in one scientific research.

            The author just stated the fact explaining why Ravenna played a special part in the history of Italy, why it was deemed to be the center of the governmental power up to the middle of the VIII century.

            Of course, in architectonics the Turki followed their cherished traditions since they did not have any other ones. It is not by accident that the famous San Vitale church, one of the most ancient in Italy, reminds of the temple in the settlement Lekit near Derbent built in the V century. Domes of the temples (they had not existed in Europe before!), mausoleums decorated with blue mosaic, baptistery where Roman pagans were baptized were the peculiarities of Ravenna.

            There was another baptistery in Ravenna for the followers of the “white belief”, i.e. not Christians but Arians.

            It is striking that the Great Nations Migrations gave the West even architectural innovations with which Gothic architecture began (the word “Goth”) – style of art dominating in the medieval Europe…

            The mausoleum of the khan Theodoric was perhaps the most striking building; it repeated the dome of an eastern yurt. Later pointed tents appeared; they delighted the contemporaries that saw the miracle of Ravenna… Much has been written on this point. Unfortunately the authors failed to find the sources of the Gothic and new Roman architecture. They were tracking around as though they were blind; they mentioned facts but… they saw nothing.

            For instance, they mentioned that in the Eastern Empire (Thessaloniki or Constantinople) there are buildings in the style of the early Gothic architecture. And that is a nudge. Because it is known that, according to the Emperor Constantine's order, Turkic craftsmen were the builders there; they also left their architectural trace in the Northern Italy and Iran. To tell the truth, there were squat buildings there with “crude” shapes not pointed into the sky. But still they existed. 

            New temple architecture, with its temples and steeples, pointed to the East like a ray of setting sun.

            One of the most ancient temples of the West is Santa Maria Maggiore. It is interesting since it was not the same as Greek and Roman temples. That was a new temple with different architecture and different construction decisions – closer to Parthian and Kushan ones. Appearance of the temple was the same as that of other temples built in the Caucasian Albania – in mountain settlements of the North Azerbaijan. In Armenia… And that perplexes researchers and gives rise to new hypotheses. 

            But speaking about cultic buildings of Rome or Constantinople nobody compares them with more ancient temples of the East, which is wrong. Take, for instance, another Roman temple – Santa Pudenziana – also built at the end of the IV century; it is notable for its rare mosaic. Here, in the center of the panel, on a throne, according to Church art critics, is sitting Christ surrounded by apostles and in the clouds above him there are winged figures of an angel, lion, bull and eagle which the Church identifies with four evangelists. There is a cross over Christ's head… But what is really depicted there?

            Can the subject be understood without theologians? It turns out it can.

            If one remembers that at that time Christ was being depicted as a lamb (his face appeared in 691), it becomes clear that Christ could not be depicted on the panel of the IV century. And that was the resemblance of Heavenly God, Tengri. Eastern art of those times is notable for similar images.

            If one remembers that the history of the Latin cross began in the VI century, it becomes clear that such cross could not have been depicted there; there should have been an equilateral cross. And it is likely that there had been an equilateral cross there before restoration.

            If one remembers that the art of Altai, Kushan khanate and Turkic Iran was notable for winged angels, lions, bulls, eagles, the subject of the panel in the Roman temple Santa Pudenziana becomes quite clear… That is the East. Pure East. After all, those were the Turki who built those ancient temples; the spirit of Altai lived in them. 

            The image of God in which they see Christ today, his appearance and clothes, are worth being discussed separately. Eastern traces are also seen here… Comparisons might seem wearisome, but people in the West did not know a nimbus before the coming of the Turki. A nimbus – shining around the head (the symbol of sanctity) is one of the most ancient symbols of Altai – it meant the vital force, the wisdom. That is the ancient Turkic word, “yanimba” – “surround by the sign of the light”, or “spotlight”; it was an instruction to icon painters… And bloomers, vestment, and a beard separated in twain of the person depicted in Santa Pudenziana can also be commented – they are of the eastern type.

            … In 411 the Roman army was headed by Constantius, the Kipchak from Danube lands; unfortunately we do not know his former name the same as details of his family tree. As a military leader that valiant Turki became famous in Gaul, but that is just an episode of his biography. The main thing is that he gained over a new horde – the Burgundians – and allowed them to settle on the lands of modern France. That was a farsighted solution of a military leader.

 

            ● At that time the origin of the Burgundians could not be called into question, which is confirmed by Gibbon when he describes the peculiarities of their society: “The difference between the civil and church administrative systems was the most notable peculiarity of ancient customs of the Burgundians. Their king or general was called “hendinos” (from the Turkic “khan” – M.A.) and their high priest was called Sinistus. The high priest was a sacred person, he was appointed for life, but king's power was unsteady. If results of any war allowed accusing the king of being not brave enough or making mistakes, he was deposed immediately”.

            That is a typical Turkic diarchy; in the “Roman” Europe there was nothing of that kind.

 

            Soon there appeared estates which were called Burgundy. At that time Constantius was conducting the policy in Gaul using those Altaic settlers… In the same way Spanish Catalonia and Aragon appeared due to his efforts; those were large “estates” where the Turkic language was spoken. “Barbarians” were moving to Europe in a broad front. They were moving unavoidably, like the morning after the night. Their were the best. They official recognition was coming.   

 

● More than once historians tried to explain the family tree of the Catalans deriving it at first from the Goths and then from the Arabs. However, the “Gothic” version seems to be more convincing; it connects origin of the Catalans with their national culture, way of life, language but it distracts due to uncertainty of origin of the Goths themselves. Even in the XI century the Catalans kept on living making isolated quarters in towns, such quarters were called “kala” (fortress). Gibbon and other authors point to that.

 

            In 418 due to a large number of estates in the south of modern France Toulouse was proclaimed a Turkic town – the second capital of the West. That was another new town in Europe; it consisted of five quarters (kala)… And on February 8^th, 421 the West solemnly vested Constantine with authorities of the Emperor.

            Another “barbarian” had risen over Rome.

 

 

Rich Harvest of Altai

            By the beginning of the V century the Great Nations Migration devoured the continent; the West was avidly eating fruits of the East. The ancient world was loosing everywhere; pagan doctrines were collapsing and Europe was entering a new epoch – the epoch of the Middle Ages.

            Those complicated times are now interpreted in different ways, and a very important detail is usually forgotten – northern lands referred to as “inhospitable lands” by Roman historians in the I century, in the V century obtained their owners. They were inhabited! And that meant that the number of people living in Europe had risen sharply; vast territories lying north of Rome and Byzantium were inhabited. That was the remaining European world which area was noticeably larger than that of those two countries.  

            That was a determinant event but still it was neglected. But when one looks more closely, the Roman Empire, from the point of view of a geographer, was just a strip of land on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It did not cover territories lying further on the continent.

            That was really strange – hundreds of thousands of new settlers – whole countries originated at that time. That was a new “breed” – Altaic people; it had strict anthropological signs. Its morals differed from that of the Europeans. Europe obtained its modern demographic outlines. Every second its inhabitant was the Turki!.. And it is not customary to mention it now?!

            That fast growth of population is connected either with “favorable conditions for reproduction” in the European North, or with “coming of settlers” from Scandinavia. But are not such explanations too primitive? Do they not simplify the events to a great extent? Nevertheless they are being printed in the books as the established truth.

            But could that have happened really? In order to double the population they needed at least to double agricultural productivity, otherwise they could not have fed, clothed and saved people. They needed to build twice as many towns and settlements, expand fields and pastures. And did people in cold Scandinavia from which numerous hordes of settlers were supposed to come have that?

            No, not any Scandinavian saga contains “favorable conditions for reproduction” that were found there on a sudden. Quite the opposite, they tell about difficulties of the severe life. Archeologists haven’t found traces of wellbeing or, more precisely, manna, either… It means there should be another reason.

            And in Altai “favorable conditions for reproductions” were discovered. Those conditions gave rise to the Great Nations Migration – moving of population to the south, to the west and to the north, which, in its turn, was marked on a geographical map that is the reflection of reality of those times. New towns, countries and nations appeared on it.

            It is known that the high point of the Great Nations Migration coincides with the V century – the years of Attila's reign. Those times were characterized by the Roman dignitary Romulus: “No one of those that ever reigned has done as many great deeds as Attila, and in such a short time. His rule covers islands in the Ocean. And not only all the Scythians, but he also made the Romans pay levy. No nation can resist his military force”.

            Here it is – information for a geographer. Here is the canvas for his geographical map.

            The dignitary's words can be left without comments. They express the scale of the event called the Great Nations Migration. Indeed, that was the event determinant for the whole planet. Having recognized Attila's power, the world accepted the Turkic culture! It fell into line with it… And that culture was appearing even in Rome represented by “barbarians” invited there.

            However, those events can be regarded in a different way. It is known that the Romans and the Greeks divided their neighbors not according to ethnic factors but otherwise. All the people living to the east were called Scythians; to the north – Celts and Gauls. The same as the Russian some time ago called the Germans all the Europeans.

            In Europe speaking about nations they meant population of this or that region; hence are numerous European “nations”. Herodotus, Strabon, Ptolemy, Tacitus and other ancient and medieval authors meant only what they understood when they used the word “nation”. Ethnic signs were not associated with that term at that time. Maybe because they did know about them.

 

            ● N.M. Karamzin gives a significant example of how, basing on the same sources – witnesses of Strabon, Ephoros, Plutarch, Ptolemy and others – historians come to exactly opposite conclusions concerning origin of the Scythians and Celts. “The Greeks, due to their ignorance, called Celts and Scythians many nations which were not cognate”, - the great Russian historian mentioned on this point.

 

            In this connection a conclusion of one of researchers is very precise: “Due to contempt with which the Romans and the Greeks treated barbarian dialects they were not able to get information from reliable sources, and everything said on this subject by their best authors is either unclear or dubious”. That is a true statement. That is how delusions concerning “nations” were born. Due to contempt!

            In modern science the terms “nation” and “population” have absolutely different meanings.

            In the East it was not the same; there existed another conception of geography, nations, themselves, which is witnessed by books by medieval authors. It was not in accordance with the Greek “deep ignorance”: the East was dealing with life in its own way. And it described it more precisely. Scythia was called Desht-I-Kipchak emphasizing the ethnic factor as the most important one.

            By the V century perhaps half of Eurasia consisted of Turkic lands. However they were not called a state; they were not controlled due to their size, and thus they were called a country. A huge country. It took a rider eight months to cross it from east to west and six months – from north to south. The Turki divided their motherland into chaganats, i.e. provinces, where they chose a chagan – the ruler. And in urgent cases, for instance, during a war, the eldest person, i.e. the head of a family, was the chagan, but only for the time people needed him. Elections were accompanied by a complex diplomatic procedure; thousands of people were involved. The clergy also took part in it.

            The great khan, or the tsar, was the chagan with whom the head of the clergy – apa tarkhan – stood. In that chagan temporal power and spiritual power of the steppe country were connected. But once the ruler moved, another chagan became tsar.

            Unfortunately, the past of Desht-I-Kipchak is hidden by a great many mysteries created by generations of “scientists” wearing church clothes. They introduce the keynote of medieval policy; they were its judges and executors. But facts, facts… Facts remained in spite of all prohibitions; that is unobliterated heritage. One should always remember the truth. And one should always be able to defend it. It does not vanish.

            Take, for instance, beautiful pieces of jewelry found by archeologists in barrows of England, France, Scandinavia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria. They can satisfy anybody. They are shown in museums and at exhibitions. And it is always forgotten that those jewelry items were created by “wild nomads”, that they are the fruits of their culture… That is an evident fact, is it not?

            And it also gives information concerning the area of the Turkic culture.

            Indelible signs of Time! Not lost, just forgotten. They, the fragments of a mosaic panel, gather the past together and unite what was broken. As a matter of fact, historical geography performs analysis and reconstruction of the past. Science where liberties are impossible.

            Of course, information of the past is concealed not only in the depth of barrows.

            The Turkic culture was living under the flag of belief in Heavenly God; a cross – the sign of Heavens – was shining over it. And that is too much to leave without a trace… In 1799 in Hungary they found “Attila's treasures” – a unique finding of the early Middle Ages. Golden equilateral crosses were found among other items. The same crosses were found in Altai – with a circle on the center. Those were heavenly crosses where a circle was the symbol of Origin from which, like from the sun, for rays of God's grace dispersed. To the four corners of the earth. In equal parts.

            Such crosses are found everywhere from Baikal to the Alps, perhaps in every barrow. But it was prohibited to write about them. They cannot even me mentioned. The same signs of Heaven appeared over Buddhist pagodas, Armenian temples; they are the symbol of the religion of the Kipchaks and their coreligionists. Not to mix things up… But the West was shamefully keeping silent. And it was making others keep silent.

            The culture of Altai was not mentioned; it was being concealed but they failed to destroy it…

            Ancient Turki, being in trouble or in pain, attracted attention of the Most High drawing an equilateral cross on their foreheads or crowns of their heads. That tradition was controlled by clergymen; later it appeared in Christianity where after communion a person gets God's sign, i.e. a cross on a forehead. Clergymen draw it with holy water. It seems early in the Middle Ages an equilateral cross appeared on headdresses – on skull-caps, sheepskin hats, coifs and tarbooshes. Looking on them from above Heaven could see than sign.

            The Turki had been decorating horse drapery with crosses from of old. And that was not a tribute to fashion. According to ancient legends a horse connected human world with the Sky. That is why horses were buried together with the departed. The most ancient found cross is more than two and a half thousand years old; it was made of bronze, not of iron.

            Presence of crosses and images thereof marked the coming of the Turki to the Caucasus and acceptance of belief in Heavenly God there. The Azerbaijaninan scientists R.B. Geyushev made a considerable contribution to studying of that cultural massif. He was dealing with monuments with images of riders, crosses. Sometimes there are clergymen near warriors… Of course the scientist found not monuments but facts witnessing of the real and not invented Caucasian Albania and its Turkic culture established there.

            On the images it is seen that the form of a Turkic flag was the same – with stripes and crosses. It is known due to similar archeological monuments of Siberia, Kazakhstan, Sakha (Yakutia), Iceland, Norway, Denmark – it is the same. There is the same flag on stelae in Hornhusen in Saxony. Those images are one and a half thousand years old and even more… Is not that food for thought? And poison for the crafty?

            Information is collected and accumulated by trifles and separate signs. And it is known enough about the Turki; traces of their ancient towns, temples, channels and roads remained. Barrows, stelae, stone statues and other monuments allow definition of outlines on a map emphasizing cultural areas and – the boundaries of a mysterious country, like shadows in the sun, appear as if on a sudden.

            Practically any reliable information is useful for a geographer, since culture is connected with a nation and with territory. One can invent anything about a nation, but territory cannot be invented.

            That is why findings are not silent witnesses; they are united by similarities in ornaments, production technologies and use. An experienced scientist can see unity or, more precisely, the sign of culture is seen even in a trifle. Everywhere there is geographical information which one should be able to read… It was mentioned that peoples intellect is shown by trifles. The same goes for a nation. 

            In this respect it is pertinent to ask: does not striking similarity of runic monuments and barrows in Yelling (Denmark), barrows of sea-kings in the Old Uppsala (Sweden), the barrow of Hilderik in Tours (France), barrows in Ketsendorf – Lower Saxony (Germany) witness anything? They are the same as in Kazakhstan, Khakassia, Altai, Dagestan upper reaches of Nile.

            Even a lay person can see the unity of culture here.

            In England, in Sutton Hoo, in the barrows were found items being practically the same as Altaic ones – the same “animal style”. Where is that similarity from? Articles and books have been written, but still there is no answer. Church censorship!

            Medieval churchmen, having once created a “secret”, would like it to be eternal. This is the knowledge inconvenient for the West. They are hidden by ignorance of nations. But it cannot last for a long time; a lie is not eternal. For instance, in Germany, in the basin of Rhine, they found burials of the V – VIII centuries and called them “relics of the barrow ceremony”. They meant those were the pagans buried with horses. Even golden crosses did not change the opinion of Saxons and who, it seems, don not even know their great ancestors… The plain truth.

            “Relics of barrow ceremony” (as German historians said) turned out to be tombs of medieval gentlemen, their cemetery; those were not the pagans but bearers of the “white belief” that had brought the image of Heavenly God to Europe. In Rome they were called “Arians” and “Aryans”. Searching for the ancestors the Germans sent expeditions to Tibet while they were buried so near.

            In this connection the burial place of the first king of the Franks – Hilderik (Kilderik) – the founder of the dynasty of Merovings – is especially interesting. The true Turki, may he rest in peace. In 481 the king found peace in a barrow, certainly with his steed and choked slaves. Everything was in strict accordance with Turkic ceremonies. The burial place is directed to the East – to Altai, according to the ceremony.

            In 1653 the tomb was found by accident by a bricklayer who was preparing the place for a new foundation of the church. Before that the burial place of the founder of Catholic dynasty of Merovings had allegedly not been known, which is strange in itself. Although “the great chronicler of France Gregory of Tours” paid much attention to burial places of the nobility. His silence becomes clear if one knows who “the great chronicler” was and what his work meant.

            His “History of the Franks” is the main political source of the history of the Frankish state; and the author was the bishop of Tours in Gaul. Could a churchman tell about pagan roots of the father of “the baptizer of the Franks”? Of course he could not. And after that it comes as no surprise that treasures found in that barrow – golden embroidery, silk cloths, weapons, ornamentals, pieces of jewelry – which had been kept in the National Library in Paris were stolen. Several plain items remained of the collection. Even the golden ring that was on the finger of the first king of Franks is lost. However its image and gypsum copy remained. And that was enough to make the “blank page” in the Turkic history go away.

            On the print there is a clear inscription showing that the name of king has a Latin stem consisting of two words “kilde” (came) and “erik” (power). Kilderik is a traditional Turkic name…

            As a matter of fact, those forgotten “trifles” allow understanding how Europe was being inhabited and the Altaians were becoming Europeans. That was a cultural exchange, a historical action which is practically unstudied. And was that by accident that before the coming of the Turki there existed another burial ceremony there? The dead were burnt there.

            Even the changing of the most conservative ceremony witnesses of the coming of another culture there.

            Without adequate consideration remain runic monuments of the early Middle Ages; in the West there are plenty of them – from Scandinavia to Greece and Spain. Everywhere. These issues seem to be beyond dispute: a written language is a written language; like any language, it belongs to its nation. To tell the truth, those written monuments were studied in a rather strange manner… in isolation from the language in which the text was written. Separately. And every “translator” had a translation suitable just for a funny story.

            What can be discussed if they did not know from what language they were translating?! But they invented “dialects” and ancient “nations” that had disappeared on a sudden.

            Thus the history of Europe was becoming strikingly rich in absurdities. That is also seen in toponymy. For example, the name “Etzel Alps” appeared under Attila; his headquarters were located there, near Innsbruck. In the ancient Turkic language “ali” meant “severe”, which related to the mountainside, but also meant “winner”. And were not those mountains called in honor of Attila (Etzel in German)?.. And the name “Balkans” is also from the Turki; its literally meaning is “treed mountains”. Danube was called Ister by the Romans, and the Turki called it Donuby or briefly Donay – “big river with banks of snow or in the hills”, that is what it meant in Turkic. 

 

            ● The name Danuby reflects the ancient Turkic tradition to give rivers the image of a man or a woman. The name of the river in Altai – Biya – reminds of that custom: from the Turkic word biy – “master”. And Katun, “mistress”.

            The first part of the name – don, (dan, dun) deserves special attention. It is commonly supposed that the word is derived from the Iranian word don (river). However, that is wrong. The names of mountains and rivers that include the word “don” were widespread in territories where the Turki had been living from ancient times. For instance, Don-Terek in Tuva, Donhotan in the South Altai, Akdongal in Kazakhstan. And the river Syr-Darya in the II century B.C. was known as Tanais, i.e. Don. In Iran the name appeared together with the Turki.

 

            Toponymy is a part of geography. Sometimes it is not in direct accordance with geography itself… It turns out that was not by accident that Byzantium and the Western Empire were paying levy to the Desht-I-Kipchak for about two centuries since it was changing the names of their lakes, rivers and mountains at its discretion.

            And thus European maps can be considered in another way. The origin of the word “England” is interesting; it turns out it also was uttered by a Kipchak that finished Anglo-Saxon campaigns of the V – VI centuries. The translation is “the land obtained”. In the times of the Romans, as we know, the island was called Albion. The prefix “eng” (with nasal pronunciation) in the words of the ancient Turkic language meant “spoil”. One had to take a deep breath and utter “e-enn-g” with dignity; that was the sound of victory!

 

            ● That was perfectly described by George of Tours. He reports that during the campaign in Albion in the V century the Saxons were headed by Odoacer, the future king of Italy. And his origin is known from other Roman sources. His father, the Hun with the name Edico was Attila's ambassador in Constantinople in 448.  

 

            It is possible to go into details; there are many opportunities for that. In ancient times the central part of the Roman Empire, i.e. Apennines, was called Hesperia, but acceptance of Christianity and establishment of papacy entailed changing of the toponym. Is it necessary to explain why? The answer is in first letters - “apa” means “father”, “holy father” in Turkic and “ana” means “mother, motherland”. And the name Italy appeared a little later, and also from the Turki; it is connected with the last Emperor of Rome – Augustukus – the son of Attila's confessor deposed by another Kipchak – Odoacer. The very same person.

            “Ytala” in Turkic means “the one denying”. In 476 people of Rome denied diadem and other symbols of the Emperor's power having called them “decoration of the throne and the palace”, and sent them to Constantinople as unnecessary… These are forgotten pages of history. And it turns out that the last Roman Emperor was a Turki.

 

            ● Of course the word Italy was known to some people before. But the Turki gave a new sense to it. Here we are dealing with so-called peoples etymology widespread in toponimy. As E.M. Murzaev mentioned it appeared “because of necessity to understand an unknown name basing on phonetic similarity with the word of their native language”. 

            The name Italy was connected with Odoacer who denied (ytala-) the symbols of the Emperor's dignity sacred for the Roman Empire. At that time the name Italy superseded other names – the State of Romans, Gesperia, the Western Empire.

 

            All these things have happened… Perhaps one third of geographical names of medieval Europe have Turkic roots. In this connection Germany (Allemande) and its past is interesting. According to the official history the toponym appeared in peoples lexicon in about the first century. The famous Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus in his work called “About the Origin of the Germans and Location of Germany” called it “a new word”. That is possible. 

 

            ● Tacitus wrote: “The word Germany is a new one and it has not been used for a long time since those who were the first to cross Rhine and banish the Gauls (here and below – bold provided – M.A.) today known as Tungras were called the Germans at that time. Thus the name of the tribe has gradually become the basic name and now it relates to the whole nation; at first everyone called it by the name of the winners out of fear and later, after the name has become established, it started to call itself the Germans”.

            Complex conclusions being inconsistent with the rest of the text. It stands to reason it could not have been written by Tacitus.

 

            The work of a scientist makes a very strange impression when one paragraph denies another if, of course, they are read attentively. Thus lands lying to the north of the Roman Empire Tacitus called Gaul and not Germany and the nation was called the Gauls and not the Germans. How did the Gauls become the Germans? It is not clear. That is another culture, another nation. For instance, in the chapter about the Helvetians and Boji the scientist says: “both tribes are the Gauls”. But other tribes mentioned in the text did not differ in their way of life: they waged wars being dismounted, with bludgeons (wooden stakes), they had no written language, they wore skirts and they were nomadic breeders.

            Procopius the Caesarean, the Byzantine author of the VI century, wrote the same about the aboriginals of Europe: “… not only they have never rode horses, but they had no idea what a horse was”. And in the VI century Agathius witnessed of the Gauls as follows: “… they never use horses, except for a few”, “… they worship several trees and rivers, hills, gorges and sacrifice horses and bulls to them…”.   

            Everything seems to be clear.

            But Tacitus's text about the Germans really perplexes. On one page he describes their wildness and squalor: “they have neither defence weapons, neither horses nor roofs over their heads; grass is their food, fur is their clothes, land is their couch”. On another page it is the opposite – they have horses, iron, runic written language and belief in Heavenly God… On what page is there the truth?

            If the whole Germany had been really like that, with horses and iron, it could have possibly defeated Rome long before Tacitus was born. But that did not happen since it was inhabited by people with a primitive way of life, which is witnessed by archeological findings. And the renown of even ten “tacituses” will not eclipse the truth. It seems churchmen ascribed to the scientist what he has never written… That is another tradition of the western science. What wonder if even the Bible was corrected and supplemented many a time?

 

            ● Those contradictions of Tacitus which “common sense is not able to confirm” are analyzed in detail by E. Gibbon who comes to the following conclusion: German tribes ”were changing their names that distinguished them and embarrassing astonished people of the Roman Empire”. To tell the truth, mentioning existence of an unusual tradition Gibbon does not explain where there are the sources of that custom that seemed so strange to Europeans.

            Categoricalness is possible here… That is for certain that Europe heard the Turkic speech in the times of Tacitus like a voice in a many-voiced chorus of nations of the Roman Empire. Alman (Alaman) chaganat certainly was not in question. That was too early. In the I century Rome was at the meridian of its glory; it moved the northern boundary of the Empire to Rhine and built several fortifications there. That was an epoch that glorified not one Emperor. But history does not tell us at least of one war between the Romans and the Germans, although there is no doubt that several serious conflicts took place.   

            Rome was not interested in lands over Rhine; those were “inhospitable lands” as Tacitus himself described them. It seems that strengthening the western boundary the Empire was preparing to fend the Great Nations Migration. It was aware of it. That is witnessed by the fact that under Marcus Aurelius, i.e. in 171, certain non-Romans were allowed to settle on Roman lands “as they wished”. Why? And who were those riders?

            One cannot call the coming of Altaians to Europe spontaneous. It was growing gradually, year by year. Only in the III century the toponym Alman appeared when the Great Nations Migration reached the Central Europe and a new chaganat of Desht-I-Kipchak appeared. It was called Alman – “Remote”. (The Turki still call remote hamlets and settlements “almanchi”).

            That is when Rome became aware of the “Germans” and “German cavalry”. To wage a war riding a horse is a sort of art which was peculiar only to the Turki. Wild nations of Europe, including the Romans, could not have had their own cavalries. That is for certain, the same as the fact that Tacitus could not have heard the new word Germany with the sense it obtained in two years.

 

            ● In the Roman army the first mounted squadron consisting of men-at-arms was formed by the Emperor Gallienus in about 264 – 268. Those elite troops were very expensive; one horse cost as much as a decent estate… Thus the Great Nations Migration was making progressive changes in military art of the West.

            It is evident that the tradition to attract “barbarian riders” to serve in the Roman army appeared before Gallienus. Octavian, the future Augustus (63 B.C. – 14 A.D.) substituted his Spanish bodyguards with a German squadron. And Trajan (98 – 117) formed a new guard consisting of steppe riders.

 

            Cavalry requires special attention. The Turki tought their children to ride a horse at first, and after that – to walk… In order to understand what a horse meant there, one fact is enough: in the Turkic language there are no foreign words relating to a horse. “Kon” (in the Russian language the word “horse” is pronounced as “kon”) meant “astride”… The Turki were attracted by Rhine not due to Roman boundaries and guards but due to iron deposits. That is what the scouts of the horde were looking for. They called those lands “Tering”, which is translated as “something plentiful”.

            Allemande started from iron. Iron is the reason of appearance of “German hordes”. Rich iron deposits still glorify those lands.

            And the Gauls did not know iron, as a Benedictine wrote in a denouncement to the Pope; having met the Kipchaks “they were astonishingly looking at the people excelling them bodily and spiritually”, they were surprised with their clothes, arms and spirit. That was the meeting of people of different cultures and different epochs; it could not have finished by concluding an alliance. Anything, but not an alliance. An alliance can be concluded by equal parties; in this case there were no reasons to speak about equality.

            That is why the Gauls went to the west of Rhine having let the Turki have their lands. They belonged to another category of nations…

            “Germans” and “Allemanns” are the Avars, Barsils, Bulgarians, Burgundians, Goths, Gepidae, Saks, Saxons, Huns, Langobards, Utigurs, Kortigurs… dozens of “nations” if, of course, one believes in church science. But their ethnic essence is clarified by a single line of the Byzantine text of 572: “the Huns whom we usually call the Turki”. And everything is put in its right place.

            And that is not the only line solving the “Germanic” problem created by the West itself.

 

            ● The fact that confusion was created artificially is confirmed by another phrase of a historian of the XIX century: “Ancient writers that regarded the Goths as a separate nation and not as branches of one great race invented strange migrations and a special system of language terms for them but thus they only perplexed themselves and others”.

            It means scientists have guessed about strange church “ethnography”.

 

            “The Germans” spoke the Turkic language, were fond of ironmongery, waged wars riding horses, drank koumiss, wore trousers not skirts. These facts of their way of life are known from their folk epos. The same as that their guardian spirit was an Altaic dragon; up to the XII century it was drawn on the flags of the “Germans”, even those that served in the Roman army… It turns out the dispute of ethnic belonging of the “Germans” is meaningless. And even paragraphs added to the work by Tacitus do not help.

            Many people simply do not know that the Turki were living according to the rule – an ulus (family) that obtained power gave the horde (alliance of families) its name. Sometimes a horde took the name of the leading khan. And sometimes a nickname was given, if there were reasons to give it. Names appeared and disappeared, but the “German nation” did not disappear with it; it took another name.

 

            ● “Forgetting” about that custom, historians fail to interpret the witness of the Greek Ptolemy about the Huns; he wrote that “between Basterns and Roksolans there are the Huns”. The Roman Tacitus (died in about 117) “one of the most accurate observers” never mentioned the Huns. Ptolemy (died in about 160) mentioned them without peculiarities. It means early in the II century the Huns were known only in the Eastern Europe.

            That is an eloquent fact. It means that during forty years after Tacitus's death the Huns, i.e. the Germans appeared in the world arena. To tell the truth, their appearance was simple. They were almost imperceptible among other tribes. But something made Ptolemy mark them. The Turki settled on uninhabited lands and their settling in Europe was peaceful; no wars were waged. That is the witness of Ptolemy.

            In any case, the name of the Huns has become well-known only by the IV century.

 

            Its customs and activities did not change either. The Germans still respected a horse; their leader turned to horses for predictions. And used the same steppe tactics waging wars – they retreated falsely, then turned round and defeated the enemy. In case of an attack, as it is peculiar for the Turki, they were shouting “Hooray”, which in their language meant “Beat”, “Smite” and was taken for frightening growling by their enemies.

 

            ● “Only the Germans, - Tacitus wrote not knowing about Altaic traditions, - turn to horses for predictions”. They were watching them neighing and spitting for a long time. And they did not trust any other omen better than this.

            That striking ceremony remained with the Turki for centuries. In more than thousand years after Tacitus another European, Rubruk, who arrived to the Turki, astonishingly wrote about a maid whom “her mistress sent to talk to a horse and get an answer”. In the XX century the Kumyks had and expression: “to go to the stable for an advice”.

           

            On May 9^th the Germans, according to their tradition, gathered all the white mares in herds and sanctified them considering them to be “Gods' mediators”. Every month “Barbarians” came out to meet the young moon and only under the full moon they started their most important actions – another obligatory custom of Altai… There were a lot of European features in the life of the Germans, which is surprising.

            Another “Germanic” nation, Gepids or Gepanta, appeared among them not by accident. An ancient legend tells how a horde was crossing a pond and one family was slow – its ship was the last to arrive because of disasters… in a word “gepids” means “lazy”. Here we have an untranslatable pun: in the Turkic language “gepi anta” means “dry there”.

            In the European chronicles it is written: “Langobars and Avars detached from the Gepids”.

            But with the Avars it was different; their history was analyzed by E. Gibbon. The horde of the Avars ran away from Altai to Europe in the VI century; the Great Khan sent a pursuit which was unsuccessful and the Avars escaped to the Caucasus, to the fortress Anji, after which they tried to find their way to Constantinople, but they failed and came to the Alps. The rise of the Avars happened in the times of the khan Boyan who was imitating Attila in everything; he even lived in one of his palaces.

 

            ● And before him that palace and a part of territories “the king of Gepids, Arderik, made the center of the new state”. In other words, the “estate” was getting a new owner together with a new name.

 

            “The Avars established their domination from the foothills of the Alps to the shores of the Euxinic Pont”, - mentioned Gibbon. The power was got by that horde, and another “new nation” appeared on the historical arena of Europe. Theophylact Simocatta from Byzantine described it in the VII century. The Avars, today known as Bavarians, had been speaking the Turkic language up to the XVI century. And some of them, according to eyewitnesses, still remember that they are the Turki…

            Another example from the history of “Germanic” nations. The sons of one khan had the names Utigur and Kutrigur. After his father's death they decided to split up and called their new hordes “Utigurs” and “Kutrigurs”. The former used to shave their napes and the latter – their heads. And that was the only difference between two “nations”. By all appearances the ancestor of the horde belonged to the Uigirs that lived in the Southern Altai and followed the traditions of haircutting…

            Ethnography is a peaceful science, but it confirmed the old truth: not a weathercock drives the wind but quite the opposite.

            And thus it allows disagreeing with the absurd by which churchmen surrounded the coming of the Turki to Europe. However, in the Middle Ages there were scientists that would speak the truth about the origin of the Goths, Gepids, Vandals and other “nations”. Thus Theophan the Confessor (760 – 818) wrote: “… the only differences of those nations are their names; they speak one and the same language”. He also reported of the belief in Heavenly God of the Germans. The way they used to call him – Donar, Tor – resembled of the word “Tengri”. Later other names – Khodai, Vatan – appeared.

            That was according to Turkic traditions; each chaganat called Tengri in a slightly different manner. That is still peculiar perhaps to all the Turkic nations.        

            The Germans were leading their lives like Desht-I-Kipchak in everything; at first they did not build temples since they considered the outworld under the canopy of Eternal Blue Sky to be the temple of Heavenly God. And that canopy was really felt only in the steppe, in the morning and in the evening, when the feeling of protection is born in souls after a prayer. That is a very strong feeling. Also one could see cross-light among the clouds in the sky in the afternoon; such light reminded of a cross… Natural observations were forming the culture of the Turkic nation and its symbols.

            They, the Germans, were building the same towns as other steppe inhabitants since they could not do otherwise. One of them – Calais – means “fortress”, “town”, “strengthened place” in Turkic. But another striking thing in Germany is that modern Germans that are shamefully calling their ancestors pagans, turned out to be the only ones in the world who, due to inborn contumacy, have kept the name Desht-I-Kipchak in toponymy. One should agree that in their “Deutsch” there is an echo of the distant Turkic original, if, of course, the word is read letter by letter.

            For a real Turki no word sounded softer than “Desht”. It meant native lands, hearth, plentitude but also foreign lands and stony desert. Altogether.   

            The word, like a coin, had two different sides: one for a patriot, the other for a betrayer.

           

            ● The word tash has already been mentioned in this book. In the ancient Turkic language it means “stone” but also “external side”, “face”, “boil over”, “overflow the banks”.

            It is possible that the toponym Desht (Deutsch) was a pitchfork of the Great Nations Migration when the Kipchaks, having united certain tribes, settled on vast territories from Baikal to Danube. In folk etymology the expression has obtained its usual form: tashtuk kipchak ~ tashti kipchak ~ dashti kipchak. In Germany where power was passing from one ulus to another, only the first part of the name remained. The word obtained a new sense and it meant a brotherly alliance of the hordes. “hence is the name Deuten, - marked one historian, - that were called Teutons, which meant allies, by the Romans”. In any case, the toponym Deutsch still means the place where those hordes live in Europe – Germany.

 

            In Germany Altaic traces are everywhere; they are seen but the blind do not see them. Cologne – “basin, flooded areas”. Elba – “union of nations” (literally means “tie the nations”). Aachen – “stream, flow”. Rivers and streams in Holland and Switzerland are still called with the forgotten word “aha”. Another example: dams are built in marshlands, as far as we know. “Dam” in Turkic means “dike”, “wall”, hence are Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Potsdam… Such things cannot be invented. There are serious books by German authors on the Turkic toponymy but, unfortunately, they are only for experts while they contain hundreds of examples.

            It goes without saying that toponymy resembles of a barrow which is seen from afar, but nobody can look inside it. Geographical names keep information about Desht-I-Kipchak, its boundaries and position in the medieval world; they throw light on the history of the Englishmen, Burgundians, Bavarians, Saxons, Flemings, Varangians, Danes, Catalans and other nations of Europe.

 

            ● In this connection the origin of the word Germany is interesting. For the Romans it was “a new word that has been used not for a long time”, while the Turki were using it as far back as in the times of Achemenids. As Marcianus wrote, that was the name of the territory where younger athelings of the tsarist family of Bars reigned. Inhabitants of those lands were called: Germans, Kermans, Karmans.

            The “Persian” Germany lay to the north-east of Persepolis, one of the capitals of Persia, and was the barrier for unfriendly neighbors. It is possible the toponym has its origin here, being derived form the ancient Turkic ker- (block, close). That name remained in Iran where there is a region called Kerman.

            If that is true, one can assume that this toponym explains, for instance, “the Kirghiz” and their countries that were protecting Altai in the east (it related to the ancestors of the Khakassies) and in the west (to the modern Kirghiz).

 

            The churchmen were skillfully besmirching the Middle Ages and covering its windows with heavy curtains through which rays of light would never find their way. It is difficult to imagine, but it is even more difficult not to mention. The knowledge of the past was gathered gradually, little by little, taking pages from ancient books.

            That was started by monks; and later monasteries opened their universities that continued their activities, as the Church decided. Distortion of the past has become a tradition since then. More than two hundred universities of Europe are controlled by the Jesuits. The light of the truth is transformed into the darkness of ignorance… Sometimes not intentionally.

            The Kipchaks are depicted as tall Asians with a fierce look. That is how it is accepted in the West. That is not true. Although, there were such people in the numerous nation. The contemporaries of the Great Nations Migration marked “tough blue eyes, fair hair, tall bodies” of the newcomers. Those qualities were emphasized both in the West and in the East.

            For example, the Chinese traveler of the VII century Chiuantsan named “blue eyes and fair hair” of the Turki as their distinguishing features. In India, Iran and North Africa their appearance was estimated in the same way. Europe, of course, could not be an exception… It just could not.

 

            ● It is described even better in “Sin Tan-Shu” where it is said about Altai inhabitants that they are “tall, with red hair, sanguine faces and blue eyes. Black hair was a bad sign”. “Taipinhuanyutzi” tells practically the same: “Their inhabitants are tall, with red hair and green eyes. Those with black hair are called unhappy”. The Arabian geographer of the VIII century  Ibn al-Mucaffa and the Persian geographer Gardizi marked “red hair and white skin” of Altai inhabitants.

            Only the ecclesiastic Europe draws the world with its dark colors.

 

            Among the Altaians there were Mongoloids, which is confirmed by archeology. But examining the barrows of Altai the professor S.I. Rudenko marked domination of the ashes of people of the European type. And the academician M.M. Gerasimov reconstructed the look of the departed by their skulls. For instance, his “Hun from Kenkol” has the face of a modern Ukrainian, German, Dutch… It is possible that the Emperor Valentinianus with a “hard and sidelong glance” looked like him. The Turki called such eyes “lyncean”.

            There are many facts concerning the appearance of the Kipchaks. They had high cheekbones, they were red and fair-haired and blue-eyed, as the Byzantium ambassador Prisc that marked Attila's red beard saw them in the V century. And today such faces are common in Khakassia, for example. And we can also remember what a Roman said of “fair-haired barbarians” that had suddenly come to Rome… Of course the appearance of the nation was changing due to mixed marriages with the passing of the years, but hundreds of years cannot change the appearance of the ancestors. Genetic code does not change; centuries cannot do that, let alone the politicians.

            That was proven by the outstanding Kazakh scientist O. Ismagulov in 1977 in his book “Ethnic Gene Geography of Kazakhstan”. His work was destroying stereotypes. Unfortunately that “information explosion” happened in the times of Soviet science; the book was forbidden, the author was taken off the job, but several copies remained.

            Similar researches were being conducted in the Ukraine and in Russia, but they were put on the shelves of archives being unknown. Activists of the Soviet party considered them to be too “racist”…

            And the genotypes of the Altaians, Kazakhs, Catalans, Bavarians, Englishmen are really identical. Human biology persuades of genetic similarity of the Khakasses and Altaians with the Englishmen whose ancestors were the Turki, but not with the Scotch or the Welshmen. Having analyzed blood types, scientists came to the conclusion of genetic similarity of nations of Eurasia whose ancestors had to deal with the Great Nations Migration as Fate willed.  

            They are blood brothers that have forgotten themselves and their relatives. That is the conclusion of the biological science, so popular in England.

 

            ● Thus O. Ismagulov came to the conclusion that “the ancient population of Kazakhstan originated… from a distinguishable pronounced European type without any Mongoloid additions”. At that during the first stage of research there was found a close genetic connection of the Kazakhs with Altaians. At that time the scientists simply did not know about other nations.

            In other words it was incontrovertibly proven that the stories of “Iranian speaking” nations that were allegedly living in the ancient Altai and Desht-I-Kipchak are nothing but the myth. And, to be more precise, we should call the Iranians “Turkic speaking” nation, but not vice versa. Certain Iranians started to speak the Turkic language before the Common Era; and they still keep on speaking that way… Politicians only change nations' names and memories, but not languages and customs, let alone the genes.

 

            It turns out relation of East and West were destroyed by the Church? Its politicians made brothers forget each other… It means the commandment which prescribes not to forswear does not relate to everybody? 

            And the unity of the language of Desht-I-Kipchak has also been forgotten, although earlier documents of the Burgundians and Langobards were written with Turkic characters; they are exhibited in museums of France and Italy as showpieces of the Middle Ages, they were included in books on history, thousands of people saw them. And nobody was surprised.

            And by the way, in medieval chronicles the Germans were also called Tengrys, Tangrys, Tungrys. Does not this name tell anything about them? Even if we add that those nations, according to chroniclers, were “dashing riders”?

            … One can reason upon Time and ancient German or English languages and peculiarities of their phonetics, but without a turcklogist it is impossible to obtain a result. That was proven in the XX century by the academician V.M. Zhirmunskiy who was dealing with the problems of German and Turkic linguistics. Studying epos of different nations – from Altai to Europe – he mentioned common things in its plots and images. The scientist came to the road that led directly to Altai but… did not take to it because of censorship! 

            His unique works are practically unknown to general public.

            However, the first one was William Thomsen from Denmark; in the XIX century he opened the Turki to the West and caused a tumult in world science. The secret was likely to be out. And again censorship served its purpose… In Russia Thomsen's works were not published (only one article got into print); everybody was afraid. Those words were denying the Slavs or, more precisely, put them to their historical place.

 

            ● The Danish researcher William Louis Thomsen (1842 – 1927) deciphered runic inscriptions in 1893 and ascertained their Turkic origin. An outstanding linguist, in 1909 he became the head of the Danish Royal Scientific Society. His report to the Danish Royal Scientific Society of December 1893 was translated into Russian. The translation was made by the Russian colleague of Thomsen who was also dealing with decipherment of Orkhon and Yenisei inscriptions found in Altai. His name is Frederick William Radlov (1837 – 1918). Being a German by birth, he had been living in Russia since 1858 under the name of Basil. Radlov is one of the originators of comparative and historical learning of Turkic languages. Decipherment of Turkic inscriptions is described in detail in: Adji M. Europa's Asia.  

            Shakespeare was right: “heretics are not those burning in the fire but those making a fire”.

            The latest Turkic papers found in Germany are the documents of Fuggers, counts from Augsburg, which is close to Munich, they are dated back to 1553 – 1555; the text of 1515 is set forth there – it was skillfully copied by the count's agent. It is possible that was somebody's last phrase uttered in Turkic. And the latest book about the language of the “Huns” of that epoch is the work by the Hungarian scientist Telegdi; it was published in 1598 and caused a scandal in ecclesiastic science which by that time was dominating in Europe. 

            Due to Thomsen the scandal was repeated in the XIX century; an unexpected thing happened: the scientist read the runic text in the Turkic language, and the world learnt that ancient Hungarian or German runes are nothing else but Altaic written language… It is unlikely that that was a discovery; that was rather a recollection. Before the inquisition the West was aware that the Huns spoke the Turkic language. In church basements there are libraries in that “Hun” language.

 

            ● That is why there exists a “gap in chronological monolith between ancient Turkic inscriptions and Sekel runes ascending to the VIII century that appeared for the first time only by the beginning of the XVI century”.

 

            The inquisition made people forget a lot. In Europe since the XIII century the Turkic books were translated only into Latin, and the originals were burnt or hidden. The past of the continent, its memories were burning in fires. Pages of history were absurdly disappearing; some of them have gone for good. Liturgical and secular books had the same lot… But “manuscripts don’t burn”!

            For instance, the German “Death of Alphart” and “Song of Roland” were different some time ago since their plots were taken from ancient Turkic poems – the similarity is striking! Even in trifles. That was mentioned by the academician Zhirmunskiy. It turns out, famous fairy tales about the Pussy in Boots, scarlet flower, Kolobok, Swans Brothers existed in Altai before the Great Nations Migration.

            It is striking, is it not?

            Studying the German epos, Zhirmunskiy marked a special role of a horse. That was the hero's assistant and adviser. The motive can be seen in ancient Altaic fairy tales, Iranian “Shahnama” and old French and German ballads. It is the same. It turns out western knights were simply “copying” Turkic heroes?.. Thus deeds of famous Roland are exactly the same as those of the Altaic hero Ulan-Khongora. They are twins. They just have different names. The same as lifetime. 

           

            ● It should be mentioned that researchers marked that striking similarity more than once. “Long ago a guess has been given that a considerable part of the Iranian folk epos and the epic cycle connected with Rustam belongs to the Saks (natives of Altai – M.A.), - writes M Frye. Due to discovery of the Sogdian origin of the most legends about Rustam being a part of “Shahnama” by Firdousi in the Eastern Europe becomes very probable”. And he continues: “It is known that those were the Parthians that gave the Iranian epos the form in which it was written in the times of Sasanids and remained till the times of Firdousi”.

.           Zhirmunskiy saw it in a different light; he retraced the way the motives of legends find their origin in Altaic fairy tales and are spread in “Shahnama” and later in ancient French and German epos. That is what his unique work is valuable for.

 

            Brotherhood, captures and checking of horses, love for arms, hero's departure to defend boundaries, female images and people-swans reveal a striking similarity of European and Turkic fairy tales. Russian fairy tales are not in question here since they appeared in the XVIII century as a translation of Turkic ones; we can remember Tsar Saltan and hero Ruslan. Tsar Saltan was taken from a fairy tale “Khan with Twelve Wives”, but, to tell the truth, Pushkin was not so patient as to retell the whole fairy tale – he took just a fragment. Kolobok, Tower-Chamber, Goldfish – kutun… these are all the gifts of Altai. 

            The story of Pussy in Boots came to Europe from an Altaic fairy tale about a Fox-Matchmaker; the same words, the same deeds. The scarlet flower was called Ak-chechek – a white flower – in Altai; this is the only difference. Cinderella had a prototype in the East, in Kushan khanate; instead of a pixie there was Bibi-Senshabi, the patroness of family happiness. And it turns out Tsarevna the Frog also used to speak only the Turkic language in the past… As we can see, changes in western fairy tales were insignificant. Just a little.

            Fairy tales were rewritten according to the traditions of European literature. Their new authors cannot be accused of plagiarism; they adhered to ancient plots known to them since their childhood and traditions of their nations. And they were absolutely right trying to improve the text, make it modern, more comprehensible and brighter. It is very difficult to make a fairy tale, and it is even more difficult to make it live forever. It might take centuries to do so.

 

            ● The example of “The Thousand and One Nights” is indicative; at first these fairy tales were written in the Turkic language. The Arabs became aware of them in the X century and translated then into Arabic, but the Turkic original remained in the library of Baghdad. In the East people were aware of it… Once one Arab decided to write his own “The Thousand and One Nights”. He died of attenuation; he managed to write about two hundred fairy tales which nobody has ever read, - they were too boring and they were not original.

 

            Thankfully literary pearls will not die. They are living in another setting. In order to understand it better, the same as the Great Nations Migration, let us retell one such fairy tale. A very ancient one – it is called “Father's Advice”.

            A father, sending his son to remote lands, was teaching him: when you drink water in foreign lands behave as it is accepted there. And he explained: in the country of the blind you should live with your eyes closed. In the lands of the lame, walk with a limp. And there is another thing to remember: ride a lean horse and eat stringy meat.

            Later, after the campaign, the son asked why he had to act like that. It turns out real Turki would close their eyes and walk with a limp in a foreign country so as not to give rise to discontent and envy. They knew that a good horse would never be let grow fat and thus they would choose a lean horse – the best one. And they would eat stringy meat because it remains in a stomach for a longer time and one does not feel hunger.

            Did not the Kipchaks follow these father's advices when they came to Europe? That was their rule – to become a frog among the frogs…

            In Germany E. Taube (she went to Altai for fairy tales) published several books. But who is aware of them? The researcher pointed to a big number of plots of German fairy tales related with those of Altai. For example, the fairy tale “The Old Man Ends Dends” (“Magic Ring” in Russia) is met in fairly tales of practically all the European nations with Altaic roots, it coincides with the fairy tale “Faithful Animals” by Grimm brothers, that one can possibly assume they had the same source, - writes Ericha Taube and thus represents herself as a scrupulous researcher. She mentioned what cannot be disregarded.             

            Iron Hans, Tom Thumb, Brother and Sister – they all had relatives in Altai, those relatives who, together with the Great Nations Migration, gave Europe a cap of darkness, seven-league boots and other fairy items. First verses, first ballads, first poems and fairy tales appeared in the West after the Great Nations Migration. That was mentioned perhaps by all conscientious researchers, which, to tell the truth, was not followed by any comments.

            It is possible scientists simply did not know that there was a time when an overflowing human river was carrying from Altai everything it could take… It seems unbelievable, but neither the Greeks nor the Latins were able to rhyme before the coming of the “barbarians”. In the West there were no poets! Modern poetry with rhymes is an Altaic invention. Poets were born there.

            “The Song of Nibelungs” is connected with the Kipchaks; “nibelungs” was the name of the warriors on whose blazon there was a dragon (in the ancient Turkic language “niv” means “hero” and “lung” means “dragon”). A striking similarity to which not much attention is paid although the plot is connected with the Huns, Burgundians, Goths, Attila. This song is interesting even not because of its plot but for other reasons.

            By the XII century the meaning of careless actions of the heroes was not clear to the readers that had long since turned away from their Turkic roots and become Europeans. They were leading another life with another culture; that is why an ancient text with unheard-of heroic and even dreadful behavior of heroes seemed to be “beyond common sense”. But misunderstanding, strange as it may seem, was only raising nibelungs in the Eropeans' eyes and made them national heroes since they saw their “absolute past” in the nibelungs.

            Unfortunately among the scientists it is not accepted to connect the “absolute past” of the West with Altai. The reason is ideology.

 

            ● In the meantime not only behavior but also names of heroes of German and Scandinavian epos point to the Turki. It is enough to turn to actual events in which they took part. For example, the warrioress Brunghilda, the famous queen of Austrasia, Attila's great-granddaughter, was born in 534. She was executed by the ruler of the Franks, Khlotar II; she was tied to a wild horse's tail.

            Brunghilda, or more precisely Burunkildi, was khan Atanaghild's (another Turkic name) daughter, his first child. Her name means “the first to come” or “the earliest to come”. Brunghilda's sister was born in seven years and was called Galsvinta (Kalsevinit more precisely) – “remain, be glad”.

            Names can tell a lot about the “alternation of horror and villainy peculiar for that epoch”. Brunghilda's father headed the Catholics against Arians – Visigoths, in 554 he killed Agil, the Arian ruler, and took his throne. The Turkic name of the killed leader meant “precious”… As we can see, the Turki were fighting against the Turki calling themselves Catholics and Arians, which made it easier for them to kill each other.

 

            … When in the XIII century the world learnt about the gothic written language that had transformed Turkic Glagolitic alphabet into German characters, nobody wondered who needed that reform and for what purposes. They kept silent. They kept silent in order to declare later that the “Germans” gave poetry and rhymes to the world. 

            And why them? The Middle East and India knew poetry and rhymes before the Common Era, i.e. before the Germans appeared in Europe. By the way, the word “rune” which is now translated as “mystery” by the Europeans, in the ancient Turkic language meant “cut sign” – “urun”. Cut on a stone or a tree. They also had another word with the same sense – “bukkat” (mystery, hidden essence). Those inscriptions left by the Great Nations Migration are met in Europe – from Scandinavia to Spain.

            History conceals so many unexplained “whys”… They are everywhere.

 

About Catholicism, without Latin

           

Early in the Middle Ages in Europe there were two countries with established political systems – Desht-I-Kipchak and the Eastern Empire (Byzantium). All the reset were vassals.

            Of course such division is very conventional; theses countries are classified as equal with great reserve. Byzantium had to pay levy to Desht-I-Kipchak, about a half of its inhabitants were the Turki that were on firm ground in its military, public and spiritual life. Nonetheless in the IV century those two countries were the causes of many events; they were dictating terms in politics and determining the balance of forces on the Eurasian continent. Thus it had been happening since 312 when Rome was defeated and its Emperor Maxencius died – that is when the Eastern Empire became the leader. 

            That was the fateful year. It drew a line to the ancient epoch and together with it to the reign of the Roman Emperors that were tyrannizing the ancient world. Everything was changing; not Rome had the last word in western politics – that was Constantinople that had not existed yet in 312 and that was to appear as an alternative to antiquity.

            Desht-I-Kipchak and Byzantium had no conflicts between each other; however they were not allies either. As a matter of fact, there was nothing to divide, but frictions took place more than once, which was explained by only one thing: both countries were run by the Turki that were willing to become Europeans. Some of them on East's side, others – on West's side but they all had the same goal: estates and access to them. Or, more precisely, “establishment” in Europe where climate was softer and more favorable than in severe Asian steppes.

            They wanted to become Europeans and behaved as it was accepted in Europe.

            This very important peculiarity of those times should be comprehended and accepted as another feature of the Great Nations Migration. And after that the unexpected should be revealed: in the IV – V centuries not the Greeks were waging wars but the “Greek” Turki. Showing their worth in civil discords that were perturbing Byzantium, they were fighting with each other for living space in the West. They were conquering the place in the sun in the arising country – their new motherland – for themselves, their families and their hordes. That explains Constantinople's attention to the Middle East and growth of “Greek” settlements there; people in those settlements were speaking the Turkic language.

            For Byzantium it was important to accept and settle new people and secure them to themselves. It was ready to agree with any conditions. The Great Nations Migration sort of entered its final phase – the continent was conquered, and the waves of human river, not finding another application, proceeded to formation of a new empire – Byzantium… Waves were kind of extinguishing each other. Or, vice versa, intensifying?

            At first sight it seemed that two geopolitical partners (Desht-I-Kipchak and Byzantium) were dividing the place of collapsed Rome but, taking a closer look, the situation was not like that – the scale of events was larger. Not realizing that Byzantium is a mixture of the Hellenic and the Turkic, certain events of those times are not likely to be understood. The East's influence on the West was strong there, which is marked by all experts in the field of Byzantine culture. At that the Turkic contribution was not less than the Greek if not more considerable since the Armenians, Syrians, Albanians, Copts and other nations that were parts of Byzantium  as its subjects became the allies of the Turki.

            Byzantium acting in the name of the West bade defiance to the country of the Greeks although the latter were in power. In its ethnic massif the Hellenes were a minority and were in isolation. Their position in the “Greek” state left much to be desired, although the rod really was in their hands. However, the Emperor was powerless; in the IV century his actions were of ostentatious and ritual character.         

            Power means army, state and, finally, religion. Those things the Greeks did not have.

            Desht-I-Kipchak, on the contrary, in the IV – V centuries did not have any problems connected with power. The sky was on its side. It was an ethnic monolith, the center of cultural traditions. There, in the town of Derbent, there was the Patriarchal See where they accepted a new way of life for millions of people that had denied paganism.

            If one takes a bird's-eye view on that epoch one can assert: in the West there was the revival of nations of the former Roman Empire, and such revival was controlled by the Turki. Vices of the ancient Rome could not disappear by themselves without their substitution for something else – certain cultural values, for instance. The Turki were attracting the Europeans by their belief in Heavenly God and their culture. 

            Of course such “division of labor” was not suitable for the West. Once they felt they had a chance, the Greeks convened the Nicene Council in 325 and declared about “their” Christianity or, more precisely, about their new religion, having thus become the second ideological center. They themselves assumed for the role of a shepherd… That was a claim for the division of Europe.

            A big war was likely to occur in the nearest future.

            The fate of Byzantium could be decided by any incautious step, any word uttered out of place. The Greeks understood that and thus they were sending their preachers to the Near East, Egypt and Minor Asia – far from Europe. For them it was important to “find” the roots of Greek Christianity not in Turkic regions, create another philosophical base and enrich them with myths. It required time and forces. And caution, which was the most important thing.

            Christian preachers were followed by soldiers; the Byzantine army was expanding not spiritual but political borders in the Near East turning neighboring countries into colonies. The Greeks lived for the future and worked for it since the present of those that were to pay levy was dependent and sorrowful.

            Their desire to become the masters of their fate is understood; but there was no chance to avoid secret diplomacy, double play and double standards. Or the policy of intrigues for which Byzantium was notable from its birth. The Emperor Constantine, that first “Christian Emperor”, did not take the mask of duplicity off his face even when he went to sleep. Weakness of his spirit was revealed in the most unexpected way. 

            That founder of Christianity was the first to repent in it when he understood he had taken the way that would lead his country to a dead-end. After the Nicene Council and the expedition to the Near East that followed the Emperor understood that he had made an irretrievable step. He understood the consequences of his step in confrontation with God! That happened due to his sister, a pious woman that opened his brother's eyes with respect to God's nature; she acquainted him with “Gnosticism”.

            The change of the Emperor's conscience stroke experienced people – how was it possible to “find” the relics of the early Christianity in the Near East and deny them? Not everyone could dare do that. But that deceit really changed Constantine. He was born again having understood the simple truth known to any Turki: God cannot be deceived. He sees everything.

            At first that adherent of Christianity exiled the priest Arius, ordered to burn his works and threatened to execute anyone who would mention the name of the evildoer, and in a little while he rejected his words. Events were happening contrary to the verdict. Arius was set free; he was to be solemnly returned to the Church not because he repented and denied his views concerning Christ's nature. No. 

            Constantine himself changed his viewpoint!.. He recognized that he had made a mistake.

            The founder of the new religion turned into its destroyer. For the rest of his life the “Christian Emperor”, as he is called in encyclopedias, was fighting with Christianity; he failed to found peace – his sin tortured him… On his deathbed Constantine finally decided to take baptism. But he wanted to accept the Turkic belief! In 337 he was baptized according to the western ceremony! He took Tengri's cross from the priest. And he died having found piece.

            No doubt, that was the triumph of Altaic spiritual culture. It seemed to be a miracle. Constantinople was seldom remembering about Christ; the Turki there understood that their belief was stronger. The Emperor's deathbed baptism strengthened that thought in peoples consciousness.

            However, the worst thing for Byzantium was not even the abuse of the official religion by the Emperor himself but the fact that society was split in terms of religion. That was an unanticipated result. In the country two groups were in confrontation – Arians, i.e. the followers of the priest Arius, who wanted a union with Desht-I-Kipchak, and Christians who wanted to create their own independent empire in order to lead their spiritual life, which meant to conduct their policy.

            However it is possible that not a spiritual confrontation but disorders in society bothered Constantine; the Emperor was not able to struggle with them. Greek rulers were notable for diffidence; they tried to remain themselves like actors having a bad director.

            They understood that new belief was helpless; it did no wonders. Maybe because the number of Christians was rapidly reducing: in Constantinople there were several dozens of them – the court and people around them. And nobody else. And by 378 in Constantinople adherents of “Constantine's belief” had almost disappeared; there were several among the court circle… That is the fact confirmed by history.

            Having turned their backs to Christianity, people were no longer recognizing the “Christian” Emperor's power. Chaos was coming. Even children and grandchildren would not speak kindly about Constantine. Rulers were feeling the ground slipping away from under their feet. The country was likely to become a chaganat of Desht-I-Kipchak. Or to fall.

            Power was hanged by a thread.

            The Greeks needed to act immediately in order to overcome the crisis and retain their throne. But they managed to do nothing; and the throne was taken by the Turki. The new Emperor Gratianus, Valentinianus's (that “fair-haired” Roman) son, quickly found the way to salvation. He was weaving a plot in which nets Europe was caught; the West managed to save its face. It is possible the decision was suggested by the bishop Ambrosius whose influence at court had become significant since then.  

            In order to split the unity of the “Greek” Turki, Gratianus appointed the military leader Theodosius Augustus (his co-regent). In other words, on January 19^th, 379 he divided the throne between himself and the head of the army. At that he did it voluntarily. And enthusiastically.

            One would think, what was changing? Everything.

            If we remember who served in the army of Byzantium and what language was spoken in the army, many things become clear about this unexpected decision of the Emperor. That was a perfect stroke of policy that solved many problems. One order destroyed the unity of the opposition. A war started, but not a war against the throne but for the right to be closer to the throne. Thus the Emperor was not threatened any longer.

            The military leader Theodosius drew the Kipchaks like a magnet; that was a legendary personality, but historians have not said much about him. His role in the history of the West is more important than he has been assigned although he has been called the Great. His father, the famous Theodosius the Elder, the head of cavalry in the West, saved the Empire having put down revolt in Africa but was undeservingly accused and executed. His son, a reckless rider and squabbler was consumed with the desire to avenge his father. And he attracted other fine fellows for whom actions and not their results were important… They were the Turki after all!

 

            ● It is interesting that the victory in Africa was gained due to his excellent battle tactics. As E. Gibbon mentioned, “enemies were perplexed by his retreats which he would always accomplish in due time and in the prescribed manner”. Here the famous false retreat is in question; it often helped the Kipchaks win the victory. Because of such tactics and bravery the troops of Theodosius the Elder being about three and a half thousand people in number defeated the army consisting of twenty thousand warriors.

 

            The question of Theodosius's roots and motives of his actions are irrelevant. He was the Kipchak! This is the only word. And he behaved like a real Turki – unpredictably: following his feelings and emotions he often regretted of what he had done. But when it was too late. That was a wise and inconsistent politician. He would promise something and forget his promises all at once.

            Indeed, “they were known by their actions”.

            Neither in Asia, neither in Africa nor in Europe the Turki were changing themselves; their familiar behavior was known everywhere. In military arts, in everyday life and in ability to hold a feast they were the same; they did it from their hearts, with jesters and singing. They did not like to stay calm but they were able to listen to silence. They would always find something to do. Not a nation but a flow pulling trees up by the roots, sweeping rocks away and enjoying their outrage.

            According to Gratianus's and his counselors' intentions, Theodosius, that “fair-haired man with a hawknose being an exemplary rider” was to act to the benefit of the Western Empire where there was no religious strife that had enervated Constantinople. It was to be controlled by it. 

            There, in the third country, they had certainly heard a lot about “Greek” and “Turkic” belief, but officially they were continuing religious traditions of Ancient Rome. To tell the truth, the previous Emperor, Valentinianus I, was considered to be a Christian by some people, which is doubtful; it is not likely he was a Christian. He could not have been a Christian and he showed tolerance… In a word, in the West Byzantium inhabitants started to search for the future for their country. Using his relatives and people around him Theodosius I was establishing Christianity in Latin society. His edict of 380 speaks for itself, and people that surrounded the Roman bishop all at once just confirm what was said. Those were the Turki!     

 

            ● The Roman bishop Damasius supported his policy due to his relations with “pagan aristocracy”. That aristocracy wanted to revive the Empire and “helped the Emperor overcome intolerance shown by other members of the clergy”. That is why Rome remained pagan to a great extent. And at the same time it was entire! The idea of revival of the Empire united society and rallied it around the new Emperor.

 

            Theodosius himself became a Christian by chance. He was baptized during a severe disease, after everything had been used but nothing helped, and life was not to come to an end. Having returned from the other world, he received Christ and his saving grace. Maybe that was the first human being in the world that really accepted Christ.  

            He received Christ not under an order, like the rest, but listening to his soul… That is a different thing. That is when the history of religion in Europe obtained an adherent and signs of life. A Turki gave it the right to live. It sounds strange, but that is what was happening. And nothing else!

            Without support of the state religion would have never become established. The Romans had not known Christianity formerly, and the Greeks were powerless in its spreading even in their own country. They did not believe and nobody believed them. Rome became a spark in front of which a fire of dry moss was being laid.

            Theodosius and his people came to belief by themselves. And since they were really devoted to it they put their heart into establishing of the term “Christianity”. And they succeeded! The pagan Rome did not know theological disputes that were widespread in Eastern Churches after the Emperor Constantine's death. He led another life – he was living in hope. He was a clean slate. That is why Theodosius, who had become a Christian the day before, turned his strength to the whole Western Empire and its purity after deciding to establish the Church and himself there. He needed a foundation for his History.

            Formally the Roman Church was turning into a Greek branch from 380; it obeyed to Constantinople that had established the Roman bishop's throne and his episcopate. But in reality it was not like that: in Rome the last thing to think about was the “Greek belief” and, it is obvious, people did not want it to rise again.

            Of course, the word “Christianity” was being used there and that is perhaps the only thing that connected the Roman Church with the Greek one. One common word used by people.

 

            ● In the edict of 380 Theodosius said: “We want all nations controlled by our mercy and moderation to follow the religion… which is currently practiced by the pontiff Damasus”. Followers of the new Church were allowed to accept the name of Catholic Christians.

            The modern text of the edict is more eloquent not because theologians ascribed to the Emperor words and terms of which he could not have been aware (they appeared later) but because it is seen from the document that Theodosius did not go into theological details (“believe as Damasus says”), he introduced his own concept of an alliance (Catholicism) with the Turki and that in his terminology the word “heavenly” was the synonym of the word “divine”. And the most important thing – he had the decisive word it solution of church problems (the Emperor's “heavenly wisdom”), which has all at one become a dogma of the Christian religion.

            Theodosius was a politician; he needed the Church as an instrument of politics. He was interested not in the Turkic spiritual institute but in that of Europe, which meant Christian. The same as in Byzantium.

           

            In 381 Theodosius ventured upon a new bold step: he ordered to transfer all the temples in the country to Catholic bishops. And what is more, he declared autonomy of Church independently of Constantinople. Thus he threw the first stone into the Patriarchal See of Derbent which coordinated religious life in the West.

            That was his condition of the saving of Christianity.

            Bishops did not support the Emperor's plans in everything feeling a new turn of political intrigues with far-reaching consequences. But they were not able to refuse him. However in that silent disagreement Theodosius saw a threat to his plans and at the same moment concluded an agreement with the Kipchaks. In return for military service in the Empire he gave them the right to settle in its territories – between Danube and the Balkans. And what is more, he started to incline them to Christianity being aware of their tradition if belief in Heavenly God.

            And “barbarians” were voluntarily being baptized recognizing it as a condition of their serving to Theodosius.

            They were changing their belief as easily as their names and clothes – for estates. There were no other ways there. But they cannot be condemned for betrayal: ceremonies of the new and old belief were practically the same. Catholic Christianity began from nothing but, as a matter of fact, it was taking everything from Altai. Few of the “new” Latin Turki managed to understand what changed after they had become Romans and Christians. Everything in their lives remained the same. Everything was Turkic…

            The Great Nations Migration is the spring of Europe. Its gardens were efflorescing at that time.

            Due to the Emperor's wisdom “barbarians” came to the Roman army (the Emperor's support); it was growing stronger day after day. Together with the army the Roman Church was growing stronger; people saw its strength. That was the secret of the politician Theodosius who was able to win the most difficult games. He never wilted. His belief made him stronger… As the historians Eunapius and Zosimus mentioned, the Emperor made the Romans accept the belief that was odious for them by the strong arm. They resisted but did not dare contradict. That was a hard time for them.

            And those that proclaimed themselves Christians had a good chance; they were coming to the front in the state, new ways to high society were opened to them… That is how skillfully Theodosius continued the Great Nations Migration in the Western Europe. He was establishing a new society. And himself in it. That society can be called neither Roman nor Turkic. It was Christian; it was Catholic. It was different from that of Byzantium.

            Theodosius was bringing his compatriots nearer giving them key posts and offices.

            That was the politics of the reviving Empire. Politics not of the Romans but of the Turki that were becoming Europeans. They were introducing their culture – Monotheism. The Turkic word “catalyk” and the concept being its background were closer to the newcomers who did not go into discussion of the Catholic concept but agreed with it all at once. That was their concept. It was making new native lands for them in a country favorable from the point of view of climate.

            … Of course those new Europeans were notable not only for their spirit but also for their appearance – they had beards or moustaches, they had fair hair and blue eyes, they were squat men with high cheekbones and short legs. Their faces are well recognizable on remaining portraits and embossed profiles. By the way, in this connection family trees of Roman bishops are interesting; perhaps every second of them is a Turki, native of the East, which was witnessed by his face and confirmed by a tamga. “Steppe heraldry” is peculiar; it is very hard to deny it. It is conservative and independent… A person was born and died with a tamga.

            When there appeared blazons in the European meaning, “emblems” of the Popes Innocent III, Urban IV, Clement IV, John XXI, Nicholas III, John XXII, Pius II, Gregory XIII and others were decorated with Turkic symbols. Dragons, equilateral crosses, “Altaic lotuses” (in Europe they were called lilies) and other recognizable features of the East. Even double triangles – the sign of changing of belief.

            And that is not everything that speaks of the past of Catholic bonzes. Presence of “Altaic heraldry” is not denied by Christian historians, but they do not explain it; according to them it appeared in the Middle Ages and its origin is unknown. Is that right? Early in the Middle Ages every Turkic family had a tamga – the sigh of a family which was handed down. A blazon is a European “tamga”; it contains the same information which is written in a different way considering new cultural traditions… A novelty was not a novelty; alas, its origin is well-known.

 

            ● Tamgas and monograms on different silver, stony and other items are being found “from Siberia to Europe, the same as in Greece and ancient Near East”, i.e. on the route of the Turki from Altai to the West. “For the I – IV centuries such signs, - writes R. Frye, - served as personal (family) and tribal symbols, the same as famous Turkic and Mongolian tamgas. Every tsar or ruler in the South Russia had a special monogram – and the same goes for the Kushans”.

            As we can see, origin of blazons and tamgas is known in the West to those who are interested in it. Connection with the Kushans was not accidental.

 

            The catalogue of papal blazons begins with the blazon on the seals of Innocent III, i.e. from the XIII century, from the Inquisition. That is indicative. At that time they started to destroy everything relating to the Turki in the West; they had a reason. Thus a tamga was destroyed. And more than that, Roman inquisitors changed even the garments of the Popes, but, to tell the truth, there were no considerable changes – they just needed to name them in a different way. Nonetheless differences with the fashion of former clothes were marked.

            Thus a cap looking like a stack (ayur) that in the Middle Ages was a peculiarity of Popes and Altaic kamas was changed a little and called “tiara” (from Turkic ti ary - “clarify constantly”); at that it had the same cross on its top and was of the same shape. A tiara was still put on solemn occasions, and in everyday life they wore velvet hats marginated with fur (borik). The copies of those that the Turkic nobility used to wear. But the Catholics had another name for it – “manro”.   

            On Popes' feet there were not Roman sandals but Turkic ones embroidered with gold. On their bodies there were slaves' capes called “chekrek kapa”; they reminded of times when the Pope was called in the Turkic way – “the servant of the servants of God”… But the most noticeable and distinctive feature in the Pope's garments was a white woolen ribbon on his neck. One its end descended to the Pope's chest and the other was put over his shoulder behind his back. That was the sign of diversity and holiness. Pallium. Equilateral Altaic crosses made of black materials were hung on it.

            Pallium (omophorion in Greece) is an accessory of the highest Christian clergy, but formerly it was called otherwise – the same as Altaic clergymen called it; they had been wearing a similar long ribbon – an orarion – from of old. The word “orarion” (literally “or ary”) is translated as “tie and clarify”.

            Putting on an orarion, a clergyman put its ends down and reading a prayer tied them up around him thus showing his spiritual purity and holiness. Both Latin and Greek clergymen have not changed its Turkic name…

           

            ● That is what, according to the Bible, God did (“I belted myself”) turning to “Cyrus, his anointed” when he sent him to bring the belief in Heavenly God “to the East of the sun and to the West” [Is 45 6].

 

            Another indicative fact in the “Latin” history of the Turki is that, as it has been already mentioned, Theodosius chose not Rome but Milan to be the center of spiritual life; Milan was the town of Kipchaks (Langobards); he moved his residence there. After Milan there was Ravenna and its Pope's region. There, among the Turki, the heart of the new religion was beating… Is not that the sign of life that was beginning then?

            In the foundation of the Catholic Church there was the most wholesome and powerful thing Desht-I-Kipchak had. It other words – the basics of belief in Heavenly God, “Gnosticism”. In order to connect it with cultural traditions of the West so that one thing completed the other. That is the explanation of the presence of the “Doctors of the Church” invited from Desht-I-Kipchak under the bishop Damasus as well as translation of Turkic service books transformed into the Vulgate and introduction of “barbarous” traditions and ceremonies.

            Everything is evident, everything is near.

            A branch of Christianity without myths and prejudices of the “Greek belief” was being born. It was planned by the Emperor Theodosius. Of course it was growing slowly, like a tree on a cliff. For a long time it was living inside itself – it was getting strong and getting power.

            …Finally in 495 the Roman bishop Gelasius was proclaimed the Vicar of Christ. They called him, following the Copts, in a Turkic way – “apa”, “papa” (holy father). The title is Altaic; it came to Europe through Alexandria. At the turn of the II – III centuries that was the name of “Indian communes”, i.e. adherents of Monotheism, in Egypt. Inscriptions on Coptic icons retained that ancient word. It also referred to the saint and monks that lived out of this world.

 

            ● Apa (aba, baba, papa) in the ancient Turkic language, as we know, meant not only “father” but also “holy father”, “spiritual father”. The word was a part of titles of counselors: say, kul apa (literary means “the father of the servant of God”) or kul apa urunu (literary means “the flag of the father of the servant of God”).

            Although “official nomenclature used in Catholic church law” would not use the word “papa” (Pope), it has been used in church documents starting from the early Middle Ages as a generally accepted title of the bishop of Rome. It only remains to guess what that unofficial title meant for those who had it, if in 1073 the Pope Gregory VII declared that the right to be called “papa” (Pope) belongs only to the bishop of Rome.

 

            One of the most important undertakings of the first Pope was the Decree of Accepted and not Accepted Church Books (Decretum Gelasinum de libris recipiendis et not recipiendis) which denied Greek myths that discredited Christianity. Thus apocryphal literature, i.e. denied literature, appeared. It included, for instance, The Travel of the Apostle Peter, Gospel according to Andrew, books about Christ's childhood and others. It should be mentioned that part of them was plagiarism from Turkic service books completed by awkward authors.    

            In other words, the Roman Church was committed to purity of the theory of Christianity and exclusion of pagan traditions from it. That step was notable for impudent boldness; after all, confessionally Rome was to obey Constantinople. The Greek Patriarch was not able to change anything – that was the Pope's will. And also the will of Heavens.

            For that decision the clergy of Altai that had recognized the idea of Catholicism granted the Pope a ring with a cross and fish, the same as the head of Altaic clergy had. The ring is still handed down to every new Pope; that is the sign of power in the Roman Church. The sign of Catholicism – of the alliance! That is perhaps the most ancient and precious relic of Vatican but its history has been kept secret for some time.

 

            ● Similar rings with the same symbols were found by archeologists on the route of the Great Nations Migration. For instance, the chalcedony ring with the image of a fish was found during the excavations in Margian in the Central Asia. The founding is dated back to the beginning of the Common Era and is referred to the period of the Parthian empire.

 

            The Pope Gregory the Great had the honor to raise Catholic Christianity and make it the religion of Europe. Not a Turki, but a Roman. He was born in 540, in a senator's family, got education of a lawyer and took up a post of a prefect (ruler) of Rome; after his father's death he inherited a lot of money. However, the young man did not take it but gave in to the monastery of Monte-Cassino. People considered him to be of unsound mind.

            But that was not the point. That was a brilliant stroke of policy which in its consequences was comparable with Theodosius's undertaking and even possibly left it behind…

            It should be mentioned that monasteries (and traditions of monkhood) is a special melody of spiritual music; the Latins failed to hear it since it was too high for them. Those spiritual institutes came to the West together with the Great Nations Migration; for the Turkic the word “abbot” meant “close to the father” (abata)… There is another long story here; it began before the common era in Altai and was continued in the Middle East and in India and later in the North Africa and in the West.

 

            ● Contrary to a widespread aberration first monasteries were not established by the Church. And what is more, the founder of the western monkhood Pachomius the Great (died in 348) was not a Christian. It is known that first monks “the same as Pachomius himself did not know the Greek language and did not know the ropes of theology”. And when Athanasius the Alexandrian, that notorious “head of the Church in the fight against Arianism” wanted to appoint Pachomius bishop, the latter simply went into hiding.

            The founder of monkhood in the Western Europe John Cassian (360 – 435), the main theorist of monkery, taught: “Here is an ancient aphorism of our fathers… a monk should avoid women and bishops (bold provided – M.A.) in different ways”. A monastery in Altai was a sort of “over-spiritual” institute; it obeyed nobody except for God and its own conscience. There the Turki were growing the seeds of new knowledge, there, far away from temporal vanity, their monks were cognizing the depth of the Divine Teaching. That is where ideas, traditions, books were born in ancient times. The monks, those celestials, were interested in nothing temporal… Spiritual counselors for the rulers were chosen from among them.

            Early in the Middle Ages European monasteries did not obey the Church either; they were leading an independent life having their own influence with establishing Christian traditions. Appearance of monastic orders in the West was nothing else but final submission of monasteries to the Pope or, more precisely, submission of freedom of thought to a man of mould, although he was called “the Vicar of Christ”.

 

            In Europe one of the first monasteries was opened in 381 by the bishop Ambrosius, the “frantic” Kipchak that was serving in Milan. His monastery was famous. As a matter of fact, that center of spirituality made Milan a unique sacred place. There was the cradle of the theory of Catholicism and its famous monkhood.

            Rome had not seen anything of that kind. It had not had the slightest idea of that. Monasteries frightened the Latins; monkery seemed foreign and fearful to them. That is why the Church had not been recognizing monasteries for a long time; they existed separately. According to Altaic traditions monastic vows were taken only by the children of Kipchaks – those who were appointed to be servants of God by their parents before they were born. That was the rule.

            The core of the Catholic Church was strengthening due to the newcomers. Although, of course, the way to a monastery was opened even for native Europeans, they avoided it for a long time. In 451 monasteries were recognized by the Church; they were discussed in Rome and Constantinople as eastern exoticism. After all, very few managed to understand their designation.

            They remained “eastern exoticism”. For the Latins and the Greeks that was another whim of the Turki. And nothing more.

            However, having become Christian, the monasteries made a poor show, especially in Byzantium; they were desperately living in misery and no spiritual searching was in question there. A powerful spiritual institute was starving. There was no place for it in religion since its time had not come yet. Europe was forcedly baptizing the pagans using its army; it was trying to inculcate a taste for belief in them. They did not need the monasteries at that time.

            Monasteries of Desht-I-Kipchak were leading a different life; monks were hermits there, they devoted themselves to prayers and perception of the truth. But again according to the traditions of the “white belief” not all the monks in Altai were searching for the Divine Truth. There were so-called “serving” monks – those who were teaching people that would come to a monastery and leave for foreign lands to preach there – they had no spiritual searching. Earning their bread and performing occasional service, they were solving pressing tasks of monastic everyday life.

            Philosophers could be counted on the fingers of one hand; they were highly estimated. They were the gold of the nation, its independent mind… Hence was harmony that was peculiar to the “white belief”, its striking entirety witnessed by the fact that service and spiritual searching were near and they were enriching each other. In Altaic monasteries they were forging that very core which made religion resilient and strong. From there, from that brain trust, they controlled the harmony of ceremonies, accuracy of traditions and prepared service books – in a word, they taught to believe in Heavenly God… The same was happening in the West then. But at that time for Catholicism.

            Theodosius, raising Milan, knew with what religion began and where its roots were – in the knowledge, in pure good knowledge; the spirit is born in it.

            Is it not interesting that the Catholics having accepted the statute of Altaic monkery followed it. The deed was executed by the monk Benedict. He started from a simple thing – from the children of the “new Romans”; they were brought up according to traditions of Catholic Christianity. Milan and the abbey were visited by very important Turki – rulers of estates, statesmen, for instance, Tottila khan who became king of Italy.

            People considered it an honor to send a son or daughter there.

            In 530 Benedict declared about the monastic order, for which he himself was called “Benedict of Nursia”; later he was consecrated a saint of the Catholic Church because of his great contribution to the new spiritual culture of the West. To tell the truth today it is hard to say with certainty whether there were such monastic orders in Altai. Who knows… Maybe that is a European undertaking, it is rather in accordance with traditions of the West that was trying to centralize spiritual life and made it dependent upon a personality – the Pope or the Emperor. In the East freedom was estimated; it was made a cornerstone of all undertakings. Altaic monks were not likely to agree with an order, i.e. with an organization controlled not by God but by a human being…

 

            ● Strictly speaking that was not the order that made the Benedictines famous in the Middle Ages. It was lacking in organization and conspiracy. But that was Benedict who suggested the idea of turning a community of monks into a “school of service of God” and a sort of military detachment acting under a “statute” in strict discipline.

 

            Of course abbacies and orders in the West could be created only by those who were aware of them and respective traditions. But even they, those chosen from among the chosen, did not feel the whole power of that monastic support that later strengthened the levers of power of the Christian Church.

            The Pope Pelagius II was a visionary here; he was a Turki by birth and in his spirit. He belonged to a noble family of a gentleman and ran the Church without the consent of Constantinople. Pelagius is the most precious pearl for the Christians and the most pernicious poison for the Turki. The rise of Christianity and decline of Desht-I-Kipchak started from him.

            Of course that was not what he was dreaming of; but his conversations with Gregory yielded fruit for which the new Europe was awaiting. Following the Pope's advice the prefect of Rome – the second person in the country! – gave all his money to the monks and became a deacon denying goodies of high life.

            After the Pope Pelagius' death in 590 he, the monk, was elected the new Pope.

            Having accepted the papal tiara Gregory established strict order in the Roman Church. He appointed provisors and increased proceeds from lands, in a word, gave the Church full independence from the national treasury. Those days ideology was supplemented by freedom and laws. At that moment the Roman Church finally turned into political power. It was a sort of state within a state.

            Wide fields were open before it.

            The Western Europe that after Attila “belonged to no one” and did not take part in world politics was attracting the Pope. His plans were connected with it. That was a member of the political game. And it does not matter it was the weakest one. But it had a goal – unification of Europe. The power “doomed” to success appeared on the scene.

            It had all the best things the antique world had accumulated: patient consistency and strict legality. Apart from it were Turkic spirit and diligence. Here it is, the mixture of cultures; it is seen clearly… that is what had happened there. The Pope Gregory paid more attention not to politics but to monasteries; he regarded them as his support which was to help him subordinate Europe and the whole world.

            In order to strengthen the authority of the Church he used the Benedictines, their statute and the principle of unhesitating obedience. He counted not on the theological theory, not on military arts but on training of “soldiers” that were to win not gathering together into regiments. And not in the sound of marching drums. Words were turned into arms there. They were training the agents of influence. 

            Those were the soldiers of the new type; they were taught to produce ideas in consciousness of their rivals so as to make them destroy themselves and what had been created by them. For this purpose they elaborated the methods which are still being improved. These are stainless arms of the West.

            The Roman Christians had an opportunity to try their strength. By that time certain estates of the Western Empire which had become stronger turned into mini-states boasting due to their trifling armies and alleged independence. Principalities were at fierce enmity. Their enmity attracted the Pope Gregory; he understood that people tired of trifling battles and wars would listen to his monks – it was just necessary to find proper words. After all, those were the Turki that cannot be at enmity for a long time. They are not patient enough.

            And the Pope proceeded to preparation of the invasion of its “soldiers”. A new type of conquest – by God's word – was being born. Even the ingenious vanquishers of nations could not have dreamt of anything of the kind. It had never happened before. Nobody in the world had those dreadful weapons but the Popes who were very peaceful in appearance.

            The Pope Gregory sent a legate (messenger) to the king of Spain; he entered into a dialogue with incursive Brunhilde – the ruler of Austrasia (modern France, part of Switzerland, Germany, Austria). He was attacking being aware that their enmity was the enmity of the Turki sinking into common domestic altercations.

The son of king of Spain, an Arian, wished to marry Brunhilde's daughter that had entered Catholicism. That was the reason of an altercation of two reigning courts. In Toledo the beautiful bride suffered humiliation and bloody beating which were caused by her would-be mother-in-law; she was thrown in a pond naked but she did not change her belief. She only became a martyr. The fiancé who was later called a saint of the Roman Church acquiesced; he entered Catholicism and got married regardless of what his parents wished. And thus he had become the bitterest enemy of his father who executed the young man in a citadel… That was an intrigue worth to be described by Shakespeare. But Spain finally became Catholic very soon, through the brother of the executed who, according to a Turkic tradition, got the widow… The number of monks in Spain increased under the Catholic ruler.  

            The Pope kept an eye on the whole Western Europe. Like a tiger he always noticed a victim a little earlier than a victim noticed him. Monks informed him of all the conflicts and incidents. The Pope was aware of everything, but top of his interests were the northern neighbors of Italy – the Langobards.

            Who are the Langobards? “The Germans” that inhabited the basin of the river Po; they laid siege to Rome more than once, in a word, they were a Turkic horde. Much is known about them. They came from Altai under Attila's flags. Among the papers that occasionally remained in European archives there are documents of the Langobards written with Turkic runes in the Turkic language.

            Where have all other witnesses gone? And the Langobards themselves? That is an utmost secrecy of the European history.

            Among the documents that remained there are, for instance, Cremona's Acts containing the results of a certain “enumeration” of the Langobards; one can judge about their names according to those lists. Having become Catholics people took Roman names and kept their Turkic ones. And the main thing – they emphasized that they were living under the laws of the Langobards. Not of the Church. Their names were double like their life. In the Acts, for instance, there is the name Petrus Oprandi. The first word is translated from Latin; the second – from the ancient Turkic language: oprandi means “cast-off clothing”.

            “Langobard” in the West is derived from the words “long beard” or “fighting axe with a long handle” (lange barthen). These are forced arguments… As it was mentioned long ago, “the readiness to obey the authorities” turns the most doubtful hypothesis into an indisputable dogma, which really happened. And as a matter of fact the name is based on two ancient Turkic words: “lung” (dragoan) and “bars” (bars means “panther”) in Russian. Because the Langobards were headed by khans from tsarist families of the Nagas (Gragon) and Panthers; their signs were on the flags of the horde. 

            The Langobards were fond of falconry; they brought droves of horses to the fields of the Venetian province, which was described by Paul Deacon. And they never let Italian bishops participate in their legislative meetings… Is it not food for thought?

            The mystery of the Langobards ceases to be a mystery when one becomes aware of the deeds of the Pope Gregory the Great and the Roman Church. That was perhaps the first trophy of the Catholics; their loot in the ideological war. They swallowed the horde and it did not mention them. This event is worth discussing.  

            … In 592, having made peace with the Langobards, Gregory proclaimed the Roman Church the Turkic Church and called himself its senior priest. There was a little–known episode in the history of Christianity – that was a real trick. The Pope learnt the Turkic language (he did not know Greek), for which he was called “Dvoeslov” (in Russian language it means he knew two languages). A war began and tubes were silent in it. And horses were not taken from the stables. The Pope himself came to the Langobards with a staff in his hands – he was wearing a slave's cape and bowed down. On the staff an equilateral cross of Altai was shining, which was mentioned by everybody all at once. Standing on his knees the Pope called himself “the servant of God's servants”, i.e. their servant.

            He asked for a refuge and help. And that was it.

            He knew to whom he was turning – to the khan Agilulf whose wife, beautiful Teodolina, was a Catholic. Their family had had difficulties concerning a heir for a long time, and Christian baptism performed on the Pope's advice helped the woman make away with her problems. The newborn son, of course, was to be brought up according to the ceremonies of the Catholic belief. The arrival of the Pope Gregory, as though occasionally, coincided with the baptism of the infant.

            After that Benedictines started to make their way to the Langobards; they appeared in temples – near the relics. Because the Pope Gregory kept on saying that he was “the bishop not of the Romans but of the Langobards”. Credulous Turki that were accustomed to see their enemies armed and riding horses wanted to hear nothing else but these words. Thinking that the victory in the war with the Romans was on their side and being glad at it, they were being baptized for the second time and thus entered Catholicism (alliance!). Like a retaliatory step. If only that was true…

           

            ● One of those relics – an “iron crown” of the Langobards with Tengri's cross – is now kept in the sacristy of the cathedral in Monza. Early in the Middle Ages crowns were often donated to churches where they were hung over the altar. This crown, as it is asserted, is the copy of the crown the khan's wife Teodolina ordered his husband in the VI century after their son was born. And that crown in its turn was the copy of the crown of Visigothic khans. If that it right, the Turkic tradition, as we can see, is distinctly traced back over a period of several centuries.  

            The crown of Langobards ordered by Teodolina was used in 775 for the coronation of Charles the Great, the founder of France. At that time the word “king” (derived from “Charles”) appeared in its modern sense. And at any rate it is incorrect to use the term “queen” speaking about Teodolina and the term “king” in relation to Gothic khans.

            It is important to emphasize that later similar crowns “were found under unknown circumstances near Kazan”, and later they mysteriously disappeared.

 

            In the same manner the Pope Gregory conquered the Englishmen; they had not been speaking the Turkic language either at that time. He did not go to them himself; he sent Benedictines headed by Augustine who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pope ordered to establish ecclesiastic life there but to do it tactfully showing respect for the customs of the local Turki – without any signs of violence. There the khan's wife also became an ally of the Catholics… That is another story.

            In the ideological war the Catholics were winning not by force but by their words, attention and care. The Anglican Church that was theologically connected with Rome, its future rival, was raising on the basis of the ideas of Catholicism. Speaking about peace and amity the Benedictines were inclining the Turki to Christianity, i.e. to recognition of the Pope's power. To formal recognition, but it did not matter. At any rate that was not a denial thereof. The Church managed to find the best words, the most proper and intimate; an appeal for harmony and fraternity could be heard in them. Its pretty speeches were endless; they intoxicated like wine.

            Amidst the general enmity that covered the estates of the gentlemen the words about peace were especially attractive. Everything was considered to the last detail.

            The name order was also suitable for the monks; in Turkic it means “given from above”. They meant: “Brothers, we came to you from God”. The Turki always treated their friends and brothers warmly. That time it was the same.

            “The servant of God's servants” (Servus servorum Dei) was turning into “the Greatest of God's servants” with the help of the monks, which has a different sense. Medieval Latin allowed finding and explaining the meanings of certain words and expressions of the Pope…

            Having created monastic orders, the Roman Church got fanciful “soldiers”, quiet conquerors of Europe; they would seldom kill but rather infected with poison. And they would never raise their voices. Gates of towns and doors of homes opened before them by themselves. Catchers of peoples souls, they were really skilful at catching… Nowhere, not in any Church there was anything of the kind; monks played a different part there… The rise of Christianity was quietly occurring in the West. Like the light after an eclipse. New sun was shining in the darkness.

            Catholics were inventively remaking the ceremonies of the Kipchaks. For instance, ritual singing after being changed a little was called “Gregorian” in honor of the Pope Gregory who introduced it into Christian ceremonies. Is that a Turkic tradition Turkic? That is not the question to be discussed. In the I century the tsar Kanishka was familiarizing the East with it, and before him that was done by his predecessors.

            Christians took the methods of recording music – “crooks” (in Turkic “kiork” means “image, figure”) which were later transformed into notes. Prayer chants – acathistes, heirmoses, kontakions – were the language of the Kipchak religion; Catholics added European notes to them, in other words they modernized them. And they got what they wanted. They were similar but not the same… Europe was taking what was due to it.

            The European Kipchaks were being easily vanquished under church singing. They were vanquished without battles and attacks. By the words. The number of Christians was increasing. However, that was not the main thing.

            Catholicism was demonstrating itself with dignity. Civil discords were over; peace came to the Western Europe that recognized the power of the Roman Church. The Pope Gregory was subduing people completely; that was the wisest man of the epoch for whom vast minds were working. In his retinue there were Egyptians, Kipchaks, the Romans themselves; they were doing a very difficult and important work – they were establishing peace and creating belief that was gathering nations together into one Christian family around Rome.

            The power of Catholicism initially lay in intellect, in knowledge, in the ability to talk, promise and give hope. That is the Emperor Theodosius's merit; from the first days he gave the West what was missing in the Greek Church – the idea of an “unwarlike war”. So far this is the most perfect way to conquer the world. Through an alliance. Through Catholicism!

            Connections between “yesterday” and “today” in the Roman Church were not interrupted, which is also in accordance with Altaic traditions. They are perfectly aware of the whole history there; to tell the truth they never talk about it as a whole. They know, for instance, that the bishop Dionysius Exiguus, “the Turkic abbot”, wrote “Apostolic Canons” – the statute according to which the Roman Church lives, collectio Dionysiana. They also know that he made a calendar for the Catholics, that very calendar according to which we have the XXI century now; it was introduced in 532, during the papacy of Boniface II, another pure Kipchak by birth and in his thoughts. 

 

            ● The second name of Dionysius – Exiguus is translated from Latin as “small”, which shows the meaning of the nickname; but that is not exactly correct. If one turns to the Turkic language the secret of the name is disclosed in its entirety. The literary translation is “to get smaller” (the ending “-us” appeared later). The second version of the name Exiguus in the ancient Turkic language means “become much (considerably) smaller”. In this word one can read the history of man and belief. Helping the Catholics the Turki were accomplishing an obedient feat. They sacrificed themselves and their knowledge to the Catholic Church understanding the word “Catholic” as an “ally”.

            In Europe under the Pope Gregory time was being measured from the day of Rome foundation. The Turki changed that too.

            In that calendar there was one interesting detail showing the authors' knowledge of eastern traditions. Time in it was counted not according to Altaic traditions, i.e. not from the birth of Christ, as people think today, but from the day of the incarnation of sanctity in him. These are not the same things. The incarnation happens before a child is eight years old (the north Buddhists, for instance, search for a would-be Buddha among the children).

 

            ● In the northern Buddhism spiritual hierarchs are considered to be incarnations of mythological bodhisattvas. These are the creatures aspiring to clarification after deciding to be Buddha, i.e. a man reaching the highest form of spiritual development.

 

… Another Kipchak – the historian Jordan – was also working for the sake of the Catholic conception; in 551 he wrote a book called “Gethica” where he described the nations of new Europe – unfortunately much in that book was written to please the Church. But… that human weakness made the author shine. Those were the peculiarities of those times: the Kipchaks discovered Christ and their Christianity discovered power over nations; that is why distortions are the sign of that epoch. Everything depended upon sincerity and endeavor.

            For instance, the Langobards, having become Italians, despised the Romans in their souls. Their “Code of Laws” of 643 is indicative: the text reports that they still considered the native Romans to be their slaves. And nevertheless they recognized Christianity, entered Catholicism, recognized the Roman Civil Law but being in accordance with the Turkic adats. They were like that. That was the inconceivable collision of the Middle Ages – collision of cultures since “pride cannot hide”, the great Bacon said.

            And it was not hiding. The Turkic spirit existed; it was standing up for Catholicism.

 

 

“Second-Rate Religion for the Masses”

 

            Success of the Roman Church, the same as moonlight, gave no warmth and taught nothing the rest of the Christians. The institute of religion was developing only in the Western Europe. The Greek Church dominating in the Christian world was rather dominating mechanically after the nudge given by Constantine. It existed not suspecting that sorrow is born by pleasures. Byzantium was attracted by imperial cares; it was dreaming of Christianization of Iran and the whole Near East in order to gain a foothold there.

            Some of its targets were realized.

            Being addicted to colonization it did not mention when its sword became blunt and reins of political power started slipping. Fat fingers weaken soon… Rome overmastered the Western Europe, Iran was successfully countering threats of Byzantium and the Greeks had no forces to influence these undesirable events. Being addicted to everyday cares they were becoming exhausted. Weakness of the Christian leader of the world was seen in everything.  

            The trouble was that once they started the colonization of the Near East it did not estimate the consequences. Like a fly in honey. It plunged into politics with its eyes shut. Attaining its aims it obtained no results.

            Failing to understand the essence of religion and subtlety of its impact, Byzantium treated the intellectuals incredulously and brought up no vast minds. Educated monks were tortured; they were living in poverty and starving, sometimes they were destroyed physically if the Church saw rivals in them. Even the calendar according to which the day of the Easter, the main Christian holiday, was determined the Greek Church failed to grasp due to its ignorance and passed it to the Egyptian Church, its scientists that had been famous for their deep knowledge from of old. 

 

            ● In the XVII century the Antiochian Patriarch Macarius, dealing with the history of Byzantium, mentioned that Greek rulers “tortured the patriarchs, bishops and the whole ecclesiastic world together with righteous men and saint ascetics even worse than idolaters did”.

 

            It is possible that there, in Alexandria, the Byzantines wanted to have a scientific center controlled by them – their own “Derbent”. Or “Milan”. Maybe they had other plans but Byzantium was not thinking of its own school – its leaders cared for their wombs in the first place. They did not have time for intellectual searching. It is strange… maybe ignorance is connected with the fact that Byzantium rulers were not of royal origin? Everything has its reasons which sometimes are really unexpected.

            Thus abovementioned Macarius, telling about Greek rulers that they “gave the believers in hands of the enemies of belief” emphasized their origin: “donkey drivers and ship caulkers, etc. not belonging to royal houses and royal families”… What could common people know? What could they give their country? They could only live for today.

            But the fact remains – the division of the Church into Roman and Greek ones was commenced by Theodosius I since he was the first who understood: the division was inevitable because every country understood the term “Christianity” in its own way and had its own conception of belief and ideology in order to see itself (its nation) the first among the others.

            That is an important detail – it offers a clue to explanation of a lot of things in the history of nations.

            It is the reason of the division of Christianity into national Churches, which has always been hidden by theological disagreements. Not by general disagreements but by particular ones connected with the words and meaning of the teaching about Christ. Knowing that son of Man could not be immaculate politicians found reasons for disputes, in which they succeeded. It has always been and it will always be like that.   

            That is why today there are dozens of Christian Churches, hundreds of sects; all of them are governed by the Bible but they read it in their own different ways. Human factor is determinant in search for the truth; peoples' wishes are the most important.

            God is one for everybody but people worshipping him are different.

            The idea of his own Church which occurred to the Emperor Theodosius's mind after his return to Rome was certainly secretly being cherished in the Near East. It could not have been otherwise since it had become a colony of the Greek Christians. As a matter of fact the history of the Western Empire dependent on the Eastern Empire was repeating.

            Offended Egyptians that became dependent upon their coreligionists were possibly thinking of freedom… And that is not just a guess. Appearance of Islam – another branch of Monotheism! – in the VII century makes such assumption possible. Islam could not appear occasionally out of nothing. In the Near East people were not pagans or boors. And the new religion was not new; in Europe it was called “Egyptian heresy”, a Christian sect, at first.

            It turns out Islam had the same political prehistory as Catholicism. It is a branch of Altaic spiritual culture which appeared in a Christian colony. The only difference was that in the Near East everything was happening in a different way as compared with Rome since a belief had existed there before colonizers came – not Christianity but Arianism or Monophysitism which Byzantium wished to subdue.

            With the Greeks coming the people of Nile, of course, did not reconcile themselves with loss of liberty; they knew Monotheism. And if mythological framework peculiar to any religion is discarded it turns out the Egyptians, by the example of the Romans, developed the theory of Monotheism up to a new level – the level of their own teaching, i.e. Islam? That is quite natural and even obligatory for the political situation they were in. 

            Let us remember the word with which Islam began; it is the first thing Mohammed heard: “Read”. He answered: “I cannot read”. All-merciful Allah repeated: “Read”… And one can read, as we know, only what has been written. And the Great Allah knew that better than us! That is why he said “Read” – the first word of Islam…

            In the beginning of the Great Nations Migration the East of the Mediterranean region became imbued with the teaching of Heavenly God and His “pure Church” as the Egyptians would say about the Turkic belief and its books. Christ was not recognized as god there; his divinity was denied together with the Emperor Constantine, because of which a conflict with Greek Christians, whose impact in Byzantium had become stronger especially after innovations of Theodosius I, occurred.

            By the 397 Christians took the altar of Constantinople in their hands: at that time at the Emperor's will John Chrysostom was elected Patriarch; a native of Siberia, he was different from the Greeks due to his education and sincerity of his belief. His literary works are recognized as Christian classics; they strike with their deep knowledge of the teaching of Heavenly God and worship ceremonies so that one might think of certain relations between the author and Altai and the rest Turkic world. John Chrysostom was an example of intelligence and conscience. Of course such a sensitive person could not live in society of “degenerating Christians”.

            The archbishop was expelled for rectitude of his behavior. Arrivistes from Constantinople were not stopped by his sanctity and merits. They were aggravated by “high dignity of the alien” and even his noble origin. Byzantium did not need his knowledge, the same as him himself. Constantinople, dominating in the Mediterranean region, was proving its truth. And it failed to understand that one can give in to force and be conquered by wisdom. Thus it was loosing after winning certain battles.

            In fact military victories weakened Constantinople and made other nations deny Christianity. In Byzantine colonies the image of a Christian Greek was becoming ill-favored. That was the personification of conceit peculiar to colonizers.

 

            ● Such disaffection remained for centuries. Thus the Patriarch Macarius (by the way, a fellow countryman of John Chrysostom) mentioned that “because of… vices and evils of the Greeks which are seen in them always and everywhere, we fail to find somebody having a liking for them”. And naming their crimes against belief he said: “If their tsars acted like that in ancient times, one should not be surprised because of their dirty acts everywhere they and their bishops are”.

 

            In the ideological field of the Eastern Mediterranean region a crisis was maturing starting from the IV century, i.e. from the times of Constantine's reign. That generous field was empty. It was waiting for a plowman and young crops. Those people that accepted Monotheism and were objecting to Greek Christianity called it “second-rate religion for the masses”… Something new was to appear there.

            And the Greeks were continuously making their pressure stronger. In 391 they burnt the Alexandrian Library with priceless antique manuscripts but they failed to beat the opponents down. They failed to prove their domination over the Egyptians, which was skillfully used by the Coptic Church; its intelligence and spirituality were stronger than those of Byzantium. That step is the first step to Islam – to the religion of freedom.

 

            ● It is indicative that the library was burnt on the initiative of a secret rival of John Chrysostom – the Patriarch Theophilus.

 

            Egyptians could manage to get back their own for military defeats only in theological disputes; they had no other weapons. They had only their minds conquering nations and giving the keys to the world. And the Copts proceeded to loosening the ship of Christianity which was floating stumblingly. A tight tangle of political passions was tied up with its knots corresponding to painful points of Eurasia. 

            One point was in Christianity – Rome versus Constantinople. The second was close to Christianity – Constantinople versus Arian Alexandria.  Epicenters of future convulsions were maturing there. And everywhere it was to the disfavor of the Greeks; their positions seemed assailable. If Rome and Alexandria had managed to unite their intellectual efforts Byzantium would have lost its greatness by the V century. It would have been wiped off the face of the earth.

            But the trouble did not bring them together; politicians were too busy with themselves and their goals.

            Strong forces were marshaled and they were acting separately. Because they were fighting not for purity of belief but for up-to-the-minute goals – for the right to arrogate the monopoly for the Divine Truth. Later Catholics and Moslems will unite to fight against Byzantium; it will take centuries for them to maturate for such an alliance. And then, in the IV century, having tasted the gifts of the Great Nations Migration, three regions of the former Roman Empire were dreaming of possessing the Turkic spiritual tradition so as to subdue others by force. They wanted to command, for which they needed Christianity. Politicians regarded it only as a means of power.

            To be the leader is the peculiar feature of the West; people there loved to determine fates of others.

            Desht-I-Kipchak did not take part in those events because the one to whom levy is paid is the master who does not claim for the office of a salesman in his own shop. However, its presence in geopolitics was felt in everything: it was the reason of the changes that began in the world. The moving of part of the Turki to Rome, Byzantium and the Near East could not have no impact on the events. After all, people were leaving: young, strong, alert with hope and goal –seeking and together with them experience and knowledge were leaving to be used in foreign lands – the enemy was hammering the arms against the Turki using their own metal… That was the grievous reality of the medieval epoch; it was being established slowly. But surely.

            From the IV century the Great Nations Migration was to the detriment of Altai.

            Byzantium was bothered because of consolidation of the Catholic Rome. And easily in the V century the philosopher Sinesius, the would-be bishop of Ptolemiada, presented the Emperor a report called “Oratio de regno” (“Speech of Reign”) where he described horrors for the country “which army consists of barbarians in full”. He suggested an idea of the national militia and attraction of troops of all the Byzantine nations into it. That was the beginning of the Christian revival. And also that was the beginning of an attack on “barbarians” with their unchristian religion.

 

            ● “Speech of Reign” is sometimes called “About the Imperial Power”. In that document Sinesius wrote: “In the first instance foreigners should be removed from all the superior positions and deprived of senatorial titles since the things which in ancient times had been honorable for the Romans are now a shame because of then… The emperor should take them away from the army – like a heap of whet from which we separate chaff and everything that does harm to good seeds when they are growing”.

 

            A blow on the reputation of the “Greek” Turki was being prepared on the quiet.

            The Emperor Arcadius accepted the idea of the Church but he understood it in a different way: he organized the “slaughter of barbarians”, as they called that event that roused Byzantium. It took place in Constantinople and in its scenario it repeated what had taken place in Rome more than once. More simply, the Greeks were making the Turki fight with each other as they could and later they executed dozens and hundreds of them for breaching the law.

            The answer was a revolt – blind and frantic; the attempt of the revolution failed – the revolted could not conquer Constantinople in July, 400. Civil convulsions in colonies began. “One of the Arian churches where gathered barbarians with their families in search for a shelter was burnt by amok citizens together with all the people inside it”, - wrote an eyewitness of those events.

            Much blood was shed at that time, which entailed practically nothing. The religion was not established!

            As against the Catholics, the Greeks were searching for exasperation in society. In actions of the Hellenes there was no Roman gentleness and diplomacy. It was important for them to accuse “barbarians” of Arianism in order to supplement ethnic hatred – that had been existed in Byzantium from the first day of arrival of the Turki there – with religious aversion.  

            The enemies of Monotheism were gathering together under the flags of the Greek Christianity; they were not hiding. The confrontation was growing. They needed just a spark. And it flashed in 428. Nestorius from Germanicia became the archbishop of Constantinople – he was not a person of Greek roots. His unusual oratorical skill introduced itself to notice all at once – that person, a newcomer in Constantinople, promised the Emperor the keys to Heavens. And not only that. “Make me the master of the heretics, - he declared, - and I will make you the master of the Persians”. But whom he meant by “heretics” nobody knew.

 

            ● Nestorius's promise conceals another page of the secret history of Christianity. Those called “Nestorians” appeared earlier than Nestorius and even Christ. Those were the Hanifs, i.e. first keepers of Monotheism in the Middle East. Their history began from Persia of Achemenids and was progressing in Syria and later in Byzantium.

            It is indicative that adherents of Monotheism were not persecuted by Iranian rulers up to 342 – until Byzantium starter to interfere in internal affairs of Iran and Armenia. The behavior of the Greeks was awkward and rough. The dynasty of Arshakids suffered because of them; Armenia collapsed and its lands became part of Iran under the name of Persarmenia.

            Longstanding wars with Iran were exhausting Byzantium to the same extent as religious dissension with Rome or Alexandria. Is it necessary to explain how glad the Emperor was when Nestorius promised him power over the Persians. It seems the Emperor counted on that suggesting Nestorius who was not a Christian to the position of the head of the Christian Church. He knew that adherents of Monotheism constituted a majority in the Iranian area, and Nestorius, the native of that area, could have possibly delivered his promises.

            As we can see politics was top of priorities here too. That was not suitable for Iranian “Nestorians” – in 499 they held their council and finally broke off with the Greeks, although they retained the name of Christians. Why? Nobody can explain that.

 

            Nestorius knew what the Greeks wanted to hear from him but he did not start a civil war; he was striving for peace. That was patched-up peace but it made no difference. He wanted to make people interested in disputes in which he was skilful; he appealed to change swords for words. And to use the words whilst fighting. But theological paths turned out to be too slippery and narrow. The Christians had neither a generally accepted philosophy nor a teaching; discords were felt even in well-known texts. The Christians did not understand each other, which was revealed during those disputes.

            For example, what was Christ's mother to be called? Was she to be called Christ's mother or God's mother?

            From the point of view of the Christians that was an important question. There could not have been the mother of God “since Mary was a human being and God could not have been born by a human being”. And who was that? Nestorius avoided certainty in his answers using arguments that hardly made him evade heresy but agitated the heated crowd. Many things were forgiven to him in hope to obtain numerous allies – the Turki living in Iran.

            But something was born in contradictions; at least the Greeks were thinking of their own theory of religion. In their actions a new step was being designed; but again they counted on a losing card… But who knows? The Egyptians famous for backstage dimplomacy could have given them a nudge for that step.

            In a word, in 431 on the initiative of the Byzantine Emperor the Church Council of Ephesus was convened in order to accept the postulates of Christianity, i.e. its confessional base – the source of the highest truth. However it turned out that they were going to discuss not the theory but what – Greek or Egyptian – the belief was to be? That question was hidden by politicians behind theological verbiage.

            At the Council Rome was playing a part of the “third rejoicing”; any outcome was advantageous for it. It did not temper with anything; in silence it was watching politicians in robes fighting for power in the Mediterranean region. The Pope understood that Byzantium was claiming its rights for the heritage of the Roman Empire. The Catholics did not impede; the Western Europe to which nobody laid claim except for them was enough.

            However the division of the Mediterranean region was understood by each confronting party in its own way. Egyptians wanted to win theological debates so as, having become the religious leader, to colonize Byzantium. “Everything is according to the will of Heavens”, - they used to say… Their rivals had an opposite viewpoint. The dispute was growing warm; the parties poured oil on flames long before the Council.

            The reason for the dispute was found in words of the archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, who suggested calling the mother of God - Christ's mother. There was common sense in his suggestion. He, Nestorius, being a believer, was a man from the East; he was searching for the way to God accomplishing a feat of humility. His trouble consisted in another thing: he was kept on a leash of temporal power which controlled the Greek Church. It was the first to betray the Patriarch seeing weakness of his position at the Council.  

            Powers that be were not really interested in theology; it was important for them to raise their Church and Byzantium together with it. How? It did not matter.

            The town of Ephesus was chosen for the Council by Theodosius II, the grandson of Theodosius the Great – another Turki devoted to Christianity. The town was connected with the mother of God – with the years of her earthly life. Why? Nobody can answer; the Hellenes were fond of miracles – they invented and believed by themselves. It seems they wanted to be chosen by God – to become the nation with which the mother of God spent her last years. That is why it was important for them to hold the Council in Ephesus and nowhere else – they wanted to celebrate victory there.

            Egyptian bishops had a different position – they knew the traditions of the Altaic belief and of the worship of Umai; thus they wanted to bring her image into Christianity presenting her as the mother of God, which to a great extent was a copy of innovations of the Emperor Constantine. In the pantheon of Christianity, in their opinion, Umai was to be the second after God the Father. Not Christ but she – the Mother. That was an original idea but how were they to present it to the rest?

            The idea of Trinity was being born…

            In Altaic culture Umai is the feminine; she was not a goddess or Tengri's wife. Through Umai Tengri showed his divine mercy: he sent people harvests, wellbeing and prosperity. That is why the Turki depicted her with a child in her hands, i.e. with a gift of Heavenly God. Over a child a nimbus was shining with His sign – an equilateral cross. Images of Umai were often found by archeologists on Altaic monuments. Legends have been told about her from of old. That is an important part of the Turkic culture.

 

            ● In the divine pantheon of Altai Tengri is One God and there are also other representations of him: Ulgen, Erlic, Umai, etc. Not gods but incarnations or, more precisely, hypostases of One Heavenly God. The world, including the Earth with all its inhabitants, is His “part”.

            There are 99 images of Tengri each of which has the name – Khodai, Alla, God, Gospodi (from the Turkic Gozbodi – “recovery of sight”) and others. There is the hundredth name, but the chosen are the only ones who know it… The idea of “God” is an eastern philosophy; it has been evolving for two and a half thousand years – libraries are dedicated to it.

 

            The image of the Turkic relic was very suitable for the dispute “mother of God – mother of Christ” and, according to Egyptians, it was the secret core of the starting Council. It seemed they were discussing meaninglessness, being aware of eternity of God, but they were debating about Christ and his place in religion. Because if Umai was to be introduced into the Christian pantheon, the son was to be removed to the third place and Byzantine ideology was to loose everything. Its shake conception of “God – man” was to collapse and be replaced.

            Egyptians were well prepared starting the theological dispute which was later called “Nestorianic”… By the way, it has not been settled yet; to tell the truth in literature this important theological dialogue was simplified to a great extent the same as the discussion of “Arianism”. The “Greek” viewpoint is dominating. The Turkic element of the dispute has been removed.

            And will somebody be in the right in a dispute in which the Truth is not being born? In a dispute with yourself?

            Egyptians were taken to Ephesus by the Alexandrian bishop Cyril. “One should not try to show wisdom but believe”, - he used to say. The Roman bishop who wanted to weaken Constantinople took his side since he understood that the revision of the church teaching was the revision of politics. “Power belongs to those to whom belongs God”, - was heard in Ephesus and echoed after each speech.

            But there were no spiritual disputes; deep knowledge of Cyril was estimated all at once. His passionate speech made the Byzantium clergy confused. For the orator two phrases were enough to overwhelm Nestorius whose impetuosity turned out to be a shot in the eye. At first Cyril called it frivolity “to say that the one who stays with the Father for the centuries is to be born to begin the existence”. And after that he added that the act of natures connection was to be presented “not like at first a man was born by a Virgin having been joined by flesh in the womb and after that the Word appeared but as follows: the Word having been joined by flesh in the womb accepted flesh with which it was born”… Nobody had anything to object. Everybody kept silence in surprise hearing that.

            As a matter of fact he was speaking of the same things as his opponent Nestorius; the difference was in imperceptible hints and complicated terminology. Thus the Christian philosophy was being born – words covered by complicated patterns were peculiar for it at that time.

            One cannot search for the meaning here. The main thing is not to object… “but just to believe”.

            The controversial question was settled at the Council the very same day: nobody made a speech better than Cyril. Conceited bishops went to repose themselves and to understand and give meaning to the last phrase of the Council which was even more complicated: two natures – divine and human – are connected in Christ inseparably but independently of each other. How could that be?

            If two natures are connected in the third one it means the third nature consists of two ones. Or not? The word “connection” means two components… And besides, a birth is the origin! Or that is wrong too? Many questions were asked at the Council. For example nobody knew what to do with the Birth of Christ – Christmas? A great Christian feast that was celebrated on January 6^th?

            Only losing to Egyptians the Greeks started feeling bad. Their religion was in question, i.e. their politics, and thus they had no time for making pretty speeches. Everybody showed true colors. An altercation began. Mutual offences turned into an open fight; soldiers had to be involved – they were pulling fighting bishops apart as though they were street lads. 

            Troubles moved to Constantinople; the fire of the rebellion appeared in the Arian garrison of the capital. And at that time Theodosius decided to be done with the source of distemper. “Even if Nestorius is right, - he declared. – He was the one who stirred up the people which cannot be calmed down. At wise court there should not be a man who created peoples mood dangerous for the throne”. The Byzantine clergy that was secretly annoyed with the fact that an educated foreigner appeared among them enthusiastically approved of the Emperor's decision.

            Nestorius, a man of honor, was forced to deny his patriarchate and after his voluntary denial he was sent into a monastery and later exiled; he died not being able to survive humiliation, hunger and physical torments he suffered due to the Greeks. “God chastened the Patriarch”, the Byzantines used to say. But was that a punishment?

            Christian postulates were being established by blood. Documents contain no witnesses of a fraternal agreement described by western historians. Certain “pious” truths appeared and disappeared on cold lips of politicians. Decisions of Oecumenical Councils should be called political and up-to-the-minute. They were not for the future.

            …Egyptians won the spiritual dispute but they did not obtain the Mediterranean region. And, moreover, there was no place in Christianity for them. Knowing the taste of victory they started to prepare a new fight in order to exploit “theological” success. It seems Derbent allowed them to grasp the idea of the Trinity, of three faces of Heavenly God. This new knowledge strengthened the positions of the Egyptians.

            “One in three faces”, - the Turki used to say about Tengri meaning absolutely different things as compared with modern Christians. In Altai they knew three states of Him: contemplating God, protecting God and chastening God. One in three faces – that is right. Because there is one Sky over each and every human being – God is really one and the same for everyone, for every person He is different. That is why he bestows people according to different measures but he gives exactly what one deserves. People behave in different ways.

            Egyptians, simplifying the depth of the philosophical image, decided to introduce the Trinity into Christianity in order to continue the dispute about the nature of Christ. In 449 they convened a new Council of Ephesus which has become history as “Predatory” Council, but it failed. There was no elegance of thought. Accusations of being heretics sounded roughly and were just a cause to remove the Byzantium chief priest Flavian. Demanding to condemn him, Egyptians had no reliable accusations and seeing that their words meant nothing they turned to the temporality for help. The crowed forced an entry into the hall and started to remedy the “condition”. For alleged humiliation of Christ the Patriarch of Alexandria, under the shelter of the temporality, “bombarded his colleague from Constantinople with abuse, gave him slaps, beat him with his fists and trampled him”. 

 

            ● “It is known for certain, - writes Gibbon, that on the third day his victim drew its last breath because of wounds and beating that had happened in Ephesus”.

 

            New “discussion” showed not only hot temper of the bishops.

            Church servants did not notice when they became marionettes of the politicians. How can one explain that the “clergymen” signed a blank sheet of papyrus where another postulate of the Christian belief was to appear? Those objecting were beaten again. And finally the decision of the Second Council of Ephesus suitable for Egyptians appeared. To tell the truth, it was abolished quickly: the Emperor joined the theological dispute; he dotted the i's in the dialogue of theologians. But that is another story.

            At Oecumenical Councils politicians were always solving their tasks; they had no other goals. After all, that is what they had to do.

            … Only in 451 the Christians accepted the Trinity but not the one the Turki had had and not the one that has become theirs later. At first there were only two elements, on which Byzantium insisted; that happened at the Council of Chalcedon where they put an end to “Christological disputes”. Constantinople understood: the Christians of Egypt, Syria and Palestine argued not about Christ but about freedom from Christ. Their disputes led to decay of the Byzantine Empire since church dissent is always hidden separatism. Theological disputes were the policy of the colonized Near East, which allowed the Emperor Marcianus to close the Council: “No one, regardless of their titles and positions, is no longer entitled to start public disputes concerning belief”.

            The weakness of his spirit could be heard in the strength of his voice… But they obeyed him without complaint. And they began “just to believe”.

            Thus the confrontation between Constantinople and Alexandria ceased; nobody except for Rome set about theological searching in the theory of Christianity, however the Catholics did not flaunt their searching; they were quietly creating their Church. It was suitable for them that Egypt had left the political scene. They knew that on the banks of Nile and Euphrates a new religion – Islam – was being discussed; that religion was to substitute the Greek Christianity.

            Mohammed had not been born yet, but the idea he was to bear was being born…

            After the Council of Chalcedon theological disputes had gone for good; the Church was deriving the whole history of Europe from “Greek roots” the same as the whole history of religion, perhaps each and every word and each and every ceremony. Christianity became the truth, the symbol of infallibility… At least in their own eyes.

            However there remained some matters being out of sight of the Christians; they are beyond the scope of religion. For instance, what language was spoken at the church councils? And is that by chance that perhaps all the known early documents of the Church were written in the ancient Greek language? They, those documents, could not have existed in reality, even theoretically, since nobody knew that language. They did not use it!

            The Greeks knew Latin – the language of the Roman Empire; it was the native language for them for at least five of six centuries. Constantine and the whole official Constantinople spoke Latin. Thus it was till the VI century. However, there is an opinion that early documents of Christianity had been written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. But here we have nothing to agree with too. That is a superficial statement.

 

            ● E. Gibbon mentioned on this point: “Regardless of praises caused by eloquence and sagacity of Constantine, it is hard to believe that the Roman general whose religion gave rise to doubts” was enlightened by education or inspiration. He “was not able to discuss the metaphysical question or a religious dogma in the Greek language (bold provided – M.A.)”. The personality of Constantine, his origin and upbringing require serious attention. And the first question that arises is whether he was an educated person at all. After all, he was a child of sin of a woman from a tavern…

           

            Nobody has ever seen hypothetic Aramaic texts. That is another myth that has been living for centuries. But science knows another thing for certain: at that time the Greek language was spoken in two or three towns of the Mediterranean region. And nowhere else. And even more – that was a certain dialect in which, it is very likely, the number of Egyptians words exceeded the number of Greek ones.

            The means of communication, i.e. the language of the early Christians, is an important question primarily not for religion but for comprehension of culture of that time. Indeed, how did the Egyptians understand the Greeks and the Syrians understand the Romans? “Alexandrian dialect of the Greek language” that was allegedly spoken did not have much in common with the Greek language. And the language of the “New Testament” differed even from the “Alexandrian dialect”… But what language did they speak?!    

 

            ● That is also witnessed by manuscripts from Nag Hammadi. That is why the contents of books from the library of the IV century remains unclear. Not knowing the Turkic language that dominated in the “Indian communities” of Egypt they are not likely to be read accurately.

 

            If the Greeks did not know the Greek language, how were the bishops arguing?

            There are answers but they are hidden like mines in the fields during a war. The “miners” themselves, i.e. the Christians that were perplexing history in order to conceal the Turkic origin of their religion tripped those mines. And from other sources it is known that in the V century, i.e. during the Council of Chalcedon, in Byzantium official Latin was being replaced by the “Graeco–Barbarian” language (the name has been used since the VI century). The initiative belonged to the Emperor Justinian.

            The replacement of the “Greek Latin” with the Graeco-Barbarian language was difficult, which was described by E. Gibbon in his famous work… Should it be explained who was meant under “barbarians”?

 

            ● As Gibbon wrote, the Emperor Justinian executed “his Institutes, his Code and his Digest in the language he regarded as the common and public language of the Roman government used in Constantinople, in the Senate, in eastern camps and in courts”. But, paying a tribute to traditions, “in the interests of his nationals Justinian issued his Novellae in two languages” (“Graeco-Barbarian” language and Latin). That “quiet upheaval” was over by the middle of the VIII century.

            It is also indicative that Justinian “belonged to an ignoble barbarian family that lived in a wild and uncultivated country which was at first called Dardania, later – Dacia and finally it was given the name of Bulgaria”. That great person of the early Middle Ages remains “one of the mysterious figures of the history of Byzantium”. Late in the Middle Ages when the Turkic past of Bulgaria was crossed out from its history there appeared a legend about alleged Slavic origin of Justinian…

            By the way, Justinian was made the Emperor by his uncle who had left the village earlier, courageously struggled in the Empire and became the Emperor Justin. It is also known that his mother had a Turkic name – Bilgena, which literary meant “wise mother”, and his father's name was Suvata – “source”, “father of water”. Comment is needless here.

 

            In the Middle Ages in the Greek language there were thousands of Turkic words; they were called “foreign”. “From the time, - writes Gibbon, - barbarians appeared in the Empire and in the capital, they, of course, distorted both the exterior shape and the interior substance of the national language; they had to put together a big encyclopedia so as to explain a great many words…”. That is how, it turns out, the classic Greek language was developing; the language which children of nobility were later taught in Russia. That was not the language of Homer.

            There was the lexical assimilation of foreign words or, more simply, Turkic words were openly being distorted in order to give speech the “Greek” sounding. Those alleged foreign words were called Turkish, French, ancient German or Protobulgarian. People did so not being aware that all those “foreign” words had one Altaic root; it was being changed in different countries considering speech habits of the local population where the same “lexical assimilation” was happening. As a matter of fact dialects of the Turkic language were being created in Europe, those dialects being less and less like the original… But that is the confluence of cultures.

            The same absurdity took place in Russia where in 1589 they changed the Turkic language into Russian or, more precisely, into Slavic for the divine services. For the Moscow Church they put together a “Church Slavic Dictionary” basing on the Protobulgarian language in which perhaps each word had a Turkic root and all the rest were sort of “lexically addimilated”… Slavic (Russian) dialect of the Turkic language appeared – that was its name – “the Slavic dialect” – it is to be discussed hereafter.

            And now let us return to the question: what language was spoken at the Nicene Council, Council of Ephesus and other church councils? How did the bishops understand one another? It is hard to agree that Egyptians, Syrians, Armenians, Greeks, Latins, Turki learnt the ancient Greek language which was known to nobody in the world. But they disputed, swore and accused each other?

            How?

            Latin is not in question. It was not used; that “poor and inflexible natural language is not able to give equivalent expression” as compared with sacred words defining “the secrets of the Christian belief”. The Church withdrew Latin from use calling it “pagan” in the times of Constantine.

            It withdrew it early in the IV century replacing it with the new “language of divine service”, which was mentioned in the history of the Church. It turns out the Christians had the language of communication but they stopped to remember it. But concealment is not a denial. It is known for certain that by the VIII century certain local Churches of the Near East started to use local languages instead of the “divine language” for divine services. Albanian, Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic were sanctified; this historical fact is also reflected in the Christian encyclopedia… Why did that necessity arise?

            It is explained by the fact that the clergy decided: “both in the West and in the East they use an obsolete language for divine services – the language unknown to most believers” and thus they started to change it… An explanation suitable for an infant.

            What was the reason to change the language of belief in a number of Eastern countries? And all at once? And why did not the innovation touch, for instance, the Catholic Church, where the “obsolete language” was still respected and clear to everyone? And, by the way, the Greeks themselves used it too.

            The most important thing is neglected here. Islam came to the Near East – it was expanding its boundaries at the expense of the Christian world. The language of that religion was not Arabic, as it is common to think now, but the same as the Christians had – the language of Monotheism. The Islamic world was living with it till appearance of a scientific work by Abu Mansur ibn al-Azhar al-Azhari (891 - 981). His “Book of Corrections” was the beginning of the Arabic language, i.e. the language of Islam.

            Koran had already existed. It was almost three hundred years old! That is a reliable fact.

            The ancient Koran was written with Cufic writing since Arabic written language had not existed in the times of the Prophet. Scientists connect Cufic writings with the written language of Arshakids that glorified the Middle East and Turkic culture established there. As a matter of fact that was the cursive writings of Altai but performed according to the traditions of the Iranian calligraphy.

            Should one be surprised that East and West were reading prayers in the same language – in Turkic? In the language of Monotheism. At that time that was the only language in which they turned to Heavenly God… Here it is, the most important detail that is being neglected now. The encyclopedia mentioned it describing the abolishment of the “obsolete language” of divine services but not specifying what language was in question.

            The Christians abandoned the Turkic language easily as against the Moslems who had difficulty renouncing the language of Allah. The reason was the takeover and the rise to power of Abbasid dynasty, secretly controlled by the Manicheans, in Caliphate. That corrupt power in the face of the caliph Osman (he forced back the Imam Ali!) was accused of destroying the old Korans more than once. Much noise was about the burning of the roll of Koran – muskhaf – belonging to a former slave Abdallah ibn Masud; the misdeed happened in 1007 when civil commotion broke out in Kerbala and moved to other regions of Caliphate…

 

            Islam as a religion appeared in Arabia not without assistance of scientists of the School of Alexandria and “Nestorians”, which is witnessed by Archeology. So-called “Yemenite inscriptions” of the IV century contain prayers and gratitude to Heavenly God, “the lord of the Sky”. At that time the culture that had come with the Great Nations Migration was proving itself there.

            In the Country of Monotheism the way for a new religion was being paved carefully and for a long time.

            The words of Allah that were made the basis of the new belief were disclosed to the world by Mohammed in the VII century; they are set forth in Koran, which is known to every educated person. However not every Moslem, let alone all the rest, knows that appearance of “the right belief” was preceded by the struggle of ideas which had been happening from the first day of coming of Monotheism to the western world. And it reached its climax during the Byzantine colonization of the East.

            Today it is not customary to say so, but early Islam was different. It was different primarily in its ceremonies since in many things it repeated the eastern Christianity. They both followed the Altaic traditions; Monotheism made them related. Services, prayers were the same – only details were different. For instance the Christians of Caliphate (in order to be noticed in the street) were obliged to sew a yellow triangle on their clothes and ride a horse as women did it – sitting sideward; that was the caliph's order.

            Later there appeared special clothes for the Moslems and became the mark of distinction in Caliphate… Clothes are another page of the history of Islam in Caliphate.

            It seems there are many similar examples in the medieval history if one does not forget that the Catholics and Moslems had been the soldiers of one army for centuries: together they confronted Byzantium. Their alliance had the symbol – an equilateral cross; it decorated the flags, walls of mosques and temples, pages of the Bible and Koran. At least in 1024 Moslems celebrated the feast of the Holy Cross; the national celebration was opened by the caliph himself. And early Moslems also had icons… In a word, many things in Islam and its surrounding was not the same as today.

            It could not have been otherwise. Because in 615 Mohammed sent his people to Abyssinia – to the Abyssinian Church; he turned to the Christians of the North Africa calling them coreligionists. The Prophet asked the Abyssinians and Copts to “help the faithful become pious” and take certain cares of the Moslems on his shoulders. And those cares were connected with the written language, as it is written in Hadithes where the role of a Coptic writer was emphasized… Secular scientists are perfectly aware of that period of history; they know that in establishment of the culture called “Arabic” different nations were taking part, primarily those were the Turki dominating not only in the Near East – directly or indirectly they participated in all the important events of the medieval world.

            There is a fair question: why do we know that little of the early Islam? Who wanted this knowledge to disappear and the role of the Turki in the history of the East to be concealed?

            The answer is: politics. Political interests made the Moslems that had been colonized by the West for centuries rewrite their whole history in the XIX century to make it what it is now… The way that was happening is described by the outstanding Danish researcher of the East Dietlef Nilsson. It turns out, Manicheans and Europeans deliberately implemented the thought of depravity of their ancestors into consciousness of the Arabs. Hence is a weird term – “jahiliya”, i.e. “something that is to be forgotten”. Or not know as paganism.

            Those were Abbasids who made first attempts to efface the memory of the Moslems of their Islamic past. If it had not been for western colonizers they would have never succeeded – early Moslems respected their ancestors and praised their heroic deeds, which is witnessed by literature and ancient epos. Even in Koran, in the 105^th sura called “Elephant”, one can read about what the infidels do with peoples memory. They leave it like “a field with eaten seeds”. 

            It is striking that the legend about jahiliya was used with a mercenary motive by Europeans so as to dig archeological values out and take them away from Altai. Thus famous collections of westerns museums were being supplemented… Was it by chance that the English archeologist O. Layard in the XIX century invented a series of legends and tales for forgetful and narrow-minded Arabs in order to get two figures – a winged bull and a winged lion – two most precious relics of the past. The symbols of the crown. Captures of “idols” always turned into a national holiday…  As we can see, the change of the language leads to the change of consciousness and memory with the lapse of time…

            As early as in the VIII century under the Abbasids, in order to divide two religions, Christians of the Near East, who were sick and tired of riding a horse like women did, changed the language of divine services calling Turkic an “obsolete language”. They started to use local languages that were sanctified altogether in the VIII century.

            That was a political decision that had nothing to do with belief.

            First changes were approved at the Council in Trullo in 691; they started a long-term affair there – aberration from Heavenly God. They decided to alter the attributes and ceremonies. Aniconism which was the peculiarity of the zenith of the Middle Ages, is perhaps the most important stage of those changes.

            … In order to become stronger Moslems chose a different – long and thorny – way; they started to create the language of Islam supplementing the Turkic language with words and phrases of nomadic Bedouins from Mohammed's motherland. As a matter of fact that was the peculiarity of the work by al-Halil written late in the VIII century under order of Abbasids and later of the book by ibn Duraya (837 – 933). These and other works are known to scientists – Arabists because the Arabic language began from them. Only in the X century those attempts became successful to an extent. 

            And the Turkic language turned into an obsolete language both for Christians and Moslems. Politicians of East and West simply denied it as they did not need it.

 

            ● Those that knew the language were physically destroyed. And that was no news. In Khoresm, for instance, even before that the military leader of Caliphate, Kuteiba ibn Muslim al-Bahili, after the town was conquered in 712 ordered to kill the people that knew the Khoresmian written language (version of the ancient Turkic written language). At the same time they destroyed those that “knew their legends and taught sciences”. He also “killed Khoresmian writers and clergymen and burnt their books and rolls; Khoresm inhabitants remained illiterate and relied on their memory in what they needed”, - writes Abu Reihan Biruni. This is the way they were “fighting” for domination of Cufic writing.

 

            Much is known about the language of Altai. In the West it had been being established since the IV century with the “new Christians”. That is seen from runic monuments. It was studied by those who wanted to grasp the sacrament of belief in God. They read prayers in it; it was called “divine” the same as in the Northern India, Iran, Near East, North Africa and even Byzantium.

            That was the language of the Great Nations Migration! In whatever light we view it.

            At any rate, the prayer glorifying Heavenly God the Europeans were reading in Turkic from 312 because nobody except for the Turki had known that prayer. Here it is, “barbarian magnificence” in its entirety… Their service books written in the “obsolete language” have not disappeared. Some of them are kept, for instance in the archives of Armenia, in Hermitage, in museums and church libraries as relics of the Christian belief. Its forgotten relics?

            The dispute about the language is still of consequence. A Turcologist simply needs to read them. And that is all.

            The same happened with Moslem books. Ancient Korans remained, but the Arabists cannot read them. Words are clear but not the text sent by the Most High… Terrifying symbolics, is it not? It turns out modern Koran is not what was given by Allah?! Is it?.. Here they are, the fruits of colonialism.

            … Let us remind again: the early Middle Ages on the continent was the time of Altai. The first calendar in the world appeared; in it time was counted from the “new Christians”, from 301. Byzantium and Italy, Egypt and Ethiopia used to live according to that calendar. That event meant coming and establishing of the Turkic culture in the West; the core of that culture was religion… As we can see, everything is clear not only with examples of the runic written language which appeared in Europe in the IV century, but also in the story about the calendar.

            Everything has a logical explanation.

 

            ● Copts and Abyssinians retained such calendar till the XVII century, i.e. till their colonization by the Europeans. Certain historians connect the beginning of the new era – “the era of martyrs” – with the date of the Emperor Diocletian's accession to the throne in 284. But since “the liberal spirit of religious tolerance” had been peculiar to the reign of that great monarch during 18 years, undetermined “era of martyrs” should be counted in a strange way. The year 301, what date is it? That is the date of making an alliance between the Turki and Armenians. Which resulted in creation of the Armenian Church on the Turkic model. That means the beginning of the new era in the history of humankind when religion changed paganism. That is what that event inaugurated!

 

            And perhaps the most interesting thing is that that Christian calendar is the copy of the Altaic one; the only difference was that the Turki counted it not from the first Christians but from the day of creation of the world. Their calendar is still used by the Russian Church with its “late” feasts, which makes Europeans perplexed. The similarity is full – twelve months, division for weeks (according to the cycles of the Moon), twelve-year cycles with animals and plants symbolizing each year. Particular worship of a thirty-three-year period when, according to an Altaic legend, time sort of begins anew: stars of the Solar System complete the cycle of motion around the Sun and the Universe returns in its initial position. 

 

            ● In this case material proofs are more convincing than words: we are referring to cajraks found by archeologists in the territory of modern Kirghizia, Kazakhstan, Altai. Cajraks are flat “pebbles” with equilateral crosses and epitaphs traditional for the Turki. Inscriptions on cajraks contain dates according to the Turkic calendar animal cycle, names of the departed and their parents.

            Among the epitaphs there are texts addressed to the Armenians and Syrians. This witnesses of presence of Armenian and Syrian clergy – “Nestorians” – there. Late in the Middle Ages, before Russian colonizers came, Altai remained the spiritual center where preachers of many nations of East and West aspired to find their way in search of wisdom.

            According to a legend death is “easy” in Altai because Altai remained Eden, or Heaven of the Earth, in the consciousness of believers.

 

            The Julian calendar introduced in the Roman Empire, i.e. before the Turki, had a different structure: in it there are ten months and four-year cycles according to which Olympic Games were held. That is a different means of time marking.

            The Christians chose the best – the Turkic – way. But in the new calendar they used the names of old “Roman” months… which can make one smile. The twelfth, i.e. the last month of a year was called “December” – “tenth” (december or decem means “ten” in latin). November from novem – “ninth”, October from octo – “eighth”, September from septem – “seventh”.  

            A strange count, is it not? When the eleventh is called the ninth.

            But that is what happened in Christianity where the new and the old were close to each other. Failures to comply with common sense are sometimes clear, but one had never been analyzing them. It is possible they occurred due to ignorance, which again proves that History can be distorted but it cannot be remade. The past always appears where it is not expected.

            … In 448 the Greek Turki were planning attempt upon the life of Attila; they sent a killer with an embassy of a noble grandee Maximin. That was an open challenge. But Attila became aware of the prepared attempt and met the embassy not paying any attention to them: “What you wish is to happen to you”, - said he instead of the greeting not getting off a horse. And… on the same day he forgave the poisoner.

 

            ● A purse with gold for the killer, recognition of the villain were evident. But Attila treated the poisoner with contempt. “He turned his indignation to a more noble culprit”, - writes Gibbon. His ambassadors came to the Byzantine Emperor with the question whether he recognized the purse they showed him. The ambassadors told Attila's words: “Theodosius is the son of a noble and honorable father; Attila is also of a noble origin. But Theodosius humiliated the dignity of his ancestors agreeing to pay levy and relegated himself to a position of a vassal. That is why he should respect the man being higher than him but not conspire against his ruler like a contemptible slave”.

            And that was it. That was the Turkic character. His humiliating words could have killed any khan, but for a European they were just concussion of the air. Another culture! Another meaning of words…

            See details about Attila in: Adji M. Europa's Asia.

 

            What was that, bravado or the sign of Destiny? According to Turkic traditions he was in the right… And there are thousands of similar examples when children of Altai became easy meat for “new” Europeans. They knew weak and strong points of their congeners; they knew about the tradition to forgive. Hence – from the code of conduct! – is a striking conclusion: Attila and his nation were either to perish or to be born again; the new culture was not for them. They were strangers to it. They had another morals and rules of life – they were vulnerable: they would never lie, hide and shoot in the back.

            Christianity united people of different cultures and different characters; Turkic family traditions, on the contrary, divided people and prohibited to accept aliens in their society, which led to confrontation. New Europe was at the back of the pack and they – those who started the Great Nations Migration, gave the leadership themselves when they allowed the Greeks to press Monotheism letting their people leave for foreign countries and taking money for them as though they were slaves.

            Attila and his predecessors were strong only in the battlefield. In life they were different.

            Yes, they could fight for their own hand, they could retort but they were not able to change the situation even gaining victory over everybody. The Turki with their magnanimity were doomed – they themselves were only ones who estimated their honesty and decency… Theodosius II who had Turkic blood, of course did not survive “the most shameful event in his life”; soon he fell off horse and died. However, that was Theodosius who started the war between West and East.

            The war of extermination!

            The gathering of the united army of Europe in the Cataluan Fields against Attila was logical; it was the result of politics of those times. Barbarians themselves were incurring trouble by their behavior. They were too peaceful and straightforward. Their nobility was their weakness!

            And Byzantines, it should be mentioned, were skillful in exacerbating tensions. They felt themselves the masters of the West; the victory at the Council of Chalcedon turned their heads. Because “those to whom God belonged had power”… But that was not the most terrifying thing. “The white belief” of the Turki lost its leadership; Christianity declared the barbarians castaways of Europe. That is what the beginning of their end was. When they started to fight against each other.

            From the middle of the V century Byzantium stopped paying levy and did not regard Desht-I-Kipchak as their master; they were too busy with “creativity” there: they were inventing the saints and strengthening positions of their religion. That was the Byzantine contribution. The pagan God of winemaking, Dionysus, was made a Christian Saint Dionysius. Demetrius became Saint Demetrius. The Goddess of arts – Minerva- Pallas – Saint Palladia, the pagan sun god – Helios – Saint Elias and so on and so forth. For the idols they were inventing life stories.

            Each innovation led away from Monotheism and turned Christianity into “belief of the second rate for the masses”. Connecting matter and spirit the Geeks got their dualism – something in between paganism and religion; after that they moved on.

            The idea of church leadership made them appropriate Turkic traditions. For instance, in 457 the Emperor Leo I was crowned by the Patriarch, which was new for the West and traditional for the East. Coronation and chrism was called “apishik” by barbarians. That is a ceremony which came together with the Great Nations Migration to the culture of the Northern India and later to the European culture.

 

            ● The ceremony of coronation was used by the Turki from Arian times and was called “abhisheka”. It goes without saying that in Byzantium coronation was introduced by the Turki. Leo I that was crowned had been a butler of a mighty military leader Aspar – a Turki who had absolute power. Aspar could have put a diadem on his head if he had accepted the Nicene Creed and become a Christian. But he believed in Tengri and suggested his butler for the Emperor. 

            Aspar planned to run the Empire through Leo, for which he intended to introduce the ceremony of coronation. In his eyes coronations could legitimize the procedure of delegation of power to a person of humble birth. But everything happened as it was to happen.

            Of course, having gained a foothold, Leo executed Aspar and his sons using the horde of Isabars which he drew nearer to him… Here they are, the fruits of gullibility!

            The V century also gave Christians a cross. The Greeks took the Turkic symbol of the Sky – adji – and depicted a ship (lamb) on it presenting it as the symbol of Christianity. But such self-willed actions gave rise to protests. And remembering the phrase by the apostle Barnabas: “In the character “T” you have a cross” (T-shaped balk on which they executed in the Roman Empire) they fastened the Turkic adji over it. And that was it.

            They had an eight-pointed cross, the sign of Byzantine belief, which expressed the meaning of Christianity – connection of God and Christ… However the sign of the cross remained Turkic: Christians cross themselves with an equilateral cross.

            Catholics did everything in a different way. They lengthened one side of an equilateral cross expressing the meaning of Catholicism – the alliance. That beam pointed to the “road of openness” which led to a cross, i.e. to the sign of God. The Latin cross appeared by the VI century, and after the Council of Trullo of 691 the figure of Christ was “crucified” on it – the legend obtained flesh and a seeable image.

            The division of crosses into Greek and Latin ones foreboded a split. And new geopolitics. Moslems also had adji and the same icons. They remained in Islam until now, nor everywhere, of course. Adherents of the old belief are called Namiriyah; their communities can be found in Turkey, Syria and other regions of the Near East. And that is another proof that religions had the same – Altaic – root.

 

            ● It is indicative that even in the XX century (1932) Vatican was speaking about Mohammed as of the restorer “of the old belief of Patriarchs and Gospels of Jesus Christ”. The theory of Islam allowed asserting that.

 

            … The Turki used to say: “Who cannot bite a stone kisses it”. A reasonable thought. The same as a cross cannot be Greek or Latin… It belongs to Heaven.

           

About Catholicism Again, this time with Latin

 

            Of course ostentatious humility of the Roman Empire served as a front for it; the Roman bishop did feel strong enough to compete head-to-head with the Byzantine Patriarch – he treated the elder with respect. However his humiliation from the first days of appearance of the Roman Church meant nothing. The country was solving secret problems; from the IV century under the will of the Emperor Theodosius I it was getting ready for domination.

            Catholics knew how to get what they wanted in church affairs and in politics; heirs of the great Rome had wide experience of power.

The policy of “humility to the benefit”, of course, was not understood in the same way by everybody – but all the people accepted it. It split the Church and the Roman Senate: some senators were for an alliance with the Byzantine court and obedience to it; others, on the contrary, were for revival of independent Rome. Love of liberty and humility were competing in the Western Empire since it remained a Byzantine colony only in theory and as a matter of fact it remained a dangerous “barbarous” country. The Christian religion was being established there but it did not determine anything.

            Rome hated the Greeks not expressing its feelings. It understood that civil discords in Desht-I-Kipchak will be long – they were to last for centuries. They would weaken Byzantium since they led to a new division of Europe.

            But Constantinople also understood the trends of reality; it knew the main thing – nobody threatened it at that time. But at the same time nobody supported it… Attila's death and alignment of political forces in Europe were for the benefit only of those who were planning to create an empire being not weaker than the Great Roman Empire. And there were two countries of this kind – Byzantium and the future Italy. In both countries generators of ideas were the Turki that had become Europeans.

            Their plans were jeopardized by those who were obstinately unwilling to deny Monotheism, i.e. also the Turki. That was a collision originated by the Great Nations Migration. Troubles that broke out in Syria and Egypt could have moved the wheel of the Christian history in a different way, and, feeling that, the Byzantine Emperor Zeno issued the Edict of Religion in 482. The decree of unity was directed to dealing with religious disputes in the Byzantine Empire and, as usual, prohibited any disputes relating to the dogmas of belief.

            Intending to reconcile the Christians of the West the Emperor hoped to strengthen Byzantium and prohibit the Catholic doctrine with which the Greeks were displeased. Since “those to whom God belonged had power” – that motto expressed the meaning of the edict.

            However it all happened in a different way. The Romans, having seen through game of the Byzantines, made a stand against the Emperor's decree. And what is more, calling the Byzantine Patriarch Acacius an atheist, they excommunicated him. That was like an explosion, like a thunderbolt; Christianity had not seen anything of the kind. That was a stroke in the heart and it was stronger than “fistic” disputes with Egyptians. Byzantium teetered but it held its ground. In return it excommunicated the bishop of Rome and anathematized him, which was, as a matter of fact, what he wanted.

            That split – the schism – was for the benefit of Rome. Any discord gave Catholics a chance to make independent decisions, which was skillfully implemented by the Pope Gelasius I. The Roman by birth, a cunning person for whom there were no obstacles on the way to his goal. That was the person of whom in Altai they used to say: “he would make a cow moo for his benefit”. A man of single purpose. Gelasius proclaimed himself “the Vicar of Christ on the Earth”. No less than that. It seems at that time the name “Pope” has become the name of the bishop of Rome. He became the father of the fold; the head of the Christians of the Western Europe. Following the Catholic doctrine, the Pope suggested an alliance to all the nations that would accept his views on religion and life, which meant they would be in his political orbit.

            Not religious fantasies, as it was in Byzantium, but enlightenment was made by the Pope top of priorities of the church policy: he himself was studying the Turkic theology and adjusting it with conditions of the Christian Europe. That was an outstanding politician, scientist, writer, passionate orator; he intended to create a comely face not only for the Western Church but also for the whole Christianity… He knew that the beauty of a priest was in words.

            Theoretical knowledge allowed Gelasius to write a tractate that became the interlink between Christianity and the religious teaching of the Turki. The conception of the Pope's (who was the pontiff) role in society appeared; it was developed and turned into a postulate. That was another European remaking of Altaic ideas; in other words that was one of the cornerstones in the foundation of the Church.

            The Pope's tractate was based on “The City of God” tractate by Saint Augustine, “the Doctor of the Church” who was enlightening the Romans in the IV century preaching the belief in Heavenly God. That was an encyclopedist, an expert of the “white belief”… In 387 Augustine embraced Christianity due to the bishop Ambrosius, another Turki. The Church history does not conceal that “only gnosis – a rational teaching – was the suitable form of religion for his philosophical mind”. He was the first who understood: Monotheism in Europe would not Remain as it had been in Altai since one could not enter the same river twice. It was impossible to impose a foreign culture and foreign history on nations: new belief was to accept something from local traditions and after that it could become common both for the newcomers and native Europeans. 

           

            ● “Actual conditions under which the great deed was committed (the decision to be baptized. – M.A.) are invested with an air of mystery, - writes I.M. Greve. – In his early works Augustine does not say directly about that. In his late memoirs called “Confessions” it is given a color of miraculous divine intervention… When Augustine was in a state of uncertainty so as what belief to choose, he heard a tender angelic voice singing common words: “Take and read”. Augustine felt God's boding with his heart…

            Of course that is the late interpretation of the events, it was mythologized, in which church historians are sure. But here another thing comes under notice – the order “Read!”. Through that “Read!” other prophets later came to the true belief. For example, Mohammed.

           

            What makes it possible for us to call Augustine's work Turkic? The tractate itself…

            The ancient used to say: “if musk leaks from a bag of musk the smell remains”. That is what happened here. The original Augustine's text was destroyed, the original language is called “unknown” but… “the smell remained”. There is the text itself! It describes the foundations of society of Altai and Desht-I-Kipchak.

            In other words relations between two powers – temporal and spiritual – were described. Other nations were living with another social system, another belief. The Turki were the only ones who had a social system of that kind. That was their peculiarity noticed in ancient times, i.e. before the Europeans, by the Chinese, Indians, Persians… And how did Saint Augustine and the Pope Gelasius know what they had not been able to know? About the peculiarities of life in Altai? And even more – about the details of life there?

            The Turki called their motherland “the City of God”, which was mentioned in works by ancient authors: “Shambala” is their work; it expresses that meaning. One should be thinking seriously here. It is known, after all, that on the blazon of the Altaic state there was a double eagle, which is confirmed by findings of archeologists and cave painting… That very eagle which “flew” to Byzantium and later to Russia.

            But this of course is not the main thing; the contents of the great work by Augustine is the most important! The author steadily explained the thought that over earthly kingdoms “there is a pure kingdom given by God” which unites humankind. And finally it is to enter “everlasting peace of Heavenly kingdom and fully God”.

            But these are the words about Eternal Blue Sky – Tengri! The teaching was set forth in Altai before the Common Era. With it people came to India and Persia. As researchers mark, “the image of one beneficent, omniscient, just Divine Sky” still remains with Turkic nations. That is a fact not in dispute.

            It goes without saying that Augustine heard about Altai, the motherland of his ancestors, since he was the native of “Indian communities” of Egypt or, more precisely, of the Kushan khanate which by the IV century managed to settle from the headwaters of Nile on the banks of the North Africa to the Atlantic… His mother became a Christian accidentally after her husband's tragic death; hence, it seems, is the son's inclination to that religion. Here another untold story is concealed: otherwise how could the native of the town of Tagast of the North Africa become aware of the secrets of Altaic divine services? And preach them in Rome?!

            … As a matter of fact, that teaching was retold by the Pope Gelasius. At that in his retelling he was astonishingly honest, which is witnessed by another source of which the Pope was unaware.

            Christians did not know that the social system of the Turki described in the tractate called “The City of God” interested the Chinese long before the Pope Gelasius. The thought of two branches of power in Altai is set forth in “The Book of the Ruler of Shan Region” where many details are interesting. Altai, it turns out, was notable for strict rules: temporal power there had no rights at spiritual assemblies. The most powerful khan was powerless; he had no right to interfere in affairs of the clergy and he was no more than a listener. He could not open his mouth and utter a word.

            As a matter of fact that was written word-for-word by Saint Augustine when he saw pagan Rome weltered in vice. In his tractate he regarded life as a struggle of the light and the dark, divine and demonic, i.e. like Altaic theologians called “Gnostics” in Europe used to write about it. That was their philosophy which the Buddhists accepted… Discussing violence they asserted: “one should rather believe teachers than rulers”, together with which they recognized the necessity of violence. The Pope Gelasius also appealed for that. Alas, there was nothing new in his words.

            The essence of gold is it does not need words… Having rewritten the sacred books of the Turki, Christians did not destroy their contents which moved to Catholicism together with the Turki. In new sacred books there was experience that had been accumulated in Altai in the course of centuries!

            Those were not just words; they contained the life of the nation which gave the world amazing consequences due to its Great Migration. The rewriting of sacred books was the stage of information transfer; there is nothing reprehensible here – that is the “development” or “assimilation” of cultures. That is what the Jews were doing while writing the Bible; in the Book of Isaiah they paid tribute to Altai, its blacksmiths and their “white belief”.

            Exactly the same was happening in the I century in the Near East and in India when the Turkic spiritual practice was being developed in the northern branch of Buddhism. And the Buddhists understood: Heavenly God is the highest goal of cognition in Altai. He is simple and full being the perfect truth, the ideal of good and beauty, truth and justice. He is the judge. The Turkic nation was living with that belief… Its belief could not disappear together with books. Even with the Turki themselves.

            The Moslems cognizing Koran paid attention to the Hanifs that opened them the true belief and mysteries of Monotheism.

            The idea of God is eternal as God himself. Hence was Eternal Blue Sky of the Turki. The Church forgot about that burying the spiritual heritage of Altai in oblivion. The Christians could not begin their religion with a blank page. That could never have happened!.. Augustine, of course, was the Great Christian writer, the author of two hundred thirty two books. Although common sense suggest that a human being is not able to do it (it is impossible to “publish” eight books a year during thirty years on end). But… was he always the author?!

            It is impossible to invent what had existed before you – the basics of belief. They are being created by generations and polished by centuries. Ceremonies, traditions, philosophy, wisdom come to a nation not on a sudden. However belief can be described and taught, which was done by Augustine. That was the sanctity of his educating feat: “Take and read!”. He was not inventing anything. He was retelling what he had read. And that was it… Of course he did not use the Jewish Bible…

            His thoughts were continued by the Pope Gelasius during another epoch.

            The theory of two powers – temporal and spiritual! – in relation to Christianity was for the first time set forth by Gelasius in his message to the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius where he cautiously explained the Turkic dualism: “Glorious Emperor, there are two institutions running the world: the first is the sacred authority of high hierarchs and the second is regal power. The burden borne by the clergy is heavier; they are accountable to justice of Heaven for deeds of the kings having power over people”.

 

            ● Quotation: Gergey E. The History of Papacy. P. 49.

 

            In spiritual life, the Pope proceeded, the Emperor obeys the clergy; in temporal affairs it is the opposite… And from where did this appear in the West? In Byzantium the Patriarch obeyed the Emperor from the day of creation of the Church; the Pope obeyed the Byzantine Patriarch. There, in Europe, was a different social system; that was the copy of the Roman Empire system. Gelasius suggested what had never existed in Europe.

            But that was perfectly organized in Desht-I-Kipchak. And it worked in India, Iran, Egypt, Abyssinia (Ethiopia, Sudan). In other words, he suggested the West “Altaic” diarchy. That was the social and political result of the Great Nations Migration, to which the historical science has not paid the slightest attention.

            Having called himself “the Vicar of Christ on the Earth” wise Gelasius made another excellent step of his policy that later granted the papacy full authority. He declared that Christ, the true rex et pontifex (king and highest clergyman) divided power between kings and bishops. Consequently “the Vicar of Christ on the Earth” is entitled to hold court over every Christian country, over every Church.

            There was one step to make to subdue temporal power. That is what later happened in the East. It was simple and genial. He, the Pope, approved and banished dependent rulers (kings) since he was king of kings.

            An excellent European innovation in the theory of power was not changed in Europe till the XI century, i.e. till the official split of Christianity into eastern and western branches. It stood out in western politics; the most important events started with it, the Church provoked wars, palace coups, secret conspiracies and murders in order to implement it. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples. The whole medieval life, as far as we know, was establishing absolute power of the Pope; that was the peculiarity of the epoch full of pungent smoke of the inquisition. Delicate smell of incense was also present there.

            And there was another undertaking introduced into Christianity by the Pope Gelasius; it was not part of the Turkic ceremony although it resulted from it.

            Having the freedom of action which, like a seal, was formed in the words “papa a nemine iudicatur” (nobody is entitled to hold court over the Pope) he started to make lists of prohibited books which the Christians were not allowed to read. In other words, he limited cognition. That was an open intrusion of the Church into peoples minds, into their world outlook. And at the same time it was a concealed demonstration of its weakness.

            Why was censorship necessary? Certainly not just to shield the Catholics from Geek myths. It was important to be proclaimed the authors of certain innovations. In order to impose their will and truth on nations. In order to model suitable people… After all, speaking about those times one should never forget that a good half of the population of Europe consisted of the Turki who had been brought up on absolute confidence with clergymen. They were the first listeners of the Pope. His passionate listeners.

            The clergy, beginning from Gelasius, started to be afraid of Altai, religion and themselves. One should have many noble qualities in order to be teaching to control the world; and such qualities were absent. On the contrary, the truth was becoming dangerous. In order to conceal the sources of belief the Church turned itself into a censor!

            However, regardless of what people wanted, God gave Europe what He gave – the new spiritual culture. And the Pope, censorship or inquisition were not able to conceal that. That is impossible. Even if they behead somebody or burn someone in the fire history cannot be altered.

            … Of course, the laws of the Catholic Church became established in the West not all at once. There was a wearisome struggle for power: in different times there were different Popes and different temporal rulers. The strong Byzantine Emperor relegated the role of the Pope to the role of an official who was called on the carpet; if the Emperor was weak the Pope was dominating. For instance, starting with Agapius I the Popes after they were elected would send gavel to the Emperor (such “custom” was introduced), but the Pope Nicholas I did not recognize the Byzantine power at all.

            Generations of Christians were changing like night and day, water was wearing away a stone, but one thing remained the same – the West saw the pledge of victories in Catholicism and was living for its sake.

            Unfortunately, it was not always living honestly. Especially when together with the Greeks it was “putting together” the text of the Bible – the foundation on which Christianity is based. That was the cryptic moment of history, perhaps the most unexpected one… It is commonly supposed that the Bible is the “book of books”, which is not correct. It consists of about eighty works by different authors; it is the “compilation of works” by anonyms. Its text is diversified and the time of its “putting together” lasted for centuries. It is hard to talk about the unity of the Bible; it is not what it is assumed to call the unity.

            The base of the compilation (perhaps the most suitable word) were divine and philosophical books of the Turki edited by the Church. At different times they were supplemented by works of other authors, Greek, Latin, Egyptian, Jewish in particular. The text was revised several times subject to political changes.

            The Bible after all is the compilation in which there is no integrity: every reader is free to understand its fragments in his own way, which is probably natural. Hence are individual understandings of the trueness of religion; hence are thousands of Christian Churches and religious sects. All of them base their teaching on the Bible. And all of them do so in their own way!

            For the Catholics, for example, the Bible began with the Vulgate, i.e. with Turkic books retold by Jerome. And the Greeks did not have that educating book, but instead they had dozens of Gospels, memoirs about Christ written in the IV century where, it should be mentioned, for some reason Altaic plots were used. Those borrowings are seen in the Old Testament in order to write which the Holy Scripture of the Jews was allegedly taken, which was slyness. Because in the Bible of the Jews… those texts are absent.

 

            ● The Church does not conceal that editing of sacred books was performed more than once. It is seen on the example of the Vulgate which they started to edit perhaps while Jerome himself was alive. Thus, for instance, Gibbon mentioned that “ancient Latin arrangements are essentially different from the modern Vulgate which was verified in 550 with the best manuscripts by the clergyman Rustic…”.

            Life has always been moving on, the same as religion.

 

            ● For example, the Book of the Prophet Baruch is absent in Jewish Scriptures. Its text was known only in Greek and, according to church historians, “many deny its authenticity”. Here one should add Ecclesiasticus, or Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, three Maccabaean Books, the Wisdom of Solomon – there is no point in searching for them in Jewish Scriptures. They were included only into the Greek text from which the Bible was translated into other languages… The list of books and insets added by the Greeks to the Christian Old Testament and absent in the Jewish Bible is rather long.

            And what is more, the Greeks supplemented canonical books of the Jewish Bible with the following fragments: in the Book of Esther the place not marked with the number of verses in the Greek and Slavic Bible; the prayer of Manasseh at the end of the 2^nd Books of the Chronicles; the Song of the Three Children in the Book of Daniel (13^th chapter); the tale of Susanna (ibid, chapter 13) and the story of Vil and the Dragon (ibid, chapter 14)… One can continue with the list.

            All these books and fragments are absent in the Jewish Bible; they were written in Greek and they were inserted into the Christian Bible at different times. Who is their author? It is not known. It is evident those were Turkic books translated into the Graeco-Barbarian language; they were being copied by Jews, Buddhists, Christians and Moslems who were making the foundations of their religions.

 

            This is the way the Bible was being put together.

            In order to understand the technology of its creation let us take the Wisdom of Solomon from the Christian Old Testament. This has never been part of the Jewish Scriptures. The philosophy of this Book is full of “Gnosticism”, which allowed the researchers of the Bible to ascribe its authorship to a man of the eastern belief.

            Of which one? There are different opinions on this point… And the text itself points to the motherland of the author of the tractate, at least to its geographical positions. The description of heavenly bodings tells about snow and ice [Wis 16 22]. As something customary melting of snow and ice in the sun is described [Wis 16 27] together with winter thin ice carried by windstorm [Wis 5 14]. These acts of nature are not specific for Alexandria or Palestine but common for Altai where they were part of poetics… As a matter of fact the same went for the motherland of the Aryans – Aryil described in chapters dedicated to India and Iran.

            A geographical constant! It is invariable.

            Theologians turned their attention to it. Yes, it can be neglected, it can be translated into any languages, ascribed to any nation, but that will not make it snowing in Egypt… And Africa will not be covered with frost. The same as north constellations will never appear in the sky… Everything is by the will of Heaven.

            Another detail about the ceremonies. In the Wisdom of Solomon it is said: while praying turn to East [Wis 16 28], another Turkic tradition not known to the Jews before the captivity. They learnt it from the tsar Cyrus, the same as other ceremonies described in the Wisdom of Solomon. For example, justice of Heaven, temples and altars. The creation of the world. The Flood… And iron armor? Helmets, shields… did the Jews have them? This is not pointless information; it is contained in the sacred text.

            The Wisdom of Solomon gives rise to too many questions.

            In the Jewish language the name of the hero is pronounced as Shelomo (without “n”), which means “peaceful”. One would think, what questions can arise? “Shelom” is also a Jewish greeting – “peace attend you”. But… that ancient expression had been in Altai. They still address people there with the word “salaam” and birds returning in spring are greeted with the words “elem-salaam”! That is a spiritual greeting; it referred to an assistant of Heavenly God, a sage, prophet and servant… That is why the city is called Jerusalem or, more precisely, Jerusalaim!

            The word had a very deep sense – an entire world reflected, for instance, in the Khakas epos.

            But this is not the end… Solomon, as far as we know, built the temple using a worm eating rocks brought to him by a vulture from the Garden of Eden… But in Khakas legends there is a serpent eating white building stones… And there is another legend about the serpent tsar – the owner of the magic stone “arbys”. Licking the stone one learns the language of animals and birds… These plots were used in the Wisdom of Solomon. If one knows where Eden is one understands the text in a different way. And not only the text!

            The family tree of Solomon is also worth studying. The appearance of David, his father, was unusual for a Jew; in Talmud it is written that he had red hair and in the book Zohar it is said that his eyes were the color of rainbow. From the Book of Isaiah we know that the region where David lived was called Ariil [Is 29 1]. Of course the Bible analysts identify it with Jerusalem, but that is a rough historical strain. Under King David “Ariil” was translated as “the country of the noble” or “the country of Arians”. From the Turkic “aryg il”. And it was referred to Altai, which is witnessed by the title of David – “King”… No. Indeed God cannot be deceived even by those wearing church garments; the title “king” related only to the rulers of the Altaic dynasty.

            And, finally, the philosophy of Wisdom of Solomon. Its author has Tukic views on Heavenly God from Whom he had got his soul. And “being good I entered a pure body” [Wis 8 19]. Here, the same as in other fragments of the text, Altaic conception of eternity of soul and its degeneration cannot be neglected. That is the teaching with which Buddhism was imbued; it was certainly present in “Gnosticism”. The tsar Kaniska in the I century was preaching this teaching to the world. And the world accepted it…

            In the Altaic epos the same philosophy was developed in the peoples language.

            Of course the Christians themselves were writing the Book of Wisdom; they had changed something before they called it their book or, more precisely, “Jewish” book – that was the matter of their conscience. However they had the source from which they were copying; it cannot be denied. As a matter of fact, the whole Bible confirms that. For instance, Ezra Apocalypse is also absent in the Jewish language and it also contains impenetrable mysteries.

            The Bible analysts believe it was not written by Ezra, a Jewish clergyman, himself, but by some of his followers and much later.

            Who was Ezra? The first scribe in the world. He was dealing with Turkic cases at the Persian court where in the V century he obtained a charter allowing him to subdue the Jews to the Law of Moses “recognized by Cyrus as the law for the Jews”. Ezra read them the Law… The situation in which the Law was proclaimed testifies that that was the Law not known to the people [Nehem 8 – 9]. The participation of the Turki meant that Achemenids proposed the law for their Jewish nationals… The tsar Cyrus had already died by that time. The Jews, as we know, returned from the captivity in 538 B.C., i.e. in the VI century.

 

            ● In Ezra Apocalypse it is described how and where the Jews were obtaining sacred books on their return from the captivity [3 Ez 14]. The plot described almost copies the plot contained in Indian books describing the obtaining of “Prajnaparamita” by the Indians [3 Ez 14 46 – 48].

            In Ezra Apocalypse the explanation of the word “Pharisees” is concealed. It does not have a Greek root. Pharisees are oral exegetes of the Torah, “learners of wisdom” not being clergymen. Free servants of the Law. The same as the scribes, they were getting knowledge at the Persian court, in Persia, hence is the name “Pharisees” (phars ~ pharis), i.e. “those who know Farsi”.

            It only remains to add that Ezra was one of the first who became aware of the Turkic culture and religion. With his name they connected the appearance of “Aramaic” written language which was the transformation (version) of Altaic writings… And first Jewish books. But that is witnessed by the text of the Christian Bible. Here it is pertinent to note that in Hebrew, Yiddish and Ladin (dialects of the Jewish language) there must be a great many ancient Turkic words and phrases. At least “Torah” in Turkic means “Law”. “Talmud” means “Mouthed, i.e. oral wisdom” (from “tyl”). Moses and Maidar are one and the same person? Judging by their actions, they are.  

            And if that is right, another page of the Jewish history becomes clear. We understand why after the beating and exile from Israel the Jews found shelter among the Turki – their coreligionists, kindred spirits. They became free citizens there.

 

            … It turns out spiritual treasures of Altai have not been lost in Europe? It looks like the truth, since Catholicism found support primarily among the European Turki – it expanded its geography among them; people saw Altaic roots. They felt them in their souls. If the new belief was full of Jewish, Hellenic, Egyptian or another ideology, in which theologians are trying to convince us, could it have found a response in Turkic souls? Never. Because peoples traditions are not changed together with the place of living.

            That was the greatest paradox being top of the Great Nations Migration: the Pope had no other chances for the future except for conquering of Turkic souls with the spirit of the Turki themselves. That is why he turned to spiritual treasures of Altai. Nothing else would do!

            On the other hand, the aspiration for peace with their neighbors was pushing the “new” Europeans to the Pope, to Catholicism. That was their way to the future. In order to weld principalities (former estates of the gentlemen) one power was necessary. The Turki of the West needed the Pope not less than he needed them. They were creating the Pope themselves, according to Altaic patterns, and they gave him their spiritual treasures. And he was strengthening in his glorious role as a result of his well-considered policy.

            Of course, not a specific person was in question, that was all about the Pope as a political figure, the guarantee of power and peace in the region. Not the Emperor and not King. The flock was taking pains for the benefit of papacy giving itself to the Pope… That was the apotheosis of the Great Nations Migration in Europe.

            New Catholics were moving away from Altai and were desperately fighting with their steppe congeners since they were protecting interests of new countries and not the old Turkic world. Foreign interests which became their own. That is internal history… Thus, imperceptibly and even naturally, a new policy was being formed in Europe – the natives were fighting against each other. That is the essence of the West, its dissimilarity. And its integrity at the same time. 

            Of course not all the descendants of the newcomers from Altai agreed to eat frogs and oysters; some of them still preferred horse beef and mutton. Those people saw: the new Europe is taking the people away from their roots, the sources of belief and their ancestors, at last. It was hard for them to put up with that injustice when what was Turkic was called Christian.

            But what could they suggest instead? To leave for Altai?.. No. Only protesting.

            Strengthening Christianity the Pope was weakening the belief in God. For a politician there was nothing else to do. The struggle of the Western and Eastern Church, that was taking place then, gave him a nudge. That was an irreversible process akin to falling into an abyss. The Pope and the Patriarch, furiously disputing who of them was more saint, who was touching the sky with his cap, were creating the institute of power under the arches of the temples, which they did not connect with spiritual affairs. Dependent officials, the bureaucracy in black gowns were called the voice of the Church, the symbol of spirit.

            And the opponents of the Christians were certainly protesting.

            Serious problems of the early Catholicism are witnessed by appearance of independent

Gallic and Toulouse Churches. How did they appear? What belief did they bring to people?.. Western society after the coming of the Turki was full of repentance, grief and sorrow. The split in the Roman Church did not happen by itself; it was the result of those human passions of which the Western Europe was full.

            The medieval Church reminded of a nursing mother being greedy for food: it wanted to taste everything. Catholicism, being Turkic in its spirit, was becoming European (pagan!) in its deeds when it started to sell the titles of bishops and even the Pope. When it gave absolution for money… The confrontation of two world outlooks, the Eastern and Western ones, in multilingual society of the West was inevitable; it was seen everywhere being the reason of discontent.

            The reason witnessing of aberration from belief, from worshipping Heavenly God. The Church was being turned into the richest subject of the state; it was rolling in money while people tortured by despotism of the authorities were leading a beggarly life.

 

            ● Was it not the time when Christians started to change God's commandments? For instance, three Turkic commandments dedicated to God were supplemented with the fourth one – concerning Saturday. The commandment “Blessed are the poor by spirit” (i.e. at the dictation of their spirit, due to their beliefs being able to stay poor for the sake of service of God) was substituted in the Bible by the pointless statement “Blessed are the poor in spirit”? This oddity was mentioned and in the commentaries to the Bible; it is written there that the commandment relates “to people knowing the penury of their spiritual life, humble, despised by the world, denying running for worldly goods”… That is another sense; it is too far from the original.

 

            Forgetting that poverty was his wealth, the Pope was slowly turning into a predator of life out of protector of people. The institute of religion was becoming heavier with worldly goods. Falsification and deceit of those times were the results of satisfied thoughts of the clergy… Of course, in the West there lived not those Kipchaks which were led by Attila; their Arian spirit fell and grew dim in the congestion of towns, but something remained. Blood of the ancestors did not let conscience fall asleep.

            Certain people had a subtle sense of belief. That is right, of belief! Because religion, i.e. the set of ceremonies, people can change as many times as they wish while they are born and they die with belief which, the same as parents, cannot be changed. As against the Byzantines, Catholics accepted the Bible with stipulations. Because, according to some of them, Biblical God was “an evil origin leading people up the path”; he was different, he was not entirely spiritual (their words!) Heavenly God.

            It is striking, the truth was in their judging; Christian bishops called it heresy but they failed to prove what they said, which was another evidence of strength of the heretics.

            That is right, in the Christian Bible characters turned out not to be “entirely spiritual”. Not Altaic. Christ came from Greek myths, which was for the first time stated by the Bogomils who were irritated by free writings of the Greek Church. They had their own strict conception of God and Christ.

            Who were the Bogomils? It is not clear; there are no reliable evidences concerning them. It is just known that they were the “followers of the dualistic belief”. More simply it means those were the people with the Turkic world outlook, but their belief was Christian. They were the Christians. The people of the West who had ideology. They were not the “barbarians”. Their views on Christ were full of Altaic ideas – those that had not died in peoples souls. They, like their ancestors, believed that Heavenly God sent not a god but His son to save the people.

 

            ● In Bogomilism there were many branches. According to one of their theories the mixture of good and evil had happened before the visible world appeared since there was a good God, the creator of the invisible world, and an evil God, the creator of the sensible world. All this to a great extent reminded of Ulgen (the head of the kingdom of good spirits) and Erlic (the master of the kingdom of the dead, demiurge), the same as creation of the first man, giving soul to him, the fall of man, the serpent, the flood – they all came from the Altaic mythology. Even the throwing of Erlic and his servants from the sky to the Earth and to the underworld from there.

            And the legend about the Savior – the messenger of the Sky – existed, it turns out, from the times of the Arians. It said that when the Earth is weltered in vice and forgets God, He will send his messenger… To every nation will be sent its prophet. In the XIX century that was described in detail by the archpriest V.V. Verbitskiy who had been carrying out missionary work in Altai during 37 years. Another missionary, S. Landyshev, also narrated that; he was stunned because of similarity of Altaic and Christian myths.

            The Bogomils thought that Jesus (Son - Word) was a human being, although everything connected with fleshliness in him was seeming, not existing in reality. Even his death. One can also read it in Altaic legends. Sending the Savior to the Earth, Heavenly God tells him: “Let Erlic kill you, you will not feel pain or fear: I will come and you will come alive again”. In the world outlook of the Turki there was the conception about the end of the world and justice of Heaven. God's messenger was to reclaim people from sin and incline them to worship of God by his preaching… And after that God will come down from Heaven , the dead will be resurrected by his will, the sinful earth will perish in the fire together with Erclic himself and the sinners, and under it pure earth being like white clay will remain. God will make a new earth of it. And those faithful to God will stay with him and will live in His dwellings… The plot is strikingly similar with that of Christianity. The only difference is that the Turki called their hero Maidar. Not Christ. And he lived during the Arian epoch when the Jews were cognizing their Torah.

            The similarity of Maidar and Moses is not in question here; it is a different talking point.

 

            Their religious society was formed by the X century in the Balkans. At least, the books of the Bogomils which survived were written there. But that does not witness of geography of the creed and its history since the communities of the Bogomils were met in Europe, in the Near East earlier (V century) and were known as Arians. They united people disappointed in the Christian Church. Those whose souls needed the “white belief” but on the Christian (i.e. European!) basis.

            Those people did not perceive Christianity because of its “not entirely spiritual form”. But they did not deny it! Their protest broke out in the V century when the Jerusalem presbyter, the Greek Hisichius called Heavenly God “Father-God”. That was grievous liberty having no analogues.

            An improvement which seems insignificant at first sight, and the fathers of the Church introduced new words into the canon: “Father God ubo David”. Because, according to a legend, “Jesus Christ belonged to the family of King David”. All the Christians were to say the words about the Father-God after each liturgy. Three times a day… That was perhaps the best way to humiliate the belief of the Turki: in their understanding Eternal Blue Sky which sent the Savior and earthly King David were not equitable. Like a mountain and a fleck of dust.

            The Catholics were jointly protesting; they did not accept the innovations which were being introduced into Christianity. But in the heat of confrontation they were rejecting old traditions taken by the Church. That is why the Bogomils did not recognize the saving grace of icons, the cross and baptism. They denied church sacraments and together with them the dominating Church itself… That was a valley braid coming from the river of the creed and flowing to nonentity bearing thousands of people in its waters.

            It has not become a separate river although the Bogomils were praying in the open air, like the ancient Turki, avoided temples calling them “Satan's palaces”, uttered words in which the shining of Altaic tops was reflecting. But… their words had no former spirit; Heavenly God was eclipsed by Christ. Too many things were forgotten; too important concessions to the new life were made. That is why even true words of the Bogomils were of no force and remained nothing more than words. The same as their behavior in society which they divided to their friends and enemies – the initiated and the uninitiated.

            A masked ball where instead of masks words were gleaming, although their belief was sincere and pure. And one cannot deny that; they were really searching for the truth. They were trying the best they could. With their eyes tied and their ears shut.

            The Church of the Bogomils certainly failed to press Christianity; it lacked knowledge, wisdom and time. New religion cannot be created on an empty space; centuries and generations of philosophers are necessary. Of course this conclusion related to all the Christians who in the IV century obtained a new creed – the philosophical system… which cannot happen on a sudden.

            In the West the purity of belief in God was defended by the ancestors of the French, Italians, Germans, Spanish, Swiss who were called “Khazars” (Gazari) then but they were also “masked words” and the masked ball of life. Nothing else. They did not have their own philosophy, which means they did not have their own face. They were a branch of Christianity, not a religion… However, such estimation might be remote from the truth; in it there is only the visible part of an iceberg since those people were keeping their philosophy in secret; they were concealing it. And that is why their teaching seemed to be a branch of Christianity.

            But they were united by the protest and their name – heretics (Bogomils, Cathars, Albigenses…). Because Christian bishops had only one name – “herecy” – for their teaching. That word has become history for centuries, although very few knew its meaning.

            And the “masks” concealed Altaic names and traditions. In this sense the name Cathar, for instance, is indicative. It is commonly supposed that it is derived from the Greek “cathar” (pure) and “Khazar” is a wrong pronunciation of that word. But is that right? It is known that the Cathars only repeated the “barbarian” assertion that the Chruch “took the wrong turning… the next day after the Edict of Milan (313)” when it became a state institution. That is an entire volume of unwritten history.

            Not recognizing the “Greek belief” could they take a Greek name? Never. And there is another thing: the Cathars spoke their own language which is covered by mystery in the West being called the mythical language “oc”…

            In their aspiration to be separated from the Church weltered in vice, “heretics” showed rare firmness. “One of the most important concerns of the Cathar Church connected with wringing up their clergymen was strengthening of their firmness in belief, - writes J. Madoule, French theologian. – Perhaps all of them preferred cloistered dreadful death”… Considering these words the name Cathars – Khazars is understood differently, is it not?

 

            ● It consists of two ancient Turkic words: cath- (become firm) and ary- (purify [from sins]). It contained an appeal to the “barbarians” that officially accepted Catholicism to remain the Turki deep in their mind and keep the “white belief” of Heavenly God.

 

            The reason of discrepant estimation of the “heretics” lay, of course, not in the bishops, but rather in the actions of the protesters themselves. The French Cathars, for instance, prayed not to Altai but to Iran having taken for the basis of their Church the teaching Mani, its philosophy, with which they were trying to reconcile Christianity with the idea of Monotheism.

            Pure Manichaeism was not suitable for Europe, and they saw it but they did not want to be “barbarians” – the followers of their belief.

            Why did the Cathars turn away from the belief of their Altaic ancestors? For political reasons. Manichaeism was suitable for them because in included Christ into the pantheon; not that Christ the Christians had, but the “real” one.

 

            ● In their views on Christ to a great extent they retained Altaic tradition thinking that the messenger did not make satisfaction for peoples sins but only “presented the teaching of finding salvation”. Nevertheless the Cathars, the same as the Bogomils, regardless of their furious struggle with the Church, adopted a lot from Christianity and did not reject the Gospels. Their views were a strange mixture of beliefs.

            Christ for the Cathars was “neither the son of God, the second figure of the Trinity, nor a human being, - continues J. Madoule. That was an angel sent from the sky to show the people their way to salvation. His passions are not real but seeming”. And he mentions with astonishment that the Cathars, denying God of the Old Testament, “respected prophets which in certain cases speak not about revengeful God of Israel, but of Good God being entirely spiritual”.

            Without any suspicions that historian marked what modern historians are trying not to mention. In the Old Testament there are sacred texts obviously being not of Jewish origin. They were emphasized by the Cathars who had secret knowledge in which only the chosen – “the  perfect” – were  initiated. That was not by chance that the authors of the books of the Cathars in which the teaching was set forth have been “lost” for the most part. And the same goes for the deep belief of the Cathars that “the Catholic Church managed to distort the clearest and the most evident concepts of the true teaching of Heavenly God”.

 

            Even here the European Turki remained Europeans; they were searching for themselves between Altai and the Atlantic. Suffice it to say that Monseguire – an ancient estate – was the spiritual center of the Cathars. Or that in Turkic regions of Italy, France, Spain there were “Cathar” churches uniting hundreds and thousands of parishioners.

            They were making sense of the spiritual culture which possessed Europe – Catholicism – and criticizing it hard. That was a difficult search of ideas which was not always successful.

            From here, from the West, pilgrims were leaving for Altai; the contact with the “barbarian” world existed, it is obvious; it is known from the documents of that epoch. In particular from geographic maps (the Catalan map is again in question here) on which monasteries of Altai are stated and one of them stands out – the monastery near Issyk Kul where “the body of St. Matthew, the apostle and evangelist, is kept”.

            How was it taken there? And why?

            And the most astonishing thing is that even the hearth of their ancestors was seen to the European Turki through the shaded glasses of Christianity. It turns out they were not “barbarians” – the people of Monotheism – any longer; their belief was gradually leaving them?

            … The Church was annihilating and killing “heretics” using all available means. Gallows, axes, words. For instance, they were allowed to live in country-like idyll where memory fades away and it seems that life is to change for the better. By itself. They took hope and fear for their wings but they were not able to fly. Because they were confronting not the Church, not their ideological rival, but the state machine created by the Pope. That machine driven by the most silent army – by monks which undertook the hardships of an ideological war. Against that silent armada “heretics” with their “white” Church were helpless and wingless. 

            Preaching the pure belief the protesting Christians were not moving to God by the road lying in Altai. They were searching for avoiding routs and failed to find them since they do not exist. God is one, which is the essence of Monotheism. Nothing can be added to Him. And nothing can be removed.

            The Albigenses in France, Italy and Germany were openly struggling for the return to the “white belief” in Heavenly God; they called Christianity “devil's force” and denied it. In the XII century they created their Church but what did it change? The state allowed them to lead a lonesome life in rural communities; they used to preach there and people called them “good people”. And that was all. Apart from a moral example (which is valuable in itself) they could give society nothing else. And they have not given.

 

            ● During the XI – XII centuries “heresy” became widespread: in 1010 the Cathars appeared in Ajan, in 1022 – in Orleans, in about 1030 – in Lombardy. From there “heresy” moved to Germany; in 1126 it was met in the Trier region, in 1146 – in Cologne. But its main “territory” was the south of France – Languedoc. At the end of the XII century Albi became the main bulwark of the Cathars in the South France; hence is the other name – the “Albigenses”.

 

            It is striking that in this case Altaic traditions again were like fetters on the “heretics'” legs. In Altai people were fighting not for belief; they were born and died with God there. The authority of the clergy was unshakable there; it was being strengthened by personal examples. But such “tranquil” way of life was not suitable in Europe where the religion had become a political means and the Church – its instrument.

            When there is no moral perfection of the clergymen it is impossible to look for the truth among them; any, even the loudest protest would turn into silence. Even mass self-immolations resorted by “heretics” were not enough to make the Pope notice them and change… The happiness of victory comes to a man when his deeds glorify his name. But there were no deeds! The “heretics” were not allowed to do anything. They were living as though by themselves. “Heresy” was not moving over the boundaries of rural communities. 

            The Pope, parlaying on the “Turkic card”, was running the western world. At all times he had more friends than enemies. The Church, possessing peoples souls, left the opponents as much freedom as it considered necessary. For some time (i.e. till the XIII century – before Baty-khan came to Europe) it was patiently watching “heretics” letting them shrivel up by themselves.

            The Pope was working without breaks. Even swimming in luxury of his palaces he was working.

            Understanding that the masses cannot be conquered by ideas, he “Christianized” Turkic feasts in order to subdue noisy folk celebrations. For instance, the feast of the Epiphany (Korachun) – the 25^th of December, he called “Christmas” (the Nativity of Christ). He did so not all at once but in several centuries after the infant “was born”. Before they used to celebrate that day on the 6^th of January, which is still kept by calendars of eastern Chrurches – they still celebrate Christmas on January, 6^th.

 

            ● “Korachun” (from the Turkic kora-) means “let it fade away”; the exclamation related to the darkness and accompanied the fist from which solstice began. Or the day of the Epiphany. That day the most sacred dreams came true. Hence another custom accompanying the feast – koliads (carols). The word (kolad) is translated as “pray for an omen” or, earthly, “pray for gifts”. That was a ritual accompanied by a decorated tree, roundelays, gifts, plenty of food…

            The Council of Trullo of 691 (by 62^nd rule) prohibited the Christians to connect the 25^th of December with Father-God and ordered to accept the son in it. Displacement and oblivion of the feast began; the feast that had been celebrated in Altai from of old.

 

            Alas, “heretics” were loosing their trump cards one after another. Each their loss strengthened Catholicism. As though on purpose.

            … In the V and even in the X century perhaps all the Catholics knew the Turkic language since prayers of the Christian Church were read in it. That was the native language for many people in the Central and Western Europe, but it was called “low Latin” or the Vulgate. That was the mixture of Turkic and non-Turkic words.

 

            ● The same as in Byzantium, where coming of the Turki gave “Graeco-Barbarian” language, in the Roman Empire appeared the Vulgate, or “low Latin”. The name came from the Turkic bulga- (to mix) – a shining example of changes of life in medieval Italy. The language reflected the essence of the dialect which Italy, the former Roman Empire, started to speak. Hence is the second name of the language – “low”. That is why in low Latin “standards of classic grammar were violated to a great extent”, as modern philologists mark.

            In this view it is clear why many documents of medieval Italy were written in the Vulgate. For instance, in Monte-Cassino abbey, where early in the VI century Benedict the Nursian founded his monastery on the Turkic model. There in the VIII century was the center of “Latin and barbarous enlightenment”. And, of course, as it had happened in the history of the Turki, they themselves produced a new artificial language which was used for “recording their chronicles for divine services”. Although their native language, according to Paul Deacon, was a “living language” early in the IX century.

            “Low Latin” was a link of the chain started with Sanskrit in India, Pehlevi in Iran and, finally, “Graeco-Barbarian” language of Byzantine.

In the Middle Ages the word “Latin” had only one meaning – the speech, the language of the Catholics. That is what perplexes now. Classic “Roman” Latin is different; it is based on the language of the aboriginals from Lazio region to which Turkic words are added… It has its own long history in which “heretics” were also loosing.

            In the south of France the Turkic language was called “low Latin” or the language of Provence; it was widely used. But it is wrong to call it Altaic; that was a European dialect of the Turkic language. In this connection observations of famous Michelle Montaigne, hereditary Gascon, are interesting.

            He lived in the XVI century and learnt his native language in a village where he was sent by has father. Montaigne became famed for his philosophical works in which he chanted man and the grandeur of a historical fact. His book “Experiments” was given a hostile reception by the Church. And there were reasons for that. Here is a quotation (“low Latin” is in question): “The Latin is native for me; I understand it better than French, but for forty years I have not used it at all as a spoken language and I do not write in it at all; but still during strong and sudden tumults I had two or three times in my life, especially when I saw my father, who had been absolutely healthy before, falling into my arms fainting away, first words coming from the depths of my memory were in Latin. Nature comes out by itself regardless of a long-term habit”. This phrase is very profound.

            It shows how difficult it was for certain French to become French, how hard it was for them to forget their native language… The European Turkic were like lions humbling themselves with captivity, but once they felt the smell of their motherland, depths of memory were open… And “low Latin” came out. Like the lava thrown up by a suddenly awaken volcano.

            It is likely that the language was the reason of discords among the Catholics. Otherwise how can one explain that in the French language the spelling of words and pronunciation thereof are absolutely different? Why cannot the modern French understand the ancient French language? It is alien for them…

            Could this have happened by itself?

            Starting from the VII century the Church was introducing the “Roman” Latin in order to pass over the “heretics” – no one would be able to read their books written in Turkic, i.e. doubt the trueness of Christian ones. The Pope managed to do a lot; the aberration from low Latin is the result of a hidden policy of the Church. Because late in the Middle Ages people were not mentioning the Turkic language any longer. But it existed. The language today known as the “oc” dialect in France.

            Books and articles have been written of that mysterious dialect, but none of them says where it came from and where it disappeared. Censorship! Church censorship has been editing the Christian science for centuries; even those areas which had nothing to do with the Church. As a result the word “Turki” was no longer used… However, its “smell remained”.

            “Oc” dialect is the recognized language of troubadours (poets and singers); speakers of Spain, France and North Italy used it. The traditions of “oc” dialect are ancient; first European poetic works were written in it, which is recognized by science. From this dialect Provence, Lombardic, Venetian, Genoese, Catalan and other dialects of the West began.

            One would think, a dialect, poets competitions – what can they say? A lot.

            In the Roman Empire there were no rhymed verses – that is the fact. In Altai there were difficult competitions of poets and singers (they were called ashugs, which meant “lovers” in Turkic.). Lyrics of the troubadours remind of lyrics of ashugs to a great extent. Only few could strike their rivals with a word, like with an arrow, to smite a flying rhyme.

            In the Turkic language “oc” meant “arrow”. A very precise word for lambent and striking verses of troubadours.

           

            ● Apart from a poetic metaphor there is a direct translation of the word “oc”. In the countries where “dialects of the old Provence language” (“old Catalan” is a kindred language) were spoken, “yes” was pronounced as “oc” as against the North France where it sounded like “oyl”. Hence is Occitania (Languedoc) – the country of the language “oc” and the North France – the country of the language “oyl”.

            It is striking that in the ancient Turkic language the expression “oc” also was of an affirmative character. And the Chuvash whose language retained a lot of archaisms in the last century used the same word – “oc” – in answering questions. That is not exactly “yes”, it is rather “really”, “indeed”. In a short word, like in a drop f water, the character of the nation is reflected – the nation that was searching for its own face in everything.

            By the way, the ancient name of the South France – Occitania – which is considered to be “ancient Provencal”, is actually a Turkic word: oc-sitan ~ oc-stan – “the country of the [language] “oc”. After it is it still striking that in modern Turkic languages another ancient form of an affirmative answer remained – “ya[h]” (alright, good, yes) which is very close to the German “ja”.

 

            And the word “troubadour” is also derived from a Turkic root, although today it is connected with the French word “trobar” (trobar – versify). Alright. But how did it get into the French language and to France? Just with verses of the troubadours.

            In the Ancient Turkic Dictionary there is an expression “tori-bar” – it means not just to “create”, “versify” but to do so in action, easily, for instance, wandering or rambling. When one's soul is singing and it is impossible to keep silent. “Rambling singer”, “rambling poet” – this is the translation of the word which appeared in the South France together with ashugs. In Turkic settlements that melody of the soul longing for freedom could be heard everywhere.

            In “Trobar” arts there were many styles; in Europe one of them was called Trobar clus, “closed poetry”. That is the highest arts, sophisticated poetry for the most subtle connoisseur of words. Arnaut Daniel from Riberack was very skillful in it; he was very popular from 1180 till 1210. The poet, being a real Turki, astonished his listeners with rare and difficult rhymes; his poems were catchy riddles – everybody found their answers in them.

 

            ● Duality is peculiar to the troubadours in general. It is not by chance that researchers of that epoch mentioned that their “love poems… express absolutely not what we are supposed to hear in them”. That is not an observation – that is the truth. Certain Turkic poems cannot be translated into other languages. Perhaps every line there contains untranslatable pun. In any case “entirely worldly thoughts” of famous “gay learning” (gai saber) there concealed other deep images and symbols”. The same is witnessed by an ancient Turkic expression “sorrowful prophecy”, “sorrowful story” – qujgu sab which is concordant with “old Provincial” gai saber. Hence is the Knight of the Rueful Countenance!

            That is peculiar to the Turki which even at the funerals of their rulers used to hide their sorrow and grief behind “weird” dancing and singing.

 

            The Great Dante, respecting that genius of poetry, in his “Divine Comedy” inserted eight verses in the “oc” dialect into Song 26 of “Limbo”. Petrarch also remembered Arnaut in his “Triumphs”. Are not these historical documents?.. “Arnaut” in Turkic means “guardian”, “warder”. This name has not been forgotten by the people who, of course, know nothing about the poet now. They were made to forget it. In Europe this name is now pronounced as “Arnold”.

            The word “trobar” is not French; it existed in the “Graeco-Barbarian” language. But there, and later in Russian, it was pronounced as “tropar” – prayer rhythms. They were read by a preacher accompanied by a musical instrument.

            In Germany (in the Holy Roman Empire) rambling poets and musicians were called “minnesingers” (from the ancient Turkic mingi – “merriment”, “joy”, djangir – “sound”, “ring”). And they used to hold the same competitions as the ashugs of Desht-I-Kipchak, Central Asia, Transcaucasia or troubadours of South France, Italy, Spain. These are the signs of one culture; they are like berries from one bunch.

            Of course minnesinger who lived in the North preferred other melodies as compared with ashugs or troubadours, but their performances were accompanied by jugglers and rambling musicians (akyns) – another tradition of Altai. Everything is evident here. It just happened so that historians have been neglecting it for a long time. And they have not been comparing. And historians of the XIX century, considering that cultural phenomenon, wrote: “Music we know now, with its endless affection, amazing elasticity, expressiveness and color is of barbarous origin”. Very few really understood their true words.

            Of course it was of “barbarous” origin…

            The history of modern Europe is to be read, like a book, from the beginning – from the estates of gentlemen that appeared in inhabited territories of the Roman Empire in the IV century. For some reason the Roman authorities declared Toulouse the “barbarous” kingdom in the IV century. There in five and even in ten centuries the spirit of Altai was alive – the spirit of freedom; it came here on Attila's flags – ashugs that were called troubadours were praising it.

            The French of the Turkic origin respected freedom. Look at the portrait of Carl the Great, the founder of France. He had a Turkic name Charlemagne, which means “call for glory”. And Carl the Brave, the rebellious knight of Burgundy, had the name Temir.  Lancelot, the knight, had the name Telegi… Whose names are these? At last, there is a science called onomatology! The science about names.

            Not accepting Christianity, Bogomils, Cathars, Albigenses used to read Lords Prayer. But the Turki were against them with the same stubbornness. Wearing clothes of Catholic bishops and monks they used to read the Turkic prayer called Lord Father too. That is how they lived.

            The Church taking possession of Altaic culture made it faceless, household, European and very beautiful – like minstrels and knights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LITERATURE

(main sources)

 

Agathius Mirineyskiy. About Justinian's Reign. M., 1996.

Adji M. Europa's Asia. M., 1998, English translation, M., 2004.

[Aleppo Paul] The Travel of the Antiochian Emperor Macarius to Russia in the Second Half of the XVII Century Described by his Son, Archdeacon Aleppo Paul. Issue 1 – 3. M., 1896 – 1898.

            Ashmarin N.I. Chuvash Language Dictionary. Vol. 1 – 2. Cheboksary, 1994.

            Bartold V.V. Twelve Lectures on the History of Turkish Nations of the Central Asia // Collected Works. Vol. V. M., 1965.

            [Bartold V.V.] The Book of my Grandfather Korkut: Oguz Heroic Epos. Baku, 1999.

Bartold V.V. The Moslem World // Selected Works. Vol. VI. M., 1966.

            Badwell G. The History of the Church. M., 1996.

            Belikov D. Christianity of the Goths. Issue 1. Kazan, 1887.

Beliaev L.A. Christian Antiquities. SPb., 2000.

            Beowulf. The Elder Edda. The Song of Nibelungs. M., 1975.

            The Bible. Brussels, 1983.

[Buzand] The History of Armenia by Favstos Buzand. Yerevan., 1953.

            Butanaev V.Y. Khakas-Russian Historical and Ethnographical Dictionary. Abakan, 1999.

            Veinstein O.L. West-European Medieval Historiography. M.; L., 1964.

            Veber E. Runic Arts. SPb., 2002.

Verbitskiy V.I. Altaic Foreigners. M., 1893. Reprint. Gorno-Altaisk, 1993.

            Violle-de-Duc E.E. Life and Entertainment in the Middle Ages. SPb., 1999.

Vipper R.Y. Appearance of Christian Literature. M.; L., 1946.

            Gerasimov M.M. Reconstruction of a Face by a Skull. M., 1955.

Geyushev R.B. Christianity in the Caucasian Albania: According to Archeology and Written Sources. Baku, 1984.

Gibbon E. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Parts I – VII. SPb., 1997 – 2000.

            Golenischev-Kutuzov I.N. Medieval Latin Literature of Italy. Sretensk. 2000.

            Gautier J.V. Iron Age in the Eastern Europe. M.; L., 1930.

            Grant M. The Fall of the Roman Empire. M., 1998.

            Grant M. Roman Emperors. M., 1998.

[Grigorovich-Barskiy V.G.] The Travel to the Sacred Places of the Traveler Basil Grigorovich-Barskiy-Plaki-Albov… SPb., 1778.

            Griaznevich P.A. Development of Historical Consciousness of the Arabs (VI – VIII centuries) // Essays on the History of Arabic Culture of the V – XV Centuries. M., 1982.

            Guber A.A., Kolpinskiy Y.D. Arts of the Western and Central Europe in the Epoch of Nations Migration and Appearance of “Barbarous” Kingdoms // General History of Arts. Vol. II. Book 1. M., 1986.           

            Gurevich A.Y. “Edda” and Saga. M., 1979.   

            Guyonvarch C-J., Leru F. The Celtic Civilization. SPb.,; M., 2001.

            Dante Alighieri. Divine Comedy. M.,1986.

            Darkevich V.P. Works of Western Arts in the Eastern Europe. (X – XIV centuries). M., 1966.

            Darkevich V.P. Art Metal of the East (VIII – XIII centuries). M., 1976.

            Dashkov S.B. The Emperors of Byzantium. M., 1997.

            Jones A. H. M. Death of Ancient World. Rostov-on-Don., 1997.

            Diringer D. The Alphabet. M., 1963.

            Doblehoffer E. Signs and Miracles: Stories about how Forgotten Writings and Languages were deciphered. M., 1953.

            Ancient Turkic Dictionary. L., 1969.

            [Eusebius] Church History of Eusebius Pamfilus. Vol. I. SPb., 1858.

            Zhirmunskiy V.M. The History of the German Language. M., 1965.

            Zhirmunskiy V.M. Folk Heroic Epos. Comparative and Historical Essays. M.; L., 1962.

            Zhirmunskiy V.M. The Story of Alpamysh and the Heroic Fairy Tale. M., 1960.

            Zadvorniy V. The History of the Popes. Vol. I – II. M., 1995.

            Zadneprovskiy Y.A. About the Ethnic Belonging of the Monuments of Nomads of Semirechye of the Usun Period in the II century B.A. – V century A.D. // Countries and Nations of the East. Issue X. M., 1971.

            Zasetskaya I.P. Culture of the Nomads of Southern Russian Steppes in the Hun Epoch (end of the IV – V centuries). SPb., 1994.

            Inostrantsev K.A. Hunnu and Huns. L., 1926.

Jordan. About the Origin and Deeds of the Geths. Getica. SPb., 1995.

            Ismagulov O. Ethnic Gene Geography of Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata, 1977.

            The History of China. M., 1998.

            [Kagankatvatsi] History of the Aguans by Moses Kagankatvatsi. SPb., 1861.

            Cardini F. The History of Medieval Knighthood. Sretensk, 2000.

            [Carpini] John de Plano Carpini. The History of the Mongals. SPb., 1911.

            Kerns E. By the Roads of Christianity. History of the Church. M., 1992.

            Kin M. Knighthood. M., 2000.

            Klimovich L.I. The Book about Koran, its Origin and Mythology. M., 1988.

            The Book of the Ruler of Shan Region. M., 1993.

            Kovalskiy Y.V. Popes and Papacy. M., 1991.

            Koran / Translation by I.Y. Krachkovskiy. M., 1963.

            Kryvelev I.A. The Bible: Historical and Critical Analysis. M., 1985.

            Kryvelev I.A. The History of Religions. Vol. I. M., 1975.

            Culture of Byzantium. IV – First Half of VII Centuries. M., 1984.

            [Landyshev] Stephan Landyshev. Cosmology and Theogony of Altaic Pagans. Kazan, 1886.

            Lebedev A.P. The Epoch of Persecution of the Christians. SPb., 1904.

Lebedev D. 19-years Cycle of Anatoly Laodicean (from the history of ancient Easter cycles) // Byzantium Annals. Vol. XVIII. SPb., 1913.

            Madol G., Albigene Drama and the Fates of France. M., 2000.

            [Marcellinus] Ammianus Marcellinus. History. Issue 1 – 3. Kiev, 1906 – 1908.

            II International Symposium on Armenian Arts. Yerevan, 1978.

            II International Symposium on Georgian Arts. Tbilisi, 1978.

            IV International Symposium on Georgian Arts. Tbilisi, 1983.

            Melnikova E.A. Sword and Lyre: Anglo-Saxon Society in History and Epos. M., 1987.

            Mets A. Moslem Renaissance. M., 1996.

            The Mythological Dictionary. M., 1991.

            Montaigne M. Experiments. Books I – III. M., 1979 – 1980.

            Murzaev E.M. Turkic Geographical Names. M., 1996.

            Muller A. The History of Islam. Vol. 1. SPb., 1895.

            The Nations of the World: Historical and Ethnographic Reference Book. M., 1988.

            Neikhardt A.A. The Mystery of the “Holy Cross”. M., 1963.

            Osokin N. The History of the Albigenses and their Time. M., 2000.

            The Song of Roland. M.; L., 1964.

            Polevoy V.M. The Arts of Byzantium // General History of Arts. Vol. II. Book 1. M., 1960.

            Polevoy V.M. The Arts of Greece: Ancient World. The Middle Ages. New Time. M., 1984.

            [Polo] Marco Polo. The Book. M., 1955.

            Posnov M.E. The History of the Christian Church: (Before the Division of Churches – 1054) Brussels, 1964. Reprint.: Brussels, 1988.

Prisk. Roman Embassy to Attila. SPb., 1842.

[Procopius] Procopius from Caesarea. The War with the Goths. M., 1996.

[Rubruk] William de Rubruk. The Traveling to Eastern Countries. SPb., 1911.

            Sventsitskaya I.S. Secret Writings of First Christians. M., 1980.

            [Simokkata] Feofilact Simokkata. History. M., 1996.

[Syrian] Ephraim the Syrian. About the Days of Christmas Celebration. About the Foundation of the First Churches in Jerusalem // Texts and Researches on Armenian and Georgian Philology. SPb., 1900.

            Smirnov S. Philological Notes about the Old Testament Languages in their Comparison with Classic Languages Reading the Letter of Paul to the Ephesians. M., 1873.

            Medieval Latin Novels XIII. L., 1989.

Tanzagi – the Father of Altaians: Altaic Fairy Tales. M., 1987.

            [Taube E.] Fairy Tales and Legends of the Altaic Tuvins: Collected by Eric Taube. M., 1994.

            [Tacitus] Cornelius Tacitus. Annals. History // Selected Works in 2 Volumes. SPb., 1993.

Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials Relating to the History of the Golden Horde: Extracts from Arabic Works. Vol. I. SPb., 1884.

Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials Relating to the History of the Golden Horde. Extracts from Arabic Works. Vol. II. M.; L., 1959.

Thomsen W. Deciphered Orchon and Yenisei Inscriptions / Translated by V. Radlov // Notes of the Eastern Department of Russian Archeological Association. Vol. VIII. Issue III – IV. 1894.

Trever K.V. Essays on History and Culture of the Caucasian Albania (IV century B.C. – VII century A.D.). M.; L., 1959.

Trever K.V. Essays on History and Culture of Ancient Armenia (II century B.C. – IV century A.D.). M.; L., 1953.

            Useinov M. The History of Architecture of Azerbaijan. M., 1963.     

            Uspenskiy F.I. The History of the Byzantine Empire of the VI – IX Centuries. M., 1999.

            Uspenskiy F.I. Church and Political Activity of the Pope Gregory I. Kazan, 1901.

            Fisbein M. Religious Traditions of Judaism // Religious Traditions of the World. Vol. 1. M., 1996.

            Khakas Heroic Epos: Ai-Huuchin // Folklore Monuments of the Nations of Siberia and the Far East. Vol. 16. Novosibirsk, 1997.

            [Khorenatsi] Moses Khorenatsi. The History of Armenia.  Yerevan. 1990.

            Khosroev A.L. From the History of Early Christianity in Egypt: According to Material of the Coptic Library from Nag Hammadi. M., 1997.

            Anthology of Latin Texts of Medieval Authors. M., 1956.

            Christianity. Encyclopedia. Vol. 1 – 3. M., 1993 – 1995.

Chichurov I.S. Byzantine Historical Works: Theophan's “Chronography”, Nicephorus's “Breviary”. M., 1980.

Chubinashvili G.N. Researches on the Armenian Architecture. Tbilisi, 1967.

            Shebutin A. The Cufic Koran of Saint-Petersburg Public Library // Notes of the Eastern Department of the Emperor's Russian Archeological Society. Issue 1 – 4. Vol. VI. SPb., 1982.

            Staerman E.M. Antique Culture Crisis. M., 1975.

            The Epoch of the Crusades. SPb., 1999.

            Jacobson A.L. Regularities in the Development of Medieval Architecture. L., 1985.