Древняя Меря

как там – Чудь начудила да Меря намеряла.. Россия союз племен Словенских и Чуди. Татарстан и Болгария – Булгар – без обид, соседи все таки, Пруссия да и Польша и Балтийские народы – да это основной состав, а еще раньше скифы – север, у Белого моря и варяги – может Норвегия, Швеция. Так получается – и немцы, почти тот же народ, окраина .. дальше в тексте – Кельты на Мерянском – молчат, не понимают – немцы. Предки финнов, венгров – с юга Урала, коми, манси – это не только соседи, а еще и третья часть русских, остальные Словене – славяне. Словене – разговаривают, слова понимают. Многие могут назвать родственников, как из славян, так и татарских, да еще больше, чем за два поколения, а вот из середины России – ну стесняются, а что были мордвины – например, не скажут. (только на мордочке написано). Славяне пришли, как считается, с Дуная, а до этого – после оледенения, с севера Индии, а финско – угорские народы – где то с Алтая.

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5de0ded5b26206164872efc0/anatomiia-russkoi-krasoty-ili-prosto-pochemu-russkie-devushki-krasivy-5decf036e3062c00aeb6936c

https://dzen.ru/a/Xezs43nCbgCxcU0u

текст без комментариев

Мордва это сейчас два народа в одном – Эрзяне и Мокшанцы. И к ним наверняка пришли – близкие и не наблюдаемые сейчас Меря и Мурома, а частью и к русским. Присоединились. И к Марийцам, может и Коми, к соседям.

Двое сказали русская, а один угадал, почти. Сказал Марийка, а девушка с юга Рязанской, Эрзя. А узор у нее вообще Мерянский..

Свою фотку не показываю. Тезку встретил в столице Русской , из Костромы только, и наверняка – в родственниках меряне. Можно случайно поменяться паспортами – не узнают. Различия не видно, один выше на пару см, ну и все, глаза чуть более морской волны.

обсуждать можно – взято с samlib

тема – обсуждение названия Москвы. в натуре самиздат. Сайт блокировать не надо, законов не нарушает.

( Киев тоже наш город – а название – с Иудейского, да и Хазары – Казаки подправили.. Наверно, не Кий и Лыбидь, как по легенде.. это все таки к Рязани – Переяславу Рязанскому больше относится. И под Киевом Переяслав, по теченью Днепра, недалеко. Да и Киев мог быть на Дунае, что то ученые засомневались..)

Бершадский Владимир Евгеньевич : другие произведения.

14- Москва – этимология названия

Самиздат: [Регистрация] [Найти] [Рейтинги] [Обсуждения] [Новинки] [Обзоры] [Помощь|Техвопросы]

Оставить комментарий © Copyright Бершадский Владимир Евгеньевич (vladimir.b-52@mail.ru) Размещен: 05/10/2020, изменен: 08/04/2022. 124k. Статистика. Статья: История Скачать FB2
Аннотация:
Москва! Как много в этом звуке для этимолога слилось! Как много в нём отозвалось!

  Москва! Как много в этом звуке для этимолога слилось!    Как много в нём отозвалось!       http://samlib.ru/editors/w/wladimir_e_b/14-moskva.shtml      762Москва – как много в этом звуке [Просмотр]   Рубрика: מ – МЕСТА, России2012-06-15   http://vladimirbershadsky.info/page/moskva-kak-mnogo-v-etom-zvuke      Москва   Яузы   ‘Aqua’ – “аква”.   Москва скоро отметит свой миллениум   Великий/великой   ‘Красная площадь – чрево Москвы   библейский Мосох   Слово ‘Ва’   Шитик   Судно———-[סוד]   מזג /мезег = ‘смесь жидкостей; темперамент’.   ‘Aqua’ – “аква”.   Меря   Яхрома река   Какие существуют гипотезы о происхождении слова ‘Москва”?   Москва   ‘Aqua’ – “аква”.   “Москва слезам не верит, ей дело подавай”   Москву слезами не РАСКВЕЛИШЬ      http://img.rl0.ru/ffe34ae1b34f21f53486c6ec3f2a72e4/432×288/news.rambler.ru/img/2012/09/01080950.157671.8845.jpg   Москва   Некоторые (http://www.kabmir.com/forum/showthread.php?p=49303&posted=1#post49303 )    предполагают, что Москву основали потомки билейского патриарха Мосха (מֶשֶׁךְ / месех // Мосх – Пс. 119:5 – https://azbyka.ru/biblia/?Ps.119&r~c~i ): משך בא / месех ба // мосх ва /// моск ва – ‘Мосх пришёл’   запись от 1148 года – “приди ко мне, брате, в Москов ”   משך הוה // мосх овъ – ‘Мосх сущий’    \ מעש קובע / маъс ковэ // мос ковъ – ‘дело, деяние ++ установляет, устанавливает, определяет; грабит, лишает, отнимает’ – в начале XIV века московский князь Иван Калита (‘казна’, запертая на ключ – калит \ כלית) хитростью добился у хана Золотой Орды права собирать дань для последней со всех руських княжеств. В конце XIV века века московские великие князья собирали ок. 60 000 рублёв, из которых только 5000 шло хану в Орду.   От корня [משך]/машах —–► מושך בא / мошех ба // моск ва = ‘1. таскает {баржу и деньги из мошны}, тянет 2. увлекает {~ Машиах} 3. получать деньги по банковскому счёту’ —–► от этого же корня [משך] —–► название важного пункта на Аравийском п-ве, далеко выходящим в Индийский океан – ‘Маскат \ משכת’, где была база португальцев, собирающих дань с арабских мореплавателей, ходивших из Персидского залива в Индию.       מס קוה / Мас кава // Мас ква- “налог собирал”! – Москва собирала налог за проход лодок и барж (ארבה / арба – ‘баржа’ —–► ארבת / Арбат – ‘ улица, выходящая к Москве-реке’) по Москве-реке в Оку \ הו קוה / О ква – ‘Бог собирает’ (ср. Aqua / הקוה / аква = ‘собирание’ – воду собирают плотины, а деньги собирают в казну . )         Слово “МОСКОВ” никак не похоже на “Москей” (кстати, на французском языке!! – мечеть).   Некоторые древние летописцы объсняли слово Москов, как происхождение от библейского патриарха Мосха      Историк Иван Забелин приводит слова Польского ученого конца XVI века Стрыйковского: ‘Мосох или Мезех, шестой сын Иафетов, внук Ноев, есть отец и прародитель всех народов Московских, Российских, Польских, Волынских, Чешских, Мазовецких, Болгарских, Сербских, Харватских, и всех, елико есть Славенский язык; что у Моисея Мосох (Мешех), Московских народов праотец, знаменуется (упоминается) также и у Иосифа Флавия в Древностях; что ни от реки, ни от града Москвы Москва наименование получила, но река и град от народа Московского имя восприяли; что имя сие: Мосох, Мокус, Моска, Моски, Москорум, Московитарум, Модокорум и проч. все древние историки, Еврейские, Халдейские, Греческие и Латинские и новейшие Мосоха, Москвы праотца и областей того имени, во многих местах непрестанно и явно поминают; что третий брат Леха и Чеха, Русь, истинный наследник Мосохов от Иафета, великия и пространныя полуночныя и восточныя и к полудню страны размножил и населил народами Русскими’ [7].      Иван Забелин приводит также слова из сочинения Тимофея Кеменевича-Рвовского, 1684 – 1699 годы, диакона Холопьего на Мологе монастыря, ‘Как и когда произошли Словены и Русы’: ‘Сей же Мосох князь Московский бысть и началородный нам и первых отец не токмо же Скифо-Москво-Словено-Российским людем, но и всем нашим своесродным государствам премногим и народам и землям и племенам и коленам Скифским’ [8].       (משך /Мешех – сын Иафета – Бытие 10:2). Частица – ОВ – означает “ЕГО”. משכיו / Мошхав // Москов. В этом слове есть частица שכ – “смешивать (175/231)” – синоним корня בלל или בבל / Бавель // Вавель ——> “Вавилон”!   Частица מש (194/231: “Ощущать, прикасаться; тереть; мыть и сушить; носить; держать; международные события и отношения; груз, ноша пророчества; сущность, содержание, действительность; искать, разыскивать”).   Само же слово “משך /мешех” – “протяжение (*в пространстве); продожительность (*во времени)”. И это обоснует громадную ПЛОЩАДЬ владений Москвы и ДРЕВНОСТЬ происхождения.      Слово же МЕЧЕТЬ – מציתי / мециети // мечеть = “послушные Мне”      Слово же MOSQUE – מסכוי / мъскуй = “Видящие Бога” или   מסככוה /m’Sckue = “покрытые, защищёные Богом”   Мешех (по-гречески Мοσοχ ‘Мосо́х’) – древний народ Закавка- зья, мосхи, чье имя связано с названием Месхетии (область Грузии). Само слово משך ‘ме́шех’ буквально означает ‘охапка’, ‘охваченное руками’.   Иез. 38:      1 И было ко мне слово Господне:   2 сын человеческий! обрати лице твое к Гогу в земле Магог, князю ВЕРХОВНОМУ (/ נשיא ראש/наси Рош), Мешеха и Тувала, и изреки на него пророчество   3 и скажи: так говорит Господь Бог: вот, Я – на тебя, Гог, князь верховный Роша, Мешеха и Тувала!      ראש / Рош – слово, которое встречается в русской Библии (Иез.38), попавшее туда из перевода Септуагинты книги пророка Иезекииля: ‘Обрати лицо твое к Гогу в земле Магог, князю Роша, Мешеха и Фувала…’. При этом князь Роша иногда рассматривается как один из прообразов эпического князя Руса (Роса).   В оригинале Библии на еврейском языке эти слова звучат как ‘гог эрец гамагог нэси рош’. Еврейский язык не знает прописных и строчных букв. Поэтому слово ‘рош’, как и все прочие слова в еврейском оригинале, в тексте выделено не было, то есть оно не было написано с большой буквы. Значение имени собственного ему придали греческие переводчики, не зная точного перевода, в то время как пророк Иезекииль скорее всего использовал его в значении ‘главный’ – ראש /рош. Правильный перевод должен выглядеть так: ‘Обрати лицо твое к правителю земли Магог, главному князю Мешеха и Фувала…’. В английской Библии короля Якова (начало XVII века) слова ‘нэси рош’ переданы адекватно еврейскому оригиналу: the chief prince – буквально: ‘главный принц’, ‘великий князь’. В таком же значении истолкованы эти слова во французском переводе Библии (prince-chef) и в немецком переводе Мартина Лютера (der oberste fuerst). Такое истолкование этих слов объясняется тем, что все перечисленные переводы ориентированы не на греческую Септуагинту, а на латинский перевод Библии – Вульгату, где эти слова переведены правильно: princeps capitis.   В славянской Библии, перевод которой делали с Септуагинты, слово ‘рош’ не просто было оставлено без перевода, но и подано в греческой транслитерации (‘рос’) – ‘князь Росъ’. Народом Рос (Ρώς) в византийских источниках называли народ севера русь, совершавший набеги на Византию в IX-X веках. В современной литературе, включая богословскую, нередко сохраняется традиция использовать неправильно переведённое слово рош как раннее свидетельство о руси.   Гог характеризуется словами, Мешех, мшаха מְשָׁכָא – арамит, и Тувал תֻבָל. משך /Мешех может означать (согласно Еврейско-русскому библейскому словарю: будет, натянул, взойди, владеющие, влёк, влеките, вступила, выберите, вытащили, вытащить, долго, замедлят, затрубить, звука, идёт, крепкого, крепкому, медлил, натягивал, отложено, отсрочено, сеятеля, сострадающего, увлекает, простри, прострёшь, протягивает, протяжённость, ) просторность, протяженность (большую земли Магог מגוג /магог = ‘Гогская земля, земля гога’. גג /гаг – ‘крыша’. ‘Крышей’ именовали некий купол, висящий над Землёй у полюса. Следовательно, земли Магога – северные страны. ). А ‘Туваль’ может означать ‘будет опозорен’ תֻבָּל, но может означать и תבל /тевел – ‘Земля, земной шар, Мир, вселенная’.      Существует очень интересное предание, что Мешех, дойдя до далеких ‘северных пределов’, основал поселение, названное его именем, на территории будущей Москвы. Этимология имени нашей столицы и по сей день в точности не выяснена; есть разные теории на этот счет, и среди них – ‘библейская’, возводящая имя Москвы и поселение в ней человека к после- потопным временам. С данной точки зрения имя משך /’Мешех’ – пророческое: городу, как известно, предстояло в далеком будущем ‘собирать в охапку’, объединять вокруг себя русские земли…      Суффикс “ск” – В соответствие с Еврейско-русским словарём Ветхого Завета (http://greeklatin.narod.ru/heb3/index.htm ) : 4 – ‘1. многолюдство 2. скиния. Шалаш, жилище’. Поэтому слово “Москва”   – מוסך בא /мосх ва// моск ва = “Там множество (людей), жилищ + приходят, собираются”.         מו סכ ווה / Мо ск ва // Мо ско ва = ‘102/231 Сефер Ецира – /מו /Мо – Роза небес – ורד מעלה / веред маэла – ‘Роза подъёма, поднимающегося (герб Японии); ступени, степени; преимущества, достоинства’ ++   ‘169/231 С.Е. – סכ Трон бога [כס /кес – ‘трон, кресло’], корпус небесной колесницы, быть на свету; סכ чаша, сосуд, потир’ (169/231)   По Лемельману: סך – ‘покрывать’ – [סכך] ++ כ ו Господь Бог ++ Бог, {возглас удивления}   ‘   По преданию люди, говорившие, что они де из Святой земли произошедши от патриарха Мосха пришли в место слияния реки    Яузы    и Москвы-реки и получили там убежище.   [עוז] – יעוז /йауз – ‘он получит кров, убежище’      Мосх+ква -Река, от названия которой произошло имя города.      Мос-ква \ מעש כוה / маъс ква // мос ква = “Дело, деяние ++ опалил, обжёг” – в Москве на пристани “арбат” \ ערבה – ‘лодка’, ארבה / арба – ‘баржа’! – осмаливали, опаляли шитики и кочи, ушкуи и другие лодьи, на которых купцы шли вниз по Москве-реке, а затем – по Оке, а затем – вниз (מורידה / морида /// мордва) по матушке, по Волге \ בעל גאה / баъл гаа // вол гаа = “Обладатель ++ большой подъём воды, реки, прилив”      Мосх -Народ мосхи (месхи) – жили на Кавказе. Некоторые ассоциируют их с древним племенем, жившим в восточной Каппадокии, – Мушками. Слово ‘Мушки’ также связано с водой, с орошением – משקה /Машка – ‘Пью, Поливаю, орошаю’.       מהשקה /Мушка – ‘Тот, кто вышел из полива, из-за того, что его оросил Бог Шкай’. Бог Шкай – главный языческий бог Мордвы. Шкай – שקי /Sky – ‘Небо’ – был видно главным богом всех народов Европы бронзового века.   Родство мосхов (месхов) с Москвой видно уже потому, что покровитель Иверии (Грузии) – Георгий-победоносец, а на гербе Москвы – также Георгий-победоносец. Изображение всадника на коне, поражающего змия, это и Перун, и Баъл, и Мардук, поражающий змея тёмных вод Тиамат      Ква – река – от лат. “аква” – вода.    ‘Aqua’ – “аква”.   עכבה/аква – ‘1. задержка 2. помеха 3. торможение’    – ПЛОТИНА, которая задерживает воду, которая и стала называться у латинян – ‘Аква’. Без плотины в Аравии и в Ханаане не получишь воду . Такова знаменитая марибская плотина, которая и создала ‘Счастливую Аравию’. С разрушением плотины ‘Счастливая Аравия’ исчезла, ушла вода- ушла жизнь.   הקוה /аква = ‘надежда’ – вода в пустыне – это надежда на жизнь   ‘Миква’ – מקווה /миква – ‘Бассейн для ритуальных омовений’. Барахтаться – окунаться в ритуальный бассейн – микву, чтобы получить ‘Браху’ =- ‘благословление’.   מקווה /миква . Это слово походит на слово ‘Аква’ – Вода. (Лягушка не зря КВАкает.).   Б. А. Рыбаков выплату вятичами, на земле которых стояла Москва, дани хазарам комментируется как “проездная пошлина.” {Слово Москва (‘Масква’) можно написать так: מס קבע /мас кава = ‘налог установленный’}.      Но задержка, торможение связана ещё и с тем, что именно в Москве сухопутный путешественник, идущий от Днепра через Смоленск, уплачивая постоянный сбор {מס קבע /Мас кава = ‘налог, сбор постоянный, установленный’}, имел возможность купить шитик или присоединиться к компании купцов, которые уже по воде-акве мог спуститься на Низ, т.е. на Волгу, а от туда – в Хвалынское (Каспийское море)   1. מעש עכבה /маъс аква = ‘Деяние + вода’. После долгого и опасного путешествия через Варшаву {הרשה /арша – ‘разрешение’ на переправу}, Оршу {то же, что и Варшава} и Смоленск {лежащий на левой стороне Днепра, если плыть по нему сверху – סמולה נע שחה /смола наъ шаха//смолэ нъ сх} путешественники добирались до Воды – Москвы-реки, по которой можно было идти (בא /ба//ва) до Персии.   2. מעש כוה /мас ква – ‘деяние + опалил, обжёг’ – шитики-лодки осмаливали, а для этого смолу варили на огне – Яхве {יכוה /яхве = ‘он опалит, обожжёт’}. на месте Москвы строили корабли-шхуны-уШкуи {שחה /шаха – ‘плавать’} для дальнейшего путешествия уже по воде-акве вплоть до Персии-Ирана. До Москвы с запада (от Смоленска) добирались сухим путём по старой смоленской дороге. На это указывает и другой корень – [קוה ]/ква – ‘собирать, уповать’. Путешественники, купцы, люди, ищущие службы уповали, надеялись на Бога будущего – Яхве:   3. מעש קוה/мас кива = ‘деяние + надеялся, уповал’ – по деяниям твоим будешь уповать на будущее – Бога Яхве – יהוה /Яhwa- ‘Он будет существовать’   4. מעש קוה/мас кава = ‘деяние + собирал, стекаться’ – Москва была центром, куда стекались не только купцы и путешественники, но и ремесленники, воинские люди, надеющиеся найти службу при дворе Великого князя и его бояр и стать ‘дворскими, дворянами’   5. מעשך בא /маъсха ва – ‘Деяние твоё + ты шёл и иди’. Москва – истинный ДЕЛОВОЙ ЦЕНТР России. И это никто никогда не оспаривал, даже жители Петербурга.      6. Москва – מעש קוה /маъс ква = ‘дело, деяние, действие + собирать, уповать’ – в Москву стремились, надеясь получить стОящее дело.      7. Москва – משא קוה /масса ква = ‘пророчество + собирать, уповать’      8. מעש כוה /маъс ква = ‘дело, деяние, действие + обжигал, опаливал’ – в Москве, на Арбате строились, делались (arbeit/ арбайт – ‘работа’) лодки, баржи, коих смолили, чтобы пустить в длинное плавание вниз – מורידה / морида – Мордва – до Астрахани и далее по Каспию в Иран – это и было стОящее дело.   משכיל/маскиль – ‘1. интеллигентный, образованный; 2. умный; 3. удачливый; 4. просветитель; 5. эпический псалом’. Можеть быть в Х веке просветительство шло на Украину именно с востока, из Московии – ‘МасКовии’ – משא קובע/маса ковэа = ‘Ноша, тяжесть, ПРОРОЧЕСТВО + Устанавливаю, определяю’.   А москвичи, как более образованные, получили у хохлов прозвище – ‘МОСКАЛИ’ – от משכיל/маскиль – ‘образованные, знающие’      Ещё версии:   1. Москва – немецк. Maskau – иъвритск. МАС КАВУА / מס קבוע – “постоянный налог”, “закреплённый налог” . Москва была таможней на реке Москве. В 1147 году Гюргий-коняз в Русском третьем КАГАНАТЕ, пишет конязю: “Приди ко мне, брате, в Москов”. А другой, второй КАГАНАТ почил в бозе где-то в Х веке. Именно его ТАМОЖНЕЙ и был “Москов”.   Слово ‘Москов’ имеет ивритское окончание – ‘ов’ = הוה /овэ// овъ – ‘сущий, существующий’. Т.е. Город москов существует, он есть.            А чтоб судить о важности этого места, посмотрите на КАРТУ торговых путей “из варяг в багдадский халифат”: Любек – Рюген – Готланд – НЕВО – ВОЛХОВ – Новгород – по р. Ловать – Витебск – Смоленск – Сафоново – Вязьма – Бородино – Можайск – Москов – Коломна – (далее по Оке) – Рязань – Юхта – КОЧЕМАРЫ – ЛАШМА – Касимов – Чикур – ЕЛА ТЬМА – МУРОМ – АГАПОВО – Н. Новгород – (далее БаЛГА) – ВасильСУРСК – ШАБАХСАР- ВОЛЬСК1 – КАЗАНЬ(БУЛГААР) – БУЛГАР2 – Симбирск – ЗЕГУЛА (а там Губино, Кресты, Богатырь) – ХВАЛЫНСК – ВОЛЬСК2 – САРТОВ – САРсув (Царицын) – остров Хаза-ар – Асатархан – КАСПИЙ (Хвалынское море) – МАХАШКАЛЕ – РЕЙ – Техран – Испагань – Шираз – Багдад – Басра – Бушир – Бомбей.    http://samlib.ru/editors/w/wladimir_e_b/14-moskva.shtml      http://imperia.lirik.ru/index.php/content/view/231/20/1/2/   Богатов Анатолий Алексеевич   Список статей   Древняя Русь или Эрзь?   Введение   Происхождение названия МОСКВА   Куликовская битва   Московский Кремль и …многое другое   Литература и P.S.      Стр. 3 из 6   Происхождение названия МОСКВА.    Наверное, не нужно долго разъяснять тот факт, что этимология и, в частности топонимика, являются не самыми последними аргументами в обосновании тех или иных исторических фактов или, по меньшей мере, для постановки новых вопросов в объяснении исторических моментов, на которые ОИ вразумительных ответов дать не может. В качестве объекта для ‘ этимологических раскопок’ воспользуемся, как уже отмечено выше, книгой Г.В. Носовского и А.Т. Фоменко ‘Москва в свете Новой хронологии'(1). Но вначале определимся с происхождением, без преувеличения сказать, главного географического названия во всей истории – МОСКВА. Для сравнения приведем вкратце историю расшифровки этого названия и существующие версии и гипотезы.   Москва скоро отметит свой миллениум   Вполне возможно, что Москва быть основана намного раньше, чем принято считать. До сегодняшнего дня за дату начала существования города брался 1147 год: именно в это время в летописях появилось первое упоминание о Москве. Однако найденные в ходе археологических раскопок на территории российской столицы артефакты говорят о том, что Москва вслед за Владимиром вскоре сможет отметить свой миллениум. Такое заявление сделал главный археолог столицы Александр Векслер в интервью “Интерфакс”.      “Сколько лет Москве – достаточно сложный вопрос. Прошли юбилеи ряда российских городов: отсчеты города идут по ранним археологическим находкам, а не по первому письменному упоминанию. Так, во Владимире отметили 850 лет, а потом и тысячелетие”, – отметил Векслер.      Главный археолог Москвы рассказал, что наиболее ранняя чеканка монет, найденных на территории города, относится к 862-866 годам. “Эти монеты были найдены рядом с Кремлем. Надо расширить археологические работы, чтобы выявить новые находки, строения более раннего периода, чем 1147 год. Так и Москва может отметить вскоре свой миллениум”, – добавил Векслер.      Чиновник также поделился итогами последних археологических раскопок в центре столицы. Так, по словам Векслера, в ходе раскопок на территории Теплых торговых рядов (район современной Ильинки) было найдено более 40 частично сохранившихся деревянных сооружений предположительно XII-XVII веков, в том числе жилых, служебных, хозяйственных построек и колодцев.      Помимо этого, московские археологи обнаружили более 2 тысяч предметов XV-XIX веков, среди которых перстни, монеты, замки, ключи, церковная утварь, а также кованые и оружейные изделия.      По данным ИТАР-ТАСС, на территории раскопок также был найден небольшой клад из 11 монет, которые представляют историческую и культурную ценность: как установили археологи, монеты были отчеканены во времена правления сына Дмитрия Донского князя Василия Дмитриевича. Не меньший интерес представляет и редкая стеклянная икона XV века с изображением Христа. По предположением ученых, она была привезена в Россию из Византии.      По словам Векслера, исследования проводились на площади более 500 кв. метров на глубине 5-6-метров. Ученый также сообщил, что со следующего года археологические раскопки будут проводиться на “перспективном культурном слое”, на территории Средних торговых рядов, откуда были выведены военные объекты, а также на месте снесенной гостиницы “Россия”.   ———————————————————   С. Колибаба скомпилировал:   Мне не поют заветные слова,-       И мне в Париже ничего не надо,       Одно лишь слово нужно мне:       Москва!       К. Бальмонт         1) Москва – это принцип   Пытаясь проникнуть в смысл понятия Москва, русский поэт Бальмонт (стих. Москва, 1926) пишет:   ‘Поет старинная печать.   Тут слово первое науки,   Но мне неведомой. Тут – знак,   А смысл понять нельзя никак’.   Литературный критик М. Н. Катков в статье ‘Историческое значение Москвы как символа основных начал, на которых зиждется государство'” (Московские ведомости” 1865, ? 182), отмечал: ‘Москва не есть просто город; не кирпич и известь ее домов, не люди, в ней живущие, составляют ее сущность. Москва есть историческое начало, Москва есть ПРИНЦИП. Очевидно, что интерес к значению этого имени был большой, Москву упоминают в своих произведениях: А. С. Пушкин, М. Лермонтов, Ф. Глинка и др. известные поэты и писатели; не зная как объяснить смысл понятия буквально, русские люди XIX века вывели формулу – ‘Москва – не город, Москва есть принцип’.       Зафиксированные письменно попытки дешифровать топоним и гидроним ‘Москва’ встречаются и в более ранние времена, однако всех исследователей постигала неудача; христианское мышление, интерпретируя СЛОВО, отказалось от философской связи с материнским учением – ИУДАИЗМОМ. Например, в 1526 г. император Священной римской империи Максимилиан, отправляет в Москву с дипломатическим поручением Сигизмунда Герберштейна (дипломат, писатель, историк), результатом его поездки явилась книга “Записки о московитских делах” (1549). В этой книге изложены факты истории, географии и этнографии Москвы: “Итак, город Московия, глава и столица Руси, и сама область, и река, которая протекает по ней, носит одно и то же имя; на родном языке народа они названы Москвой. Что именно из них дало имя прочим, неизвестно”. Герберштейн совершенно прав, стараясь проникнуть в сущность слова-символа “Москва”, через символ, проникая в образ, человек, получает информацию об объекте; предметный мир страны сформирован в образ, который отражает в сжатом виде действительность.   ——————————————————————   Великий/великой      בעלי כי /баъли ки = ‘Хозяин, обладатель мой ++ потому что ‘       – https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3510/15867844.e4/0_15b133_6d3a9e1d_XL.jpg       – http://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/843464701743464448/1024/10/scaletowidth      Обычно древние замки и кремли строят на полуостровах, образуемых впадающей речкой (здесь река Пскова) в большую реку (здесь – река Великая).   Московский кремль стоит на берегу реки Москвы, защищающей кремль Москвы с юга:   מוסכך בא / мосхх ба // москк ва = ‘защищающий ++ пришёл, вошёл, иди (*ходить по реке)’.    Мосхом в древней Руси могли называть князя, в данном случае – Юрия Долгорукого – יוראי / Йураи // Юрий – ‘он будет устрашать’ или ‘Бог усмотрел меня’.          http://s008.radikal.ru/i305/1508/99/6e3f02cd0a0e.jpg   С запада и севера кремль прикрывала река Неглинная, а с востока был ров, а за рвом торговая площадь –   ‘Красная площадь – чрево Москвы   Герб Москвы – красный, как и красная форма стрельцов    – https://mos-holidays.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/gerb_moskvy1.jpg   ‘ \ כרסני / красни – ‘жизненный’ (от כרס / карес // крас – ‘живот, брюхо {жизнь – ср. ‘Чрево Парижа’ – квартал, где осуществлялась торговля мясом, хлебом и (красным) вином’).      В восприятии и понимании древних символов-сигналов у нас ПРОБЛЕМА, она связана с быстрыми социально-политическими изменениями, происходящими в обществе, наука – запаздывает (не успевает ‘пристраивается’ к новым политическим веяниям) и не может объяснить (ограничена властью) обществу значение абсолютного большинства ИМЕН и ТЕРМИНОВ – новыми поколениями ученых утеряны логические и философские связи с прошлым.      Деятели христианства (философы, теологи, поэты и писатели) вели поиски новой системы истолкования имен и терминов, христианство уничижительно относилось к иудаизму (материнской религии) и отказалось от его философии, в которой создавались древние ИМЕНА и ПОНЯТИЯ – две родственные религиозно-философские системы утеряли ЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ СВЯЗИ и СМЫСЛЫ. Под влиянием процесса ДЕМОКРАТИЗАЦИИ обществ (революции, отмена крепостничества) эти изыскания в XIX веке привели русских интеллектуалов к идее ‘СОБОРНОСТИ’. Идея национального (‘славянского’) единства и мощного государства оформилась в формулу – Православие, Самодержавие, Народность; в ходе революционных преобразований 1917-1920 гг. влияние церкви было уменьшено до минимума, а самодержавие (научная и административная элита) полностью уничтожено. В этот период были утеряны связи с философией иудаизма – религиозная деятельность и знание иностранного языка служили поводом к уничтожению человека. Новая ученая элита получила ‘урезанное’ образование, древняя философия сводилась к изучению проблем классовой борьбы, истолкование имен и терминов перевели в НАРОДНОЕ русло (от языка народа региона), что привело к полнейшему хаосу в ономастике – абсолютное большинство имен и терминов нельзя объяснить национальными языками, т.к. они создавались в системе иудеохристианской ТЕОЛОГИИ.      В системе передачи древних сообщений – СИГНАЛ-ИНФОРМАЦИЯ-СМЫСЛ, остался один СИГНАЛ (имя, термин), а он не вызывает изменений в сознании у получателя, не превращается в ИНФОРМАЦИЮ, получатель не может (не обучен, не обладает знаниями) произвести ОЦЕНКУ и наделить сигнал СМЫСЛОМ. Получатели древнего СИГНАЛА существуют в другой системе ценностей, и хотя эта система родственна иудаизму (иудаизм – иудеохристианство – христианство) – нарушена ИЕРАРХИЯ (преемственность), а философская связь отрицается или извращается.      Мы считаем, что вся терминология носит САКРАЛЬНЫЙ характер, и в той или иной мере связана с языком Бога (иврит) или является производной от понятий иврита, соответственно надо ориентироваться не на современную ГРАММАТИКУ (форму слова), а на философию иудаизма (содержание). Распространенное в обществе представление о Библии как о КУЛЬТОВОМ документе не соответствует действительности, в еврейской Библии (Тора – МАТЕРИАЛИСТИЧЕСКОЕ УЧЕНИЕ) нет фантастических представлений о мире, всё рационально, продумано и связано в единую систему, объясняющую устройство мира и правила поведения человека в природе и обществе. Предусмотрена ответственность человека (как мыслящего существа) за нарушение законов природы (Бога) и механизм САМОСОХРАНЕНИЯ общества и природы от НЕРАЗУМНЫХ ДЕЙСТВИЙ отдельных людей (лидеров) или групп людей – МОРАЛЬ, она входит основным элементом во все законы и программы, создаваемые человеком.      1) Версии о происхождении имени Москва      Википедия   ‘Ойконим ‘Москва’ имеет основную этимологию, поддержанную или разработанную С. П. Обнорским, Г. А. Ильинским, П. Я. Черных, Т. Лер-Сплавинским, М. Фасмером. Кроме того, имеется ряд менее вероятных гипотез.      Основная этимология   ‘Название города Москва происходит от названия реки Москва.   Как полагают исследователи, слово ‘Москва’, принадлежало ранее к древнерусскому типу склонения на -ū-, именительный падеж которого заканчивался на -ы. … Таким образом, древнейшей формой топонима была не засвидетельствованная в письменных памятниках форма Москы. Уже в очень раннюю эпоху форма именительного падежа данного типа склонения заместилась формой винительного. Для этой стадии есть засвидетельствованные формы ‘Москъвь’ и ‘Московь’, откуда в иностранных языках возникли названия типа англ. Moscow, нем. Moskau, фр. Moscou. В дальнейшем тип склонения на -ū- вообще прекратил своё существование: лексемы, которые к нему относились, влились в более продуктивные типы на -i- (кровь, бровь, любовь, свекровь, церковь) и -ā- (буква, брюква, смоква, ботва, плотва, диалектные формы церква, морква, а также Москва)’.      Итак, перед нами рядовая ‘филологическая’ уловка, выявленная гипотетическим путём ‘не засвидетельствованная в письменных памятниках’ форма ‘МОСКЫ’, далее рассуждения авторов сводятся к игре склонений, которые ‘прекращают своё существование’. Отметим, что ЗАСВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВОВАННЫЕ ПИСЬМЕННО формы МОСКЪВЬ и МОСКОВЬ не рассматриваются, гипотетическое предположение берётся за основу, однако последуем за другими высказываниями авторов.      ‘Корень mosk- в праславянском языке означал ‘вязкий, топкий’ или ‘болото, сырость, влага, жидкость’, причём существовали параллельные дублетные образования mozg-   ——————————————————————–   מזוג /мизуг = ‘1. Слияние, смешивание (информации!!); 2. Объединение’. זוג /зуг = ‘ пара ‘ (полушарий). מזוג /мизуваг – ‘спаренный’ —- מוזוג / мозуг – מוזג /мозъг = ‘ парный’ -мозг состоит из правого и левого полушария, но мозги мужчин и женщин дополняют друг друга в паре   מזיגה /мъзига – ‘ 1. слияние, смесь; 2. наливание; 3. сочетание, синтез’   =============================================    и mosk-.   ——————————————————————–   מוסכך / мосхх // москк = ‘покрывающий, защищающий’ – в половодье вода покрывает землю, а вода во рву защищает замок. Москва (Московское государство) покрыла всю Русь и образовала Великороссию.   =====================================    То, что корень моск- по своему значению связан с понятием ‘влага’, подтверждается употреблением его в других славянских и европейских языках: в словацком языке встречается нарицательное слово moskva, значащее ‘влажный хлеб в зерне’ или ‘хлеб, собранный с полей в дождливую погоду’; в литовском языке существует глагол mazgóti ‘мыть, полоскать’, а в латышском языке – глагол mazgāt, что значит ‘мыть’. В современном русском языке этот корень представлен словом ‘промозглый’ – сырой (о погоде)’.      Итак, смысл понятия сформирован – MOSK, ‘в ‘праславянском’ языке означал ‘вязкий, топкий’ или ‘болото, сырость, влага, жидкость’; НО ОТКУДА АВТОРАМ ИЗВЕСТЕН ПРАСЛАВЯНСКИЙ ЯЗЫК, существовал ли он в действительности? Есть издавна зафиксированное письменно еврейское понятие – МУШКЭ, МАШКЭ מַשְׁקֶה орошенная земля, поить, орошать; другой глагол – ШЕКА שָׁקַע вязнуть, погружаться (ШК-СК) { → щека – заложить монету за щеку, щека внутри влажная}.    MOZG: иврит – МАЗАГ, МОЗЕГ מוֺזֵג смешивать, подливать, наливать (смесь жидкостей); таким образом, существовавший на пространстве христианства сакральный язык (иврит), подменяется не известным ‘праславянским’ языком.         Различные гипотезы      а) Слово ‘Москва’ происходит из финно-угорских языков. Слог -ва означает ‘вода’, ‘река’ или ‘мокрый’, то есть, так же, как и в названиях многих других рек. Моск- можно объяснить из языка коми, где оно означает ‘корова’, либо из фин. musta ‘черный, темный’. К финно-угорской также относится гипотеза С. К. Кузнецова, рассмотренная ниже, увязывающая ‘Москву’ с западно-марийскими словами ‘Маскá’, которое означает ‘медведь’, и ‘Авá’, которое означает ‘мать’.   —————————————————————-   מוסכך אבא / москк ава // москова = ‘защищающий, покрывающий ++ отец’   ===============================================      б) Гипотеза В. Н. Топорова   По мнению В. Н. Топорова, название ‘Москва’ входит в ареал балтийских топонимов и восходит к балтийскому корню mask-/mazg- ‘топкий, слякотный’ с характерным балтийским топонимическим суффиксом -uva (ср. лит. Lietuva).      в) Гипотеза А. И. Соболевского   Топоним происходит от авестийского слова ама ‘сильный’.      г) Легендарные гипотезы   библейский Мосох   ‘Легенда о библейском происхождении, название одноимённой реки происходит от имени библейского Мосоха, внука Ноя и сына Афета, и его жены Квы – по библейской легенде потомками Мосоха были заселены земли от Вислы до самого Белого озера. Связана эта легенда с известной средневековой теорией монаха Филофея ‘Москва – Третий Рим’:    ‘Той ибо Мосох по потопе лета 131, шедши от Вавилона с племенем своим, абие во Азии и Европе, над берегами Понтскаго или Черного моря, народи Мосховитов от своего имене и осади: и оттуда умножашуся народу, поступая день от дне в полунощныя страны за Черное море, над Доном и Волгою рекою… И тако от Мосоха праотца Славенороссийского, по последию его, не токмо Москва народ великий, но и вся Русь или Россия вышенареченная призыде’.   Мосох – Мешех   М’ешех (владение) –   а) (Быт.10:2 ; 1Пар.1:5 ; Иез.27:13 ; Иез.32:26 ; Иез.38:2 ; Иез.39:1 ) – один из сыновей Иафета, сына Ноя, родоначальник и название северных (даже крайнесеверных, Иез.39:2 ) диких племен на север от Черного иКаспийского морей (в Пс.119:5 назван Мосох) (полагают, это имя указывает прямо на Москву или Московию); (см. Гог,б)   б) (1Пар.1:17 ) – один из сыновей Сима, сына Ноя (в Быт.10:23 назван Маш, сын Арама, другого сына Сима).         Библия. Ветхий и Новый заветы. Синоидальный перевод. Библейская энциклопедия.. арх. Никифор. 1891. https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/biblerus/70622/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%85         В представленной легенде больше здравого смысла, чем в построениях наших филологов, древние исследователи пытались определить направление заселения территории, откуда пришли колонисты; ряд современных историков считает, что освоение русских территорий шло – с ЮГА.   У Иезекииля 38:1: ‘Сын человеческий! Обрати лице твое к Гогу в земле Магог, князю Роша, Мешеха и Фуфала!’; Магог – Скифия, по И. Флафию; Мешех (ивр. משך), Мосох – согласно Книге Бытия шестой сын Иафета, внук Ноя. Неправильный перевод еврейского текста: ‘гог эрец гамагог нэси рош’ – обрати лицо твое к правителю земли Магог, главному князю Мешеха и Фувала.      Критическая этимология по Максу Фасмеру   Москва – название реки и города, засвидетельствовано с ХIV в. в этой форме (см. Соболевский, РФВ 64, 159 и сл.), др.-русск. Московь, вин. ед., Лаврентьевск. летоп. под 1177 г., местн. п. ед. ч. на Москви, Ипатьевск. летоп. под 1175 г., род. п. ед. из Москве, до Москвѣ, Ипатьевск. летоп. под 1176 г. (см. Соболевский, там же; AfslPh 32, 310; Лингв. набл. 68 и сл.); совр. Москва употребляется во многих районах Поволжья (Мельников 4, 231). Поздне-др.-русск. на Москвѣ (Аввакум, Котошихин), др.-польск. род.-дат.-местн. п. ед. ч. Мoskwi (Кохановский, Кромер); см. Лось, Gr. polska 3, 134 и сл. Таким образом, первонач. основа на -ū Москы, род. п. Москъве (см. Соболевский, ИОРЯС 27, 271 и сл.), откуда тур., алб. Моskоv “Россия”, тур. Моskоv šähri “Москва” (Радлов 4, 2128). Судя по выражениям типа на Москве и под., гидроним Москва старше названия города.      Возм., родственно чеш., слвц. moskva “сырой хлеб (в зерне)”, а также слвц. mozgа “лужа”, польск. Моzgаwа – название реки, далее – лит. mazgoti “мыть, полоскать”, др.-инд. májjati “погружается”, лат. mergō, -еrе “нырять”; см. Ильинский, ZfslPh 4, 104 и сл.; RЕS 4, 141; Bull. Асаd. Sс. dе Pétersbourg, 1922, 601 и сл.; “Slavia”, 3, 564. Ильинский явно ошибочно привлекает польск. moszcz “выжатый плодовый сок” (которое заимствовано из нем. Моst “сусло, сок” от лат. mustum; см. Брюкнер 344 и сл.) и москоть (см.). Следовало бы, во всяком случае, выяснить отношение Москы к фин. местн. н. Мasku. Абсолютно недостоверна связь с галльск. Моsа, Моsеllа, вопреки Лёвенталю (ZONF 5, 58). Сближение с кавк. этнонимом Μόσχοι (Móschoi телята)повисает в воздухе, вопреки Бергу (“Геогр. Вестник”, 1925, т. 2, стр. 5 и сл.), ввиду отсутствия промежуточных звеньев. Не доказано и ир. происхождение (от авест. аmа- “сильный”, по мнению Соболевского (ИОРЯС 27, 271 и сл.)). Неудачны также попытки этимологии из фин.-уг.: от мар. moska “медведь” и аvа “мать”, вопреки Кузнецову (у Преобр. I, 559), и от фин. mustа “черный” + коми vа “вода” (Преобр., там же; в этом случае ожидалась бы форма фин.-суоми vesi “вода”, а не vа, или же, скорее, фин. joki “река”). Широко распространенное благодаря поддержке Ключевского объяснение из коми mösk “корова” и vа “вода” (так Н. Андерсон, FUF Anz. 1, 126) отпадает потому, что коми-зыряне в этой местности не засвидетельствованы (ср. Калима, FUF 18, 53 и сл.; Фасмер, Sitzber. Preuss. Аkаd., 1934, стр. 357; 1936, стр. 218 и сл.). Нельзя также сближать с Мокша (Томас 107). Известно и табуистическое выражение в Москву́ съездить “родить”; см. Зеленин, Табу 2, 30.      Подведем итоги:      – топоним и гидроним МОСКВА в настоящее время не имеет логического истолкования;   – версии: вязкий, топкий (болота везде), Мосох, вода, река, медведь и др., не дают какой-либо полезной информации для бытия древнего человека;   – имя не выделяет природный (река) и рукотворный (поселение) объекты из мира природы и социальных отношений; не позволяет деятелю средневековья ориентироваться в пространстве;   – язык топонима не определен.   Вывод:   – имя Москва возникло в период формирования княжеств как указание на границу между Смоленским и Ростово-Суздальским княжествами (между ними прямой торговый путь);   – топоним принадлежит к социально-феодальным отношениям: межевание территории, торговля, налоговая система; т.е. к деятельности княжеской и церковной администрации.         2) Перейдем от легенд в МАТЕРИАЛЬНЫЙ мир      а) Мосох (Мосок)   Отметим, что корень иврита МЕШЕХ משך (конечная буква КАФ читалась как Х и К) имеет много значений: 1) таскать, тянуть, получать деньги по банковскому счету; 2) ПАРОМЩИК, бурлак; 3) протяжение, продолжительность (высокий). Исходя из географии региона и места расположения города Москва, там изначально должна была быть – ПАРОМНАЯ ПЕРЕПРАВА; в 1147 году малая крепость располагалась на мысу при впадении р. Неглиной в р. Москва. Таким образом, первоначально топоним обозначал – стратегическое МЕСТО ПЕРЕПРАВЫ через реки Неглиную и Москва, для охраны этой важной переправы и взимания таможенных пошлин была поставлена КРЕПОСТЬ. Через город (перекресток) проходили древние прямые сухопутные дороги: от Новгорода до Рязани (Волоцкая), от Киева и Смоленска до Владимира, Суздаля и Ростова Великого (Можайская), а также от Москвы до Твери (Тверская).      б) Москва   Река Москва истекает, имея стратегическую линию русла с ЗАПАДА на ВОСТОК, к северу от города Москва река резко меняет направление течения на ЮГО-ВОСТОК, здесь проходила граница между Смоленским и Ростово-Суздальским княжествами. Древний путь Смоленск-Москва-Владимир (Смоленская дорога) проходил южнее западно-восточного участка реки, он имел особенность – можно было пройти от Смоленска и до Москвы, МИНУЯ крупные переправы (сухой коридор, дорога войны с древнейших времен), собственно в 1812 г. по нему прошел и Наполеон.      Первые упоминания понятия Москва (река, поселение) относятся к 1147 г., этимология имени не определена, историки, среди причин, вызвавших возвышение Москвы к началу XIV в., выделяют удобное географическое положение, перекресток водных и сухопутных дорог, а также защищенность территории. Бассейн реки Москва (362 реки и 500 ручьев) надежно защищен лесами и болотами, а водные пути давали казне деньги в виде пошлин, историк Ключевской пишет: “Все другие явления этого времени, учреждения, социальные отношения, нравы, успехи знаний и искусства, даже нравственно-религиозной жизни, были прямыми или отдаленными последствиями совокупного действия двух указанных факторов волостного (областного) торгового города и внешней торговли”.      Мы имеем ряд слов: город Москва, река Москва, Московия – в XI веке Москва (река, поселение) граница между Ростово-Суздальским и Смоленским княжествами, ПОГРАНИЧНАЯ ЛИНИЯ проходила по точке поворота реки Москва на юго-восток (историческая реконструкция), позже территория Московского удельного княжества. Территорию княжества (земли, государства) объединяет система налогов и дани – первое и необходимое условие любой государственности (нет налогов – не на что содержать аппарат принуждения): река – это территория обложения данью, дорога для сбора дани, сухопутные пути сообщения только обустраивались; город – феодальный центр, куда стекается и где обрабатывается дань.      Итак, мы пришли к выводу, что в бассейне РЕКИ был создан, обозначен и закреплен письменно в летописях СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКИЙ ПУНКТ для Смоленского и Ростово-Суздальского княжеств – Москва, проведение пограничной линии повлекло разделение ранее неконтролируемого финансово-торгового потока. Каждое из княжеств получило свою долю от упорядочивания налогообложения территорий, однако Ростово-Суздальское (в летописях Суздальская земля до XIII в.) очевидно в связи с территориальной близостью, сумело обустроить поблизости от точки поворота русла реки свой таможенный пост – Москву, и получило финансово-торговое преимущество, стало наиболее развитой территорией Руси. Точка поворота реки оказалась в центре пересечения важнейших торговых путей, за преобладание в этом регионе шла ожесточенная борьба: в 1134 году княжество подверглось нападению Всеволода и Изяслава Мстиславичей с новгородцами; в 1146 году в суздальскую землю вторгся Ростислав Ярославич Рязанский; в 1149 году Изяслав и Ростислав Мстиславичи со смолянами и новгородцами разорили суздальские владения по Волге и вывели из княжества 7 тыс. пленных.      Таким образом, мы обозначили главный процесс на этой территории во время появления понятия Москва – установлении государственности (приобретение признанных границ), основным признаком возникновения государственности является обложение данью (налогом) населения, а на границах – взимание пошлин с товаров идущих по реке или вдоль реки. В русском языке, лингвистам, подобрать значение этому слову не удалось, основной признак понятия не выделен, зато в иврите все становится на свои места: МОС+КВА (Масква) = МАС מַס дань, налог + КАВА קָבָע устанавливать; или КАВ קַו линия, черта (меридиан, параллель); маршрут, рейс; т.е. черта (граница) налогообложения.      Фонетика   Первичность оканья перед аканьем (Википедия. Оканье): ‘Оканье было свойственно всем диалектам древнерусского языка; возникновение аканья большинство учёных относят к времени после падения редуцированных, т. е. не ранее XIII века. Самые ранние случаи отражения аканья в памятниках письменности относятся к XIV веку’.      Библейские источники   В Библии налогообложение необходимое условие государственности, упоминается со времени царя Соломона, который разделил Израиль на 12 округов (3 Цар. 4:7), по этому принципу производилось привлечение подданных к различным работам. Натуральная повинность отмечена в Библии словом МАС מַס налог, дань; термин обозначал повинность в пользу царя, а также налог (Исх. 1:11; 2 Цар. 20:24).      Были ли подобные имена в истории Древней Руси или за рубежом?   Река Мста (трактуют из фин. mustа “черная”; название реки Мustajoki, эст. must “черный”), протяженность около 400 км, через волоки (г. Вышний Волочек) на Волгу, базовый путь на Каспий; МАС מַס дань, налог + ТЕА תֵאָה устанавливать пограничную линию; ТИУА תִוָּה ставить знак, обозначать.   Обратимся к летописи: “Иде Вольга (Ольга) Новугороду, и устави по Мьстъ повосты и дани” (Повесть временных лет); таким образом, имя произведено от социального действия, установления налоговой системы, следовательно, основные водные магистрали и территории северной Руси были описаны во время княгини Ольги, и для фиксирования имен использовался иврит, теперь мы знаем время установления системы гидронимов на Руси – 947 год и то, что имя может содержать смысл социального явления.      Сравним гидроним с другими важными государственно-образующими реками, например в Англии – Темза (Thames, этимология не существует), имя реки, содержит общий смысл административного деления, в разное время по берегам Темзы существовало 5-6 королевств; THA+MES = ТЕА תֵאָה устанавливать пограничную линию + МАС מַס налог, дань; река Москва = МОС (МАС) + КВА (налог накладывать, линия налогообложения).      Развитие Московской Руси   Основным налогом на Руси времени монгольского нашествия являлась дань, которая шла в княжескую казну; часть дани передавалась в Золотую Орду, а право на сбор дани для Орды имели Великие князья, поэтому за великое княжение между удельными князьями шла постоянная борьба. Московский князь Иван Данилович Калита (1325-1340) в этой борьбе вышел победителем и в 1328 г. получил великое княжение, соответственно все налоговые потоки стали проходить через МАС-КАВА (Москву); Калита = КЕЛИТА קְליטָה вбирание, впитывание, приём эмигрантов; КЭЛЭТ קֶלֶת корзина. В правлении Ивана Калиты топоним Москва – административно-военный центр земель по Москве-реке, закрепился в сознании русских людей как естественно сложившийся традиционный центр организации государственной и финансово-налоговой деятельности, затем он перерос в символ всех русских земель. Москва – центр давления на периферию (сохранение границ), пока стоит Москва – существует русское государство. Искусственный центр созданный Петром I – Петербург (от Святого Петра?) в свое время выполнил задачи, заложенные в символе (приобщение к лучшим западным образцам культуры), и вновь уступил место Москве, естественному центру государства.      Существующие версии и гипотезы происхождения названия МОСКВА.    Согласно ОИ Москве скоро исполнится 860 лет, а происхождение и смысл ее названия до сего времени точно неизвестны. К. Бальмонт в своем стихотворении 1926 года писал:    ‘Москва … как много в этом звуке    Для сердца русского…’ Опять    Поет старинная печать    Тут слово первое науки,    Но мне неведомой. Тут знак,    А смысл понять нельзя никак.    Эти строки актуальны и сегодня. С тех пор ясности в этом вопросе не прибавилось, хотя появилось много новых версий и гипотез, основанных на догадках, предположениях, даже выдумках.   ———————————————–      Некоторые ученые полагают термин ‘Рос’, который дал позднее название государству Россия, имеет византийское происхождение и был заимствован из Библии, когда по случаю скоропостижной смерти одного из гуннских вождей, собиравшегося в поход на Византию, в Константинополе ‘совершено было благодарственное моление, и патриарх Прокл держал речь, в которой уподоблял гуннов росам и мосохам пророка Иезекиля’.         Все увлечены словом Рос, Рус, Рыс. Для меня это слово не является загадкой.   Россию в средневековье называли не Русия (это было больше у учёных), а Московия. И здесь всплывает слово Мосхи, Мосохи, Мошки, Мушки, Мешех.   Так что же такое Москва? И как это слово связано с Росией (так!)   ===========================   Почти все ныне существующие гипотезы исходят из двух главных предположений:   1) название города произошло от гидронима Москва-река,   2) для объяснения названия слово МОСКВА разделяют на два компонента в виде МОСК и ВА.    Это связано с тем, что первые гипотезы связывали этимологию названия МОСКВА с финно-угорскими языками, что совершенно оправдано, потому что результаты археологических раскопок городищ и селищ дьяковской культуры раннежелезного века историки совершенно определенно трактуют как прямое доказательство того, что на определенном историческом этапе в бассейне Москвы-реки жили племена, говорившие на языке финно-угорской семьи. Элемент ВА на языках коми, марийском и мерянском легко объясняется как ‘река’, ‘вода’ или ‘мокрый’, а элемент МОСК до сего дня точного объяснения не имеет. Например, известный русский историк В.О. Ключевский в свое время придерживался такой версии (что придало ей особую популярность): на языке коми МОСК, МОСКА означает ‘корова, телка’, вместе с компонентом ВА гидроним МОСКВА объясняется как ‘коровья вода’. Однако вскоре выяснилось, что народ коми в этих местах никогда не проживал, поэтому эту версию признали несостоятельной.    По этой же причине оказалась несостоятельной и явно надуманная гипотеза академика А. Соболевского, выдвинутая в начале ХХ века. Согласно ей гидроним МОСКВА будто бы произошел из языков скифско-ираноязычных племен, а именно авестийского слова АМА ‘сильный’. В этом случае название реки интерпретируется как ‘река-гонщица’. Однако факт обитания в этих местах вышеупомянутых племен не доказан да и сама река тихая, равнинная не соответствует такой характеристике.    Известный советский академик Л.С. Берг в тридцатые годы прошлого века предложил гипотезу, опять-таки, о гибридном происхождении гидронима МОСКВА: компонент ВА принадлежит, мол, к финно-угорской языковой среде, а корень МОСК связан с названием кавказского народа МОСХОВ и имеет общее происхождение с такими этнонимами как абхаз и баск. Однако в доказательство своей версии, кроме внешнего сходства слов МОСК и МОСХ, других доводов академик не привел.    В 1947 году эту гипотезу развил историк Н.И. Шишков предположив, что оба компонента МОСК и ВА принадлежат к яфетическим языкам и истолковываются как ‘река мосхов’ или ‘племенная река мосхов’, однако в доказательство не привел ни одного нового аргумента.    Еще одна версия объясняет компонент МОСК через прибалтийско-финские языки как МУСТА ‘черный, темный’, а компонент ВА – через язык коми как ‘вода, река’. Однако ее несостоятельность состоит уже в том, что каждая часть названия объясняется через разные языки, да к тому же далеко удаленные друг от друга.    Из ‘свежих’ можно упомянуть гипотезу украинского академика О.Б. Ткаченко, автора книги ‘Мерянский язык’. Компонент МОСК он объясняет через мерянское МОСКА ‘конопля’. То есть Москва-река – это река Коноплянка.    Современные историки утвердились во мнении, что ни одна из гипотез, связанная с финно-угорскими языками точно и полно не объясняет этимологию названия МОСКВА, и подчеркивают необходимость исследований только в русле славянских и балтийских соответствий.   В какой-то мере убедительные славянские этимологии были предложены лингвистами С.П. Обнорским, Г.А. Ильинским, П.Я. Черных, польским славистом Т. Лер-Сплавинским. Суть их доводов сводится к следующему.   Название МОСКВА утвердилось, по-видимому, только в XIV веке. Первоначально город именовался немного иначе – МОСКЫ. Корень МОСК в древнерусском языке имел значение ‘вязкий, топкий’ или ‘болото, сырость, влага, жидкость’. Так предполагал Г.А. Ильинский.    П.Я. Черных высказал предположение о диалектном характере слова МОСКЫ еще в раннем историческом периоде языка восточных славян. Ученый считал, что его в значении ‘влага’ использовали славяне-вятичи, потому что слова с корнем МОСК, МАЗГ, связанные с понятием ‘влага’, имеются в современном словацком, литовском и латышском языках. Исходя из этого, он сделал вывод, что название МОСКВА можно истолковать как ‘топкая, болотистая, мокрая’.   ————————————————   Конечно же все эти филолухи не догадались и не осмелились заглянуть в словарь Священного языка, из которого появились все более или менее значимые топонимы на территории Европы.   מושך /мошех – ‘1.притягательный, заманчивый 2. тянущий’.   Москва всегда была притягательна для купцов и для переселенцев. Это был не глухой угол, как нам пытаются втюрить горе-советские ‘исторррики’, попИсывающие свои сочинения по заказу и приказу ЦК ВКП (б) . В советское время бытовала пословица – ‘Москва – порт пяти морей’. И это так. Сухопутная дорога от Смоленска вела прямо на запад почти по прямой, точно к Москве, которая была местом, где купцы-гости перегружались на лодьи и спускались аж до самой Персии и Берды. Основная же торговля в древности и средневековье велась почти всегда по рекам. Большие торговые реки в России – исключительно ивритского происхождения. Дунай, Днепр, Днестр, Дон, Донец, Двины (Дуны – ‘Dvna’) связаны с ивритским понятием דון /Дон – דן /дан – ‘Суд божий’/ это означает, что реки широки и, плывя по ним, не надо платить пошлины, и каждый купец отдаётся на Суд божий, защищает себя сам.   Отсюда вывод – название реки Москвы – тоже ивритского происхождения. Но посмотрим, что далее надумают наши филолухи.   ===================================       Известный российский ученый-лингвист академик В.Н. Топоров поддерживает гипотезу о связи названия МОСКВА с балтийскими языками. Во-первых, он утверждает, что компонент ВА не является словом из финно-угорского языка, а именно языка коми, и соотносящегося с терминами ‘вода, река’ и т.п., а является частью нарицательного слова. В доказательство он приводит названия рек с компонентами ВА к западу от столицы – в Верхнем Поднепровье и Прибалтике. Учитывая это, академик относит гидроним МОСКВА к балтийским языкам.   ————————————————-   Слово ‘Ва’   בא /ба//ва – ‘пришел, вошёл’.   Окончание ‘ва’ говорило купцу и рекоплавателю, что по этой реке плыть можно, по ней можно ‘приходить’, она судоходна, ПРОХОДИМА для малых купеческих судов-шитиков.   Шитик   Шитик Шит Небольшое судно у русских ушкуйников Шаит Плавание на судне שיט שוט    Слово “шитик” – это судно с нашитыми досками (скреплёнными шипами -=sheep=’судно’ англ. ), т.е. слово ШИТЬ произошло от шитика.   שוט/шут – “плыви!, плавай на судне!” Выражение “шут с тобой” – “плыви отсюда!”   Судно      Судно———-[סוד]   Фасмер: с ударением на конце – псковск., тверск. (Даль), мн. суда, др.-русск. судьно “сосуд”, “судно, лодка” (Афан. Никит., грам. 1460 г.; см. Срезн. III, 609). Связано с суд II, сосуд, посуда, диал. также в знач. “лодка”, тоб. (ЖСт., 1899, вып. 4, 506); см. Миккола, РФВ 48, 276; Mi. EW 315 и сл.; Преобр. II, 361. Знач. “судно, лодка” ср. с франц. vaisseau “корабль” от лат. vascellum “маленький сосуд”.   סוד נע /сод но – ‘1. Тайна, секрет + движение’. Действительно, древним было не понятно – как вообще на воде, в которой, как известно, тонут могут не только держаться, но и плавать, двигаться такие большие объекты, перевозящие ещё и груз, который ни одна телега не поднимет.   סוד נוע /суд но = ‘совет, ассамблея [компания, команда] + Движение, Плавание’. Чтобы снарядить Судно, требовалось создать компанию, акционерное общество, нанять команду, которая управляет судном.   Теиперь посмотрим, что далее написали исторрррики:   ===============================       Во-вторых, в славянском корне МОСК ученый устанавливает его общность с балтийским корнем MASK, приводя похожие слова со сходными корнями и примерно одинаковыми смысловыми связями. И в русском и балтийских языках они, оказывается, означают понятия ‘жидкий’, ‘мягкий’, ‘слякотный’ и т.п. По версии академика название МОСКВА следует связывать с широким кругом значений, которые могли быть реальными признаками реки, а именно, с представлениями о чем-то жидком, мокром, топком, слякотном, вязком.   ———————————————–   מזג /мезег = ‘смесь жидкостей; темперамент’.   Отсюда и русские слова ‘Мозг’, и понятие ‘Погода’ – מזג האויר /мезег а-Авир на иврите   מוזג /мозег = ‘смешиваю, подливаю, наливаю’. В Мозг наливаются сведения и знания, там они смешиваются. ‘От жары мозги разжижаются’ – נמזג /нимзаг = ‘быть разбавленным, разжиженным’.   Можно сказать, что Москва – ‘Смешение народов, племён’, ‘Мозг’, а не сердце России.   ============================    Есть версия и чисто балтийская. Например, ее сторонник Б.М. Тюльпанов связывает слово МОСКВА с литовскими словами MAZG ‘узел’ и VANDUO ‘вода’. В этом случае название Москвы-реки переводится как ‘узловая вода’, ‘связующая вода’.    Существуют и несколько курьезные версии. Например, еще в начале XIX века З. Доленга-Ходаковский выступил с предположением, что в основе названия МОСКВА имеется слово МОСТКИ и, мол, из-за большого количества мостов река получила именно такое название. Это заблуждение повторяет в своих трудах известный историк Москвы И.Е. Забелин.    Славяно-балтийские версии также не дают убедительного объяснения происхождения названия МОСКВА, хотя современные ученые придерживаются именно этого направления в исследованиях.    Можно упомянуть часто приводимую легенду о связи названия МОСКВА с именем библейского Мосоха, внука Ноя и сына Яфета и его жены Квы. Легенда она и есть легенда. Но это один из редких случаев, когда слово МОСКВА разделена на два элемента в виде МОСК(Х) и КВА.   ————————————————-      ‘Aqua’ – “аква”.      קבע /кава//ква = ‘устанавливал, определял’. Аqua = Аква = הקבע /акева//аКва = ‘постоянство, постоянность, основа’. Вода – основа, постоянная составляющая жизни на Земле. Одно из Имён Бога – Коба – ‘Устанавливающий, Определяющий’. От этого слова и Кааба, и круглая шляпа епископов – ‘Кова’, и прозвище Сталина – Коба, и название маленького очень красивого Орла – КОБчика.   Вода – בוא דאה //во да – ‘Входит, приходит + летающий’ – ‘дождь’   Лягушка {לגשמ /легешем = ‘к дождю’}, ква-кая, определяет, что скоро появиться вода – дождь.       Гипотез о происхождении названия МОСКВА существует множество. Здесь приведены лишь аргументированные версии серьезных исследователей и ученых. Коровья, Медвежья, Мутная, Грязная, Болотистая, Сильная гонщица, Коноплянка, река племени мосхов – вот что может означать, по их мнению, название МОСКВЫ-реки и, соответственно, название города.    Подведя итог вышеизложенному, можно сказать, что ни одна из перечисленных гипотез происхождения названия МОСКВА историки не считают достаточно убедительными и признают, что вопрос этот крайне сложный и надежд на его решение в ближайшем будущем нет никаких.    Но такая тупиковая ситуация славяно-балтийских гипотез сложилась по нескольким причинам. Во-первых, их авторы подходят к названию Москвы как к обычному слову, не учитывая исторических условий его появления именно в форме названия, не берут в расчет его культурно-историческое значение. Авторы этих гипотез исходят из предположения, что Москва не имела названия до прихода в эти места славян, что конечно же неверно, потому что, как уже отмечалось выше, бассейн Москвы-реки задолго до них был заселен потомками нынешних финно-угорских народов. Поэтому славяне, заселявшие эти территории, приняли, точнее сказать, переняли те названия, которые уже существовали до них, причем в устной передаче, т.е. несколько переиначив их для облегчения применения в разговорной речи на своем языке.    Согласно официальной истории (источник: А.Е. Леонтьев. ‘Археология мери’, РАН, Институт археологии. Вып.4 1996 г.) до прихода славян в этих местах обитало финно-угорское племя МЕРЯ, о существовании которого известно лишь из упоминания Иордана (‘О происхождении и деяниях готов’, VI в.) и отрывочных сведений в русской летописи, например, в ‘Повести временных лет’, где сообщается, о проживании племени МЕРЯ на озерах Ростовском (Неро) и Клещине (Плещееве) и его участии вместе со словенами новгородскими, кривичами и весью в изгнании варягов и последующие известия о городе Ростове, об участии МЕРЯ в походах Олега. Поскольку летописные упоминания содержатся в обширной недатированной части ПВЛ и пространных статьях 859,862, 882,и 907 г.г.(ПВЛ, ч.1,1950.С.13,18,24), то все известные данные о МЕРЯ анализируются в контексте этих статей. Последнее сообщение о МЕРЯ датировано в летописи 907 г. Четырехсотлетняя история МЕРЯ (VI-X в.в.), как признают историки, явилась по сути предысторией Северо-Восточной Руси, ставшей впоследствии центром единого русского государства. Потомки МЕРЯ, ассимилированные славянами, влились в состав древнерусской народности. Мерянские традиции были ощутимы в материальной культуре и погребальной обрядности жителей Ростовско-Суздальской Руси, наследие МЕРЯ сказалось и в физическом облике древнерусского населения.   ———————————————–   Меря   מרה /мара – ‘ослушался, неподчинился’. Меря были непослушным племенем, долго сохранявшим языческо-израильские традиции. Летописцы отмечают, что в Ростове был христианский приход и мерянский конец, т.е. там жили ведисты.   מרא //мера – ‘1. взлететь, взвиваться, полететь; 2. принадлежащий Всевидящему богу Ра’   מרח /марах = ‘помазывать’. Вот это название Мерян очень похоже на правду. Возможно, что именно в племени Меря скрылся каган, изганный из ставшей иудейской Хазарии, и основал там новую хорошую столицу – ראש טוב /рош тов = ‘головной (столичный) + хорош, добёр’. Ведь значение слова מרע /мереа означает ‘ДРУГ, ТОВАРИЩ’. И именно на землях меря была основана новая столица потомков мосхов – Москва   ========================   До наших дней дошли переданные из поколения в поколение дорусские названия рек, озер, селений и урочищ, сохранились некоторые лексические и фонетические особенности народных говоров. Стертые временем следы финно-угорских традиций обнаруживаются в фольклоре и традиционной культуре жителей современных Ярославской, Владимирской, Ивановской и Костромской областей, т.е. самого центра Великой Империи, согласно НХ.    Вышеупомянутый киевский профессор О.Б. Ткаченко, автор книги ‘Мерянский язык’ утверждает, что на территории Московской области МЕРЯ тоже жили, а в глухих районах Костромской губернии еще в XVIII веке можно было услышать разговоры на этом языке. МЕРЯ оставила огромное языковое наследие в диалектах, да и в литературном русском языке до сих пор существуют мерянские языковые формулы, а некоторые слова прямо заимствованы из этого языка. О.Б. Ткаченко по результатам своих исследований утверждает, что МЕРЯ – финское племя с высокой культурой, о чем свидетельствуют многочисленные археологические раскопки, со своим языком во многом близком к прибалто-финнским языкам (языкам финнов, эстонцев, карелов). Меряне были талантливыми земледельцами и скотоводами, а вовсе не охотниками и рыболовами. Это была одна из самых многочисленных финно-угорских народностей на свете к началу славянской колонизации Нечерноземья. Окончательная ассимиляция мери произошла только в XVII веке, а не в X веке, как принято считать. После XVIII века мерянский язык перестал существовать и употребляться в повседневной речи, однако его многочисленные следы сохранялись как на уровне отдельных слов, так и звучания славянской речи на бывшей территории мери.   Яхрома река   Московская территория также входила в состав земель, заселенных когда-то мерей. Об этом свидетельствуют данные топонимики. О.Б. Ткаченко приводит пример этимологии названия реки Яхромы, выводя ее из корня ‘яхре’ или ‘егре’, что значило ‘озеро’, сравнивая с финским ‘ярви’, что также означает ‘озеро’.   ————————————————-   Слышал версию, озвученную по ТВЦ, что слово Яхрома якобы происходит от того, что жена некоего князя (Всеволода) в районе Яхромы повредила ногу и ‘вскричала – я – хрома’. Это, конечно, полная чушь.   Яхрома – город и река   Яхрома – город районного подчинения на территории Дмитровского района. Расположен он на канале имени Москвы и реке Яхроме. Станция Яхрома Савеловского направления, в 55 км к северу от Москвы, в 6 км к югу от Дмитрова.    Местность была заселена издавна. Первые сведения о ней относятся к 16 веку. Территория располагалась на границе древних станов Дмитровского уезда – Каменского и Повельского, естественным рубежом между ними была когда-то многоводная река Яхрома.   [חרם] – יחרם /яХром = ‘ 1. Он забросит невод 2. он поклянётся’ – что не будет переходить границу. На берегах Яхромы в городе Дмитрове состоялся знаменитый съезд 4-х князей, которые, несмотря на вражду, поклялись в Дмитрове не переходить границы дозволенного. По- видимому, с них было взято в этом крестоцелование –   יה חרם /Я харам = ‘Бог запретил’ – возможно переходить границу.   ============================      Также профессор приводит этимологию названия МОСКВА, выводя ее из мерянского корня МОСКА ‘конопля’.    В подтверждение проживания мери в Московском регионе можно привести еще несколько фактов. Молодой московский историк С. Михайлов выяснил, что еще 100 лет назад в 40 верстах от столицы существовала деревня под названием Меря. В конце XIX века существовали, по крайней мере, три населенных пункта с названием Меря: две деревни в Богородском уезде (ныне Павлово-Посадский район), а еще одна – в Клинском.   В двух километрах от последней деревни и до сих пор стоит деревня Криулино, которая в народе называлась Старая Меря. В Клинском районе существовала еще одна Меря, которая тоже не сохранилась на современных картах. Основной приток Москвы-реки на востоке Подмосковья еще в XVII веке назывался Мерьская, т.е. рекой МЕРИ, сейчас это река Нерская.    Согласно О.Б. Ткаченко, наиболее тесным родством мерянский язык связан с финскими языками, прежде всего с прибалтийско-финнским и мордовским, и в меньшей степени- с марийским, а если учесть, что еще с XIX исследователи этого вопроса пришли к выводу о его близости с языками угорских народов Приуралья, то можно с полным основанием утверждать, что мерянский язык – праязык всех ныне существующих финно-угорских народов. Т.е. выяснение этимологии топонимов Подмосковья и названия самой Москвы именно с помощью этих языков вполне оправдано. Выше уже было отмечено, что современные историки ведут свои исследования только в русле славяно-прибалто-финнских языков, почему-то совершенно игнорируя мордовский язык. Кстати говоря, существует предание, согласно которому меря бежали в Волжскую Булгарию, спасаясь от насильственного крещения.   Общепринятой этимологии ойконима МЕРЯ нет, но можно предположить с большой долей достоверности, что он произошел от мерянского-эрзянского слова МЕРЕма ‘повеление, приказание’, а точнее от его глагольной формы МЕРЕмс ‘сказать, разговаривать, повелевать’ и означает ‘говорящий, разговаривающий, повелеващий’ человек в отличие от, скажем, КЕЛЬТов, что в переводе с эрзянского означает ‘безязыкий, немой’ (хорошо известные в истории КЕЛЬТЫ, в переводе с эрзянского ‘немцы’).    В силу вышеизложенного, думается, будет совершенно естественным объяснение этимологии нижеприведенных хорошо известных топонимов и гидронимов Подмосковья и самого названия МОСКВА через современного наследника древнего мерянского языка – мордовский язык.   Авторская версия этимологии названия МОСКВА.    Современный мордовский язык подразделяется на два основных диалекта: эрзянский и мокшанский. Как основной выберем эрзянский, как наиболее распространенный и общеупотребляемый.   Как отмечают топонимисты, наименее всего подвержены переименованию названия рек – гидронимы. Поэтому было бы логично начать именно с них. И действительно, в Московской области большинство рек и речушек с ‘непонятными’ названиями, включая и саму Москву-реку. Рассмотрим некоторые из них, названия которых знакомы и общеизвестны.    КЛЯЗЬМА. При разделении в виде КЛЯ-ЗЬМА получается сходное по звучанию эрзянское словосочетание КЕЛЕ ‘широко, ширь’ ЁЗМО – корень слова ‘извиваться, ползти’, КЕЛЕ ЁЗМО-КЛЯЗЬМА в результате дает характеристику этой реки, означающую буквально ‘широко извивающаяся, ползущая’.    ИСТРА. Название произошло от слова ИЗЭРДЕ(мс) ‘ворчать, рычать’, в результате приглушения звонких З и Д и перестановки Д(Т)-Р из ИС(э)РТА получилось более ‘удобоваримое’ в устной речи но непонятное по смыслу название ИСТРА, первоначальное значение которого характеризует реку как ‘ворчливую’ или даже ‘рычащую'(как собака).. Кстати говоря, это типичный процесс для большинства названий при устном восприятии.    ПЕХОРКА. ПЕХ-ОРКА – это название произошло из словосочетания ПЕК ‘очень, сильно’ ЮРГО(мс) ‘крутиться’, чуть ли не ‘бесноваться’. Опять-таки, ярко характеризует реку. От ПЕК ЮРГО после небольшой трансформации получилась ПЕХОРКА. От этого слова произошло название реки ПАХРА, а не наоборот, как можно было бы предположить по правилам русской грамматики, если предположить, что ПЕХОРКА является производным от ПА(Е)ХРА в уменьшительной форме.    СЕТУНЬ. СЕ(Т)-ТУНЬ – элемент СЕ(Т) произошел от слова СЕТЬ(ме) ‘тихий, смирный’, а слово ТУНЬ означает ‘совсем, очень’ и словосочетание СЕТЬ(ме) ТУНЬ ‘совсем смирная, очень тихая’ сохранилось как название реки.    ПРОТВА. Это название произошло от слова ПОРОВТ ‘порог, порожистый’ с минимальной трансформацией: ПОРОВТ – ПОРОТВ(А)- ПРОТВА.    ИНОЧЬ. Это название произошло от словосочетания ИНЕ ‘большой’ ЧОВ ‘пена’ после небольшой трансформации: ИНЕ ЧОВ – ИНОЧЬ.    ГЖЕЛКА. От словосочетания КЕЖЕ ‘сердитая’ ЛЕЙ ‘река’: К(Е)ЖЕ Л(ЕЙ=Ь) и произошло название К(Г)ЖЕЛЬ, которое первоначально относилось к реке, а затем стало названием знаменитого села ‘гжельских мастеров’. А гидроним ГЖЕЛКА – это уменьшительная форма от ГЖЕЛЬ – ГЖЕЛ(Ь)ка. Это, кстати, также нередкое явление в топонимике.    И, наконец, расшифруем названия двух известных речек, протекающих, вернее протекавших по территории самой Москвы. Наименование ЯУЗА – это слегка видоизмененное в результате устной передачи слова УЕЗЬ ‘вплавь’ – ЕУЗЬ – ЯУЗА.    НЕГЛИНКА произошла от словосочетания НЕКАК ‘будто, как бы’ ГЛЯНКАД ‘звенящая’ и означает соответственно ‘как бы, будто звенящая’: НЕ(КАК Г=Г) ЛЯНКА(Д) – НЕГЛЯНКА-НЕГЛИНКА. Здесь в результате устной передачи два звука К в первом слове слились с звуком Г второго слова, а последний звук Д во втором слове просто выпал из-за слабой слышимости. В результате получилось слово, имеющее звуковое сходство со словом ‘глина’, но без ясной смысловой нагрузки, как часто и случается.    Думается, что эти примеры расшифровки гидронимов вполне корректны и в необходимой мере показывают, что в бассейне Москвы-реки действительно проживали ‘в свое время’, как говорят историки, предки современной мордвы-эрзи. Тогда возникает логичный и резонный вопрос: если наименования притоков имеют эрзянское происхождение, то, может быть, название Москвы-реки также имеет объяснение на этом языке?   В мордовском языке элемент ВА (который получается при разделении слова МОСКВА в виде МОСК и ВА) не имеет значения ‘река, вода’ поэтому ничто не мешает разделить гидроним в виде МОС и КВА и пытаться объяснить получившиеся элементы. Такое разделение ничуть не хуже и имеет такое же право на существование, как и ныне принятое разделение в виде МОСК и ВА, и заведшее в тупик расшифровку этимологии этого слова. Как известно, в первом упоминании о городе в летописи 1147 года название имеет форму МОСКОВ: ‘Прииде ко мне в град Москов’. В таком виде оно закрепилось в европейских языках: Moscow, Moskau и т.д. На ‘Петровом чертеже’ или плане якобы 1597-1599 г.г. и на Сигизмундовом плане якобы 1610 г. название Москвы-реки написано в виде MOSQVA, что в отличие от Moscva можно озвучить как МОСКУВА. Отсюда можно сделать вывод, что прежнее более старинное название имело звучание МОСКО(А,У)ВА с гласным звуком после К и компонент КВА в этом случае имеет вид КО(А)ВА или КУВА. Эрзянское слово КУВА, означает буквально ‘место (местность), где…’ и перед которым, согласно грамматике этого языка может стоять или существительное или прилагательное (причастие), определяющее каким-то образом это место. Например: место, где (находится) дупло, камыш, дерево какое-либо или место, где – чисто, грязно, светло, красиво и т.д. и т.п. Первый элемент МОС должен быть словом или частью слова – существительного или слова, каким либо образом характеризующего именно то место (местность), где и был заложен первоначально город (селение). С учетом того, что слово Москва всегда произносится как МАСКВА, можно утверждать, что замена звука О на А вполне оправдано. В этом случае первый элемент примет вид МАС и можно привести две приемлемые версии для его объяснения.    Слово МАЗЯ переводится с эрзянского как ‘мелкий, неглубокий’ и вместе с КУВА означает ‘мелкое, неглубокое место’, мель. Русское ухо непривычно к таким звукосочетаниям, воспринимало его как некую шепелявость. Такое качество произношения В.И. Даль определил как ‘произносить З,С,Ц вместо Ж,Ш,Ч и наоборот’. Словосочетание МАЗЯ КУВА трансформировалось в форму МАСЬКУВА-МАСКВА-МОСКВА. С учетом того, что селение образовалось недалеко от мелкого места – брода (например Крымский брод на реке на территории современной Москвы) эту версию можно принять. Но, скорее всего, от слова МАЗЯй произошло название г. МОЖАЙСКа, которое в свою очередь получило свое наименование от гидронима МОЖАЙка, который первоначально звучал как МАЗЯй ‘неглубокая, мелкая’ река: МАЗЯй-МАЖАй-МА(О)ЖАйск, затем при добавлении к корню уменьшительной частицы -ка получилась современная МОЖАЙКА. От корня МАЗЯй, вероятно, произошли названия реки МОЧА: МАЗЯ-МАЧА-МОЧА, или топоним МЯЧКОВО недалеко от места, где река Пахра впадает в Москву-реку: МАЗЯ КУВА-МАЧА КУВА- МЯЧКОВО, что означает ‘неглубокое место’, а после впадения Пахры, стало быть, река Москва уже не мелкая.    Следующая гипотеза основная и, может быть, наиболее вероятная из всех, приведенных выше. Эрзянское слово МАЗый означает ‘красивый’ и совместно с КУВА характеризует местность, где был основан город – ‘красивое место. Словосочетание МАЗый КУВА в процессе устного общения в результате выпадения окончания (как русский Новый город превратился в Новгород) трансформировалось: МАС КУВА-МАСКВА-МОСКВА. Имеется яркое подтверждение этой гипотезе: главная площадь города, самый его центр, место, на котором и была построена первая крепость, называется, как известно, Красная площадь. Слово ‘красная’, как нам объясняли еще в школе, означает ‘красивая’. При обратном смысловом переводе с русского на эрзянский Красная площадь будет звучать как МАЗЫЙ КУВА или, как только что было показано – МОСКВА. Этот факт прямо подтверждает правильность данной гипотезы: название города и главной площади имеют одно и то же значение -‘красивое место’, только на разных языках. Когда называли площадь Красной, просто перевели эрзянское название на русский язык слегка завуалировав, чтобы не бросалось в глаза прямое соответствие (не Красивая площадь, а Красная). Вывод: название МОСКВА означает КРАСИВОЕ МЕСТО.    В пределах Садового кольца есть еще несколько названий с определением ‘красный’: рядом с Кремлем там, где и сейчас стоит старое здание Московского университета    есть хорошо известная КРАСНАЯ горка, рядом с Таганской площадью и сейчас находится КРАСНОХОЛМСКАЯ набережная Москвы-реки и известный КРАСНОХОЛМСКИЙ мост.   Исходя из приведенных двух гипотез можно сделать еще один важный вывод: топоним МОСКВА первичен по отношению к гидрониму, т.е река именована по названию города, а не наоборот, как утверждается до сих пор. Наличие элемента К(У)ВА ‘место, где…’ показывает, что название относится именно к месту (местности), а не к реке. Да и само название МОСКВЫ-реки недвусмысленно указывает на это: к первичному названию МОСКВА добавлено слово РЕКА для различения гидронима от топонима.    В подтверждение этой гипотезы происхождения названия МОСКВА существует еще один немаловажный аргумент. Дело в том, что практика научных наблюдений убедительно доказывает, что народ живший, на какой-либо территории, оставляет после себя много однотипных географических названий. Есть ли в Подмосковье топонимы с элементом КУВА? Оказывается, есть и не один. Вот некоторые из самых известных.    Название усадьбы графов Шереметьевых КУСКОВО. Как легко заметить, оно состоит из двух элементов КУС и КОВО, где КОВО – это слегка измененное КУВА, а КУС – эрзянское КУЗ ‘ель, ели’. Словосочетание КУЗ КУВА означает ‘место, где ель, ели’, т.е. просто Ельник(и).    Город ЩЕЛКОВО. Элемент КОВО – КУВА сразу очевиден. Элемент ЩЕЛ, скорее всего, произошел от эрзянского слова СЕЛЕЙ ‘вяз’ и получился в результате отмеченного уже выше особенностей произношения вместо З,С(Ь),Ц – Ж,Ш(Щ),Ч. Словосочетание СЕЛей КУВА означает ‘место, где вяз(ы) или попросту – Вязники, Вязово.    СЕРПУХОВ. Если это не русское СЕРП ПУХОВ или СЕРП УХОВ, то, наверное, эрзянское СЭРЬ ‘глубокая’ ПУЙ ‘черта, граница’, т.е. вместе с КУВА – ‘место, где глубокая черта, граница’ (засечная черта?), т.е. приграничный город (селение) у засечной черты..    КОНЬКОВО. Наиболее вероятная расшифровка этого названия – от эрзянского словосочетания КОНЯ ‘лоб’ и КУВА, что в результате дает ‘лобное место’.    КУЧКОВО, по утверждению ОИ так называлось в древности селение, на месте которого была построена Москва. Еще историки говорят, что около современных Сретенских ворот находилось КУЧКОВО поле. Это название получилось, скорее всего, от словосочетания КУЖо КУВА ‘место, где поляна ‘ или, проще говоря, ‘поляна’. КУЖ(Ч)КУВА трансформировалось в КУЧКОВО. В книге Г.В. Носовского и А.Т. Фоменко ‘Москва в свете Новой Хронологии’ (1) на стр.19 приведен план, на котором место проведения Дм. Донским смотра войск называется ПОЛЯНКОЙ. Может быть, это и есть КУЧКОВО поле, а напротив через Москву-реку – современные КУЛИШКИ, КУЛИКОВО поле.    КУЛИКОВО ПОЛЕ. Здесь вроде бы все ясно, никакой расшифровки не надо – название произошло от птицы КУЛИКа. Но такое объяснение входит в противоречие с тем фактом, что в летописях поле называется КУЛИЧКОВЫМ. Тогда что, происхождение этого названия связать с КУЛИЧАМИ? Авторы книги (1) прямо связывают Куликово-Куличково поле с Московскими КУЛИШКАМИ. Все эти противоречия снимает следующая версия: топоним КУЛИЧКОВО-КУЛИШК(ОВО)И произошел от словосочетания КЕЛЕ ‘ширина, ширь’ и КУВА, что означает ‘широкое место’, по сути – ‘поле’, эта версия объясняет название КУЛИКОВО(КЕЛЕ трансформировано в более знакомое КУЛИК). Видно, это название самое позднее и появилось уже при перенесении места Куликовской битвы в теперешнюю Тульскую область и с таким названием и закрепилось в истории. А вот версия происхождения этого названия от эрзянского словосочетания КЕЛЕ ‘широкий, ширь’ ЁЖО ‘поверхность’ КУВА – КЕЛЕ ЁЖО КУВА- КЛЖ(Ш)КВ, что вместе означает ‘место, где широкая поверхность’, по сути – ‘равнина, поле’, объясняет названия КУЛИЧКОВО-КЛЧКВ – КУЛИШКИ и является дополнительным доказательством утверждения авторов книги (1) об идентичности всех этих разновидностей названия одного и того же места – поля КУЛИКОВА, которое находилось на территории современной Москвы и называлась КУЛИШКИ.    Наверное, уже достаточно аргументов и примеров для обоснования этимологии происхождения названия МОСКВА с элементом КУВА. С полным правом можно утверждать, что и топоним и гидроним МОСКВА легко находят свое объяснение через мордовский (эрзянский) язык, а это в свою очередь доказывает, что ‘древний народ меря’, который официальная история ‘похоронила’ еще в Х веке жив и здравствует под названием мордва (мордовцы), правда скоро от этого народа останется одно название из-за полного обрусения.         Какие существуют гипотезы о происхождении слова ‘Москва”?   ‘Москва… как много в этом звуке   Для сердца русского..’. Опять   Поет старинная печать.   Тут слово первое науки,   Но мне неведомой. Тут – знак,   А смысл понять нельзя никак.                           К. БАЛЬМОНТ. Из стихотворения ‘Москва’ (1926 г.)   Сотни книг, научных и популярных статей об истории Москвы рассказывают нам о том, какой столица была в далеком прошлом, как жили и чем занимались москвичи. Мы знаем уже немало о ремеслах, быте, искусстве, языке древней Москвы. А вот тайна названия города и по сей день остается нераскрытой: в отличие, например, от археологов, которые входят в непосредственный контакт с прошлым, лингвисты, работающие над разгадкой слова Москва, находятся в сложном положении.   Правда, топоним Москва в этом смысле не исключение. История происхождения названий таких крупных и старинных европейских городов, как Прага, Берлин, Лондон, Париж или Лиссабон, тоже не выяснена окончательно. Существует масса гипотез, предлагающих каждая ‘свою’ историю происхождения этих наименований, однако ни одна из них не считается окончательной версией.   Какими же путями шли различные исследователи в попытке решить загадку истории названия столицы? Какие легенды и предположения были известны в прошлом? Какие гипотезы предлагают российские и зарубежные ученые сейчас?   Первое упоминание о Москве (речь идет об Ипатьевской летописи) относится к 1147 году. И хотя именно этот год принято считать датой легендарного основания нашего старинного города, археологи давно уже доказали, что укрепленное поселение славян на месте исторического центра современной Москвы существовало задолго до 1147 года. Но для ученых-лингвистов эта дата стала самой древней документально зафиксированной точкой отсчета истории названия столицы.   Действительно, именно в этом году (6655 году по старому летоисчислению, от сотворения мира), 4 апреля, в маленьком укрепленном поселении, в небольшой крепости, затерянной в труднопроходимых лесах, состоялась встреча суздальского князя Юрия Долгорукого с северским князем Святославом Ольговичем.   Именно его, как свидетельствует летопись, пригласил князь Юрий на встречу в Москву: ‘И шед Святослав и взя люди голядь верх Поротве. И тако ополонишася дружина Святославля, и прислав Гюргии (Юрий. – М. Г.) рече: приди ко мне брате в Москов’.   Сейчас трудно сказать, был ли этот топоним названием только города или же относился и к более широкой территории, к местности, в которой выросла крепость Москва. Очевидно другое: в основе топонима Москва лежит гидроним Москва – название реки. Не преувеличивая значения памятника письменности XVII века – ‘Повести о начале царствующего великого града Москвы’, замечу, что, судя по нему, предки наши видели эту связь: ‘…[Князь] взыде на гору и обозрев с нее очима своими семо и овамо по обе стороны Москвы-реки и за Неглинною, возлюби села оныя и повелевает на месте том вскоре соделати мал древян град и прозва его званием реки тоя Москва, по имяни реки, текущия под ним’.   Многие русские города получили свои имена по рекам, на которых они были выстроены. При этом обычно имена рек приобретали впоследствии, во избежании ононимии, уменьшительную форму. Так, скажем, река Коломна стала Коломенкой, а река Орел – Орликом. С рекой Москвой вышло по-иному: в ее имени вместо уменьшительного суффикса закрепилось слово река: Москва-река. Любопытно и то, что в некоторых памятниках письменности город Москва упоминается при помощи описательного выражения на Москве, то есть ‘город на Москве-реке’.   Теперь попробуем рассмотреть наиболее известные и аргументированные гипотезы о происхождении гидронима Москва. Какой народ, какое племя дало название Москве-реке?   Интерпретация названия Москва как слова, принадлежащего одному из языков финно-угорской языковой семьи, была одной из первых гипотез и имела много сторонников. Обращение исследователей к языкам этой семьи логично, поскольку археологически (в результате раскопок поселений, в частности, городищ и селищ дьяковской культуры раннежелезного века, в основе своей являющейся финно-угорской) вполне объективно доказывает, что на определенном историческом этапе в бассейне Москвы-реки жили племена, говорившие на языке финно-угорской языковой семьи.   Выдвигая такое объяснение названия Москва, обычно исходят из того, что гидроним легко членится на два компонента: моск-ва, подобно названиям северноуральских рек типа Лысь-ва, Сось-ва, Сыл-ва, Куш-ва и другим. Элемент -ва легко объясняется во многих финно-угорских языках (например, в мерянском, марийском, коми) как ‘вода’, ‘река’ или ‘мокрый’. Объяснение же основного компонента моск- вызывает у финно-угроведов серьезные затруднения. Точно он не может быть выведен ни из одного из финно-угорских языков. А приблизительно – из многих и по-разному.   Из коми языка моск- можно объяснить, связав его со словами моск, моска, что значит ‘корова, телка’. Не удивляйтесь: подобный принцип названия не раз встречается в топонимии – и не только в нашей стране. Вспомним знаменитый Оксфорд в Англии или город Оксенфурт в Баварии, оба этих топонима означают ‘бычий брод’. Предположение, связывающее слово Москва со словом моска из языка коми, горячо поддержал известный русский историк В. О. Ключевский, что придало гипотезе особую популярность. Однако скоро несостоятельность объяснения гидронима Москва из коми языка стала явной: коми никогда не жили на территории, близкой к течению этой реки. К тому же между северноуральским ареалом рек на -ва и московским ареалом (Москва, Протва, Смедва и др.) на протяжении нескольких тысяч километров аналогичных по структуре названий не встречается.   Географ С. К. Кузнецов, владевший многими финно-угорскими языками, предложил объяснить моск- через мерянское слово маска ‘медведь’. А элемент -ва как ава, что значило по-мерянски ‘мать, жена’. Получалось, что Москва-река – это Медвежья река или река Медведица, причем это название, вероятно, должно было носить тотемной характер – быть связанным с символом большого рода древних мерян. Историческая основа для такого предположения есть. ‘Повесть временных лет’, самая древняя русская летопись, указывает, что в середине IX века народ меря проживал в восточной части Подмосковья.   Однако и такая гипотеза имеет слабые места. Во-первых, в качестве аргумента она использует данные современных марийского и мордовско-эрзянского языков. Но ведь марийское маска ‘медведица’ по своему происхождению на самом деле отнюдь не марийское. Перед нами – русское слово мечка ‘самка медведя’. Попавшее к марийцам только в средневековье, в XIV-XV веках, и переделанное в меска-маска. Во-вторых, при работе с картой бросается в глаза отсутствие гидронимов на -ва в непосредственной близости от Москвы. Почему же наименование Моск-ва на данной территории осталось одиноким? Это противоречит общему правилу: практика научных наблюдений убедительно доказывает, что народ, живший на какой-то территории, оставляет после себя целый комплекс однотипных названий рек. Итак, версия о Москве-реке как Медвежьей реке, реке Медведице, также оказывается не лишенной серьезных просчетов.   Существует и третья версия о финно-угорском происхождении названия Москва. Она заключается в том, что компонент моск- объясняется из прибалтийско-финских языков (суоми), а компонент -ва из коми языка: моск- как муста ‘черный, темный’, -ва как ‘вода, река’. Однако ее непоследовательность состоит уже в том, что каждая часть названия объясняется из разных языков, удаленных друг от друга. Если бы название принадлежало суоми, то вторая его часть была бы не ва, а веси ‘вода’ или йоки ‘ручей, река’. Тогда в переводе Москва-река означало бы ‘черная река’, ‘мутная река’ или ‘темная река’. Кстати говоря, названия рек по темному цвету их воды не только известны, но и достаточно распространены в бассейнах многих больших рек. В бассейне Оки есть реки Грязная, Грязнуха, Мутня, Мутенка, Темная. А в бассейне Днепра – реки Грязива, Грязна, Мутенька, Темна.   В общем, ни одна из финно-угорских гипотез не учитывает всех лингво-исторических условий возникновения названия Москвы-реки. И сейчас у них очень мало сторонников.   Результатом увлечений экзотикой были попытки объяснить слово Москва на основе языков тех народов, что живут или жили весьма далеко от бассейна Оки.   Академик А. И. Соболевский в начале XX века пытался доказать, что слово Москва – ирано-скифского происхождения. Он высказал предположение о том, что топоним (гидроним) происходит от авестийского слова ама ‘сильный’. Авестийским называют язык древнеиранского памятника Авеста, в основе которого лежит одно из восточноиранских наречий XI-VII веков до нашей эры (скифские племена действительно говорили на иранских наречиях). Позже в авестийский язык проникли некоторые западноиранские элементы, например парфянские, мидийские. Однако и у этой гипотезы есть целый ряд слабых мест. Во-первых, скифские ираноязычные племена на территории современного Подмосковья и шире – в бассейне Москвы-реки – никогда не жили. Во-вторых, в этом районе нет больше рек, названия которых имели бы аналогичные значения и тот же способ образования. В-третьих, налицо серьезное противоречие и в принципе называния, в мотивировке. А. И. Соболевский считал, что на основе упомянутых иранских корней название Москвы-реки можно истолковать как ‘река-гонщица’. Но подобная мотивировка гидронима абсолютно не соответствует тихому и спокойному течению равнинной реки (а Москва-река именно такова), особенно если сравнить ее с хорошо известными скифам горными реками.   В двадцатые-тридцатые годы XX века под влиянием модного тогда учения (яфетической теории Н. Я. Марра) были предприняты попытки объяснить корень моск- на иной основе. Известный советский академик Л. С. Берг высказал предположение о гибридном происхождении названия Москва: элемент -ва, по его мнению, принадлежит финно-угорской языковой среде, а корень моск- связан с названием кавказского народа мосхов и имеет общее происхождение с такими этнонимами (названиями народов, народностей, племен), как абхаз и баск. В доказательство этого Берг не провел никакого лингвистического анализа, а основывался только на внешнем сходстве привлеченных им слов с гидронимом Москва, преимущественно на сходстве в звучании слов моск и мосх. Он не нашел, да и не мог найти, ни одного исторического факта появления этого южного племени в бассейне Москвы-реки.   Последователи этой гипотезы довели ее до курьеза. В 1947 году историк Н. И. Шишкин высказался в том смысле, что оба компонента (и моск- и -ва) принадлежат так называемым яфетическим языкам, что якобы дает возможность толковать значение гидронима Москва как ‘река мосхов’ или ‘племенная река мосхов’, однако не привел ни одного нового аргумента, ни одного нового лингвистического или исторического факта.   Аргументация гипотезы (в наиболее серьезных ее вариантах) о славянском происхождении названия Москвы-реки выглядит, на первый взгляд, более убедительно. В основе этого предположения лежит серьезный лингвистический анализ, проведенный опытными учеными, а также реальные исторические факты. Правда, славянских гипотез о возникновении названия Москва много, и степень их обоснованности разная. Некоторые из них не выдерживают элементарной критики, поскольку находятся на грани ‘народных этимологий’, случайных предположений, основанных на чисто внешнем сходстве слов и на переосмыслении по аналогии.   Наиболее убедительные славянские этимологии были предложены известными лингвистами С. П. Обнорским, Г. А. Ильинским, П. Я. Черных, польским славистом Т. Лер-Сплавинским. Суть их доводов сводится к следующему.   Название Москва утвердилось, по-видимому, лишь в XIV веке. Первоначально город именовался несколько по-иному – Москы. Слово склонялось по типу слов букы ‘буква’, тыкы ‘тыква’, свекры ‘свекровь’ и т. д., без элемента -ва в форме именительного падежа. Корень моск- в древнерусском языке имел значение ‘вязкий, топкий’ или ‘болото, сырость, влага, жидкость’, причем -ск- могло чередоваться со -зг-. В этот ряд встает современное выражение промозглая, мозглая погода ‘мокрая, дождливая погода”. Так считал Г. А. Ильинский.   П. Я. Черных сделал предположение о диалектом характере слова москы еще в раннем историческом периоде языка восточных славян. Ученый считал, что это слово использовали славяне-вятичи. У кривичей в тех же значениях ему соответствовало слово вълга, которое, как считают некоторые ученые, легло в основу названия великой русской реки Волги. То, что слово москы по своему значению связано с понятием ‘влага’, имеет подтверждение в других славянских языках. Это название рек: Mozgawa (или Moskawa) в Польше и Германии; Московка (или Московица) – приток реки Березины; ручей Московец и многочисленные балки Московки на Украине. В словацком языке встречается нарицательное слово moskwa, значащее ‘влажный хлеб в зерне’ или ‘хлеб, собранный с полей в дождливую погоду’. В литовском языке существует глагол mazgoti ‘мыть, полоскать’, а в латышском языке – глагол moskat, что значит ‘мыть’. Все это говорит о том, что название Москва может быть истолковано как ‘топкая, болотистая, мокрая’. Именно такой могли увидеть реку наши предки, давшие ей название на основании признака, который для них имел существенное значение.   Предполагается, что река получила свое имя в самых верховьях, где до сих пор встречаются заболоченные участки. Вытекает Москва-река из некогда топкого болота, получившего название Московская (Москворецкая) Лужа. В старинном издании с необычным названием – ‘Книга Большому Чертежу’ 1627 года, – поясняющим карту земли Российской, есть такие строки: ‘А Москва-река вытекла из болота, по Вяземской дороге, за Можайском, верст тридцать и больши’.   Некоторые гипотезы о славянском происхождении гидронима Москва находятся на очень низком уровне научного обоснования. Например, З. Доленга-Ходаковский еще в начале XIX века выступил с версией, согласно которой река Москва имеет в основе своего названия слово мостки, то есть это – ‘мостковая река’, иначе говоря – река с большим количеством мостков. Это – несерьезная и противоречащая законам языка, традициям русской топонимии гипотеза. К сожалению, такое заблуждение повторено и в трудах известного историка Москвы И. Е. Забелина.   Существующие народные этимологии названия Москва часто пытаются осмыслить, интерпретировать поэты и писатели, придавая им форму поэтических легенд, сказаний. В книге Дм. Еремина ‘Кремлевский холм’ есть такое былинно-поэтическое объяснение:   ‘…Постаревший и облысевший Илья Муромец, некогда могучий богатырь и гроза ворогов земли русской, возвращается из Киева домой. В пути его настигает смерть. Илью Муромца хоронят в высоком кургане на берегу большой реки. И тут из кургана слышатся слова:   Будто вздох прошел: ‘надо мощь ковать!’   И второй дошел – только ‘мощь кова..’.   И третий раз дошел – только ‘Мос…кова’.   Так и стала зваться река: Москва’.   Существует также легенда о том, что в названии Москвы-реки запечатлелись имена библейского Мосоха, внука Ноя и сына Афета, и его жены Квы – потомками Мосоха якобы были заселены земли от Вислы до самого Белого озера: ‘Той ибо Мосох по потопе лета 131, шедши от Вавилона с племенем своим, абие во Азии и Европе, над берегами Понтскаго или Черного моря, народи Мосховитов от своего имене и осади: и оттуда умножашуся народу, поступая день от дне в полунощныя страны за Черное море, над Доном и Волгою рекою… И тако от Мосоха праотца Славенороссийского, по последию его, не токмо Москва народ великий, но и вся Русь или Россия вышенареченная призыде..’.   Самое подробное многостраничное описание деталей этой легенды об имени Москвы-реки, произошедшем от Мосоха, содержится в книге известного русского публициста и историка Петра Паламарчука ‘Москва или Третий Рим’. Тех, кто увлекается легендами, отсылаю к этой книге Петра Георгиевича. http://www.omolenko.com/publicistic/palamarchuk.htm   http://www.pravoslavie.ru/jurnal/051130181308 – на смерть П.Г. Паламарчука   Мы же вернемся к исследованиям ученых.   У версии о славянском происхождении гидронима Москва есть свои изъяны, свои слабые стороны. Сторонники этой гипотезы подходили и подходят к названию Москва как к обычному слову, не учитывают исторических условий его появления именно в форме названия, не берут в расчет его культурно-историческое значение. Исследователи исходят из предположения о том, что Москва-река не имела названия до прихода сюда славян. В действительности же могло быть иначе.   Как показывают находки археологов, славянские племена появились в бассейне Москвы-реки не раньше второй половины I тысячелетия нашей эры. Но эта территория была заселена – и сравнительно плотно! – еще в III-II тысячелетиях до н. э. предками финно-угорских племен. В бассейне Москвы-реки археологами обнаружено много памятников и более поздних – фатьяновской и волосовской – культур. По всему этому региону вплоть до середины II тысячелетия до н. э. жили и племена дьяковской культуры, генетически со славянами не связанной.   Славяне, пришедшие на эту территорию, видимо, приняли, несколько переиначив, то название, которое река уже имела (как и множество других названий в бассейне Москвы-реки и соседних с ней крупных рек). Причем усвоили эти гидронимы в устной передаче тех, кто жил здесь до прихода славян. Тут и названия с балтскими корнями, такие как Руза, Нара, Истра, Горетва, и названия с угро-финскими корнями, такие как Икша, Воря, Колокша, Пахра.   Сторонники славянской гипотезы в качестве аргументов привлекали, в частности, материалы балтийских языков – литовского и латышского, находя в них много сходного с русским и другими славянскими языками. Это заставило некоторых ученых проанализировать целый ряд географических названий именно с точки зрения существовавшего некогда балто-славянского языкового единства – периода особых балто-славянских языковых контактов, происходивших до I тысячелетия до н. э. В число таких названий попало и речное имя, гидроним Москва. Гипотезу эту предложил известный российский ученый-лингвист, академик В. Н. Топоров. Он детально обосновал ее с точки зрения языковедения в статье “Baltika” Подмосковья’ и дал своей версии новое развитие – уже в историко-культурном аспекте – в статье ‘Древняя Москва в балтийской перспективе’. Обе эти работы адресованы специалистам и широкому читателю известны мало. Поэтому познакомлю вас с основными идеями академика В. Н. Топорова.   Во-первых, ученый полагает, что элемент -ва в названии Москва нельзя рассматривать только как часть нарицательного слова москы, его окончания, появлявшегося при склонении. Это элемент, по мнению В. Н. Топорова, был составной частью структуры самого названия: его нельзя связывать лишь с финно-угорским словом, которое соотносится с термином из коми языка ва, то есть ‘вода’, ‘река’ и т. д. Ученый привлекает внимание других исследователей к тому, что наименование рек с компонентом -ва известны не только далеко к востоку и северо-востоку от Москвы (в частности – у народа коми), но и в самой непосредственной близости от столицы – к западу от нашего города, в Верхнем Поднепровье и в Прибалтике. Название Москвы-реки действительно входит в такой ‘западный’ ареал речных имен. Взглянем на карту. В бассейне Оки, к западу от места впадения в нее Москвы-реки, известны такие гидронимы, оканчивающиеся на -ва, -ава, как Нигва, Коштва (Кожества), Измоства, Протва (Поротва), Хотва, Большая Смедва (Смедведь), Малая Смедва, Шкова (Шкава), Локнава (Большая Локнава) и некоторые другие. Это, согласно мнению академика В. Н. Топорова, дает основание сблизить гидроним Москва именно со словами из балтийских языков.   Во-вторых, в самом славянском корне моск- ученый не только устанавливает его общность с балтийским корнем mask-, но и обнаруживает их более глубокие структурные и смысловые связи. В частности, оказывается, что последний согласный звук этого корня обладает широким набором вариаций – как в балтийских языках, так и в славянских. Например, в русском это – моСК, моЗГ (моЖ), моЩ (моСТ); в балтийских – maSK, maZG, maST, maK. Кроме того, все эти группы вариантов обладают близкой семантикой, то есть сопоставимыми значениями, смыслом слов. И в русском, и в балтийских языках они связаны с понятием ‘жидкий’, ‘мягкий’, ‘слякотный’, ‘гнилой’, а также с понятиями ‘бежать’, ‘убегать’, ‘идти’ плюс ‘бить’, ‘ударять’, ‘постукивать’. (Например, в словаре Владимира Даля есть интересное русское слово москотать – ‘стучать’, ‘долго все постукивать’, мозгонуть – ‘сильно ударить’). Эти и другие факты позволили академику В. Н. Топорову сделать вывод о том, что речь идет об определенной балто-славянской параллели: формально близкие комплексы слов, корней в двух группах языков обладают кругом так или иначе связанных друг с другом приблизительно одинаковых значений.   Эта версия объясняет оба компонента названия, чего нет в других гипотезах. Получается, что слово, которое легло в основу гидронима Москва, принадлежало к лексическому пласту, сформировавшемуся, вероятно, еще в I тысячелетии до н. э.   Название Москва, по версии академика В. Н. Топорова, следует связывать с широким кругом значений, которые могли быть реальным признаком реки (как у озера Глубокого или Черного, с торфянистой, непрозрачной рекой, или у речки Каменки с каменистым дном), – с представлениями о чем-то жидком, мокром, топком, слякотном, вязком. Иначе говоря, топоним Москва-река можно ‘переводить’ как ‘слякотная река’, ‘болотистая река’, ‘река с топкими берегами’ и т. д. Такова она и была на самом деле в своих верховьях: географы скажут вам, что истоком Москвы-реки служит Старьковское болото на Смоленско-Московской возвышенности; есть топкие места и ниже по течению.   Еще одна версия – чисто балтийская. Ее сторонники (например, Б. М. Тюльпаков) связывают слово Москва с языком компактно проживающих на территории западного Подмосковья (вплоть до его заселения славянами) племен балтов, летописной ‘голяди’, и пробуют вывести этот гидроним из балтийских слов: литовских mazg ‘узел’, mezg/joti ‘вязать’, латышских mezg ‘узел’ и vandou ‘вода’. В таком случае название реки Москвы можно перевести как ‘узловая вода’, ‘связующая вода’. Вот как комментирует эту гипотезу Б. М. Тюльпаков: ‘Название реки Москвы связано с ее особым географическим положением в Волго-Окском междуречье. Река как бы соединяла (через волоки и сеть своих притоков) бассейны Оки и Волги (а также – Днепра и Дона), предоставляя наиболее удобный путь для древних переселенцев. Судя по данным археологических раскопок, река Москва служила для балтских племен главной (центральной) рекой расселения, освоения новых мест, формирования родоплеменных центров и поселений’.   Сколько же всего версий и гипотез существует? Много. В этой статье приведены или самые серьезные, или же самые любопытные из них. Коровья река, Медвежья река, Мутная река, Грязная река, река Сильная Гонщица, река Племени Мосхов, Болотистая река. Ни одно из этих предполагаемых значений гидронима Москва на сей день нельзя признать верным, истинным. И все же факт совпадения значений, выводимых из славянских и балтийских языков – ‘болотистая, слякотная, топкая’, – обнадеживает. Может быть, именно этот путь поиска наиболее верен?   Думается, ученые не сказали еще своего последнего слова. Пока тайна происхождения названия Москвы-реки, а вместе с ней – и столицы нашего государства остается скрытой в глубине веков, а вероятнее – тысячелетий. Однако упорный научный поиск продолжается. Рождаются новые гипотезы, версии, предположения. Справедливую мысль высказал в свое время в одной из книг известный популяризатор науки о языке Лев Успенский: ‘Самый спор о происхождении названия уже плодотворен. Он заставляет иной раз пересмотреть давно сложившиеся представления, а в других случаях может дать толчок к открытию истины, о которой другим способом нельзя было получить никакого понятия’.   И все же один языковой факт вполне очевиден. Слово Москва давно превратилось в русском языке в особое понятие – ‘сердце нашего Отечества’.   Ибо как не существует Москвы без России, так и самой России не может быть без Москвы.      Москва   9. Некоторые предполагают, что Москву основали потомки билейского патриарха Мосха, которыми были израильтяне.   (http://www.kabmir.com/forum/showthread.php?p=49303&posted=1#post49303 )   Историк Иван Забелин приводит слова Польского ученого конца XVI века Стрыйковского: ‘Мосох или Мезех, шестой сын Иафетов, внук Ноев, есть отец и прародитель всех народов Московских, Российских, Польских, Волынских, Чешских, Мазовецких, Болгарских, Сербских, Харватских, и всех, елико есть Славенский язык; что у Моисея Мосох (Мешех), Московских народов праотец, знаменуется (упоминается) также и у Иосифа Флавия в Древностях; что ни от реки, ни от града Москвы Москва наименование получила, но река и град от народа Московского имя восприяли; что имя сие: Мосох, Мокус, Моска, Моски, Москорум, Московитарум, Модокорум и проч. все древние историки, Еврейские, Халдейские, Греческие и Латинские и новейшие Мосоха, Москвы праотца и областей того имени, во многих местах непрестанно и явно поминают; что третий брат Леха и Чеха, Русь, истинный наследник Мосохов от Иафета, великия и пространныя полуночныя и восточныя и к полудню страны размножил и населил народами Русскими’ [7].      Иван Забелин приводит также слова из сочинения Тимофея Кеменевича-Рвовского, 1684 – 1699 годы, диакона Холопьего на Мологе монастыря, ‘Как и когда произошли Словены и Русы’: ‘Сей же Мосох князь Московский бысть и началородный нам и первых отец не токмо же Скифо-Москво-Словено-Российским людем, но и всем нашим своесродным государствам премногим и народам и землям и племенам и коленам Скифским’ [8].   Мешех (по-гречески Мοσοχ ‘Мосо́х’) – древний народ Закавка- зья, мосхи, чье имя связано с названием Месхетии (область Грузии). Само слово משך ‘ме́шех’ буквально означает ‘охапка’, ‘охваченное руками’.   Иез. 38:      1 И было ко мне слово Господне:   2 сын человеческий! обрати лице твое к Гогу в земле Магог, князю ВЕРХОВНОМУ (/ נשיא ראש/наси Рош), Мешеха и Тувала, и изреки на него пророчество   3 и скажи: так говорит Господь Бог: вот, Я – на тебя, Гог, князь верховный Роша, Мешеха и Тувала!      ראש / Рош – слово, которое встречается в русской Библии (Иез.38), попавшее туда из перевода Септуагинты книги пророка Иезекииля: ‘Обрати лицо твое к Гогу в земле Магог, князю Роша, Мешеха и Фувала…’. При этом князь Роша иногда рассматривается как один из прообразов эпического князя Руса (Роса).   В оригинале Библии на еврейском языке эти слова звучат как ‘гог эрец гамагог нэси рош’. Еврейский язык не знает прописных и строчных букв. Поэтому слово ‘рош’, как и все прочие слова в еврейском оригинале, в тексте выделено не было, то есть оно не было написано с большой буквы. Значение имени собственного ему придали греческие переводчики, не зная точного перевода, в то время как пророк Иезекииль скорее всего использовал его в значении ‘главный’ – ראש /рош. Правильный перевод должен выглядеть так: ‘Обрати лицо твое к правителю земли Магог, главному князю Мешеха и Фувала…’. В английской Библии короля Якова (начало XVII века) слова ‘нэси рош’ переданы адекватно еврейскому оригиналу: the chief prince – буквально: ‘главный принц’, ‘великий князь’. В таком же значении истолкованы эти слова во французском переводе Библии (prince-chef) и в немецком переводе Мартина Лютера (der oberste fuerst). Такое истолкование этих слов объясняется тем, что все перечисленные переводы ориентированы не на греческую Септуагинту, а на латинский перевод Библии – Вульгату, где эти слова переведены правильно: princeps capitis.   В славянской Библии, перевод которой делали с Септуагинты, слово ‘рош’ не просто было оставлено без перевода, но и подано в греческой транслитерации (‘рос’) – ‘князь Росъ’. Народом Рос (Ρώς) в византийских источниках называли народ севера русь, совершавший набеги на Византию в IX-X веках. В современной литературе, включая богословскую, нередко сохраняется традиция использовать неправильно переведённое слово рош как раннее свидетельство о руси.   Гог характеризуется словами, Мешех, мшаха מְשָׁכָא – арамит, и Тувал תֻבָל. משך /Мешех может означать (согласно Еврейско-русскому библейскому словарю: будет, натянул, взойди, владеющие, влёк, влеките, вступила, выберите, вытащили, вытащить, долго, замедлят, затрубить, звука, идёт, крепкого, крепкому, медлил, натягивал, отложено, отсрочено, сеятеля, сострадающего, увлекает, простри, прострёшь, протягивает, протяжённость, ) просторность, протяженность (большую земли Магог מגוג /магог = ‘Гогская земля, земля гога’. גג /гаг – ‘крыша’. ‘Крышей’ именовали некий купол, висящий над Землёй у полюса. Следовательно, земли Магога – северные страны. ). А ‘Туваль’ может означать ‘будет опозорен’ תֻבָּל, но может означать и תבל /тевел – ‘Земля, земной шар, Мир, вселенная’.      Существует очень интересное предание, что Мешех, дойдя до далеких ‘северных пределов’, основал поселение, названное его именем, на территории будущей Москвы. Этимология имени нашей столицы и по сей день в точности не выяснена; есть разные теории на этот счет, и среди них – ‘библейская’, возводящая имя Москвы и поселение в ней человека к после- потопным временам. С данной точки зрения имя משך /’Мешех’ – пророческое: городу, как известно, предстояло в далеком будущем ‘собирать в охапку’, объединять вокруг себя русские земли…      Суффикс “ск” – В соответствие с Еврейско-русским словарём Ветхого Завета (http://greeklatin.narod.ru/heb3/index.htm ) : 4 – ‘1. многолюдство 2. скиния. Шалаш, жилище’. Поэтому слово “Москва”   – מוסך בא /мосх ва// моск ва = “Там множество (людей), жилищ + приходят, собираются”.      מוסכך בא /мосхх ба // мосх ва = ‘ защищающий, покрывающий + вошёл, пришёл’   По преданию люди, говорившие, что они де из Святой земли произошедши от патриарха Мосха пришли в место слияния реки Яузы и Москвы-реки, получили там убежище и построили Кремль – за образец взяв гору כרמל /Кармель, что в Северной Палестине.   [עוז] – יעוז /йауз – ‘он получит кров, убежище’      Мосх+ква -Река, от названия которой произошло имя города.      Мосх -Народ мосхи (месхи) – жили на Кавказе. Некоторые ассоциируют их с древним племенем, жившим в восточной Каппадокии, – Мушками. Слово ‘Мушки’ также связано с водой, с орошением – משקה /Машка – ‘Пью, Поливаю, орошаю’.       מהשקה /Мушка – ‘Тот, кто вышел из полива, из-за того, что его оросил Бог Шкай’. Бог Шкай – главный языческий бог Мордвы. Шкай – שקי /Sky – ‘Небо’ – был видно главным богом всех народов Европы бронзового века.   Родство мосхов (месхов) с Москвой видно уже потому, что покровитель Иверии (Грузии) – Георгий-победоносец, а на гербе Москвы – также Георгий-победоносец. Изображение всадника на коне, поражающего змия, это и Перун, и Баъл, и Мардук, поражающий змея тёмных вод Тиамат      Ква – река – от лат. “аква” – вода.    ‘Aqua’ – “аква”.   עכבה/аква – ‘1. задержка 2. помеха 3. торможение’    – ПЛОТИНА, которая задерживает воду, которая и стала называться у латинян – ‘Аква’. Без плотины в Аравии и в Ханаане не получишь воду . Такова знаменитая марибская плотина, которая и создала ‘Счастливую Аравию’. С разрушением плотины ‘Счастливая Аравия’ исчезла, ушла вода- ушла жизнь.   הקוה /аква = ‘надежда’ – вода в пустыне – это надежда на жизнь   ‘Миква’ – מקווה /миква – ‘Бассейн для ритуальных омовений’. Барахтаться – окунаться в ритуальный бассейн – микву, чтобы получить ‘Браху’ =- ‘благословление’.   מקווה /миква . Это слово походит на слово ‘Аква’ – Вода. (Лягушка не зря КВАкает.).   Б. А. Рыбаков выплату вятичами, на земле которых стояла Москва, дани хазарам комментируется как “проездная пошлина.” {Слово Москва (‘Масква’) можно написать так: מס קבע /мас кава = ‘налог установленный’}.      Но задержка, торможение связана ещё и с тем, что именно в Москве сухопутный путешественник, идущий от Днепра через Смоленск, уплачивая постоянный сбор {מס קבע /Мас кава = ‘налог, сбор постоянный, установленный’}, имел возможность купить шитик или присоединиться к компании купцов, которые уже по воде-акве мог спуститься на Низ, т.е. на Волгу, а от туда – в Хвалынское (Каспийское море)   10. מעש עכבה /маъс аква = ‘Деяние + вода’. После долгого и опасного путешествия через Варшаву {הרשה /арша – ‘разрешение’ на переправу}, Оршу {то же, что и Варшава} и Смоленск {лежащий на левой стороне Днепра, если плыть по нему сверху – סמולה נע שחה /смола наъ шаха//смолэ нъ сх} путешественники добирались до Воды – Москвы-реки, по которой можно было идти (בא /ба//ва) до Персии.   11. מעש כוה /мас ква – ‘деяние + опалил, обжёг’ – шитики-лодки осмаливали, а для этого смолу варили на огне – Яхве {יכוה /яхве = ‘он опалит, обожжёт’}. на месте Москвы строили корабли-шхуны-уШкуи {שחה /шаха – ‘плавать’} для дальнейшего путешествия уже по воде-акве вплоть до Персии-Ирана. До Москвы с запада (от Смоленска) добирались сухим путём по старой смоленской дороге. На это указывает и другой корень – [קוה ]/ква – ‘собирать, уповать’. Путешественники, купцы, люди, ищущие службы уповали, надеялись на Бога будущего – Яхве:   12. מעש קוה/мас кива = ‘деяние + надеялся, уповал’ – по деяниям твоим будешь уповать на будущее – Бога Яхве – יהוה /Яhwa- ‘Он будет существовать’   13. מעש קוה/мас кава = ‘деяние + собирал, стекаться’ – Москва была центром, куда стекались не только купцы и путешественники, но и ремесленники, воинские люди, надеющиеся найти службу при дворе Великого князя и его бояр и стать ‘дворскими, дворянами’   14. מעשך בא /маъсха ва – ‘Деяние твоё + ты шёл и иди’. Москва – истинный ДЕЛОВОЙ ЦЕНТР России. И это никто никогда не оспаривал, даже жители Петербурга.      15. Москва – מעש קוה /маъс ква = ‘дело, деяние, действие + собирать, уповать’ – в Москву стремились, надеясь получить стОящее дело.      “Москва слезам не верит, ей дело подавай”    ————-► слово Москва \ מעש קוה // мос ква = “Дело ++ надежда”, т.е. “надежда на дело”.       А в XIX веке говорили:    Москву слезами не РАСКВЕЛИШЬ   \ от ивр. קבלה / квала – “жалоба, причитание”, т.е. Москву жалобами и причитаниями не разжалобишь!      משכיל/маскиль – ‘1. интеллигентный, образованный; 2. умный; 3. удачливый; 4. просветитель; 5. эпический псалом’. Можеть быть в Х веке просветительство шло на Украину именно с востока, из Московии – ‘МасКовии’ – משא קובע/маса ковэа = ‘Ноша, тяжесть, ПРОРОЧЕСТВО + Устанавливаю, определяю’.   А москвичи, как более образованные, получили у хохлов прозвище – ‘МОСКАЛИ’ – от משכיל/маскиль – ‘образованные, знающие’      Ещё версии:   2. Москва – немецк. Maskau – иъвритск. МАС КАВУА / מס קבוע – “постоянный налог”, “закреплённый налог” . Москва была таможней на реке Москве. В 1147 году Гюргий-коняз в Русском третьем КАГАНАТЕ, пишет конязю: “Приди ко мне, брате, в Москов”. А другой, второй КАГАНАТ почил в бозе где-то в Х веке. Именно его ТАМОЖНЕЙ и был “Москов”.   Слово ‘Москов’ имеет ивритское окончание – ‘ов’ = הוה /овэ// овъ – ‘сущий, существующий’. Т.е. Город москов существует, он есть.            А чтоб судить о важности этого места, посмотрите на КАРТУ торговых путей “из варяг в багдадский халифат”: Любек – Рюген – Готланд – НЕВО – ВОЛХОВ – Новгород – по р. Ловать – Витебск – Смоленск – Сафоново – Вязьма – Бородино – Можайск – Москов – Коломна – (далее по Оке) – Рязань – Юхта – КОЧЕМАРЫ – ЛАШМА – Касимов – Чикур – ЕЛА ТЬМА – МУРОМ – АГАПОВО – Н. Новгород – (далее БаЛГА) – ВасильСУРСК – ШАБАХСАР- ВОЛЬСК1 – КАЗАНЬ(БУЛГААР) – БУЛГАР2 – Симбирск – ЗЕГУЛА (а там Губино, Кресты, Богатырь) – ХВАЛЫНСК – ВОЛЬСК2 – САРТОВ – САРсув (Царицын) – остров Хаза-ар – Асатархан – КАСПИЙ (Хвалынское море) – МАХАШКАЛЕ – РЕЙ – Техран – Испагань – Шираз – Багдад – Басра – Бушир – Бомбей.         Владимир Бершадский      +972-527284035


Оставить комментарий © Copyright Бершадский Владимир Евгеньевич (vladimir.b-52@mail.ru) Размещен: 05/10/2020, изменен: 08/04/2022. 124k. Статистика. Статья: История Ваша оценка:
халас

хорош по арабски

несколько отсортирую версии. Москва в 11 веке – ровно по границе расселения Балтийских племен (Литва на Протве в поиске, река Упа, возможно Тула), и все таки на территории племени Меря, а чуть южнее – край с Вятичами (Кишкино Ступино Ляхово) и Эрзя, Мокша, Мурома – Рязанский край.

Значит – название Мерянское.

Налог тут не причем, Мита во многих славянских языках ( Район по деревне Митино в Москве – таможня была, сбор податей с приезжих, с торговцев ) .

Сей же Мосох князь Московский бысть и началородный нам и первых отец не токмо же Скифо-Москво-Словено-Российским людем, но и всем нашим своесродным государствам премногим и народам и землям и племенам и коленам Скифским

Иудейская версия, еврейская. Тогда – можно признать, что городу за 2000 лет.

Есть книга Ткаченко – там расписано, что название – на языке Меря – это пакля, мушко. Ценнейшее сырье, а речка Коноплянка – из конопли канаты, лодки, утеплять дома, поменять на другой товар . (да и Волхвы могли использовать – для обрядов своих. )

первая версия – и совпадает с первым упоминанием в письменном виде – приди, княже, в Москов. и с иностранным, латинским Moscow.

Вторая версия – все таки Медведица, вышедшая к реке. Меря – что вижу, о том и говорю. (в отличии от славянских названий, где – большинство поселков – чье то владение). Маск Ава – и у Марийцев Ава Маск. – Девочка – Медведя. (а сам медведь – тотемное животное, как и лось, не только сосед в лесу, а и поклоняться могли, как одному из божеств.) если так, то могли назвать большой поселок, столицу.

Ростов Великий – был центр поселений. Сарское городище . (созвучно -Саров ближе к Нижнему.. ищем информацию, может и совпадение.)

Точнее – не установить, пока не найдены будут рисунки – черточки там, как у Манси. Без письменности – вряд ли была народность, искать надо. На керамике, на бересте, на дощечках, как у Мари, на палках. Тамга, шерева тоя – поиск. Знаки, символы, возможно, русские буквы. Узоры то разные сохранились.

Итак, город Московия, глава и столица Руси, и сама область, и река, которая протекает по ней, носит одно и то же имя; на родном языке народа они названы Москвой. Что именно из них дало имя прочим, неизвестно. Цитата из 16 века.

Меряне разве с электрикой не дружили.. не охотники даже – хотя и охотники и рыбаки больше – расшифруйте Пужбол – это же сколько _корзинок_ плавало по озеру у поселка. Скотоводы Огородники – Земледельцы. Хмель выращивали, например. Снетки – плотвички, бабушкино слово русско мерянское. Уважали природу, поклонялись своим богам, да как и русские – в древности, вера языческая была. Присоединились к русским, стали ходить в церковь – после хорошей драки, правда.

Генконсул Финляндии нашел в Коми потомка народа меря

Генеральный консул Финляндии в Санкт-Петербурге Олли Перхеэнтупа во время экскурсии в этнографическом отделе Национального музея Коми в Сыктывкаре познакомился с потомком летописного финно-угорского народа меря. Этим человеком оказалась директор музея Ирина Котылева.

Как рассказал О.Перхеэнтупа на приеме, посвященном проведению Дней финно-угорской культуры в Коми, во время экскурсии в музее он встретил представителя древнего народа меря. «И это был не экспонат, а живой человек», — с воодушевлением произнес гость республики.

Как сообщила Инфоцентру FINUGOR И.Котылева, она является потомком летописных мерян, ставших основой формирования русского народа. «Мои родители происходят из Чухломского района Костромской области, которая являлась территорией расселения этого древнего финно-угорского народа, хотя я сама уже родилась в Сыктывкаре и никогда не думала, что отношусь к финно-уграм. Но гости из Финляндии сами обратили внимание на мою внешность: антропологический тип был им понятен, — рассказала она. — Я сама заинтересовалась этим вопросом недавно, когда тема мери стала популярной в прессе и культуре. Есть общество, изучающее историю и культуру мерян, но я пока не выходила на контакт с ним. Гостям я рассказала историю христианизации мери проповедником Леонтием Ростовским, после чего постепенно произошла русификация этого народа. И теперь потомки мерян не знают древний язык».

У Марийцев может несколько заблудших осталось. Язык не точно, но очень похожий. И – живой, сохранился.

Марийская вышивка. А я считал, что узор на вышивке на стене – иранский. Пока бабушка не рассказала.

пяток названий а больше – можно посмотреть восстановленые в Интернете словари – от соседей, у Меря не было письменности, либо – не нашли палки и дощечки в пещере, или бересту ( как у Марийцев, у родственного народа все было). Книжка Ткаченко – издана в 80-х еще в Киеве, при СССР, ну там тоже десяток слов, а то и больше. Может, от бабушки еще добавлю. Все, кто случайно называл бабушку Папа – тоже Меря ! Папа на мерянском бабушка. Кто повторяет слово два раза – и не раз получал в школе двойку за это (еще Украинец то же может быть) – Мерянин или Мерянка.

Никажель

Гжель – от поляны кжель (Merens- язык Меря)

Талдом – место под дубами, двор, своя территория (тал – дуб)

Туглицы

Тугова гора в Ярославской – Меря разводили туг – хмель.

Тула – на балтийских языках укрытие, скрытое место. У Меря – Туле – приходить. Пришли (поменять пеньку на муку ) а там тул – огонь. какая – то версия – правильная, а может – и все.

Таруса – да там прибалты жили, Голядь. Речка каменистая, быстрая, может похожее слово торос.

Которосль – речка в Ярославле. Ну, точно по – мерянски. Одна из версий – Котор Ош, местный из знати, боярин, письменного подтверждения нет. А вторая – Которость (еще есть Лахость – не объяснено пока название, Пудость тож) от мерянского котор кодор – ну очень извилистая река.

Место слияния Вёксы и Устья, образующее Которосль. Здесь скандинавские и булгарские торговые гости на своих лодках поворачивали налево, в озеро Неро, и далее по Где, шли к Сарскому городищу (летописный Ростов).

краеведение #ростов #меря #вёкса #которосль

Связаться с программистом сайта. Новые книги авторов СИ, вышедшие из печати:
О.Болдырева “Крадуш. Чужие души” М.Николаев “Вторжение на Землю” Как попасть в этoт список

Сайт – “Художники” .. || .. Доска об’явлений “Книги”

Одномерность – ментальный грипп с осложнениями

разбор на Украинском – так я перекладу на Россиянский, толмач из представителя малой народности годный ..

( Чтобы истину выяснить, надо несколько мнений послушать.. )

Volodymyr BILINSKY
COUNTRIES, or MOSCOW

Roman-research

Book of Friend

Kyiv Olena Teliga 20092009

BBK 63.3 (2 Ross)

B61

Bilinsky V. B.

B 61 The country of Moxel, or Moscow.

Roman-research. — Kyiv: View-vo. Elena

Teligs. — 2009.

ISBN 978-966-355-016-9

Book 2. — 320 s.

ISBN 978-966-355-018-3

The book, based on ancient chronicle sources, studies the historical roots of the Russian Empire, proved the facts of the formation and development of Muscovites as a people on the basis of an ancient Finnish ethnicity.

BBK 63.3 (2 Ross)

The cover of the book is based on the painting I. Glazunov “Ivan the Terrible”

ISBN 978-966-355-016-9

Bilinsky V. B., text, 2009

Publishing named after Elena

ISBN 978-966-355-018-3 (book 2) Teliga, 2009.

Моїй I dedicate my beloved wife to Love Sergievna.

Author
PRANDITION

After the release of the first book of the two-volume, the author of the novel-research asked many readers to identify and clarify the concepts of the people and the country of Moksel. In view of this, the second volume of the book the author fully devoted to this important issue. I was going to write about it myself.

Continuing the topic about the people and the country of Moxel, we will often return to the first times of the appearance of this people, its historical roots. We will try to fill the gap that we consciously left, covering it with fiction and siege, Russian historical science. An extremely great paradox was thrown by the chauvinistic power of the Russian Empire: they say, the Muscosites, who were later magnified from the Great Russians, are completely Slavic ethnicity. And not just Slavic, but higher than intelligence and ancient historical roots. The most common test! Everything is done in the truly Roman (cathetin) spirit, “proved” by the best Russian pre-revolutionary historians.

That’s what their concept is really, if we express it in a concise way: “The great state is a great past, the great rulers are great predecessors.” Therefore, when the Slavic ethnic group in the early 18th century was without large “state followers”, then, of course, “finally supped” by the owners of the “silly” country Moksel, as “the one that lay unattended”, “not had a owner”. The Ro-manov dynasty, which began with a maid-meer-marite Kobe, needed a great Slavic past of the Kiev state. I

The theory of the Slavic origin of Moscow was “historically substantiated.”

But the paradox is that in the territory of the “condistural Russian land” – modern Moscow, Vo-lodymir, Yaroslavl, Ivanovska, Kostroma, Tver, Ryazan regions – Finnish tribes have long lived: mayor I, wall, me, me, me, the city, all, etc. d. That is, the Moscow principality arose and developed on the basis of the Finnish ethnicity.

Back in the 6th century, this truth was evidenced by the Gothic historian Jordan, as reminiscent of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (third edition). I will not quote confirmation here because I have already posted them in the first volume of the book.

The oldest Kiev chronicles remind that these tribes lived on the land of the future Moscow also in the I-th and 12th centuries. The great traveler Wilhelm de Rubruk, having visited the pond of Khan Sartak in 1253, confirmed this view, indicating that only “two kinds of people lived north of the modern city of Lipetska, between the Don and Volga, namely: Moxel… and Merdynis.”

The contemporary of Catherine II historian Ivan Boltin, who violently perceived any attempt on the “greatness of Russian history”, carelessly warned that the mayor lived on their historical land until the invasion of the Tatars Khan Batu on the country of Moxel, or the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land, and the moroma “turned into Russians.” I said, so, and I took it. Get all out!

But what is interesting: even at a time when the main historical base was “undered” under the Slavic origin of Moscow, archaeologist Count Alexei Uvarov, conducting excavations of 7729 mounds in the former Moscow, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Ryazan provinces, established that those mounds belonged exclusively to the Merian (Finnish) ethnic. The mounds of the same ethnicity of the following centuries were spread, until the 16th century. CountO. S. Uvarov, summing up the research material, in 1872 published a book “Merians and their life by mound excavations.” The book has 215 pages, 82 of which contain tables of archaeological finds in mounds.

I won’t talk about thousands of found bones of the mer.

The Slavic spirit on the land of Moscow in those ages is “not heard”. But we will talk about it separately.

Above we mentioned the Romanov concept of Russian history. In parallel with the main postulates of that concept, there were auxiliary: about the “fearing people”, “Russian patriotism”, “Russian national character”, “wide Russian soul” and Nshi. Readers should know: all these postulates had to be invented not only, but also for a very long, zealously and forced to plant. And the despotic imperial authorities not only planted such “speaks”, but also encouraged plagiarism and fiction to the national elite, its own science and literature. After all, it is no wonder that Andriy Tymofiyovych Bolotov in his book “The Life and Adventures of Andrei Bolotov, described himself for his own asshchadka” noted: “It is likely about Catherine (emperate). – V.B.) You can say that it was she who started the genre of pseudo-memoirs.” These words, spoken 200 years ago, encourage reflection.

Let’s not explain again why we resorted to such manipulations, why lies and fictions in Russian historical science were launched, into Russian literature, finally, in the minds of Muscovites. A cruel empire was created, a new dynasty of Romanov-Kobylins was created from ordinary commoners, and it was necessary to bring it under the status of “bogorized” and “big”. And in a totalitarian state, which was always the Russian Empire, it was not difficult to do this. Moreover, the Russian Orthodox Church was involved in these actions. She was even assigned to lead the process of falsification. And all these actions were observed, enjoying the omnipot, state and church triple censorship.

All prominent Russian historians of the past: Lyzlov, Tatishchev, Boltin, Karamzin, Solovyov. Klyuchevsky and others were historians of the Russian Romanov dynasty. They served the only goal — to exalt the empire and its dynasty. And they did it well. “Not bad,” because there were still significant gross mistakes, which is quite understandable. After all, the process of “creation” of Russian history, “introduction” of fiction, “right” of old material, “clarification” of the laid out, “denial” questionable — all this happened at the same time. Because of this, the material was partly brought a lot of contradictions, casus, and often elementary nonsense. Each new generation of historians saw stupidity, grabbed their heads and carefully, or openly, with pride, tried to “stend, clean, clarify, refute, improve” the previous material. We will find many such things on the pages of the book. You shouldn’t be surprised.

The question may arise: how did the historical past of the Russian Empire be laid out under Soviet power? The Soviet government itself refuted many royal postulates. It would seem that the Bolshevik ideology, according to which “every cook can govern the state” completely contradicts the idea: “great rulers — great predecessors.”

But the whole paradox, and perhaps a big secret, of Russian history is that everything is used in it. The majority have not changed anything. All the Romance fictions remained. Somewhere next to them was also a “Leninist”. The Romanov concept of Russian history has also been preserved for the Bolsheviks. It was it that we studied at one time, and Russia is studying and preaching to this day.

The Bolsheviks only adjusted the Romanov concept: sometimes smeared, sometimes painted, elsewhere reinforced or weakened accents, in others – added a piece of red rag, but the very ideology of the presentation was left as it was. After all, it is at the heart of that Romanov concept that such concepts as “Russian patriotism”, “the original Russian land”, “where Moscow and Moscow came from. “Russian valor” is like that. Without these concepts, the Russian Empire cannot exist.

According to the tsarist, the empire studied the “big 18th century” and “the works of Catherine P”. These were mandatory disciplines. The Bolsheviks only “passed” the works of Catherine II, but exclusively according to the same method, with all the same pro-imperial spirit, they took to study the relevant works of O. S. Pushkin. Modern, so-called democratic, Russia united with each other.

We must understand that Russia has always been a totalitarian state. Even modern Russia is just likewise a totalitarian empire. Remember how cruel the parliament was shot there, how cynically closed and dispersed NTV and TV-6 TV channels. I am not talking about the genocide of the Chechen people. The spirit of the Romanovs still prevails in the Russian state today.

In the second volume of our book, we will return to the roots of the formation of the Russian people, its original sources; let’s pay attention to the chronicles, let’s see what changes have been made in them; let’s touch archaeology; finally, let’s try to reveal the great secrets of the empire, so carefully hidden by archives. We may not be able to decipher everything, but we will pull out something to the light and provoke further searches.

It is time to destroy the false Romanov concept of Russian historical science.

Part One

MOXEL:

MERA — MORDVA — MOSCOW
1

How much ransom would Russian history give and how free it would feel now if there were no scientific works of the great archaeologist of the XIX century Count Alexei Uvarov! O.S.Uvarov, with his works blew up myths and fictions about the Slavic origin of the Rostov-Suzdal land and the Moscow principality. His research buried the chauvinistic siege, drove a deadly assock into this myth. But you should understand that not O. S. Uvarov, nor his associates, ever openly said anything like this. They couldn’t talk for known reasons.

I often wondered why did the count write this outstanding work — “Meryans and their lives by mound excavations? Why O. S. Uvarov did not distort, did not add to research “difficle lies, frankly did not lie, did not start anything to the idea of the Slavic past of the Muscovites, but used only what was already launched to it? And I came to the conclusion: two main reasons contributed to this.

First: in the middle of the XIX century, there was no need for evidence of the Slavic origin of Moscow. There were no people who would deny the false idea. And given the cruel despotic regime and the omnivising censorship, the world could not see this despense. However, the opinions of historians of European countries were ignored and not brought to the educated community of the empire. And the Russian public of truth did not perceive, fascinated by the chauvinistic idea of “about a God-chosen people.” By the middle of the 19th century, the simple people were mainly sent into ordinary slavery, serfdom.

And the second reason: the origin of the Uvarov family. Note: it was not an ordinary amateur who was looking for adventure and hit the excavations of ancient mounds. No! He was a great 19th-century scientist, by himself an outstanding personality of his time. We briefly see where the Uvarov family appeared in Moscow and how the Moscow Empire served. Readers probably remember as Professor L. M. Iumilyov wrote “about the exits to Moscow” of Tatar mors and ordinary asquers from the Golden Horde, as they were awarded princely and boyar ranks. This is how in the XIV century in Moscow appeared mura Minchan Kasaev. Let us turn to the Russian historical source: “Uvarov, Russian nobles, come from the mura of Minchak Kasaev, by baptism called Simeon, who came from the Golden Horde to Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich (1389-1402)… He had children: David, Zlob, Orkan (Orinka), Uvara… From them came: David’s, Minchakov, Zlobina, Oreshkins, and from Uvar – Uvarov.

Only a native of the Golden Horde – the murza Minchan Kasaev gave the Muscovites five titled noble families. There were tens of thousands of them in hundreds of years. And the ants and the asquers married not with fictional Slavs, but with ordinary merries. And that’s true too.

The Golden-Ordinal genus of Uvarov honestly and loyally served Moscow for many hundreds of years. For example, I will mention the father of our archaeologist. Count Sergey Semenovich Uvarov from 1818 to 1855 was president of ацьthe Russian Academy of Sciences, published a number of scientific prs in ancient Greek literature and archaeology; from 1833 to 1849 he worked in the Cabinet of Ministers of the Empire – Minister of Public Education. It was Minister Sergei Semenovich Uvarov that put forward the famous pro-imperial formula: “Orthodox, autocracy, nationality.” Just please don’t think that Count C. S. Uvarov understood ordinary slave-fortres under “people”. Not at all! The people in the empire were the count himself and similar to him.

The son of the minister and president of the Academy of Sciences of the Empire, Alexei Uvarov grew up in a highly educated family, received a higher one. Even by modern standards, was graduated from the University of St. Petersburg, after which he continued his studies at the universities of Berlin and Heidelberg: he studied Byzantine art in Italy for several years. And later: devotes himself to the study of Russian… Antiquities, and soon occupies one of the first places among Russian archaeologists: makes numerous excavations at a considerable expense. It produces a number of valuable and first-class works and monographs… In 1864 moves to Moscow, where the Moscow archaeological society is founded, in which until his death it holds the position of head, organizes archaeological congresses, and the study of hundred-threeds at Russian monasteries. He is one of the founders of the Moscow Historical Museum “J2. s. 711 .

Alexey Uvariv took care of the quality of archaeological science. “On his initiative, guidance was intended for excavations of mounds and scientific search. At his suggestion, mounds of curves, the towns of the Severians and the antiquities of the Tver Karelia were studied. [Z, s. 418-419].

I mean, in the person of O, S. We are dealing with almost and the ancestor of Russian scientific archaeology.

I hope readers have not forgotten that the second reason that allowed Count O. S. Uvarov’s land the outstanding work’ Meryan and their life by mound excavations,” became his lineage. It was the Turkic (Aoloto-ordinal) roots of the Uvarov dynasty that laid indifference to the fictional Russian Slavicism in their consciousness. The Uvarov dynasty was proud of its Turkic origin. And high European education, which relied on Turkic self-awareness, prompted the question of historical truth to be put above Slavic mythology.

That’s why the world saw a relatively honest study. It is necessary to note that Count O. S. Uvarov, even for his independent position and volition, could not follow the framework defined by Catherine II of the so-called “Slavic origin of Moscow and Muscovites”. As we see, it did not go beyond the defined limits. However, in this section, we will not refer to O’s conscious silence. S. Weld individual false fictions. He used many false myths. And imperial censorship would never allow even Count O. S. Uvarov openly refute the mythical “basics of the empire”.

Because of this, we will not focus in this section on the mistakes of the archaeologist, but study in detail the work “Meryans and their life by mound excavations.” And let’s see how some Russian historians and archaeologists (after fifty years) rushed to correct, or even distort a great archaeologist, his scientific research. They, once again, have become wise “by harm”.

Let’s see how these wonderful studies of Count O appeared. S. Uvarova. Here is what he writes in his work “Meryans and their life by mound excavations”:

In 1850, former Minister of Internal Affairs Count L. A. Perovsky… I asked me to explore the soil of Novgorod and its surroundings. But, recognizing that in Novgorod and Novgorod province quite often and earlier excavations were carried out, not always successful, I gave Count Pow to someone the idea of starting research in Suzdal and near Suzdal, in the area, never yet studied… Count Veronsky accepted this offer and in the spring of 1851 sent me to Suzdal to begin work. From then until 1854, archaeological searches in the districts: Suzdal were performed for four years. Volodimprsky, Yuri-Eiv, Pereyaslav and Rostov. The number of places and mounds dug here was so large that

The general conclusion from these studies gave us surprisingly interesting and quite accurate materials both about the original place of residence of the people of the mayor and the customs, home life and trade relations of this people.

In total, 163 areas were studied over four years and 7,729 mounds were explored. 1].

Note to some facts that archeologist emphasizes. In the heart. In the areas where O worked. S. Uvarov, no one before him did excavations, that is, the original sources found there were him first and discovered. 1 Io-second. O. S. Uvarov conducted excavations of the most important political centers of the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land, such as Rostov, Suzdal. Vladimir. Yur’swa. He is famous and his colleagues are Muroma. Kolomyia, Moscow, Ryazan, Mozhaisk. Tbepi. Kostromas, Yaroslavl. Halich-Mersky and others. As for those lands where he did not do excavations personally, or his assistant, archaeologist Pavel Stepanovigch Savelev, O. S. Uvarov used archaeological material from his contemporaries to publish the book. What is very important is that they have not yet falsified the material for the sake of the so-called Moscow Slavicism. These were archaeologists of the ZO-50s of the 19th century. We will then point out those archaeologists and their works,

And finally, third: exploring huge archaeological material, both its own and borrowed, Count O. S. Uvarov established that all settlements and lands were exclusively “places of residence of her residence of the people Mary . Archeo log clearly recorded the residence of the mayor on that land, by or by or by VI-VII and until the 16th century. He spoke about the subsequent period of residence, although he will confirm many facts.

At the beginning of the book O. S. Uvarova, between pages 8 and 9. The map of the Merian land is applied for Archaeological and Philological Research. Compiled gr. Welded.”

The map is also t unique material, as well as the book itself, because it includes in the “Msrian Land”, which extends from Galicia-Mersky. Kostromas and Yaroslavl to Kaluga, Kashira and Ryazan, all the oldest centers of the country Moksel, such as: Torzhok, Tver, Klyn, Moscow, Pereyaslav, Rostov, Yuryev, Suzdal, Vladimir, Kolomna, etc.

On that map, the count allowed a single neglect, marking only cities: Halich-Mersky, Rostov, Suzdal and Moore. Forgetting to indicate others. But the “Meric land” is very clearly defined by lines, it is applied rivers and lakes, so it was easy to restore the lack of view of the count.

“The searches were fully confirmed. The chronicler’s testimony: “and on Rostov Lake Mary, and in the Cleshchina Lake Mary” These short words indicate two main areas (Kleschino or Pereyaslav Lake and Rostov Lake), around which the first housings of the mayor were mostly concentrated and from where the Merians subsequently came out, spreading their territories. For the growing number of people, the space occupied around the lakes was insufficient, and other ншіreasons, such as trade, prompted the establishment of new settlements along the river of the great year. s. 2].

Having linked his research with an ancient chronicle, the archaeologist showed the ancient Merian people not in ordinary Russian conservation, as always interpreted by Moscow “state historians”, namely in life dynamics. That is, the mayor, for many hundreds of years of development, did not sit in one narrow place, and, due to the large population growth, constantly expanded the boundaries of residence. It expanded its possessions not only north and east, but more often west and south, in places more favorable for life. Do not forget that the neighbors of the mayor were family tribes of the Finnish ethnicity, who spoke close years.

If you look at the location of Rostov and Pereyaslav Lakes, we will see that their geography itself contributed to the expansion of the estates of the mayor. After all, without any difficulties, the mayor could move in the big rivers — Volga, Oka, Klyazma, Moscow, Molago and their influxes to all sides of the world. S. Uvarov. As we will see, there are many other evidence.

The work of archaeologist O. S. Uvarova had great weight and authority at one time. All encyclopedia dictionaries of tsarist Russia are provided by archaeologist O. S. Uvarov as an outstanding scientist and an undeniable specialist. It seems that the archaeologist even predicted that in the future someone may not like his work, which will be applied to them later and begin to be silent, so he warned in the book:

“When writing our study, we were intended to give every scientist who wants to test the canti conclusions, the ability to perform this surprisingly simply, and for that we placed at the end of the extract from the diaries conducted during excavations. We have written reports on the most important and interesting mounds and placed all the mounds in which coins were found, because these mounds become chronological data for a comparative study of others, and you can learn from what time do objects similar to those. which were found in these mounds” [4, p. 2].

The archeologist reliably linked chronological events with the factual material of excavations, which was why his work became uncontrolled to further creators of the “weights of lies” of the Slavic origin of the Muscovites.

Of course, the main signs of the presence of a huge territory to the land of the mayor were found in the excavated mounds identical, inherent only in the mayor and their Finnish family tribes evidence. There were other features. But they all had completely cold roots. Let’s listen to Count O. S. Uvarova:

Thus, the excavated mounds on the banks of both lakes acquire the value of the exact measure for comparing graves among themselves, and a significant number of them indicates the density of population in these areas. Note that the variety and number of objects taken from mounds gives us the opportunity to reliably determine the nature of the Merian graves, restoring clearly all its peculiar features that distinguished МеріMary’s decoration from the clothes of almost all other inhabitants of ancient Russia. 3].

Oh. S. Uvarov, as readers understand, referred Meryu and Me-rian land to Russia. But that’s a big lie!

Knowing from ancient chronicles that around the perimeters of lakes Nero and Kleschino (Rostovske and Pereyaslavske) lived by mayors, the archaeologist initially excavated many hundreds of graves on the shores of these lakes, setting their database data, and only after, according to obvious signs, established thousands of other mounds that belong to the mayor. Oh, S. Uvarov all grave excavations, both their own and foreign ones, could be freely compared in time of their laying, because the presence of coins in both basic and peripheral mounds, along with the unifying mayor of the piti signs, clearly indicated their origin and the time of burial.

Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov on many pages of his book provides basic signs of dead housing, their location; household items; types of clothing, jewelry; types of weapons, knives; places and methods of burial, etc.

Book O. S. Uvarova “Meryans and their life by mound excavations”, 1872 edition, is in the National Library of Ukraine and is in excellent condition, although at the time of my work with the book she turned more than 130 years old. This means that for many decades it has been hidden from readers and did not appear in hand by simple mortals. I can only see why the book was not destroyed by the Bolsheviks.

So let us turn to the testimony of a great scientist and, of course, let’s start with the mounds themselves and burials. Here is how the archaeologist said:

“Sometimes they burned the body and others buried it together, but in both cases, the mound always sat. Therefore, the mounds of Meryanse cemeteries contain a number of graves with fallen bones and graves with buried bodies… This simultaneous existence of two methods of burial is proved, in addition, by those mounds in which both methods of burial are found together under the same embankment. s. 6 .

The author on the same page confirms his conclusions by excavations near the village of Alluskovo and excavations near the village of Velika Brembola. In one of the graves: “burned bones; Bone are found: a silver coin of King Otto of the 10th century, which served as a suspension, a spring copper with three dud silver balls, necklaces… iron hammer and debris of clay image of hand and circle… Three skulls were found at the depth of two arches. Next to one skull were necklaces. and a bronze suspension in the form of a small four-legged beast; at the second skull is a bronze flat ring and eleven gilded beads.

OS. Uvarov paid great attention to descriptive clothes and especially jewelry that were used by vibrating. Let’s listen, “… Men and women wore clothes made of thick woolen matter… Meryan had a custom to decorate this clothes with a patch of metal pendants with a variety of drawings. which gave all the outfit of the peculiar character that distinguished all tribes of Finnish origin from other peoples. Both shoulders, for example. Merjana sewn bronze triangular trimming blys with small triangles or bubonics suspended to its niches…

The leather belt consisted of a fairly wide belt… Men and women were the most needed to the belt. objects, such as: key, knife, chair, needle, slate, bar or sharping stone, bone ridges. with 5J.

“Starting the description with the headgear, we see that men and women equally decorated themselves with the temples with metal rings. Silver or Copper Drog… Along with the temporal rings, leather belts (on the head. – W. B,), which these rings were sucked on, and along with temporal rings and belts, we sometimes found the remains of dark-rust hair…

On Merian’s neck were worn by jewelry of two kinds: either metal manry, mostly silver hoops, or necklaces from various beads, pendants and silver coins. 4].

“The silver and bronze bracelets and the same rings were worn not only by all Merian without sex distinction, but even children. They, according to excavations, had such a passion for decorating this kind, which often put two bracelets on each hand and on the ring on each finger. [4, p. 6].

I have already written that the archaeologist in his research moved from the center of the Merian land, from the so-called “Merg state”, to the outskirts of the governorship: Moscow, Tver, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vladimir, Ryazan. On the map “Meric land – composed by a count and added to the book, dots and numbers are marked the areas where excavations were performed either by the count himself, or his assistant Pavel Stepanovich Saveliev, but to a large extent by their contemporaries-archeologists. Such areas on the map are 26. It is very important to trace the geography of the specified excavations, which O. S. Uvarov used it to compare with the mound excavations of the “Merg state”.

So, numbers 1 and 2 are marked separately located and excavated arrays of mounds near (city) Muroma: 3, 4 – near (city) Kolomny, along the Moscow River; 5 in the Bronnits-com district of the Moscow province; 6 in the Bogorod district of the same province; 7 in the Moscow district near the village of Setuny;near s. Babarikino of Moscow province; 10 in Zvenigorod district of the Moscow province; 11 in the Mozhay district; 12 in the Veraean district of the same Moscow province; 14 in the Vesiegon district on the Sorozh River of Tver province; 15 in Vyshneve-lot district on the left bank of the Volchin River, 18, 19 — near Lake Nero near (city) Rostov Yaroslavl province; 20 — near Galicia-Mersky Kostroma province; 21 — near the Volga River, above the city of Yaroslavl, after turning the river to south; 22, 23 — along the river Klyazma, near (city) of Vladimir Vladimir province; 24 — near the river Teza, east (city)where the river Xit flows into it (see below the map of the Merian land).

Let us pay special attention to the western borders of the Meric land – Kaluzka, Moscow, Tver and Yaroslavl provinces, since Count O. S. Uvarov supported the imperial chauvinistic fiction of living, as they say, “note to the mayor’s – “in—tyatichs, curves and Slovenes of Novgorod.” We will see that this so-called theory was an elementary siege. However, as readers understand, the scientist could not completely go beyond the existing pro-imperial “idea”. The main thing in another: all excavations conducted in the Moscow, Tver and Yaroslavl provinces were identical to the excavations of the mounds of the “Mersky state”: the same household items, the same decorations, the same methods of burial, at the same time burials – the IX-XVI centuries. These testimony has become undeniable, and they weigh more than ordinary words.

It is noteworthy that even the excavated mounds in the Ustyuzh district of Novgorod province testified to their Merian origin. It could not be different here. If we look at the geographical map, we see that excavations of areas 14, 15, 16 are held at the tops of the Molog River. And quite near is Valdai high. And it is clear that the Valdaisky watershed became the border of the Meric land Exactly the same picture we see in the Moscow province, where we are also offered to believe that the mayor I could not in my rivers — Moscow, Volga, Oka, Protva, Pahra, Nar and Ruza to reach the eastern and northeastern part of the Smolensk land. But everyone understands that the mayor could not stop halfway (half the river). They reached the top of this year. But to collapse through the plateau and swim in other rivers to the west they could not, did not have the opportunity for many reasons. But that’s the topic of another conversation. And, as we will see in the future, the nearest excavated graves of the curves were found only in the west of Smolensk province.

This is the truth about the western border of the Meric land. It was Valdai highlands that pass in the south to Belsk, Vyazem and Smolensk highlands, and became the western border of the Meric land As evidenced by the names of the year: Ugra, Vora, Vazuz and Nsha in the Kaluga and Smolensk regions.

The ancient land of the mayor contained not only characteristic, only her belongings, burials and burial grounds. It is characterized in many ways by the word of the mayor. S. Uvarov, in hundreds of names: villages, villages, year, lakes and tracts. Thus, Rostov Lake in ancient times was called Nero; the Great Nerl River flows from Lake Kleschino. The Little Nerl River flows nearby. I hope it’s clear that Merle and Nerle are identical. One of the streams of the river Oka is called Persian. The Volga River flows near the village of Nikolsk. On the Volhonka River, in the Moscow province, lies the village of Merya. You can cite many nshi x similar names. Only on the map of the “Meric land” archaeologist O. S. Uvarov submitted the names of 37 settlements that come from the word “mer” like: Merlevo, Merenovo, Merilo-vo, Merzlevo, Chamerovo, Merevkyno, Merlynov-ka. And in parallel, the names of five settlements that come from the name of another Merian lake – Kleschino.

In 1859, archaeologist M. M. Zhuravlev, after analyzing thousands of names of villages, villages, year and tracts of Yaroslavl province, found that the indigenous inhabitants of the province who gave these names to the surrounding world were Finnish tribes, and in these names, an imprint is read, “not related to Slavic-Russian language.”

Count O. S. Uvarov even gotten that, “Unfortunately, we do not have such complete material for other adjacent provinces, such as, for example, for Moscow, Kostroma, Volododa, Novgorod, Tver, etc.” [4, p. 8].

And then he clarified: “The indigenous inhabitants of these areas were of the same tribe or belonged to the tribes of related.”

Of course, Count O. S. Uvarov knew well: in the empire, such studies concerning the Moscow province are strictly prohibited. And even the archaeologist himself came under the “cap of bans”, because he was forced to point on his map, west of Moscow, fictional “words” and “bloods”. This is how the Meric land with Slovenian was “borne” at that time.

So archaeologist O. S. Uvarov writes:

“In addition to these names that still keep the name Mary almost in its original whole, we have even more or less adjacent names of villages in which the name Mary is heard in the first or last syllable and. Such villages undoubtedly indicate to which boundaries the Merian land spread, and often the same names are repeated both in the outskirts and in the middle of this land, near Pereyaslav or Rostov lakes [4, p. 8-9].

Next, the author gives a lot of single-root names associated with the word mayor in Yaroslavl. Vladimir, Moscow, Tver, Kostroma, Vologda, Nizhegorods-kii, Ryazan and Tula provinces. And summarizes this topic as follows:

“When in the Tulsk province, in the names: Merlevo and Merly-newka, only those names that we have already met in the Nizhny Novgorod and Yaroslavl provinces, where the Merites undoubtedly lived, then such names become the most convincing evidence. The name Merinovo, which originates from the cradle of the Merian people, near Lake Kleschino, and is repeated without any changes in the Vologda, Nizhny Novgorod, Tver and Yaroslavl provinces, only 8 times, does not allow any possibility of ordinary coincidence. 10].

Great research was conducted by Count O. S. Uvarov! They cannot be denied even now. The only drawback: the archaeologist, as always, was silent about the fact that we have a similar situation in the Moscow province, although he cited in the province not just one-rooted words, but even the name of the mayor. This is called the village in the Virgin district. You have to fill the archeologist’s misask.

However, it is not just the word of the mayor’s land. It is necessary to pay attention to the many names of villages, villages, year, tracts that clearly indicate the affiliation of those words to the Finnish ethnicity. Here is what the graph writes about this:

“After the names that are characterized by a consonship with the name Mary, let’s move on to such names that do not have a Slavic root and impress with their foreign origin. Many of these names have been preserved in the entire space of the Merian settlements.” 10-11].

The author gives hundreds of other people’s Slavic words – the names of lakes, year! the village of Moscow, Vladimir, Yaroslavl and Kostroma provinces. I wanted to give this wonderful bouquet of words at first. But I decided not to tire the reader and limited to fifty names. Here are some of them:

Villages: Shipulino, Shupalov, Shulpino, Sugarovo, Sorpovo, All, Kizhila, Brembola, Veskovo, Shokshovo. Maymore, Yuksha, Shuhra, yauma, Bikan, Warja, Shopsha, Ugoj, Tara, Uchma, Koporje, Hekma, Lokhovo, Sora, Lushma, Vigorbino, Nekouz, Keriu, Sharsha, Sagda, Mich, Andoba, Izma, Kaksha, and KakSo, Baki, Uren, Nadoga, Vocha, Mologa, Desano.

Written from a huge, by the way, not the final list, only fifty names of villages.

All names are Finnish origin. Everyone understands that only the indigenous people (the dead) could give these names to their environment.

Here are some names of the year: Kubra, Klyazma, Sudogda, Nerechta, Peksha, Gza, Irmiz, Ukhtma, Via, Prison, Vac, Vasha, Vasha, Onvod, Tescha, Tesha, Naska. Volga, Voiga, Uhra, Ugra, Mologa, Sit, Cora, Sozhozh, It, Gizdra, Mos, Muzga, Shula, Ushloma, Qina, Era, Vashara, Pera, Raha, Weight, Lea, Ruha, Pahra, Moscow, Protva, Nara, Oka, Cosroma, Sur. Almost not to be seen with the book. S. Uvarova, I gave the reader railings that got a blind eye on regional maps or preserved in memory, the names of fifty rivers. Of course, later checked them with a list of rivers that the archaeologist submitted. I draw attention: Finnish names are mostly from Moscow, Yaroslavl, Vladimir, Kaluga and Kostroma provinces. Not included in the list of the year names such original Finnish lands as Ryazan and Tver.

The grateful human memory of the Finnish ethnicity still carefully preserves its ancient roots. A non-linked people would never have kept words alien to themselves for thousands of years. I hope this truth doesn’t need evidence.

But, for example, exclusively in memory, after reading the book O. S. Uvarova, several mayors of the Yami lake names: Nero, Kleschino, Isara, Xeng, Kizdra, Varech, Sakhtino, Semino, Vaskino, Surmoe, Yagorba. Utrecht, Gadit.

“Many of these names of both waters and villages are repeated in quite remote areas, proving not only their etymological unity or proximity, but also the unity of origin of the first inhabitants of these lands. Only the same people could, spreading their villages in a large space, repeat the same Names or give names of the same etymological origin… This proximity has already been seen by M. M. The name of the Yaroslavl province may be spread to the adjacent provinces, which were also inhabited by the ancient Mary. s. 12].

I wish these truths finally reached the shalled “guardians’ false imperial theories about the “Slovian origin of Moscow” and about the “brotherhood of the three Slavic peoples”.

Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov in his book gave hundreds of examples of urban names of villages, year and lakes – single-root words. By the way, he included many of the Merian names of the year. For example: Volga, Volga, Vojga, Warga, Will, Voxher, Vorsma, Wolsha, Wol-gott. But for some reason, the count forgot to add names the year of Smolensk province, which have the same Merian. root. Listen: War, Worry, Wop. Even great Russian researchers were not fully sincere and honest. They were always infected with the bacillus of Moscow chauvinism to one extent. You always have to remember this.

“One origin is also the names of some villages, as here: Vorzha, Vorox, Vologdino, Voslom, Voyattsi, Volyn, Volnenko, Volodyatino… Vorsino, Wonkovo… Wetda, Volochino, Vologemonovskaya, Wongoditsi, Vonggodska… Voikhta… Wohta, Vokhtga… The village of Vostsi is located in Kolomensky, in Novotorz and in Ostashkovsky counties. 12-13].

All these rivers and villages are freely located in the vast space of the ancient Merian land from Ryazan, Kaluga and Moscow to the distant Vologda, Gsilich-Mersky and Vyshny Volochka, where all the ancient centers of the so-called Rostov-Suzdal principality, or more precisely, the countries of Moksel, as here: Rostov, Pereyaslav, Yuryev, Mr. And next to the mayor’s heart-Morovo-Murom region, they lay freely: Murom, (Old) Ryazan, Pronsk, Gorodets, Nizhny Novgorod, Lipetsk and others.

Count O. S. Uvarov very clearly and clearly summarized this part of his study:

“In conclusion, we will once again confirm that the antiquity of settlements that had such names, foreign to the spirit of both the Slavic and Russian languages, was confirmed by the excavations of the mounds. There were always graves of the oldest era with both burial rites. 14].

We will not tire readers with a complete description of the boundaries of the Meric land. The count himself established that north, east and south of the mayors lived related tribes of veshi, Cheres, muzzles and ant.

We will remember the western borders many times. Because the entire Moscow and Kaluga provinces and the eastern part of Smolensk, without any doubt, belonged to the Meric land from the distant VIII century and belong to this day. And the map of the “Meric Land” of Count O. S. Uvarova, added to our book, shows that.
2

Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov described in his book 43 areas of Merian land, where he conducted a detailed analysis of excavations. In order for our readers to have an idea of the roots of the Meric ethnicity, we are obliged to study its customs, life, housing, habitat and finally the level of development that reached the mayor in the VIII and 19th centuries, that is, to the invasion of Khan Batiy and the accession of the Finnish people to the Turkic state – the Golden Horde.

I hope that no one will say that after the conquest of the people, the mayor by Khan Batia, could have taken place a “flow” of the Slavs from Podniprovya to the Moscow Ulus of the Golden Horde. The formation of the Meric ethnicity by the end of the XVI century took place separately from the Slavs – the modern peoples of Ukraine and Belarus.

The Slavic peoples of the ancient Kievan state from 1320 became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russian and Gemontsky.

Honestly, I am not at all understood by the desire of Russian historians and in our time it is thief-to-bearn the Slavic past. Because there is no need. If we do not take into account the purely imperial need. From the ordinary human point of view, Finnish tribes: the mayor I am, the wall, the whole, the city, the mordva, the mars, the mari — nothing 24

worse than Slavic tribes. As we can see, the Finnish ethnicity of the country Moksel is as old as the Slavic. Just like he grew up in the process of developing its territories, however, much north and east of the Slavs. Before borrowing Turkic ideas of “self-state” and “fighting” was a completely peaceful, hardworking people. And from the point of view of historical justice, he had every right to create his own state on its ancient land, in the border of Oka and Volga. Which he did during his historical formation. And the lie about the “Moscow Slavic roots” is already an imperial need that justified the enslavement of Slavs. This siege was particularly terribly given signs in the enslavement of Ukraine and during the Balkan imperial wars.

It is time for the ancient Finnish ethnicity — the Muscovites — to cleanse at least from obvious lies and outright fictions. After all, such cleansing never led to shame, but only washed souls and subsequently added respect in the eyes of neighbors. I hope that this will happen to the great people of mocsels — the mayor — the Muscoiites.

Let’s go back to the great book of Count O. S. Uvarova. Here’s what he writes:

“We have now examined all the oldest dwellings of the Meryansk people and its first escapts, which affected the investigation of archaeological research for forty-three areas, which were mounds with Meric graves. The identity of all these graves with graves on the shores of Rostov and Pereyaslav lakes is not only in the same funeral rites, but also in the same type of objects found in all mounds. The people of the colonies wore the same outfit, had the same items d la war and home life as indigenous inhabitants. The most remote settlements did not interrupt close ties with the inhabitants of the shores of both lakes and continued to constitute with them one inseparable people of Mary!’ [4, p. 49].

It is our turn to see, listen and visit with an archaeologist at ancient Meric excavations. And since the scientist provides his analytical considerations, analyses and conclusions on many dozen pages, we will visit with him at least in some of the unearthed mound areas. Let’s see what he, Muscovit, was actually original.

The first thing that the archaeologist pays attention to. — it is the location of cemeteries and the location of the residents, or, as they said in the old days, the towns of the mayors themselves. They chose very convenient places for residents and for burials; about a year, at the height. Such ancient burials are usually found on hills or on their dry slopes. Since the mayor believed in the afterlife, this is quite understandable; the dead man had a comfortable, reliable “housing”. It could not be reached by beast or water.

“The most sure sign of an ancient village was groups of mounds, which are always found in places very convenient for housing, on the slope of the high shore near a lake or river.

Meryan, arranging their cemeteries, as proved by the mounds, chose the first place on the towers, avoiding landslides and moisture-proddle… It follows that their homes were also located on highlands near their native graves. 22].

Let’s look at some of the mayor’s turg burials:

The first group of mounds was dug on the shore of a stream of Vetlyyanyk near the village of Velika Brembola. On the height called “Kruglitsi” in a round form of grave mounds, dug by a small ditch, 100 mounds were poured. Nearby there are mounds called “Knaziv’s graves”, there are 45 of them, no less ancient than the “Kruglits”.

Near, in the third tract of the same village, there were 200 mounds and two mounds – “Pans”. Finally, in the “Molyks”, in the forest near the village of Mala Brembola, grave mounds with fallen bones and buried bodies were also found.

Meryan used two methods of burial at the same time: burning with burying remains and ordinary funerals. Most likely, it was due to burial at different times of the year: summer and winter. We’ll talk about it again.

What is very important is that coins were found in the grave mounds: in the “Kruglika” – 5 eastern coins of the 10th century, and in the “Princes’ Graves” – 6 eastern coins of the X century and two western ones – the X and XI centuries. That is, we have the right to say that the mounds of the “Kruglits”, as we think are poured at the end of the 10th century, and the “Prince’s Graves” are burials of the 11th century, because even the eastern coins found in them, mostly the second half of the 10th century (948. 960 and 971.

Russian historians lied!

The oldest graves are excavated on the slope of the mountain of the right side of the Slod, then on the slopes of the Lys and Gtynin-sky and, finally, along the slope of the mountain located between them, below the “Pair”. They were mounds with burned bones.

In mound excavations near the village of Gorodishche found a lot (parisonously) silver coins, both eastern and western. Eastern coins of the 8th and X centuries, and Western coins were minted in the 11th and 12th centuries.

You can also talk about the time of burial. VIII – 12th centuries.

In the lower layer of the mound found burnt coal. It found two eastern coins 859 and 900 years of minting. In the same layer, ordinary merian household items were found: clay skulls of broken pots, small knives, key and iron buckles, the same shape with found in other Meric mounds. That is, there was a common merian burial of the first centuries on the slope.

I will not describe all the following layers of Alexander Mountain in this section. It is a very interesting and instructive material. We will study it when we talk about the generation of the Meric ethnicity of the XII-XVI centuries. The excavated mountain, as an open book, told the story of Moscow from pagan times to the time of John IV (the Terrible). And no trace of Slavic ethnicity in that “book 1 ? found. This truth was told by Alexander’s mountain to world historical science.

So we’ve been on the shores of the ancient Merian Lake Kleschino. Several thousand Merian mound burials of the 8th and 17th centuries were seen. Now with O. S. We will move to the outskirts of the no less ancient Merian Lake Nero (Rostovske). Let’s see some excavations of this land.

“Rostov Lake, at a distance of 5 to 7 versts (an ancient Russian measure of length, 1 verst ? 500 sazhens ? 1.0668 km. – V. B.) from their shores, operated on three sides, from the west, south and east, highs that smoothly descend to the lake. Even in memory of the old age (the first half of the 19th century. – V. B.) A significant part of the slopes of these hills, now broken, were covered with mounds. 27-28].

Not all grave mounds were destroyed. Many of them are studied by archaeologists. I wanted to confirm that I was a mer. The IX-XII centuries was numerous and relatively developed, expanded its territories hundreds of kilometers from the ancient lakes Nero and Kleschino, as evidenced by tens of thousands of burial grounds left by them.

It is noteworthy that, in addition to ordinary Merian things, the treasure kept a significant number of Muslim jewelry made of precious metals. Some instead of the pattern, the word was beaten: “Allah!”.

1 Ia shores of Lake Nero were excavated by many grave groups, near the villages: Shurskala, Theological, Sugar, Puzhbola; near the villages: Podivye, Custers, etc. That’s what O writes. S. Uvarov on this:

“If we take into account all the finds of coins on the sites of the original settlements of Meryan along the shores of Pereyaslav and Rostov lakes, we will see that the mounds. All belong to the X and early 11th century. Of all these numismatic data, we learn that the original settlements of Merian existed long before the 10th century, and that in the 10th century trade undoubtedly developed in them, which is why we got so many interesting coins. 31].

Forgive the great archaeologist inaccuracy. As you can see, he decided to limit the “original settlements of Meryan” “beginning the 11th century”. Although coins of the late XI century and even the early 12th century were found in the excavations. And if we consider that coins could appear in the Merian land many decades after production, it becomes clear that the excavated grave mounds belong to the X-XII centuries, and this is at least.

But I think this topic is not that important. Because O. S. Uvarov in his book did not express the idea that the mayor in the following centuries left their lands. On the contrary, he told us about the “second period of the Myrian settlements,” but when he saw that he undermined the “bases of the empire”, he limited himself to a short description. And the material about the “second period of Meryansk settlements” (XII-XVI centuries) it had quite enough.

It is also interesting to at least carefully examine the excavated areas outside the ancient lakes Nero and Cleshino.

During 1843-1845, archaeologist M. O. Ushakov excavated hundreds of mounds in three mentioned counties. What is important is that in almost all mounds, eastern coins of the IX-end of the X century, pots, knives, pendants, necklaces and other Meric decorations were found.

Count O. S. Uvarov, which M. O. Ushakov passed the materials of excavations, wrote: “The attempt of Ushakov in the neighboring Ustyuzhsky district of Novgorod province was… successful. He excavated a group of 50 mounds… All signs of burial were common with the graves of Allsegon and Vyshnevolotsky counties, and the coins belonged to the X-century Sa-manid… Here, the common way of burials, as in the Merian graves, consisted of both rites: burning and burial, …the adornment of temporal rings was also customary here. 21].

However, O. S. Uvarov, pointing to the lack of materials, moved the border of Merian land far south, beyond the Mologa River. Although on the other page stated the opposite: “The western edge of the northern border of the Merian land Primbled to Shexna and the right shore of Molota” [4, p. 16].

Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov reasonably included the Mologa River in the territory of the “Meric Land”. Although he sinned greatly, drawing the border of Merian land on good a hundred kilometers south of niche e. Because the Meric land in the Molog region, as on the rivers of Oka, Protva, Moscow, Pakhra, Rusa, traced much further to the West than noted O. S. Uva-rovy.

We naturally covered not all the mounds studied by O. S. Uvarov. But in the future we will try to provide materials that have not been mentioned before. And I give readers the names of all 43 places, about the excavations of which in detail, the archaeologist O. S. Uvarov: Velika and Mala Brembola, village Gorodishche, Alexandrova Gora, village Kraushkino, Rostov-Novoselki, village Turovskoe, village of Shurskala, village of Bogoslov, village Shugarya, village Kustery, village Puzhbola, Gorodok on Sari, village Osipova Pustin, village Kamanske, village, village Alamovo village, village, village, village of Alamovo, villageTestino, Stebachovo village, village of Bes, Lysa Iora town, Male Davidovske village, village Shelebovo, village of Kubaevo, village Stare Byko-32

o, Suzdal and Silce, village Chirniz, village Piizdilovo, village of Vasylkiv, Turdan settlement, Chislovskie Iorodishche, village Gorodishche, settlement near Danilovsky village, village Ploske, Vladimir village on Klyazma, area near the river Uvoda, mounds of Mologsky district, village Dovo.

And now let’s move on to the study of the city customs and those characteristic signs that allowed them to be separated from the environment of other peoples.

So, the mayor had two funeral rites: burning with the burial of remains in a pot and ordinary burial of bodies. This is how O writes about it. S. Uvarov:

“When we pointed to signs that distinguish the Meric graves from the graves of other peoples, we tried to restore their clothes with all its peculiar decorations. Now, based on those details of burial, which are seen from all the excavated mounds, you can also restore the funeral rites of Meryan… The Maryans, embarking on the rite of burning, dressed the deceased in his best clothes, with all his ordinary, inventive jewelry, and furnished the body with all the things that served him in his lifetime. Then, when they laid down the fires, burned everything together… The fire at the burning was quite strong and burned for quite a long time. At the end of the combustion, bones and all other burned objects were carefully collected and put them in a clay pot, and they also collected all the coal that remained of the burned fire. These details confirm the testimony of Ibn-Dast (his work has been preserved. – W. B.): “The next day, at the burning of the dead man, go to the place where it happened, collect ash and send it to the urna, which is then placed on the hill”… Then preparing the grave, it was scattered a layer of coal, probably what remained of the fire, and a pot of fallen bones and with all other sprinkled objects was placed on it… If the burned things do not fit in a pot, then they laid them around the pot,… Sometimes… Around the pot with human bones lay burned bones of animals, probably domestic… The best preserved grave with burned bones on the famous mountain Grahamyach, in a large mound 39 arches wide and 3.5 arshin high (arshin is a Turkic word, a measure of length; 1 arshin ? 16 cream – 71.12 cm. – W. B.)” [4, p. 54-56].

We must understand that sometimes there could be both individual differences with the usual burials, and various additional objects in graves. This is natural, because the property stratification of the mayors was already given signs.

Now let’s move on to the Meric custom of burying bodies:

“У “Merian had a common custom of hiding dead face to the east, and only extremely rare are exceptions to this rule. But… The rules allowed for a variety of hand locations. In the same group of mounds belonging to the same time, we meet bones in four different positions: 1) with both stretched hands, 2) with a stretched right hand, and left laid on the chest, 3) with left stretched, and right laid on the chest, and finally 4) with both hands crossed on the chest.

All four ways of placing hands are found in the oldest Meriance cemeteries (as in All)…

In the heads and feet of the deceased, usually placed a clay pot, presumably with dishes or with sacrifices, just as it was done in graves with fallen bones. Often, there were two…

The Merian, according to the custom of many pagan peoples, also laid in the grave around the deceased, despite which of the two rites he was buried, all his favorite things and home utensils. In addition to the tools of crafts and utensils, the deceased himself was placed in the grave in festive clothes, with all jewelry, with amulets, metal pendants, beeches. Women were also buried in festive clothes with hearts in their ears, necklaces and coins on the neck, with a variety of pendants, bulls and amulets on their chest and belt, with rings and bracelets on their hands… Animal bones often occur near the human bone. Most often, from among the animals it was a horse, and he was buried at the owner in one of the mounds with him. 56-57].

We should have no doubts about the presence of two types of burials in one people. This was not facilitated by the ancient pagan faith as most likely the habitat itself. If we remember the cruel Moscow or Tver winter and summer in the same area, we will understand that at different times of the year there were different methods of burial. In summer, the remains were probably buried and the mound was planted from above; in winter, in the frosty, staden time, at temperatures at -30 , there was nowhere to take land for mound mound, and when the snow was spread, such a mound from the slope of the highlands could wash off, because it was poured on the frozen soil and on the snow. That’s why the corpse was burned in winter and the remains were placed in a pot.

It was impossible to bury the corpse in the snow, because the forests were teemed with animals: bears, wolves, foxes. And the lynx was going. And naturally, the animals could break the grave, wipe the remains. And since the mayors believed in the afterlife, it was considered a sacrilege in relation to a relative. Because of this, they kept burned remains until warm time, and already in the summer they gave their land, pouring a mound from above.

Often one round mound sat over several dead. I wrote about the size of the mounds. It is clear that they could have been larger or smaller — only over one dead. But they were always round. There were mounds surrounded around the perimeter, and, in part, stone. Often two mounds nearby and varied: one was laid around the perimeter of the came-and- iem and the other was not. I think it was also caused by living conditions, primarily weather. Imagine the multi-day Moscow or Gostrom spring and autumn long rains — and at such a time, a mound is poured on the hill of the mountain. The earth is spread like a pussy on the bowl.

Naturally, gaining experience, the mayors had previously laid the place with stone, conopaed with grass cracks, and then wore the land and sat on the mound. And it is clear that you do not need to lay a mound with stone in dry summer. These are our thoughts, if you do not look for difficult explanations for simple human actions and actions.

It is the burial with a mound on top of the mound that is a direct confirmation of the presence of the beast in those places and the desire of relatives to fence the deceased from meeting with the beast, that is, to save from the rubbing. For in this case, a person, according to beliefs, was not destined to have an afterlife.

There is another very valuable testimony from Count O. S. Uvarova, which I want to pay attention to. The archeologist writes that when the burials are opened, there were no remains of coats, casings, sheep, that is, products made of fur and animal leather, which once again confirms the similarity of the Merian graves with the graves of related Finnish tribes. Let us listen, “The same absence of any traces of fur clothes (s] all mounds. – W. B.) It was recorded by Professor Krause and during the examination of the graves of the Kurland and the Flemish, although the use of fur coats and sheep is as common between residents of the Baltic provinces as among all other residents of Russia. 99].

We cannot accept the explanation of the archaeologist — they say that fur coats were expensive objects, which is why they were not put in graves along with the dead. There is no ordinary logic in this statement. Because they put much more expensive things, objects and even horses in the graves. This is the easiest explanation. By the way, an explanation that comes from the discrepancy between burial methods in summer and winter. It justifies it. Naturally, when burial remains in summer, the coat is unnecessary. And in winter the corpse was burned, that is, he was constantly in the warm, which is why the coat is also not needed. And the afterlife, apparently, was imagined by the mayors as an eternal stay in warm and comfort.

Here are simple and understandable explanations of individual actions and logic of the actions of the mayors. It was the environment and living conditions that determined the consciousness of these people. It is clear that later all these ordinary life actions and human finds surrounded certain myths, legends and beliefs. But this is the topic of another conversation.

It is surprising that Russian historians, considering the natural, life actions of the mayor, brought their reasoning and conclusions to absurdity. They were looking for the Slavic trace and the possibility of magnifying the past of their ancestors.

And then I suggest you move on to the conditions of life of the mayors, their life. Let’s see what housing they lived in, where these dwellings were located, which the mayors wore clothes and jewelry, how they owned and what crafts they owned. That is, let’s look at the life of the Mariana tribe, as if immersed in that distant time. This is necessary not so much to know the very essence of the Finnish ethnicity tribe, but to refute the further Moscow siege. For 40-50 years later, the Muscovites were terribly proclaimed: they eventually noticed that archaeologist O. S. Uvarov completely destroyed their false idea about the Slavic past of Moscow. So, the archaeologist’s research was immediately rewrote. That is why we should touch the household details of the mayor of the IX-XIII centuries. This will allow you to understand and evaluate the Moscow actions committed, as they say, wise in damage.

So, O. S. Uvarov writes:

“First we are impressed by the presence of stone tools along with objects that are undeniablely owned by the Iron Age, and even the second half of it. This combination of things in the same graves can be explained by the early settlement of these areas by Meryan in the second half of the stone period, when tools were already used ? “btessani and even polished…

And Ia all the space occupied by the Meriance people, there are objects of stone age…’ [4, p. 92].

Very valuable evidence of the scientist. We see: in the IV and VI centuries, the tribes of the Finnish ethnicity inhabited the wooded areas of Kaluga, Moscow, Vladimir, Tver, Yaroslavl and other regions of modern Russia. I do not touch the eastern, southern and northern lands, where the residence of the Finnish ethnicity in the VI-XIII centuries does not deny official Russian history.

Naturally, living for many hundreds of years on indigenous land, dead. They could not leave clear traces. And if in later times, say, in the X-XII centuries, there was a expulsion of the mayor from its ancient monastery, it is clear that the next ethnic group (as the Muscovites are to beked) — the Slavs — would leave completely new, later and more modern, traces on that land. All this should be found when excavating thousands of ancient mounds and burials. It is an alphabetic truth even for the uninitiated in archaeology. However, archaeologist O. S. Uvarov found nothing like that. He discovered only the Meric ethnicity on that land.

That is the value of the work. S. Uvarova, She is not falsified, it cannot be refuted, but only to distort, to lie or completely silence. What Russian historians did. We will talk about these criminal acts of Soviet archaeology. The Muscovites wanted to be Slavs.

I will not give all examples of stone tools of labor found during excavations. I would like to remind you that such objects were found throughout the Meric land:

As you can see, all these stone tools were used by the mayors on a par with similar iron as early as the XI century. Probably, stone tools were made by themselves, and iron tools were bought. I don’t think that in the 11th century, the Merites were able to process metal. At the same time, this fact indicates two important phenomena: the first — the mayors at that time were much weaker developed than their neighbors — the Volga Bulgars and the Kiev Slavs, and, second: they were much poorer than their neighbors in terms of living. And it doesn’t matter if the mayors themselves made iron gnac of яддя labor at that time, or bought from their neighbors. Both options do not testify to this people.

Even in those days, the advantage of the iron instrument was obvious.

I have to note: Oh. S. Uvarov denied that the presence of stone tools of labor in the X-XII centuries in the mayor’s testimony to the low stage of their development. Which is quite clear. O. S. Uvarov did not even allow the idea that the ancestors of the Muscovites in the X-XII centuries stood much lower in their development compared to the Bulgars and Slavs. Let this view be on the conscience of the scientist.

It is very difficult to judge the homes of the mayors of that time. And Count Uvarov honestly admits: “Although we know for sure, judging by the cemeteries, near which the year or what lakes Merian settled, how they chose highlands for the settlements where the towns were located; but yet we did not find in the excavation of these areas, no traces of their 39s were located

The resident, and therefore should be satisfied with the very guesses and those stinging instructions that are partly found in some writers and are partly explained by the findings made in mounds… In ancient times, the towns were inhabited and formed the original center of settlement for future cities. From all this, we can conclude that the interior of the towns was occupied by housing; but what kind they were, whether they were earthlings or wooden buildings, we know nothing present. Excavating the towns themselves, we find only piles of coal, many broken skulls and some traces of a pro-rott tree. [4, p. 94].

And then O. S. Uvarov refers to “Russ”. I said that in those days, the Volga Bulgars knew the Kiev Rus, and those for housing built wooden houses, so the mayors had the same. I will not explain why such statements are incorrect. The same Volga Bulgars knew well. And it is clear that they knew which places the mayors lived in.

I only want to remind you: even much later, in 1253, Wilhelm de Rubruk claimed that in the country of Moxel, her people, there were no large cities, but they lived in forest huts. Housing was the easiest. The sewing is e for everything, the Merites in the IX and 19th centuries lived in ordinary primitive earthlings, buried in winter deep into the ground, hiding from winter cold. And their stables were covered with an earthen shaft to protect themselves from the beast. Therefore, there are very few traces left from the Mericth and 17th centuries.

This is confirmed by O. S. Uvarov:

“Ibn-Dasta says that “the cold in their country is so strong that each of them digs something like a cellar in the ground, to which a wooden sharp roof is attached, like that… The Christian Church, and it imposes land on the roof. In such cellars move with the whole family and, taking some wood and stones, ignite

Fire and roasting stones on fire… In this case, they remain until spring.” 94-95].

That is, the mayors in those days did not use furnaces, did not know how to build them and how to take smoke from the dwellings. They used conventional fires. However, already in the IX and 17th centuries, doors were arranged in their homes and closed them on the key. And it was natural — feared a large beast. The environment told the living conditions.

The presence of doors, locks and keys in the mayors was confirmed by mound excavations. Listen to the archaeologist:

“Cluings occur in almost all graves, both female and male… Obviously, the Merians had the custom of constantly wearing the key with them, perhaps from the main door, and therefore with the deceased owner or owner, they put in the grave and the key they carried with them. Interestingly, the key was placed not only in a grave with a buried body, but also near a pot containing ashes of a burned corpse. [4, p. 97].

But back to the word “horror.” All the found towns of the mayor, that is, their ancient settlements, were always next to the mounds – burial places of the deceased. This is confirmed by archaeological excavations. Here’s what O writes about it. S. Uvarov:

“Plying the oldest settlements of the Meryansk people, we also mentioned the towns.., considering Merian the oldest settled inhabitants of these lands. Note that the towns are almost always located near the Meric mounds of the oldest era. We think that you can clean these towns to the monuments of the same people. Even more, iron objects found in the towns are undeniablely referred to as these embankments to the Iron Age era, so by the time when these areas were occupied by the Merian tribe. 47].

In other words, the very name of the village Gorodishche, Gorodok, Igorodets, Gorodilovo is a direct testimony to the residence of the gamma of the Meric ethnicity.

“The areas, as we pointed out above, are located mostly near villages or tracts that still retained names: go-41 birth, town, townspeople or town, so that the name of the “horror” passed into the name of the villages and retained the memory of the former embankment” [4, p. 47].

And then O. S. Uvarov gives names to hundreds of modern villages, where the word “town” is called-forming. Dozens of these Gorodish and Gorodsiv still retained the memory of the lier in the Moscow, Yaroslavl, Vladimir and other regions of Russia. Once again, after testifying to whom this land belonged in the old days.

The paintings described give a complete idea of which towns and in which the “hatins” lived by the lierian people in the IX-XIII centuries. This allows you to compare them with the life and life of Slavs, say, Kiev, Chernihiv or Novgorod. In the Slavic cities in those days there were magnificent stone temples and princely palaces. Slavs had knowledge of chimneys and, of course, used them in the construction of housing. We have a valuable comparison that confirms and tends to conclude that the Slavic presence in the Merian land in those days (judging from thousands of mound excavations) is absolutely not felt.

The first prince Rurikovich, Yuri Dovgorukiy, appeared with his small wife in Merian. The land was only 1137. And, of course, no flow of Slavic tribes in the 12th century into the Meric land took place. No trace of Slavic ethnicity is no archaeologist O. S. Uvarov, nor his colleagues in the first half of the 19th century, found neither among excavations of the X-XII centuries or among excavations of the following times. By the way, after excavating on the site of the so-called “Lipytsky battles” 1177 and 1216 years, Count O. S. Uvarov found the Meric remains “pained in a bunch, and “three coffins” lying nearby. That is, even at the end of the 12th century, the mayor was still unbaptized and they were “pained” as “scath” after the death of the ordinary “coup”, while three dead Christian wives were buried according to Christian custom — “in separate coffins facing to the east, and with hands folded on their chest” [5, p. 4]. 42

These are such discoveries are revealed everywhere in the Meric land until the arrival of Khan Batiy into that land. Here is a “difficult of lies” in vain. By the way, three dead wives managed to calculate according to the 4th Novgorod Chronicle. Here are their names: Dobrynya Long, Ivanko Stepanovich, Matviy Shibutovich. And although all three princely wives were Christians, they could be anyone by national origin. I hope the reader remembers:

“The wife still had a mixed tribal warehouse… In the 12th century. In its warehouse is… Next to the natives and descendants of the ruggish we see in it people from the foreign-gorods of the eastern and western… Tors, Berendeans, the Half, the Khazar, even the Jews, the urf, the liths, the lith and the plague. 73].

That is, with the arrival of мерянськуPrince Yuri Dovgoruk, no Slavic principle in that land did not appear. There is a Finnish ethnic group left on its original land.

It should also be noted that even with the arrival of мерянськуPrince Ryurikovich, the life of the mayor has not changed for many years. Because it was adequate to the cruel environment. In addition, princes and wives began to build their separate towns, where, as a rule, invited those mayors who accepted Christianity and were part of a new Meric wife, the so-called “new young youths”, and, of course, women-dead. Only in these new towns began to appear chicken houses, by the way, an undeniable invention of Finnish tribes.

The chicken tree house was a common Moscow-vites housing until the end of the 18th century. The Merian ethnicity retained its ancient customs for many hundreds of years.

I had to spend the night in a deaf Siberian taiga in a chicken house of the late 20th century. Let readers not think that chicken houses and earthlings are humiliating signs of Merian life. No way! Anyone who has been to a taigated area should know that smoke, in fact, is the only salvation in the spring, summer and autumn from terrible gnus and mosquitoes.

Finnish tribes were adapted to life in a wet forest. In this regard, even an outside prince had to adopt the life customs of the mayors. Although it is clear that with the appearance of new customs and new signs of life began to be planted among the mayor of the prince and wife. And if we consider that together with Rurikovich, preachers of Christianity appeared in the environment of the mayor, it will become obvious when and how the Christian religion “came” into the country of Moxel, or, in another way, the Meric land. It is not worth inventing a new Moscow bike. About Slavic ethnos, Slavic life and Slavic customs in Merian. The earth of the IXth and 19th centuries does not fall.

Now that we have more or less coped with the concepts: the settlement, cellars-earth, chicken houses, etc., we have the opportunity to look at another Meric life.

Let’s see what the people wore and what the people wore. Like all the inhabitants of the northern forests, they undoubtedly enjoyed everything that was rich in living. Naturally, in those distant times, the northern forests were full of wild animals and forest birds, and rivers were full of fish and water birds.

“Under such conditions, animal skin and sheep have undoubtedly formed the basis of Meric clothing, especially since some animals were the main subject of auction by local residents with neighboring Bulgarians.” 99].

We have the undeniable right to say: since ancient times, the mayors have used the skin of killed animals to sew clothes and shoes. In those days, animal skins and fur products were used to sew outerwear. These clothes were most often available. However, in trading with a more developed Volga Bulgaria, the mayors had the opportunity to buy not only skirted woven clothes from their neighbors, but also with outerwear. Which, by the way, showed the mound excavations. It can be assumed that in those days, the mayors were able to process wool and produce rough wool products. By the way, during excavations of mounds, many types of all kinds of scissors, needles and shills were found.

O. S. Uvarov even assumed that the mayors were breeding domestic sheep and cut their hair. I don’t think it’s necessary to refute this opinion by the archaeologist. Perhaps in the 12th and 18th centuries, the same happened. However, do not forget about the environment. Among the dreakeded forests there were no conditions for the pasture of domestic animals. Secondly, for a very long harsh winter, you need to store a lot of feed for the winter. Do not forget, in those days, in the Merian land there were no potatoes and other root crops. And third, imagine how enhanced protection you need to have to protect sheep herds from a multitude of forest beasts both winter and summer.

There was a simpler but no less reliable method of obtaining wool from wild animals: goat, deer and others. I think it was wild beasts and dogs that served as a source of wool supply in the old days.

It is interesting to look at the skirt clothes of the mayor of the IX-XII centuries:

“As for skirting, we see from excavations, despite burning bodies, how often there are significant remains of rough wool fabric between coal and burning bones, quite dense… To the underwear made of such woolen matter, a variety of bronze jewelry were sewn, including bubonics. [4. s. 99-100].

As you can see, the mayor loved various kinds of jewelry. And if the clothes of the mayor practically had no characteristics inherent only, and dropped on the usual clothes of the northern tribes of that time, then in the jewelry they produced their own style, and they were then completely Meric identity.

It has already been mentioned that ?…in Merian had a common custom of wearing belts around the head, decorated on the temples with metal rings… In men, the rock rings are the size of a regular ring made of smooth silver or copper wire… on each temporal: one, two, three, even eight or more… decorating hair with temporal rings did not prevent Merians from wearing other, special jewelry in the form of metal rings [4, p. 102-103].

Even more than the mer was loved to wear herrings: “…because the number of them is much higher than the number of temporal rings, … And that other jewelry was worn on a par and women. and men. This common custom is probably the United by Merian, came to them from the East. and the samples of Meric serg themselves are the same as those that dig in the ruins of Bulgarian or fall along with eastern coins… The custom of decorating, from very early years, children with hearts, wrists and other decorations — is not inherent exclusively to the Marianas, but in general to all Finnish tribes!’ [4, p. 104].

We have another undeniable evidence of the belonging of the excavations of the Meric land to the Finnish ethnicity.

No traces of Slavic presence.

Very often, the mayor was put “not only one, but even two hearts in each ear.” I loved wearing our rings, necklaces, beads, beads, etc. Interestingly, necklaces and beads occurred exclusively in women’s graves. However, it is strange: if the Slavs (Rusychic], according to Ibn-Faddan, liked to wear exceptionally green necklaces, then among the Merian excavations there are practically no necklaces of green colors.

Another interesting evidence of the Finnish affiliation of the Merian land.

In ancient Merian towns, many all kinds of pendants were found – neck, belt, shoulder, etc.

You need to pay special attention to pendants like horses. These are completely a merian suspension. They are mostly in mayors and are found in their land everywhere.

I loved wearing a drink.

“We saw that all Merian, both men and women, wore wrists not only on their hands, but also above the elbow. In one of the mounds near the village of Osipova Pustiv, an interesting grave of a man was found. The skeleton was completely detleaked, with it found, in the form of a suspension, a coin of Henry IV of Germany (1006-1106); on the right hand bracelet of thick yellow bronze wire; near the fingers is a ring of spiral shape with remains of woolen cord, which served instead of suspension; at the left side is a knife, a knife or a nose, a redhead.In the legs is a clay pot.

To explain Merian’s passion for bracelets, it is necessary to recall that Finnish tribes imagined their goddesses decorated with bracelets. The wife of the forest godTapio, Mial-lik, was imagined in the form of a beautiful woman; when the hunter was lucky in hunting, then Millica, as a good, a quiet goddess, appeared to him in amazing beauty, with golden wrists on her hands, golden rings on her fingers, golden hair in the hair, with golden hairs in the hair, with gold hairs in the hair, with gold hairs in the hair, with gold hairs, with gold hairs in the hair, with gold hairs.iv. But if hunting failed, a beautiful woman turned into an ugly and disgusting creature; instead of gold jewelry, it had wrists, rings, wreaths, necklaces, etc., made of khmis, shoes from ax, and all other clothing in rags. 109].

Even the beliefs of the mayor testify to their belonging to the ancient Finnish ethnicity. It was the ancient Finnish legends and beliefs that left an imprint on Meric decorations, their concept of beauty, their spiritual world.

However, readers should not have the idea that every late mayor was so bright and much decorated as in a grave near the village of Osipova Pustin. Not at all! Decorations

They depended on the wealth of a person: the richer a person was in life, the richer the jewelry in his grave. And vice versa: the poor man remained so in the grave.

I want to draw attention to another fact – a coin found at a rich mayor’s man’s man’s village near the village of Osipova Pustin, points to the Meric grave of the 12th century. It should not be assumed that the coin appeared in the Merian land in the year of issue. For these coins were expected by Henry IV only after he received the title of emperor in 1084. That is, it could appear in the Merian land and 20-40 years later. This proves once again: in the 12th century, in the Meric land, or otherwise, in the country of Moxel, the Finnish ethnic group lived everywhere. What you should not forget. Although graph Q. S. Uvarov is silent.

And the second, equally important: even in the 12th century, among the Finnish ethnicity of Merian, the lands were the Finnish pagan religion and Finnish pagan rites. You should not forget about it either.

The honestly laid material immediately peeled off the clever great Russian fiction, and the Moscow historical siege was poured out of wine.

I will not further describe which rings, rings, bracelets, belts, belt buckles, knives wore meries. Most often, they were imported things — either from the Volga Bulgaria or from Scandinavia and the Baltic countries. Without a doubt, many decorations were made by the sea cream themselves. Most of the home utensils were also made by vile-on. Among them: buckets of wood of different sizes; wooden boxes, boxes, various benches; large and small clay dishes; stone bars, silicon drawings, etc. This is evidenced by O. S. Uvarov:

“We have already seen that symbolic images of hands, paws and rings were molding from clay, but did not burn, while the clay idol was burned. So, Merian… They were able to burn clay, probably, deliberately not burned some objects… The same difference in the processing of clay exists and in respect of dishes found in graves; one is made by hand, 48

rough and completely wrong, while the other is burned, even decorated with patterns” (4, p. 111].

Most likely, in the IX and 10th centuries, the Merites were not yet able to burn clay. The small idol and quality vessels were imported. As an idol statue was found in one specimen, yet in a dug treasure rather than in grave excavations. Which is very characteristic.

It is important to note the widespread wearing of knives of various types by the mer. And this is also clear: the surrounding forests were constantly a danger to humans.

“Excavation of mounds proved that knives were constantly worn not only by men and women, but even children. Knives are among such tools that serve not only for home use. [4, p. 114].

The Merians used fire freely, cutting it out of silicon stone. “The rot was made of a steel strip, more or less thick, with bent ends… to send to the belt.”

The mayor developed such human activities as hunting and fishing. It should be assumed that these two types of classes in the IX-XN centuries were the main sources of the existence of this people.

“The hunt has supplied Meryans with fur for clothing and for trade and meat for food.. The same tools were served for hunting: axes, spears and arrows as for war.

The location of Meric settlements on the shore of the year and lakes from early time forced to draw the attention of local residents to the fish industry. According to Arab writers, we know that… The subjects of trade of the eastern peoples with Mere were harpoons and bugra; in addition to the discovery of such harpoons and bugres in mounds, other objects also proved the existence of fishing in Merian.

a) Harpunas and scars…; b) Hooks..; c) Needles for weaving nets [4, p. 117-118]-

We studied briefly the question of the urban housing, got acquainted with the clothes and decorations of the mayor, looked at the life and customs of the ancient people. We were not tasked with learning all this perfectly. He who has such a desire can turn to the truly great work of Count O. S. Uvarova “Meryans and their life behind mound excavations”.

When I finish the section, I want to remind you again the words of the archaeologist:

“Like many pagan nations, the Merians had the custom of putting in the grave of the beloved things of the deceased… Many of these different things are now revealed to us in all details not only all parts of the outfit, but even all the things of the home life of Merian. 3].

Due to this ancient custom, archaeologist O. S. Uvarov managed to restore the truth about the mayor’s residence on the ancient “Zaleshan land – during the VII – XVI centuries. The people live in their original land.

Only from the evil fiction of their rulers did the mayors change their ancient name for centuries, sowing confusion among people. However, it was always the same ancient people: the mayor — moxel — Muscovita — the Great Russians.
Z

Don’t think Count O. S. Uvarov set himself the task of cleansing Russian historical science from the disastrous “difficult lies”. Of course not! The Count was the loyal son of an empire mother. He served the empire with faith and truth, so even no idea had to reject anything.

However, it must be remembered: since Peter’s times, there were two mutually exclusive theories of the origin of the Moscow state in Russia. The first, so-called Norman (varia) theory, and the second is Slavic. I will not delve deep into the question in our book. You can write more than one volume about ts, as Russian historians crossed uncompassed “crossed swords”. Both and others in much of their reasoning relied on lies and fictions. The first claimed that the so-called “Russian statehood” brought and spread Varangians to Kiev and Moscow. They said, led the state and created the ruling class. Since there were many outside Normans, later, settling in Moscow, Norman wives created the elite of the state – a boyar that turned into a Russian nobility. The second, the Slavs-Japaneseophiles, were completely rejected. They claimed that it was the Slavs who made a “flow” to Moscow “three ways”, completely pushed Finnish tribes out of those lands and created the Moscow state. This historical rod was long and lasted from the 18th to the early 20th century. Only the “majority masters”, having come to power, put a final point in this dispute. They supported the Slavic-Phil theory and began its “further improvement”, launching the myth of “three fraternal nations”. Although this, already new, “theory”, did not interfere with the “Russian brother” during the 20th century to oversalves two other “younger brothers” — Ukrainians and Belarusians.

Umm, that’s a topic of another conversation.

Let’s go back to the Russian archaeologist O. S. Uvarova. We remember that the count had Turkic roots. It is clear that the Slavic-Japanese “theory” could not impress the count. Studying in Germany and Italy, O. S. Uvarov could not have exclusively Slavic-philic ideas about the history of his country. After studying the work of an archaeologist, we can safely argue that O. S. Uvarov followed the so-called “mixed theory”. It’s when both “varies are alive” and “words are whole”. Here is how it is presented in the archaeologist:

“With the beginning of the chronicle, Mary’s close connection Меріwith the Slavic tribes begins, and her complicity in the appeal of the Varyags.” And also: “the border mix of different nationalities was the first degree to the fastest and closest expression of the entire Merian people…” [4, p. 17].

Following the “mixed theory”, the count did not consider it necessary to launch “the heavy of lies” in his archaeological research about the “Slavic past of the Merian land”. There was no reason in this. Because, as O understood. S. Uvarov, statehood of both Novgorod and Merian land planted “Varyago-Rus”. By the way, “theory of Varyago-Rus” is exclusively a cate-rininin thought, which she laid out in her work: “The art of the project of history of Russia of the XVIII century – written by her own, which was preserved in the black original.”

Reflections dated 1785. We will not quote Catherine II, this ancestor of the great mystification of Russian history. Let’s only give you the thought borrowed by Count O. S. Uvarov in Catherine II:

In the early 10th century, the Novgorodian conquered their influence the Finnish tribes that lived from them east, united into one common public life, involving them to call on Varyago Russ, and finally all together fell under the rule of the northern (Norman). – W. B.) Aliens” [4, p. 50].

I mean, Oh. S. Uvarov, following this view on the history of Moscow, did not need to introduce “difficle lies” into his research. Because of this, his work is of paramount importance to history. In its source material is not given to ordinary Russian “difficle lies”. Although individual conclusions and references made by the graph are still caused by this evil.

After excavating the remains of thousands of graves, O. S. Uvarov found no signs of Slavs anywhere. And even the remains of the “normans” can be attributed to single burials.

In the Meric graves of the IX-XII centuries, no signs of Other ethnicity were found. They are all completely identical. Therefore, the archaeologist had to recognize this permanent Merian identity and ask himself an surprised question about the “normans”. Let’s listen to O. S. Uvarova:

“We have seen, when studying burial rites and when describing the characteristic signs of Meric clothing, and all the mounds are of the same general nature and that they are all only in minimal details different from each other. The total uniformity that reaches typical immutability in all details cannot exist with such a large number of mounds, albeit one people, but common in large space. Everywhere there are noticeable differences explained by the different property condition of the buried, but the general nature of the graves and the characteristic style of the objects are constantly the same; so the question arises: where did the Normans or other foreigners who so often went to Meryan?” [4, p. 61].

Here is an archaeologist O. S. Uvarov faced the need to confirm the “Norman presence” among the Meric ethnicity. And he tried to find so-called “Norlan footprints”. Without these “follows”, his book simply would not allow censorship to be printed in those days.

After all, the archaeologist gives such an explanation for the “Normal presence”:

“…In addition to the message of written (meaning so-called boatin “liographical buildings”. – W. B.), we have more evidence of the unquestionable presence of the Normans in these areas. It is recalled that academician Fran was the first to express the belief that the presence of Afriko-Arab coins in ancient treasures with Arab money in the Baltic countries and inside Russia (Russia in the 12th century did not exist! – W. B.) To the Dnieper regions and even further from Vladimir to the east, must be attributed to Varyagam, who brought them here during their raids or during transitions south to Byzantium. 61-62].

The tension is visible to the naked eye. The categorical claim that “Africo-Arabic” coins are imported into the world-to-the-side land themselves molding “varies”, is absurd. After all, the path through the Volga for the Persians and Arabs (and not only for them) was much simpler than the path of the Varangians: through the Mediterranean Sea, through dozens of small, hostile European principalities and states and, finally, thousands of kilometers along the wild, wetlands. However, we are known from historical sources about the constant presence in the Volga Bulgaria in the X-XII centuries merchants from the eastern countries. And it is natural that it was Arab merchants who paid Arab coins and Arabic goods for fur. Do not forget about the existence of a powerful Arab Caliphate, which included not only the entire Middle East, but also all of North Africa and even some parts of Europe. In 922, Muktadir Khalif, at the request of the Bulgars-some king Almus, sent an expedition of Arabs to Bulgar to accept Islam. It was with that delegation that the famous Arab historian Ibn-Fadlan arrived, who is often referred to in his book Count O. S. Uvarov.

It should also be borne in mind, no matter how strange Great Russians and their Holouy accomplices from the Inrodes, that the work of Count O. S. Uvarova was highlighted by another, very significant truth: the Myrian land and its people during the VIII and 17th centuries had no connection with the Grand Duchy of Kiev. It may seem paradoxical, but it is true.

Note: by excavating in the original Merian land thousands of grave mounds, Count O. S. Uvarov did not find any Kiev coins. Although we know that in Kiev during the time of Grand Duke Vladimir St. (980-1015) they waited silver coins. Even Byzantine coins throughout the Merian land have only been discovered. That is, Byzantine coins through Kiev did not fall into the Merian land, although Kiev’s ties with Byzantium in the IX-XII centuries were very intense. Think about whether it is surprising: there are coins Bavarian and Saxon, there are coins Bohemian and Strasburg, there are coins of the German empire, Anglo-Saxon, Bulgar, Bukhara, Samarandian, Armenian, Baghdad. There is no single coin in Kiev!

And this is in those days when, according to Great Russian mythology, the Myrian land was completely inhabited by the Slavs who came from the Kiev principality, and composed a single state with Kiev.

Isn’t it weird?

Here we meet the largest historical black hole. Russian so-called “profesors of history” have always been silently bypassed by such paradoxes of their history.

Previously, the Moscow authorities, whether tsarist or Bolshevik, could close a person’s mouth. Today is the time to debunk Russian historical paradoxes and outright lies. All the “difficle of lies” from that “science” must be swept away by pure broom 1 thrown to the trash of history!

By the way, here’s how O. S. Uvarov explained the absence of Byzantine coins in the M-rian land:

“We must note at all that, judging by the small number of Byzantine coins found and from a small number of Byzantine-made items. The people had no direct trade relations with Greece. In other ways, we cannot explain that only three Byzantine coins have been found, while the eastern and western coins were more than three hundred” ?4, p. 88].

Russian historians, launching “the heavy of lies”, explained almost everything. However, it seems to me that even they are unable to explain this undeniable fact of their history: there is no Kiev coin in the graves of the mayor of the IX-XVI centuries! And we are “pire” about the unity of the Kiev and Merian lands from the distant IX century!

Isn’t it funny?

Following the logic of the great archaeologist O. S. Uvarova, we have reason to develop his opinion: the absence of coins of the Kiev principality indicates the undeniable absence of relations, both trade and political, between the Grand Duchy of Kiev and the Merian land in the IX-XIII centuries. In fact, otherwise we can’t explain this phenomenon.

I think we have reason to draw such a conclusion. Because Count O. S. Uvarov completely ignored the obvious fact. Dozens of other Russian historians have also ignored him.

It is time to stop the false talk about the “Moscow branch of Kievan Rus. It never existed.

We will not stop at all the “diffices of lies” found in the book by archaeologist O. S. We will note only quite significant, which we will have to face in the process of research.

We will not talk about small fouls. Because the Russian history never did without them. So the first “difficle of lies” is O’s claim. S. Uvarova, allegedly Arab historians Ibn-Fadlan and [if Dust] did not distinguish between the Kiev Slavs from the mayor’s “3alsipanean land”. This frank “difficult of lies” allowed O. S. Uvarov automatically transfer the statements of ancient Arab historians (and not only them), spoken to the ru of the Siv-Slavyan, to the tribes of the Finnish ethnicity. It should be assumed that this “difficle of lies” came from his concept of origin of Moscow. For O. C, Uvarova’s similar “national trifle was not essential, so tzo. According to his “theory , all historically valuable in Moscow brought Normans (Varyangs).

The next significant “difficult of lies – launched by scientists in his book. — so-called “near neighborhood on the western border of the mayor with vyatichs, curves and Slovenes.” We are talking about key, significant heavy lies” in the book by an archaeologist. We have no right to silence this siege of Russian history, which O. S. Uvarov borrowed without subjecting deep analysis.

Let’s talk about the first “difficle of lies.” Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov writes:

We have the testimony of the 10th century Arab writers about that. that the Russians came to Bulgarp for trade; here we must only note that under the name of Rus in or Russian merchants, Arab writers probably understood all persons without distinguishing the nationalities who came to them from northwestern places inhabited or Slavic, or other tribes. So, probably, and Merian… The Arabs took real Rus. s. 75].

As you can see, the siege in Russian historical science is launched thoroughly, for many years. I hoped forever. And even the insistant O. S. Uvarova, that the mayors, being the tribe of the Finnish ethnicity, differed from the Slavs, although Kiev, although Novgorod, not only the outer features of the face and body structure, and most importantly in language. And the differences between them are quite significant. Therefore, any merchant himself spoke Merian (Finnish) or involved a Me-ryan translator. By language, you could have been swifted with a mass, mordvo or ant, but not with Slavs.

This deed is obvious and insatt.

I will not limit myself, however, to this elementary refutation of “difficulsing lies.” I will quote an archaeologist, because in the following pages he refuted himself:

“Eastern writers are telling us the details of the silent trade that the Arabs conducted with the northern peoples, especially with the Vess. There is no trade, as the very first degree of development of trade, is replaced later by simple me trade, when people entering into wear meet and mutually discuss the price of the goods. Finally, the third stage of development is when money is used for trade turnover. Ibn-Fadlan says that the Russians paid in his time on the dirham for one green bush. [4, p. 119].

The scientist himself “scarried the nail” in the statement that “Arab writers” did not distinguish “Rus from Merian”. And how different! They traded with the mayor and spring as early as the 7th century. Below I will cite 7 words by an ancient historian Jordan, where he clearly separated the mayor even from the face. Not to mention the Scythians.

We will not give other examples of how O. S. Uvarov “ruled” in such “reunion” of the mayor’s with the Slavs. These were loud statements. We have already said in the first book “Moxel’s land” — Great Russians absolutely should not run into their thoughts ordinary lies. It usually uses previously running lies without hesitation.

Excavated Count O. S. Uvarov thousands of grave mounds; they found more than two thousand coins, including more than three hundred, dating back to the IX-XII centuries; he found no single Kiev coin for more than six-solite. The period of the Meric land (from 980 to 1580) – and like it was healed. I didn’t even mention the only word! Why?!

By the way, Uvarov’s ardent opponent is O. A. Spitin accurately ignored this fact, as if it did not exist at all. Why would Moscow prove some connection between Moscow and Kiev in the IX-XII centuries? Such evidence does not need evidence. This “difficle of lies” has already been “founded” by predecessors. This is the logic of the Russian state chauvinist.

It’s time to talk, at least briefly, about the western border of the Meric land. That is, about the next “difficle of lies”, launched by Uvarov in his book. We will not talk much about the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the Meric possessions. For even he himself admitted that “The heart was surrounded by the only tribes with it the Finnish peoples: Muroma, Mordva, Cheremis and All.” 15].

I think readers are the same where the middle of the mayor ended and the land of the mass began, mu Roma, muzzles, residents or mari (chermes). All these tribes in the IX and 18th centuries were family, spoke the same language and led the same, forest lifestyle.

However, turn Uwaia to the fact that world history from distant times, since the 6th century, from the Gothic historian Jordan, has already distinguished Finnish tribes. Yeah. Jordan in his famous work “On the Origin and Acts of Goths”, telling about the lands conquered by Germanarich, among others noted us familiar: “…Goths, Scythians… Mary. Mordva… And about ten other nations and tribes. The following Arab historians, such as Ibn Fadlan, El Balhi, Ibn Dast, while in Volga Bulgaria, distinguished not only tribes, but also their lives, degree of development, clothing, jewelry, etc. And by the end of the 12th century, Finnish tribes began to distinguish by religious grounds. For, having adopted Islam in 922, Volga Bulgaria promoted it to Mordovian borders at the same time. By the middle of the XP century, Christian preachers appeared among the mayor and the spring who came to the Meric land.

There were various pagan beliefs in those days. Which gave the right to Wilhelm de Rubruk. which was in 1253-1255 in the Genghisid Empire. To state that the northern lands of Khan Sartaka at the time divided into “Moxel and Merdynis”. which. According to his claim, they differed, in fact, by religious grounds: some ate pork (moxel) and joined Christianity, although in their mass they were still pagans, others (merdynis) – they were attached to Muslim religion (and, of course, pork did not eat).

And the mounds are the O. S. Uvarov testified that it was in the XII CENTU that the first daring signs of Christianity appeared in Merian Zemly. But there was paganism everywhere. .Charactary about this were the excavations of the so-called “Lypic battles” 1177 and 1216. We will talk about them below. At the same time, in the Meric mounds of the IX-XII centuries of the pagan period, there were no signs of other ethnic groups.

So there was no clear distinction between the lands of the mayor and its neighbors in the north, east and south.

Now let’s see where the mayor’s land ended in the west. The question is where the watershed went (even O. S. Uvarov admitted that the main ways of communication in those days were rivers) between the mayor and the Eastern Slavs in the Third and 18th centuries? When we answer that question, let’s establish the truth.

We remember the statement of O. S. Uvarova (and not only him) that the mayor fully owned its main rivers and their influxs — Volga, Oka, Klyazma, Moscow, Molgo and others. Here’s how the mayor moved through the rivers:

“In this way, Molot, Shexna, Kostroma, Meya, Nem-da, Unja, Border with their streams mostly flow from north to south and fall into the Volga, into the main waterway of the Merian settlers. Going along the Volga, the Merians climbed north along the parables, penetrated the forest lands of northern turmoil and founded settlements sometimes as far as the tops of the same year.

The western edge of the northern border of the Merian land was attached to Shakespeare and the right shore of Molota [4, p. 16].

We’ll have to deny Count O. S. Uvarova relative to the northwest border of the Merian land. Note: having carried out a border line on the map in this place from Merenovo, north of Torzhka, towards the village of Merzlevo, to the Mologa River, the archaeologist began to contradict himself, his words about the involvement of the Meric land to the “right shore of Molota”. And if we remember that in 1843-1844, archaeologist M. A. Ushakov excavated mounds on the Sorogage River All-Goney district of Tver province (on the map marked with a number 14), where Meric suspensions, burned bodies and pots, as well as coins of the late 10th century, we will become aware that the border of the Meric land passed much norther. And included excavations of Vyshnevolt district near the Volchin River (on the map marked with the number 15) and excavations of the same M. A. Ushakov in Ustyuzhsky on the city of Novgorod province on the large Borovitsky road (on the map is marked with a number 16), where objects are found, completely identical to Merian, and the same eastern coins of the late 10th century. That is, in the northwest, the border of the Merian land should be much norther, outside the city of V and Yn and Volochok. These are the “small” “forgot” to count Count O. S. Uvarov.

I suggest you look at the map of the modern Kalinin (Tver) region and make sure once again that the rivers Serozh, Volchin and Ilovytsia, where excavations were conducted, separated from Novgorod by Valdai highlands and enter the Molot River basin. That is, Novgorod Slavs in the X-XII centuries possessed completely different rivers. And there was no need to “flow” Novgorodians into the Meric land. By the way, ancient Arab historians, and O. S. Uvarov, confirmed that Finnish tribes at the time destroyed aliens. And many found eastern coins clearly indicate the connection of the Mologsk mayors with the Volga Bulgaria, and not with Novgorod. There is a wedge for Russian lies.

It was Valdai highlands that were in the west the border of the Meric land By the way, from the Valdai highlands and flows “Volga, main, water route of the Meric settlers.”

Let’s move to the western Merian borders in the Moscow province. Count O. S. Uvarov was not allowed to tell the truth about this. In the seventies of the 19th century, the Russian-philes were already furious in the Russian state. There were endless wars with Turkey for the “Slavic Balkan heritage”. The hypothesis of the “Moscow Slavic past” was taken without evidence. Therefore, censorship and cut the merian land along the Moscow River. But if you read O. S. Uvarova, we will be convinced of the dedence of the definition of the “Moscow Merian western border”. The scientist denied this lie by his research. Let’s listen to the archaeologist:

“The river of Persian tells us that the Meryans, along its current, reached the Moscow River and Oka penetrated into Ryazanny and Pronsky Districts.” 16].

And more:

“In the Tula Governorate: Merlevo is the Olexinsky district, between Oka and the Upa River. Merlinovka is the same district on r. “The Up,” p. 10].

And there lived the mayor!

That is, the mayor, leaving the “Mersky state” on the Moscow-year, went further along the Oka River and went to the places of the current location of the cities: Kolomny, Kashira, Kaluga, Ryazan, Pronskaya, etc. d. But, according to Count O. S. Uvarova, for some reason frightened by the rivers Moscow, Ruza, Istra, Pakhra, Nara, Protva to pass west 50-150 kilometers. While southwest, south and southeast went 200 to 300 kilometers. This is in those times when the mayor was in these rivers and when, according to ancient chronicles, in Moscow-year, except for the mayor, no tribes were kept.

Strange logic is in a great archaeologist.

Here we once again face an outright Russian untruth, with a Russian false chauvinistic fable about the Slavic roots of Muscovites. However, as is found in almost all Russian historians, O. S. Uvarov his opinion on the end of the Meric land on Moscow-rika himself and refuted.

The scientist in his book says a lot about excavations conducted by other archaeologists in the Moscow province, about many Meric settlements, whose names come from Finnish. They certainly belonged to the mayor. Let’s follow the count when it’s not about the borders of the mayors. There O. S. Uvarov is more frank.

Anyway, with Merian roots, wanted it or not, he tied 11 (eleventh) counties of the Moscow province. Here are these districts:

Kolomensky, Bronnitsky, Bogorodsky, Klyn-Ky, Ruzsky, Dmitryvskiy, Zvenygorodsky, Moscow, Podolsky, Mozhaysky, Vereysky.

After studying the questions and checking with ancient maps, I think you could find other Moscow districts, where the mayor lived in the X-XII centuries. There can be no doubt in this.

Recall readers how Moscow’s districts are related to the Meric ethnicity. So, according to Count O. S. Uvarov:

— “In the Moscow province: Merya (village) in the Bogorodsky district: Merialevo – Klyna district’, 16 versts from the city” (4, p. 9).

“But without any change of name, these are preserved. In the Bron-Nic district, a considerable tributary of the Oka River is called the Merska River, or Nerska River (in fact, the Nerska River flows into the Moscow River. The archeologist was ashamed to even say it. – W. B.)” [4, p. 8].

“The heart sat “on the Kleschino-lake”, and the ancient name Cle-stchino was also preserved in the name of many villages: The cly (c) of the Klin district, Cleshevo — (c) Bronnitsky district.” 10].

— “Meryno in the Dmitry district: mentioned in the charter of 1504… Merlovka (year) in the Medinsky district; falls into Gorodenka, which flows into Istr on the left. 10].

— Villages of Finnish origin of Moscow province: “Shupulino, Shupalov, Shulpino, Shukino, Shukovo, Shuga-rovo, Fitarovo, Fipgino, Cabakovo, Kabuzhovo, Karabanov, Kiquino, Kirgomino, Saurovo, Semerlino, Se-mernino, Sorpov, etc. d.” [4, p. 11].

— Single-root merian words: “In the Moscow province: (Volga), Vorsino, Vopkovo… The village of Vostsi is located in Kolomensky, Novotorzhsky and Ostashkovsky counties; Shugar is in Rostov, and Shugarovo in the Dmytrivsky district. 12-13].

  • “Can… to point out the striking similarity of other ancient names with Finnish words. Capa-Sara is a special grass, from Sariola, a place that grew such grass… Sarajevo settlement in Zvenygorod district” [4, p. 14].

“We must mention another excavation of mounds conducted in the Moscow district near the village of Uspensky in 1845. (At the same time, excavations were carried out in the Kolomensky district (the map shows 3, 4), the Bronnytsia district (5), the Bogorod district (6), in the Moscow district (7, 8), where burials with material evidence were found, completely identical to the Meric. – W. B.). On the gentle shore of the Moscow River there were 24 mounds of different sizes. Along with the surface of the earth were bones… Of the things found: on the neck is a bone of twisted red copper wire.

…sergs. There are two figures like horses, like a horse. (Meric). Bronze Ring. …bronze chain and bronze bracelets” [4. s. 19].

Buried with the same exactly things were found: in Podolsky district (the map is marked with the number 9). in Zvenygorod district (10). in the Mozhay district (11). in the Veraean district (12).

Oh. S. Uvarov, by the way, noted about the excavations performed in the western districts of the Moscow province:

“The capacity of some, so to speak, are common objects found in all graves almost without differences of noxes…” (4, p. 20].

However, the conclusions about the excavations of Moscow-year-old, the scientist for some reason questioned. I said I could not say that the mayors lived there. Because, according to Moscow state mythology, there had to live in the yatichi and curves. He did not even think it was necessary to explain how in the IX-XII centuries, the vyatich and curves managed to appear in that area. He ignored the fact that excavations behind the Moscow River were conducted by colleagues-archeologists and had different things about this than in O. S. Uvarova, thoughts.

Below we will get to know Professor A. P. Bogdanov, made as a result of archaeological excavations in the Moscow province.

But we have somewhat deviated from the topic.

It is noteworthy that still in the Tula and Kaluga provinces and in the northeast of Smolensk province, separated from the other part of the Vyazemskaya high, memory in hydronymics (titles of the year) has been preserved about the mayor:

— River Ugra — in modern Kaluga and Smolensk regions:

Here are more interesting names:

“Meyerika, river of Smolensk province under the town of Krasn; Mera in the Dinsky district on the Merica River, which flows into Dvina on the left” [4, p. 10].

Let’s mention other words of archaeologist O. S. Uvarova:

“We will finally pay attention to such names of villages originating from nicknames given by the people to those artificial hills that rise over ancient graves: the village of Kur-ganich in the Alexandrovsky district near the border of the Moscow province; Kurganne, or Kurgany, three villages in Podolsky, Zvenygorod and Russky districts of the Moscow province. Judging by the consonance of all these names, we can assume that they mean the presence of grave mounds in the same way as names originating from a settlement or a town testify to the former village of the settlement or towns.

We… We examined all the older dwellings of the Meryansk people and its first los, which were meant through archaeological research. [4, p. 49].

As you can see, archaeologist O. S. Uvarov denied the claim about the border of Merian land, which passes along the Moscow River.

We will not give the words of other Russian archaeologists of the second half of the 19th century, who rejected O’s claim. S. Uvarova about the passage of the border of Merian land along the Moscow River. Let us give the most authoritative opinion of Russian science from the Great Encyclopedia:

“The ancient population of the Moscow province still refers to the era of using stone tools, but data has not been preserved about the anthropological type of this population. Much more data on the so-called Kurgan tribe, which lived here, as they think, in the X-XII centuries and left behind numerous mound graves with the remains of ancient culture, albeit rough, but already familiar with both bronze and iron. It’s poor… Population… and was the Finnish people known by the name Mary. [7, p. 4444].

So the Great Encyclopedia has put all the dots over the “and”, and the last thing we will dwell on.

In the 19th century, the book of Glubov-sky “History of Smolensk land before the early 15th century” was published in the Russian Empire. In it, the author clearly defined the presence of two different cultures on the Smolensk land: one culture belonged to the southwestern part of the province, and the other, sharply different from the first, belonged to the northeast of the provincial land.

Open the map of the modern Smolensk region and personally make sure: Valdai high, which passes into Belsk, and then – in the Vyazem highlands, just cuts the northeastern part of the Smolensk region. It is in that cut off, parts flow the Merian rivers: Volga, Vaseuza, Ugra and Vore. And on the west side of the same highlands flow ancient Slavic rivers: Dnipro and Desna.

This natural way was determined by the western border of the Merian land. It ended in the forests of Bryansk and in the northeastern Smolensk region, and in the western Tver region (gubbernia) even entered the Novgorod (modern) region.

As you can see, Moscow’s lies are being detached from the truth, it is only easy to press. This will be seen more than once, studying the works of other Russian historians and archaeologists.

From the “nunger drant” they fabricated their history. It’s cracking everywhere like a fiery uniform.
4

It is time to speak the language “about the second, period of Merian settlements.” Although our scientist speaks very little about him, however, which is valuable, recognizes its existence, leads to the time of Ivan the Terrible and presents a reliable, first-hand archaeological material. I hope readers have forgotten that O. S. Uvarov conducted excavations of grave merian mounds in an absolutely intact area.

Listen to the archaeologist:

“Ancientity of the original Meric settlements of expression-66

It is more striking when we compare them with the settlements of the next, second era… This second era includes those cemeteries, or those groups of mounds, between which there are no more graves with a burning rite. The absence of this kind of graves and the loss of ancient ancestral custom prove an already radical change in the views of the people themselves. In addition, the gradual absence of another custom of ancestors — to put all the objects that belonged to him in the grave — also indicates a great turning point in the life of the people. This turning point or Mary’s transition to another social life can be explained in two ways: either by outside influence, alien ancient customs of Finnish tribes, or the gradual introduction of the Christian faith, which had to call the pagan Merian to a completely different life and awaken new concepts in them. 50].

We have an accurate picture of the transition of the people of the mayor from the state of pagan to Christianity. The word is that this is the picture of the transition certified by grave mound excavations made by Count O. S. Uvarov. And note: Finnish ethnicity in the following centuries did not disappear from the Merian land, nowhere “switted – but under the pressure of two factors that acted simultaneously, became gradually, with very great resistance, to adopt those customs and that religion that appeared in its land in the middle of the 12th century. Let us not deny that individual representatives of both the Christian and Muslim religions could appear in the land of the mayor before. But as the excavations showed, there were single cases. The change of faith took place over hundreds of years. Even in the 16th and 17th centuries, many Finnish villages resisted forced “Christianity, otherwise – to land, and fled from their native places in Zavolzh. They were the most stable, and they, for the most part, had already adopted Islam.

It was the arrival of the Prince of the Ryurikovich dynasty that was the beginning of radical changes in the life of the Meric people. Coming with a small wife to the Meric land in 1137, 67 Yuri Dovgoruky naturally brought the mayor to her customs, rules of behavior and religious beliefs. It is not the Finnish ethnicity. This is a completely different state: one thing when merchants appeared in the land and, having conducted trade operations, within a month or two went away, and quite another is the appearance of hundreds of armed people who arrived in that land for settlement.

Do not forget: at the same time, such pressure was carried out at the family mayor of the face of the muzzle from the Muslim Volga Bulgaria.

Pay attention to the individual moments of what happened. The prince and his wives did not settle in the old towns of the mayors. It was usually located in no-controversed own stable villages. We will see confirmation of this. Of course, each of the men arrived immediately took a manroom for his wife. For several years, the aliens were completely relative-voicing with the Merian population. They were united by wives, children, new family ties. And although after 18 years (in 1155) Yuriy Dovgoruky returned to the Kiev principality, in the merian land he left his children, and among them – Andriy Bogolyubsky – “the first big Russian”. That is what Professor W said. Oh. Klyuchevsky. The prince’s friends became the parents of hundreds of children, who soon made up the core of “new flocks” and “new younger wife”.

Stories are unknown how the Merites took Rurikovich’s arrival into their lands. We can only assume that we did not meet a “bread-salt”. Most likely, he faced their resistance, and the mayors behaved aggressively. Arab historians wrote: “No one goes to trade further Bulgar, no one reaches Erzi (Mordva) because natives kill foreigners” [4, p. 75].

The visity of the mayor to the aliens had other reasons. Princely fees and encroachments on the best hunting grounds, could not but cause resistance to the best places of fishing. And it was the northern environment, cruel and strict, that raised people in a certain way. Remember Professor S. M. Solovyov.

The fact that Yuri Dovgoruky still left the Me-rian land and returned to the Kiev principality is a direct evidence of his rejection of both the urban conditions of life and the Merian environment itself. By the way, all the great Russian historians are pleased to remind readers that Andriy Bogolyubsky soon, followed his father, “got off his land all the fatherly wives of the older wife.”

It is not known at all whether Andrei Bogolyubsky was the son of Yuri Dovgoruky, because we know: Catherine II personally composed the “Worker of Russian princes”. He cannot be trusted. Andrew Bogolyubsky could be anyone: and the son of the guide of the Meric tribe, and the son of an ordinary wife, and even the son of the Bulgarian sheikh. So it is not significant at all — was Andrew Bogolyubsky Ryurikovich or not. It is quite obvious: he was a low-educated and completely wild representative of the Meric land. The witness of the expulsion of all aliens from their land confirms once again that the Meric land and its people continued to remain in complete self-isolation. However, here in the 12th century appeared the Christian beginning and the first signs of centralized power.

This is how the first, external factor affected the mayor. However, we remember: there was the second factor – religious. With the princely wife, Christianity came to the Meric land. It is quite obvious that the religious factor subsequently played a decisive role in changing the customs and condition of the people. However, religion among the mayor was slowly and very original. In fact, to take root among the Finnish ethnicity, the Christian religion went to the so-called “double faith”. Here are Professor W. Oh. Klyuchevsky:

The gods of both tribes shared among themselves in love: the Finnish gods sat down below, in the abyss, Russian above, in heaven, and so sharing, they lived friendly among themselves for a long time, without interfering with each other, even able to appreciate each other. The Finnish gods of the abyss were erected in the Christian title of devils and under the cover of this title received a place in the Russian-Christian cult, they were destroyed, lost. their own-tribe-in Finnish character…” [8, p. 51].

The same thing happened with the Finnish tribe of the mayor. By adopting the Christian religion, they automatically “loss. It is a Finnish character.” According to Russian historians, the Great Russians.

Let’s go back to the mounds of the second Merian period. They begin immediately near Pereyaslav Lake and lie with pagan cemeteries in all of the Meric land.

Let’s listen to the great O. S. Uvarova:

“To the west of the city of Pereyaslav, five versts, we find the village of Veskovo, according to which – a mountain, still known in the people called Ifemjach, whose slopes descend from the north side to Pleshchey Lake… On top of this mountain, a monument to the Pe tro with the Great is now built, and here is preserved the famous of its bot. The whole mountain is covered with mounds… For their part, excavations proved that the oldest graves of pagan Meryans with burned bones and coal in mounds were located on top of the mountain. More new tombs with Christian objects, and even in part with the remains of coffins, were located on the slopes all the way to the lake. Around the oldest tombs, on top of the mountain, along the slopes and even near its sole, on the way to the village of Selomidina, there were graves less ancient. This is the general nature of the location of the mounds in the Meric cemeteries, and this character is preserved, as we see, in all other areas inhabited by them. A wonderful example of respect and affection for the graves of ancestors.” 23].

Wise, high words! The Meric mounds XII are dug. The 13th and subsequent centuries were widely evidenced by both religious diversity and great respect for the graves of ancestors. However, there are people in Russia who are trying 70 with stupid zeal and are now trying 70.

to talk about the “Slovian past of Rostov-Suzdal land”. How many years did Moscow’s official history have been openly silent about these great and wonderful testimonies! And pay attention, the mayor never left its territory, its inhabited land. She cared and protected the graves of ancestors for many hundreds of years. Nothing is impossible to deny here. After adopting the Christian religion, the mayors did not leave their ancient burials, but continued to remain tied to graves and even their Christian relatives buried next to them, on one slope, on one mountain.

It is impossible to assume that some outside Slavic ethnicity with such respect and affection should be treated with other people’s Meric graves. I even took these graves for my family.

Symbolic fact of installation in the following centuries on top of Mount Grahamyach, a permanent covered with Meric grave mounds, a monument to Peter I. This became a kind of sign of the unity of the Meric ethnicity on its ancient land. It was the genus of the mayor’s Cobily (remember, the horse is the favorite suspension of the mayor) forever confirmed unity with ancestors. What a symbolic unity!

But there are people who claim that there is no power of the Most High. There is!

But let’s go back to the land of the Meric. Ra more than the author promised to tell about the excavations of Alexander Mountain, conducted over two years (1853-1854) as an associate of O. S. Uvarova – P. S. Saveliev. So let’s listen:

“If the antiquities found in the mounds restore the pagan period of the history of the Meryansk people for us, then excavations on the Alexander Mount serve as an explanation for the further history of the Suzdal region. This mountain was cut five sozhens deep into the sandy… soil; all this was a embankment, and cut it was grounded several layers… different eras. On the mainland on the sand m found corn coins Abbasid and Samanid (859 and 900 years) along with a layer of fallen coal, in which the skulls from broken

pots, small knives, key and iron buckles of the same shape as in mounds… At the site of the burned temple, an Orthodox church arose. Traces of its existence were marked by a strip of gravel g and the bones of Christians buried around it, and the indication of its destruction by the Busurmans was preserved in the same layer of Tatar coins (Janibek Khana around 1350), arrows and daggers. The same silver ingot found… Weight 42 zolotes… Orthodoxy again built a temple on the same mountain, and traces of the new building were marked with a layer of f bones with body crosses, with plates and with the moneys of John III. This temple in turn (was destroyed. – V. B.).,. and above it built a monastery with a wooden fence and with five round towers, from which the d-the-face remains (even traces of the furnace with pots remained left)… At the time of the existence of this monastery, they are… The coins of King John IV and a slab with the inscription in 1512 were found in a layer of . John IV’s money, over 1,000, lay in a heap. but. The hill was probably the inscription, and the inscription was “a” “buff.” s. 25-26).

Excavated Alexander’s Mountain. P. S. Saveliev read the history of the Meric ethnicity, from the distant IX to the 10th centuries to the time of John IV (the Terrible). By the way, as you can see, the monastery was destroyed by Ivan the Terrible during his famous campaign to Novgorod in 1569-1570. When John IV’s troops “spoke with naked bloody swords.” Naturally, and O. S. Uvarov, and P. S. Saveliev told him was ashamed. How ashamed to report that even for Ivan NO Tatars of the Great Horde ruled in their Moscow Ulus, which is why they burned the church (see layer f). However, it is evidenced that for 700 years, the people living on that land, even changing religious beliefs, did not leave their territories and their holy places, whether ancient temples or ancient churches. It is impossible to imagine that some outsider in the Merian land people began to erect their shrines in the places of Meric pagans-72

The temple of the buff. It’s unreal. For even the church in those distant times prohibited the construction of cemeteries and church buildings not what is on the ground, but even near pagan burials and religious buildings.

Count O. S. Uvarov had to mention this ban:

‘Such tolerance was not in the spirit of Christianity… There is hardly a country where you can reliably point out an example of such inconsistency with the indigenous customs of Christians. … The same strict distinction was repeated in all cemeteries both in the west and in the east, and no mounds in all of Gaul or Germany contained examples of a adjacent burial of a pagan with a Christian in the same cemetery. 64].

Once again, the myth of the “transition of the Slavs to Mosscovy” was dispelled. Never would be outsiders in the Merian land Christians to erect their temples on the sites of pagan cult buildings. And their dead would never be buried next to the graves of pagan mayors. For any reasonable person, such a truth is understood without evidence. Perhaps the Christian religion would not have allowed this among the mayor. However, it should be remembered that Christianity in the Merian land was planted very slowly; the pagan gods of the mayors passed into the Christian religion and occupied an honorable place in it. Because of what. Even in accepting some Christian rites, the mayors remained faithful to many of their old beliefs and. Of course, the next generation of the dead was buried next to the previous one. The children could not give up their parents.

“When we then move to the study of pagan cemeteries of the second era, we see that with the cessation of burning the ceremony, the number of graves with Christian objects does not increase. in a large pagan cemetery near the village of Matviyschevo, consisting of 123 mounds with only the most cell bodies, found only two graves with Christian objects. [4, p. 65].

We have already written: it was during this transition period that the church had to go to “two-faith”. This is what it looked like: “…Christianity and paganism are not opposite, inter-conceiving religions, but only parts of the same faith that complement each other and belong to different orders of life, to two worlds, one to the world of the higher, the heavenly, the other to the lower, to the bottom, to the “the abyss” [8, p. 52].

This method, when the old pagan faith did not reject completely, but was associated with the higher, heavenly, and it became possible, step by step, to bring the mayors to Christianity. And in this case, it is quite clear that the church could not ban the mayors, even by those. who began to visit the temples, maintain love for their ancestors and for their burial places. That’s why in all the Meric cemeteries we see the heredity of generations. Only one people who had lived in the same area for many hundreds of years could preserve this Lobov and heredity. Here the Moscow bike about the “inherited Slavs” is inappropriate.

It is also characteristic that the mayors maintained their affection for ancient cemeteries not only in the transition period. But in the next, Christian times. Let’s listen:

“The Village of Malyutino. – Even further east behind Nerli’s flow. on the left bank, near the village of Malyutino. There is an ancient town in the tract, known in the people as “Beauty”. Interesting. And that was proved by excavations. The ancient place was a burial place until the 16th century. 37].

You don’t need to explain anything to readers: chiet and remember! Even by adopting the Christian religion, the mayors continued to worship their “pagan gods”. History shows: Finnish peoples had a custom to worship single stones, notable rock performances, individual hills, etc. d. This cult was preserved among the mayors and after the adoption of Christianity.

Let’s listen to O. S. Uvarova:

“To the worship of rocks and stones distributed between all the ancient Finns, it should be… Take many other items opened in the Meric mounds… And in general, with 74

Each notable stone was a special legend.

Such faith of the ancient Finns left traces in the lands inhabited by Meriapah for a long time. It is said that when Av-ramami Rostovsky settled on the shore of Rostov Lake, local residents worshipped a stone god… I wonder what… It was not the name, but, as they say, a common stone lying in the Bayrak behind the Vorisoglib monastery there. The Pereyaslavns continued to worship this stone by the 17th century and gathered for worship on June 29 annually. Irinarch, going to Moscow to Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuysky, threw this stone into the Tru-beez River, and since then in Pereyaslav, the respect for the stone disappeared.

A similar stone, as is known from the life of St. Arseny, the founder of the Konev Monastery, at the end of the XTV century was on Lake Ladoga on the island of Konev and called stone-hors; it also served as a subject of worship for locals” (4, pp.71-72].

Similar examples of the unity of the Meric people with their environment, with their cemeteries, with their rivers, lakes, tracts and even separate stones can be cited hundreds. You can’t find a Slavic in the past day with fire.

Ending the description of the “second period of the Merian people”, I want to submit an extract that shook even me with its deep meaning, my memory of heredity. Here she is:

“The village of Good is divided into I Ia village, which stretches along the line of the Moscow-Nizhnyorodsky highway, and on Old, located on the hill side of the Klyazma River. Tu-t behind the ditch is the “Babka tree”, where 71 mounds were located, excavated by K. M. Tihonravov 1859. In mounds were buried bones, and the things found at them consisted of silver, bronze and copper rings, buttons, remains of cloves, silk matter and two clay vessels of special, to the present form used in the people’ [4, p. 45].

Here is the end of the story about the second period. How should Moscow rulers not love their ancestors in order to launch so much siege into historical science and abandon their national Merian roots! It is impossible to understand that!

To finish the analysis of the book O. S. Uvarov and his excellent research, we must finally pay attention to the characteristic features of the mayor herself as part of the Finnish ethnicity This is a serious, principled question. As we will see, Russian historians of the following times (after O. S. Uvarova) this factor was not paid attention at all, and most often it was silenced or frankly distorted by the very essence of the material.
5

So, let’s see: what was the identity of the mayor’s identity? How was the world fundamentally different from the Slavs? What was absolutely reliable evidenced by archaeological excavations of O. S. Uvarova? Let’s pay attention to many other “pleasing” issues that Great Russians are silent.

Before answering these questions, it is necessary to more clearly understand the relationship of the Finnish tribe of mayor of the VII-XIII centuries with its surrounding neighbors: Mordvo, ant, a wall, a place, a mari, a wedding and others.

And when we realize this, we will determine the significant difference between the mayor and the Slavs. Then we will understand: it does not matter who in which village of Rostov-Suzdal land lived – mayor, mari or mord. These were family Finnish tribes: one culture, some beliefs, one language (or related), identical living conditions.

  1. Finnish (merian) roots of the people

In tsarist and Bolshevik Russia, 76 was imposed on the question of heredity along the line: the mayor — mordowite — Great Russians (or united — moxel) 76

A strict ban. Avoiding this issue was prohibited. After reviewing hundreds of works by Russian scientists, I found no one that would take the study of this problem seriously. Thiefly attributed to himself during the XVIII century the history of the Grand Duchy of Kiev and falsely named themselves “Slovians”. Moscow, any attempt to find out this question stopped surprisingly harshly. The government and the Russian Orthodox Church were also looted. And the Great Russian chauvinistic thought closely guarded “its great Kyiv past”, preventing the germination of the smallest sprouts of freethinking. Only hints were the Finnish past of Moscow. Let us listen to Professor Dmitry Alexandrovich Korsakov, who wondered at this nonsense back in 1872:

“Until now, despite much that has already been done by scientists-finologists, some impenetrable fog lies on the entire Finnish question, thick imma hides from the curious view of the researcher the snaffic significance of Finns in the history of our people… In the lack of positive data, undeniable facts, we must be satisfied with hypotheses, assumptions; in the absence of direct answers to the extremely important questions that arise before us, we must be content with the guessings. 2 .

They continue to “see now.

You think, D. Oh. Did Korsakov give a direct answer to that question? Not at all! He also “goed in a circle”, adding many of his “diffslances of lies”.

But many serious facts have told us.

All the “big Russian” professors worked on the false boatin concept! Although each tried to partially move away from the chauvinistic dogma in its own way.

Listen to D. Oh. Korsakov: “Finnish tribe, whose representatives are now scattered over a wide space (note: we are talking about the XIX century! – W. B.) From the Baltic Sea to Yenisei and from the Northern Dvina to Oca and Sura, they fall into two main branches: western and eastern, excellent in appearance, luck and customs, but similar in language. The western branch is usually listed by Finns… and Finnish tribes of the present governors: Estland, St. Petersburg and partly Olonets and Tver. The eastern branch contains nations living in the Volga and Kami and behind the Urals, on the influx of Obi. 3].

Please pay a special uaia to the fact of belonging to Finnish tribes of different types of people, that is, different body buildings, heads, eyes, etc. This is a significant factor, because in the future Russian anthropology very often introduced elements of speculation in the question. We focus on this below.

Professor-finologist Mathias Alexander Kastrene in the middle of the XIX century on the task of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences worked in Finland for many years (part of the Russian Empire. – V. B.), Karelia, Arkhangel province, in Obi, Yenishei, Sayan and Zabaikal, as a result of which it established the distribution of eastern Finns into three additional groups related in language: Volga, Kama and Ural.

“To the first he took a large, almost completely rustled tribe of Mordva and Cheremys, to the second – Zyryan, Permyaks and Votyaks, and to the third – Voguls and so-called Ural Ostyaks” [9, p. Z-4].

Within the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land even in the 19th century, representatives of Finnish tribes lived – both western and with the running branches.

The Finns were all who did not accept Christianity at that time, that is, “not the rake” and practiced their ancient religion. The unifying element of Finnish tribes has always been language and pagan religion, in a different way, by belief.

I suggest you read the interpretation of the word Finn. and the unifying elements of the self-names of Finnish tribes, who lived in the IX-XIII centuries (and in the following) in the heart of the future “Great Russia”:

“The Finns themselves don’t call themselves that name. They call themselves Suomalain, that is, a resident of the swamp lowland. “Fin” is a translation of this name and comes from the 100-Roman word: Form is a swamp… Scientists also see everywhere the presence of a root, which means swamp, water, humid place (sio, ua, Wad, vein in Western Finnish dialects, and nehr, jur in the dialects of the Eastern).

In sounds: More, Mar, Mer, Moore, who are heard in many self-names of the Eastern peoples, scientists see the meaning of “man”, removing this meaning from the Cheremi Mara – man. Thus they explain the origin of the names: Mordva, Muroma, Marie (so is called Cheremis), Mort-Comi (self-name Zyryan), Ud-Mort (self-name of the Vityaks)” [9, p. 4].

This is already the Russian Empire arbitrarily passed through the names of ancient peoples, having made “their vision – their names, by the method – “divid and rule”; “suckt from the finger” – the little Russians, Cherams, the Volga Tatars, Ziryans, gots and others. All this is a Russian chauvinistic lie! After all, all the self-names of the ancient Finnish tribes that lived from the Baltic to the Volga were identical and related.

Make sure yourself:

Mayor (the unifying Finnish name of people living in the forest, among the swamps, in lowlands, on land and on water);

We have already written that Cheryms call themselves Marie — people. Professor M. Oh. Castren wrote: “…the name of Merya is a Slavic modification of the word “Mari- and believed, as a result, it is possible to “make a conclusion in justice that Merya either consisted of Cheryms or was surprisingly related to them.” s. 29-ZO).

Let the reader not think that these are my personal considerations, which prove the unity and kinship of both tribes and their self-names, as here: mayor, mari (cheryms), antnom, ar., mord, mort ( (зиряни), уд-мортflights). All the studies were performed long ago by Russian professionals-ra-philologists and historians such as M. Castren, W. Klyuchevsky, D. Korsakov, O. Uvarov, H. Ilovaisk, P. Melnikov, G. Aunovsky and many others.

You can say anything, but deny the very fact of the presence of many thousands of Finnish names of villages, villages, year, lakes, tracts in the monastery of the “Great Russian land” is meaningless. It is foolish to deny that only the indigenous, not outsider people, could retain their native self-titles for thousands of years.

We will not go back to thousands of Finnish names. Recall only the main thing that flows from the material and established by Russian historians: “…From the testimony of written sources (the chronicles. – W. B.), with consideration of the features of the present population of the area where Mary lived at one time, from analytical conclusions about the present life and religion of Mordva and Cheremys, …from the results of mound excavations and archaeological finds in the provinces of Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vladimir, Moscow:

First, we have… Mary’s distribution area.. Secondly, we can argue that the traces of Mary’s language Меріare very close to the language of Mordva and Cheremys, preserved in the current population of the governors of Yaroslavl, Kostroma and Vladimir, in local names… settlements and settlements (from ourselves, we add a year and lakes. – W. B.) and in the so-called “secret languages” of these governors. Third, we have… The ability to catch Mary’s religion. For there could hardly have been idols in Mary, which are neither Mordva nor in Cherems. Mary has a sacred meaning of stone. In the wooded country in which Mary lived, the forest was undoubtedly also revered as he was still revered in Mordva and Cherems. Mary had priests… Traces of these priests are preserved in the Magi… МеріMary’s religion showed great vitality in the spread of Christianity in the Rostov-Suzdal region… Fourth, Mary’s life, without being particularly different from the state of a wild tribe at all, can be described as follows: living in wooded, wild terrain, Mary was hunting and may have fallen into several genera that had their tribal princes… Little… Mary… It disappears, or better to say, turns… for a special type – Great Russian!’ [9, pp, 43-44].

This self-determination of the tribe, his life, customs, thousands of self-names of the area are one of the main differences between Mary and her land from the Slavs and their homeland. Root difference. There can be no confusion here.

We will not describe the situation of the Slavs in the IX-XII centuries — this is also known to schoolchildren.

The famous prince Kurbsky, one of the leaders of the conquest of Kazan in 1552, testified: “The land of Mescherska had the Mordovskaya language!’.

Russian historians themselves convince us that all the ancient Finnish tribes who lived in the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land (and not only in it] had family, identical self-names and spoke the same language. But most importantly, all these Finnish tribes in the IX and 19th centuries combined the only pagan beliefs. Although clear: in each area, each tribe subsequently appeared both its own characteristics and customs and rituals. However, the principle of pagan faith was the only one. All Finnish tribes worshipped rivers, lakes, rocks, but especially some separate stones: “…with each of something remarkable stone was connected to them a special legend.

This faith of the ancient Finns has long left traces in the lands inhabited by the Merian. 71].

We have already talked about how in the great Moscow luus of the Golden Horde, and later in the Moscow state during the XIV-XVII centuries, the local population — which, by the way, already adopted Christianity. He worshiped single stones. We will not present new proverbs of such worship.

I hope every reasonable person understands that the Slavs outside in the Merian land, whether they are pagans or Christians, would never pray to pagan Finnish gods, and even more so stones.

By the way, historical sources have preserved information about pagan beliefs of the mayor. Nestor’s chronicle has a message as in 1071 in the Merian land arrived with a small wife Jan Vyshatich to collect tribute for the Novgorod prince Sviatoslav. Note: there was no prince in the Finnish Merian environment in 1071. They were forced to pay tribute. And as you can see, not even in Kiev. We, based on the chronicles, must remember: such a tribute in due time they collected goths, Khazars and Varangians. They came and robbed. That’s all tribute!

The “Zaleshan land” was not part of the Grand Duchy of Kiev, 1 prince of the Rurikovich dynasty was not in it. Even the so-called “lidescripts” nor the only word mention “Zaleshan land” during the 10th century. Read:

“From 913 to 988, nothing is mentioned in the chronicles about the land of Rostov. Igor, engaged exclusively in the affairs of the south… Olga was in Novgorod estates, “installing of hospitality and data” on the Bridge and “data and retents” on Luz, and Sviatoslav “on the league of Vyatichi”… None of them were in Rostov. As a result, we can assume that the Rostov region (the usual cunning of the Russian historian: when not profitable, then not the people, but only the area. – W. B.) It was independent at the time. [9, p. 68].

So much deed in Russian history! It is impossible to “severe”!

The Maryans in the IX and 19th centuries had no connection with the Grand Duchy of Kiev. He was not paid tribute. And later, who sent his wife, he robbed. There were princes of the Rurikovich dynasty among them, there were the Princes of Rebels.

However, let us return to the similarity of ancient Merian and modern (XIX centuries) Mordovian beliefs. This is what Professor D wrote. A. Korsakov:

“Yan Vyshatich, who was collecting tribute… He learned that the Magi (Merian priests. – W. B.) They beat women all over the Volga, tearing their backs, and say they hide in their shoulders… live and fish, as a result of which there was a famine in the Rostov-Suzdal land. When Jan and his wife appeared… The Magi “becomposed the opposite.” From the mob came out to Jan “ten men” and told him that he would not go to them for faithful death. Jan ordered to kill them and went with 12 of his fathers on and nshi x (about 300, according to the chronicle. – W. B.)… There was a fight between Jan’s wife and the Magi. A priest was killed in Jan. The Magi fled to the forest. Jan is here a representative of Christian beliefs that have already strengthened in southern Russia (in the Kiev principality. – W. B.), and in his opposing Magi, through the Orthodox-Christian color of the chronicle narrative, you can notice features that are quite close to Mordovian religious beliefs (below I will give the extract, as we are talking about. – W. B.)… In the teachings of the Magi themselves there is a great similarity to one Mordovian legend about the creation of man: “God washed in the past,” said to the Magi Jan, “and rested, wiped out of the vih, and comes from heaven to earth; and the repression of the soton with God, who of him to create man? And the devil created man, and God put the soul into it. man dies, the body goes into the earth, and the soul is to God. In some Mordovian generations… The legend of the creation of the soul of man Cham-Pass (God), and the bodies of Satan. 89-90].

And so that readers understand why the Magi sought bread behind their shoulders of the dead (only in women), we will give an extract from the Mordovian religious rite of the XIX century:

“We will focus only at one rite of worship of the Helen Moles, namely at the collection of supplies necessary for sacrifices. The characteristic features of this rite are first of all in the way of preparing for milking flour, honey, oil, eggs and money by married women, in the way they pass on to prepared harvesters of sacrificial supplies. “Men not only do not take any participation in preparation, but can not even see them, for which from the very morning that collectors should come to the village (and this is known in advance), go to work in the field, in a cloon or hide in the barn… Even boys are hiding with their parents. “On the eve of the day when gatherers should come to the village, women make preparations. They sew three, four or more bags and are sewn to them two long tas or ropes. In one bag, the hostess pours… flour., in another he puts a grouse (boch. – W. B.) with honey, in the third – money, in the fourth – a drill with oil, in the fifth – a drill with eggs, etc. When, running down the street, the girls will be told to mothers that the parindya and і the yanbed arrived, they with various mythical techniques and prayers enter the house.

“At the entrance of the yanbed to the house, it burns a gan on a baking oven, in front of which a table with bags is burned. Before him are married women of the family are bows to the door; their shoulders and breasts are naked on the belt. Girls stand next to the door, but not naked. Parindiait with anjanbed, entering the house, stop at the door themselves, one holding the park, the other sacrificial knife, and read the prayer of Cham Paz, Anzi Patyai and Yurtov-ozaiz (spirit patron of the house). Then the older married woman takes both hands a bag of flour at the tass, throws it through her head back on naked… their shoulders and, without looking, because women should not see the face of the collectors, it is back to the door. When, thus, she approaches the collectors, parindai puts her sacred park to the back (a large bag. – W. B.), and the yanbed, taking a bag in one hand, with the other hand five times slightly circled a woman with a sacred knife in the bare shoulders and back, reading a prayer facing Angue Patia, and then cut the tass, the bag falls in the park, and the ends of the tass remain in the hands of the woman. She goes to the table without looking at; after her, the other one in the same way approaches the collector with another bag, the third with the third, etc. d. If the family has only one married woman, then she herself refers to the collectors described in a way prepared bags one by one. Girls stay at the table; they cannot touch the prepared bags of the iv. Having accepted supplies intended for sacrifice, the gatherers go without closing the door of the house or the gate, make up everything received on visas and go to the next home. When they leave, the women are putting fire on the heat, lighting it with a gangan, and burn the remains of the tass. The ashes are placed in a way of coal, and they are put in a way of the house. 26-28].

Now it becomes clear why the Meric Magi in 1071, during the famine, sought bread behind their shoulders by married women. Ancient Finnish belief has been preserved among the ethnic group for many hundreds of years. And you will not join the Slavs to this belief. They have no place in Finnish Wednesdays ищі(among the mayor).

We will not compare many other analogies from the chronicles about the ancient Magi and the beliefs of the pagan muzzle of the XIX century. Mordva even in the 19th century worshipped all the same gods and yet the same stones as the Merites in ancient times, in the IX-XX centuries. The pagan beliefs had deep roots in the Merian people. It is these beliefs that the mayor’s belief is the second main sign that determines the affiliation of the Finnish ethnicity of all those excavated by Count O. S. Uvarov mounds from Gaticha-Mersky in the north to Kaluga and Ryazya in the south; from the pools the year of Ugra, Vazuza and Vorya in the east of Smolensk region – to the year of Unja and the border in the east of Kostroma and Vladimir province.

Thus, the pagan beliefs that prevailed in the IX-XIII centuries in the Rostov-Suzdal land are the second main difference between the mayor and the Slavs.

By the way, in Rostov-Suzdal land during the study in excavations of mounds, monuments were not found to idols. The mayors, like the face, had no idols! It is a wonderful evidence of the Finnish past of Merian land. It’s at the time. when all pagan Slavic tribes worshipped idols. They were made of wood, from clay, from stone. These were human images. “There were no idols or temples in Mordva. Mordva’s administrative cult is in prayer and sacrifice. The fenced places where they are brought, of course in the forests, are called keremetilsh. Prayer and sacrifice are called moths. A stone plays a major role in the moths, the Cardo-syrko, which is certainly in the yard of every house and in every keremet. 25].

Differences in the pagan beliefs of the Slavs and Finnish tribes are so significant that they cannot be confused. Excavations in the habitat of the Slavs have always been accompanied by finds of idols. All the chronicles that describe the pagan period of the Slavs showed the fact of the construction of idols by the Slavs in honor of their gods. In many thousands of dug mounds, in the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land, the ancient land of Moscow, no monument to idols (if not considered such a small copper decoration, by the way, found not in the mound, but in an ancient treasure).

Let’s not stop at the accompanying pagan beliefs of the mayors, because they are, though very characteristic, such as beliefs about the superiority of the right side, however, are desirable to us and, I would say, are secondary. Anyone who wants to learn more about this may refer to the works of Count O. S. Uvarov and Professor D. Oh. Korsakov. I focus on the very serious conclusion made by Professor D. Oh. Korsakov (as mentioned above):

“…Mary’s life, without revealing special differences from the state of the wild tribe at all, can be described as follows: living in wooded, wild terrain, Mary was engaged in animal husbandry and hunting and may have broken down into several genera that had their tribal princes like those who later appeared in Mordva… However… Mary’s religion showed great vitality in the spread of Christianity in the Rostov-Suzdal region” [9, p. 44].

For many hundreds of years, Russian historians and politicians have tried to prove that it was in the Rostov-Suzdal land that the center of political life of the Kiev principality had shifted. It is worth noting: if in the 13th century in the land of the mayor and in general — all Finnish tribes — did not jump the Tatars Khan Batiy, and the land would remain a more nascent European silence for many hundreds of years. It was the Golden Horde, which stood at that time much higher in political, military and economic development, that turned out to be a catalyst for the rise of Moscow “from the state of the wild tribe at all to the level of development of the Golden Horde itself. Although all this development was accompanied by great resistance and disruption.

I pay attention to another very valuable testimony of the ancient chronicle, which we talked about above. Jan Vyshatich, while in 1071 among the tribe of mayor, could rely only on his wives. ищіHe had no other support in that middle. No Christian among the mayor was found. The chronicle is silent about it. Going to the Meric land,’ and was the end of the XI century, – Jan Vyshatich was forced to take a Christian priest with him because they were not in that land, and before death, a Christian was obliged to confess. So, like the mound excavations of Count O. S. Uvarova, the legendary chronicler Nestor testified: Christianity in the Meric land until the end of the XI century was not. Among the mayor were pagan faith and the guardians of that faith, the Magi. Here the question arises quite reasonably: where to see these people who, according to Moscow’s false writings, have dominated everywhere since the first century in the Merian-land? And, for the great shame of the Great Russians, we are forced, once again, to testify: by the end of the XI century in the world-to-the-face, on the land of ancient Moscow, Slavs have not been discovered. The Moscow siege on the presence of Slavs in Rostov-Suzdal land by the great Nestor is not confirmed.

This is where we finish the story of the second main difference between the mayor and the Slavs. Curgan excavations of archaeologist O. S. Uvarova testified: only Finnish ethnicity is present in the Merian land. It is the mayor, and only she, who lived in the IX-XND centuries in the ancient land of Moscow. And, as Russian historians testified, was extremely backward, professing the pagan faith of the completely Finnish (Mordovian) strain. The excavations were evidence.

In this section, let’s study the questions about coins found by archaeologist O. S. Uvarov during mound excavations in the Merian land. The presence of many ancient coins indicates, at least, two undoubted factors: the first — even in those ancient times, the Merians had a connection with the world around them and trade with both neighbors and from distant countries by traders. It is quite clear: the main Merian trading commodity was fur and skin of wild animals. In those days, the forests were teeming with a beast.

Another undoubted factor is the testimony of the mayor’s residence on his original land for a long historical period. The presence of, say, Arabic coins of the IX-X centuries or German coins of the XI-XII centuries indicates that the Meryans lived on their Meric land at that time. At the same time, the presence of European and Asian coins confirms the idea that the Merians conducted trade affairs with both Asian and European countries and peoples.

Trade with East and West had certain nuances. First of all, about time. According to the 10th century Arab travelers, the Marianas at that time traded mostly through the Volga Bulgalia — a powerful, developed state — using P as an intermediary because: “No one goes to trade further Bulgar (the capital of the country. – W. B., because the natives kill foreigners.” It should be assumed that in these matters the Marianas did not make exceptions for representatives of Western peoples.

Look at how a seemingly insignificant fact crossed Moscow’s lies, allegedly Novgorod and Kiev princes almost as home traveled in the 10th century in the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land. A normal Moscow fiction. As always, I wish for myself an exception to the rules.

Obviously, in the IX and 19th centuries, the trade of the mayor with the West was limited, because the nearest cultural centers were Novgorod and settlements on the Baltic Sea, many hundreds of kilometers from the “Merg state”, and direct water connection along the “main Mariana Road – Volga” did not exist. As a result, in the VHI-X Xcenturies, the Merians had mostly a connection with the East, that is, with the Volga Bull-Haria. This cruel truth was also evidenced by coins found in Meric mounds. Among more than 300 coins from the 8th and 17th centuries more than 180 Asian origin, they are dated the VIII to the X centuries. Facts are inexorable! Very few European coins that were in circulation at the time.

Although what fables would offer so-called Russian “liographical arguments”, the facts indicate: in the VIII and 10th centuries, the Merians of Rostov-Suzdal land had virtually no ties with Novgorod, Kiev and the Baltic countries. This truth is confirmed by sources contained in Meric grave mounds. I want to remind you: archaeologist O. S. Uvarov and Professor D. Oh. Korsakov showed a very interesting truth with their works: it was in the IX-X centuries that the development of the mayors of its western and northern land continued. Listen to:

“By Shakespeare’s colonization movement (Mary) penetrated Whitelake and spread further from it into the Dvinsk land.”

And not the contrary, how “proaching” the great Russian “baikars from history”. Knowing how the “found” boatin “liographical ducts” were “found” and what purpose they pursued, we have no confidence in them.

It has been repeatedly proposed for the ardent defenders of the “Moscow Slavic” to make independent chemical, biological, bacteriological and similar examinations of paper, ink and handwriting of the oldest “lidescripts” stored in Russian libraries, and make sure by what time they belong. After all, even serious Russian scientists have no doubt that we are dealing with books of the XVIII century. Catherine’s times!

One serious Moscow Democrat professor in 1991 on my proposal to conduct such an examination was initially silent for a long time, grabbing the air with my mouth like fish pulled out of the water, then he was shacked:

— Now I understand why you, hokhs, sent in the old days to Soloki and Magadan

I had to remind the professor that real Ukrainians were sent to Magadan and Solovka. Because houchs have never been Ukrainians like як Katsaps can never become Russians. These are the begotten and mutants. They always went in a pair: the katsap is a hohol. As a double-sided single medal.

This is the Russian chauvinism virus. And among the Democrats, he’s got used.

Let’s go back to the coins of the Merian land. Here’s what O wrote about them. S. Uvarov:

The advantage of eastern coins to Western coins is that Merian trade with the East was more lively than with the West; at the same time, the fact that eastern coins minted before the 11th century have been preserved as much as so much shows that these commercial relations began with the East much earlier than trade with the Run by Europe.” 75].

“The first Western coins (from Germany) belong to the 10th century, and the first Anglo-Saxon coins belong to the end of the X and early XI centuries.” 75-119].

Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov made a conscious mistake, likening the year of release of the coin in a foreign, distant country, with the year of its appearance in the Meric land. Most likely, the coins appeared among the mayors a few decades after their minting. I think that’s no doubt. In his book Count O. S. Uvarov deliberately “saltered time.” Which is quite clear. He also got to “spoken” the mayor as soon as possible.

I pay attention to another interesting truth that Russian historians silence. Look, even the so-called “liographical ducts” issued “on the mountain” an interesting fact: none of them from 913 to 988 does not mention the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land. It seems like she didn’t exist at all. Above we gave the words of Professor D. O. Korsakov on this. This fact, along with the fact of the absence of European coins IX in the Merian land – most of the 10th century, showed the absence of ties to the mayor’s relations with Slavic Kiev, Novgorod and other European peoples. This should not be surprised. Great Russian “authors of chronicles” and did not expect that someday someone would be allowed to destroy their false “theory”.

In this section, we will not delve into the slums of Russian “liographical” to confirm Professor O’s research. Oh. Shahmatova, from which it follows that earlier, before 913, none of the Kiev princes appeared in the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land, or, rather, in the land of the mocsel people. These were the elementary fictions of the authors of the “historp, mostly Russia.”

Let’s listen to Count O again. S. Uvarova. This time he was thinking about Byzantium and Byzantine coins:

“We must note that, judging by the small number of Byzantine coins found and a small compared number of Byzantine-made items, the Meerians did not have direct trade relations with Greece. First the Bulgars served as Merian intermediaries in the purchase of Byzantine products, and then, presumably, the Normans and Novgorodians removed this monopoly into their hands. 88].

Only three Byzantine coins were found in Merian mounds and treasures: one near the village of V. Brembala and two near the village of Vasylkiv. The coins belonged to the second half of the 10th century.

Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov rightly testified: judging by a small number of coins, and most importantly, from the absence of things in grave mounds, jewelry and other objects of Byzantine production, the mayors did not have direct trade contacts with Byzantium. This is especially surprising because at that time the great princes of Kiev considered Constantinople almost their “native home”. I think no one forgot: from Oleg to Princess Olga and Prince Vladimir, the connection with Byzantium was maintained more than regularly. As you can see, the Meric people had nothing to do with this Kiev family connection.

This is the paradox of the Rostov-Suzdal land! The “great-great” have been singing completely different songs for over 200 years. And they don’t even look at the study of archaeologist O. S. Uvarova.

But these are just flowers. It turned out that, having excavated 7,729 grave mounds, and later additionally studied several thousand excavations performed also in the Meric land by archaeologists K. M. Tihonravov, A. P. Bogdanov, M. Oh. Ushakov, L. M. Sabaneyev and others, Count O. S. Uvarov did not find a single Kiev coin. But if about Byzantine coins and about the mayor’s ties with Byzantium O. S. Uvarov expressed a completely certain opinion, then the Count did not mention the connections of the Merian land with the Kiev state in the IX-XIII centuries and did not mention a word. It will be more likely to say: “sing old songs”, absolutely ignoring the question of the absence of Kiev coins. It is clear that he did it rather realize-l eno. Like dozens of other Russian archaeologists at the time. By the way, it must be understood that fierce Russian censorship, both tsarist and Bolshevik, would never allow us to space on such a topic. Therefore, to claim whether silence was conscious or forced is quite difficult. And it doesn’t matter. You can say with certainty: a scientist of such a level as O. S. Uvarov certainly could not help but notice such a phenomenon and not draw appropriate conclusions. It is also certain that Count O. S. Uvarov did not tell a single word about it.

So, in the Meric land (future Moscow), in the mounds of both the first (IX-XII centuries), and the second (XII–16th centuries) periods, no single Kiev coin was found during excavations of the 19th century. I mean, following the logic of Count O. S. Uvarova, we have every right to declare: during the IX-XVI centuries, the Meric land and its people had practically no economic and trade ties with either the Great Kiev or the Grand Lithuanian principalities. I hope that’s obvious. Although the “old Moscow lie” still does not allow us to be relaxed, it is easy to accept this simple axiom. However, do not forget: Kiev waited coins from the X to the XIII centuries and further, during the Lithuanian-Russian principality, in the XIV-XV centuries. These truths are unbreakable.

This is the third difference between the mayor and the Slavs.

The Merian people had no state ties with the Kiev Slavs before the arrival of Khan Vati.

We will talk about the Christian Orthodox faith below. This is a very serious issue that does not indicate public relations at all.

Now let’s talk about the last, last in this part of the question. Let us remember the great William de Rubruk, his wonderful testimony:

“This country is Tanaid (Don. – W. B.) It is very beautiful and has forests. In the north there are huge forests in which two kinds of people live: Moxels who have no law, pure pagans. Their sovereign and many people were killed in Germany. It was the Tatars who led them with them to step into Germany, so Moksel is very fond of the Germans, hoping that through their mediation they would still be freed from slavery Tatar. 88].

We understand: the “Hosedar” of the people of Moxel and its soldiers who died in the campaign of Khan Batiy’s troops in 1240-1242 could not bring information about the “Germans” to the Meric land. And representatives of Finnish tribes who returned from the military campaign of the Khan’s troops survived very little, and Batiy continued to keep them in the army thousands of kilometers from the “Merg state. Units returned to the Meric land from Germany. It is quite clear that they could tell the whole Meric people about the power and power of the Germans, so that among the mayor there was confidence that through their mediation they will still be freed from slavery Tatar.” That’s obvious. However, they brought the news of a military clash of “tatar with the Germans”. And this was a decisive factor that restored the historical memory of the mayor. Because the country of Moxel, according to Rubruk, was the country of the Meric people. And the Merites during the XI-XII centuries conducted the most intensive trade with the German people. We have undeniable evidence.

After excavating many thousands of mound burials in the Meric land, O. S. Uvarov found more than 80 German coins in the graves, the largest number of all belonging to one European people. In addition to coins, thousands of household items, jewelry and weapons were found in the graves, which were of German origin. Here is the testimony of the archaeologist:

— “…inst of mountain crystal, amethyst and sar-delik. At the birthplace of these stones, they had to be brought from Germany. And because in the mounds we often found coins from southern Germany and Bohemia, we have a new point to the same countries that were known as the birthplace of these precious stones. 85];

“glass wrists and rings of different colors found in Merian mounds. All these items… (also) found on or on the outskirts of the Rhine in Baden, Hessen and near Kreitznah… And coins minted in Cologne, Wurzburg, Strasbourg, Bavaria. Galberstadt and Speieri… found in the Meric mounds, …so coins in this case explain to us the cause of the similarity of these products. 83-84];

“-So we still have to pay attention to the axes and some other weapons that were brought exclusively from Western countries… Similarly, judging by the similarity of forms except the axes, and all spears, daggers… And the arrows were brought by Western merchants… They are found in the west in mounds, the same type and the same size as… MeryanskG [4, p. 86-87]. “A significant part of the Meric axes has an elongated ovch, which is almost the length of the blade itself… So these battle axes were not brought to Merian from Scandinavia, but, probably nos, from Germany. 126].

I will not give dozens of other similar evidence.

This is the truth about the “Germans”, whose help the people of the country Moxel, that is, the Merites. Indeed, the Medes during the 11th and 19th centuries (until 1237) had intense trade relations with the Germanic people, which kept the historical memory of it as a strong and courageous, perhaps even militant people. William de Rubruk in 1253 made no discovery about either the mayor or the Germans. He just testified to the truth of his time. And strange, at first glance, it turned out to be because the Moscow historical pseudoscience for two hundred years “singed” a completely different’ song.

That the country of Moksel is the country of the Meric people, Wilhelm de Rubruk has cited in his book and another very valuable testimony. Listen:

“About the clothes and the dress of them (Tatar. – W. B.) Know that from China and other eastern countries, as well as from Persia and other southern countries, they are delivered silk and gold matter, as well as cotton fabrics in which they dress in summer. From Russia, from Moxel, from the great Bulgaria and Pascatichar, that is, the great Vengria, from Kerkis (all these countries lie in the north and full of forests).., which they obey, they are brought expensive furs of various kinds, which I have never seen in our countries and in which they dress in winter. 76].

Look at what order (clearly from west to east) the northern countries obeying Khan Ba-tia: Rus, Moxel, Bulgaria, Pascatyr, Kerkis. It was between Russia and Bulgaria that the country of Moksel lay. By the way, it is comparable to them. Remember the map of the “Meric land” of Count O. S. Uvarova, and you will immediately understand that it was the mayor that was located between the Russ and the Bulgars and, according to Wilhelm de Rubruk, had a name – “the land of Moksel”. As the traveler says, “Rus… It is from Poland and Hungary to Tanaida (Don. – W. B.)… This river serves as the eastern border of Russia.” And more to Kievan Rus no land, no peoples belonged. Here, “difficults of lies” are completely inappropriate. And after the country and people mocsel (mere) lay the country of Bulgaria, then – Bashkirs (Paskatir), and behind it – Kerkis (Siber). At the same time, note that Rubruk called quite large and comparable, as at those times, countries and peoples. And I did not mention among the northern countries no small tribe, which in those days there were many.

By the way, the same Rubruk, mentioning the people of the face, separated it from the mocsels clearly on a religious basis. Part of the face by 1253 adopted the Muslim faith, so it came under the influence of the Bulgarian kingdom. He has not allocated the face to a separate state anywhere because “Merdas, whom Latins call Merdynis, and they are Saracsyns.” I mean, Muslims. And that part of the Finnish ethnicity, which retained its pagan beliefs, is attributed by Rubruk to the “country of Moksel” (they ate pork!!!). This is the part of Finnish

The ethnic group, the “Moxel country,” had until 1237 its “hosudact”, who died in Germany.

This is what the coins found in the Merian land told when we compared them with other reliable historical sources.

Other differences between the Meric and Kiev tribes discovered during excavations of mound burials erected by infection, because we have already talked about them and will still speak. Repeating makes no sense. But put them in a single row is necessary.

So, what other distinctive features of the mayors and their burials were discovered by Russian archaeologists in the 19th century during excavations? What did their work say?

Facts, not the word:

Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov in his work “Meryans and their life by mound excavations” clearly marked the heredity of Meric burials for thousands of years, that is, from the VII to the XVI century. What coins found in mounds testified.

Religious preferences of the mayors changed, the conditions of life and principles of survival of the Finnish ethnicity itself changed, but eternal respect for the graves of ancestors and memory of them remained. Whatever shocks fall on the Finnish Rostov-Suzdal land, the tribes did not leave the inhabited place and continued to hide their dead in the same cemeteries. Even living neighboring lands, the mayors always left the “root” of a kind of near ancient graves. The history of European countries does not know this.

This is only the Finnish ethnicity of Moscow. Here are the words of archaeologist O. S. Uvarova: “Around the oldest tombs… The graves are less ancient. This is the general nature of the location of the mounds in the Meric cemeteries, and this character has been preserved… In all other areas… A wonderful example of respect and attachment to the graves of ancestors.” 23].

Only one people could hide their ancestors (pagans and Christians) for many hundreds of years in single cemeteries. By the way, another, not Meric archaeological culture (XII-XVI centuries) in the territory of the Rostov-Suzdal land, in the border of Oka 1 Volga, history and archaeology are not known. The Great Paradox of Moscow! The yourself can only be sung by the Muscovites.

We will speak more detailed language in one of the following sections. However, we note that all are excavated by archaeologist O. S. Uvarov and his contemporaries had an exceptionally round shape and were low. In the territory of the ancient Rostov-Suzdal land, or no mounds were found or revealed, belonging to the VIII and 15th centuries.

Much would be given to Moscow historical science for discovering elongated mounds on its motherland. Because such mounds are characteristic of Slavic burials. However, even there is no hint of anything similar in Russian archaeology. Although Russian scientists had in the XIX century a lot of opportunities to “find” anything to the soul. Calculated! They were hit by the boating lies. 7729 Uvarov Kurgan burials and several thousand and nshi x (about as much as the Uvarov) mound burials excavated in the 19th century by Russian archaeologists had an exceptionally round shape. Mostly 1 to 3.5 arshin in height and from 10 to 40 arches in the lower circumference. At a time when the Slavic burials of the IX and 15th centuries had a clearly expressed elongated form.

We will listen to the Russian academician O. A. Spitin. It was a great archaeologist-maquinator of Soviet times.

Even in 1253, King Louis IX of France’s ambassador to Khan Sartak (son of Batia) Wilhelm de Rubruk, visiting the “land of Sartak”, wrote: “Moxel… Pure Gentiles. They have no bridge, but they live in small huts in the forests. 88]. No wonder, after excavating the grave mounds, O. S. Uvarov never found large Merian cities and towns, belonging to the first period of Meric burials (VHI-XII centuries). They didn’t exist. Archaeological excavations O, S. Uvarov is fully in line with the testimony of Wilhelm de Rubruk. True evidence of history, in our case, Wilhelm de Rubruk, are in line with the truth of archaeological research, we mean, archaeological excavations of O. S. Uvarova.

Naturally, the lifestyle of the Finnish tribes of the VIII-XII centuries corresponded to the tools of labor. It’s an axiom. That is why archaeologists who worked on the intact archaeological field of Rostov-Suzdal land have found many stone tools everywhere. That is, a sign of the original state of society. There is no reason to receivate here. We have a historically reliable picture of the state of Muscovit of the IX-XII centuries, before the appearance of Yuri Dovgoruky in that land. By the way, there is nothing humiliating in this, because each people have passed a similar stage of their development.

However, we remind readers at what stage of development were the Kiev Slavs in the X-XII centuries. Already in 1037, Prince Yaroslav the Wise was founded in Kiev the magnificent Cathedral of St. Sophia. It can be imagined how high engineering thought and what crafts it was necessary to possess the cathedral’s builders to erect a 13-head temple with trilateral two-tier galleries.

And the theme of masterpieces of ancient mosaics and drawings, even in our context, requires a special conversation.

It was the period of the flowering of culture and writing of the ancient Kiev state. Naturally, culture and writing, and Kiev engineering thought and craftsmen’s skills were in demand by the Slavic people of ancient Kiev, its inhabitants. Russian-Ukrainians in the IX-XII centuries, no doubt, were among the very first in the ranks of European peoples, where the Muscovites were attracted 500 to 600 years later. Umm, that’s another topic.

We used to talk about Finnish jewelry and, in particular, about the Meric. Therefore, we will talk about jewelry in the context of comparisons of Merian and Slavic. Let’s look at them by comparing them with each other, especially paying attention to the differences and causes that have caused differences.

The Merians, like all Finnish tribes, loved to decorate themselves, their clothes, belts, their head with pendants of different shapes. Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov drew attention to the widespread wearing of pendants in the form of: bunns, various bulls, horses, rings, hoops, bear teeth, metal ducks, animal paws with pazuras, round plates, balls, etc. Naturally, wearing such pendants is primarily associated with the religious views of Finnish tribes. However, it was of practical importance: a person, being in a taiga forest, if necessary, could make an incredible noise, deterring all kinds of animals. It was a man of forest slums, and she knew perfectly how to behave in the forest.

As evidenced by Professor of the University of St. Petersburg Fedor Kindratovich Vovk, nothing like this was observed among the tribes of the Kiev land. What characterizes not only the difference in the life of ethnic groups, but also the difference in the environment of residence. In his book “Lectures in Ukrainian Ethnography and Anthropology 1 — he wrote: “Finally, explanation ornaments that are not all throughout Ukraine (except Hutsuls).”

At the same time, the mayor wore all sorts of wrists and bracelets on their hands and feet. Oh. S. Uvarov, in particular, said: “On Table. XXVIII placed five bracelets (small, 38-42) from twisted wire because of their similarity with bracelets found in Scandinavian countries. 109].

Professor F. K. The wolf wrote: “A very certain feature of modern Ukrainian jewelry… There is a complete lack of bracelets. From ancient times bracelets were jewelry only imported and even then were not common throughout the territory of modern Ukraine. 34].

Even more difference is observed in necklaces (bisera). I wrote about it personally. S. Uvarov:

“.. .All mounds have only one green necklace,… Although he is mentioned by Ibn-Fadman. It is surprising that, listing the main items of trade with the Russ, he … It is a turf as rare exceptions.” 76].

Oh. S. Uvarov seemed strange. However, there is no miracle in this, because the mayors never belonged to the “Rusichs”.

Finally, I will say a few words about swords.

Having excavated 7,729 mounds, O. S. Uvarov found only three remains of swords (of which one sab). And this is in the time (IX-XII centuries), when every Russ even “fall off with a sword.”

“Ibn-Fadlan… I have a full weapon of the Russians: each of them. He wore an axe, a knife 1 sword, without which they were never met.

Despite the clarity of the words of the Arab writer, the swords were in the graves (Meryan. – W. B.) “The rare exceptions.” 123-124].

What is why the question arises: should Russians base their historical science on complete exceptions?

We see: the ethnic groups of the Slavs Podniprovya and the Finnish tribes of the country Moksel differed significantly. Practically in everything.

It is likely that readers have repeatedly asked themselves: how did it happen that Russian historians missed such a terrible blow that their historiography with their archaeological works O. S. Uvarov. And not just him, because there were many other archaeologists and anthropologists.

Note: all the most striking blows to the Moscow historical lies about the Slavic origin of the Muscovites were caused in the second half of the XIX century. The main directions of these strikes were research on archaeology and anthropology, as well as the study of ancient life and customs of Muscovites. The study completely denied the verbal fables of the “bigkors”. They testified to the striking difference between the ethnicity of Podniprovya and the ethnicity of Oka and Volga. The verbal floor of Russian historical science was first even from the light-acting wind of factual sources.

It should be noted: a cruel dispute between supporters of the Norman theory of origin of Russia and supporters of its purely Slavic origin, which broke out at the beginning of the second half of the 18th century, almost completely faded during the reign of Catherine II. Then such a dispute was inappropriate. Because the very presence of the German lady (almost Normans) on the Russian throne removed the issue from the agenda. And Catherine II, personally interfering in thetoriography “mostly Russia”, put “finals” in the history of the Moscow state. By the early 19th century, some consensus was established between the Normans and the Slavs. That is, it was given an opportunity, within the limits of the allowed “general-no-Russian chronicles”, to conduct any research in archaeological, anthropological, historical 1 t. d. directions. The main condition of such studies was the preservation of the “status-quo” of the boatin concept of building a Russian state, the origin of the ruling dynasty and the formation of the Muscovites as a people. And according to the Cohodinian concept, the peoples who created the “single movement”, there was many, the yugs and Slavs, and miracles, and the mayor, and all, and the wall, etc. d. Of course, according to the concept, the Slavs were the main ones, and they were allowed migration in any direction. By the way, the same Finnish tribes were forbidden any landslides in the direction of the Slavs. They could only be “crushed by the Slavs” from their monastery. To the east and north. Everything is simple, reliable. And if readers look at any work of O. S. Uva-rova, D. Oh. Korsakov, P. S. Savelev. A. P. Bogdanova, O. Oh. Shahmatova, they will be convinced: prominent scientists, in principle, did not contradict the boatin (Roman) concept anywhere. They talked everywhere about the “flow of Slavs”, “the advantage of the Slavs”, “Slavic past”, etc. However, in addition to the “word husk”, hundreds, thousands of undeniable facts that completely noted such “soulding”.

If we open old Russian encyclopedias, we will see: even at the beginning of the 20th century, Moscow archaeology favorably perceived the work of O. S. Uvarova.

Read: “Uvarov Alexey Sergeyevich (1828-1884) – a famous archaeologist… The first work is his Fr. Uvarov chose a prominent place among our researchers.

In 1851. He… He goes for excavations in the ancient principality of Suzdal… Based on these excavations, he wrote “Meryans and their life on mound excavations…” In 1864 Moscow is opening a Moscow archaeological society, Count Uvarov… He holds the position of head in the new society, which remained unchanged for him until his death. Unino-voiced, Uvarov gave a speech in which he outlined the path that was so brilliantly overcome by the Moscow archaeological society under his leadership. On his initiative, a guide was created for excavating mounds and for their research. At his suggestion, a study of mounds of curves, towns of the inhabitants of the north and antiquities of the Tver Karela was conducted. [Z, s. 418-419].

The only conclusion: at the beginning of the 20th century, the authority of O. S. Uvarova and his research “the cradles of Greater Russia-Merg” remained undeniable and unshakable. However, already at that time there were people who saw a complete discrepancy between the “general Russian chronicles”, which affirmed the “Slavic past” of Moscow, and the research of archaeologist O. S. Uvarova.

The first of the “bigkos”, who openly began to refute archaeological research by Count O. S. Uvarova, became so O. A. Spitin, who had recently personally worshipped an outstanding archaeologist. In his work “Vladi-Myrsky mounds”, published in the collection “Vistries of the Imperial Archaeological Commission”, issue of the 15th for 1905, he explained his rejection of archaeological works O. S. Uvarova: “The conclusions are the same gr. We can no longer satisfy us.” 89].

As we remember, for many years of archaeological works. S. Uvarova was authoritative and undeniable. But here’s what O. A. Spitin questioned them. And if at least such an opinion were expressed by a practicing archaeologist who saw a lot at his age and worked in the Rostov-Suzdal archaeological field. But no, deny the work of archaeologist O. S. Uvarova became a normal Russian clerk.

By the way, the same Russian encyclopedia dictionaries until the early 20th century knew nothing about some Spicin Alexander Andrievich. In fact, only the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is already beginning to exalt O. A. Spitin and completely deny O. S. Uvarova. And from one edition of the Encyclopedia to another, it is increasingly. In the last, third, O. A. Spitin is already served as a “outstanding archeo log”. These are the metamorphosis in Russian science!

Take the VRE (second edition): “Spitsyn Alexander Andreyevich (1858-1931) – Soviet archaeologist (recognized their own! – W, B.). Born in M. The Yaran former Vyat province. After graduating from the University of St. Petersburg (1882), he worked as a history teacher in Vyatka (otode and revealed the discrepancy between O. S. Uvarova “general Russian chronicles”. – W. B.)… Moving to St. Petersburg, Spitin since 1891. He took an active part in the work of the Archaeological Commission, raising the meaning of Slavic-Russian archaeology (because of which it became a “o prominent Soviet archaeologist”. – W. B.)… Since 1929 — Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR… Spitin was little involved in excavations, focusing his strength on the study and publication of various archaeological materials. Spitin was one of the first to make a combination of archaeology and history. 40, p. 313].

It is when we began the “combination of archaeology and history”, O. A. Spitin could not “connect” the work of O. S. Uvarova with “general-no-Russian chronicles”. And since he would never be allowed to encroach on the “general Russian” chronicle fables, he wrote that, they say, “we can not satisfy” the work of O. S. Uvarova. And they came to draw completely different conclusions. There was a kind of Russian archaeological “cleaner”, which himself “littlely engaged in excavations”, but freely manipulated the works of others.

Let readers not think that these are my thoughts. No! To make sure that my words are fair, we will study the work of O. A. Spitin “Vladimir’s mounds”, as they say, along and across. Readers will see for themselves, to which elementary lies the “Soviet archaeologist” descended to attribute Moscow to Moscow “Slovian origin”. And that is not worth surprising. From the first book, we have already seen what the thesis the Nobel Prize winner A. And. Solzhenial-zin to “justify” their harassment in Ukrainian and Kazakh lands. This is the usual “moral” of the Russian chauvinist. He always lacked someone else’s land.

Let’s open the work of O. A. Spitin “Vladimir Kurgans” is a simple simplified translation of the book O. S. Uvarova “Meryans and their lives are behind mound excavations.” The article takes 88 pages and 8 lines. On the first 23 pages of the “Volodymyr Kurgans” the following materials are presented: receipt of O. S. Uvarov permission for archaeological work; a list of places where excavations were carried out; reports by whom and when the work was carried out; description of the list of excavations conducted by other archaeologists, and materials used in their book Uvarov; repeated, unauthorized sorting of archaeological material by time; “things of the VIII-IX centuries, mounds of the XI century, mounds of the XI century. A. Spitin.

It is very important to note: by submitting someone else’s material, Oh. A. Spitin consciously made his own critical hints and malkaments against O. S. Uvarova and P. S, Savelieva, who personally managed excavations; made many speculations like: “Excavations were conducted with assistants undoubtedly inexperienced, who hardly understood all the responsibility of the work.” It’s like O. A. Spitin was known how the work was done, as if he was a more significant expert in archaeology. He also made half-stugments to the incompetence of O. S. Uvarova: “A thorough revision and reassessment of material obtained by excavations of Vladimir Kurgans” [11, p. 90]. Finally, he makes arbitrary conclusions that fully diverge from K’s conclusions. M. Tiikhonravova, who conducted excavations near the village of Vasylkiv and does not mention this in a single word. Listen to: “In 1852 K. M. T-khonravov excavated 291 mounds near the village of Vasylkiv Suzdal district, apparently from the order of Fr. Uvarova… There is a description of this excavation… Together with GNizdylov, these places are probably ancient Suzdal Russian settlements. 91].

And a lot of things like that. Although K. M. Tihonravov, P. S. Saveliev, O. S. Uvarov and others clearly recorded the proper excavations in c. Vasyls Finnish ethnicity (meri). And if O. A. Spitin made his conclusions completely loudly, then archaeologist O. S. Uvarov fully substantiated his conclusions.

He noted: “Starting from the very shore of Pereyaslav-sky, where the main original settlement is called All-kovo, then the names are found along Nerli and other waters: All, Veska, Veslevo, Vexice; even the name of Vasilka (Vesilki) is undoubtedly the cultivated form of the same root, from the word vesi, Finnish – water. Ancient Finns worshipped water, vesi, which was even personified as a special deity sung in ancient runes. Interestingly, archaeological materials have fully confirmed the antiquity of these names, which come from the Finnish root vesi. 13].

I’m not going to describe the findings from the mounds near s. Vasyl and s. Gizdilov. Let me remind you that there were found eastern coins of the 10th century, which testified to the burial of the late X-first century. Such an open siege of the “Soviet archaeologist” about “Suzdal Russian settlements”.

Let’s go on for the O. A. Spitin. The following 22 pages include numbering to the drawings below and arbitrary text to this numbering type: “No. 43. There is no muz(s) in Rum(s) Custer. Analogy in the Gnizdovsky gravestone” and the like. All these free notes are O. A. Spitin has nothing to do with the descriptive part of the excavations and diary records of archaeologists except the detection site.

The following 34 pages show images of things, weapons and decorations found by O. S. Uvarov, P. S. Savelier-wim and K. M. Tikhonrave in mounds during excavations.

All material submitted on 79 pages is a profit of archaeologists and, of course, there is no relation to “scientific creativity” O. A. Spitin has no. It is provided exclusively for

give more weight to the work of O. Sggicina. I pay attention to readers: O. Sggitsin for “analogy in Laiz-dovsky” is needed to justify this thing as Slavic. Because it is about excavations in Pgizdov (Smolensk). Please don’t confuse the excavations near c. Shiz-dilov performed by the expedition O. S. Uvarova on the Nerl River.

So, the personal work of the “Soviet archaeologist” on the characteristics of mound excavations in Rostov-Suzdal land and conclusions were placed on 8 pages and 8 lines, but this allowed the author to draw exactly stunning conclusions: to attribute all mounds to Slavs. However, O. A. Spitin in his thoughts and conclusions lied so much that he never managed to get out of his lies.

Read the thoughts and arguments of O. Spitin from his article “Vladimir Kurgans”. Of those famous 8 pages and 8 lines: “Until now (VIII-X centuries). – W. B.) Russian antiquities can be attributed to elongated and long mounds. In the excavations of Fr. Uvarov and Savelev have no mention of these important monuments of antiquity. Here such mounds were to advance along with the first Russian settlers from the upper reaches of the Dvina and Dnipro. 95].

They must have, they don’t. None of the archaeologists who worked in the second half of the 19th century in the Rostov-Suzdal land and its surroundings, long and elongated mounds, found. That is, among more than 10 thousand excavated grave mounds, there were no mounds who at least by external signs belonged to the “Russians”. It is not about “Russians”, but only about the Slavs. Russians did not exist at that time. Let’s leave this manipulation on the conscience of the “Soviet archaeologist”.

What’s interesting, Count O. S. Uvarov in only one of his book (I am not talking about diary records) described in detail the size of several hundred of the very round mounds. In his 108

chapter 17 is titled “The District and Height of the Kurgans” (c. 175-178). In addition, all mounds of Rostov-Suzdal land, with rare exceptions, one in one height from 1 to 3 arshins (71.12 cm – 213.36 cm).

Here is the Russian proverb: “need on the grain of pen, the circle of the kryv”.

Even O. A. Spitin had to complain: “Future researchers of the Rostov-Volodymyr region will do a great service to science (rather than – pseudosciences! – W. B.), looking for here the undoubted traces of ancient bloody elongated and long mounds. s. 96].

And be like O. A. Spitin, in 1904 archaeologist O. Oh. Smirnov searched and examined (near the city of Muroma) several elongated mounds. But, as it turned out, they belonged not to the “Russian”, but to Finnish tribes. So even O. Spitin was forced to admit: “their belonging to the type of Smolensk (nest, – V. B.) Not yet found out. The dishes in these mounds are clearly Finnish. [11, p. 96].

Which, however, did not prevent the “Soviet archaeologist” yet conclude about all round mounds of Rostov-Suzdal land: “We recognize the Myrgans without hesitation as Russian, and we consider the manifestation of the Finnish element insignificant.” [11, p. 166].

In principle, O. A. Spitin could have wanted. However, there was no evidence for his “considered”. As readers remember, archaeologist O. S. Uvarov in his book submitted thousands of names of tracts, villages, villages, year and lakes that have Finnish roots and Finnish origin. such indigenous “Russian words” as Moscow, Oka, Kostroma, Kleschino, Fero, Shendor, Custeri, Vyazma, Klyazma, Gza, Volga, Koloksha, Tesha, Uvod, Kizhi la, Shupulino, Istra.

And since the Russian corresponding member on this “Finnish” was “nose to cover”, he just kept silent about it. So to say, “not noticed.” A normal reception of “bigkoros”.

However, O. Spitin is very detailed, as for eight pages, “interpreted” the word itself – mayor. He gave rise to the “schedew-109” of his logic. Listen: “That Vladimirsky region was once inhabited by Finns, it is obvious and is not in doubt, and that it was the mayor and that it was she who occupied Rostov and Plescheev Lake, this requires evidence other than reference to Nestar and Map…

Because the name of the mayor calls themselves Cheryms, and on the basis of the reasoning that Halich Mersky stands in the land of the Cheryms, we consider it possible to identify the chronicle mayor with these nationalities… The words of the chronicle are not a fact, but only a house.” 164].

I have always been impressed by the brazen cynicism of Russian scientists. But the corresponding member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences could not know the simplest truth: the “cheryms” never called themselves this name. They always had a self-titled name — Marie. What is exactly the mayor. It was the “Great-great” that have always manipulated nicknames for entire nations. Remember: Tatars are Volga Bulgars and; Maloros are Rustics, Ukrainians; Kyrgyz are Kazakhs; Zyrians are Mort-comi; the Wod-morts, etc. Russian Professor M. A. Cast-ren, one of the great-scientists, long before O. Spi-cina clearly indicated that the root of the words: sea, mar, mayor, wall of only origin — from the Finnish word “mari” is a person. Same A. Castren clearly explained that it was the Great Russians, breaking Finnish names, that broke single-rooted words, forming several. Tom’s reference O. A. Spitinana fictional word, the Cheremis, is an elementary fornication. For a corresponding member, it is also a sign of ignorance. We are dealing with this “scientific figure” of Moscow.

Statement O. A. Spitin about the “house” of the legendary Nestor is not even stupidity. This is the usual verbal “prostitution” of the Russian scientific husband. Obviously, the great Nestor is much better than O. Spitin knew where the mayor lived in the early 12th century. And although Nestor’s work was very thoroughly spoiled by “inserts” Moscow’s “men from science”, as O pointed out. Oh. The chessmats, but her genius has not diminished from this.

But how he then manipulated the word меряmayor “Soviet archaeologist”:

“The instructions to existing geographical names in the Vladimir region, allegedly associated with the name of the mayor, cannot seem convincing, because ethnic names are applied only on the edges of the tribe, where they have real meaning as a designation of the boundary, and where they immediately disappear as soon as the area is engaged in a solid homogeneous other tribe; the Russian population, which took it. 164-165].

Such evidence is so meaningless that they are not allowed to comment. If above O. A. Spitin admitted that “The Mo-lodymir region was once inhabited by Finns”, and later they were “supplanted by the Russians”, then, according to the logic of the same O. Spitin, “name… immediately disappear as soon as the area deals with solid homogeneous other tribes.” What happened to these “Russians”, who for some reason left in their lives not only the word of the mayor, but also tens of thousands of others, foreign Finnish words? For example, Moscow, Volga, Oka and others. In what angle in their fictions did the Russian corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences?

Most likely, it was done by the method: “my’s tongue is my hurdle”, or: the tongue is like a grinding. That’s how he is, “Soviet archaeologist.” He also distorted the content of scientific conclusions of O. S. Uvarova. He wrote, “If now. Looking at the large space occupied by names resembling the ancient Mary, we note that such a name consonance can happen by accident, then the best refutation of such denial can be these names themselves. When in Tula Ibernia (on the edge! – W. B.) in the names: Merlevo and Merlynovka are repeated only those names that we have already met in Nizhnygorod and Yaroslavl provinces. Where the Merians undoubtedly lived, then such names acquire the qualities of the most convincing evidence. The name Merinovo, found in the cradle of the Merian people, near Lake Kleschino, and repeated without any changes in Vologda, Nizhny Novgorod, Tver and Yaroslavl Ibernias, in total 8 times, eliminates all kinds of possibility of ordinary coincidence [4, p. 10].

“Many of these names of both waters and villages are repeated in the most in the iddd alle areas, proving not only their etymological unity or kinship, but also the unity of the origin of the first inhabitants of these lands. Only the same people could, by throwing their villages in a large space, repeat the same names or give names of the same etymological origin. 12].

Here’s the end of the talk. A. Spitin. Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov wrote about the names of the mayor and others, manifested not only directly near the lakes Nero and Kleschino, but clearly reminded of their Existence in the vast space of the Meric land. For this purpose, a map was drawn up that confirms the great truth of the second half of the 19th century. The corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences did not want to lie so openly. As for the “inconvenient” of the word “cheryms”, “Soviet archaeologist” had to complain about Moscow chauvinists. The Finnish tribes of the mayor and Mari had nothing to do with this.

But no matter how cunning and turns out O. A. Spitin, he had to explain who meant by the “Russian people”? Which tribes of the Slavs, according to his idea, moved to the IX-XII centuries into the Meric land? And he finally barely rejected the veil of mystery:

“For us, the important question is not about whether Russians or Finns belong to Vladimir mounds, for us personally has long been resolved, but about what in particular Russian tribe they can be attributed.” 166].

In those words, it’s all O. A. Spitin. He didn’t need any evidence. He decided (rarely, for him decided) that the Finnish tribe of the mayor could not become the core of the “Great Russian nation”. Therefore, the great archaeological discoveries of it simply “not arranged”. For him, and for such as him, in the question of the origin of the Muscovites, even the work of the brilliant Nestor, however, slightly twisted by Finnish compatriots of a corresponding member, was not a mandatory element of history. He had only one task: to determine, “which… The Russian tribe can be attributed.”

As we will see, he never managed to find a convincing answer. It was a little bit of touching his writing.

In his efforts O. A. Spitin faced a lot of problems. And the first of them was that he began his “search” only in the early 20th century, when Moscow history had long been “scrained” and when, as the great Rusich-Ukrainian M. Hrushevsky, “every Russian Democrat ended on the Ukrainian issue.” I mean, O. And Spi-zin did not allow ordinary Russian chauvinism to say that the “great-growing” arose from the “Slavites of the Little Russian”. Therefore, tribes such as: Poles, Severans, Volyns, Dregovichi, dulib, streets and nshi immediately fell away. Not suitable for the role of “relatives” and Novgorod Slovenes, because the picture of the late and humiliating origin of the Muscovites was painted. Moreover, there was no explanation for the complete extermination of Novgorod Slovenes by Muscovites in the 15th and 16th centuries. Not suitable for the ancestors of the “Greats” and “doubtful vyatichi”, most likely not existing in the historical past. After all, the Vyatichi did not leave behind the only famous village, not to mention the “city”. There is nothing to say about the cultural achievements of the Vyatichi. Of course, such a tribe did not go “great-great” in the ancestors. After the county, O. A. Spitin, with the tacit consent of Russian scientists, stopped at the “smoleen curves”. First, their own, “greats”, and secondly: no dependence on the past was seen. And the wolf is full, and the sheep is whole.

Read “Soviet archaeologist:

“The colonization of the Rostov region by the Russians began. in the IX century. and, most likely. from the tops of the Dnieper, from the land of the resinese curves. In the X century we see here a rich Russian population, which left numerous mounds with burning (O. A. Spitin refers to Meric mounds investigated by O. S. Uvarov. – W. B.). These mounds are generally rich in finds, have analogies only in Gizdovo (Smolensk. – W. B.), because the mounds of the X century. Novgorod, Pskov and Vitebian are very poor things, and things are other types… The X century mounds, which could be attributed to South Russian and middle-Russian tribes, there is no in Vladimir region, as there are no them in place. 167].

As you can see, O did not come. A. Spitin is neither South Russian nor the Middle Russian mounds. No traces of al al al ancestors in the “Volodymyr region”. None!

And how many dissertations in Ukrainian historiography are written on this topic — “about the flow of the Slavs in three ways.” As you can see, Oh. A. Spitin did not want to “getting birth” with “little Russians”.

However, what is interesting: and the “smolen curves” had absolutely nothing to do with the Meric mounds of the IX-X century, because their mounds differed from the mounds of mayor.

Let’s listen to O. Spitin, from his other work “To the history of the settlement of the Upper Volga by the Russians”: “The oldest monuments of antiquity in the country of Smolensk and Poloth Slavic Slavs are extended and long mounds, with remains of burning corpses. The first can be attributed to the IX century, the second in part to the end of IX, partly to the X century. These are the most characteristic antiquities of the curves of this time, abundantly common in their lands and are completely absent in the area of Russian tribes of southern and eastern (in the country of Moksel. – V. B.) [13, p. Z-4].

However, no O. S. Uvarov, nor his numerous colleagues among many thousands of excavated mounds found either a single long or elongated mound. It is completely round and all as one are low. Even O. Spitin understood the joke, so he wrote:

“Future researchers of the Rostov-Volodymyr region will do a great service to science by looking for undoubted traces of ancient bloody elongated and long mounds here. It is most appropriate to look for such mounds near Rostov and Pereyaslav’ 1 [11, p. 96].

But the following researchers did not find “near Rostov and Pereyaslav” no long or elongated curgan curves.

They were aware of the Spicine theory “like finds in Gnizdovo” and modern historians. Let’s listen to the historians C. V. Du-mina and O. O. Turilova: “Special attention was attracted and attracted by the excavations of Pzdov (which was, quite likely, the predecessor of Smolensk), Temiriv and Mikhailovsky mounds near Yaroslavl. Archaeologists have also discovered characteristic types of Scandinavian burials. with characteristic objects, including the so-called “Trah hammers” (amulets associated with the cult of the Scandinavian god-gromourzhets), swords, phybulus fasteners… These findings of Scandinavian inventory gave historians reliable material that was quite difficult to ignore, although under pressure from all the same great theory (the Slavanophilus. – W. B.) excavations sometimes folded, there were attempts to artificially reduce — by complex manipulations — the “excessively high” percentage of jam burials.” 18].

Among those who were heavily engaged in “manipulations” of excavations in Gnizdovo, was our “Soviet archaeologist”. However, further research by archaeologists refuted this lie by Mr. O. A. Spitin…

We will be proud of the “Vladimir Kurgans” further: “Vyatichi, judging by the excavations of the mounds in the Kaluga and Tula provinces.. stood away from the colonization movement in Suzdal…

Things characteristic of the Radymist 1 Severan mounds of the XI century… No one has been found among the Vladimir antiquities, so there can be no talk about the colonization of the Prince on this side.

Kyiv-Volyn mounds XI-XII centuries. quite poor for things and this is already clearly different from the Vladimir of the same time…

Curgans XI-XII centuries. The drezovic are close to Kiev-Volyn and. So, far from the Lord.” 168-169].

No Slavic tribe (for O. A. Spicinim, except for the Smolensk curves, did not participate from the XI to the 12th century in colonization (flowing) of Rostov-Suzdal land.

By the way, all these conclusions apply to Novgorod Slovenes, because: “…the Novgorods of the IX-X Xcenturies., contented with their historical center, had no colonization interests in either the Volga or in Suzdal region” [13, p. 4].

The same applies to Novgorodians and the XI-XII centuries. O. Spitin stated: “The Novgorod Slovenes did not directly participate in the settlement of the Rostov-Suzdal region…” [13, p. 6].

So only “smolen curves” remained! Tom O. Spitin continues to preach his idea:

Smolensk curves, forming the core of the Russian population of the Rostov region, continued to colonize it in the XI century. Unfortunately, we are not able to establish how significant the movement at this time was the population from the upper reaches of the Dnieper to the overseas cities [ 11, p. 169].

Finally, the “Soviet archaeologist” slowed down a little with the “flow of the resin curves” in the Rostov-Suzdal region. We will soon see how he finally gets confused in his thoughts.

Finally, in his work “Vladimir Kurgans” O. A. Spitin has submitted another obvious fiction that concerns the research of archaeologist O. S. Uvarova.

The next centuries of life of the Vladimir region are now hidden from the eyes of an archaeologist, because mounds are further than the XII century. They don’t lead.” 172].

I will not analyze this outright lie of the “Soviet archaeologist”. I will only say that the number of chickens

The man of the II period, which belong to the XII-XVI centuries, excavated by the Uvarovo expedition in the Rostov-Suzdal land, was several thousand. In their liking, burial methods, found things, etc., they fully corresponded to the excavated mounds of the first period (VIII-XII centuries). That is why O. Spitin had to lie about the “lack of mounds beyond the 12th century.” After all, he needed to somehow explain the only 700-year-old Me-rian cemeteries and a single 700-year-old form (and even ornament) of dishes. And much more. He had no explanation about this.

The Soviet archaeologist was an exceptionally fruitful man. He wrote dozens of articles on various archaeological searches. As I wrote, “I’ve been doing little excavations.” He simply conducted “cleaning” archaeological research, “used attempts at complex manipulation,” as modern historians wrote.

And I decided to read his other works carefully, match them with the Vladimir Kurgans. In his work “To the history of the settlement of the Upper Volga by the Russians” O. A. Spitin, without noticing it, began to contradict his theory of “flow of the resinal curves” in the Rostov-Suzdal region.

Read; “The arrangers of the Suzdal land, Prince Yuri, Andrew and Vsevolod, no doubt, equally gladly received settlers from everywhere… It would seem that we can expect that it was the Dnieper curves that should have been the main mass of immigrants here. Maybe it was true, but archaeological material does not give accurate instructions for this yet. 7].

What a good technique A. Spitin, although what tension he made, on the Kstal: “it would seem”, “can wait”, “were sure,” “without a doubt”, and “smolen curves” as it was not in the Vladimir region, and did not appear.

However, in this work O. A. Spitin has now only questioned his work refutating O’s work. S. Uvaro-117 va. Here is another work: “The settlement of ancient Russian tribes. According to archaeological data, he has already become angry with himself. Listen: “In the question of the same Belarusians there is one point in which philological and archaeological exploration converged, but led to a conclusion, strangely contradictory reality. Some and Nshi consonantly claim that the curves belong to the northern group of ancient Russian tribes, that is, Great Russians, while all those areas where archaeological excavations have been discovered the spread of the Cre-vic (polot and resin) mounds in the XI century, at this time they are inhabited not by Great Russians, but by Belarusians. In the mass relocation of tribes, we do not dare to believe, and the complete degeneration of one tribe into another, for the 6-7 centuries, at least Russian in Russian, is unlikely. We do not see this dilemma.” 39-40].

We are watching another joke of Russian so-called history. There was no dilemma here and does not exist. There is the simplest truth: Belarusians really come from curves, and the “bigcors” have a completely different roots – Finno-Tatar. And there’s no dilemma!

We will not study such “works” of other Russian “day stories” who tried to refute and blacken outstanding archaeological studies of Count O. S. Uvarov and his expeditions. Archaeological excavations and conclusions of O. S. Uvarova is invaluable for world science. They dealt a final blow to the Moscow historical cloud “about the Slavic origin of Moscow”, which could not really be.

I want to remind you: in Russian historical science there are other sources that finally refute the “flow of the resinese curves” into the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land. Quoting “Lithist of Pereyaslav-Suzdalsky’, Professor D. Oh. Korsakov testified:

“The Smolensks penetrated only once into the Rostov-Suzdal land – in the army of Mstislav Mstislavich Toropets-koi (in 1216). 3 chronicle evidence of Smolnyan under this year it is clear that the Smolensk-Suzdal land was considered to be alien to themselves. 147].

You don’t seem to say shorter. Rostov-Suzdal land was therefore “the herr’s fire” for the Smolensk curves, which was inhabited by “hets by someone else’s” Finnish ethnicity.

The same Professor D. Oh. Korsakov, referring to the work of C. M. Solovyova “The Nature of the Russian State Region and its influence on history” and on the work of M. And. Kostomarova “Two Russian nationalities”, accurately established the place of curves in history. Listen: “Kryvici was a wild tribe that had no inclinations for independent development due to its unprofitable geographical location, which has thickened it in a wooded area among the Lithuanian peoples. This tribe, having developed a mostly strict religion, falls under the influence of the Lithuanians early and mixed with them. United initially by the Federation with Novgorod Slavs, the Kryvici tribe further distinguishes two principalities: Polotsk and Smolensk, – according to the system the year of the Western Dvina and the Dnieper. Due to the direction of these year – Dvinas west and Dnieper to the south, the flow of historical life of both principalities leads to the west and south, remaining quite far from the northeast of Russia (Rostovo-Suzdal land. – V. B.)” [9, p. 46].

Therefore, the flow could not be carried out due to geographical features of the area. Movement in those distant times was carried out in rivers.

It is too late for the Soviet archaeologist. A. Spitin took up his dirty and ungrateful job. As the Russians say, the train has long gone.

However, Russian scientific men are still still the same fictional historical dilemma. He can neither heart nor mind perceive the Russian chauvinist of the work of his compatriot archaeologist O. S. Uvarova. He want to be a Slavic, and everything is here.

I had a little hesitation or connect 19th-century Russian anthropology to our historical research. I even consulted with friends and historians. However, their thoughts were divided. The decisive factor in the inclusion of this chapter in the book was the revelation of Russian political chauvinists, who express a new longing for the “Slavic brotherhood of three peoples”. Such them were covered by here behind this “brotherhood” that they even tried to take away the island of iuzlu from one “younger brother” in the middle of winter. The older brother showed an original “real love” for the “younger.” After that, my doubts, have already been dispelled. However, the same annoying thought was still concerned about the depth of consciousness: will the “elder brother” never be smarter? Will we continue to try to build an empire on human bones?

That is why the author decided to involve, to familiarize readers, the anthropological works of the famous 19th century scientist Professor A. P. Bogdanova.

I want to draw your attention: the third edition, t. Z, s. 443) admitted A. P. Bogdanov is “one of the founders of anthropology in Russia”, “organized the first anthropological institutions and promoter of natural and scientific knowledge. He was a professor at Moscow University (since 1867) and a member-nom-corespondent of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences since 1890. It turns out, and in this case we are dealing with a great Russian scientist at the end of the XIX century.

I will allow readers to reveal some basic concepts of anthropology. It is “…the science of the origin and evolution of man, the formation of human races and the normal variations of the physical structure of man” (WRE, t. 2, p. 107). The same page goes on: “Anthropology studies variations in body size and shape by describing and measuring… Important methods of anthropological research are 120

tapeology, osteology, odontology, anthropological photography, removing prints of the skin patterns of palms and sole surfaces of the hip, removing plaster face masks, etc.

Professor A. P. Bogdanov, studying the mayor, in his work “Kurgane tribe of the Moscow Governorate” paid main attention to craniological research. And “Craniology is the science of the structure of the skull of man and animals.

I hope readers remember the outstanding works in this field of the famous Soviet scientist M. M. Gerasimov and his schools.

According to the “Great Medical Encyclopedia – (release third) and world standards, human skulls are characterized by three main types: dolichocephaly, mesocephaly, brachicephaly – according to the so-called longitudinal-wide-wide skull index. This index is calculated by formula: (cross diameter: longitudinal diameter) x 100 [17, t. 11, p. 481].

Let’s see how the Medical Encyclopedia characterizes these three characteristic skull structures:

“Brahicefalia… — short head shape, which is characterized by a high ratio of the indicator of the largest width of the head to its greatest length. Calculated by formula: (in:a) x 100, where a is the longitudinal diameter of the head from the super-bran point (glubsl) to the posterior (oxtocranion), in is the transverse diameter between the parse points. This index, introduced in 1842. Swedish anthropologist A. Retcius, named “main indicator”. The main indicator is used in anthropology – to characterize the process of rounding the head (forms of the cranial box within the species of modern man). Brachicephaly is hardly found in fossil hominids, not related to the species Homo sapies, that is, in Neanderthals, synanthropes and pitecanthropes. In modern man, Brahmaphal is characterized by an index of 81.0 and above” (17, t. With s. 372).

It is the brachicephalic skulls, according to anthropologists, that are characteristic of Slavic tribes, in particular – Ukrainians.

“Dolichocephaly… – long-head; significant advantage of longitudinal diameter of the brain skull above the transverse. The term was introduced into anthropology in 1864, A. Retcius,,, Main indicator (the ratio of the largest head length to its width at Dolychocephaly (with the international consent of craniologists in 1886) It is between 55-74.9. 7, p. 452].

Dolichocephaly in the old days was peculiar to Finnish tribes living in the territory of modern Moscow: from Lipetska, Tula and Smolensk to the White Sea and Zakamya.

“Mesocephaly… — intermediate between brachicephaly and dolichocephaly form characterized by the size of the main index from 76 to 80.9 in men and from 77.0 to 81.9 in women. M(esocyphal) is found in representatives of individual races and ethnic groups that inhabit all continents, except Australia. 14, p. 482].

After we got acquainted with some of the concepts of medicine and anthropology, let us turn to the work of Russian Professor Anatoly Petrovich Bogdanov (1834-1896). The work “Meryans from the point of view of anthropology” was written by a professor and published in 1879; the other – “Curgane tribe of Moscow Governorate” – written and published much earlier, in 1865, and published in the 3rd issue of the Moscow University Offices. And since the Moscow Kurgan tribe is only part of the Meric tribe and the entire Finnish ethnicity, we will study the general one first, and behind it is partial. It is more important that the “Moscow share” is absolutely identical to “Merian general”.

By the way, when we talk about the science of anthropology and its section — kraniology, we must understand that we are talking about a very authoritative world science without the knowledge of which it is very difficult to look into the past. Anthropology allows you to put the final dots in the study of the past.

I suggest that work A be carefully considered. P. Bogdanova “Meryans from the point of view of anthropology”. At the beginning, her professor writes:

“About all prehistoric inhabitants of Russia (meaning the territory of indigenous Muscovites. – W. B.), Merians are the most processed and research in the sense of archaeological and household due to the classical study of Count O. S. Uvarova. About 8,000 mounds were excavated by Count Uvarov and the late Saveliev, and the excavations these submitted rich material for the knowledge of the mayors in all senses except anthropological…” [20, p. 1].

In which we are convinced of how highly appreciated Russian scientists in the XIX century “classical studies – Count O. S. Uvarova of Merian land and Meric tribes. Such assessments were given by scientists of all scientific directions, one way or another tangent to excavations. “Classic” research by O. S. Uvarova was recognized by historians (M. And. Kostomarov, P. N. Godin, D. Oh. Korsakov and dozens of others), archaeologists (L. P. Sabaneyev, A. And. Kelsiev, K. N. Tikhonravov, I. A. Ushakov and others). Anthropologists (K. M. Ber, F. P. Landcert, A. P. Bogdanov et al.). It was anthropologists Ber, Landcert and Bogdanov who conducted anthropological studies of skulls from Meric graves and confirmed the authenticity of O’s conclusions. S. Uvarova.

Yes, Academician K. M. Ber, almost the first anthropologist in Russia, having studied at the request of O. S. Uvarova two Merian skulls from the mounds of the village of Dobrova Vladimir province, made the following conclusion:

“Compasing these skulls with those we have in the anatomical museum, it seems quite likely to me that they belong to the Tatar tribe. The largest they have similarities with the skulls of the Kazan Tatars, which is in this Museum, because their species and their size are almost quite the same. It should be noted, however, that the basis of the skulls of some Tatar tribes is quite close to the skulls of Finnish tribes, while the base of the skulls of other Tatar tribes differs very little from Mongol, for example, Nogaitsy, Kyrgyz and others. From this it could be assumed that the sent skulls belonged to any Finnish tribe… Because in the mentioned turtles there are no signs of Mongol origin, and if they belong to the Tatar tribe, then one that mixed with Finns. [20, p. 1].

This was the first time two specific skulls from Merian mounds were studied. An absolutely independent expert, a Russian academician of the XIX century in the turtles studied did not find the slightest signs of Slavic origin. Once again, I remind you that the main sign of the skull of the Slavic tribe is its brachicephaly (widehead). That is, the longitudinal-wide index of Slavic tribes is characterized mainly by a figure of more than 81. While studied by Academician K. The skulls had a main index between 55 and 74. And not higher! The skulls were dotchocephal (long-headed).

The second conclusion is that is invited from the research of Academician K. M. Bera, is the conclusion that the similarity and relationship of the Meric (Finnish) and Bulgar (Tatar) ethnic groups are. Very valuable and useful recognition. Because it has once again evidenced the residence of these tribes (peoples) next door for many hundreds of years. That is, Finnish tribes lived next to the Bulgars at the beginning of the first millennium. Or maybe 1 earlier.

It was by accident that when working on this section of the book, I got into my hands an article by modern Russian academician V. B. Sedova called “Ethnogenesis of early Slavs”. This work is B. B. Sedova was heard in November 2002 at a meeting of the Presidium of the RAS. What is interesting: even without wanting this, the Russian academician with his work fully confirmed the opinions of his longtime colleague Academician K. M. Bera, among other things, and archaeologist O. S. Uvarova is in the final conclusions. Although it is clear that the purpose of the modern Moscow academician was different. They still, even in a dream, imagine themselves as Slavs.

To his article, Academician V. B. Sedov applied several “pictures”, as he writes, that is, map-scheme. We are interested in “picture 4”. This is accompanied by the following signature: “The settlement of the Slavs in the early middle centuries (V-VII centuries)”. This scheme (small. 4) is in our book. Look at her. Interestingly, the modern Russian academician very elegantly leads us to the idea that in the VII century in the border of Oka and Volga there was some isolated “meric archaeological culture”. Anavko of the “Merian archaeological culture” all over the perimeter lived “fins and Balts”. For thousands of miles. And, according to the Russian academician, these mysterious “fins and Balts” had absolutely and did not leave behind any “archaeological culture”. And even more: according to B. B. Sedov, the “meric archaeological culture” seemed to have nothing to do with Finnish. The modern Russian academician, like all Russian “academics-daymen”, writes, without overburdening himself with evidence: “The internal regional interaction of the outside population with Aboriginal people began. This process lasted several centuries and ended with the Slavicization of the Balts and the Finn-speaking inhabitants. 602].

The academician’s statement does not even make a smile. And this “Great” was used on “Moscow Slavic”. The failures of the Russian academician that all his “new theory” is sewn with old, rotten threads. Because his brilliant predecessor Count O. S. Uvarov found coins of the 7th century among that “merian archaeological culture”. And all the mound burials from the 7th to the XVI century (and further) are absolutely identical, they belonged to the same ethnicity. A. by V. Sedov, “Merian archaeological culture of the V-VII centuries”, which he marked in its drawing, would have to be covered with “Slavic archaeological culture”. Or at least be mixed “within a few centuries”, from the 8th and to the 13th century. However, nothing similar among the “meric archaeological culture” archaeologists of the second half of the XIX century did not find.

A new paradox from Sedov! And this Russian academician was much recognized with his “theory” of Slavicization. I am not saying that the academician should still be more respectfully treated with the ancient chronicler Nestor, who testified to the fact of the mayor’s residence in the border of Oka and Volga (without any “slovyanization”) in the early 12th century.

Don’t take too much, benevold!

Know the measure!

Even modern Russian academicians recognize the fact of residence of Finnish tribes from Smolensk and Laduga to Kursk, Orla and Lipetska. However, so far they are ready to recognize, say, by the seventh century inclusive. But that’s very valuable, too. Because you will see further what striking conclusions for the “bigkors” were drawn in his research Professor A. P. Bogdanov. Dwarf conclusions! And they all fully correspond to Mr. Sedov’s “picture 4”. It is only about the IX-XII centuries.

Anthropological studies of Merian skulls on behalf of O. S. Uvarova was also engaged in Professor F. P. Landcert. It should be noted that by directing F. Landcert for research five skulls from Meric graves, O. Uvarov did not inform the professor the area of their discovery. He wanted to confirm his evidence with anthropological conclusions. I mean Professor F. P. Landcert actually worked blindly. Absolutely independent. And here is the conclusion of another Russian professor in the second half of the XIX century about the skulls of Meric mounds:

“One skull, as it turns out from comparison with the numbers of the modern type of Great Russian skull, is quite identical with this type. Other skulls belong to a completely different type — the dolicitals; this is especially noticeable that the modern population of the Kiev province, according to the works of Copernicus, is brachicephalic. 1].

And in this case, no Slavs were found in the Meric mounds.

However, the work of Academician K. M. Bera and Professor F. P. Land-certs were only the first steps of the great research work of anthropologists.

Especially important work on the study of Meric mounds was conducted by Professor A. P. Bogdanov. He explored the skulls of Meric graves in hundreds. Because of this, his work is exceptionally valuable and contain completely reliable information. His conclusions are not subject to double interpretation.

At the beginning of his work, Professor A. Bogdanov set himself an extremely important task. Listen: “Since we have a relatively satisfactory collection about Merian (skulls – B. B.), then we are before using it (it is worth defining. – W. B.: 1) Whether Meya was more or less pure, that is, whether it corresponded to the term tribe in the anthropological sense, whether it was a collective name for mixed population, combined not by creed uz, but by household conditions mainly. 2) If Mere was the name of mixed population, what elements are anthropological, that is, which tribes were part of it, which could be considered on the basis of archaeological and other data for basic, as indigenous, and which is accidental or later admixture. (3) Based on linguistic and household data, which is most likely to refer to the main population of Mary and to which other tribes are most likely to include. 7].

Professor A. P. Bogdanov re-analyed all the excavations of O. S. Uvarova and his colleagues, became convinced himself and convinced readers that the mayor’s tribe was indigenous and had no other people’s admixture in its composition. For more comprehensive analysis, the professor connected the available philological studies. He was very young at the famous work of M. M. Zhuravlev “The Guide to Yaroslavl Governorate”. Eventually, he concluded that there was “the unity or relationship of ancient language, especially evident in the names of the complex, from which it is directly derived that the indigenous inhabitants of these places were of the same tribe or belonged to the tribes of related ones” [20, p. 7].

At this stage, Professor A. P. Bogdanov made very important conclusions about the tribal composition of the mayors. What is especially valuable: all his previous conclusions were confirmed by his own carnitine studies. There is no place for insinuations to future “cleaners 1 Russian history. All the thoughts of scientists like O. A. Spitin, W. B. Sedov and such as them, against the background of quite specific A research. P. Bogdanov is turned into a normal talk.

Listen to Professor A. Bogdanova: “The warning over anthropological physionomy established that in Voloda-myr and Yaroslavl provinces, that is, in the land of Meryan, is most common in greater correctness that type of physionomy known as Great Russian. As for me, I think that the center of the formation of the Great Russian tribe in its anthropological signs lay in the provinces of Yaroslavl, Vladimir and partly Moscow and Tver, where the primary tribe (Me-rian. – W. B., from whom the Great Russians came, lost the least… His main qualities are [20, p. 2].

In making his first conclusions, the professor was very careful spreading the type of “primary Great Russian bigros” across the territory of all central Russian provinces. That’s quite understandable. After all, he used to eat that a very small number of his craniological studies, relying mainly on philological, historical, archaeological, etc. There is a process of accumulation and understanding of such material. Conclusions are ahead.

It must be understood: there were historical facts that Russian counterfeiters could not deny and ignore. Before them, the villages are the fact of residence of Finnish tribes in the border of Oka and Volga in the II-VIII centuries of the first millennium of the first millennium. e. Therefore, any schemes were thought out to explain at least some presence of Slavs in that area. One of these schemes fits the so-called “flow of Slavs into the Rostov-Suzdal land.” It was claimed that the “flow” and took place in the IX-XII centuries. The work of an archaeologist

Oh. S. Uvarova and anthropologist A. P. Bogdanov completely refuted the fictional “flow”, because they were related to the core of Rostov-Suzdal land of that period. So even O. S. Uvarov and A. P. Bogdanov in many places of his research showed a lack of trouble.

Let’s read A. P. Bogdanova:

‘In the Meric Land Count O. S. Uvarov celebrates primary and secondary settlements. “The second era includes those cemeteries or those groups of mounds, between which there are no more graves with a burning rite. The absence of this kind of graves and the loss of ancient ancestral custom prove a radical change in the views of the people themselves. Above that. The gradual retreat from the other story of ancestors is to put together with the deceased in the grave and all the objects that belong to him also proves an important turning point in the very life of the people. This turning point or Mary’s transition to another public life can be explained in double: either by outside influence, the distant ancient customs of Finnish tribes, or the gradual introduction of the Christian faith, which was to call pagan Merian to a completely new life and awaken new concepts in them… Looking at the map of the areas under study, it is clear that the Merians, in the second era of colonization, did not hold, as they once did, waterways, they are now moving away from the shores of the year and delve inside the country… The mounds have the same common character, and they are all only in the smallest detail different from each other. 8].

Professor A. P. Bogdanov, studying and analyzing the works of archaeologist O. S. Uvarova, concluded that the mayor’s (Finnish ethnicity) in the entire “Merian land” not only during the “first period of burials”, which covers the VIII-XII century (on the coins found, before the arrival of Christianity into the Meric land), but also during the second era of burials, which covers the period “creation of the Great Russians tribe”, that is, – the period of the XII-XVI centuries.

Professor A. Bogdanov draws our attention to the fact that the mounds of the “first period” have the same common character with the mounds of the “second period”. All the same are round, low (1-3 arshins) mounds. Once again, I remind readers: in the Slavs of the VIII-XII centuries, nowhere such mounds have been found.

It is characteristic that no one in the Russian Empire would have allowed to openly refute the state dogma “on migration of the Slavs” accepted into service. Therefore, in drawing his conclusions, he silently bypassed such issues of “words”, sometimes even allowed the idea of a possible subsequent “word-telling” of Finnish tribes. However, his fundamental conclusions completely refuted such a possibility of “spokening”. Research told a completely different picture. Let’s go back to Professor A. P. Bogdanova. These are already conclusions of it, made on the basis of craniological dimensions:

“In the mounds of Yaroslavl, which is the South-Western part of Moscow province and in the provinces of Tver and Volo-Dimyr, one tribe has a huge advantage — long-headed, in many places it is preserved almost clean.” [20, p. 12].

And then: “The purest prelableity (long-catch-infous – B. B.) I met at excavations in the Moscow and Tver provinces where the graves were simpler and poorer. 13].

However, the most valuable conclusion was the professor’s words about much more spread of mayors and related Finnish tribes than he assumed, submitting his map of the “Meric Land”, O. S. Uvarov. Anthropological studies confirmed that Finnish tribes in the VII-XIII centuries occupied not only modern Moscow, Tver, Yaroslavl, Vladimir, Ivanovs and Ryazan regions, but also almost all western and southern regions of modern Russia, as well as: Smolensk, Bryansk, Novgorod, Leningrad, Tulsk, Kaluzk, Orlovsk. Kursk, Lipetsku 130

That’s. Map of Academician V. W. Sedova also extends to the VII-XVI centuries. There was no “spoking” of Finnish tribes in the historical past. Finnish tribes are the indigenous ethnic group of “Great-Soons”.

Let’s listen to Professor A. Bogdanova: ‘That’s how. Yaroslavl, Vladimir, Moscow, Tverska, Vologda, Ryazan and Lower mountain of the province are areas with the Meryansk population, larger or smaller, given the distance from the centers of Pereyaslav and Rostov lakes. We stopped at this because, except for the provinces of Vologda and Ryazan, of which we do not have mound skulls, of all the others we have mound skulls of the same type as the most common Me-ryanski. So, cranial, if it does not give clear indication of the spread of Merian, at least confirms the resulting archaeological and linguistic means. (And then, the most interesting thought. – W. B.) The only difference is that the cranial type inherent mainly to the Merian population extends to the South and South West much further — to Chernihiv and Kiev provinces, and to the North West and West up to Minsk, Novgorod and Olo-Nets province. On the Western and South-Western boundaries, the linguistic group does not coincide with the anthropological, but also Count Uvarov states that the southern boundary and the western is difficult to determine archaeologically and linguistically, and therefore there is no contradiction between the results obtained, but only some clue from the cranial. 7].

Another wasp-spiced ring is hammered in a false Moscow bike about the “Slavic origin” of the Great Russians. Skulls of Finnish ancestors cry out to Muscovites about historical truth! The anthropologist’s conclusion A. P. Bogdanova, by the way, puts a cross not only on the Moscow “Slavic indigenous”, but also on the fictional “vyatich-words”, which have no place on the anthropological map. Even the academic. Oh. Shahmatov, as we will see further, “moved” so-called utichs from “upperes of Oka” to “lower Don”. Such great 131 discoveries accompany us as soon as we break away from the Moscow historical cloud and rely on factual sources.

We have already mentioned: Professor Bogdanov allowed the possibility of the appearance of individual Slavs, as individuals, among the mayor. Here is his words: “If the Slavic type is taken by the short head (brachicephals. – W. B.), then the Merian land in the mound period only rarely settled by Slavs and, moreover, not whole villages (because no group of mounds with the predominant short heads was found), but individual families. [20, p. 13].

First, I pay attention: we are talking about the entire “chicken period”, and this is the time from the 8th to the XVI century. And secondly, we must remember and take into account the work of Professor-finologist Mathias Alexander Castren, who in the first half of the XIX century testified to the existence of a “western and eastern branch of Finnish tribes”. And “the western branch is usually counted Finns, in a specific sense, that is, the Finnish and Finnish tribes are now Yish governorship: Estland, St. Petersburg and partially Olonetska and Tver” [9, p. ZO].

And the eastern branch of Finnish tribes is generally divided into three subgroups and includes the entire spectrum of tribes (now peoples) of the Volga, Oka, Kama, the Urals and Siberia. That is, among some Finnish tribes could be Brahmaccephals (short-headed). This question is not investigated. However, it is accurately established that the Slavic tribes were exceptionally brachicephals. Even single representatives of Slavic tribes should be excluded from the “chicken tribe” of the Merian land of the VIII – XIII centuries and for the reason that the modern Moscow professor V. B. Kobrin in his book Power and Property in Medieval Russia (XV-XVI centuries)” (Moscow, 1985), after studying the generalogy of the entire nobility of central Russia (former Rostov-Suzdal land), found that they all originate no earlier than the second half of the XIII century, that is, they already have Tatar-Mongol origin. Everything is historically connected to small events and things. 132

We will not be distracted in this section at Professor V’s studio. B. Cobrina. Let’s talk about it later.

Now I suggest that Professor A. P. Bogdanova “Kurgan tribe of Moscow Governorate”. The work was written in 1865, that is, before the appearance of the book by archaeologist O. S. Uvarova. And naturally, A. Bogdanov in his book expressed absolutely independent of O. S. Uvar’s thought. This is very valuable because he was engaged in archaeological excavations and anthropological research of remains found during excavations.

So, we open the work of the professor: “Research of mounds for anthropological purpose in eight counties of the Moscow province and many excavations conducted personally by both me and some persons who wished to contribute to me gave us the opportunity to compile a mound collection of the Moscow province of 133 bones, of which most of them were very satisfactory. 5].

And then the author writes:

“Excavations of mounds were carried out in the districts: Moscow, Zvenygorod, Mozhay, Vereisk, Podolsky, Kolomensky and Bogorodsky. Intelligence was also conducted in the counties of Serpukhov, Klinsko-m 1 Dmitryvsky…”. Below is the wine: “At the end of this article I received from I. And. Ilyin 4 skulls from the mounds of the Ruz district” [18, p. 6].

I’m gonna ask you to note: Professor A. P. Bogdanov worked throughout the then Moscow province. But especially valuable is that he explored the western and southwestern parts of the province and confirmed their complete identity with excavations of the north and eastern parts.

Of course, Count O. S. Uvarov knew about the A P. God-data work. In his book, he even mentioned it. However, research and conclusions A. P. Bogdanova ignored. I hope readers understand why. Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov, having excavated 7,729 mounds, found them exclusively mayor, that is, Finnish ethnicity. And if he had added уresearch A to his work. P. Bogdanova, at least archaeological. It would not leave the smallest crevic for the possible “flow of the Slavs”. He would have to push the “possible Slavs” many hundreds of kilometers from the borders of the Moscow province. But as a patriot of Moscow, I could not do that. Therefore, on his map, following the official Moscow historical doctrine of origin of the Great Russians, was located in the close west of the “Meric land” of fictional “vyatichs, curves and Slovenes”.

At a time when Professor A. P. Bogdanov was pushed away by these fictional Slavs.” .to the South and South West much further — to Chernihiv and Kiev provinces, and to the North West and West. to Minsk, Novgorod and Olonetska province”. Note: Professor A. P. Bogdanova, in our case, is fully based on factual material, and inscriptions of Count O. S. Uvarova “vyatichi, curves, Slovenes” by no evidence is justified. It is not worth surprising: this is a normal rule of work of a Russian scientist.

Professor A. P. Bogdanov, studying Meric mounds, made another very valuable conclusion: “Kurgans, inherently, need to be distributed, as you know, not in the districts, but in the rivers near which they meet. “Coku is unknown, says Babst, what an important role the rivers play in the historical fates of peoples. The year is their cradles. Tribes that inhabit one river region are connected by its channels… into one political body, share common political benefits, tolerate the same troubles. The rivers are the main ethnographic frontiers. 7].

It is such conclusions, once again, indicate the presence of a large Moscow lie about the “flow of the Slavs in the Rostov-Suzdal land.”

The Slavic tribes of the Dnieper and Dvina had their own river paths, which combined them into a single “political body”. And the colossal spaces of their year allowed them to migrate exclusively to the West and South. There was no reason in the 8th and 18th centuries that would make the Slavic tribes move from their year and go into a deaf, taig-free landlessness. Let us not forget that it was the Slavic tribes who already practiced farming culture by the beginning of the first millennium. By the way, this opinion was not only held by Professor A. P. Bogdanov, as well as professor-histor of Moscow University Ivan Kindratovich Babeg (1823-1881).

Archaeological Research A. P. Bogdanov is also valuable in that they are completely consonant with archaeological research O. S. Uvarova and make up a single whole with them. His same anthropological studies confirmed that all the skulls of the remains of the Meric mounds are dolichocephalic (long-headed), both in the center of the “Mersky state – near lakes Nero and Kleschino (Peryaslav and Rostovske), and in the west and south of the Moscow province. And these remains of dolichocephals contain all the graves to the Kiev land of the IX-XIII centuries. Where, of course, did not include the “Zaleshan land” – future Moscow.

After doing a huge work on measuring mound skulls, A. P. Bogdanov wrote: “What can we discover from the study of skulls alone and from the study of measurement tables to find out the physical structure of a mound tribe?..

First. A general overview of the mound skulls of the Moscow province convinces the unity of the mound tribe, because almost all skulls have clearly expressed known signs characteristic of this tribe, and seem extremely similar. The skull, if you look at it from above and side, is quite long and narrow… Especially noticeable in the mound tribe is the distinct development of the posterior part of the skull. This characteristic form of the back of the head, narrowness and length of the skull are the main features of the mound tribe.

Second. Analysis of numerical values from Table IV and their ratios gives us a more specific answer regarding the shape of the skull…

Based on what I think we have the right to conclude that the typical skull of our mound tribe is subdoshkhofachny’ (in:a] x 100 ? 75. That is, long-headed. – W. B.) [18. s. 16-19].

Throughout the Moscow province, the “kurgan tribe” belongs to the only Finnish ethnic group. No “Slavic’s heavy” has been found.

At the end of chapter III, the professor summed up his conclusions about the Muscovites:

“In the VIII-X centuries (at least such an opinion of those archaeologists whose advice I could use) in the Moscow province lived the Kurgan tribe, probably engaged in cattle breeding and hunting. Plemya lived in Moscow-ly and its influxes and probably only it owned all the land of the area: if there were several tribes, then, not to mention that. gzo would not be such unity in his physical structure, there would be quarrels, wars, and there would be combat mounds… Between the 134 skulls I have, there is no one that has shown traces of injury, traces of the battle. 118. s. 21].

We have clear evidence of the Russian professor about the affiliation of all the skulls of the “curgan tribe” of the Moscow province to the only long-headed tribe. The Curgan tribe lived in all rivers of the Moscow province, was only noborn and did not feel the pressure of distant tribes. However, A. P. Bogdanov showed some modesty, the boilers limited the time of residence of the “Kurgan tribe” of the Moscow province only the 8th and 10th centuries. Readers understand why the Russian professor has lowered to minor lies. The Great Encyclopedia (another Russian), vol. 13. Published in St. Petersburg in 1903, she sent Professor A. P. Bogdanova and confirmed the fact of residence of the ‘Kurgan tribe’ in Moscow! Governors in the X-XII centuries. By the way, and excavations of archaeologists witnessed (including A. II. Bogdanov) is the VIII-XII centuries (first period). Let’s not forget that there was a “second period” of Meric mound burials. As you can see, all this is even very interesting.

Every Moscow professor “jumping in the bush”, where he only allowed the opportunity.

Read the Great Encyclopedia:

“The ancient population of the Moscow province still belongs to the era of stone tools, but data has not been preserved about the anthropological type of this population. Much more data on the so-called Kurganne tribe, which lived here, as they think, in the X-XII centuries and left behind numerous graves, mounds with the remains of ancient culture, albeit rough, but already familiar with both bronze and iron. It is a poor and peaceful population that did not leave in their graves neither gold, coins nor weapons (and this is already a pre-truth – V. B., most likely… and there is that Finnish people known by the name Mary. 4444].

Even in Rostov-Suzdal land, this deaf, the territory of future Moscow in the X-XII centuries was the most deaf taig corner. That part of the Merian land, even after its conquest by Khan Batia, remained exclusively wild and undeveloped.

We will remember, in connection with the research of Count O. S. Uvarova, in which the norach-land lived future Muscookies in the early 10th century, which testified in 922 by the famous Ibn-Fadlan. I suggest listening to what Moscow was more than 400 years after Ibn-Faddan, in the time of Ivan Kaliti:

Moscow was completely “loving”, that is, cut down from wood, covered with straw, goont, carpenter and half with chicken houses, without chimneys” [22, t. 29, p. 364].

Obviously, even this “lub” painting of Moscow in 1330 years is much decorated. Because, as Professor O. D. Korsakov: . Our ancient cities were three parts: the city of the earth, and the suburbs. s. 197].

In this case, only the bishop and princely chambers were located in the ruble. – W. B.) and the church of the congregation” [9, p. 198].

All other Muscookies lived in a “land city”. And what that “land city” was, Ibn Fadlan testified.

These homes were strikingly different from the Slavic. Do not forget about the magnificent Cathedral of Sophia and others built in Kiev at the beginning of the XI century.

And we were told for several hundred years about the movement of a political and cultural center from Kiev to Moscow after 1132.

It is sad and funny to hear this at the same time.

However, the picture of Moscow would be incomplete if we had not given readers the appearance of Muscovit of the late 12th and early KhPI century.

Listen to the same Moscow professor A. P. Bogdanova:

“It’s… The mound’s tribe did not live under the same conditions under which we live, because the physical conditions of the Moscow province were other… The abundance of water, forests, swamps, meadows, but at the same time the climate is quite humid and cold. “Here is the conditions in which the mound of the tribe” [18, p. 21].

“The tribe was a russy, rather dark orrus, probably with blue-gray eyes and low forehead. Perhaps women with their orthognake (a minor performance. – W. B.) The face and smaller features of him were cute, but about men it is wise to say that they had to be very unpresentable with their chased (moved forward. – W. B.) The teeth and the teeth are the teeth. 22].

“The skulls are very erased, and if we take, under the likely fact that it was proposed for erased teeth of stone age, we can argue that the gti of our mound tribe was a hard plant, consisted of roots and semi-cooked, and perhaps й raw meat.” s. 22].

Such a portrait of the Great Russian-XII centuries was painted by Russian professor A. P. Bogdanov. It was this man, according to the Moscow version, that the Slavs had to “noble” to get first Muscovites, and later – the Great Russian. And according to the same version, this, with the jaws, type, since 1132, took us, the Kiev Slavs, to teach life, culture. Get-purely everything!

Interestingly, almost all scientific research from the realm of philology, archaeology, anthropology and historical documents completely refute Moscow’s lies about their “primaternity” and “Slavic roots”. They claim: Muscosy (Great Russians) are exclusively Finnish ethnicity. Meryany!

8

Earlier we submitted some information about Moscow professor Alexander Petrovich Bogdanov and his outstanding role in the formation of Russian archaeology and anthropology.

No less famous and outstanding was the Ukrainian professor Fedor Kindratovich Vovk. Just what F. K. The wolf worked in the best archaeological and anthropological institutions in Paris for eighteen years, and Paris in those years was recognized as the capital of anthropological science, talking much about it. It is in Paris F. K. The wolf defended his doctoral thesis and wrote many of his famous works.

In 1906 F. K. The wolf was able to return to the Russian Empire, which he left in 1877 due to political persecution. After returning, he took the position of professor at the University of St. Petersburg.

We will not refer to all the outstanding works of the Ukrainian scientist, let us touch only his studio “Anthropological features of the Ukrainian people – published in St. Petersburg in 1916.

By the way, there is reason to assume that the Ukrainian scientist was deprived of life by the Moscow Bolsheviks in 1918, when Professor F. K. The wolf was getting to Kiev from Petrograd.

So let’s make anthropological comparisons of two ethnic groups. Let’s see if there is the slightest similarity between their craniological data.

Let’s go to Professor A. P. Bogdanova “Materials for anthropologists of the Kurgan period in the Moscow province”, published by “Videos of the Society of Natural History Amateurs at Imperial Moscow University” in 1867.

This volumetric work A. P. Bogdanov promised to publish later, issuing his “Previous Notes” of the “Kurgan tribe of Moscow Governorate” in 1865.

I think it is advisable to track the anthropological data of Muscovites — the cores of the so-called Great Russia, so that no one has doubts about the complete identity of the Moscow Meric ethnicity, which has nothing to do with Slavic tribes.

As mentioned above, for anthropological research Professor A. P. Bogdanov covered archaeological excavations almost the entire territory of the Moscow province. But especially much attention was paid to archaeological excavations in the center, in the west and southwest of the province: Moscow, Mozhay, Podolsk-m, Veraean, Bronnytsia and other counties. Excavations were also carried out in the Bogorod district (east of the province) and Kolomense district (southeast of the province).

Naturally, archaeologist O. S. Uvarov was familiar with A’s research. P. Bogdanova. But completely ignored them. And I did it for no reason. How our readers remember, Oh. S. Uvarov could not determine the western and southwestern boundaries of the Meric land.

Professor A. P. Bogdanov. As we shall see below, and this professor did not forget to add his summer of fiction. We’ll talk about it again. So let’s see all the areas where Professor A. P. Bogdanov conducted mound excavations, investigated the detected bones and took skulls from them for cranial measurements.
And. Moscow County

“In the Moscow district, excavations were carried out in two areas: 1) near the village of Setuni: 2) near the village of Cherkizovo…

Setun Kurgans are located near the village of Setuni…

Cherkizov mounds were found for the ZO verst from Moscow, near the villages of Cherkizovo and Rostokino. The mounds themselves are located on the right bank of Klyazma, behind the village and mill. 24).

Nine bones from Seton Kurgans were studied. Of these, they were selected for measurements 3 skulls, (c. 24-25).

9 bones from the Cherkizov mounds were studied, from which 7 skulls were selected for cranial measurements, (c. 24-25).

P. Veraean district

“In the Verey district excavations were carried out only in the village of Crimea.

The village of Krymske lies on the large Smolensk road 31 versts from the city of Vera and almost at the same distance from Mozhayska. 10 male bones are found in women. 38).

All the bones are examined and investigated. For cranial dimensions, 9 female and 9 male skulls are taken, ?s. 38-41).

PI. Zvenygorodsky district

“In Zvenigorod district, excavations were carried out in two areas: 1) near the village of Yabedipo – in 1865. Me and M. And. Kulakovsky and 2) near the village Pavlovske — in 1866. A. P. Fedchenko and V. F. Aushanin…

Yabedyn mounds are located near the Istra River…

Pavlov’s mounds lie 0.25 versts from Istra, 5 versts on Pd. Sh. from Ascension…” (c. 55).

From the mounds near the village of Yabedino studied 11 bones and taken to measurements 10 skulls, (c. 55-66).

From the mounds near the village of Pavlovsk studied 8 bones and taken to measurements 7 skulls, (c. 55-66).

“I had skulls from five areas of the Podolsk district…

Pokrovsky mounds lie verst 5 from the Pokolska near the shore of Pakhri…

Dubrovnik Kurgans are located near the village of Dubrovitsa on Pakhri and Desna 4 versts from Pokolska.

Zabolotievskie is near the village of Zabolotye in Pahra and 6 versts from Podolsk.

Dobyatynski – near the village Dobryatino on Pakhri for 1 verst from the city.

Potapovski — at the village of Potapovo” (c. 70).

From the mounds near the salt Potapov studied 5 bones and taken for measurements 3 skulls.

From the mounds near the village of Dubrovitsa studied 4 bones and took 3 skulls for measurements.

From the mounds near the village, 7 bones have been studied and 5 skulls are taken for measurements.

From the mounds near the village of Zabolotye studied 2 bones and took 2 skulls to measure.

From the mounds near the village of Protection, 10 bones are studied and 3 skulls are taken for measurements (p. 70-73).

,G In Kolomensky district excavations were done in two places: near the village of the River and near the village of Nikulske…

4 bones from mounds near the village of the River and 11 bones from mounds near the village of Nikulske (c. 85).

From the researched bones are took for craniological dimensions:

From mounds near the salt of the River – 3 skulls;

From the mounds near the village of Nikulske – 8 skulls (p. 96).

“In the Ruz district, the mounds were excavated mainly in two areas: near the villages of Novinka and Palashkino; but, in addition, I have more in my collection.

Skulls of mounds near Ruza itself… The New mounds lie 14 versts from m. Rus and 13th in. from Mozhayska near the village of New on the high bank of the Palna River…

Palaipkin mounds lie near the village of Palashkino on the banks of the river Ruza” (c. 100).

From the mounds near the village of New products, 15 bones were studied and selected for cranial measurements of 10 skulls, (c. 100 to 103).

From the mounds near the village of Palashkino, 21 bones are studied and taken for cranial measurements of 19 skulls (c. 100-103).

It is also took for cranial dimensions 4 skulls from Professor A’s Ruz collection. P. Bogdanova (s. 103).

“We conducted excavations near the village of Borisovo, in the village of Vlasovo and near the village of Lisovitsa.

Vlasov Kurgans are located 13 versts from Mozhaysk on the right bank of the Protva River” (c. 117).

From the mounds of the village Vlasovo studied 2 bones (kurgan 1, mound 2). Craniological measurements of 2 skulls (p. 116).

“In the Bronnytsia district, excavations were conducted in the summer of 1866, A. P. Fedchenko 1 V. F. Osanin.

Golovan mounds lie 13 versts from Bronnits, 150 soots from the village of Golovino on the Galluta River, flowing into Severka…

The Avdotian mounds are located on the left high bank of the Siverka River in four places.

Khomyanov Kurgans lie verst 8 from the village of Av-dotino, near the village of Khomyanovo and the village of Golovino” (c. 118).

2 bones from mounds near the village of Avdotino; 4 bones from mounds near the village of Golovino; 3 bones from mounds near the village of Khomyanovo. Craniological measurements of 6 human skulls were carried out: 1 from mounds near the village of Golovino; 2 from mounds near the village of Avdotino; 3 from mounds near the village of Khomyanovo (c. 119-121).

“In the Bogorod district, excavations were carried out in four areas, as I personally with the assistance of N. And. Kula-kovsky 1 M. H. Grapes, especially N. F. Petrovsky, to whom I mainly owe the completeness of the collection of this district…

Obukhov mounds lie near the village of Obukhov, next to the factory of Tyulaev, near Shilovka and 10 versts from Vogorodska…

Peter-Pavlovski Kurgans lie near Obukhovsky, on the Shelovka River… The mounds lie in an elevated area near the river, a fairly numerous group.

Aniskin Kurgans are located near the village of Aniskino on Ostrominsky road behind the ZO verst from Moscow (on the Klyazma River).

The Oseev mounds lie on the same river, between s. Oseev and s. Lucino…” (c. 124).

From the mounds near the village of Obukhov, 8 bones were studied and taken for cranial measurements of 6 skulls (c. 128).

Of the mounds of Petropavlovsk, 12 bones were studied and 10 skulls are taken for measurements.

From the mounds near the village of Anisino studied 3 bones and took for cranial dimensions of 2 skulls (c. 128).

From the mounds near the village of Oseevo studied 11 bones and taken for measurements of 7 skulls (p. 128).

So, we completely called the areas of the Moscow province, where Professor A. P. Bogdanov conducted excavations and studies of Merian mounds in 1864-1865. His colleagues continued excavations in 1866. You have to pay attention to that. that A. P. Bogdanov conducted a study of the remains of only Merian mounds (except two). That is, the mounds were excavated and investigated mostly of the pre-the-baitian period of the late XVI and early XVII centuries, which were indicated by expeditions by the local population, were not taken into account. Among them were many graves of strangers (aliens), and the local people kept this clear memory even after 250-260 years.

Here’s like Professor A. P. Bogdanov described excavations:

“I’ve seen (and excavated). – W. B.) The mounds were small.

In mounds of ordinary magnitude, the bone was at a depth of 2-3 arshins from the top of the mound of mounds, in larger ones – from 4-6 arshins…

The bone usually lies on the “mother” [19, p. 13].

And then:

“In most cases, it is obvious that the land for the mound of mound took place nearby.

In the mounds there is almost always one bone, but there were mounds in which two and three bones lay next to. It is noteworthy that when two bones occurred, one was male and the other female, or, more often, one female, and also ншиchildren’s…

Most of the mounds were coal.

In the legs of the dead found pots… Pot skulls were found much more often in the bulk land of mounds along with coal.

My mound collection contains many things that give a fairly complete idea of the objects that were used in the mound tribe. 14].

We will not describe in detail things, especially the jewelry found by A. P. Bogdanov in the excavated mounds. They are completely identical to things found during excavations by archaeologist O S. Uvarov. Both scientists excavated the mounds of the same tribe.

We must understand that by conducting our anthropological research, Professor A. P. Bogdanov could not but add his contribution, that is, “difficult lies”. He had to leave his “anthropological window” for “spokening” the Finnish ethnicity. What he did was original. Listen to the professor:

“Analysis of numerical quantities and their ratios gives us a more specific answer about the shape of the skull. We know that Professor A. Retcius divided the skulls dichotomically into pre-lychocephal (long-headed) and brachicephalic (round-headed)” s. 15].

In this A. Retcius relied on many skull indicators, the key of which was the “main index”, that is, the ratio of the transverse diameter of the head to the longitudinal diameter multiplied by 100.

For the brachicephalic skull, the main index should be larger than 81.

To somehow brighten the data of the merian skulls’ measurement table, Professor A P. Bogdanov introduced his personal distribution. Divided human skulls into 5 groups:

dolichocephaly (main index) is 65-71.

sub-dolikhocephaly is (72-73).

Orthocaphal — (75-76),

sub-brachicephaly is (77-80), brachicephaly (81—85).

He gave his actions this explanation:

“I think these five groups are much more sharply determined by the shape of the skull and are much more organicly delimiting a number of skulls.” s. 16].

Naturally, there is an opportunity to rely on twists and machinations. We have seen more than once how such actions were resorted to Moscow scientists. Applying ordinary sep-bench, Professor A. P. Bogdanov increased the number of brachicephalic skulls by reducing the main index to 77. However, even such receivers of the professor did not save the overall picture of Merian studies. Because in science such a distribution was not perceived in the XIX or 20th centuries.

For comparison and analysis of cranial measurements of skulls conducted by professors A. P. Bogdanov and F. K. In the wolf, we will give the erected tables of the main index, characteristic of Finnish (Moscow) and Slavic (Ukrainian) ethnic groups. Note that F. K. The wolf covered the entire historical territory of residence of the Ukrainian people with its dimensions.

I am reminded of readers that the cranial studies of the skulls of the mound tribe of the Moscow province A. P. Bogdanov conducted 60 indicators. That is, a huge work was done to study and measure each skull. The results of the research proved amazing. They buried the Moscow historical fiction of the Slavic origin of Moscow and the Muscovites forever.

We will not tire readers with the presentation of all the characteristic indicators of the skulls of the Moscow mound tribe. There is no need for this because they correspond to the main index.

So, this is what the summary table of skull study from the burials of the Moscow province, conducted by Professor A. P. Bogdanov, without the “hard lies” he launched.

The table is given in a shortened version. (Concluded by the author)

in t. ch. (men – 61), (women – 47).

Ut. ch. (Men – 10), (women – 18).

in t. ch. (Men are 3)

(women are 1).

Total: 140 skulls.

As you can see, bones belonging to the brachicephalic group are practically not found among the remains of the Moscow province. Because the error of research ranges from 3 to 5%, given random elements.

The average anthropological main index, according to the research of Professor A. P. Bogdanova, according to individual districts of the Moscow province, was as follows:

Moscow County — 74.7 (dolikhocephaly):

Veraean district — 72.8 (dolicophal);

Zvenygorod district — 73.4 (dolikhocephaly);

Podolsk district Kolomensky district of the Russky district Bronnitsky district of Bogorodsky district 158-165].

We missed the main index on the Mojai district, because of the two remains studied, one was in 1610, the period of the Polish occupation of Moscow. However, what is characteristic: even in this case, the average main index does not go beyond prellichocephaly.

Such outstanding anthropological studies were presented by world science Professor of Moscow University A. P. Bogdanov. You can agree or disagree with the individual inconditions of the scientist, but against the factual material of research to act in vain.

Anthropological science completely refuted Moscow myths about the Slavic origin of Muscovites. And in this case, as they say, you can’t do anything.

We will not fully provide research materials from Professor F. K. Wolf and his colleagues (Lebedeva, Kondraipen-ka, Shulgin, Rudenko, Dibold. Sakharov, Chikalenko, Kryzhanivsky and others). We will submit only the average anthropological main index of Ukrainian (Slavic) ethnicity in the places of their concentrated residence:

Voronezh Ukrainians Kharkiv Ukrainians Poltava Ukrainians

83.0 (brachicefalia);

— 83.4

— 83.5

— 84.4

— 82.1

— 82.6

— 84,5

— 83.5

Kiev Ukrainians Volyn Ukrainians Kuban Ukrainians Tavrian Ukrainians Katerynoslav Ukrainians

Kherson Ukrainians –

Podilsky Ukrainians

Galician Ukrainians –

Bukovyna Ukrainians — 89.1

Transcarpathian Ukrainians –

[23. s. 22-25].

The entire Ukrainian (Slavic) people belong exclusively to the brachicephalic group of ethnic groups. While Muscos belong to the precchocephalic group. And this fact says everything!

I wish souls are in heaven, but sins are not allowed.

Thus anthropological science has scored the last ass ring in the false idea of Moscow Slavicism.


At the end of the first part of the book, we will try to make a brief summary. Therefore, as a result of studying a large factual material about the mer (moscovites), it is reliably established:

And. All ancient historians who wrote about the European North East testified to the fact of residence in the Oka and Volga of Finnish tribes. Already the Gothic historian Jordan spoke about the places of residence in the 5th and VI centuries, mayors, wrind, spring and others. The material of the historian is not in doubt and is available to researchers.

In 922, the ambassador of the Baghdad Caliphate to the king of Volga Bulgaria Almusz the famous Ibn-Fadlan wrote about this.

Our brilliant ancestor Nestor called places of residence in the XI-XII centuries of almost all Finnish tribes, “the countries of the northern”. He wrote: “And all on Belolake is sitting, and on Rostov Lake Meya, in the Lake – Mary too.” We will not submit the names of residence of other Finnish tribes mentioned by Great Nestor.

Interestingly, there is no differences between the testimony of ancient historians.

1 Finally, the ambassador of the King of France to Khan Sartak (son of Watin) – Wilhelm de Rubruk in 1253 defined the name “country” that lay in the deaf forests north of Sartak’s pond (norther than today’s Lishetska and Voronezh). It was “Moxel’ country.” By 1237, its inhabitants had a “hosuda” and bred pigs.

Let us be sure that the mentioned travelers and the horse (Jordan. Ibn-Fadlan. Nestor, Wilhelm de Rubruk). Like many others, at the same time the definition and place of residence of the Russ (Scyths), without linking Finnish tribes with the Rusich. Wilhelm de Rubruk clearly fixed even the boundary between ethnic groups. It was served by Tanaid, the modern Don River.

Thus, historical literature clearly testified to the places of residence of Finnish tribes in the territory of the future Moscow during the V-HNI centuries.

P. Each ethnic group, living for many hundreds of years in a certain area, gave its villages, rivers, lakes, tracts, etc., inherent only in this ethnicity toponyms and hydronyms (names and names). In ancient times, tribes did not use other people’s place names and hydronyms, because they were distant and not understood. Each name of the river or area, first of all, had a specific tribal concept and content. Yeah. In Finnish, Moscow is a rotten (bad) water. And this word (name) for Finnish tribes indicates certain information about the area.

It is natural that the new tribes that appeared on the place of the former (if this happened) could not use distant and misunderstood toponyms and hydronym and always changed them to their own relatives. Even the Soviet archaeologist O. A. Spitin had to admit, “Etric names… They disappear as soon as the area is engaged in a solid, homogeneous other tribe. (11. s. 164-165].

That is, preservation of Finnish toponym and hydronym in the territories of Rostov-Suzdal land

There is, first of all, evidence of residence on that land of the Finnish ethnicity, the carrier of many thousands of Finnish toponyms and hydronyms. There is no other explanation for this phenomenon.

PI. In the 19th century, during the formation of Russian archaeological science, Russian archaeologists conducted mass excavations in the origin of Muscovites. The so-called Rostov-Suzdal land. Especially great contribution to archaeological research of the territory of the future Moscow state was made, in fact, the ancestor of Russian archaeology – archaeologist Alexei Uvarov. During 1851-1854, his scientific expedition excavated and examined 7,729 mound burials in the cradle of Moscow. The study showed the residence of the Finnish tribe Mary for many hundreds of years (VIII-XVI centuries) in the territory of the then provinces: Moscow, Tver. Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Kaluga, Vladimir, Nizhegorod, Ivanovska, Ryazan, Vologda. And around Mary for hundreds of kilometers lived related Finnish tribes: Mari, ant, ar., the mord, the whole, the mort, the whole, the mort-comi, the ud-mort. and so on.

Archaeologist O. S. Uvarov stated: “The conducted studies fully confirmed the authenticity of the chronicler’s testimony: “and on Rostov Lake Marya, and in the Cleshchina Lake Mary also…”, from where Meryans later came out, spreading their territories. For the growing number of people, the space occupied around the lakes was insufficient. 2].

The most valuable is the fact that in the territory of the birth of Muscovites by the scientists O. S. No Slavic burial was discovered by Uvarov and his colleagues. Even the only Kiev coin of the X-XII centuries has not been discovered. That is, these facts, once again, testify to the separate residence and development of Finnish and Slavic tribes. The flow of the Slavs during the VIII-XVI centuries into the territory of the Rostov-Suzdal land archaeology was not recorded.

IV. However, the most significant blow to the so-called theory of Moscow Slavicism was caused by the Russian anthropolo-151 gia. It established residence during the VIII-XVI centuries in the territory of Rostov-Suzdal land, this cradle of Muscovites, quite different from the Kiev Slavs of ethnicity. These were ethnic groups, different in anthropological indicators: some were brachicephals, others are dolichocephals. So the Muscovites were a people of another, not Slavic, origin and had no Slavic principle in their root. But the most valuable was the testimony of the Moscow anthropologist Professor A. P. Bogdanova:

“Thus, Yaroslavl, Vladimir, Moscow, Tverska, Vologda, Ryazan, Nizhny-Rodyan provinces are areas with the Meryansk population… Consequently, ternology confirms the archaeological and linguistically. The only difference is that the ternical type is inherent in… Merian population (dolikhocephaly. – W. B.) continues to the South and South West much further – to Chernihiv and Kiev provinces, and on P(equir) Z(ahd) and Z(ahd) leads to Minsk, Novgorod and Olonetska province” [20, p. 7].

As proved by Professor A. P. Bogdanova, the flow of Slavic tribes in the IX and XIII centuries in the border of Oka and Volga could not take place even for the simple reason that Finnish tribes lived already behind the Chernihiv land. And migrating many hundreds of kilometers in foreign territory was simply impossible. But most importantly: Russian anthropology has not found any traces of migration.

It is time to reject Russian lies about the “Slavic origin of Moscow”. Because the Muscovites of Finnish.

innn

(her “AWfci’UM-jmulWIIBWt, (I – g*(i-p-h” kmg A ? their ? lmni.

II””feuMMit&fl

W. “”tgmtg- and”—————- ;

T. iudioshppms

PLC ? inmsamp h”and”a ,ijida* U -u’n.iaik’i’-i (G’rh*t””CHI’M? M – Kr-lMKUiX

I – iifim krsh

fi ?4i-viaiu wiuubi ptydn kg”1 Imlaaa”

**

. 4. The settlement of the Slavs in the early Middle Ages (V-VII centuries)

Map of Merian land

Part Two

“KATERINIAN TRAINING”
1

To analyze Russian history and comprehend the ideological orientation, it is necessary to know who and when it was written, for what purpose. It is clear that the very history was created by the people of Moscow and its guides. But who has told humanity is still a mystery. Hundreds of volumes are written, there are talk about ancient chroniclers, most often fictional, but there is no single work where it would be thoroughly, elementally studied the facts of mass publication of hundreds and thousands of so-called chronicles’ and their appearance in the Russian scientific environment. Who has done this, how, on the basis of what materials and documents, why — about this — complete silence. I don’t like to talk about it. That’s quite understandable. Because it was in the second half of the XVIII – early XIX century that a great secret was hidden the appearance and principles of teaching the history of the Moscow state and those people.

I suggest that readers look at Moscow hideouts together. They keep many deliberately hidden secrets.

So, having been strengthened in the imperial chair, Catherine II later became deeply interested in the history of her state. Naturally, unimagined. Obviously, what she learned was very impressed and did not like her. For if in that historical past everything had an Empress, she would never have given the “creation of Russian history” so many years of her life, from 1783 to 1792. It was on December 4, 1783 that Catherine II issued a decree creating a “Commission for compiling notes on ancient history, mostly Russia” under the beginning and supervision of Count A. P. Shuvalova” [8. s. 564].

We may never have learned about this titanic work of Catherine II and her “Commission”. But it so happened that there are still traces of that activity. Stats Secretary of Catherine II O. B. Khrapovitsky left his diaries, where he described the activities of the sovereign. And although those diaries, the 1862 edition, were censored, they still talked about a lot.

Before we proceed to the analysis of the diaries of the Empress, I want to briefly submit the decree of Catherine II. The statement is: “To appoint… up to 10 people who would have made useful notes about ancient history, mostly related to Russia, making short extracts from ancient Russian chronicles and foreign writers according to the famous (Katherine II, – V. B.)… A kind of plan. These scientists are “collections”, but they are selected by Shuvalov. and represents Empress. There must be three or four people among the members of this meeting, not those who are married and our positions or are free enough to work with this work, receiving a special reward for this work. The meeting will be under the highest intercession. The elder above him… He represents the Empress of the work of the congregation, which are printed in a free printing house with its permission. 564-568].

In this way, the so-called All-Russian chronicles were written, which in our time are published as ancient masterpieces.

What led the Russian political elite of the second half of the 18th and early 19th centuries to fulfill this dirty falsification?

The motive was extremely serious. It is known: at the beginning of the XVHI century, there was no written presentation of the integral history of the Moscow state. And after Peter I ordered from 1721 to call the Moscow kingdom – the Russian Empire, an additional task arose: to justify the heredity of the name “Russian” from the ancient Kiev principality.

Peter I repeatedly appealed to real Russ, that is, Ukrainians who graduated from the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and asked them to write history, now the Russian Empire. I remind readers: Moscow at that time had a major illiteracy. A person who could read was reduced to the rank of almost a scientist.

I will not tire readers with hundreds of historical evidence that confirms this truth. I will only say: when Peter I wanted to appoint a Ukrainian Rusician as Patriarch, several prominent Moscow people and bishops came to him, begging not to do so. The main reason was: “Don’t shame us, sovereign. Little Russians are scribes. They even read women.” This depth of backwardness was in Moscow in the early 18th century.

The Muscovites do not like these truths. You can’t throw out the song.

To fulfill the intention and write the integral history of his state, Peter I, failed. And then, to Catherine II, no one was involved in this issue. It should be noted that Peter I did two exceptionally useful things for writing the history of the Moscow state.

First, he issued a decree in 1720, which ordered the removal of all ancient original sources and archives from Ukraine and to deliver them to Moscow and St. Petersburg. By this he was able to get away from the Ukrainian people his antiquity, his written history. The king stole the past of Ukraine.

Second: it was he who invited German historian Gerard Friedrich Miller to his empire, who appeared in it in 1725. This is exactly the Miller who did the most to form the ideological basis of Moscow historical science, the Miller who traveled through Siberia during 1733-1743 and seized all the ancient gold-ordinal archives and raretes. It’s H. F. Miller bequea bequea’s opinion to “…to warn our fellow citizens from reading foreign books about Russia written.” This opinion was the law of the Russian state for almost two hundred years — before the collapse of the empire.

Miller at one time repeatedly appealed to Empress Elizabeth Petrovna with a proposal to “write Russian history with the help of a special state body”, but the Empress did not understand the elegant opinion of the academician. And only Catherine II appreciated and implemented Miller’s brilliant offer.

This sovereign did not immediately accept Miller’s offer. She initially began to study Moscow antiquity and available written sources. And the further the Empress deepened into the study of the historical past of his state, especially it was covered by ordinary human horror. She saw that Alexander, the so-called Nevsky, absolutely “does not come” to the saint. Even more terrible truth accompanied the so-called Dmitry Donsky. And the beginning of the Moscow state, with large tension, can be attributed only to 1505. After all, until that year, the Moscow princes were ordinary Ordinian subjects, because Ivan III’s grandfather, “swived my care milk from the hryvnia of Tatar horses.” Even John IV (Grozny) was an ordinary tribute to the Crimean Khans and at their request renounced the title of King of Moscow, passing the title to the real Genghis, the Tatar, and so on.

Being an educated man, Catherine II understood: historians of Europe of the following times mock the Moscow siege about the origin of Moscow from the Kiev principality. Because that statement is based on the usual Moscow desire and on a false family dynastic line. In those boating times, Europe has been mocking such an English encroachment on France for many years, for many years. In France, they even had jokes about this.

The historian wrote quite reasonably: “Although the Moscow sovereigns call themselves a great prince or king of ‘all Russia’, but the right to this title they had the same as the right of their contemporaries – the English kings, by which they attributed to themselves the coat of arms and crown of France to their homeland” [24, p. 10].

Note that the historian says these words 100 years after the boatin “manships with Russian history.” As you can see, the titanic work of Catherine II and the Commission for compiling notes about ancient history, mostly Russia” did not help.

Let’s see what Catherine II did from 1783 to 1792 with her famous “Commission”.

Although O. V. Khrapovitsky began keeping a diary from January 18, 1782, the first records were almost completely removed from the book, which was published in 1862. It is even difficult to imagine what the author wrote in the diary, because he is “cleaned” by censorship to one or two sentences a day. And many dates “cleaned – completely, that is, no word is given. However, it is necessary to keep in mind that we are talking about the diary of more than a reliable person devoted to Catherine II and the Russian Empire. But as we shall see further, censorship in many places has failed. The first record of the Commission is in the diary of O. V. Khrapovitsky only 31 July 1786:

“I found papers, during his life in the Hermitage written about the antiquities of Slavs with the search for the original people; there are notes of the «grapher) by Andrei Petrovich Shuvalov…”. Perhaps this recording censorship missed by mistake because a note was made at the bottom of the page, where it is written that it is about Field Marshal Shuvalov. The question is that the latter was called Peter Ivanovich. Field Marshal died in 1762. And naturally, Empress Catherine II could not write notes.

You can submit dozens of records of Khrapovitsky about how the Empress “maned in continuing the writing of Russian History.” However, in the first book we already talked about it, so we remember only those diary records that will be needed in the future.

So, December 1, 1789. “We were in law and in history. I can’t do the laws, but I think I can do the story. 213].

July 27, 1791… I showed the river Seth, in the Yaroslavl province. It falls into the Hammer and Mologa enters the Volga. Prince Vladimir Yurievich Ryazansky by Tatar was killed at the City. He thought he had crossed the Volga much lower to attack Tatar; but the Sit River shows that Vladimir was running to Twsri. This discovery is not very satisfied with the composition of the story.” 245].

“September 25, 1791. I was called to read Russian history for a while. “There is a note about Tatars and their power in the invasion of Russia; the life of St. Alexander Nevsky, without miracles.” 251].

Great testimony! We see that there was another life of Alexander, the so-called Nevsky. And Catherine II with O. B. The patient knew the truth about that life. We were told “miracles.” By the way, in her work: “The Art of the Project of History of Russia of the XVIII Century”, written by hand and preserved in the black original (1785), Catherine II clearly wrote: “St. Alexander Nevsky (in 1237. – W. B.) He was born, and was no more than 5-6 years old. 133].

Great and undeniable evidence left the Empress!

Let’s go back to the diary of O. B. Khrapovitsky, we will give two more statements from it: ‘I entered with mail after Pushkin (it’s about O. And. Musina-Pushkina. – W. B.). It was said that Yelagin wondered where the family of ancient princes of Russia is collected, and he corrected much in his History. And below comes the note: ‘Here is the lineage of the great princes, composed by the sovereign'” 288].

Now you obviously realized from who we got information about all the great princes, both Kiev and Moscow. No one should doubt who is the final author of the dynastic list of great princes. Catherine II did not allow jokes in the question of Russian history.

And the last extract from the diary of O. B. Khrapovitsky:

“December 29, 1791. They went out… (Catherine II. – V. B.) was taken to history, but again they lay down. There was a glory, after which only the Metropolitan was called, he was heard; to others they did not go to others. 258].

The Empress ended at this “class in Russian history.” How cut! And the “glorification” was not easy. Catherine II, along with the Commission, carried out the case. They wrote and wrote the story of Moscow. And not just wrote, namely, “united it together” with the history of the Kiev state. That was the main task.

And then in the Russian Empire there were some interesting miracles. It is from the ground, so-called “liconical buildings” began to appear. Hundreds, even thousands! However, what is interesting, the first of them, Lvivsky, appeared in 1792. Printed in St. Petersburg. Just like in an anecdote. Listen:

“Lviv (the platoon), published in S. Petersburg in 1792. In the name of the Chronicler of Russia” [27, t. And. s. 24].

It was just the beginning. Next, the “lidescripted” fell like peas from the bucket. Read:

“Lavrentiian Chronicle… In 1792 (the race) it was purchased by O. And. Musin-Pushkin” [16, t. 14, s. 90].

And no one is insatission that in 1792 there was no longer the “Lithist of Russky”, and it is necessary to be more clearly defined with the author; and the “Laurentiy Chronicle” is not bread, to “buy” it either in a merchant or in an ordinary store in 1792. By the way, Oh. And. Musin-Pushkin, mentioned in the diary of the Empress’s State Secretary, was one of the members of the famous Chotolinese “Commission”. Listen to Professor W. O. Klyuchevsky: “Composing her notes on Russian history, Empress Catherine used materials… “lovers of domestic history” by Count Musin-Pushkin and Major General Boltin” [8, p. 566].

Now it becomes clear why Musin-Pushkin was assigned to “find and acquire” the so-called Lavrentiy-and-side chronicle. He was his own man in the environment of great counterfeiters. He could have been trusted.

We will continue to explore in detail many of the “licote” but about the so-called “Laurentievsky” it is necessary to say something in advance. It was one of the most important things. Because he is very cunning, in fact, in the boatin spirit, “united” the Meric country of Moksel (Moscow) with the Slavic ethnicity of the Kiev land. Read: “Lavrentiev L. (painting) following the “Vinty of past years” contains a description of the events of the Givdennorus, and then – Vladimir-Suzdal Rus… It is based on the platoon 1177. … This platoon became part of the later Vladimirsky platoon in 1193. Vladimir chroniclers considered the Vladimir princes as heirs of Kiev.

From 1285 in Lavrentiy… L.(1thoppress) begins a series of precisely dated Tver news… It is traced in Lavrentievsky L. (inscription) and the Tver duct of 1305 connecting material from different areas and tends to be common Russian.” [28, p. 80].

Everything took into account the Empress: and the chroniclers in her – Kiev and Volyn, Suzdal and Rostov, Vladimir and Tver only thought about the “general Russian idea”. And thought this heavy Duma for centuries: both in 1070, and 1177, and 1193, and 1285, 1,305, and even in 1377, when, according to the Moscow version, this compound was last rewritten. It was for such a “unification” that Catherine II worked for ten years.

A highly educated man of his time, who read old historical originals and saw the superficial thinking of the Russian elite, she understood that sooner or later European historians would touch Moscow historical themes and completely refute Moscow’s bulls about the “big past”. They were all based on basic ideas and desires. She knew: even Stefan Batorius ridiculed the fiction and lies of Ivan the Terrible about his “cesarean origin” from the Byzantine imperial family.

It was the “connection” of Moscow with the ancient Kiev principality, with the help of “lidescripts”, that the Empress dreamed of “unconditionally” to make the connection of the past with modernity (XVIII century). And having removed from the empire and having stopped in deep hiding of the original sources — raretes, Catherine II tried to forever fit down the traces of what was done.

I will not repeat what ancient historical originals had in my hands and was familiar with them Catherine II. She did everything with her own German cunning and punctuality. I forgot what country I lived and who was the rule. After all, in those days there were many fools around, they also wanted to glorify the Empress in that dirty matter. They started talking too much. Especially this is what M had sinned. M. Karamzin.

By the way, M. M. Karamzin became one of the authors of the “Russian miracle”. In 1803, he began writing his 12-volume History of the Russian State and wrote several first volumes. He said this in the first pages of the book, reading them in the same 1811 Emperor Alexander I, the personal pupil of Catherine II. The book became the “swan song” M. M. Karamzin, sung “to the glory of Moscow and its princes” for “the collection of Russian land”.

However, with M. M. Karamzin happened a great “tragedy” when writing a book. After starting to write History, he suddenly found that all the “open and acquired” “liographical arguments” did not contain information about the “be appearance of Moscow” in the time. An incredible embarrass was monitored. It turned out that M. M. Karamzin sang glory to the city that appeared in the Golden Horde in the time of Khan Mena-Timur. It turned out that it was the gold-Ordinian Khans who glorified their reign. Naturally, Karamzin threw into the yeast from these terrible thoughts. He rushed to look for the “liographical platoon” he needed. And — oh miracle! – found! Just what I was looking for!

Listen:

In 1809… I found two treasures in one book: the chronicle of Kiev, the only Tatishchev, 1 Volyn, 164

I’m not known to anyone before… Within a few months I got Another list of them: as one that once belonged to the Ipatiy Monastery, it was hidden in the library of the S.-P. Petersburg Academy of Sciences between the Defects. And, s. 24].

I wanted to find it and found it! And not anywhere in a impoverished, deaf monastery, but in the Academy of Sciences itself. It turns out that there were “hided” masterpieces. And “stood” Karamzin is not just any “liographical plat”, namely – Ipatiyivsky, because in Ipatiyivsky “picform” and mentions the first time the word “Moscow”.

I remind the reader the words: “Come to me, brother, to Moscow.”

But most importantly, M. Karamzin found what he needed, Moscow in that lia mentioned in 1147.

‘The ‘Chudes’ in Moscow at that time took place at every turn. We will not dig up who “created” the Ipatiyiv “mirado” — or M himself. M. Karamzin, or Catherine II with her “Commission”.

However, M. M. Karamzin made an amazing mistake when he reported:

“Caterina the Great, thirsty loving our history, the first ordered to print chronicles. They spent a lot of money, but they did not do the most necessary: a good scientist of chronicles. What is the need to print one in twenty books.” And, s. 24-25].

And the inspans was this great-Russian, that he encroached on the main boating acquisition, the mystery of the process of writing the so-called “general Russian chronicles”. Catherine II was a clever and intelligent for her time, but many fools and careless people continued her work. Where I’m just looking, it’s harmful everywhere.

Personally, M. M. Karamzin informed us about the existence of the following boatin “liographic lists”: Lavrentievsky, Trinity, Ipatiyivsky, Khlebnikov-koi, Knigsberg, Rostov, Voskressensky, Lviv, Archivsky and others

What is characteristic: it is since Catherine II that all ancient original sources have disappeared forever. Especially Ukrainian, those who were taken out of the command of Peter I and the same Catherine II. I will not give words from the diary of O. V. Hrapo-Vitsky. where he reminds descendants that the original of the great Nestor “The Tale of Past Years” Catherine II held in her hands. Repeat, the original! And let us not forget that all the outstanding rares of the Empress and her descendants kept in St. Petersburg, which was not burned, like Moscow, in 1812.

I want to tell readers about another interesting story. Somewhere in 1692 in the Moscow state was written the book “Scyf History”, authored by Andriy Ivanovich Lyzlov. An educated man, a wise specialist, he was in high public service for many years and traveled a lot to the European part of Moscow. The book was distributed in the manuscript for almost a hundred years, because the Moscow authorities banned it from printing for “freethinking and heresy”.

This work was written in Docaterinian times, but was first printed in full 1787, it was under the reign of Catherine II. Partly (first chapter) was published in 1776. Since then, until 1990, the book in the Russian Empire has not been revised. Even corrected by the Codotynian assistants, it frightened Moscow authorities and their scientific husbands.

And only in 1990, when the empire collapsed, the book was published in Moscow — with 5,000 copies. Not just. Listen to what the Russian professor wrote in 1990:

“It is interesting to note the nature of the corrections (catherinian times. – W. B.: they were not only technical, but also in content., most corrections are made in the same handwriting and in the text itself: so instead of the words “king and queen” written “khani Khansha”; instead of the word “kingdom” is placed “author”; the word “Moscow sovereign” is replaced by “Russian”. and the text about “miracles” is removed from the book 166.

Lizlova… It is difficult to say whose hands this specimen was in, perhaps in G. Miller.” [29, p. 347],

Very valuable instructions for corrections. They tried to disassociate themselves from the gold-olding past, when the Moscow churches praised the kings — Batia, Burke, Mengu-Tnmur, Tokhtu, Tokhtamysha and others. As the church sermons were said, they were “by God’s message to the Moss-coats —the Kings.” In the 18th century, these words were ashamed and they were “cleaned”. Having declared themselves “great Russians” and having zuspled their history in the Ukrainian-Russians, tried in all ancient texts “Moscow” to call “Russia”, and the kings of “Moscow — “Russian — Now we realize why Catherine II created so-called “general Russian chronicles”, where “the Russians are not brought down in the Russian land.”

About H. F. Miller will not repeat itself — readers already know about this “Russian patriot”. It should be noted: although book A. And. The lyzlova was very “cleaned”, but it still did not completely rewrite. This has preserved the history of the greatest witness of the late 17th century. Because Scythian History contains a lot of references to the original sources he used when writing a book about Moscow and its neighbors. This is essentially the first history of Moscow, although somewhat corrupted by censorship.

I cite the original sources A referred to. And. Lyzlov in “Scyf History”:

In this way, the empire falsified ancient sources.

However, A. And. Lyzlov in his book did not refer to any so-called “general Russian chronicle. He didn’t know their existence. Because in the early 18th century they did not exist! And the Russian professor in the accompanying article for the book “Scyf History” was forced to admit in 1990: “The conducted in preparation for the publication of “Skyf History” A. And. A complete comparison of its text with sources allows… All used by the author (Lick. – V. B.) The actual material comes from the works named by it in the content and reflected in the notes. Nikonovsky, Resurrection and other chronicles were not used in the Scythian History [29, p. 432].

So, work A. And. The lyzlova relied on large European original sources. At the same time, the author used Kiev and Moscow sources available in his time. We know that A. And. Lyzlov worked in libraries of many monasteries, but mainly in the repository of the Moscow Patriarchal District. However, even in a patriarchal repository in the eighties and nineties of the 17th century, he did not meet any “general Russian chronicle”.

This historical fact caused an unbreakable blow to Russian falsification.

That’s why book A. And. For more than 200 years, it was forgotten, and it was not studied or printed. Today, in the modern Russian empire, it is not respected.

Although the book was in the hands of one of the counterfeiters of Russian history, G. F. Miller, she’s told a lot about.

I draw readers’ attention to the undeniable facts of the book:

  • A. And. L from the catch in his book did not mention Nestor and his “The story of past years”, since he did not know about it. As they did not know about it at the end of the 17th century, the Moscow authorities and the Moscow patriarchy. It can be assumed that Nestor’s work at that time (1692) was still preserved in Kiev. Most likely, in the laurel.
  • A. And. Lyzlov also did not talk about the existence of at least some so-called “general Russian chronicle”, where the history of the Kiev principality from Rostov-Suzdal, especially their chronicle would be combined. Such “liographical buildings” at the end of the 17th century were neither in the monasteries where the author worked, nor in the Patriarchal Ricistry. In Kiev, they were not written and could not be kept.

— The author of the book very clearly distinguished the people of Moscow — Muscovites — from the people of the Kiev principality — Rusich. He wrote, “Scythia… There is a two: the only European, and in it we live, that is, Moscow, Russians, litva, hairs and Tatars European. [29. s. 8[.

The bikes about the “Great-growing” and “little Russians” are the creation of modern times. In the early 18th century, Muscovites were still Muscovites.

  • A. And. Lyzlov in Scythian History does not speak at all about the Moscow Prince Ivan Kalit. Like his contemporaries, he did not know such a prince in the 14th century. It is time to remember the “family of great princes, composed by the sovereign.” As you can see, Catherine II worked seriously.
  • A, I. Lyzlov claimed that the Moscow Ulus was part of the only Tatar state, the Horde, 269 years: from 1237 to 1506. Here’s how he described the conversation, which took place in 6988 (1480), when attacked on the Great Khan, two high-ranking soldiers of the Moscow army: “O the king! It is foolishly the great kingdom. – W. B.) To the end to devastate, to ruin, and from here you came out, and we are all, and this is our homeland. You’d better not say!
  • A. And. Lyzlov recorded a year of complete liberation of the Grand Kyiv principality and its land from the Tatar invaders of the Golden Horde. We read, “Summer… from Christ 1333… Prince Olgerd of Lithuania… After collecting many armies, going to bad… And from that time all fields from Putive to Kiev to the mouth of Don, on the other side of the Dnieper even to Ochakov, they were freed from the Tatars. And they drove them to the Volga River, others to Kafa, and to Azov, and to Crimea, all the way for Perekop. [29. s. 33].

Transfer of the year of liberation of the Kiev principality to 1362 – the intent of Moscow historians of the following times. And we know why this was done.

— In the “Skyf History” does not mention the anti-tatatarian performances of the XIV century in the northern lus of the Golden Horde: Rostov, Tfeegi, Nizhny Novgorod, Suzdal, Pereyaslavli, Kostroma. In the 17th century, no one knew this. There was a solid “symphony” in the Golden Horde. This was primarily called for by the Moscow Church and its rulers. The fiction of popular uprisings is the creation of later times. Remember how Catherine II was “pleasped with the story.”

  • A. And. Lyzlov described the so-called Ku-Likovian battle in a completely different way. No union of Mamai with the Lithuanian-Russian principality did not even speak. It was a common internecine battle in a single state where Moscow defended its privileges.

I will not submit a dozen such statements. And. Lizlova. It was his book that became a great and undeniable evidence of later falsification of Russian history. She denied the main postulates of that falsification.

I want to say a few words about another book from the History of Moscow, written somewhere at the end of the forties of the 18th century. In Docaterinian times, Vasyl Mykytovych Tatishchev wrote the book “History of Russian from ancient times.” Catherine II in those years could not influence V. M. Ta-thins. However, Elizabeth Petrovna did not allow freethinking in the empire. As usual, church and state censorship were seen. Tom B. The dad in his life failed to print his book. He was directly told that he preached érece and freethinking, and the book contradicts the instructions of Peter I “on the order of teaching the history of the state.” After the death of B. M. His manuscripts are gone. Russian academician Petro Grigorovich Butkov in the first half of the 19th century clearly stated that “History of V. M. Tatishcheva. partially published for Catherine II, printed not from the original, but falsified: “The history of Tatishchev is not published from the original, which is lost, but from a rather failed, shortened list… When printing this list, the author’s judgments are excluded, recognized as free-thinking, and many issues are made.”

By the way, during the life of Catherine II, one of her protégés, historian I. M. Boltin, accused W. M. Tatisheva (already dead — died in 1750) in “using non-existent sources”.

It turns out that in the forties of the XVIII century sources existed, and in the eighties — they were no longer there. Please pay attention to the track record of the author of the “History”:

Tagishchev Vasyl Mykytovych (19.4.1686 – 15.7 1750)… Russian statesman, historian… He participated in the Northern War of 1700-1921. He performed various military-diplomatic instructions of King Peter I. In 1720-22 and 1734-1937 He managed the state factories in the Urals, founded Caterinburg; in 174 1-45 Astrakhan Governor. t, 25. s. 297.

V. N. Tatishchev had a direct access to any archive and worked in the Urals and in Astrakhan until the archives and ancient gold-ordinal materials are removed from these cities. By the way, Catherine II in 1768 sent an expedition led by Peter Simon Pallas, to the areas of the Lower Volga, the Middle and Southern Urals, Southern Siberia (Altai, Baikal, Zabaikal) to remove both archives and ancient rarities. The expedition was complex. I was dealing with issues: geographical, geological, ethnographic, etc. d. However, these questions were a cover to her main work: the study of the issue of mastering conquered lands. And those lands and nations could be finally conquered only if written memory was removed from the peoples. The mentioned “expedition” traveled thousands of kilometers, worked from 1768 to 1774. There were hundreds of such groups, there were hundreds of troops.

Now readers must understand what grand idea of falsification was carried out by the Russian ruling elite in the second half of the 18th century, creating a “Commission for drawing up notes on ancient history, mostly Russia” and removing their written memory from ancient times to the XVIII century inclusive from all the peoples of the empire.

Especially from these truly bandit actions suffered the Ukrainian people, because they stole all the works of ancient chroniclers, historical chronicles of the Ukrainian-Lithuanian period, all synopsis and chronographers, etc. All these great shrines in the following times were twisted in the interests of the Moscow empire, some of them were introduced by inserts into the so-called “general Russian chronicles”.

You don’t have to doubt. Because in our memory is the first Moscow president M. S. Gorbachev openly lied to the whole world when he denied the presence of the treaty in Moscow hideouts and a map of the distribution of Europe in 1939 between Stalin and Gitler. However, the documents were found presented to mankind. Never forget the Russian imperial siege.

It will be difficult for us to find Moscow’s lies hidden in the “general Russian chronicles”. I suggest this mission. As of course, let’s rely on Russian uncles and Russian authors. They have been very imitated in their “historical works.
2

Let’s start the study, as it should be, with the most ancient source — “Shows of past years”. Let’s see what “difficult lies” was launched into our relic by historians-the “great.” Let’s track that the “bigkoros” fundamentally did not suit in the ancient chronicle.

Let us listen to Professor Ludwig Schletzer (1735-18800), who in 1761-1767 was in service in the Russian Empire, had the title of honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences:

“In 1720. The trip was sent to Siberia. T/t he found a very long-standing list of Nestor in one split. How surprised he saw, that was different from the previous one. He thought, like I at first, that there was only one Nestor and one chronicle. Tatishchev gradually collected a dozen lists, of which the other options were reported to him by the eleventh.

This is evidenced by the German professor. But what is interesting is that we have reached one single option “Shows of past years. Isn’t it weird? However, if we mention the so-called work of Catherine II and her “Commission on the compilation of notes about ancient history, mostly Russia”, then there is nothing surprising in this phenomenon. Catherine II had all 11 options. In her hands was the original of the ancient chronicle. Look at the “Records” O. W. Khrapovitsky, where on June 23, 1791 you will find this testimony. Catherine II was very strict not only about the very texts of the “Show of Past Years”, but even to every line written by B. M. Tatishchev. Even H. F. Miller, whom she fully trusted and who personally “did” “History – V. M. Tatisheva, she eventually banned anyone from showing at least one sheet of the original of that story. And this is before the creation of the famous “Commission”.

A. B. Olsufiev on her behalf on February 23, 1783 “requeezed Miller to transfer to the Cabinet of the manuscript that he had as soon as possible.” I had no way to meet letter A. B. Olsufjeva, however read (partially) G. F. Miller on this letter.

Listen and think carefully: “On March 2, 1783, re-implementing the manuscript, he is being. – V. B.) “Your Pre-imposedness by your own writing exempts me from an obligation under which no sheet can be notified to anyone outsider [ZO], p. 799-801].

Such instructions were given by Empress Catherine P on issues related to the sources of Russian history. Today there is no certainty that the original text of the “Post of the past years” allowed us to convey the ruler of the “bigkos”. And in the fact that there was such a text-original of the ancient Ukrainian shrine, I think that the piet is not in doubt.

I will not resort to the explanation of how extracts from the original Nestor Chronicle could be in Siberia. There are probably other Kiev, Chernihiv, Volyn chronicles. But they were completely Ukrainian; they could not relate to the history of the Moxel country in principle in the IX-XIII centuries. It was the land of foreign tribes. And since the 70s of the 17th century, the land became hostile to the Rusich-Ukrainians. Although Ukrainian priests and statesmen have already been sent to Solovka, Siberia, to Zakamya.

Remember at least a graduate, and later a teacher of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Maximovich, ordained in 1712 to Metropolitan of Siberia and Tobolsky and exiled to Siberia “to grow”, or, in another way, – “to bear the Christian faith” conquered by the Finnish and Tatar peoples. There in a deaf, taiga land he died in 1715.

Great Ukrainian educators, going into deafness. They possessed not only the word of God, but also the books that carried those words and ancient knowledge. Because of Moscow. Even a hundred years later, she was a completely illiterate, unseen country.

And let readers not think, that my words are a common fiction. I will give testimony from French diplomat De la Neville. who was in Moscow for five months in 1689, here is a quote from his book “Records about Moscow”.

“Move. In general, the spraught barbarians, distrustful, false. cruel, depraved, greedy, well-loving… They are so rude and ignorant that without the help of Germans, who are many in Moscow, could not do anything way [ZI, p, 120]

This is the picture of Moscow society in the early 18th century. It was then that the Russian elite decided to acquire a written history of their country. In the depths, the state of culture and science was much worse. Therefore, indeed, everything is in Moscow in the XVII-XVI11 centuries was done with the help of Germans. Including writing the history of the country. But it’s a retreat.

Serving the ancient Kiev chronicle Nestor in many so-called “general Russian chronicles”, the boating “Commission” and subsequent “continuators of her business” so spoiled the original text that Professor O. Oh. The Shahmatov in his volume’ work “Discructions about the oldest Russian chronicles”, published in St. Petersburg in 1908, was forced to write (among other things. – without condemning):

“I deny the very possibility that Nestor knew the chronicle saying in the form in which it came to us. The original one is the first to be the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is 64].

The scientist spoke amazing words! But don’t think that O. Oh. The Shahmatov tried to expose they to the boatin falsifications. Not a little! He never mentioned the deliberate rewriting of Russian history by Ka-terina II and its “Commission”. He was silent like a fish thrown ashore. Although, of course, he knew well about the lies that were launched in Russian history. Therefore, like every Russian historian-‘patriot”, went the usual, torified way of improving this “difficult”. He only rejected, but justified and explained obvious deception. It is like improving lies.

Russian historians in the mid-19th century, in their references to the original text of the “The Tale of Past Years” quoted that text in a different way than historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Compare at least the texts submitted by M. And. Kostomarov and the same O.O. Minematov.

On March 19, 1860, a famous dispute between Professor-Rusophile Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin and young professor-historical Mykola Ivanovich Kostomarov took place. By the way, M himself. P. He called the dispute “dwell.” As a result of that “duel” many Russian historical fictions were exposed, which M defended and preached. P. A Godedin. M. And. Kostomarov “split” him in all directions of the dispute-“duel”. We will not go into the details of the dispute, although in itself it is interesting and instructive.

The dispute showed that the Russian historical siege can be refuted publicly in the presence of hundreds of people: professors, students and just all interested. For the dispute Professor M. P. He read out as he personally stated, “The words of Nestor in the original.”

Let’s listen:

“In 862 years, I’m going to go to the sea to Varyagam Rus: for I’ll be called the Variags of Rus, as the Druzies are called Svoe, and Druzies Urmiane, Angle, Duzia Goethe, and si. Resha Rusa Miracle, Sloveen, Krivichi and All: Our Land is Great and Oquiring, and along in her net, and come princely, and you will go to possess our children. And the three brothers should be made to your family, and you will thank all Russia and Nridosh: the older Rurik is in Novygrads, and the second Sineus on Bele Ozer, and the third is made by Truvor. 284].

Translation of Nester words in modern language, how much we will not now delve into the very concept of the word “Rus. The concept of “Rus” is referred to Nestor as Rurik and his kind. As we will see in the future, this interpretation has an explanation.

I submit text in shorthand (author’s edition):

“In 862, they went beyond the sea to Varyag-Rus… They said to those Varangus-Rus — Miracle, Slovenia, Krivichi and All: our land is great and rich, and there is no order in it, go to us to prince and rule us. And the 3 brothers gathered together with their families, raving their land to Russia, and came to those who invited: the older brother Rurik sat down to rule in Novgorod, another, Sineus, at the White Lake, and the third, Truvor, to Izborsk.

What falls into the eye is the discrepancy between the number of those invited and those who arrived. The tribe, who were invited, was four, and only three were put on princely tables. Strange case. But it is not the prince or the miracle. This moment is immediately alarming. It is worth not to forget that Russian historians with the word “cle” worked out circus numbers. In front of the civilized world. I’ll clarify this moment.

In the famous dispute M. And. Kostomarova with M. P. In those days, the understanding of the word “miracle” was interpreted. Note that all Russian historical scientific thought of the sixties of the XIX century knew and recorded the concept of the word “miracle” quite specifically. There were no differences. Listening to Professor M. And. Kostomarova:

“The judge was called Finnish peoples who lived near Lake Chudd, and even in Livonia, there was another miracle of possession, called so, probably because of the similarity, as the Slavs thought, between it and the miracle of Livonian; but when in the old times it was said of other peoples of the same tribe: no carela, no water, nor all, no mordvo, are called no wonder. Under the miracle that called with the Slavs of Rus (Rurika and his tribe. – W. B…, understood by the left-wing miraculous country and, in fact, only part of it, adjacent to Lake Chud and Pskova… The city was its main city.” 22].

So we have a complete interpretation of the word “miracle.” And, supplementing the professor, add: no one in the old days called the “mirad” neither mayor, nor wall, nor the mayor, nor the mayor, nor anyone else.

Simultaneously M. And. Kostomarov interpreted the situation regarding Izborska. It turned out that it was the main city of miracles. And it was to the miracle that Truvor was directed at the reign of Truvor. We are not talking about how reliable the information about Sineus and Truvor is. Let’s talk about this at the end of the section. Now we are analyzing the text from the “general-no-Russian chronicle” which was read by Professor M. P. Weather 1860.

It is surprising that it was the curves that did not receive Prince Rurikovich. Although to the spring, located many hundreds of kilometers, one of the Rurikovichs left. Do you feel like this? But the main thing is that if the curves had a language related to Novgorod Slovenes, then all was Finnish tribe and spoke foreign Slavs in language. And how could exist in the “single state,” in those days, two languages and two nations, none of the imperial historians explain.

It can be understood, though difficult, how the left-wing miracle could, along with Slavic tribes, Novgorod Slovenes and curves invite a single ruler. Living in a direct neighborhood with Slavic tribes and being in a minority compared to them, it adapted to circumstances. But it is not clear how the Finnish could be joined by all that lived in a distant taig deaf. Why did the weight need it? We won’t find answers.

These jokes were also understood by the “great.” Therefore, they later extended the concept of the word “miracle” to all Finnish tribes, which allowed them to freely manipulate them. Instead of the word “miracle” began to be placed in ancient chronicles any tribe – all, mayor. Murom, Marie and so on. What was needed by text.

Therefore, Russian scientific men at the end of the XIX century manipulated a completely different interpretation of the beginning of the Nestor Chronicle. Let’s listen to O.O. The chessman is how he explains the beginning of the same text:

‘Yes, in the story of the appeals of princes are called first three tribes, and then four: first Slovenia, Krivici, Merya; then Slovenia, Krivichi, Merya and Chud; in the call of princes four tribes participate, and there are three princes to call; these princes sit down not in the centers of tribes that called them, but in the cities that do not have a direct relationship;Pskov, Polotsk or Smolensk, which have more rights to be called centers of Kryvics than Izborsk?” [32, p. 292].

And “sent the governor!’! You think, Professor O. Oh. Shakhmatov did not know what was written in the “general Russian chronicles” or what Russian historians said about this 50 years earlier? I knew. I knew very well! But by his time, “gains – in the writings of the boatin “Commission”, and once again had to make adjustments to the previously “found” “general Russian chronicles” or even “find” new ones. There have been cases of simple word substitution, and that’s our example. Replaced the word “mira” – “merea”, and no one noticed. And later, instead of “wess” – they filed “hear”. I said someone was wrong before, and we have said the truth. It should be noted that later Soviet historians-daydenants who worked on the order of Bolshevik Moscow chauvinism brought to the imperial history of “clarification and addition”, as ordered from the Kremlin. Quiet and silently.

So, Professor O. Oh. Shahmatov, whether he wanted it or not, brought some clarity to the question of inviting the tribes of princes-variagues. It turned out that there were three tribes. And, as readers understand, they were: miracles, Slovenes and curves First, there were so many of them. Second, those tribes lived compactly, next to them, which could tend them to unite. And thirdly, in those years, the tribes were few and, of course, lived in a compact mass to defend themselves against the beast and various aliens. Thus, according to the chronicles, Varyago-Rus occupied a narrow strip of land (approximately up to 50 kilometers) along the right sleeve of the Nieman River. The Crusaders passed that land in one day in 1322. Approximately the same territories were owned: miracles, Slovenes and curves Although it is clear that their hunting grounds spread much further. It is about inhabited land that had a plough and settlement. After all, individuals who took away in the dead slums, neither power nor princes needed.

Professor O. Oh. The chessmato took place completely painless, natural replacement of the plague tribe – the tribe of the mayor. Because, as I said, by then Russian science spread the concept of “cle” to all Finnish tribes. Russian society was instilled in the idea that the Rostov-Suzdal land had long been brewed in one “historical cauldron” with the Grand Kyiv principality. And all this “historical community – from the very beginning was called “Rus”. Because of which all the substitutions and substackings of the names of the tribes were not seen as rough twists.

By the way, note: the text of the Nestor Chronicle needed to be introduced a tribe of mayor, because it was she who lived in 862 on the future land of Moscow. What the ancient historians showed. Therefore, the arbitrary addition of the word “all” to the “general Russian chronicle” fundamentally did not change anything. The land of the tribe was not a rod element of Moscow statehood. So, Russian historians followed well in the text “Shows of past years”. First, the text added all. Then, after finding an error, they began to correct the edit. Even the plague in the tribe their ancient city of Izborsk, ascribed it to the curves. Lyinging! And no one stopped.

Listen to what O wrote about this. O. Shahmatov:

“In the 15th century, the contributor of the Archangelogorodsky Chronicle gave us a comment…, mentioning Izborsk, he says: ”and now the Pskovsky fence, and then there was a big city in Kryvicy.” But, of course, such a comment proves only that even in the 16th century the settlement of Truvar in Izborsk and not in a large city of the curves, caused surprise to the scribes. 292[.

“It is even more unclear that Sineus’ settlement on Biloozer, in the area not Mary, who participated in the call, but Vesi, who did not participate in it. True, the contributor of the “Show of Past Years” joined All the tribes calling on princes, but such undoubtedly later the spread of the text proves only that at the beginning of the 12th century the settlement of Sineus on Biloosery, and not in the Mary region (in Rostov), caused surprise to a careful chronicler”

Bringing an open siege to the text of the ancient chronicle, Russian professors drove themselves into a hopeless. And with great care they tried to justify that siege. For O. Oh. Shahmatov, the great Nestor only made a mistake when he “forgot” to plant Sineus in Rostov, to the mayor. In Nestor, this “inaccuracy” even caused “surprise.” However, he did not correct anything, they said, the descendants will figure out. And the descendants figured out — continued the text about the Varangians. So, we read:

“By two years Sineus will die, and his brother Truvor, and Priya power Rurik, and gave her husband his degrees: ovovsky Po-lotsk, ovtovo Rostov, and the second Belo Lake. And by the topics of the cities is the approach of Varyaz, and the first inhabitants of the New City of Slovenia, Polotsk Krivici, in Rostov Mere, in Belozer All, in Murom Muroma, and the themes of all the siege Rurik” [33, pp.5-6].

The issues of possessions are solved perfectly simply. With one handwriting, everyone was driven into the future Russian Empire. And the “incarriers are of heavy lies” that neither the mayor nor all nor the mut — the ancient Finnish tribes that lived on their land and were in the sixties of the Third century still wild, nor did they know about any “state” and the Varang-Russian tribe did not invite them to their rulers. And in order to plant their “rulers” in the Finnish environment, Rurik first had to conquer and conquer, and only then – to plant the rulers “all the oblastash”. About Rurik’s military campaigns in the Finno-Mordovian land chroniclers are silent.

And in order not to invent new receivers, the chroniclers even Sineus and Truvor died immediately, as soon as they came. However, the lie about the “sriting man of his hail” and “all the siege” is noticeable for another reason.

If you believe the “general Russian chronicle” that Rurik “equipped” mayor, spring and wall, it is not clear why his family forgot about “his possession” by the end of the 10th century? After all, the chronicles about these “ownerships” have not been mentioned for 136 years. Five generations of Rurikovichs did not know about their “domining”. More than strange!

I suggest listening to Professor O. Oh. Shahmatova, who explains by what year the “Pousy of Past Years” was proved and how it was grouped in its content in two directions.

“The majority of the chronicles that came to us in the lists of Lavrentievsky, Radziville, Moscow-Academic, lost Trinity, Ipatiyiv, Khlebnikov-communic and three more later ones that belong to the Khlebnikovsky list (Pogodinsky, Krakow and Krko). In the lists of Lavrentievsky, Radziville, Moscow-Academic and lost Trinity, the oldest part of the chronicle text is brought to 1110 and breaks down on the unfinished article of this 6618 (1110) year. And in the lists of Ipatia and Khlebnikov, the conclusion of Article 6618 (1110) is read, and after it without a noticeable pe-reve, Articles 6619, 6620, 6621, 6622, 6623, 6624, 66251 of subsequent years, and, however, after 6625 years. There is a significant decrease in the volume of chronicle articles. In part to 6618 (1110), the text of Ipagiev and Khlebnikov lists (especially since 6584) several unnecessary news against Lavrentievsky and similar lists. Thus, we have reason to talk about two editions of the “Show of the past years”: the first. represented by Lavrentievsky and similar lists, and a friend represented by Ipatiyivsky (and similar lists. – W. B.) (32, p. 1-2].

Now you understand why the famous M. M. Karamzin was not previously arranged by the “found” Lviv and Lavren-tiev “liographical ducts” (in 1792). Voshi did not provide information about 1147. Therefore, in 1809 and “found” it was Ipatiev “liographical platoon”.

That’s it! What it took, and “found”! But this note is in a way. The main thing is to draw attention to the fact that, according to the “general Russian chronicle”, the chronicle “The story of past years” was written only in the early 12th century. This is very important because the Kiev chronicler Nestor, who wrote his own in the XII hundred years, presented truths and concepts. The words and events that existed were known in his time. Professor M. And. Kostomarov clearly stated: “Our chronicle was compiled in the 12th century, so, reporting the news of former events, the chronicler uses the words and expressions that prevail in his time.” 279].

Otherwise, it could not be. It was the “Valty of Past Years” that even in the XJ1 century, the mayor, all and the wall lived on the land where they lived in the 9th century. If it were different, the chronicler would definitely note the movement of them. 1 although the chronicle itself has been included many “difficulsion lies” about the distribution of the land, about the owners, this does not prevent the chronicle from revealing those facts and events that are undeniable, do not cause any doubt. The ancient chronicle testified: the Rurik family was absolutely not interested in the lands of the mayor, spring, wall, herstchers and so on from 862 to 988. After distributing to “to the men his hail”, Rurik completely forgot about those “men” and those “grads”. Let’s listen to the historian: “Since the transition of Oleg (882) with their hordes in Kiev to Vladimir (Holy) — for more than a hundred years we have known almost anything about our north, except the unclear journey of Olga (in Novgorod. – W. B.) and election of the son of the Svyatoslav. The saved news (summer descriptions) of these times are related to (exceptionally) the South (Kiev)” [33, p.278].

Such an anecdote of “ownership”! Even the information about Novgorod is so poor that the historian speaks with regret. And information about the “domining” in Rostov-Suzdal land in the chronicles is absent. The princes of Kiev, starting from Oleg, did not know that they owned a mayor, ant and a wedding. Very strange “memorylessness.”

At the slightest touch to the “hard lies” launched in history, it, this lie, is constantly peeled and falls off.

Catherine II and her “Commission” to tie the “Zale-shan land” to the family Rurik and to the Grand Duchy of Kiev, considered it quite sufficient elementary verbal insertion in the ancient chronicle “The story of past years”. But, as it turned out, those words were not related to the only content with the subsequent text. Because of what are outsiders there, they can be freely and painlessly missed and thrown away. The whole text of the chronicle of such actions does not allow.

As we will see in the future, even inserts about 988 will be a normal siege. Catherine’s “Commission” understood all the command of such “domining” and tried at least rarely “to unite” the Kiev princes and “Zaleshan land. That’s why Sviatoslav went to the Khazar, by Oka. And Vladimir the Great “planted” his sons in the chair of the prince not the land that he did not belong to him. But let’s talk about this in the next section.

Now I suggest listening to the Soviet professors. Let’s see what the “great-majories’ thought of “The story of past years.” Let’s turn to the text that has reached our times, from an unusually interesting side. After all, communist historians, when profitable, spoke such truths that the spirit was intercepted. However, even by making such discoveries and statements, they have not made changes in the interpretation of the Romanov concept of Russian history. She arranged them. Read the extract from the VRE (third edition, year of issue 1975, t 22):

“Rurik-Syneus-Truvor, according to Russian chronicles, three brothers of cones, led by Varang wives, allegedly called “through the sea” by Novgorod Slavs in order to stop internecines in Novgorod and who founded the Ancient Russian state. According to this version. Rurik sat in Novgorod, Sineus in Biloosery. Truvor is in Izborsk. The rapid death of the middle and younger brothers made Rurik an all-time ruler of the Novgorod land. Some scholars identify him with Rerik Datsky, who committed at the head of a Varang wife raids on Western Europe (by 860). There’s an opinion. That Sineus and Truvor did not exist, and the message about them is the result of a foreign text incorrectly read by the Russian chronicler, which reports that Rurik came to the land of the Slavs with his home (“simechus”) and a loyal wife (“tru-voring”). Rurik ruled first in Ladoga. He was not called “through the sea”, but seized power in 862 in Novgorod, using internal individuals. The legend of the “calling” of the Varangians, which developed in Novgorod or Ladoga in the 11th century, was used in the editing of “The Tale of Past Years” in the early 12th century. to explain the origin and glorification of the ruling Russian princely dynasty, the founder of which Rurik was considered. This version formed the basis of anti-scientific Norman theory.

Great Russians are proclaimed! It turns out. Catherine II and her “Commission” “beared the wrong.” Greater historians -daymen have become treading, as they say, in damage. This is always the case in Moscow. However, how clever and elegantly they submit their version. How big the Jesuits of the Middle Ages! It turns out that Sineus and Truvor did not exist. There was a common substitution of words in the ancient text But then, it is quite obvious that further clarification is asked in “The story of past years. It is necessary that the “there is an opinion” that the appointment of Sineus and Truvor, whether in the land of miracles, whether in the land of the mayor was also recognized as a fiction. But that is silent. Saying that is unprofitable. The Verkhovna does provide a generalized opinion “about the great Russian princes” and about the “Novgorod land”. Elementary cloud is reduced to generalization. For everyone understands that the concept of “Russian princely dynasty” is an invention not of the XII century and not the XIII century. It came much later.

This is not the only joke of Russian history, which follows from a small reference of the Verkhovna. We are also pushed to the idea that already in the 12th century there was a falsification of “descripts” either from human stupidity or ignorance. For when an ancient chronicler inserted into his chronicle extracts from strangers (Danish) and when he distorted (“bluechus” on Sineus, and “tru-voring” on Truvor) and arbitrarily planted them in foreign lands to betray for their own, this is otherwise than falsification is not called. The great Russians-dayly lied undeservedly to the nattly great compatriot-pike, Nestor. The fact is that such a hint carries a double lie. It is impossible to believe that the Kiev chroniclers in the early 12th century had Danish chronicle materials at their disposal. In those days, all chronicles were artificial, existed in single specimens. And the Kiev land had no serious ties with Danish. Not fixed. And Rurik himself came not “through the sea”, but lived “at close” to Novgorod.

Knowing how Catherine II, together with her “Commission” “manduced in the writing of Russian history” and how after their “rules” began to print and “find” hundreds of so-called “liconics”, we have with complete certainty the right to assert the innocence of Nestor; “legend of calling the Varangians” added in the ancient Kiev century. However, do not forget that it was Catherine II who knew all German, Danish and Scandinavian ancient tales perfectly. She was brought up on them.

If inserts in ancient chronicles were made in the XII century, then tell me, please, why remove ancient raretes from all the peoples of the Russian Empire? That makes no sense. On the contrary, they had to be left in place so that they witnessed the Romanov version of the story. Something was not arranged in those rares of Russian rulers if they even threatened their approaching ones: “No sheet can be notified to anyone outside without the knowledge of the Board.”

Having cleaned the ancient chronicle from obvious Russian lies, by the way, with the help of Russian sources, we have the right to declare: from 862 to Prince Vladimir the Great, the land of Kiev and her tribes had no ties with the country of Moxel, or, in Moscow, with Rostov-Suzdal land. There were no common princes, there was no common state, there is no little information even about the trade between those lands.
Z

For further analysis, consider the specific facts of the period of formation and exaltation of the Kiev principality of the IX-X centuries and the vector of the direction of the external aspirations of the first Kiev princes.

After studying the material of Soviet historians and referring to the works of M. And. Kostomarova and O. Oh. Shahmatova, we found that in the ancient Kiev chronicle “The Story of Past Years” many inserts and distortions were made, in particular, the story of Rurik’s call by Novgorodmen and their neighbors. By the way, the vast majority of Russian historians of the XIX-XX centuries stated to one degree or another this great phenomenon of compilation. That is, we have a picture when in fact Rurik did not come through the “Vary Sea”, but, as a neighbor, took advantage of confusion and in 862 conquered himself and his family Novgorod Slovenes, blood neighbors and Lebanese plague. There was no Sineus and Truvor. This part of the chronicle text is a common insert and no more.

The ancient Nestoric chronicle did not mention Rurik’s capture of distant Thai Finnish tribes: mayors, ants, mari, mari, residents, weddings. Naturally, without subjuging and not seizing those lands, Rurik could not plant their rulers in them so that they were “powered”. This part of the chronicle is also a false insert. Because, as we will see in this section, the next princes of Kiev did not even know about “their Rostov-Suzdal possessions.”

So, according to the “general Russian chronicles”, in 882 almost all the tribe of “Russ”, already under the leadership of Prince Oleg, moved to Kiev. As a result of the struggle and destruction of the Kiev rulers, Oleg and his wife and with his family sat down on the Kiev throne. The formation of the Grand Duchy of Kiev began, the most powerful state at the end of the first and early second millennium of the new era.

Catherine’s “Commission”, creating “general Russian-and-the-and-year-olds”, made in the story of Oleg another attempt to “unify” “Merian land” with Kiev. She launched the word “dead” twice – “dead”. The mayor is mentioned under 882 — as if she participated in Oleg’s campaign on Kiev, and for the second time — in 904-907, where she allegedly participated in a campaign to Constantinople. Naturally, the mention of the “dead” in both campaigns is more than strange. For we have seen before: the Rurik family had nothing to do with the Finnish tribe of mayor. Interesting otherwise. It was Oleg’s campaign to Kiev that gave Moscow chauvinists the first opportunity to show the “power and power of northern Russia” at the end of the 9th century. He said that Oleg Kiev took over thanks to “merians from northern Russia.” Although, as we can see, “Northern Rus was a Finnish ethnicity at that period.

And Constantinople, “Northern Rus” and ready had to “go down”. Moscow chauvinist is like a “walk to Constantinople” — a balm per soul. For more than 300 years, I have been dreaming of such a trip.

However, with the word “may” the boat “Commission” played. The error was another failure. Recalling the lakes Nero and Kleschino Mayor, the Commission confirmed its residence in the Oka and Volga boundary in the early 10th century. And that “Merian land” in those days was “the cradle of Great Russians. After praising the “victory” of future “great-greats” over Kiev and Constantinople, Catherine II and her “Commission”, finally saw the potential danger that was hidden in those references. On the threshold was the XI century — the time of the greatest prosperity of the Kiev state. If then in the “general Russian chronicles” to launch fictions about the mayor, which allegedly participates in the life of the Kiev principality, then how to get out of this abyss then? It turned out that the Moscow ethnic group was exclusively Finnish tribes. The purpose of the Moscow authorities was to attack the Slavic and Byzantine heritage. Moscow’s Phino-Tatar past was completely rejected.

That is why from this time the Finnish tribe of the mayor and even the very concept of “Merian land” disappear from “general Russian chronicles”. It is as if the mer’s tribe мерянevaporated from the earth’s surface. The land of the mayor ceased to exist. Princes of Kiev with their Kiev chroniclers completely “forgotten” for a hundred years about their Meric possessions. An incredible historical paradox!

We will listen to the Russian historian: “On the threshold of this period, at the beginning of the 10th century, it is the name of Mary, the Aboriginals of the country that disappears in the sense of the ethnographic term and is replaced after centuries, at the beginning of the XI century, by another term “the land of Rostov”, and then in half of the… The 11th century is called “the land of Rostov and Suzdal” [9, p. 63-64].

That is why for 100 years disappeared from the “general Russian chronicles” references to the mayor and the Meric land. A long-term preparation for the launch of a new “general Russian siege”. During Oleg’s reign in Kiev, from 882 to 912, chronicles did not tell about the life of not only the Meric land, but even Novgorod.

Prince Oleg the Novgorod land, which he left, was not interested. And that’s quite natural. Oleg conquered (military force) the Slavic tribes that surrounded Kiev. Therefore, the “Fence of past years” tells about the military actions of the prince against the Drevlyans, Severians, Radomychi. He could not leave Kiev without conquering the tribes that surrounded him. It’s an axiom! Only then did he direct his military efforts south. I forgot about the north.

In 912 Prince Oleg was gone. As you can see, “general-no-Russian chronicles” did not mention the “Oleg possessions” in Novgorod and Meric lands. Those possessions simply did not exist.

Perhaps the boatin “Commission” had a desire to cast words about Oleg’s military campaigns on the mayor and wall in the ancient chronicle, but she could not do this. That text would be sewn with white threads. While waging war to unite the Slavic tribes around Kiev, and there were more than a dozen of them, it was impossible to interrupt this mission and go thousands of kilometers in deaf slums, so that it is unknown who to conquer.

It should also be remembered: in the XII century, direct roads that would connect Kiev with the border of Oka and Volga did not exist.

So, in 912, the great prince of Kiev became Igor.

The VRE submits the following text about the formation of the Kiev principality: “The heir of Oleg Prince Igor continued active foreign policy. In 913 (the year) through Itil (Volga) he passed all the west coast of the Caspian Sea. 12, p. 96].

Similar references are in the “general Russian chronicles”. Based on these references to the campaign of Prince Igor in 913 “through Itil (Volgu)… On the west coast of Caspian, many Russian historians concluded that this is somehow connected with Merian land.

However, it is clear to a smart person: the way from Kiev to the west coast of the Caspian never passed through the taiga and Volga. The lying hints of Russian historians about the possible connection of this campaign with the cradle of Great Russians are inappropriate. By the way, there is other evidence that refutes such hints.

In 922, the Arab Caliphate sent a large embassy to the Bulgars king of Almuip. His purpose was to plant Islam among the Bulgar, as King Almusz asked. The embassy included Ahmed Ibn-Fadlan, who left offspring a description of that campaign.

A large caravan of hundreds of camels, mules and horses went from Bukhara to Khorezm, and then past the modern cities of Beineu, Kulsary, Gurjev, Uralsk, Samara — to the mouth of the river Kam, that is, to the fall of Kam in the Volga. It was in that place in 922 that King Bulgar Almusz was parking.

Ibn-Fadlan painted a picture of the life of many tribes of the time with whom he had contact. Among them are Pechenigs, Bulgars, Khazars, Gohous and even Russ. He testified to the power of the Khazar state, as the king of the Bulgar obeyed and paid tribute to Hazar Hakan (king). However, Ibn-Fadlap and the word did not mention the march of the Rus (Igor’s prince) on the Khazar, although that campaign, according to the Moscow version, took place a few years before the expedition of the Arab Khalifa. Ibn Fidlan could not have known about such a significant event. Prince Igor’s campaign affected the interests of absolutely all tribes with which the embassy was in contact, and even the Caliphate himself, whose possession was directly in the Caspian.

We are not talking about Khazar Kaganat, which Prince Igor would have to crush, and the Volga Bulgars themselves, which this event would never have been overlooked. However, about

The march of the Russ on the Khazar in 913 neither the Arabs, nor the Bulgars, nor the Gohusa, nor the Pechenigs were not aware. And Khazar Hakan in 922 was in the heyday of strength. Even Almutp’s daughter forced her wife.

The immediate witnesses of the distant 10th century knew about the campaign of Prince Igor of Kiev on the “west coast of the Caspian Sea.”

As you can see, Prince Igor, who ruled in Kiev until 945, had nothing to do with the Meric land. We have a great historical joke: princes forgot their father! But this is true only if we proceed from the false Moscow preconditions, as if the land belonged to the Kiev princes.

It is time for Olga’s reign, who, through the youth of the Sipa Sviatoslav, ruled by the state from 945 to the early sixties (somewhere to 960-962). It is also in Kiev in periods of military campaigns of Prince Sviatoslav. We have already mentioned in our book the words of D. Oh. Korsakov: “From 913 to 988, nothing is mentioned in the chronicles about the land of Rostov.” As you can see, Prince of the Games in 913 did not visit the land. Princess Olga was not interested in that land. However, during her reign she visited Novgorod land. Listen to Professor D. Oh. Korsakov: “Olga was in Novgorod estates… “Getting out and dans by Met… and tribute, and the remarks on Luge.” About other “general Russian chronicles” are silent. Not interested in distant Finnish tribes: mayor, wall, mescher, mari neither Prince Igor nor Princess Olga.

Then came the turn of the reign of Prince Sviatoslav of Kiev, who princed from 962 to 972. I want to remind you: all the political and military efforts of Kiev princes in the 10th century were directed south, to the southern neighbors. By creating its “Notes on the history of Russia”, which turned into “general Russian chronicles”, the boating “Commission” did not refrain from throwing a minor insert into the description of Prince Sviatoslav’s campaigns in order to direct the prince’s military efforts to “cradle of Great Russians”. It launched a few additional words in the text “The Tale of Past Years” that distorted the content of events. Namely: in the text about the campaign of Prince Sviatoslav, an insert was made about “turning to Oku” and “away” submission of the Vyatichi. It should be understood that these actions of counterfeiters were forced. After all, given the previously launched cloud, Rurikovich! already owned: rivichlsh, Livonian miracle, Novgorod Slovenes, mayor, spring, ant and even the entire Kiev Slavic land. And in the middle of this conquered edge zy ly ip was a ся huge, not captured piece of land. And that “Prikian land” was also a “colle of Great Russians”.

Then Catherine II and “sented along” to that land of Prince Sviatoslav of Kiev: they say Sviatoslav left Kiev to lower the Volga to thunder the Khazar, and simultaneously “came to the Eye” and captured the vyatich. However, the years of the reign of Princess Olga and Prince Sviatoslav are very uncomfortable for falsehood. Almost all events of that period are recorded simultaneously by Arab and Byzantine historians. Therefore, all inserts of the boatin Commission are completely contrary to independent sources.

Let’s listen to Professor O. O. Shahmatova: “…We have invented chronicle dates, invented precisely in order to squeeze the chronicle story into a chronological network. These years are also unreliable: so the defeat of Svyatoslav Kozar and the campaign against the tribes that lived in the northern part of the Caucasus, according to the Arab source, took place in 358 of the Muslim era, which corresponds to 968-969 Christian and 6476-6477 years from (creation of the world): the initial led these events to 6479 (965); Olga’s trip to Tsar. 720].

As with all his work, scientist O. O. The chessmatov wrote off mistakes and outright lies on chroniclers. Recognizing in the text “The Tales of Past Years” of the war and insertion, he had to give an explanation. And to point to direct counterfeiters, of course, no one allowed him. Therefore, recognizing the huge number of inserts and outright lies in the “general Russian chronicles”, almost all Russian (and Ukrainian) historians are afraid to tell the truth when such a compilation of chronicles was conducted. They follow the path of the least resistance: it is easiest to write down the blame on chroniclers of the 12th and 10th centuries. And that is nameless. But the chroniclers of those distant times were not directly interested in such a compilation.

But back to the vetichs. Once again, I would like to remind you that there was no direct path from Kiev to Oka, through Chernihiv. And later. We’ll talk about it again.

Where did the Khazars live in the 10th century, on which the Kiev prince Sviatoslav went war?

“The Cossacks occupied space between Don and Volga; their main city Itil stood in the mouth of the Volga, which outside the city itself was called this name: yet. The Arabs called it the Kazakh River and the Caspian Sea called the Sea of the Kazakh Sea. Another city of Kozar. taken by Svyatoslav and he was apparently destroyed, stood on the left bank of the Don near the Volga-Don’s hair… Thus, the instruction of the Volga in the message (in the chronicle. – W. B.) The Goat to the Cosar is quite appropriate.” 721].

We were convinced once again that walking in the bottom of the Volga through the Eye was no point. However, it is this idea that is to connect Volia with the Eye, especially since in human consciousness rivers are associated with something single, whole — and pushed the Co.t. With this untruth, it practically connected the entire Finnish land with the great Kiev principality — already in the 10th century.

The opinions of the counterfeiters were simple to absurdity. But yet, it didn’t pass.

Let’s go back to Professor O.O. Shahmatova: “In Article 6472, which describes Sviatoslav’s successes, and in the following articles 6473 and 6474 we find a number of inappropriateness. After the words “and you’ll send to the curtains: I want to eat.” We read at 6472 (964): “And goes to the Eye of the reku and the Volga, and the zalezes of Vyatichi.” Thus, Sviatoslav in the first campaign violates his custom to warn the enemy against whom he goes. It is quite a random encounter with the Vyatichi; he does not fight them, but only learn from them that they give tribute to Casaram. In addition, the strange words “going to the eye of the reku and the Volga.” The Vyatichi lived, according to 12th century testimony, in the Eye; but why would we mention the Volga, which never reached the Vyatic settlements? Further explains what is the matter; at 6473 we read: “Gos Sviatoslav comes to the Cossacks. And the Cosars are the enemy.” So, Svyatoslavov campaign is directed against Kozar, and, apparently, he warned them about it (“listened Kozars”). So Sviatoslav went to the Kozar, who lived in the Volga, in a straight way. Hence: Vyatichi in the time of Sviatoslav… They lived in Southeastern Russia, somewhere near the Don.” 118-119].

To such an unexpected conclusion came the professor, so as not to mention the work of the boatin Commission. However, he had the courage to say, “Because of this, we strongly tend to think that the available chronicle text is much corrupted.” And the scientist said: “The same insert of years that violated the original integrity of the story, we see in the message about the campaigns of Sviatoslav” [35]. 119].

So, falsification of the text is confirmed, albeit in a veiled, powdered version. However, there is also a completely frank falsification in the chronicle text, noticeable with the naked eye. And the professor is talking about it. On page 123 of the book “intelligence” [32] O. Oh. Prince Sviatoslav of Shahmatova turns to his wife with the following words before the battle with the Greeks: “It is not to the land of Russian, but I will lie down with bones, because the scar is not to be.

Words are naturally taken from the “Tale of Past Years”. That is why the researcher comes to a serious conclusion: “Involuntarily born suspicion as to whether they are rewritten (including words). – W. B.) From some written source (next time). – W. B.1 .

We must understand that such a political wordbudism could appear in the text no earlier than the appearance of the Russian Empire itself, that is, not before the XVIII century. Such fables and myths are found in the distorted Co.C. “Commission” text “Shows of past years”. What is important is that even Russian professors had to somehow respond to such a siege.

Prince Sviatoslav, as Professor O. Oh. Shahmatov, did not march on Oku or in the land of future Moscow. That is, for 972, the time of the death of Prince Sviatoslav, the Finnish lands of mayor, walls, residents and springs were not conquered and did not enter the Kiev state. The situation is so obvious that there is no doubt.

Same Professor 0.0. Shahmatov recognized another very valuable fact, which is everywhere found in the so-called “general Russian chronicles”. We read: “Laurishly vaults (after Lavrentievsky. – W. B.) New corrections of the studied text. Thus, in Yermolaev-com list of the so-called Ipatiyivsky Chronicle we read under 6472: ” and goes to the hen of the rec on the Volga and the naleze of Vyatici.” With each subsequent “general Russian chronicle” “improved” text, details were clarified, obvious lies were cleared.

By the way, what is especially interesting: Yermolyaevsky chronicle list of the so-called Ipatiyivsky Chronicle “found” personally Professor O. Oh. Chessmen in the early 20th century. We have a normal Russian (just already!!!) joke. We only have to guess: where is the historical probability, and where is the ordinary Moscow screwdriver. You can’t say otherwise.

So, in 972, the eldest son of Sviatoslav, Yaropolk, sat on the princely throne in Kiev. Prince Yaropolk Svyatoslavovich princed until 980. He directed his efforts first to preserve the Grand Duke’s throne, because his younger brothers, Oleg and Vladimir, encroached on Kiev. There was a constant struggle between the brothers. In 977, Oleg died, who ruled in the Drevlian land. Since then, the Drevlyan land has entered the subordination of the Grand Prince of Kiev. In 980, Yaropolk captured Novgorod by military force. However, his younger brother Vladimir killed him. Once again, I draw attention: even Novgorod became a Kiev possession only after submission by force. And when Princess Olga ruled, and when Prince Yaropolk reigned. The people did not pull a voluntary yoke on the neck. Such a truth should not require evidence.

Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, who later received the title, was Grand, princed in Kiev from 980 to 1015. Thirty-five years! It was under his reign that the Slavic tribes of the Kiev principality adopted Christianity. In Kiev there was a high priest. The Christian religion officially and forcibly, which is necessary to emphasize — forced — began to be planted among the Slavs. The prince in the planting of religion was blood-oriented. After all, the distinct pagan tribes fell under centralized both church and princely power. This is a completely different conversation: what a little freedom every tribe and every settlement (city) managed to preserve.

The church penetrated into the soul of man and kept records of everyone who entered its bosom.

The chronicles preserved materials as Novgorodes rebelled against the new religion and as the princely wife brutally suppressed resistance. This was the case in every land, with every tribe. Here, false tales of voluntary acceptance of Christianity are inappropriate. There were also voluntary acceptances. But they were an exception.

So, let’s read about Novgorod events: “992 years according to the Michael’s successor of Metropolitan (Kyiv) Leontius, Bishop John, appointed to Novgorod, coming there, had to once again crush idols and ruin the needs… The water baptism of the Russian world was not as voluntary and heard as you can imagine from the Sylvester Chronicle. Along with peaceful shepherds from the verbal series, completely different preachers walked: Good. Uncle Vladimir, and Putyat, Vladimir is a thousandth, and with them there was a military force. Where pastoral persuasions were not satisfied, more fleshly means were used there. In this way, they baptized in different lands of the Slavic-Russian world people, where hundreds, where thousands will happen. The unfaithful men were also worried and complained, but there was nothing to do: they did not dare to resist the power of the military. The original army of preachers was, of course, from Kiev, but then in every land they recruited new baptized, and in this way strength increased. Therefore, the preachers put all the cross on the neck. The Novgorodians were rooted — nowhere to go; they washed in water, the crosses were put on, but in the soul they remained at least not Christians, if not quite pagans for a long time. Remembering the violent baptism, they reproached the Novgorodians for a long time and said to them with ridicule, “The poutt has baptized you with the sword, and the Goodness with fire.” 33-35].

I did not give a story about how the pagans were burned in Novgorod and how their heads were cut off. Hundred! Christianity was everywhere.

The question may be: why did the author pay so much attention to this aspect?

The answer is strategically important. Each reader should understand: with the adoption of Christianity in the Great Kiev principality, the actions of the prince have radically changed. If earlier the prince, going on the campaign, was intended to commit robbery in a foreign land or pay tribute to it, then with the adoption of Christianity the prince’s main task was: to attract the defeated to the Christian faith and conquer them to the Kiev Metropolis, that is, to himself. Since the end of the 10th century, every Kiev prince in the campaign was accompanied by a priest of high rank (bishop). It’s an axiom! And any conquered villages (or tribes) immediately involved in the Christian religion.

We have seen with the cruelty Christianity in Novgorod land. Therefore, there is no doubt that with no less cruelty and care it had to be planted among Finnish tribes.

Since the 11th century, the siege launched by the Co.t. Commission in the “general Russian chronicles” becomes more noticeable and tangible. The prince could no longer, when he was in the pagan land, not to do religious affairs.

If in the 9th century Sineus (wordly) could be “planted” on the land of Ves, then from the end of the 10th century such a “prescription” turned into an anecdote. The prince-Christite could only go to the pagan land with the bishop and with the mission of spreading the Christian religion among the natives. Otherwise, the Christian prince himself converted to paganism.

Even Jan Vyshatich’s expedition to the “Merian Land” in 1071 had a priest in its composition. And the unsold of the Magi killed the priest! But we’ll talk about it later.

Since the XI century, it is necessary to consider any appearance of the Kiev extile prince in the pagan land in connection with the Christian factor and with the establishment of religion and church on that land. By his actions, Prince Vladimir the Great helped our case to refute Moscow’s lies about the Slavic origin of Moscow and its entry into the Grand Duchy of Kiev.

So, let us consider the reign of Vladimir the Great after 988, that is, after the adoption of Christianity by the Grand Duchy of Kiev. Prince Vladimir had 12 sons. However, the “general Russian chronicles” somehow told us under 988 about the allocation of only four. And what’s interesting: not in seniority, but – a snat.

We read the chronicle: “…positions of this kinnaago Svia-to-Tolka in Princess Pinske, and Yaroslava Novgorod, and Boris Rostove, and Biaba Mourome.” About the other sons of the prince is silent: they say, the chronicler knew, where the princes sat, but did not think it was necessary to talk about it.

The question also arises: how did Finnish become the native Kiev princes, or what language did they communicate in the “Meric land”? After all, the chronicle was written in those days when the Finnish ethnic group lived in that land. And here I want to remind you a few more paradoxes: even the Volkhov River is a specific Finnish name. Ailmen-lake in the 12th century was used by Finnish words —The Moisko-ozsro. And that’s in the land of Slavs!

In the early 15th century, Veliky Novgorod and Pskov visited the knight Hilber de Lannoa, who recorded that the rivers on which Pskov was located, even at that time had Finnish names “Moeda and Plesko”, and the name “Great”, there is undoubtedly a translation of the… from the Finnish or Latvian anniversary [44], p. 1-20].

That is, the very mention of Finnish names of cities — princely capitals — is completely absurd for the “the prince-slov-yapin”. These inserts could appear in the chronicle much later. And the story of the murder of Boris and Ilib is completely falsified. That is a vision for a far-sighted goal.

I suggest that I first restore distant events in memory. So, according to the “lidescription”, Prince Vladimir in 988 allegedly sent to prince in Rostov – Boris, and in Moore – Biiba. In the chronicle, surprisingly, there is absolutely no explanation of how the tribes of the mayor and the moroma were part of the Kiev principality. But even more strange is the absence of chronicle references to the adoption of Christianity by those lands in 988. We remember how Christianity was planted in the Novgorod land!

The analysis shows that the sons of Prince Vladimir, Boris and Biib, were pagans by 1015. Because in the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land, as we will see in the future, the first priests appeared only at the end of the XI century. Such an anecdote “floating” from the launched “difficult lies”.

According to the same “lidescription”, Boris and Piiba’s older brother Svyatopolk, wishing to capture the Kiev throne after his dying father, sent the Gynec brothers to younger brothers and on the way, when they got to Kiev, killed them. The whole joke of the Great Russian chronicle lies is that the sons of Vladimir Boris and Shb were not older, and therefore could not be contenders for the Grand Duke’s throne. Feel all the comic of the situation — the older brothers remained alive, and the younger Holypolk was afraid?!

The secret of this “murder” is quite simple: Princes Boris and Piib are the first to rule allegedly in the “colle of Great Russians”, whom “a chronicle tale” mentioned by name. That is why it took ideas: the first princes of the “Great-Koros” are the first saints of Moscow land. For such “great” lies, I had to lie fundamentally. Everything is sewn through white threads!

As it turned out, this “lidescription” fully does not agree on descriptive and factual data. Listen:

“The question is where Ogib went to challenge his brother Svyatopolk, where was he at the death of his father? Judging by Article 6496 (988), Piib sat in Murom… But why does Piib go from Murom on the Volga on horseback? Why did he go through the Volga twice?.. So we conclude that the story of Piib’s murder in the chronicle story that came to us is inserts against the original edition. 80].

Professor O. Oh. The chessmatov would never have reached the top in Russian historical science if all these dirty manipulations with “inserts” had attributed to the authors of similar . As was said in all Russian historians, the professor referred to such actions as the sins of “ancient chroniclers”. I said they were unknown, rewriting material, and they made receivings. Mostly stupid and fiction.

And to reveal more fully the nonsense of the “beat of Piib in Murom”, we will give a surprisingly interesting calculation, performed by Professor N. V. Pathways in the process of analyzing the way in Kiev, which was allegedly defeated by the prince:

“N. B. The way assumed that Viib was not coming from Murom, but from Rostov (look how simple: wanted — and assumed. – W. B.)… An interesting calculation submitted by this researcher, which follows that within 42 days the ambassadors of Svyatopolk and Viiba had to overcome 46 versts per day (if Epib was sitting in Rostov) or by the… 60 versts (if he was sitting in Murom). But besides, N. B. The ways note the vagueness of the circumstance why Piib got into Otmychi (a village in mouth 1st.) The rets are located on the left bank of the Volga. “Didn’t he leave White? But then the path was extended by 2677 versts. s. 77].

Since Peter’s times, the Russian verst was 1.0668 km. That is, the Ptib and ambassadors of the Holy Regiment 42 days rocked on a deaf taiz without substitute horses of 65 kilometers per day (the way from Murom). Even the steppes of Khan Bati on a smooth free steppe, constantly changing on the “yam” of horses, it was difficult to achieve such a speed for 42 days. But the “great,” it turns out, everything could. As today. Paper suffered everything. It’s also patient.

Sometimes, though, O. O. The chessmatov gained courage and refuted obvious lies. Let’s listen to the professor’s conclusion:

“So the message of Vladimir’s death, as it is set out in the chronicle story that came to us, leads us to a decisive claim that the text is twisted before us.” 74].

Great Finally Professor O. O. The Shahmatov achieved the truth. And then he tells the complete truth:

Nestor reports that Piib was at his father, but after the death of the last (1015) fled Kiev, fearing Svyatopolk. The chronicle says that Boris received Rostov in the fate of Rostov, Nestor instead of Rostov calls Vladimir (let the reader not confuses — we are talking about Vladimir-Volynsky. – W. B.), Chronicle claims that Piibov was Moore, Nestor gives all this so that the minor Viib was not put on his father at all. It is difficult to assume that Nestor deliberately spoils the chronicle story” (32, p. 64-65].

So, Professor O.O. The chessmatov in his own style proved that Prince Vladimir the Great had nothing to do with the Rostov-Suzdal land. And the idea of the appointment to Finnish land in 988 by his sons Boris and Bib are not true of later times. The professor took under the personal protection of the great Nestor, confirming that the ancient chronicler had nothing to do with the falsification of the chronicle. He did not tell who and when he made changes to the Kiev chronicle. Most likely, you could not say this.

The scientist established and submitted an undisturbed text on the appointment to Boris’s department in 988: “…as the ambassador and then the father, and the Vladimir region, he will give him, and Saint Biab himself is left (as a minor. – W. B.)”. Such “general Russian chronicles” were produced by the famous boatinian “Commission”.

Interestingly, the vast majority of Russian and Ukrainian historians agree with the presence of “intropositions” in ancient chronicles. However, it is difficult to resist evidence that such a compilation was performed in the 18th century. Of course, it is not true in Kiev chronicles began to penetrate much earlier. Catherine’s “Commission” has completed the compilation process. And she contributed the most responsible to the issue of falsification of the history of Moscow. We will not stop at the details.

We must understand: ancient authors could not distort the text of the Nestor Chronicle. They were not interested and did not even know how and in which direction to distort it. The originals of the chronicles were reliable pure, like tears, which caused them to be removed from Ukraine-Rus, and they disappeared in the capitals of the Russian Empire. All to one!

So, the XI century came, and the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land was not yet part of the Grand Duchy of Kiev. And in this case, as they say, you will do nothing.

At the end of the section, we will tell you a surprisingly interesting, in my opinion, case that occurred in 1991, when the Russian Bolshevik empire was found in the blood and blood. I once attended a meeting with a Russian historian, a democratically minded man. I will not indicate the name of the scientist, because so far many participants in that conversation are alive and healthy, among them are my friends.

After the lecture, the professor continued an outright conversation about the falsification of Russian history. The scientist did not deny the presence of such facts. I tried to get the conversation away from this topic. On my suggestion about the need to conduct an independent European examination of paper, ink, graphics, etc. d. “general Russian chronicles” to make sure they come from the boatinian times, a professor of otrops.

At the beginning of the conversation, I told him that I was Ukrainian and firmly sure that Moscow has caught the history of Ukraine-Rus. The professor did not deny, saying that this in world history is found at every turn. But my suggestion for examination shocked him. He did not answer immediately, but in a style I didn’t expect from a Democrat:

I never understood why our Russian authorities hated hokhles and always sent them to Solovki, Siberia, Magadan. Now I think I’m starting to understand.

He smiled all over his mouth.

I am ashamed of the Russian chauvinist. He answered calmly:

You are wrong, Professor. The Russian authorities hated and destroyed — Ukrainians! The hoahly always found common language with the katsaps.

That’s what they broke up.

Russian chauvinism will be to poison the soul to the Russian intellectual for a long time.

4

Finally, before our vision in all its diversity comes to the 11th century. Centuries of the greatest prosperity and greatness of the Grand Duchy of Kiev! However, we will not explore material that confirms the concept of greatness of the ancient Kiev state. Hundreds of historians (and not only historians) of different countries and continents took care of this. Let’s go back to the study of our topic: was the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land in the 11th century in the great Kievan state, was there in that land a prince from the Rurikovich family and did the Finnish ethnicity continue to live on his original land in the border of Oka and Volga in the XI century?

From the previous section it is known that the movement in the XI century of the prince to the periphery without the escort of the bishop and without planting Christianity in that land cannot indicate the involvement of land in the Grand Duchy of Kiev. Since the XI century, the process of expanding the Kiev possessions could only take place as a joint action of the prince and the church. It is clear that this axiom was also known by the counterfeiters of Russian history. Because almost all the “general Russian chronicles”, since the XI century, provide information about the escort of the prince in the campaign by a priest.

I propose to trace the process of the beginning of colonization of the “Meric Land” by the Christian religion. The first independent bishops who allegedly visited the Rostov land were mentioned by the Greeks Theodore and Hilarion, who allegedly accompanied the sons of Vladimir the Great to Rostov and Moore — Boris and Piib — in the famous 988. Thanks to Professor O. Oh. Shahmatova, we have become convinced that Boris and Piib in 988 and later did not reign in the country of Moksel, or, for the reader, in the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land.

However, since such a cloud exists in Moscow historical science, let’s look at it more closely.

Nikonovsky “general Russian chronicle” reports that both bishops, having done nothing in that land, fled from it: “Theodor and Hilarion… “The suffering of unbelief and the food of people.” This mention is valuable by the fact that it showed the residence of the indigenous Finnish ethnicity in the Oka and Volga in 988. Because “the waves made the child.” And the second, which testified to the fact of the bishops’ escape from the Meric land: the lack of princely power in that land. A Christian prince would not allow subjects to be expelled from their possessions by bishops invited by him.

We have another puncture in Moscow historical science. That period (XI century) of “all-Russian chronicles” is especially filled with obvious absurds. I will only give two of them, the most frank. Readers will be able to see how truly titanic falsehood Moscow history has been subjected to being connected with the history of the Kiev principality.

The first absurd.

Raising Yuri Dovgoruky and his efforts to create the “Moscow state”, the famous historian M. P. Nogo-din, based on “Russian chronicles”, claimed in his “Research, remarks and lectures”: “Yuri (Long-handed. – W. B.) He was in Rostov (land). .1096, judging by the letter of Monomakh to Oleg Svyatoslavovich” [9, p. 72].

As the Russian professor claimed, the prince did not just visit the Rostov land — he “ruled and owned his father.” The whole paradox of such “ownership” is that Yuri Dovgoruk in 1096 was from 2 to 5 years old. He may not even have been born until 1096. We have a blatant case of Moscow historical hack. 1 planted such a Moscow historical hack not an ordinary Russian, but a professor of Russian history. As they say, go nowhere. A little maraism.

We ask the third edition (third edition, t. ZO, s. 413): “Juriy Long-handed (born) in the 90s of the XI century – died 15.5.1157.” The exact year of Yuri Dovgoruky’s birth is unknown. As an unknown exact year of Alexander, the so-called Nevsky, and many others, where Moscow history similar dates are unprofitable. What is interesting: to move the year of birth of Yuri Dovgo-hand, say, in the 80s does not allow a serious scurg – the year of birth of his son Vsevolod the Great Gizdo – 1154: “All-head of Great Pgizdo (born) in 1154 – died in 1212, Grand Duke Vladimirsky, son of Yuri Dovgoruk” [16, t. 5, p. 442).

If Yuri Dovgorukiy was born in 1090-1091, then his son Vsevolod was born into a 64-year-old elder. This is despite the fact that in the X-XII centuries, the life expectancy of male cos usually did not exceed 40 years. But also to indicate the date of birth of Yuri Dovgoruky later “90s” does not allow another testimony: the year of birth of Yuri’s first son – Andriy, the so-called Bogolyubsky – 1111. Listen: “Andrius Bogolyubsky (born) around 1111 – number 1 174, Prince Vladimir-Suzdalsky from 1157. son of Yuri Dovgoruky (16, t. 2. s. 19).

That is, his son Andrew was born in 19-20-year-old Yuri Dovgo. At least it’s. And yet, on the verge of human capabilities. Wherever you go, it’s all the wedge. Thus, in the exceptions to the rules and on speculation, Moscow built its historical mythology.

As for Yuri Dovgoruky, his anecdotal visit to Rostov (land) in 1096, as you can see, to claim this is at least strange. Not to say it is foolish.

The second absurd.

Even more intent is presented in other “general Russian chronicles”. They’re talking about that. The Kiev metropolitanate at the end of the XI century moved to the Rostov-Suzdal land. “Under 1096 The chronicle mentions in Suzdal “the courtyard and monastery” metropolitan and “church of St. Dmitry, the other is the thra of Ephrem Metropolitan and from the villages.” And also: “Ephraim the metropolitan shall be brought to the glory of Metropolitan” (9, p. 94].

In the “summer” even the full name of the metropolitan is presented as “Ephraim of Pereyaslav”. That’s how, dear readers, “Metropolitan Efrem” moved the metropolitanate either to “Suzhdal” or “Pereslavl”. Moscow’s desire for greatness from distant times, during the inclusion of “introductions” in the “general Russian chronicles” reached a marrasm. Even Russian historians have tried to silence and bypass them.

We will not once again point to the cultural backwardness of the “Merry land” at the time when “the life of Mary was no different from the state of a wild tribe at all.”

Because of this, every word of the “general Russian chronicle”, every fact it is presented must be subjected to deep analysis and careful verification. And all the visits by Rurikovich to Rostov-Suzdal land from 1015 to 1137 are p. Even Russian professors were forced, at least in aby, to write about it. Listen:

“Throughout this long time, from Oleg to Yuri Dovgoruky, none of the princes lives long in the distant Rostov region. They are all guests, 1 and only infrequent.” 71].

Therefore, there is no radio to consider every fictional trip of the prince to the country of Moxel. They are so contradictory on reasons and actions, according to descriptions and time that they are not explained and ordinary human logic. I suggest that this is done to a young independent scientist and assure him that, comparing all the facts, he will not waste time, will gain a lot of material for more than one thesis. After all, this topic in Moscow history was a forbidden path for every person.

I will consider, as I promised earlier, to consider the process of the so-called Rostov-Suzdal principality with the joint efforts of the Orthodox Church and princes. At the same time, let’s say whether there was a prince in that land and whether there was princely power there at all.

We will not rely on the fictional historical “balacan”. Because, as we shall see, by the middle of the XII century, the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land, and rather the country of Moksel, had no state ties with the Grand Duchy of Kiev.

According to the research of Archbishop Filaret of Chernihiv, the first historically reliable bishop to go to the Russian land (it is!!!) To the mayors, there was Greek Leontius, from Constantinople. Most likely. Bishop Leontius. Later declared holy of the Orthodox Church, was in the subordination of the Kiev Metropolis. Although it is possible that he was sent to the distant Merian lands by the World Patriarch himself. And the Kiev Metropolitanate was only offered to provide support to the bishop in the case of increasing the “God’s series”.

Read Russian Professor D. Oh. Korsakov, his book, The Ministry and Rostov Duchy, published in the 1872 empire:

“According to the pres. Filaret of Chernihiv, Leontius’ enlightenment activity in Rostov land belongs to the second half of the XI century. Saint Leontius found in his remote diocese of pagans of the ardent 1 wild. (We are constantly reminding of it. – W. B.) The prince was not there then, and Leontius had to fight paganism only by moral means. His preaching was not only not successful, but also aroused a rebellion of the Gentiles. They poured Leontius with swearing, beat him and finally expelled from Rostov… Having settled near the city, near the stream of Brutovshchyna, in a small cell, Leontius built a wooden church near it and, seeing a tubilitism, decided to influence the young generation. He called the children to himself, fed them and caressed; the children went to him willingly in a cell, and he taught them to the Christian faith and baptized them. The Gentiles again were outraged. The mob moved them with batons and weapons.. to kill or expel Leontius… Christianity was not yet time to retent here over paganism, to which the “an lost miracle” was very attached, as said in Nikonovo’s chronicle. Leontius died a martyr’s death. The priestly Filaret thinks that the murder of St. Leontius occurred in 1073. 87-88].

It was not until 1073, according to a study by Archbishop Filaret of Chernihiv, for the first time in Rostov land, Bishop-Greek Leontius appeared and tried to preach Christianity among the Finnish ethnicity. In the Rostov land in 1073, he did not find a single Christian to support him. Once again, among the undoubted facts of history, we find irrefutable evidence:

“The following religious struggle is found in two ancient lives of ancients. Saints belonging to the second half of the XI century, Bishop Leontius and Archimandrite Abraham (Rostov. – V. B.): from the life of the first, the Rostovs resisted Christianity, drove the first two bishops Theodore and Hilarion and killed the third, Leontius, [8, p. 43].

We talked about all three. An interesting life path of the new hero — Abraham Rostovsky — explains the process of beginning of the adoption of Christianity by Finnish ethnicity. Especially the mayors. Later “Life of Russian Saints” mix Abraham Rostovsky with Abraham Chukhlomsky, ascetic of the XVI century. [9, p. 92].

However, it is not worth confusing. Both the mayor, and the face, and the plague, each of these Finnish tribes in its time had its own, in fact, the first bearer of Christianity, Abraham. The service of Abraham Rostovsky to God was most likely in 1080-1120. It is likely that he was one of those children-meared who were taught and baptized by Bishop Leontius. That is, if we proceed from the logic of events that took place in the Meric land in the second half of the XI century, Abraham Rostov was born approximately in 1062-1065. The confirmation of this is Professor D. Oh. Korsakov; “Abraamius was the founder, the leader of Monastyric colonization… Saint Abraham was a native, a local resident of the Rostov region. He was trained… Letter and from young years showed a tendency to self, to a contemplative life. Leaving his home, he went to the forest and built himself near Lake Nero (!) Separated hut… Leontius lured the children of pagans with affection and treats. Abraham teaches them 212

Letter… Abraham is a monastery. Thirty years spend Abraham in his apostolic feats, succumbing to danger from pagans persecuted by slander and envy. 93-94].

“The pagans were going to rob and burn the monastery of Abraham, but he vigorously went his apostolicly way. He preached to Christianity zealously. Saint Abraham, like Saint Leontius, tried primarily to act on pagan young men. He taught children letters and baptized them. Many of the disciples of Abraham were cut in a monk in his monastery. [9, p. 93].

It is from the Marysemb that Christianity begins to emerge among the tribe of the mayor. Third-party bishops only threw the Christian spark into the Meric environment, and the Christian religion itself spread not outside Slavs, but the Meric population itself, not the French population. Long and hard work. Obviously, by the 12th century, there was a separation of society among the Finnish tribes for the poor and rich, on the strong and weak. And of course, Christian religion primarily picked up the weak in spirit and the poor who sought protection and salvation in the new religion.

As the collection “The Life of Saints of Rostov Land”, after the murder of Bishop Leontius, there were no church representatives for several years. The second ruler who appeared in the environment of the mayor was Bishop Isaiah, who also became the saint of the Russian Orthodox Church. He found people in Rostov “new baptized” (bishop Leontius. – V. B.) and he took up his apostolic feat, “instrugging the unfirmed in faith as newly planted grapes, by their teaching,” says it is living.” 92].

Most likely, the famous mayor of Abraham Rostov became the “new baptized” who among some others “found” a new bishop, and was the first disciple of the bishop. It was from Isaiah that Abraham took over church experience and religious rites.

Together they laid a monastery in the forest, where the Meric children were lured. After Isaiah’s death (obviously, he was also killed) in 90, at the head of the Christian life of this land remained Archimandrite Abraham. By the way, note: the bishop Isaiah could not sanctify Abraham in the rank above the archimandrite. Therefore, he did not receive Abraham’s Rostov Episcopal rank. And then, as already mentioned, “forty years he spends Abraham in his apostolic feats.”

Interestingly, neither Russian history nor the “Holy of the Saints of Rostov land” knows more bishops who would visit the Rostov-Suzdal land from 1090 to 1150. Not in 60 years! More than half a century! Only for Yuri Long-handy in the country of Moksel appeared a bishop.

The church, having lost with the first two bishops of people, for many years ceased its mission to attract Finnish tribes to Christianity. As you can see, the results of the activities of the bishops Leontius and Isaiah did not justify the expenses of the church, neither material nor moral. It is necessary to understand: every bishop who went to the Meric land was accompanied by several ordinary priests and servants. They all most likely shared the fate of bishops.

Think, dear readers: if the Rostov-suzdal land at the end of the 11th century was part of a single Kievan state with a single Kyiv metropolitan area, would leave the state and metropolitan part of their land and part of their people for 60 years without governance and religious care? A complete absurdity! As the Kiev state was in the venity of strength and glory at that time.

Such absurds accompany Moscow history everywhere. The “diffings of lies” have always led to absurdity and deceed.

“The immediate heir of Saint Isaiah in Rostov, the individual bishop of this land after him we do not see. Yuri Dovgoruky… In his time, Christianity… It is established in the Rostov-Suzdal region. The modern bishop of this area is Nestor. 94].

Such a true picture of the Meric land, subjecting a comprehensive analysis to undoubted facts and events during the XI century, is observed by an independent expert.

I propose to record facts that showed the absence of princely power in the Merian land, from the famous 988 to the equally famous 1137. So:

988 year. — At that time, according to the “general Russian chronicle”, in Rostov and Moore allegedly headed Princes Boris and Piib. As Professor O. O. Shahmatov, this statement is the usual intent of Russian history, the “insert”-falsification of the coming times. The ancient Kiev chronicler Nestor claimed another: Boris received the throne from his father Vladimir the Great in Vladimir-Volyn, and Biib remained with his father as a minor. The fiction of Boris and Bgib is a fake of Russian history in a part that concerns princely in the Meric and Murom lands.

1024 years. There was famine in the Rostov land that year. There was no prince in that land, nor was princely power. As evidenced by the Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary (release 1891, t. IV-A, p. 898), it was the Bulgar state that saved the mayor from starvation in 1024. Similar evidence is also available in Tatar (bulgar) sources.

1071 year. — In Rostov-Suzdal land that year, with a small wife was the Novgorod Jan Vysha-tych. I was collecting tribute for Novgorod. There was no princely power in the land. Interestingly, the Christian religion among Finnish tribes is not noticed. A priest who was among the wives, the pagan merops were killed. The population was hostile to aliens.

1073 year. — That year, according to the collection “The Life of Saints of the Rostov region”, the mayors (“lost of the miracle”) killed Bishop Leontius. There was no prince or princely power in Rostov-Suzdal land. Christian religion was not perceived by the local population.

  1. — Moscow historians claim that that that year “in his place” visited and “reigned” Yuri Dovgoruky. Another lie in Russian history: Yuri Dovgoruk in 1096 could be a maximum of 5 years. Maybe he wasn’t even born at the time.

We spoke more about this above. There were no other princes in 1096 in the border of Oka and Volga (the Meerian land) as were the princely power.

  1. “In 1107 there was no prince in the Rostov region…”. “Under 1107(6615) in the Rostov Chronicle… We read: “The trouble of Bulgaria… on Suzhdal and obstvos-piss degrees, and many evil creatures, fighting villages and cost… But the people in the city cannot stand against them, I will not have a prince in them. [9, p. 72].

The 12th century came, and the princes in the Rostov-Suzdal land “not to be.

1090-1120 years. During these thirty years, there was no bishop in the Rostov-Suzdal land. The Maryan “holy Abraham spends his days in apostolic feats.” It was Abrahamius Rostov, in the absence of princely power and bishop that kept thirty years in the Finnish environment of the spark of Christian religion, taught young Merian youths to the basics of Christianity. This lasted until 1137, until Prince Yuri Dovgoruky arrived.

1125-1137 years. As Professor D writes. Oh. Korsakov, “… In 1125 we see Yuri in Kiev at the funeral of Monomakh… He remains for permanent residence in the city, near Kiev. in 1137. Yuri goes to Rostov” [9, p. 72].

That is, from 1125 to 1137, there was no princely power in the Rostov-Suzdal land. Because, according to the so-called “liographical platoon’ 1, the land already belonged to Yuri Dovgoruk. He sat under Kiev.

If you look in the historical materials of the empire, you can find more than one evidence that confirms the fact of the absence of prince and princely power in the city’s land in the period from 988 to 1137. But these facts are enough. All the “difficult of lies”, which was launched in the “general Russian chronicles by the Boating “Commission” (and not only by her), had the main strategic goal: to unite the Great Kiev principality with the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land and its ethnicity. To give the “Greaters” the right to encroach on the Kiev historical heritage However, the country of Moksel, unlike the Slavs, developed and lived in the IX-XII centuries according to other laws and went in its development in a separate way. The Finnish tribes of the country Moksel before the arrival of Prince Yuri Dovgorug in 1137 retained their historical residence in their lands, and a representative of the tribe of Mayor Abraham Rostov became the only reliable factor in the promotion of Christianity in that environment from 1090 to 1137, the Finnish environment with its own efforts fed and supported the Christian religion with its own efforts. Here the fables of Russian history about the “Slavic past” of the Rostov-Suzdal land are inappropriate.

With the arrival of the wife of Yuri the Long-hand and the new Bishop Nestor, the religion received support and slowly, overcoming cruel resistance, began to spread. It should be assumed that the so-called Andrew Bogolyubsky, born of the meryanka in the Meric environment, the Christian religion was cool, p adit e does not even care. Because he expelled all the fatherly wives from his Merian land — Christians — and “sink on young youths”-merites. And then the troops of princes in the Merian land even at the end of the XII and early XIII centuries consisted mostly of merians-pagans. Remember the Lipitian battles in the Meric land of 1177 and 1216, when the dead pagans were buried “coupa”.

Let’s go back to Yuri Dovgoruky in 1137. You can understand the motive that played the main role and. In fact, Yuri moved to move into the Meric land. After all, after the death of his father, Vladimir Monomakh, in 1125, Long-handy “sit near Kiev” for 12 years. This is a considerable time, given that the life expectancy of the prince was 40 to 45 years. Leaving his home was forced only very good reasons. I think there were a few. Let’s define the main ones. We have the right to assume, and the Kiev story of cs shows that Yuri Dovgorukyi had no prospect of obtaining a significant department: Kiev, Chernihiv, Novgorod. Even his father was the sixth son. And next to the kids were waiting with their heirs. All those years (12 years old !!!) Yuri sat in a “town near Kiev”. It wasn’t even a principality. The second reason we think was the advice of church rulers who needed the flock. However, they remembered the fate of their predecessors. There were other reasons. The first two are enough to move on the road.

Women in the campaign of Yuri Long-handed participated. The prince’s wife consisted of 100-150 soldiers. I mentioned that wife before. This is how Prince-Rurikovich appeared in the Finnish environment. 1 it is clear that colonization went in two ways: princely-military and religious-monastery. We’ll talk about them.

I would like to remind you: Russian historical science, Yuri Dovgoruky’s transition into the country of Moxel defined as the complete collapse of the Grand Duchy of Kiev and the period of the emergence of new independent principalities-states. Read the BRE (3rd view., t. 12, p. 94):

“The history of Kievan Rus is divided into five stages:

Stage 1 (up to 882) — formation of a feudal state with its capital in Kiev..;

2nd stage (882-911) — seizure of power in Kiev by Oleg..;

Stage 3 (911-1054) — the flourishing of the early feudal monarchy of Kievan Rus..

Stage 4 (1054-1093) is the appearance of the first tangible elements of decay.

Stage 5 (1093-1132) — strengthening of feudal monarchy due to the pressure of the Polish…

In 1132 Kievan Rus broke up, the period of feudal fragmentation began.

We will not resort to analyzing the above classification, which was made by Russian Soviet academicians. Let’s only say that they continued to “sing songs” of the Russian Romanov concept. This distribution from a scientific point of view is completely absurd. It is suitable for the “Roman” chauvinistic concept of “the formation of the Moscow state”. Note: since 1132, there has been a single Great Kyiv state. Let’s forgive the “great-great” their run five years in advance. What you can not do for the fastest onset of the “greater of Moscow”. However, Russian academicians in the Verkhovnave confirmed our main conclusion: the Rostov-Suzdal land after 1137 (1132) was not part of the only Kiev state. And above we found that from 862 to 1137 and land was not part of the Grand Duchy of Kiev.

Based on the above, everyone has the right to ask the simplest question:

In what years was the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land part of the Grand Duchy of Kiev?

And he will get the answer: a story that is not based on Moscow’s “diffings of lies”, nothing is aware of such an entry. That is historical truth.
5

Our research has come to a new interesting period — the period of creation of the first principality in the border of Oka and Volga. From the previous material, we concluded that the Finnish tribe of the mayor until 1137 continued to live within the old boundaries of its land. History also showed that at that time the mayor had no princely power of Rurikovich, and in general, the people of the mayor were at a low level of development. As confirmed by our research,

Until the middle of the 12th century, they lived in a family-tribe society, with neither centralized power nor large cities. They lived in deep taig forests, mostly by individual families, rarely — a whole native of three or four families. Villages or villages for one, two, three earthlings were the main centers of the Mescans of the Finnish tribes not only until the middle of the 12th century, but also remained so until the 18th century. This opinion-axial confirmed not only by the research, but also the works of such great Russian historians as S. M. Solovyov, V. Oh. Klu-chevsky, M. And. Kostomarov, O. Oh. Shahmatov, D. Oh. Korsakov and many others.

It is likely that there were no large cities as such in the mayor. Professor S. M. Solovyov in the middle of the XIX century testified that before the arrival of the troops of Khan Bati, the city of the so-called Rostov-Suzdal land were actually “small villages fenced by a particle.” It should be assumed that even these “city-village by particle” were already the acquisition of Yuri Dovgoruky or his heirs. The prince and his wife could not settle to the non-Christ-Merites. It’s an axiom.

Even Catherine II said this. Listen: “Among the princes, most malleable to the mistakes before the Tatar-dom, was, of course, in my opinion, George (Yurius Dovgoruky. – W. B.), son of Vladimir II: without getting Volyn and Galicia in the department, he did not give a moment of peace to all other individual princes, his contemporaries, he set them up against each other, helping one to deal with others… He was sent (exiled. – W. B.) on the river Klyazmu..; he built several cities there, which gave the name of those cities in which he was denied in Volyn, among others he called Vladimir the city in which he settled, because Vladimir was the tables-this of the Volyn… It is worth saying that there are two versions about George (Yuri Dovgo-Russian). – W. B.), one in his favor (which Moscow brought us. – W. B.), the second is against him; I think 220

That one is the version of the Kiev chroniclers, the second is a version of chroniclers who wrote with the descendants of George (Yuri Dovgoruky. – W. V.), which settled first around Moscow and then in Moscow itself. 131-132].

Catherine II explained a lot with these words. Namely: why she had an idea about the need to remove ancient Kiev chronicles; why Yuri Dovgoruky fled to foreign lands; why in the land of the mayor appeared “city-village by particle” with Slavic names. In his “Mercings about the project of history of Russia…” She told a lot about what else. By the way, this work of the Empress showed that it was she who made the “Project of Russian History…”

In our opinion, some “villages” on the site of modern Rostov (Great) and Suzdal before the arrival of Yuri Dovgoruky most likely existed. The names of those cities were of Finnish origin: because somewhere the famous Magi lived, somewhere there were ritual “Transitions with the stone of Cardo-syrko”. And, as readers understand, the Meric “ritual city” had to be located away from the large roads (year), in deaf.

What did the Merites do in the 12th century?

Living in a wetlands, Thai tribes were not engaged in agriculture at the time. Their main activities were exclusively hunting, fishing and wild beekeeping. The bad products that were consumed little were bought from the bullars and other southern peoples. Moscow fables about providing Novgorod with grain from Rostov-Suzdal land in the XII and XIII centuries are completely absurd. In those centuries, there were no arable land in the country of Moxel. However, manual farming, which was conducted by individual families, could not become commodity. It did not even provide the needs of the family, a grain producer. I would like to remind everyone: even the Volga Bulga-ry, which in the X-XIII centuries were much more developed than Finnish tribes, according to the testimony of the great Ibn-Fadlan, in those days only milletly knew from cereal products. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the Volga Bulgaria in the X-XIII centuries owned significant steppe lands, where there were excellent conditions for farming. By the way, the Volga Bulga-ra considered their forest western neighbors ordinary savages. This is the “paradox of greatness” of future “Great-Russians” in the X-XIII centuries!

It must be remembered: the Moscow myth of the great trade “Volz-Moscow waterway”, which allegedly lost the path “from the Varangians to the Greeks”, also belongs to the chauvinistic fictions of Russian history. North of the Volga Bulgaria from the X to the 16th century, there were neither more developed peoples nor more developed states. The shopping center was Bulgaria itself. However, the whole territory of Finnish tribes, since the end of the XIII century, became the arena of battle and massacre, the so-called “gathering of Russian land.” It took over 400 years. Even travelers who visited Moscow in the 15th and 17th centuries spoke of its land as a “territories of permanent battle site”.

But back to Yuri Long-hand. Let’s see how historical science defined the land where the prince-exilet arrived with his own vatag in 1137.

“…Remindering the flow and direction of the most important influx of the Volga, which constitute Mary’s water network, we can conclude without great error that the Rostov-Suzdal land under Yuri Dovgoruky was limited to the course of these year, that is, its territory coincided with the land of the people Mary, spreading north to Bi-loozer, upstream, and the Mt. 95].

Whatever research we go, we are sure to come to the Merian land. There was no other land in future Muscovites in the 12th and 19th centuries. And later. Professor D. A. Korsakov testified to the arrival of Yuri Dovgoruk on the “people of Mary”. You can’t throw out the song. If you remember the famous “Map of the Merian land, composed by Count O. S. Uvarov”, the 1872 edition, should not arise at all.

And then Professor D. Oh. Korsakov continued his opinion, telling the well- famous axiom that Russian science completely forgot: “The borders of Rostov-Suzdal land are realized, according to just thought p. Weather (professor. – W. B.), in the Mongol era, though, is peculiar, and then it is impossible to determine them accurately. This exact distinction did not exist… Uncertainty, uncertainty in everything is its main characteristic property. This is a property of all people during its historical childhood, in the embryonic era of its cultural development. 95].

Yuri Dovgoruky arrived “in the embryonic era … Cultural Development… Mary’s People.” You can’t do anything here, no matter how the Muscovites are tense. There are always historical laws of development in the world. They have never made exceptions for anyone, including the Muscovites. Therefore, the country of Moxel, according to many scientists of that time, remained for a century the most backward part of even the Golden Horde, not to mention the Rus-chi-Ukrainians, the Lites, Germans or something.

Moscow fictions were planted in the empire thanks to the brutal power of the totalitarian state. Today, the Moscow imperial siege is powerless.

Mykola Morozov in his book “The Tale of My Life”, published in 1916-1918, explained at that time the folly of the statement about the movement of the center of political development and culture from ancient Kiev to “often Moscow” after Yuri Dovgoruky arrived at it. All these relocations of peoples back and forth on the eve of their entry into the field of view of history should be reduced only to the relocation of their names or, at best, rulers, and even from more cultural countries to less cultural, and not vice versa.

That is, even by suppuffing from the Rusich-Ukrainians their ancient self-name – Rus, Moscow had no isto-ric law for another. You can get someone else’s self-name, but you can appropriate someone else’s past – this story does not allow anyone.

I suggest that we briefly consider some facts of the first years of the formation of the Rostov-Suzdal principality. We must make sure that the Finnish pagan ethnicity dominated the border of Oka and Volga (and not only there) before the arrival of Khan Batiy’s troops and its inclusion in a single state – the Golden Horde; that at that period no flow of Slavs from Podniprov and Novgorod history noted. Similar axiom claims should become dominant in the historical science of the IX-XIII centuries. Because the facts show that.

Upon arriving in 1137 in the land of the mayor, Yuri Dovgoruk sat in that land until 1155, when, according to “the general Russian chronicles, he returned to Kiev and took the Grand Duke’s throne. However, he sat on it for a short time, because he died in 1157. Probably, Yuri Dovgorukiy did not sit on the Kiev throne of any day, and such “records” are only “inserts of later times”, as Professor O said. O. Shahmats. I hope readers understand why such “inserts” “written” in the so-called “common Russian chronicles”. That’s exactly as: for the exaltation of Moscow and the breeding of P with the Grand Duchy of Kiev; to breed Finnish tribes with Slavs, after all, for ordinary confusion. Everything was drove by the boating “Commission” under the Moscow Romanov idea.

However, it does not matter whether Yuri Dovgoruk sat or not sat for two years on the Kiev Grand Duke’s throne. He did not join the Rostov-Suzdal land to the Grand Duchy of Kiev. And the Kievans, according to the same “general Russian chronicles”, after the death of Yuri Dovgoruky or drove away, or killed all the “suzdals”.

“…break… It was marked by a bloody strip, alienation between the northern settlers and their abandoned southern homeland was a ready fact., immediately, after the death of Yuri Dovgoruky in the Kiev land, they beat the land of the land brought by him to the land in the cities and villages. 109].

The reader probably understands that a Russian neighbor could not kill a su-neighbor-Russian or his son who returned from far land. The question is much deeper: the life principles of the mayor, who came with Yuri Dovgoruk in the Kiev land, differed sharply from the principles of the Slavic-polan. The nose of wild forest morality, most often the non-Christ, is who the Slavs did not perceive. By the way, this sharp difference between the Muscovit and the Ukrainian, primarily internal, spiritual, noticeable now, for 850 years. The mayor’s Moscow has changed little over the past century, as little has changed and the Russian-Ukrainian, if we do not take into account the level of culture and knowledge. Because the Muscovites are still, as they say, wise in damage, and his “boats know the way.”

Interestingly, since 1157, a princely dynasty appeared in the Rostov-Suzdal land, which is based on the Meric root. As the son of Yuri Dovgoruky, the so-called Andrew Bogolyubsky, was born in the Merian land, in the merian environment, from a mother-mea. He was probably born in 1137 (1138), although Moscow history claims otherwise. However, even “general-no-Russian chronicles” showed that Andriy Bogolyubsky from the day of his birth until the middle of the XII century “has never “has not left his taiga corner.” It was the “first bigros” – “prince-salashanin”.

In our study, we have no opportunity — and there is no need to study the full spectrum of historical development of the Rostov-Suzdal land in the XII-XIII centuries. This is an extremely extensive topic. We will only touch the side of the issue that concerns our research.

So, as we have already said, the involvement of Finnish tribes into the orbit of the prince’s power went in two main ways: through the spread of the Christian religion and the direct princely coercion to obedience. This was the trade, the movement of the prince on the ground, the appearance of monasteries and churches, the laying of “oftening cities”. This is how a new tribal variety of Muscovites was born. In fact, it was a common Finnish ethnicity that adopted a northern variety of Christian religion based on “two-faith”.

In the era of Andrei Bogolyubsky colonization of Finnish tribes began to acquire new features. After all, both Andrew Bogolyubsky and most of his “young wives” were no longer only “Christians”, but also had a merian (Finnish) origin directly. Naturally, at the end of 20 years, the “young eyes” in the Merian land became the dominant force of the principality. They carried in their views and actions purely northern, forest component: permissiveness, uncompromisingness, cruelty. There was a conflict between the young Meric “arounds” led by Andriy Bogolyubsky, on the one hand, and outsiders of Yuri Dovgoruky, who remained in the Meric land, on the other hand. Not just young people with old people entered the confrontation, or, in a different way, new with the old. R adit e, faced carriers of the Merian lifestyle and psychology — with carriers of another civilization and lifestyle. That is why Andrew Bogolyubsky expelled from the Merian land the whole princely nobility, which did not reveal in its life and psychology of the Finnish component. In this case, the struggle was not for “self-power”, as the Moscow false history tried to interpret. No! Here the “trocs” of the Meric tribe expelled from their land carriers of distant and foreign customs. Because, as we shall see further, in the 12th century in the Rostov-Suzdal land, even there could be no talk of “single power” and great land ownership. In those days, in future Moscow, the prince and his wife existed mainly by collecting tribute.

Listen to whom Andrew Bogolyubsky was expelled from his land:

“The fate of Bishop Leon of Suzhdal and take his pugna — Mstislav, and Vasylka, Mykhalka Yureva-chev and two Rostyslavic, son of his own, and husbands of the father of his front” [9, p. PO].

If it were to expel from Rostov-Suzdal land only relatives and “man’s father’s own front,” we could make various assumptions. But when the bishop is also expelled from the earth at the same time, we have a completely different picture. First, Andriy Bogolyubsky (big paradox!!!) He did not mind the Christian ruler at all — he humiliated him and expelled him. As the same chronicle writes, “He is… I was alone kind to… Christianity and to all things are bad.” 111].

You see how clear it is. Andrew Bogolyubsky is not yet a true Christian, religion is still indifferent to him. At least he is still practicing “double faith.” He has not yet Christian moral criteria.

The first generation of “merices” could not perceive Christian religion in its pure, original form. They perceived it in “two-faith”, that is, combining Christianity with Finnish paganism.

We remember that even in the 16th century, there were more than one hundred Kardo-syrko stones on the land of Moscow, which, at the same time as worship of God, worshipped the Musco-vites. You can imagine what happened in the Rostov-Suzdal land in the 12th century!

That is why Bishop Leon was expelled from the Rostov-Suzdal land — he prevented and forbidden worship by pagan Finnish gods. Bishop Leon Moscovy was forgotten. But Andrew-nechrist called God-love. The one who, according to the same “general Russian chronicles”, burned Kiev temples. We have the opportunity to see the maraz of Moscow thinking. It is in it that the main roots of “Moscow greatness” are hidden.

I think Andriy Bogolyubsky had exclusively Merian roots, that is, both his father and his mother came from the Finnish environment. After Catherine II personally edited the “Rhodage of the Princes of Russia”, we, mortal, have nothing to do with him. But it is not worth stopping the job. Finds the one who seeks.

I draw attention: and after Prince Andrew Bogolyubsky Rostov-Suzdal land continued to be land inhabited by the tribe of the mayor. And then the end of the 12th century. Russian Professor D. Oh. Korsakov:

“The Rostovsk principality with its departments: Yaroslavl, Uglech-Paul and Kostroma occupied the area of the middle valley of the Volga and its northern parables: Mologi, Shexna, Kostroma, the right shore of Unja and the southern influx of the Volga-Cotorosli, matching most of their departments with the boundaries of the Chud people Mary, who lived in this space. Only Bilozersky branch went beyond these boundaries (there lived the Finnish tribe all. – W. B.). The Rostov principality was bordered in the XIII-XV centuries. In the west and north with the lands of Veliky Novgorod, in the east with the principality of Nizhny Novgorod, in the south with the principalities of Suzdal and Pereyaslavl-Za-lisky. 194].

As you can see, in the border with the Slavs of the land in the XIII and XV centuries, no Slavs are visible. It was a land inhabited by the tribes of Finnish ethnicity. In addition, the second testimony of the professor is very valuable. Listen:

“The Rostov princess is separated above, followed by Pereyaslav, and then Suzdal (1216). Vladimir Klyazmensky, the “capital city” of the Grand Duchy of Rostov-Suzdal, did not constitute a special department: it was the city of Grand Duke… The Suzdal principality at the end of the XIII century. He is three parts: Gro-detsky, Nizhnygorod and Moscow. 123-124].

Greatly valuable testimony! We once again discover the truth: the Moscow princely department appeared for the first time only at the end of the XIII century! That is, in the Golden Horde — and it is in its composition. Talk about the Moscow district principality, which allegedly existed before 1277, have no reason. These are chauvinistic “prescription” of the following times. Even the village of Moscow did not exist until the third census of 1272, conducted by the Golden Horde in its ulus.

By the middle of the 13th century, a prince was gardened in every barely visible village. So multiplied.

Here are the ones who put their sons in 1212 Rostov-Suzdal Prince Vsevolod (Great Gnizdo):

“…sad to hair to your children.” The elder, Konstantin, gave Rostov; the second, Yuri, Vladimir; the third, Yaroslav, Pereyaslav; fourth, Vladimir, – Yuryaiv (Polish)… Less than two sons, Sviatoslav and John, he entrusted to Yuri. 123].

There was nothing more to share. Moscow until 1212 did not exist even as a small village. As we see, there could be no smaller village. This is another paradox of Moscow’s siege.

From the reign of Andrew Bogolyubsky in the Rostov-Suzdal land began a terrible robbery and massacre. In the first book, we paid enough attention to Moscow’s robbery and banditry. We will not repeat.

To study the topic, let’s look at the material about two so-called “Lypic battles”, which took place in the Meric land in 1177 in 1216.

According to the “general Russian chronicles”, after the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky on the Rostov-Suzdal Great-Princes, his brother Michael sat for two years (from 1175 to 1177). Most likely, Prince Michael finished his life in the same way as Andrew. But the story is silent about it. After the death of Prince Michael, a new disorder began. Rostovs invited to the Grand Duke Vladimirsky (on Klyazm) table Mstislav Rostyslavovich from Novgorod, who soon arrived:

“Mstyslav hurried to Rostov and, having quickly gathered an army, went to Vladimir, wishing to… To warn the election of another prince. [5, p. 2].

Against him was militiaded by the Rostov-Suzdal land (with the exception of Rostov), because they wished to have their prince-merite, Vsevolod (Great Gnizdo). After failed attempts of reconciliation, the wife moved to meet each other “and step in Yuri’s borders of Gzy and Lipitsa” [5, p. 3].

“General Russian chronicles” give little material about the “running of battle”. It was a small fight. Listen: “Vsevold broke Mstislav, who and his wife (Rostovska). – W. B.) He fled to Rostov. The losses on his part were very minor, because, in addition to the killed three boyars… “Rostovtsi… All-sweeping, and the regiment is not a pacosta. 4].

This is what the first Lipic Battle of 1177 looks like, where the mayors faced the mayors. Three Novgorod boyars were killed, who came with Mstislav to Rostov.

“The fighting remained behind Vsevolod, and therefore the Volo-dimirs took care of the burial of the killed.” 4].

This is what the chronicle tells in the presentation of archaeologist O. S. Uvarova.

Same O. S. Uvarov and his team in 1852 broke all the mound burials of the Battle of Lipitsk in 1177 horn. Readers should know that all Lipitian mounds in 1177 are round and completely identical to the Meric mounds dug by O. S. Uvarov. Listen to the archaeologist:

“Here, in addition to four mounds, a hill rose, which was studied on July 15, 1852, the Kurgans of a variety of sizes had from 17 to 142 arches in circumference and from 1.5 to 3 arches height. In the first mound, animal bones are dug, presumably horse. In the other… There was a human bone that was off. Nothing was found in the third except a small iron spear. Finally, the fourth mound turned out to be a common grave, in which the killed killed after the battle… At a depth of 3 arches, 29 bones were dug. Three of them lay alone in three coffins facing east and with hands folded on their chest… The other 26 bones were folded together, without any order and in different directions.

The last embankment, called a hill… Researched by trial grooves… These ditches were dug five and all proved that the hill was poured not above the grave, but poured on the surface of the earth, over a bunch of horses killed and various broken weapons. 4, 5].

Revealed by Count O. S. Uvarov’s burial of the Battle of Lipit in 1177 showed that among all the dead were only three Christians who are buried according to Christian custom. We won’t repeat what it looked like. 26 bones found “in a heap” indicate the burial of merians-pagans. The priest who was buried would never allow Christians to be buried without orienting them east. It was not much effort to put a man on earth oriented east. It is likely that those who hid and those who led the burial and the priest (most likely, the bishop himself) understood that this was not necessary to do so with the dead pagans.

There are undeniable facts of preserving old Merian customs when buried in mounds. I turn readers to bury both Christians and Gentiles in a single mound. What is the same evidence of his urban origin. The Merian ethnicity, mostly pagan, was dominant not only in villages, but also in the prince’s wife. The pagans, as part of the princely wife, did not feel foreign, an outside element.

By the way, two separate Merian mounds found at Lipitsky in 1177 also indicate a lot. First, they were undoubtedly buried by pagans; secondly, there were not simple warriors of their wife, but “polcoaters” (significant people); and thirdly, the princely elite consisted not only of Christians, but also of pagans-merians.

As you can see, by 1177, the population of the Rostov-Suzdal principality consisted entirely of the pagan Finnish ethnicity. As they say, add nothing.

An interesting description of the second Battle of Lipitsa, which took place in 1216. Note: the battle took place between the troops of Rostov-Suzdal princes, on the one hand, and the troops of princes from Novgorod, Pskov and Smolensk — on the other, who arrived to help Prince Constantine. The first were performed under the leadership of well-known Yuri and Yaroslav Vsevolodovich.

They came together, in fact, the Slavs with Finnish tribes.

We will not describe the course of the battle in 1216, because it has already been described in the first book. Let me remind you that the troops of princes Yuri and Yaroslav were completely crushed and practically destroyed – physically.

Interesting composition of troops of Vladimir princes. Listen to O. S. Uvarova: “Behied a large army, recruited from Muromts, Brodnikov, Gorodchan and from all the power of the Suzdal land: “for it is driven and from the sevices and to the psalt.” It is clear that the one who had no horse went on foot. 7].

And Professor S. M. Solovyov wrote simply: “They had strong regiments, all the power of the Suzdal land, because they chased all.” 143].

It was the composition of troops on one side.

The troops of the opposing side were headed by Prince Mstislav Mstislavovich (Udatny), who ruled in Novgorod. By the way, note: the joint army of Mstislav Udatny was several times less than Yuri’s troops. Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (father of the so-called Alexander Nevsky) was even proud: “one of yours falls one hundred n ashi x.” We are throwing you with hats. s. 142].

These are those “shapkozacidats” (Yaroslav and Yuri), who later, in 1237, led Rostov-Suzdal troops against Khan Batiy.

These extracts are not for reason. They’ll need them.

So Mstislav Udatny with his allies (Smolen Prince Vladimir, Pskov Prince Vladimir and Rostov Prince Constantine) completely defeated the troops of Yuri, Yaroslav, their brothers and allies. According to chronicles, 9233 people were destroyed and only 60 soldiers were taken prisoner. The Novgorodians lost five men and the smolns lost one person. Impressive numbers! Especially the ratio.

By the way, Vladimir Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich fled the combat: “…squeaking (to Vladimir. – W. B.) On the fourth horse, and three he drove; he jumped in the shirt itself, without a saddle. 146].

As you can see, even lost my pants! Another rysh e escaped Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (father of Alexander Nevsky). “Yaroslav also came to Pereyaslav himself on his fifth horse, and four drove [46, p. 146].

Such “big generals” of Moscow land, who allegedly resisted Khan’s Batia in 1237-1238. That is why Wilhelm de Rubruk testified in 1253 that one of these “hosudas” had gone to the troops of Khan Batu west as commander of either hundreds or thousands and another (Yaroslav) remained at the Khan’s Basque Tosudarite” in Rostov-Suzdal land.

In 1253, the land was called the Mok Sel.

Everything is interconnected in our world. Moscow’s historical lies have no place in it.

What is the Battle of 1216? What is she saying?

First. At the site of the famous battle in 1216, a ritual round Merian mound was poured, in which a pagan merite is buried. That is, in 1216, in the troops of Rostov-Suzdal land among the nobility there were many mermen-pagans, except for ordinary soldiers and inhabitants of the earth. That is why the French (Finnish) ritual customs were kept. Listen to archaeologist O. S. Uvarova:

“Therefore, it is necessary to trace the custom of mounds’ bulking; here we have evidence that the rite is pagan itself, despite the introduction of Christianity, has long been preserved between Merian. Thus, we see in the field of the Battle of Lipitsk in 1216, a mound poured over only one corpse… In addition, our chronographers of the 16th and 17th centuries contain (not one story. – W. B.), which is even more accurate indicated understanding of the significance of high grave mounds: “And with many crying, the pain of the neveglys are buried in a large three-three and grave is more high over it, as you should be bad.” 73].

I in the first half of the 13th century, the pagans formed the basis of the population of Rostov-Suzdal land. And Count O. S. Uvarov even testified, based on chronographers that this took place in Moscow of the XVI and XVII centuries. Such a historical truth without the “difficle of Moscow lies”.

I will not submit supporting examples of all the round Meric mounds that belong to the Battle of Lipitsk in 1216. Because they had “found bones that lie messy.” Christian mounds were not found among them.

Secondly, the Battle of Lipic in 1216 showed an exceptionally low level of development of the Rostov-Suzdal land, the people and principality. You can imagine the level of military art of the mayors and their “hosudas”, if the 3xiefén’s wife Mstislav Udatny completely defeated the 12-15 thousand, in fact, the mob, losing only 6 soldiers, and destroying 9,233 people – representatives of the Finnish ethnicity. We have a witness to a terrible power!!! yut should be about mental development of the population, about means of military equipment (swords, colchugs, combat axes, helmets, shields, etc.) Each side, about military tactics and strategy and, finally, about ordinary psychological stability. According to the chronicle, this is not even a battle, but a normal extermination of a great human series.

There is no need to talk.

Finally, third. We have once again convinced that in the first half of the 13th century, before the arrival of Khan Bati’s troops, Finnish ethnicity dominated the country. And the total population of the country Moksel (Rostovsko-Suzdalske, Ryazanske, Murom and other principalities) was about 150,000. Because when Prince Yuri, fleeing the combat, jumped to Vladimir and asked the residents to protect the city, he heard in response:

“Prince Yuri! Who should we fight? Our brothers are beaten and others captive, and others came without weapons, with whom we are?.

In Vladimir there was no people who are not at the same: pops, monks, women and children. [46, p. 146].

And so was the case throughout Rostov-Suzdal land in 1216. The Finnish ethnicity before the arrival of the troops of Khan Batu constituted the base on which Moscow was formed.

Every reasonable person understands: since the entry of the country of Moksel (future Moscow) to a single Tatar-Mongol state — the Golden Horde — there is no need to talk about the “flow of Slavs” into those lands.

From 1238, the Tatars and Finnish tribes received a single homeland. Representatives of the Tatars began to settle in Moscow.
6

It is not necessary to exaggerate the role of the princely dynasty of Rurikovich in the formation of the Rostov-Suzdal land. The version of Moscow historians about the special mission of the first princes of this dynasty in the formation of “Moscow statehood” is groundless. Because the princes did not set their task as state-building. And then, the Slavic. Similar claims appeared much later, when the Moscow authorities needed “grounds” to explain their robbery. Which was the usual “difficult of lies”.

The first princes of the Rostov-Suzdal land of the Rurikovich dynasty were completely ignorant, but most importantly, oath-breakers. By the way, in the first half of the 19th century, Russian historians spoke about it without being ashamed. The Moscow siege about the “great” first princes of the “Zaleshan land” was only a small part of that great lies with the help of which Moscow encroached on the fundamental foundations of the Ukrainian people, its history and its shrines.

The pian and bleachers on the face of Yuri Dovgoruky, Andriy Bogolyubsky and their heirs began to impose later, especially in Soviet times, when Moscow historians had to “share” the past of the Kiev state with “brothers-Ukrainians” and “Belarus brothers”. Then there was a siege about the “great and nobleness” of the first Great Russians — Yuri Dovgoruky. Andrew Bogolyubsky and others.

I suggest you to get acquainted with how his first ruler, Count Mikhail Vasilyevich Tolstoy in the book “ Stories on the History of the Russian Church”. The book was published in 1879, and was censored by the Moscow Theological Academy. It was according to this textbook in the spiritual seminaries and academies until 1917 (and later) that the History of the Russian Church was studied.

Listen:

“While as a worthy son of Monomach Mstislav the Great (Kyiv Prince). – W. B.) and his pious sons — Vsevolod and Rostyslav set the land of the Russian example of Christian and royal virtues., in the land of Suzdal was princed by the younger son Monomakh Yuri (George) Vladimirovich, called Long-hand. Own, but carefree, he is famous in history by the civic arrangement of the eastern land.., in which he spent the flowering summers of his life…

Yuri had no virtue of a great father, did not glorify himself in the chronicles by any feat of generosity, no action of sincere kindness inherent in the Monomach tribe. He did not respect the holiness of the oath, often disturbed Russia from his own ambition. As the son of Monomach, who was loved at all ends of the land of Russia, he could not earn folk love either in the north or in the south, where he finally succeeded, shortly before his death, to occupy the throne of the Grand Duchy. The people of Kiev so hated Long-handy, that, having learned about his death, rushed to rob the palace of the princely and did not allow him to bury his bodies next to the tomb of Monomakhova: Yuri was buried outside the city in the Spassky Berestov Monastery. 67-68].

I can’t believe that we are talking about the Grand Prince of Kiev, who has no place in any of the hundreds of Kiev temples.

I am firmly sure that this man never sat on the Kiev Grand Duke’s throne. I remind readers that all the so-called “general Russian chronicles” did not mention the actions of Yuri Dovgoruk to the death of Vladimir Monomakh. He, as if jumping out of the bushes after the death of his father, for a while shrinkled near Kiev, then it is unknown why he went to the country of Moksel. Miracles, both in the appearance and disappearance of this person, are quite enough. Naturally, the question of Prince Yuri’s appearance requires a particularly close study. We must never forget that the final list of all princes of the Rurikovich dynasty was edited personally by Catherine II. And before her in the dynastic princely family dirty boots followed John IV (the Terrible) along with his clergy. It is this (dirty) list of princes of the Rurikovich dynasty that we use today.

I will not quote the words said about Yuri Dovgoruk personally Kateryna II. Even she recognized his predatory and oath.

Even more disappointing words can be said about Andrew Bogolyubsky. Therefore, Count Mikhail Tolstoy in his book very cunningly and practically brilliantly bypassed the question

about Andriy Bogolyubsky is one example of already church silence of Moscow banditry and sacrilege.

Repentance was never inherent in the Moscow establishment, both state and church. Because repentance has always assumed the prevention of such actions in the future. And Moscow has been walking all along the same vicious circle of banditry for eight hundred years in a row, called “the collection of Russian land.”

We have previously established that before Yuri Dovgoruky arrived in the country of Moksel. And this is 1137, the Meric ethnicity of that land had not yet adopted the Christian religion and was in paganism. Christianity has just begun to involve individual representatives of the Finnish ethnicity. Even during the Battle of Lipitsk in 1216, a mostly pagan contingent was noted in the troops of Rostov-Suzdal princes. What it means: and at the time of the entry of the country, the Moxel country into the Golden Horde, the population of the region in its mass was pagan. And this was a decisive factor in supporting the Christian religion by the Golden-Ordinal Khans. After all, the church grouped and combined the population into the community, kept its records. This was the first point to be needed by the Khan’s government. Therefore, from the first day of the entry of the Rostov-Suzdal land into the Golden Horde (January 1238), the church became the main instrument in the hands of the Khans to attract the Finnish ethnicity to the state.

I want to remind you of another fundamental moment. It is about the time of appointment by Khan Batiah in Rostov-Suzdal land. Historians of the Russian Empire launched a very portion of “difficult lies” into this fundamental issue. According to their “speakings”, Khan Batiy forgot about his conquest of the country of Moxel for many years. I said, walked with fire and sword and went away —to the bottom of the Volga and Don. However, such statements are outright lies. With this untruth, Moscow historians tried to hide two fundamental issues: the first is 238

about the appointment of Grand Vladimir Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, and the second – about the first census in the “Zaleshan land”. These two issues are key, explaining the full dependence of local appointees from the central government of the Horde.

It is clear to everyone: Khan Batiy did not conquer the Rostov-Suzdal land to forget about it for several years, without appointing his manager in it – Basque. And most importantly, without establishing permanent (annual) tribute from their new possessions.

The claim that after the campaign of Khan Batia, the Rostov-Suzdal land was completely torn and devastated, nor have there is no reason. These statements are a complete intent. Only those who raised their weapons at aliens were destroyed. This axiom does not require evidence. In Russian history, especially in church, there was a lot of evidence of how Khan Batiy spared villages and monasteries that voluntarily obeyed him.

We read Moscow testimony: “Rizpolozensky, female (monaster), in the county city of Suzdal; has existed since 1207… At the invasion of Batia, in 1238, when Saint Sphrosynius (chernica). – W. B.) The city was still alive, and the city of Suzdal was torn by the Tatars; but the monastery was preserved with its prayers and remained intact. 41 ].

It is not just the monastery that was saved by prayer. The nun of Sphrosinia obeyed the Khan’s power (because any power is from God), swore allegiance to Batia and continued to govern the monastery. Under the supervision of the Han Basque. Everything is simple and everyday. However, such actions and events are completely absent from the “Moscow hero and patriotic”. What, in fact, was not observed in ancient times. This did not suit Russian chauvinists. Therefore, many “difficuls of lies” and heroic pathetic were born.

I will give an even more obvious example: “Theological, male (monaster), 25 versts from Ryazan on the shore of the Oka… It was founded at the beginning of the HIP century. There is a tradition that Batiy… He approached the monastery with the intention of stealing it; but, struck suddenly by horror, instead of destruction, gave it treasures, and to the icon of the Theologian, which was then a flag and seal of his gold; and then had respect to the monastery, from which it did not succumb to general misfortune… The hand of this miracle-working image is still kept in the ristystic, with the inscription clarifying this pre-preceivable event, … The seal of Batiev was taken, in the half of the 17th century, Archbishop of Ryazan Misael and — … It is a water-scathed cup now in the Assumption Cathedral, in the Rewards. 461].

This example is valuable in showing how much the Han authorities in the Golden Horde were powerful and stable. It was forever, but no man in the Horde dared to even approach the coat of arms and seal of Khan Bati. Think about this historic testimony! Russian authors of history would never have stated this.

Here is the testimony of Russian Professor L. M. Gumilyova: “…the cities of Ryazan, Vladimir and the little Suzdal, Torzhok and Kozelsk were affected. The other cities surrendered to the surrender and were preserved.” 282].

Even the VRE (third edition) was forced to speak about the destruction of Batiy 1237-1238 such cities-to-beats such as Pereyaslavl-Zalisky, Rostov (Great), Halich-Mersky, Murom, Gorodets, Novgorod-Low, etc. They all “rendered to surrender” and “were preserved.

That is why Khan Batiy could not leave the conquered land without approving in every “village-city” of his ruler – Basque. Naturally, local princes were assigned to the Basques’ assistants. A Tatar-bascaque could not run through the forest and collect mer-pagans running. A local official was needed for this purpose. By the way, if we think deeper into Russian sources, we can find confirmation (facts about Batiam’s appointment of the Basques in 1237-1238).

Listen:

“The name Moore comes from the name of the Finnish Muroma tribe… in 1088 and 1189 He was broken by the Bulgarians and owned it for several years., he suffered from princely internecines (1239). ?53, p. 533],

It would seem that what princely internecine can be spoken about when a sword of the Tatar Basque is hanging over his head? But this is the lie of Russian historical science, which is diluted in it the causes and consequences. They are presented as independent phenomena. The answer about the consequences of inter-age hostility is found in a completely different place, albeit in the same New Encyclopedia:

“For Yaroslav Yurievich in 1239 The Tatars burned Mur (53, t. 27, p. 529].

As you can see, the Tatar-Mongols did not leave the Rostov-Suzdal land in 1238. Staying! The main military forces were going. Together with them, the military wife of the country Moxel, who, in 1240, along with the troops of Batu, took part in the storming of ancient Kiev. Remember the testimony of William de Rubruk:

“their sovereign and most of the people were killed in Germany (Batiy’s campaign to Europe in 1240-1242. – W. B.). The Tatars led them with them before entering Germany. [10, p. 88].

By the way, according to the slander of the Grand Vladimir Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and at the orders of the great Vladimir Basque, the same Tatars in 1239 punished not only Mur, but also Gorodets:

“The birth is one of the oldest settlements in the Volga, founded in the 2nd floor (ab/a.) In 1239 (year) G(the native) was burned by the troops of Batiy” [16, t. 7, p. 122].

I will give the last, already Soviet times, evidence of the boundless power of the Khan’s Basques in Rostov-Suzdal land:

“The dependence on the khans was expressed in the fact that… The prince sat on his throne “by the royal will”, that is, the Han … The prince was brought to the throne at the same time under the control of the Khan’s power… This was controlled by the Basques.” [54, p. 220].

He recorded the role of Basques in Moscow and the great Kiev historian of the XIX century Mykola Mikhailovich Bilozers-ki. The material is stored in its archives: “Bascaki. In Russia, after her submission to the Mughalas, there were Basques, and in Vladimir, the capital of the Grand Duke, Grand Basak. They are the main rulers in the conquered countries: they have an army, etc. [55, p. 1-9].

Interestingly, there is evidence that the Great Basque sat in the Moscow Kremlin even in 1477, for Ivan III. And the Kremlin belonged to him, not to the Prince of Moscow.

Unfathomable!

Below we will give this historical testimony.

Such a short picture of sustainable rule in the Rostov-Suzdal land of the calf’s submission to it in 1238 by Khan Batiy and her entry into a single state, the Golden Horde.

Readers will not be able to find these truths in Russian history. Although they are undeniable.

However, the picture will be incomplete, if we do not note the second fundamentally important fact that occurred in the country of Moxel in 1238. It is the first census of Rostov-Suzdal land. Russian historical science has done everything possible to hide the fact of the first census and the time of its conduct. Most often, frank fictions were planted on this issue. We must understand that even the former princely authorities were interested in the census in order to somehow determine the amount of tribute for the Khan. For the collection 242

The tributes were primarily answered by the local princes, while the Basques supervised the execution of the congregation and performed justice.

I had to look for the least least clue about it for a long time. Cleaning of the material was carried out so carefully that there are practically no traces left. Only studying the book of the authors of the Soviet period B. D. Greek and A. Y. Yakubovsky “Golden Horde and its fall”, managed to find confirmation of that ancient first census. By the way, the book was published by the commission of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR under the personal editor of the President of the Academy of S. And. Vavilova. And, as you can see, it was not about the prosperity and power of the Golden Horde, but about “her fall.” Such are the paradoxes of the “speak” of Russian history!

Read:

“For the first census and collection of tribute, Batu sent the Basques. We have only hints about this first census.” 221).

So, in the Rostov-Suzdal land in the first years of their power, the Golden Horde Khans conducted three censuses:

And census: 1237-1238 (khan Batiy);

II census: 1257-1259 (han Burke);

III census: 1272 (han Mengu-Timur).

Readers apparently drew attention to how significantly contradict these facts and the actions of the Orda Khans with cynical statements of Muscovites about the savage and barbarism of conquerors. It is a typical behavior of big Russians to praise themselves and their own, and humiliate your neighbor and opponent with ordinary lies, squeaking facts and fictions.

We will not remind how in early 1238 Khan Batiy appointed Vladimir Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (“the hatkozacist”), taking from him an oath of allegiance, and 6-year-old son Alexander, nicknamed Nevsky, in amanate (the hostage). This was discussed in the first book.

I remind you only: there was Prince Yaroslav from the city, “what seemed to be capitulation”, Pereyaslav-Zalinsky, who served greatly to Khan’s Batya.

So, along the line of princely colonization of the Meric land, we briefly examined the entire period of stay of the first Ruriko-vices in the Rostov-Suzdal region, their actions, internecine environment, the composition of the population of the region to the first cardinal decisions of Khan Batiy regarding the change of the status of the land itself and the status of the prince.

Princes of the country Moxel from 1238 turned into ordinary servants of the Khan and his power, and the territory of the Rostov-Suzdal land, along with the Finnish ethnicity, became the ordinary ulus of the Golden Horde. Legislative and executive power in Vladimir’s Ulus was exercised by the Great Basak, starting in 1238, from the first day of conquest. That’s the truth of history.
7

In parallel with the princely colonization of the country, it also took place its church-monastery colonization. It is necessary to know that if princely colonization had virtually no importance for the establishment of “Moscow statehood”, then the church colonization of Finnish tribes became one of the main factors of that “state”. The Russian people received two rich historical heritage — the Mongol and Byzantine… The relationship between the influence of Mongolian and Byzantine in Russian history is the relationship between the order of fact and the order of idea.

The Mongol heritage made it easier for the Russian people to create a flesh. state.

The Byzantine heritage has armed the Russian people with the necessary way of ideas for the creation of the world state. 33].

No more and no less!

It was the Khans of the Golden Horde and the Orthodox Church privileged in the Horde that became the main tools that Moscow, Moscow and the Moscow state itself appeared. Everything else, as they say, was added. And the dynasty of princes of Rurikovich, including. Although we note: the khanam of the Golden Horde and no such thing fell in memory. However, their actions and decisions contributed to this course of events.

Consider the most characteristic actions and episodes from the life of the Orthodox Church in the Rostov-Suzdal land, its rulers and methods of their actions. We know the very essence of that church and the process of its irrigation with the state authorities. We will establish how the actions of the Orthodox Church contributed to the transformation of Finnish pagan tribes into a “plem of Muscovites”, and later — into “Great-growing”. Let us consider three main periods of the formation of Orthodoxy in the Rostov-Suzdal land. Here they are:

— period of insecure promotion (1073-1237);

  • period in the anddd of the Ordi ministry (1238-1354);

— period of monastic power (1354-155).
And. A period of insecure church promotion

We remember that the so-called “general Russian chronicles” imposed the idea of two bishops of the Rostov-Suzdal land — Theodore and Illarion, who allegedly visited it until 1073.

Already at the stage of completing the writing of the second volume of the novel-research “Country of Moxel” I managed to find the church book “Ancient Saints of Rostov the Great” – a work of Count M. Tolstoy”, published in Moscow in 1847 at the University Printing House. The book, of course, passed the strictest church censorship. What is reported on its first pages. In chapter III of the book: “Historical information about the Bishops of Rostov” is clearly fixed:

“a) Theodore Greek.., and b) Hilarion, just like Greek… The existence of both of these Bishops is quite doubtful, and a number of saints of Rostov probably begin with St. Leontia” [48, p. 68].

Official church science was forced to recognize the fact of having a “difficult lies” in the issue that concerns the first saints of the country Moxel, and managed to abandon outright fiction. That is, it is reliably established that the first bishop to step on the Rostov-Suzdal land was St. Leontius. And the saint went to that land only in 1073. He appeared in the country “wild and hostile” and was killed by the mayors that same year 1073. We’ve already written how it happened.

The second bishop to appear in the land of Moxel was Saint Isaiah. He, according to the book of Count M. B. Tolstoy, “became to another world) 1089 May 15” [48, p. 68].

The next reliably established bishop in Rostov-Suzdal land was “Nestor, set at about 1150, expelled by Andrew Bogolyubsky in 1156” [48, p. 69].

However, Count Tolstoy could not do without his own “difficult lies”. He mentioned Bishop Ephraim I before Nestor. Since that Ephraim: “In the message of ep. Simon is named Suzdal to the Blessed Polycarp. 69].

We will not have a discussion on the likelihood of the existence of Bishop Ephraim. Although we note that the dubious single word “Suzdal” cannot be reliable evidence. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing known about Ephraim’s activities in the Rostov-Suzdal land. And all historians agree that after Isaiah’s death before the appearance of Yuri the Long-hand bishop in the country, there was no bishop in it. He may have arrived with Prince in 1137. Although, again, I remind you no information about the stay in Suzdal and Rostov Bishop Ephraim in history is not recorded.

After Nikon’s expulsion, Leon became bishop. He said, “Leon was consecrated in 1158. He was expelled from Suzdal in 1159 and Rostov in 1162, for bribery, and according to the Trinity Chronicle, for heresy. Nestor returned and stayed until 1164. (48, p. 69].

Bishops of Rostov-Suzdal land had no support from either prince or population: they were killed, expelled, changed. This is quite understandable, given that both the prince himself and his wife, and the local Finnish population lived in a semi-wild state, were blood-related with ancient Finnish customs and beliefs. Christian religion was not perceived by local Finnish tribes.

Very interesting is the next bishop of the country Moxel Theodore I. About him in the book of Count M. V. Tolstoy says: “Theodor, nicknamed Kalugar, dedicated to Constantinople in 1170; deprived of office in 1172, for unhearded cruelty, and, according to Metropolitan’s court, punished by cutting off his right hand, cutting down the tongue and blinding.” 69].

We have the opportunity to make sure of the terrible rampantness and savagery already in the very Orthodox environment of the Rostov-Suzdal land of the late 12th century. But what is interesting: the Greek bishop, arriving from Constantinople, could not tolerate either the so-called “double-faith”, nor with the parallel worship of the stones of Cardo-syrko, nor with the depravity and banditry of Prince Andrew Bogolyubsky himself. He began to introduce strict religious orders in church life. Which I paid for. It was Prince Andrew Bogolyubsky — the “first great-Russian”, who “onely loved ones” and Christians, and non-Christ — once again became the organizer of abuse from the bishop.

The Patriarch of Constantinople for 13 years banned the consecration of a new bishop for the Rostov-Suzdal land. And only in 1185 “the iiumen of Spas Veres of the Tovsky monastery.., as the chronicler, silent, merciful to the poor, kind to everyone, mildly in language and works”, was ordained as bishops of Rostov-Suzdal land [48, p. 69].

We picked up exactly what was needed in that land.

Bishop Luke died in 1189.

I will not describe how the three more bishops of the first period of the formation of the Orthodox Church in the Moxel country acted. I will give only their names: John I, Pachoma, Cyril I. I note that they all eventually composed the rank, accepted the senchim and in the Idd was advoking in the monastery to pray for sins.

A terrible testimony!

Even the saints of the early 13th century in the Rostov-Suzdal land during their church activity grew such an incredible amount of evil and sins that the only way to save the soul was the acceptance of the zym and complete distance from worldly life.

Think, dear readers, this terrible truth — and understand the deceit of the main postulates of Moscow historical reality.

I also want to draw attention to the fact that in the first period of the formation of Orthodoxy began to take root among Finnish tribes mainly in Vladimir province. We are talking about tribes that lived in the territory of the later Vladimir province of the XIX century. No church, nor a single monastery in the territory of future provinces, Moscow, Kostroma, Kaluga, Tula, Penz, Kursk and inttistic of the first period of Orthodoxy (1073-1237), were discovered.

I give readers a list of monasteries, deserts and ancient churches of the first period of “uncertain promotion (1073-1237)” in the “Zaleshan land” (in the context of the governor of the future Moscow). The material is presented according to Alexander Ratshin’s research “Full meeting… about all existing monasteries and the current existing churches of Russia. Compiled from reliable sources”, 1852 edition.

I propose to study the territory of Vladimir province especially carefully, because it was in that land at the end of the XI and early 12th centuries that Orthodoxy first took its daring steps. In the territory of Voloda-Peace province in the XIX century, there are 12 ancient monasteries and 10 ancient temples (churches), erected before 1238.

Almost all of them were located in the “often-settled cities” that were erected by princes. Naturally, in cities lived mostly people who accepted Christianity, but the pagans were allowed: alien women, mayor’s servants, mayors-slaves, etc. d.

It is quite obvious that both church rulers and princes were erected in “often-colored cities”, under the protection of princely power and power. In that, first, period of Orthodoxy was very careful in the dreezing forests (desert). After all, paganism was brutally defended and, much more than numerous, it was rebuffed.

Let us look at all the ancient (until 1238) monasteries and churches. I would like to remind you that there was usually a church at the monastery. Most often, monasteries were erected on the basis of a previously existing temple (church). But automatically make up the number of monasteries and separately erected churches and talk about the total number of temples – it is impossible. For there were monasteries without churches, with small prayer cells.

VOLODYMYRSKIY GUBERNIA (the territory of the second half of the 19th century)
City Volodymyr

Monasteries:

The monastery of the Tatars in 1238 was not broken. “This monastery was destroyed in 1764 “on the direction of Catherine P” [51, p. 42].

Most likely, the destruction monastery of the calf in 1238 was not restored.

Churches (hrings)-.

In 1238, the church was not destroyed.

There were no more churches or monasteries in the city of Vladimir and its surroundings until 1238. And. As readers see, the vast majority in 1238 surrendered to Khan’s Batia “to surrender”, brought the Tatar Khan’s oath of allegiance and continued their activities. By the way, the last three churches were also not destroyed in 1238.
City of Suzdal

Monasteries:

We have already mentioned its existence as a monastery that was privileged during the Batiy.

Churches (hrings)-.

  1. Spasian Church. “built in 1152” [51, p. 57].
    City Moore

Monasteries:

  1. The Transfiguration Monastery (male), in the city. “It is known that at the end of the 11th century it already existed.” ZO]. Tatars were not broken in 1238.

Churches (hrs/.

  1. Annunciation of the Virgin. “built around 1170” [51, p. 57]. “On the place of the 12th century church, St. Prince Konstantin Svyatoslavich Muromsky built a monastery… after 1553 . [51, p. ZO].
    City Pereyaslavl-Zalisky

Monasteries:

  1. Nikite Monastery (male), 3 versts from the city. “The existence of it (the people. – W. B.) It was mentioned for the first time in the second half of the 12th century.” 32].

Batia’s monastery was not broken in 1238.

Churches (hrings):

  1. Salvation Transfiguration. “built in 1152” [51, p. 57].
    City Yuryev

Monasteries:

There were no monasteries in the city until 1238.

The Arkhangel Monastery was erected in the second half of the 13th century.

Churches (hrings):

  1. George the Great Martyr. “The congregation… It was built in 1152, rebuilt in 1234. s. 57].

All monasteries and churches (chra) erected in the territory of Vladimir province by 1238, that is, to the entry of the Rostov-Suzdal land into the state of the Golden Horde.

Not thick at all. Naturally, all churches are built in “oftening cities”, and only three monasteries are located outside the “city”, but in close proximity to them.

For comparison, it must be said that the book of Alexander Ratshin mentions 83 cult institutions known in Vladimir province until the second half of the XIX century. All other monasteries, deserts and significant churches, and 71 of them were erected after 1238.

We are faced with exceptionally important and valuable material, and readers still have to make sure how important it is to free itself from the Moscow historical chimera.

To continue the analysis, let us turn to neighboring with Vladimir province. Let’s see how Orthodoxy was able to “get” for the Finnish ethnic groups there.
RAZAN GUBERNIA
City of Ryazan

Monasteries:

  1. Theological monastery (male), 25 versts from Ryazan on the shore of Oka. “It was founded in the early 13th century” [51, p. 461].

I have already written how this monastery khan Batiy raised, how hundreds of years the rulers of the Golden Horde honored this monastery. This is what readers understand, was not for a reason.

To further talk about Ryazan, it is necessary to make clarity. The city is located from the old one over 50 versts. And the city of Ryazan it began to be called only from the end of the XIV century. It was previously called Pereyaslav Ryazansky.

Churches (hrings):

  1. Boris and Piiba. “The former congregation in ancient Ryazan… mentioned (in fact. – W. B.) The first time in the chronicles of 1094… The village is now in this place… remote from the current provincial city of Ryed 50 versts by the flow of Oki… This church… In the invasion of Tatar, 1237, December 21 is destroyed. 469].
    City Zaraisk

Churches (hrings):

  1. Nicholas the Wonderworker. “The congregation in the district city of Za-raisko exists, as it seems, since the 12th century.” 466]. The church is not destroyed by Khan Batiy’s troops.

Others until 1238 Ryazan province could not boast. Which is quite clear. Because the Ryazan province lay behind Vladimirskaya on the way to promoting Orthodoxy.
TVERSKA GUBERNIA
City Tver

Monasteries:

Russian history does not know about the existence of monasteries in Tver until 1238. It is likely that they were not in the territory of Tver province until 1238. But we will talk about it below.

Churches (hrings):

  1. The Transfiguration of God. “The Cathedral of the Cathedral… In the 13th century, the church of Kozma and Demyan was on this site, instead of which the wife of B. K. Yaroslav III… built… Church in the name of the Savior Transfiguration: it is laid down … in 1285… and consecrated on 8 November 1290 by Bishop Andrew. [51, p. 519].

This church is “drawn by me in the “good period” a little artificially. I decided to do so, because in the 13th century the church had already to accompany the princely settlement. It is clear that by 1238 Tver could not have a prince.
City Torzhok

Monasteries:

Here Mr. Alexander Ratshin either from his own desire or by the order of church Moscow rulers launched outright lies into his book.

Listen:

“Borisoglybsky (monaster. – W. B.), man., in the county city of Torzhku, on the shore of the River Tverts… Founded in 1030 by Saint Ephraim, who was once Boyarin and chief Conusch in St. John. Princes Boris and Gleb” [51, p. 510].

Russian professors (O. Oh. Shahmatov) proved that Princes Boris and Ptib never stepped in Rostov-Suzdal land. Although this is not surprising, the Moscow siege has always been peacefully used with the truth.

Sometimes, however, “the great-great people have refuted their liars. Read:

“Torzhok, the city of regional subordination, the center of the Tor-zhock district of Kalinin region of the RSFSR… Known from 1139 (year)” [16, t. 26, p. 105].

In 1030, the cake, as a settlement, did not exist. No one would dare to get into the forests of the city. We remember how much later, in 1071, the mayor met Jan Vyshatich and his companions (wife). And where could a brotherhood be recruited in 1030 for a monastery among the pagans-fins, if in those years the mayor had not yet stepped a priest’s foot in the land? Here you can ask many questions that Moscow history has no reliable answers. We listened to Moscow’s lies.

This ended the promotion of Orthodoxy until 1238 in the land of the Tver province.
YAROSLAVSKA GUBERNIA
City Rostov

Monasteries:

And in this case, we have a normal Moscow “difficult of lies”. Moscow historian to fear lies like spiting. Even in Novgorod, the Great Orthodoxy (and however, by force) was planted only in 992 these. But in Rostov, it turns out that Orthodoxy was able to appear without bishops and pastors. A kind of “air conception”.

Readers hope that Saint Abraham was born much later, and began to practice Christianity only in 1090-1120.

The open siege was planted by Muscovites at every step. To exalt the past. So, this monastery, or rather, the desert, could not appear before 1090.

I don’t think Alexander Ratshin, the author of the book, made a mistake for 100 years by accident. In Moscow historical science, there is nothing accidental.

Believe O. Ratshina by word and will refer the monastery to the first period of the formation of Orthodoxy in the Rostov-Suzdal land.

Churches (chrea:

The Tatars did not destroy this church in 1238.

City Yaroslavl

Monasteries: