Страница:
and start to realize that the real history was possibly
sufficiently shorter and that today we need to remove from the
"old English history" its "Byzantine part" and return this piece
to its right place (in time and in the geographical sense).
This procedure is very painful. We realize this because we
discovered the same problem in the old Russian history, when we
also found several chronological duplicates.
General remark. It is possible, that this process of
"insertion of an old Byzantine chronicles" in the beginning of a
"local history" is presented for several different regions which
were closely connected with Byzantine empire. In particular, it
is true for Russia, for England, for Rome, for Greece.
5. OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES AS ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH SPEAK
ABOUT REAL EVENTS OF 10-13th CENTURIES
5.1. Roman consul Brutus - the first who conquered
Britain (and the first king of Britts)
We have analyzed above the durations of rules and suggested
the conjecture that old English history is "a chronological
reflection" if one period of real Byzantine history. The
following question immediately arises: what about old English
chronicles - do they confirm this conjecture? - or there are some
contradictions? Let us take these chronicles and let us read them
once more by "fresh sight", without a priori "school" hypothesis
about "great antiquity" of these sources.
Now we recall to the reader well-known facts from
traditional history of England (Anglia in old texts). Let us
take, for example
"Historia Brittonum" of Nennius,
"Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis
and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Galfridus calls Brutus as FIRST king of Britts ([9],p.5). In
brief, the story of conquest of Britain is as follows. After the
end of the Trojan War and after the fall of Troy, the Trojan hero
Aeneas arrived on the ship in Italy. After two or three
generation his great-grandson Brutus was born ([9],p.6-7). By the
way, Nennius thinks that "time distance" between Aeneas and Brutus
is sufficiently more ([8],p.173). He states that "the distance"
between Trojan war and Brutus is about several hundreds years.
However, this difference is not so important for us.
Then Brutus leaved Italy and arrived it Greece, where
becomes the leader of Trojans survived after war. Brutus collects
the large fleet and then his army (on the fleet) leaves Greece.
After some time they landed on some "island", began the battle
with local people, won the war and founded the new kingdom.
This is Britain.
Brutus is the first in the row of rulers in ancient Britain.
Today they are considered as legendary heroes, because, according
to traditional chronology, these events were "in a deep past"
(before Jesus Christ).
Nennius tells the analogous story of Brutus (but more
short). Nennius definitely states that Brutus "arrived on the
island, which was called by HIS NAME, i.e., on the island
Britain, then populated the island by his posterity and lived
there. From this day and before now the Britain is populated"
([8],p.173). Thus, the Britain was called by the name of Brutus.
Then Nennius informs us about opinion of some other authors,
that "island Britain was called by the name of Britt, son of
Isicion, who was the son of Alan" ([8],p.172). But according to
the most widespread and authoritative version (which is quoted by
Nennius) Britain was called "by the name of Brutus, who was ROMAN
CONSUL (! - Auth.)" ([8],p.172). Thus, Brutus - the first king of
Britain was Roman consul.
This statement is extremely strange and impossible from the
point of view traditional Scaliger's chronology, because Rome was
founded only about 753 B.C. and consequently in the epoch of this
Brutus there are no "Roman consuls" and even no Rome!
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that:
"The first inhabitants of this land were the Britons, who
came from ARMENIA (!-Authors)..." ([2],p.3).
It is quite clear that here the name Armenia points out on
the Romania, i.e. on the Roman-Byzantine empire, which was called
Romai-Romania. Thus, as we see, the English chronicle again
connects Britain and Roman-Byzantine empire.
Of course, today this statement of old chronicle is declared
by historians as erroneous. The modern commentary is as follows:
"instead of erroneous name Armenia one should read Armorica =
Brittany" ([2],p.3). However, the replacement of Armenia by
Armorica does not help to traditional history: the name Armorica
also can be connected with the name of Roman-Byzantine empire.
Our conclusion does not change.
Thus, old English chronicles state that Britain was at first
conquered by Roman consul Brutus, who arrived there with a
military fleet and founded the British kingdom. He became the
first king of an island Britain.
5.2. Consul Brutus of English chronicles - was he a
contemporary of Julius Caesar?
It seems that the answer is quite clear.
We need only to understand - when lived this remarkable
Roman consul (according to traditional chronology)? It is very
simple. The qualified reader already prompts to us the right
answer: it was 1st century B.C. In this century we see (in modern
textbook in ancient history) the well-known Roman consul Brutus -
the friend and brother-in-arms of Julius Caesar. Brutus took
part in many campaigns of Julius Caesar. Then Brutus betrayed
Caesar - his patron and protector. We remember from our "scholar
childhood" the bitter words of Caesar: "And you, Brutus", which
Caesar said when Brutus struck him by the sword.
As we also known, the traitorous murder of Caesar - one of
the most important episode in "biography" of ancient Roman consul
Brutus. It is remarkable, but the old English chronicles also
speak about this episode but in a slightly different words. They
state that Brutus (the first Britts' king) killed his farther.
This murder is considered by chronicles as accidental,
unintentional. Allegedly, Brutus shot an arrow and accidentally
killed "his farther" ([8],p.173). In our opinion, this is
slightly distorted Roman story about murder of Julius Caesar by
Brutus. Here "farther" is Caesar - former friend and protector of
Brutus.
Because of this terrible murder, the people expel Brutus
from his native land. It was done in both stories: in Roman and
in English. Brutus started on a journey.
Our simple and natural conjecture is as follows: in the old
English story about conquest of Britain acts Brutus - the
contemporary of Julius Caesar. As we saw, this conjecture is
supported by ancient documents, although they do not call
directly Brutus as friend or enemy of Caesar. Indeed, all
chronicles state that AT FIRST Britain was conquered by Julius
Caesar. Some interesting details are reported. Namely, Caesar
arrived in Britain with Roman military fleet which consisted of
about 80 ships ([2],p.5). But the conquest of the land became a
complicated problem and soon Caesar returned in Britain with the
fleet consisting of 600 (!) ships. After the battle the local
army of natives were defeated and Romans founded the new kingdom.
Moreover, Nennius claims that Julius Caesar WAS THE FIRST ROMAN
who arrived on the island Britain and conquered the kingdom and
Britts ([8],p.176).
Thus, if Brutus WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain, and
if Julius Caesar also WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain,
then BRUTUS and JULIUS CAESAR are simply CONTEMPORARIES and
brothers-in-arms. This conclusion evidently follows from old
English chronicles.
Let us resume these corollaries in the form of some table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brutus - the first king of Britts Julius Caesar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The first Roman arrived on 1. The first Roman arrived on
the island, conquered the land the island, conquered the
and founded the kingdom country and also founded the
kingdom
2. Arrived in Britain with great 2. Was the head of great military
military fleet fleet which invaded into the land
3. "Accidentally" killed his 3. His contemporary - Roman Brutus,
farther by arrow Caesar's friend, traitorously
killed Caesar (= "his farther-
-protector")
4. The murder of Brutus' father 4. Well-known story: the murder
by his son was predicted in of Julius Caesar was predicted
advance by prophet (see Nennius, by Roman prophet (see, for
[8],p.173) example, Plutarch
5. Afterwards Brutus was expelled 5. Romans expelled Brutus as great
from his native land (as the men traitor, because he killed Julius
who committed the murder) Caesar
6. Roman consul Brutus starts 6. Julius Caesar lived (according
the history of Britain traditional chronology) in 1st c.
B.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, from the position of common sense we immediately date
the epoch of the first Brutus' conquest of Britain (with his
contemporary Julius Caesar) by 1st century A.D. Let us note, that
this our statement is not new in reality. All experts know that
Caesar conquered the Britain in 1st century A.D. All experts know
that Brutus was the first who conquered Britain. We simply
combine these two facts and formulate the evident conclusion:
"Ancient" Roman consul Brutus - the "farther" of all Britts,
the first king of Britain, the "starting person" of the whole
English history - is a contemporary on Julius Caesar, i.e.,
well-known in classical Roman history consul Brutus.
The reader qualified in ancient history can, of course
recall here also the second known Brutus in Roman history, who
acted allegedly about 6th c.B.C. in Rome. He expel ed the Roman
kings from the capital and founded the Roman republic. But this
historical epoch is in reality another chronological duplicate
(copy), reflection of the epoch of Julius Caesar. It was
discovered in [1],[24]. Consequently, the attempt to identify the
Brutus = the first king of Britts - with "another Brutus" -
fails. We again come to the epoch of Julius Caesar (1st century
A.D. according to traditional chronology). Let us recall here,
that according to chronological results, obtained in [1],[24],
the epoch of Julius Caesar is in reality the duplicate
(reflection) of the epoch of 10-11th cc.A.D.
The reader can ask us: why we discuss in such details such
evident question (the identification of Brutus - the first king
of Britts - with Brutus of Caesar's epoch)?
Our answer is as follows. This our statement is mortally
dangerous to the traditional chronology of England (and not only
England). This is the explanation why the traditional historians
try to avoid any serious discussion about the assertion of
English chronicles, that Brutus was Roman consul and that Britts
are the descendants of Romans. In particular, the modern
commentators of Nennius and Galfridus (A.S.Bobovich and
M.A.Bobovich) irritatedly write: "The (medieval - Auth.) idea to
deduce the origin of Britts from Romans and Trojans is not so
original: already in 6th century A.D. the Frank's rulers deduced
their origin from Trojans (and, in our opinion, they were right,
see the discussion about this subject in [1],[24] - Auth.)"
([9],p.270). And then commentators add carefully: "There are
several Brutus in Roman history". They do not continue and do not
discuss this remark, and now we realize - why. If you start to
analyse the "Brutus' problem", you (as we demonstrated above)
will make the inevitable (and catastrophic for traditional
chronology) conclusion that "English Brutus" was the contemporary
of Julius Caesar.
BUT WHY THIS CONCLUSION US SO DANGEROUS?
At first, because in this case the so called "ancient
legendary British history" is immediately moved upwards by
approximately 1000-year shift in the epoch of 1-13th A.D. and
moreover, in 10-15th cc.A.D.
Such corollary, of course, is completely unacceptable (and
totally fantastic) to any modern traditional historian. But there
are some another, sufficiently more dangerous corollaries.
About this - our next section.
5.3. Biblical events in English chronicles
The "Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis is strung
on the pivot of biblical history. This means that sometimes, when
speaking about the events of British history, Galfridus inserts
the phrases similar to this: In Judea the prophet Samuel ruled
at this time ([9],p.20). These rare phrases are scattered along
the chronicle and form the rough (and very brief) skeleton of
biblical history of prophets and biblical kings, which is closely
interwoven with the stream of British history. But, by the way,
Galfridus does not give any absolute dates. His chronology is
completely relative, i.e., he tells only - in the time of which
biblical kings (or prophets) were occurred some of British events.
Thus, when analyzing the English chronology in a unprejudiced
way, we meet the necessity to start the analysis of biblical
chronology also. Let us do it and we will see what we will obtain.
The evident identification of "English Brutus" with
well-known Brutus from the epoch of Julius Caesar, is impossible
for traditional historian because in this case the whole biblical
chronology is automatically moved from its traditional place (in
time) upwards by about at least 1000-year shift ! In reality this
shift will be sufficiently more: about 1800 years! See [1],[24].
Indeed, if "English Brutus" (the forefather of Britts) is
placed in 1st century B.C., then, according to the "Historia
Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis, ALL BASIC EVENTS OF BIBLICAL
HISTORY should be distributed on time axis from 1st century A.D.
until 13th century A.D. Here we mean: the history of all
biblical prophets, the history of the kingdom of Judah and the
kingdom of Israel et cetera. On the face of it, such conclusion
is completely impossible! Traditionally, biblical history is
dated from 11th century B.C. until 1st century A.D.
But if we will wait a little and will try nevertheless to
place ancient biblical history on the interval from 1st century
A.D. until 13th century A.D. - what we obtain?
It turns out that this procedure does not lead to the
contradiction with ancient evidences of ancient texts. We suggest
to the reader to take the books of Fomenko [1],[24], where you
can find the details. Here we demonstrate only one, but remarkable
example.
5.4. Do we interpret ancient texts in a proper way?
Problem of vowels restoration.
In the attempt to read and date the most of the ancient
manuscripts (ancient Egyptian, ancient Slavonic, biblical et
cetera) certain basic problems are frequently encountered.
As soon as J.Sunderland started investigating the original
language of the Old Testament, he, in his words,
"...faced the fact of enormous and even startling
importance. The thing is that the Jewish written language
originally had neither vowels nor signs replacing them. The books
of the Old Testament were written only with consonants" ([16], p.
155).
This is also typical for other languages. For example, an
ancient Slavonic text was a chain of only consonants, too;
sometimes even without signs replacing the vowels, or without
division into words. Old Egyptian texts were also written in
consonants only.
According to well-known chronologist E.Bickerman,
"...the names of Egyptian kings are given in contemporary
literature schematically, in a quite arbitrary, so-called
scholastic manner adopted in school textbooks. These forms are
often greatly different from each other; it is impossible to
order them somehow, due to their arbitrary reading (! - Authors.)
which became traditional" ([17], p.176).
Probably, the rarity and high cost of writing materials in
ancient times made the scribes save them, and omit the vowels,
thereby essentially shortening the text.
J.Sunderland continues:
"However, if we take the Jewish Bible or a manuscript today,
we shall find in them the skeleton of vowels filled with dots and
other signs denoting the missing vowels. These signs did not
belong to the old Jewish Bible. The books were read by
consonants, and the intervals were filled with vowels according
to one's skill and the apparent requirements of the context and
oral legends" ([16], p. 155).
Imagine how exact the meaning of a word written in
consonants can be if, for example, CLN can mean clean, clan,
colon, and so forth.
According to T.Curtis, even for the priests, the content of
manuscripts remained extremely doubtful and could be understood
only by means of the authority of the legend ([16], p. 155).
It is assumed that this serious short-coming of the Jewish
Bible had been eliminated not earlier that the 7th or 8th century
A.D., when the Massoretes revised the Bible and added signs
replacing the vowels; but they had no manuals, except their own
reason, and a very imperfect legendary tradition ([16], p.
156-157).
Well-known expert S.Driver adds that, since the times of the
Massoretes in the 7th-8th century A.D., the Jews have taken to
keeping their sacred books with extraordinary care, but then it
was too late to repair the damage already done. The result of
such attentiveness was just the immortalization of the
distortions, which were then placed on exactly the same level of
authority with the original text ([16], p.157).
J.Sunderland: "The opinion reigning earlier was that the
vowels had been introduced into the Jewish text by Ezra in the
5th century A.D. But in the 16th and 17th century, E.Levita and
J.Capellus in France refuted this opinion and proved that th
vowels had been introduced only by the Massoretes. The discovery
created a sensation in the whole of Protestant Europe. Many
people believed that the new theory would lead to disproving the
religion completely. If the vowels were not a matter of Divine
Revelation, but only a human invention, besides, a much later
one, then how could we rely on the text of the Scripture? This
discussion was one of the hottest in the history of the new
biblical criticism and proceeded for more than a century,
stopping only when the validity of the new point of view was
acknowledged by everyone" ([16], p. 157-158).
5.5. Geography and chronology of biblical events.
5.5.1. Problems with traditional geographical
localizations.
Even if the vowels of common words are not that important
(you can easily reconstruct a well-known word from the context),
the situation changes completely when combination of consonants
meaning a city, country, the name of a king, etc., appears in an
ancient text. Tens and hundreds of different variants of vowels
for one term (word) may be found, stating the "identifications"
of the biblical vowel-free names of cities, countries, and
others, made by traditional historians proceeding from the
chronological (and geographical) version of J.Scaliger and the
localization referring the biblical events to the Near East.
As the archaeologist M.Burrows notes, the archaeological job
generally leads to the undoubtedly strongest creed in the
reliability of biblical information (cit.from [18], p. 16).
F.Kenyon of the British Museum insists as much categorically
on archaeology refuting the "destructive skepticism of the
second half of the 19th century" [18].
But here is unexpected information reported by the
well-known archaeologist G.Wright, who, by the way, is a staunch
partisan of the correctness of orthodox localization and of
traditional dating biblical events. He wrote,
"A great many findings do not prove or disprove anything;
they fill the background and only serve as historical artifacts.
Unfortunately, the desire "to prove" the Bible permeates many
works available to the average reader. Historical evidences may
be used in an incorrect manner, whereas the conclusions dawn are
often erroneous and only half correct" ([18], p. 17).
If we attentively examine the fundamental facts about the
Bible discovered by N.A.Morozov [19], then we shall see that none
of the books of the Old Testament contain any solid
archaeological confirmation of their traditional geographical and
time localization. As I.A.Kryvelev noted, the whole
"Mesopotamian" biblical theory will be questioned.
The traditional localization of the events described in the
New Testament is no better.
I.A.Kryvelev many years studied the biblical geography and
chronology. He wrote,
"The reader interested in biblical archaeology may be
bewildered by the hundreds of pages speaking of excavations,
landscapes, or artifacts, historical and biblical background.
And, in the conclusion, when it comes to the results of the whole
job, there are only a number of indistinct and imprecise
statements about the problem not having been completely solved,
but that there is still hope for the future, and so forth. We may
be absolutely sure that none of the stories of the New Testament
contains any somewhat convincing archaeological confirmation (in
terms of the traditional localizations - Authors). This is
perfectly true, in particular, if applied to the figure and
biography of Jesus Christ. Not a single spot traditionally
regarded as the arena of a particular event occurring in the New
Testament can be indicated with the slightest degree of
confidence" ([18], p. 200-201).
The natural question arises: where the events of Old and New
Testaments were geographically located in reality?
5.5.2. Where ancient Troy was located?
In reality, considerable difficulties accompany the attempts
of geographical localization of many of the ancient events and
cities (not only from the Bible).
For example, one of the accepted today traditional
localizations of the famous city of Troy is near the Hellespont
(= the sea of Helen). It is for this particular reason that
Schliemann ascribed the famous name of Troy (described by Homer)
to the rests of a small ancient village he excavated near the
Hellespont. It is well known that today we have not any proofs of
this "identification".
It is assumed today, that according to traditional
chronology, Troy was completely destroyed in the 12-13th century
B.C. and after this was never reconstructed [17]. But, it turns
out, that in the Middle Ages, Italian city Troy, which still
exists today [1],[24], enjoyed widespread fame. This is
celebrated medieval city which played an important role in many
medieval wars; especially, in the well-known war of the 13th
century.
Many Byzantine historians also speak of Homer's Troy as of
an existing medieval city, namely, Choniates Nicetas and Gregoras
Nicephoras ([20], v. 6, p. 126).
T.Livy indicates the spot named Troy and the Trojan region
in Italy (Book.1). Certain medieval historians identified Troy
with Jerusalem (see, for example, [21],p.88,235,162,207), which
embarrasses the modern commentators:
"The book of Homer somewhat suddenly turned (in the medieval
chronicle, while describing Alexander's expedition to Troy -
Authors)... into the book on the destruction of Jerusalem" ([21],
p. 162). Let us recall that the second (well-known) name of Troy
is Ilion, whereas the second name of Jerusalem is Aelia
Capitolina ([19], v. 7). It is absolutely clear that in the names
of these cities there is a similarity:
Aelia = Ilion.
The books [1] and [2] contains the data and arguments which
allow to assume that Homer's Troy is the Constantinople (= New
Rome), and that the Trojan War is the reflection of crusades
which started from 11th c.A.D. The Constantinople was captured
during crusades. Besides this, some part of the legend on Trojan
War is the reflection of a real medieval war from the middle of
13th c.A.D. in Italy. The Italian city Troy was involved in this
war (see [1]).
The identification of the Great Troy with Constantinople
follows also from the texts of crusades epoch. The chronicler
Rober de Clari told that the Great Troy was located near the
entrance into the "branchium Sancti Georgii" ([25],p.210). It is
supposed today that this is the Dardanelles. From the other hand
it is also known that another famous chronicler of the 4th
crusade - Villehardouin - calls as "branchium Sancti Georgii" not
only the Dardanelles but also the Bosporus! M.A.Zaborov (modern
historian) notes: "Villehardouin applies the name "branchium
Sancti Georgii" to the Dardanelles and to the Bosporus"
([25],p.238).
Thus, the Great Troy can located also near the entrance
into the Bosporus. But here we see the Constantinople!
Consequently, it was completely unnecessary to search the
"rests" of the Troy on a desert hills as Schliemann done. Our
conjecture: the Trojan War is the reflection of the one or
several crusades on the Constantinople or on Italian Troy.
The well-known medieval "Novel on the Troy" of Benoit de
Sainte-Maure ("Roman de Troie") was finished allegedly between
1155 and 1160 A.D. "The source of this novel is the "History of
Troy destruction" written by some Dares, who was allegedly the
eyewitness of Trojan War (possibly, he was one of the crusaders -
Auth.). Benoit looks in the antiquity through the prism of his
epoch and his reality... In his basis is the ancient Greek epos,
but its personages and heroes are transformed into noble knights
and beautiful ladies, and the Trojan War itself is transformed
into the sequence of knight's duels... Ancient Medea is
represented in his chronicle as courtier lady, whose clothing is
exactly the same as the clothing of the lady of her social level
in medieval France of the middle of 12th century"([10],p.235).
We suggest to read the old chronicles "in direct way",
without some special complex interpretations; we need to read
"what is written" and not "what should be written". In this case
we are forced to agree that Benoit de Sainte-Maure describes the
Trojan War as the event from medieval epoch.
5.5.3. Where Moses traveled in reality?
Let us return to the Bible.
Many strange phenomena occur in an unprejudiced analysis of
biblical geography (see detailed Morozov's analysis in [19]).
That many biblical texts describe volcanic activity has been
stressed in history long ago. Let us take the Bible.
The Lord said to Moses, "I am now coming to you in a thick
cloud... But when the ram's horn sounds (when the cloud leaves
Mount Sinai - Authors), they may go up the mountain'... there
were peals of thunder and flashes of lightning, a dense cloud on
the mountain and a loud trumpet blast... Mount Sinai was all
smoking because the Lord had come down upon it in fire; the smoke
went up like the smoke of a kiln... and the sound of the trumpet
grew ever louder" (Ex. 19:9, 13, 16, 18).
And then:
All the people saw how it thundered and the lightning
flashed, when they heard the trumpet sound and saw the mountain
smoking..." (Ex.20:18).
"You stood... at Horeb... THe mountain was ablaze with fire
to the very skies: there was darkness, cloud, and thick mist.
And the Lord spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire " (Dt.
4:10-12).
The destruction of biblical cities Sodom and Gomorrah has
long been regarded in history to have been due to a volcanic
eruption. For example:
"And then the Lord rained down fire and brimstone from the
skies on Sodom and Gomorrah... He saw thick smoke rising high
from the earth like the smoke of a like-kiln" (Gn.19:24,28).
And so on.
The complete list of all apparent volcanic eruptions
mentioned in the Bible was compiled by V.P.Fomenko and
T.G.Fomenko (see [1],[24]).
To associate (as is done traditionally) all these
descriptions with Mn. Sinai = Mn. Horeb (and Jerusalem in
traditional Palestine) seems doubtful; it is generally known that
it has never been a volcano.
Where did the events occur then?
It suffices to study the geological map of the Mediterranean
area to obtain immediately the unique answer. There are no acting
volcanoes in the Sinai peninsula, Syria, or Palestine; there are
only zones of tertiary and quaternary volcanism, as, for example,
near Paris. In the above-mentioned regions, where the biblical
events are traditionally located, no volcanic activity has been
discovered in historical epoch since the birth of Christ.
Besides, Egypt and North Africa have no volcanoes.
The only powerful, and by the way, acting volcanic zone, is
Italy together with Sicily.
Thus, according to the Bible, we have to find
1) a powerful volcano active in the historical era;
2) a destroyed capital (see the book of the Prophet
Jeremiah) near the volcano;
3) two other cities destroyed by the volcano, namely, Sodom
and Gomorrah.
There exists such a volcano in the Mediterranean, and it is
unique, namely the famous Vesuvius, one of the most powerful
volcanoes in history.
Famed Pompeii (biblical "capital"?) and two destroyed cities
Stabiae (Sodom?) and Herculaneum (Gomorrah?) are located nearby.
We cannot but mention a certain similarity in the names of these
Italian and biblical towns. It is possible that the name of Sinai
for Vesuvius originates from the Latin Sino (sinus), and biblical
Horeb from the Latin horribilis (horrible).
The following analytic study worth mentioning, which permits
to read the vowel-free text of the Bible, was performed by
Morozov in [19]. It took into account placing Mt.Sinai=Horeb=Sion
in Italy.
We illustrate by several examples.
The Bible speaks:
"The Lord our God spoke to us at Horeb and said, "You have
stayed on this mountain long enough; go now, make for all
KNN (Canaan)..." (Dt.1:6-7).
The theologians supply the Hebrew KNN with vowels Canaan and
place it in the desert on the Dead Sea coast, but another
solution is also possible, namely, KNN = GENUA (Italian Genoa).
The Bible continues:
"All KNN (Canaan) and the LBN (Lebanon)..." (Dt. 1:7).
The theologians restore the Hebrew LBN with vowels as
Lebanon; however lebanon means "white", i.e., the same as Mont
Blanc, or White Mountain. Famous mountain in Europe.
"As far as the great river, the PRT" (Dt. 1:7).
The theologians restore PRT with vowels and decipher is as
Euphrates; but, there is the large tributary of the Danube, the
Prut, located in central Europe, as beyond Mont Blanc.
"Then we set out from Horeb... and marched through that vast
and terrible wilderness" (Dt. 1:19).
In fact, the famous Phlegraei, vast and burnt-out spaces
filled with small volcanoes, fumaroles, and solidified lava
streams are located near Vesuvius=Horeb.
"And so we came to KDS-BRN" (Dt. 1:19).
KDS-BRN is traditionally supplied with vowels as
Kadesh-Barnea, which is, from the other hand, possibly, a town on
the Rhone ([19], v. 2, p. 166). It is also possible that modern
Geneva was meant as "town on the Rhone".
"And we spent many days marching round the hill-country of
Seir" (Dt. 2:1).
Mount Seir was left here without translation; however, if it
is translated, we obtain Devil's Mountain(s). And there is such a
mountain near Lake Geneva, namely Le Diableret ("Devil's
Mountain").
Then, the "Children of Lot" (Dt. 2:9) met on the way can be
evidently identified with the Latins ( = LT).
"And cross the gorge of the Arnon" (Dt. 2:24).
In the canonical translation we see Arnon (RNN). But,this is
the Italian river Arno existing up to now!
"Next we... advances... to Bashan" (Dt. 3:1).
The town Bashan (Bassan) is often mentioned in the Bible. It
is surprising that town Bassano still exists in Lombardy.
"King of Bashan... came out against us at Edrei" (Dt.3:1).
Adria is still here, on the Po delta; the Po, by the way,
has often been mentioned by ancient Latin authors (e.g.,
Procopius) and called the Jordan (in Procopius' Eridanus), which
is very consistent with the biblical spelling of the Jordan,
namely hay-yarden (JRDN) ([19], v. 2, p. 167).
"And we captured all his cities... sixty cities..."(Dt.
3:3-4).
Indeed, in the Middle Ages, there were many big cities in
the region: Verona, Padua, Ferrara, Bologna, and others.
"From the gorge of the Arnon to Mount Hermon (HRMN)" (Dt.
3:8).
But it is obvious that MNT HRMN can be supplied with vowels
to be translated as the "German mountains".
"Only the Og king of Bashan remained... His sarcophagus of
iron may still be seen in the... city of Rabbah" (Dt. 3:11).
Here is mentioned not only Ravenna (=Rabbah), but also the
famous tomb of Theodoric (493-526 A.D.) of the Ostrogoths (Og =
Goths?). It is clear that biblical OG means possible GOTH.
There follows TBRN (Taberiah in traditional biblical
translation), which is naturally identified with the Tiber in
Italy; ZN is Siena, southeast of Livorno. The slopes of Monte
Viso are called Jebus (Jgs. 19:10-11) in the Bible, and Rome is
called Ramah (Jgs. 19:14).
And so on.
As we see, the shift of some biblical events from "the deep
antiquity" in the medieval epoch does not contradict with the
ancient text of the Bible (without vowels). Thus, now we can
continue our analysis of English history.
5.6. Why English chronicles suggested that both Russia and
England were located on islands?
The fact that modern England is located on the island, does
not surprise us. But Russia!? There are no geographical reasons
to think that Russia is the island! But nevertheless, for example
the well-known chronicler Benoit de Sainte-Maure in his
"Chronicle of the dukes of Normandy" [22] speaks, that
There exists an ISLAND called Cansie (or Canzie), and I
think that this is Rosie (in another copy of the manuscript -
Russie - Auth.), which is surrounded by the great salty sea. And
they (the people of Russie - Auth.) fly out as great swarm of
bees, and their number is thousands; and they... can attack the
great kingdoms and take the great procurement and they can
win and conquer.
Here the original text:
"Une isle i a par non Cancie (Canzie in manuscript B - see
[10],p.240), e si crei bien que c'est Rosie (Russie in manuscript
B, see [10],p.240), qui est de la grant mer salee de totes parz
avironnee. Dunc autresi com les euetes de lor diverses
maisonnetes gitent essains granz e pleners, ou moct a nombres e
millers, ou com de ceus qui sunt irie' sunt en estor glaive
sachie', tost e isnel d'ire esbrasez, trestot eissi e plus assez
seuct icil poples fors eissir por les granz rennes envair e por
faire les granz ocises, les granz gaaiz e les conquises."
Russia is called here Rosie or Russie. If we look in the
table of medieval names, titles and their duplicates (see above),
we will see that here the chronicler really speaks about Russia.
V.I.Matuzova (who included this text in her book "English
Medieval Texts") comments this fragment as follows:
"Rosie is Russia. The report that Russia is an ISLAND is
similar to another such reports..."([10],p.244). And then
Matuzova quotes another medieval authors who were confident that
Russia is an ISLAND (in particular, some Arabian and Persian
chroniclers; but, by the way, it is not so clear - where they
lived in reality, may be in Spain?).
It is supposed sometimes today that Cancie is Scandinavia.
But Scandinavia also is not an island! By the way, the "Chronicle
of Monastery of Saint Edmund" (13th c. A.D.) is also convinced
that Russia is located on an island, because reports that Tartars
rushed on Hungary FROM ISLANDS ([30], and also [10],p.100-101).
How we can explain it? The simplest way - to accuse the
authors of 12th century that they were completely ignorant (this
is the standard explanation in modern historical textbooks and
this idea allows to the modern historians simply to "close the
problem").
But another explanation is also possible.
English word island means today the piece of land surrounded
by a sea. But may be in the medieval epoch this word had also
another meaning? Our conjecture: it was Asia-Land, i.e., the Land
located in Asia. Without vowels we have:
asialand = SLND, and island = SLND.
This is the same word!
Then all things immediately fit in their "correct places".
Russia really can be considered (from the Western point of view)
as far Asian Land = island. Large part of Russia belongs to the
Asia. Consequently, medieval chroniclers were quite right when we
talked about Island Russia. They were not so ignorant as it is
supposed today.
Let us repeat once more our conjecture: the word island had
two meanings in the past: piece of land surrounded by a sea, and
Asia-Land.
But in this case the natural question arises (as the flash).
If the ancient English authors speaking about island Russia,
assumed that they speak about Asia-Land Russia, then we do not
see any obstacles to assume that when they told bout island
Anglia, they also speak about Asia-Land Anglia. And only after
this, in a new epoch, the word island Anglia become to be
considered only as island Anglia in a modern sense (piece of land
surrounded by sea).
We saw the remarkable parallel between English history and
Byzantine history. But Byzantine Empire really was Asia-Land for
Western chroniclers. And only in the next epoch (when Byzantine
chronicles were transported in England and were inserted into
English history) the Asia-Land Anglia was transformed into Island
Anglia.
Thus, were was located the land Anglia-Britain in 10-12th
cc. A.D.? This is complicated question. To get the answer we have
unique way - to take the old English chronicles. Our answer will
be as follows:
Anglia-Britain of 10-12th cc.A.D. was Byzantine Empire.
5.7. Where was the land Britain which was conquered by
Brutus located? In what direction his fleet cruised?
On the face of it, the answer on this absurd question is
completely evident: on the same place where England-Britain is
located today. But let us not to hurry.
Let us recall after "accidental murder of his father",
Brutus was expelled from Italy. He went to the Greece ([9],p.7).
Here Brutus fixed the ancient relationship and he was staying
among Trojans ([9],p.7). The period of wars in Greece started at
this time. These wars are described by Galfridus in many details.
Then Brutus organized the army and fleet and after this started
the campaign-cruise. It is supposed today that his fleet went in
Atlantic ocean and then arrived in modern England. Is it true?
May be the chronicles describe in reality the military operations
inside Mediterranean sea and on the territory of Greece and
Byzantine Empire?
For example, Brutus' army arrived in Sparatin. Modern
commentary: "Location is unknown" ([9],p.230). Of course, you
cannot find Sparatin if you assume that Brutus travel far from
Mediterranean sea. But if these events occurred in Greece, then
you do not need to search Sparatin, because this is well-known
Sparta.
Then Galfridus describes the path of Brutus' fleet which is
considered today as a "proof" that Brutus really went in Atlantic
and then arrived in modern England. But we see suddenly from
modern comments that it turns out that Galfridus "repeat the
mistake containing in his source - namely, in "Historia
Brittonum" of Nennius, who made the mistake because of erroneous
reading of Orosius' chronicle..."([9],p.231). Moreover, then it
turns out that "following to Nennius, Galfridus ERRONEOUSLY
placed Tyrrhenian Sea BEHIND Gibraltar. We recall that Tyrrhenian
Sea is BEFORE Gibraltar because is a part of Mediterranean Sea
near Western coast of Italy" ([9],p.231).
But we are sure that here - no mistake! Galfridus was right
because he describes in reality some complicated military
movements INSIDE Mediterranean Sea, in particular, near Italy,
where you can see Tyrrhenian Sea. Brutus' fleet did not pass in
the Atlantic Ocean! Modern historians try to accuse Galfridus
(and other chroniclers) in some "mistakes" only because
historians try to adjust their modern "traditional" chronological
and geographical concepts with real evidences of real medieval
texts. Of course, a lot of contradictions appear. All these
contradictions are considered today as "the fault of medieval
authors".
Then Galfridus describes the battle between Brutus' army and
Greeks on the Akalon (Acalon) river ([9],p.8). The modern
commentary is as follows: "This name is, possibly, the fantasy of
Galfridus... E.Pharal is his book formulated the idea that this
description of Greek's defeat during the battle with Trojans near
Acalon river, was taken by Galfridus from the story of Etien de
Blua about the defeat of TURKS during the battle with CRUSADERS
near "Moscolo" river at March 1098 A.D." ([9],p.230).
Consequently, here we can penetrate through the thick cover
of traditional plaster into the real contents of the Galfridus
chronicle. He describes in reality (following to some old
documents) the epoch of the First Crusade in the end of 11th
c.A.D. in Byzantine Empire.
Thus, we can assume that Brutus' campaign = Julius Caesar's
campaign is the reflection of well-known crusade in the end of
11th c.A.D. The conquest of Britain is shifted from the 1st
c.B.C. into the 11th c.A.D. (about 1000-year shift !). This fact
confirms the discovered parallel ("identification") between
Roman-Byzantine history of 10-15th cc.A.D. and old English
history starting, allegedly, in 1st c.B.C. See above.
After some time they (Brutus' fleet) arrived to "the island
which was called Albion" ([9],p.17). Modern commentary: Albion =
Al'bania - one of the early (old) names of Britain or the part of
it, which was appeared in ancient sources" ([9],p.232).
When speaking about Britain, Galfridus very often uses its
second equivalent name: Al'bania ([9],p.19).
Thus, Britain = Al'bania.
Let us refuse now to follow the traditional historical
version which identifies persistently the Anglia of 10-12th cc.
A.D. with the modern island. Then we immediately recognize the
modern name Albania (located on the territory of medieval
Byzantine Empire) in this Galfridus' term Al'bania.
Thus, Galfridus places the medieval Britain on the territory
of medieval Byzantine Empire.
The name Albania or Al'bania was slightly transformed into
Albion later (occasionally or, possible, deliberately), when
somebody decided to erase the evident traces of Byzantine origin
of the old English chronicles.
5.8. With whom Brutus fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania?
After landing on the coast of Albania (later Albion),
"Brutus named the island Britain using his own name, and named
his fellows Britts" ([9],p.17). By the way, transformation of the
Asia-Land Albania into island Albion (as a piece of land
surrounded by sea) can be supported and partially explained
because of the reason that Brutus arrived into Albania with his
fleet, i.e., after sea expedition. And in some texts the landing
on the coast of Byzantine Empire was transformed into the landing
on the coast of some island.
With whom meets Brutus after landing?
With giants. We think that here chronicle means different
great nations which lived in Byzantine Empire and possibly formed
some individual dependent or independent states.
"Among these giants was one especially disgusting,
abominable, who was called Goemagog" ([9],p.17-18). This "giant"
was (according to Galfridus) extremely powerful and terrible.
Brutus' army meets in battle with 12 giants (among them -
Goemagog). Initially, Britts were defeated. But then they "won
and killed all the giants except of Goemagog" ([9],p.18). The
battle with Goemagog continues and in the end Britts won.
Let us stop for a moment and think a little. What tells us
Galfridus in his poetic chronicle (of course, he was based on
sufficiently shorter and that today we need to remove from the
"old English history" its "Byzantine part" and return this piece
to its right place (in time and in the geographical sense).
This procedure is very painful. We realize this because we
discovered the same problem in the old Russian history, when we
also found several chronological duplicates.
General remark. It is possible, that this process of
"insertion of an old Byzantine chronicles" in the beginning of a
"local history" is presented for several different regions which
were closely connected with Byzantine empire. In particular, it
is true for Russia, for England, for Rome, for Greece.
5. OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES AS ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH SPEAK
ABOUT REAL EVENTS OF 10-13th CENTURIES
5.1. Roman consul Brutus - the first who conquered
Britain (and the first king of Britts)
We have analyzed above the durations of rules and suggested
the conjecture that old English history is "a chronological
reflection" if one period of real Byzantine history. The
following question immediately arises: what about old English
chronicles - do they confirm this conjecture? - or there are some
contradictions? Let us take these chronicles and let us read them
once more by "fresh sight", without a priori "school" hypothesis
about "great antiquity" of these sources.
Now we recall to the reader well-known facts from
traditional history of England (Anglia in old texts). Let us
take, for example
"Historia Brittonum" of Nennius,
"Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis
and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Galfridus calls Brutus as FIRST king of Britts ([9],p.5). In
brief, the story of conquest of Britain is as follows. After the
end of the Trojan War and after the fall of Troy, the Trojan hero
Aeneas arrived on the ship in Italy. After two or three
generation his great-grandson Brutus was born ([9],p.6-7). By the
way, Nennius thinks that "time distance" between Aeneas and Brutus
is sufficiently more ([8],p.173). He states that "the distance"
between Trojan war and Brutus is about several hundreds years.
However, this difference is not so important for us.
Then Brutus leaved Italy and arrived it Greece, where
becomes the leader of Trojans survived after war. Brutus collects
the large fleet and then his army (on the fleet) leaves Greece.
After some time they landed on some "island", began the battle
with local people, won the war and founded the new kingdom.
This is Britain.
Brutus is the first in the row of rulers in ancient Britain.
Today they are considered as legendary heroes, because, according
to traditional chronology, these events were "in a deep past"
(before Jesus Christ).
Nennius tells the analogous story of Brutus (but more
short). Nennius definitely states that Brutus "arrived on the
island, which was called by HIS NAME, i.e., on the island
Britain, then populated the island by his posterity and lived
there. From this day and before now the Britain is populated"
([8],p.173). Thus, the Britain was called by the name of Brutus.
Then Nennius informs us about opinion of some other authors,
that "island Britain was called by the name of Britt, son of
Isicion, who was the son of Alan" ([8],p.172). But according to
the most widespread and authoritative version (which is quoted by
Nennius) Britain was called "by the name of Brutus, who was ROMAN
CONSUL (! - Auth.)" ([8],p.172). Thus, Brutus - the first king of
Britain was Roman consul.
This statement is extremely strange and impossible from the
point of view traditional Scaliger's chronology, because Rome was
founded only about 753 B.C. and consequently in the epoch of this
Brutus there are no "Roman consuls" and even no Rome!
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that:
"The first inhabitants of this land were the Britons, who
came from ARMENIA (!-Authors)..." ([2],p.3).
It is quite clear that here the name Armenia points out on
the Romania, i.e. on the Roman-Byzantine empire, which was called
Romai-Romania. Thus, as we see, the English chronicle again
connects Britain and Roman-Byzantine empire.
Of course, today this statement of old chronicle is declared
by historians as erroneous. The modern commentary is as follows:
"instead of erroneous name Armenia one should read Armorica =
Brittany" ([2],p.3). However, the replacement of Armenia by
Armorica does not help to traditional history: the name Armorica
also can be connected with the name of Roman-Byzantine empire.
Our conclusion does not change.
Thus, old English chronicles state that Britain was at first
conquered by Roman consul Brutus, who arrived there with a
military fleet and founded the British kingdom. He became the
first king of an island Britain.
5.2. Consul Brutus of English chronicles - was he a
contemporary of Julius Caesar?
It seems that the answer is quite clear.
We need only to understand - when lived this remarkable
Roman consul (according to traditional chronology)? It is very
simple. The qualified reader already prompts to us the right
answer: it was 1st century B.C. In this century we see (in modern
textbook in ancient history) the well-known Roman consul Brutus -
the friend and brother-in-arms of Julius Caesar. Brutus took
part in many campaigns of Julius Caesar. Then Brutus betrayed
Caesar - his patron and protector. We remember from our "scholar
childhood" the bitter words of Caesar: "And you, Brutus", which
Caesar said when Brutus struck him by the sword.
As we also known, the traitorous murder of Caesar - one of
the most important episode in "biography" of ancient Roman consul
Brutus. It is remarkable, but the old English chronicles also
speak about this episode but in a slightly different words. They
state that Brutus (the first Britts' king) killed his farther.
This murder is considered by chronicles as accidental,
unintentional. Allegedly, Brutus shot an arrow and accidentally
killed "his farther" ([8],p.173). In our opinion, this is
slightly distorted Roman story about murder of Julius Caesar by
Brutus. Here "farther" is Caesar - former friend and protector of
Brutus.
Because of this terrible murder, the people expel Brutus
from his native land. It was done in both stories: in Roman and
in English. Brutus started on a journey.
Our simple and natural conjecture is as follows: in the old
English story about conquest of Britain acts Brutus - the
contemporary of Julius Caesar. As we saw, this conjecture is
supported by ancient documents, although they do not call
directly Brutus as friend or enemy of Caesar. Indeed, all
chronicles state that AT FIRST Britain was conquered by Julius
Caesar. Some interesting details are reported. Namely, Caesar
arrived in Britain with Roman military fleet which consisted of
about 80 ships ([2],p.5). But the conquest of the land became a
complicated problem and soon Caesar returned in Britain with the
fleet consisting of 600 (!) ships. After the battle the local
army of natives were defeated and Romans founded the new kingdom.
Moreover, Nennius claims that Julius Caesar WAS THE FIRST ROMAN
who arrived on the island Britain and conquered the kingdom and
Britts ([8],p.176).
Thus, if Brutus WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain, and
if Julius Caesar also WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain,
then BRUTUS and JULIUS CAESAR are simply CONTEMPORARIES and
brothers-in-arms. This conclusion evidently follows from old
English chronicles.
Let us resume these corollaries in the form of some table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brutus - the first king of Britts Julius Caesar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The first Roman arrived on 1. The first Roman arrived on
the island, conquered the land the island, conquered the
and founded the kingdom country and also founded the
kingdom
2. Arrived in Britain with great 2. Was the head of great military
military fleet fleet which invaded into the land
3. "Accidentally" killed his 3. His contemporary - Roman Brutus,
farther by arrow Caesar's friend, traitorously
killed Caesar (= "his farther-
-protector")
4. The murder of Brutus' father 4. Well-known story: the murder
by his son was predicted in of Julius Caesar was predicted
advance by prophet (see Nennius, by Roman prophet (see, for
[8],p.173) example, Plutarch
5. Afterwards Brutus was expelled 5. Romans expelled Brutus as great
from his native land (as the men traitor, because he killed Julius
who committed the murder) Caesar
6. Roman consul Brutus starts 6. Julius Caesar lived (according
the history of Britain traditional chronology) in 1st c.
B.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, from the position of common sense we immediately date
the epoch of the first Brutus' conquest of Britain (with his
contemporary Julius Caesar) by 1st century A.D. Let us note, that
this our statement is not new in reality. All experts know that
Caesar conquered the Britain in 1st century A.D. All experts know
that Brutus was the first who conquered Britain. We simply
combine these two facts and formulate the evident conclusion:
"Ancient" Roman consul Brutus - the "farther" of all Britts,
the first king of Britain, the "starting person" of the whole
English history - is a contemporary on Julius Caesar, i.e.,
well-known in classical Roman history consul Brutus.
The reader qualified in ancient history can, of course
recall here also the second known Brutus in Roman history, who
acted allegedly about 6th c.B.C. in Rome. He expel ed the Roman
kings from the capital and founded the Roman republic. But this
historical epoch is in reality another chronological duplicate
(copy), reflection of the epoch of Julius Caesar. It was
discovered in [1],[24]. Consequently, the attempt to identify the
Brutus = the first king of Britts - with "another Brutus" -
fails. We again come to the epoch of Julius Caesar (1st century
A.D. according to traditional chronology). Let us recall here,
that according to chronological results, obtained in [1],[24],
the epoch of Julius Caesar is in reality the duplicate
(reflection) of the epoch of 10-11th cc.A.D.
The reader can ask us: why we discuss in such details such
evident question (the identification of Brutus - the first king
of Britts - with Brutus of Caesar's epoch)?
Our answer is as follows. This our statement is mortally
dangerous to the traditional chronology of England (and not only
England). This is the explanation why the traditional historians
try to avoid any serious discussion about the assertion of
English chronicles, that Brutus was Roman consul and that Britts
are the descendants of Romans. In particular, the modern
commentators of Nennius and Galfridus (A.S.Bobovich and
M.A.Bobovich) irritatedly write: "The (medieval - Auth.) idea to
deduce the origin of Britts from Romans and Trojans is not so
original: already in 6th century A.D. the Frank's rulers deduced
their origin from Trojans (and, in our opinion, they were right,
see the discussion about this subject in [1],[24] - Auth.)"
([9],p.270). And then commentators add carefully: "There are
several Brutus in Roman history". They do not continue and do not
discuss this remark, and now we realize - why. If you start to
analyse the "Brutus' problem", you (as we demonstrated above)
will make the inevitable (and catastrophic for traditional
chronology) conclusion that "English Brutus" was the contemporary
of Julius Caesar.
BUT WHY THIS CONCLUSION US SO DANGEROUS?
At first, because in this case the so called "ancient
legendary British history" is immediately moved upwards by
approximately 1000-year shift in the epoch of 1-13th A.D. and
moreover, in 10-15th cc.A.D.
Such corollary, of course, is completely unacceptable (and
totally fantastic) to any modern traditional historian. But there
are some another, sufficiently more dangerous corollaries.
About this - our next section.
5.3. Biblical events in English chronicles
The "Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis is strung
on the pivot of biblical history. This means that sometimes, when
speaking about the events of British history, Galfridus inserts
the phrases similar to this: In Judea the prophet Samuel ruled
at this time ([9],p.20). These rare phrases are scattered along
the chronicle and form the rough (and very brief) skeleton of
biblical history of prophets and biblical kings, which is closely
interwoven with the stream of British history. But, by the way,
Galfridus does not give any absolute dates. His chronology is
completely relative, i.e., he tells only - in the time of which
biblical kings (or prophets) were occurred some of British events.
Thus, when analyzing the English chronology in a unprejudiced
way, we meet the necessity to start the analysis of biblical
chronology also. Let us do it and we will see what we will obtain.
The evident identification of "English Brutus" with
well-known Brutus from the epoch of Julius Caesar, is impossible
for traditional historian because in this case the whole biblical
chronology is automatically moved from its traditional place (in
time) upwards by about at least 1000-year shift ! In reality this
shift will be sufficiently more: about 1800 years! See [1],[24].
Indeed, if "English Brutus" (the forefather of Britts) is
placed in 1st century B.C., then, according to the "Historia
Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis, ALL BASIC EVENTS OF BIBLICAL
HISTORY should be distributed on time axis from 1st century A.D.
until 13th century A.D. Here we mean: the history of all
biblical prophets, the history of the kingdom of Judah and the
kingdom of Israel et cetera. On the face of it, such conclusion
is completely impossible! Traditionally, biblical history is
dated from 11th century B.C. until 1st century A.D.
But if we will wait a little and will try nevertheless to
place ancient biblical history on the interval from 1st century
A.D. until 13th century A.D. - what we obtain?
It turns out that this procedure does not lead to the
contradiction with ancient evidences of ancient texts. We suggest
to the reader to take the books of Fomenko [1],[24], where you
can find the details. Here we demonstrate only one, but remarkable
example.
5.4. Do we interpret ancient texts in a proper way?
Problem of vowels restoration.
In the attempt to read and date the most of the ancient
manuscripts (ancient Egyptian, ancient Slavonic, biblical et
cetera) certain basic problems are frequently encountered.
As soon as J.Sunderland started investigating the original
language of the Old Testament, he, in his words,
"...faced the fact of enormous and even startling
importance. The thing is that the Jewish written language
originally had neither vowels nor signs replacing them. The books
of the Old Testament were written only with consonants" ([16], p.
155).
This is also typical for other languages. For example, an
ancient Slavonic text was a chain of only consonants, too;
sometimes even without signs replacing the vowels, or without
division into words. Old Egyptian texts were also written in
consonants only.
According to well-known chronologist E.Bickerman,
"...the names of Egyptian kings are given in contemporary
literature schematically, in a quite arbitrary, so-called
scholastic manner adopted in school textbooks. These forms are
often greatly different from each other; it is impossible to
order them somehow, due to their arbitrary reading (! - Authors.)
which became traditional" ([17], p.176).
Probably, the rarity and high cost of writing materials in
ancient times made the scribes save them, and omit the vowels,
thereby essentially shortening the text.
J.Sunderland continues:
"However, if we take the Jewish Bible or a manuscript today,
we shall find in them the skeleton of vowels filled with dots and
other signs denoting the missing vowels. These signs did not
belong to the old Jewish Bible. The books were read by
consonants, and the intervals were filled with vowels according
to one's skill and the apparent requirements of the context and
oral legends" ([16], p. 155).
Imagine how exact the meaning of a word written in
consonants can be if, for example, CLN can mean clean, clan,
colon, and so forth.
According to T.Curtis, even for the priests, the content of
manuscripts remained extremely doubtful and could be understood
only by means of the authority of the legend ([16], p. 155).
It is assumed that this serious short-coming of the Jewish
Bible had been eliminated not earlier that the 7th or 8th century
A.D., when the Massoretes revised the Bible and added signs
replacing the vowels; but they had no manuals, except their own
reason, and a very imperfect legendary tradition ([16], p.
156-157).
Well-known expert S.Driver adds that, since the times of the
Massoretes in the 7th-8th century A.D., the Jews have taken to
keeping their sacred books with extraordinary care, but then it
was too late to repair the damage already done. The result of
such attentiveness was just the immortalization of the
distortions, which were then placed on exactly the same level of
authority with the original text ([16], p.157).
J.Sunderland: "The opinion reigning earlier was that the
vowels had been introduced into the Jewish text by Ezra in the
5th century A.D. But in the 16th and 17th century, E.Levita and
J.Capellus in France refuted this opinion and proved that th
vowels had been introduced only by the Massoretes. The discovery
created a sensation in the whole of Protestant Europe. Many
people believed that the new theory would lead to disproving the
religion completely. If the vowels were not a matter of Divine
Revelation, but only a human invention, besides, a much later
one, then how could we rely on the text of the Scripture? This
discussion was one of the hottest in the history of the new
biblical criticism and proceeded for more than a century,
stopping only when the validity of the new point of view was
acknowledged by everyone" ([16], p. 157-158).
5.5. Geography and chronology of biblical events.
5.5.1. Problems with traditional geographical
localizations.
Even if the vowels of common words are not that important
(you can easily reconstruct a well-known word from the context),
the situation changes completely when combination of consonants
meaning a city, country, the name of a king, etc., appears in an
ancient text. Tens and hundreds of different variants of vowels
for one term (word) may be found, stating the "identifications"
of the biblical vowel-free names of cities, countries, and
others, made by traditional historians proceeding from the
chronological (and geographical) version of J.Scaliger and the
localization referring the biblical events to the Near East.
As the archaeologist M.Burrows notes, the archaeological job
generally leads to the undoubtedly strongest creed in the
reliability of biblical information (cit.from [18], p. 16).
F.Kenyon of the British Museum insists as much categorically
on archaeology refuting the "destructive skepticism of the
second half of the 19th century" [18].
But here is unexpected information reported by the
well-known archaeologist G.Wright, who, by the way, is a staunch
partisan of the correctness of orthodox localization and of
traditional dating biblical events. He wrote,
"A great many findings do not prove or disprove anything;
they fill the background and only serve as historical artifacts.
Unfortunately, the desire "to prove" the Bible permeates many
works available to the average reader. Historical evidences may
be used in an incorrect manner, whereas the conclusions dawn are
often erroneous and only half correct" ([18], p. 17).
If we attentively examine the fundamental facts about the
Bible discovered by N.A.Morozov [19], then we shall see that none
of the books of the Old Testament contain any solid
archaeological confirmation of their traditional geographical and
time localization. As I.A.Kryvelev noted, the whole
"Mesopotamian" biblical theory will be questioned.
The traditional localization of the events described in the
New Testament is no better.
I.A.Kryvelev many years studied the biblical geography and
chronology. He wrote,
"The reader interested in biblical archaeology may be
bewildered by the hundreds of pages speaking of excavations,
landscapes, or artifacts, historical and biblical background.
And, in the conclusion, when it comes to the results of the whole
job, there are only a number of indistinct and imprecise
statements about the problem not having been completely solved,
but that there is still hope for the future, and so forth. We may
be absolutely sure that none of the stories of the New Testament
contains any somewhat convincing archaeological confirmation (in
terms of the traditional localizations - Authors). This is
perfectly true, in particular, if applied to the figure and
biography of Jesus Christ. Not a single spot traditionally
regarded as the arena of a particular event occurring in the New
Testament can be indicated with the slightest degree of
confidence" ([18], p. 200-201).
The natural question arises: where the events of Old and New
Testaments were geographically located in reality?
5.5.2. Where ancient Troy was located?
In reality, considerable difficulties accompany the attempts
of geographical localization of many of the ancient events and
cities (not only from the Bible).
For example, one of the accepted today traditional
localizations of the famous city of Troy is near the Hellespont
(= the sea of Helen). It is for this particular reason that
Schliemann ascribed the famous name of Troy (described by Homer)
to the rests of a small ancient village he excavated near the
Hellespont. It is well known that today we have not any proofs of
this "identification".
It is assumed today, that according to traditional
chronology, Troy was completely destroyed in the 12-13th century
B.C. and after this was never reconstructed [17]. But, it turns
out, that in the Middle Ages, Italian city Troy, which still
exists today [1],[24], enjoyed widespread fame. This is
celebrated medieval city which played an important role in many
medieval wars; especially, in the well-known war of the 13th
century.
Many Byzantine historians also speak of Homer's Troy as of
an existing medieval city, namely, Choniates Nicetas and Gregoras
Nicephoras ([20], v. 6, p. 126).
T.Livy indicates the spot named Troy and the Trojan region
in Italy (Book.1). Certain medieval historians identified Troy
with Jerusalem (see, for example, [21],p.88,235,162,207), which
embarrasses the modern commentators:
"The book of Homer somewhat suddenly turned (in the medieval
chronicle, while describing Alexander's expedition to Troy -
Authors)... into the book on the destruction of Jerusalem" ([21],
p. 162). Let us recall that the second (well-known) name of Troy
is Ilion, whereas the second name of Jerusalem is Aelia
Capitolina ([19], v. 7). It is absolutely clear that in the names
of these cities there is a similarity:
Aelia = Ilion.
The books [1] and [2] contains the data and arguments which
allow to assume that Homer's Troy is the Constantinople (= New
Rome), and that the Trojan War is the reflection of crusades
which started from 11th c.A.D. The Constantinople was captured
during crusades. Besides this, some part of the legend on Trojan
War is the reflection of a real medieval war from the middle of
13th c.A.D. in Italy. The Italian city Troy was involved in this
war (see [1]).
The identification of the Great Troy with Constantinople
follows also from the texts of crusades epoch. The chronicler
Rober de Clari told that the Great Troy was located near the
entrance into the "branchium Sancti Georgii" ([25],p.210). It is
supposed today that this is the Dardanelles. From the other hand
it is also known that another famous chronicler of the 4th
crusade - Villehardouin - calls as "branchium Sancti Georgii" not
only the Dardanelles but also the Bosporus! M.A.Zaborov (modern
historian) notes: "Villehardouin applies the name "branchium
Sancti Georgii" to the Dardanelles and to the Bosporus"
([25],p.238).
Thus, the Great Troy can located also near the entrance
into the Bosporus. But here we see the Constantinople!
Consequently, it was completely unnecessary to search the
"rests" of the Troy on a desert hills as Schliemann done. Our
conjecture: the Trojan War is the reflection of the one or
several crusades on the Constantinople or on Italian Troy.
The well-known medieval "Novel on the Troy" of Benoit de
Sainte-Maure ("Roman de Troie") was finished allegedly between
1155 and 1160 A.D. "The source of this novel is the "History of
Troy destruction" written by some Dares, who was allegedly the
eyewitness of Trojan War (possibly, he was one of the crusaders -
Auth.). Benoit looks in the antiquity through the prism of his
epoch and his reality... In his basis is the ancient Greek epos,
but its personages and heroes are transformed into noble knights
and beautiful ladies, and the Trojan War itself is transformed
into the sequence of knight's duels... Ancient Medea is
represented in his chronicle as courtier lady, whose clothing is
exactly the same as the clothing of the lady of her social level
in medieval France of the middle of 12th century"([10],p.235).
We suggest to read the old chronicles "in direct way",
without some special complex interpretations; we need to read
"what is written" and not "what should be written". In this case
we are forced to agree that Benoit de Sainte-Maure describes the
Trojan War as the event from medieval epoch.
5.5.3. Where Moses traveled in reality?
Let us return to the Bible.
Many strange phenomena occur in an unprejudiced analysis of
biblical geography (see detailed Morozov's analysis in [19]).
That many biblical texts describe volcanic activity has been
stressed in history long ago. Let us take the Bible.
The Lord said to Moses, "I am now coming to you in a thick
cloud... But when the ram's horn sounds (when the cloud leaves
Mount Sinai - Authors), they may go up the mountain'... there
were peals of thunder and flashes of lightning, a dense cloud on
the mountain and a loud trumpet blast... Mount Sinai was all
smoking because the Lord had come down upon it in fire; the smoke
went up like the smoke of a kiln... and the sound of the trumpet
grew ever louder" (Ex. 19:9, 13, 16, 18).
And then:
All the people saw how it thundered and the lightning
flashed, when they heard the trumpet sound and saw the mountain
smoking..." (Ex.20:18).
"You stood... at Horeb... THe mountain was ablaze with fire
to the very skies: there was darkness, cloud, and thick mist.
And the Lord spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire " (Dt.
4:10-12).
The destruction of biblical cities Sodom and Gomorrah has
long been regarded in history to have been due to a volcanic
eruption. For example:
"And then the Lord rained down fire and brimstone from the
skies on Sodom and Gomorrah... He saw thick smoke rising high
from the earth like the smoke of a like-kiln" (Gn.19:24,28).
And so on.
The complete list of all apparent volcanic eruptions
mentioned in the Bible was compiled by V.P.Fomenko and
T.G.Fomenko (see [1],[24]).
To associate (as is done traditionally) all these
descriptions with Mn. Sinai = Mn. Horeb (and Jerusalem in
traditional Palestine) seems doubtful; it is generally known that
it has never been a volcano.
Where did the events occur then?
It suffices to study the geological map of the Mediterranean
area to obtain immediately the unique answer. There are no acting
volcanoes in the Sinai peninsula, Syria, or Palestine; there are
only zones of tertiary and quaternary volcanism, as, for example,
near Paris. In the above-mentioned regions, where the biblical
events are traditionally located, no volcanic activity has been
discovered in historical epoch since the birth of Christ.
Besides, Egypt and North Africa have no volcanoes.
The only powerful, and by the way, acting volcanic zone, is
Italy together with Sicily.
Thus, according to the Bible, we have to find
1) a powerful volcano active in the historical era;
2) a destroyed capital (see the book of the Prophet
Jeremiah) near the volcano;
3) two other cities destroyed by the volcano, namely, Sodom
and Gomorrah.
There exists such a volcano in the Mediterranean, and it is
unique, namely the famous Vesuvius, one of the most powerful
volcanoes in history.
Famed Pompeii (biblical "capital"?) and two destroyed cities
Stabiae (Sodom?) and Herculaneum (Gomorrah?) are located nearby.
We cannot but mention a certain similarity in the names of these
Italian and biblical towns. It is possible that the name of Sinai
for Vesuvius originates from the Latin Sino (sinus), and biblical
Horeb from the Latin horribilis (horrible).
The following analytic study worth mentioning, which permits
to read the vowel-free text of the Bible, was performed by
Morozov in [19]. It took into account placing Mt.Sinai=Horeb=Sion
in Italy.
We illustrate by several examples.
The Bible speaks:
"The Lord our God spoke to us at Horeb and said, "You have
stayed on this mountain long enough; go now, make for all
KNN (Canaan)..." (Dt.1:6-7).
The theologians supply the Hebrew KNN with vowels Canaan and
place it in the desert on the Dead Sea coast, but another
solution is also possible, namely, KNN = GENUA (Italian Genoa).
The Bible continues:
"All KNN (Canaan) and the LBN (Lebanon)..." (Dt. 1:7).
The theologians restore the Hebrew LBN with vowels as
Lebanon; however lebanon means "white", i.e., the same as Mont
Blanc, or White Mountain. Famous mountain in Europe.
"As far as the great river, the PRT" (Dt. 1:7).
The theologians restore PRT with vowels and decipher is as
Euphrates; but, there is the large tributary of the Danube, the
Prut, located in central Europe, as beyond Mont Blanc.
"Then we set out from Horeb... and marched through that vast
and terrible wilderness" (Dt. 1:19).
In fact, the famous Phlegraei, vast and burnt-out spaces
filled with small volcanoes, fumaroles, and solidified lava
streams are located near Vesuvius=Horeb.
"And so we came to KDS-BRN" (Dt. 1:19).
KDS-BRN is traditionally supplied with vowels as
Kadesh-Barnea, which is, from the other hand, possibly, a town on
the Rhone ([19], v. 2, p. 166). It is also possible that modern
Geneva was meant as "town on the Rhone".
"And we spent many days marching round the hill-country of
Seir" (Dt. 2:1).
Mount Seir was left here without translation; however, if it
is translated, we obtain Devil's Mountain(s). And there is such a
mountain near Lake Geneva, namely Le Diableret ("Devil's
Mountain").
Then, the "Children of Lot" (Dt. 2:9) met on the way can be
evidently identified with the Latins ( = LT).
"And cross the gorge of the Arnon" (Dt. 2:24).
In the canonical translation we see Arnon (RNN). But,this is
the Italian river Arno existing up to now!
"Next we... advances... to Bashan" (Dt. 3:1).
The town Bashan (Bassan) is often mentioned in the Bible. It
is surprising that town Bassano still exists in Lombardy.
"King of Bashan... came out against us at Edrei" (Dt.3:1).
Adria is still here, on the Po delta; the Po, by the way,
has often been mentioned by ancient Latin authors (e.g.,
Procopius) and called the Jordan (in Procopius' Eridanus), which
is very consistent with the biblical spelling of the Jordan,
namely hay-yarden (JRDN) ([19], v. 2, p. 167).
"And we captured all his cities... sixty cities..."(Dt.
3:3-4).
Indeed, in the Middle Ages, there were many big cities in
the region: Verona, Padua, Ferrara, Bologna, and others.
"From the gorge of the Arnon to Mount Hermon (HRMN)" (Dt.
3:8).
But it is obvious that MNT HRMN can be supplied with vowels
to be translated as the "German mountains".
"Only the Og king of Bashan remained... His sarcophagus of
iron may still be seen in the... city of Rabbah" (Dt. 3:11).
Here is mentioned not only Ravenna (=Rabbah), but also the
famous tomb of Theodoric (493-526 A.D.) of the Ostrogoths (Og =
Goths?). It is clear that biblical OG means possible GOTH.
There follows TBRN (Taberiah in traditional biblical
translation), which is naturally identified with the Tiber in
Italy; ZN is Siena, southeast of Livorno. The slopes of Monte
Viso are called Jebus (Jgs. 19:10-11) in the Bible, and Rome is
called Ramah (Jgs. 19:14).
And so on.
As we see, the shift of some biblical events from "the deep
antiquity" in the medieval epoch does not contradict with the
ancient text of the Bible (without vowels). Thus, now we can
continue our analysis of English history.
5.6. Why English chronicles suggested that both Russia and
England were located on islands?
The fact that modern England is located on the island, does
not surprise us. But Russia!? There are no geographical reasons
to think that Russia is the island! But nevertheless, for example
the well-known chronicler Benoit de Sainte-Maure in his
"Chronicle of the dukes of Normandy" [22] speaks, that
There exists an ISLAND called Cansie (or Canzie), and I
think that this is Rosie (in another copy of the manuscript -
Russie - Auth.), which is surrounded by the great salty sea. And
they (the people of Russie - Auth.) fly out as great swarm of
bees, and their number is thousands; and they... can attack the
great kingdoms and take the great procurement and they can
win and conquer.
Here the original text:
"Une isle i a par non Cancie (Canzie in manuscript B - see
[10],p.240), e si crei bien que c'est Rosie (Russie in manuscript
B, see [10],p.240), qui est de la grant mer salee de totes parz
avironnee. Dunc autresi com les euetes de lor diverses
maisonnetes gitent essains granz e pleners, ou moct a nombres e
millers, ou com de ceus qui sunt irie' sunt en estor glaive
sachie', tost e isnel d'ire esbrasez, trestot eissi e plus assez
seuct icil poples fors eissir por les granz rennes envair e por
faire les granz ocises, les granz gaaiz e les conquises."
Russia is called here Rosie or Russie. If we look in the
table of medieval names, titles and their duplicates (see above),
we will see that here the chronicler really speaks about Russia.
V.I.Matuzova (who included this text in her book "English
Medieval Texts") comments this fragment as follows:
"Rosie is Russia. The report that Russia is an ISLAND is
similar to another such reports..."([10],p.244). And then
Matuzova quotes another medieval authors who were confident that
Russia is an ISLAND (in particular, some Arabian and Persian
chroniclers; but, by the way, it is not so clear - where they
lived in reality, may be in Spain?).
It is supposed sometimes today that Cancie is Scandinavia.
But Scandinavia also is not an island! By the way, the "Chronicle
of Monastery of Saint Edmund" (13th c. A.D.) is also convinced
that Russia is located on an island, because reports that Tartars
rushed on Hungary FROM ISLANDS ([30], and also [10],p.100-101).
How we can explain it? The simplest way - to accuse the
authors of 12th century that they were completely ignorant (this
is the standard explanation in modern historical textbooks and
this idea allows to the modern historians simply to "close the
problem").
But another explanation is also possible.
English word island means today the piece of land surrounded
by a sea. But may be in the medieval epoch this word had also
another meaning? Our conjecture: it was Asia-Land, i.e., the Land
located in Asia. Without vowels we have:
asialand = SLND, and island = SLND.
This is the same word!
Then all things immediately fit in their "correct places".
Russia really can be considered (from the Western point of view)
as far Asian Land = island. Large part of Russia belongs to the
Asia. Consequently, medieval chroniclers were quite right when we
talked about Island Russia. They were not so ignorant as it is
supposed today.
Let us repeat once more our conjecture: the word island had
two meanings in the past: piece of land surrounded by a sea, and
Asia-Land.
But in this case the natural question arises (as the flash).
If the ancient English authors speaking about island Russia,
assumed that they speak about Asia-Land Russia, then we do not
see any obstacles to assume that when they told bout island
Anglia, they also speak about Asia-Land Anglia. And only after
this, in a new epoch, the word island Anglia become to be
considered only as island Anglia in a modern sense (piece of land
surrounded by sea).
We saw the remarkable parallel between English history and
Byzantine history. But Byzantine Empire really was Asia-Land for
Western chroniclers. And only in the next epoch (when Byzantine
chronicles were transported in England and were inserted into
English history) the Asia-Land Anglia was transformed into Island
Anglia.
Thus, were was located the land Anglia-Britain in 10-12th
cc. A.D.? This is complicated question. To get the answer we have
unique way - to take the old English chronicles. Our answer will
be as follows:
Anglia-Britain of 10-12th cc.A.D. was Byzantine Empire.
5.7. Where was the land Britain which was conquered by
Brutus located? In what direction his fleet cruised?
On the face of it, the answer on this absurd question is
completely evident: on the same place where England-Britain is
located today. But let us not to hurry.
Let us recall after "accidental murder of his father",
Brutus was expelled from Italy. He went to the Greece ([9],p.7).
Here Brutus fixed the ancient relationship and he was staying
among Trojans ([9],p.7). The period of wars in Greece started at
this time. These wars are described by Galfridus in many details.
Then Brutus organized the army and fleet and after this started
the campaign-cruise. It is supposed today that his fleet went in
Atlantic ocean and then arrived in modern England. Is it true?
May be the chronicles describe in reality the military operations
inside Mediterranean sea and on the territory of Greece and
Byzantine Empire?
For example, Brutus' army arrived in Sparatin. Modern
commentary: "Location is unknown" ([9],p.230). Of course, you
cannot find Sparatin if you assume that Brutus travel far from
Mediterranean sea. But if these events occurred in Greece, then
you do not need to search Sparatin, because this is well-known
Sparta.
Then Galfridus describes the path of Brutus' fleet which is
considered today as a "proof" that Brutus really went in Atlantic
and then arrived in modern England. But we see suddenly from
modern comments that it turns out that Galfridus "repeat the
mistake containing in his source - namely, in "Historia
Brittonum" of Nennius, who made the mistake because of erroneous
reading of Orosius' chronicle..."([9],p.231). Moreover, then it
turns out that "following to Nennius, Galfridus ERRONEOUSLY
placed Tyrrhenian Sea BEHIND Gibraltar. We recall that Tyrrhenian
Sea is BEFORE Gibraltar because is a part of Mediterranean Sea
near Western coast of Italy" ([9],p.231).
But we are sure that here - no mistake! Galfridus was right
because he describes in reality some complicated military
movements INSIDE Mediterranean Sea, in particular, near Italy,
where you can see Tyrrhenian Sea. Brutus' fleet did not pass in
the Atlantic Ocean! Modern historians try to accuse Galfridus
(and other chroniclers) in some "mistakes" only because
historians try to adjust their modern "traditional" chronological
and geographical concepts with real evidences of real medieval
texts. Of course, a lot of contradictions appear. All these
contradictions are considered today as "the fault of medieval
authors".
Then Galfridus describes the battle between Brutus' army and
Greeks on the Akalon (Acalon) river ([9],p.8). The modern
commentary is as follows: "This name is, possibly, the fantasy of
Galfridus... E.Pharal is his book formulated the idea that this
description of Greek's defeat during the battle with Trojans near
Acalon river, was taken by Galfridus from the story of Etien de
Blua about the defeat of TURKS during the battle with CRUSADERS
near "Moscolo" river at March 1098 A.D." ([9],p.230).
Consequently, here we can penetrate through the thick cover
of traditional plaster into the real contents of the Galfridus
chronicle. He describes in reality (following to some old
documents) the epoch of the First Crusade in the end of 11th
c.A.D. in Byzantine Empire.
Thus, we can assume that Brutus' campaign = Julius Caesar's
campaign is the reflection of well-known crusade in the end of
11th c.A.D. The conquest of Britain is shifted from the 1st
c.B.C. into the 11th c.A.D. (about 1000-year shift !). This fact
confirms the discovered parallel ("identification") between
Roman-Byzantine history of 10-15th cc.A.D. and old English
history starting, allegedly, in 1st c.B.C. See above.
After some time they (Brutus' fleet) arrived to "the island
which was called Albion" ([9],p.17). Modern commentary: Albion =
Al'bania - one of the early (old) names of Britain or the part of
it, which was appeared in ancient sources" ([9],p.232).
When speaking about Britain, Galfridus very often uses its
second equivalent name: Al'bania ([9],p.19).
Thus, Britain = Al'bania.
Let us refuse now to follow the traditional historical
version which identifies persistently the Anglia of 10-12th cc.
A.D. with the modern island. Then we immediately recognize the
modern name Albania (located on the territory of medieval
Byzantine Empire) in this Galfridus' term Al'bania.
Thus, Galfridus places the medieval Britain on the territory
of medieval Byzantine Empire.
The name Albania or Al'bania was slightly transformed into
Albion later (occasionally or, possible, deliberately), when
somebody decided to erase the evident traces of Byzantine origin
of the old English chronicles.
5.8. With whom Brutus fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania?
After landing on the coast of Albania (later Albion),
"Brutus named the island Britain using his own name, and named
his fellows Britts" ([9],p.17). By the way, transformation of the
Asia-Land Albania into island Albion (as a piece of land
surrounded by sea) can be supported and partially explained
because of the reason that Brutus arrived into Albania with his
fleet, i.e., after sea expedition. And in some texts the landing
on the coast of Byzantine Empire was transformed into the landing
on the coast of some island.
With whom meets Brutus after landing?
With giants. We think that here chronicle means different
great nations which lived in Byzantine Empire and possibly formed
some individual dependent or independent states.
"Among these giants was one especially disgusting,
abominable, who was called Goemagog" ([9],p.17-18). This "giant"
was (according to Galfridus) extremely powerful and terrible.
Brutus' army meets in battle with 12 giants (among them -
Goemagog). Initially, Britts were defeated. But then they "won
and killed all the giants except of Goemagog" ([9],p.18). The
battle with Goemagog continues and in the end Britts won.
Let us stop for a moment and think a little. What tells us
Galfridus in his poetic chronicle (of course, he was based on