What was Ordinary
in the Antiquity looks Odd today, due to the Greco-centric Fallacy of the
Biased European Colonial 'Academics'
A while back, I received a brief
email from a Bulgarian friend, who urgently asked me to watch a video and
comment on the topic. The video offered links to a blog in Bulgarian and to an
Austrian site of academic publications. The upsetting affair was the mention of
a Bulgarian, or to put it rather correctly of a Bulgarian item or product which
was imported in Coptic Egypt. As I understand Bulgarian to some extent, due to
my Russian, I read the long presentation of the informative blog, and then
replied to my friend. The video was actually a most abridged form of the
article posted on the blog of a non-conventional Bulgarian blogger.
Contents
Introduction
I. Fayoum, Al Bahnasa
(Oxyrhynchus), and Ancient Egyptian Papyri
II. Karl Wessely and his
groundbreaking research and publications
III. Papyrus fragment 1224 of
Karl Wessely's SPP VIII
IV. Βουλγαρικ- (Vulgarik-)
V. Eastern Roman Emperor
Maurice's Strategicon and the Bulgarian cloaks
VI. Historical context
and the Ancient History of Bulgars
VII. Historical
context, the Silk Roads, and Bulgarian exports to Egypt
VIII. Academic context
and the Western falsehood of a Euro-centric World History
i-
the conceptualization of World History
ii-
the contextualization of every single document newly found here and there
iii-
the stages of historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500
years
iv-
the forgers themselves and their antiquity
v-
and last but not least, several points of
a) governance of modern states
b) international alliances, and
c)
the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into
the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it
Introduction
What follows is my
response on the topic; although it concerns an undeniably very specific affair,
it helps greatly in making general readership aware of how deeply
interconnected the Ancient World was, of how different it was than it is
presented in conventional publications, and of how many layers of fact
distortion, source concealment, systematic forgery, academic misinterpretation,
and intellectual falsification have been adjusted to what average people
worldwide think of as 'World History'. In brief, the modern Western colonial
presentation of World History, which was dictatorially imposed worldwide, is
nothing more than a choice-supportive bias and a racist construct. You can also
describe it as 'Hellenism', Greco-centrism or Euro-centrism.
------------------
Response to an inquisitive Bulgarian friend ------------------
My dear friend,
Your question and the
associated topic are quite complex.
The video that you sent me is
extremely brief and almost introductory.
Папирусът от
Фаюм
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XFYP3zTeQ
However, in the description, it
offers two links.
I read the article in the blog; I
noticed that it was published before 12-13 years (13.10.2011). Папирусът (който щеше да бъде)
с истинското име на българите?
The author seems to have been
taken by surprise due to the Fayoum text, but as you will see, there is no
reason for that.
The second link included in the
video description offers access to Tyche, an academic annual (Fachzeitschrift)
published by the Austrian Institut für Alte Geschichte und Altertumskunde,
Papyrologie und Epigraphik der Universität Wien. But this is an introductory
web page (https://tyche.univie.ac.at/index.php/tyche) that has links to many publications, which you
can download in PDF.
You must not be surprised by such
findings; they are old and known to the specialists; there are many Bulgarian
professors specializing in Ancient Greek. Some of them surely know about the
text. But it is in the nature of the Western sciences that scholars do not
write for the general public; it is very different from what happened in the
Soviet Union and the other countries of the Socialist bloc. Reversely, all the average
bloggers, who find every now and then a historical document known but not
publicized, think that they discovered something incredible, but in most of the
cases, we don't have anything to do with an extraordinary discovery. Simply,
History has been very different from what average people have been left to
believe.
I. Fayoum,
Al Bahnasa (Oxyrhynchus), and Ancient Egyptian Papyri
Fayoum by the way is an enormous
oasis. It has cities, towns and villages. In our times, it was one of the
strongholds of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Former president Muhammad Morsi got
ca. 90% of the votes locally. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faiyum
The discoveries of papyri in
Egypt started mainly in the 19th c.; excavators unearthed tons of valuable
documentation, unfortunately in fragmentary situation most of them;
indicatively:
https://archive.org/details/faymtownsandthe00milngoog
https://archive.org/details/faymtownstheir00gren/page/n9/mode/2up
Such is the vastness of the
documentation that either Egyptologists or Coptologists or Hellenists, there
are many scholars of those disciplines who specialize in papyri only: the Papyrologists.
Fayoum map with Ancient Greek names
Fayoum Lake (above) - Wadi El Rayan waterfalls (below)
.jpg)
Temple of Soknopaios at Soknopaiou Nesos (Island), Fayoum (viewed from the SE)
Fayoum: a tourist destination
Another major site of papyri
discovery is Oxyrhynchus (Ancient Greek name of the Egyptian site Per medjed /
Oxyrhynchus is merely the Ancient Greek translation of Per medjed), i.e. the
modern city of Al Bahnasa. Indicatively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri
To get a minimal idea of the
vastness of this field of research, go through the following introductory
readings:
Cairo Fayum Papyri:
http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/Fayum.html
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayoum_papyri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_papyri_from_ancient_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri_and_ostraca
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
II. Karl
Wessely and his groundbreaking research and publications
The fragment of papyrus that
mentions in Ancient Greek an adjective, which means «Bulgarian» in English,
was found in the Fayoum (you can write the word with -u or -ou). It was first
published by a great scholar C. (Carl or Karl) Wessely (1860-1931).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Wessely
He was one of the 10 most
prominent scholars and philologists of the 2nd half of the 19th and the
1st half of the 20th c. He published a voluminous series of firsthand
publications of discoveries, which was named Studien zur Paleographie und
Papyruskunde (SPP). As you can guess, this took decades to be progressively
materialized. Here you have an online list:
https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Studien_zur_Palaeographie_und_Papyruskunde
Unfortunately, the volume VIII
(Leipzig 1908), which is mentioned in the article of the blog, is missing in
the wikisource list!
No problem! You can find the PDF
in the Internet Archives site. Here is the link:
https://ia800808.us.archive.org/33/items/studienzurpalaeo08wess/studienzurpalaeo08wess.pdf
You will find the text’s first
publication on page 189 of the book; this is the page 63 of 186 of the PDF. This
means that you will find this indication at the bottom of the
PDF: 189 (63 / 186).
This volume, as stated on p. 7,
contains «Griechische Papyrusurkunden kleineren Formats», i.e. Greek
papyri documents of smaller format. If you find it strange that on the first
page of the main text (137 (11 / 186) as per the PDF), the first text has the
number 702, please remember that this is an enormous documentation published in
the series of volumes (SPP) published by Wessely between 1900 and 1920.
III. Papyrus
fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII
As you will see, the text
slightly differs from what is shown in either the blog article or the video. It
is indeed the 1224 papyrus fragment as per the enumeration of the
publication. Similarly to many other cases, most of the text is lost; this
is quite common. Few things are easy to assess, if you through the entire
volume; apparently the background reflects Coptic Egypt, which means that all the
texts date between the early 4th and 7th c. CE. This is clearly visible because
the dating system is based on indiction, which was a Roman system of periodic
taxation and then chronology. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiction
This Latin word was accepted in
Greek: ινδικτιών,
We can also understand that the
person, who wrote this specific document, was following (not the Julian
calendar but) the Coptic calendar, because on the 8th line the remaining
letters αρμουθί (armouthi) help us reconstitute the well-known
Coptic month of Pharmouthi (or Parmouti) which corresponds to end
March-beginning April (in the Julian calendar) or April and early May in the
Gregorian calendar. In Arabic, it is pronounced 'Bermouda' (unrelated to the
Bermuda islands).
About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmouti
It has to be noted that the pagan
Greek calendar was abolished, and that the use of 'Greek' ('Alexandrine Koine,
to be correct) in the Fayum papyri texts and elsewhere does not imply 'ethnic'
membership but rather religious affiliation (in this case, in contrast to
Coptic).
About the Coptic calendar:
https://stnoufer.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/the-coptic-calendar-bishoy-k-r-dawood.pdf
https://st-takla.org/Full-Free-Coptic-Books/Coptic-Synaxarium-or-Synaxarion_English/Eng_Senexar-Senksar-08-Bermoda-Coptic-Month.html
https://books.google.ru/books?id=UaYdpfAZDBMC&pg=PA70&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_calendar
https://ukmidcopts.org/coptic/calendar/
https://www.copticchurch.net/calendar
https://stmarymn.org/services/liturgical-services/coptic-calendar/
In addition, you can see the
first letter of the word «indiction» ι (ι) after Pharmouthi.
Apparently, this papyrus
documented a transaction effectuated by a certain Cyril (Cyrillus / Κύριλλος).
Only the letters «rill» (ριλλ) are saved, as you can see, but the high
frequency of the name among the Copts makes of this word the first choice
of any philologist. By the way, the name is still widely used among today’s
Copts as «Krulos».
I fully support Wessely’s
reconstitution of the document on lines 7, 10 and 11.
Line 7 (εγράφη out of
εγρα-), i.e. «it was written»
Line 10 (απείληφα out of
-ειλ-), i.e. «I received from»
Line 11 (και παρών
απέλυσα out of -αρω-), i.e. «I set free by paying a ransom or I disengaged
or I released». Details:
Now comes a thorny issue, because
on line 6, Wessely wrote «λαμιο(υ)» (: lamio reconstituted as lamiu), and went
on suggesting a unique term «χαρτα-λαμίου» (charta-lamiou). This is not
attested in any other source. Λάμιον (lamium)
is a genus of several species of plants, whereas Lamios (Λάμιος) is a personal name. About:
http://encyclopaedia.alpinegardensociety.net/plants/Lamium/garganicum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamium
Also: (ἡμι-λάμιον) https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dh(mila%2Fmion
But «χαρτα-λαμίου» (in
Genitive declension) is a hapax. Still the opinion of the first explorer and
publisher is always crucial; but as in many other cases, these people publish
such an enormous volume of documentation that they do not have enough time to
explain their suggestions and reason about their choices. To them, publishing
hitherto unpublished material is undisputedly no 1 priority.
Other scholars attempted a
different approach; they hypothetically added «υιός» (yios), i.e. «son», before
λαμίου (Lamiou)
Personally, I find it highly
unlikely. First, I most of the times support the first
explorer’s / publisher’s approach.
Second, I believe that those, who
add «υιός» (yios), i.e. «son» on line 6, are forced to reconstitute
Βουλγαρικ̣[ὸς on line
5. This is most probably wrong.
But Wessely did not attempt
something like that, preferring to leave the only saved word on line 5 as it is
«Βουλγαρικ̣».
Now, what stands on lines 1 to 4
is really too minimal to allow any specialist to postulate or speculate
anything. Perhaps there was something «big» mentioned on line 3
(«-μεγ-»/«-meg-»), but this is only an assumption. Also, on line 4, we read
that something (or someone) was (or was sent or was bought) from somewhere,
because of the words «από της» (apo tis), i.e. «from the» (in this case, «the»
being the feminine form of the article in Genitive declension).
IV. Βουλγαρικ-
(Vulgarik-)
Now, and this is the most
important statement that can be made as regards this fragment of
papyrus, the word that stands on line 5 is undoubtedly an adjective, not a
substantive! This is very clear. This means that the word is not an ethnonym. In
English, you use the word «Bulgarian», either you mean a Bulgarian man (in this
case, it is a noun) or a Bulgarian wine (on this occasion, it is an adjective). Bulgarian
is at the same time a proper noun and an adjective in English.
However, in Greek, there is a difference
when it comes to names of countries and nations. When it is a proper noun
(substantive), you say «Anglos» (Άγγλος), «Sikelos» (Σικελός), «Aigyptios»
(Αιγύπτιος), etc. for Englishman, Sicilian man, Egyptian man, etc. But you
say «anglikos» (αγγλικός), «sikelikos» (σικελικός), «aigyptiakos»
(αιγυπτιακός), etc. for adjectives of masculine gender.
Discussing the word attested on
line 5 of the papyrus fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII, I have to point
out that in Ancient 'Greek' and in Alexandrine Koine, there is a vast
difference between Βούλγαρος (Vulgaros) and βουλγαρικός
(vulgarikos).
The first denotes a Bulgarian
national, someone belonging to the ethnic group / nation of Bulgars and/or
Bulgarians. At this point, I have to also add that these two words in English
are a modern academic convention to distinguish Proto-Bulgarians (Bulgars) from
the Bulgarians, who settled in the Balkan Peninsula. However, this distinction
did not exist in Late Antiquity Greek texts and in Eastern Roman
texts.
The second is merely an
adjective: βουλγαρικός (vulgarikos), βουλγαρική (vulgariki), βουλγαρικόν
(vulgarikon) are the three gender forms of the adjective: masculine, feminine
and neutral.
So, as the preserved part of the
word being «βουλγαρικ-» (vulgarik-), we can be absolutely sure that the papyrus
text mentioned a Bulgarian item (a product typical of Bulgars or an imported
object manufactured by Bulgars) — not a Bulgarian man.
All the same, it makes sure the
following points:
a. in 4th-7th c. CE Egypt,
people imported products that were manufactured by Bulgars in
their own land (Bulgaria).
b. since the products were known,
imported and listed as «Bulgar/Bulgarian», people knew the nation, which
manufactured them, and its location.
c. considering the magnitude of
the documentation that went lost, we can safely claim that there was nothing
extraordinary in the arrival of Bulgar/Bulgarian products in in 4th-7th c.
CE Egypt.
d. the papyrus in question
presents the transaction in terms of «business as usual».
This is all that can be said
about the papyrus text, but here ends the approach of the philologist and
starts the viewpoint of the historian. However, before presenting the historical
context of the transaction recorded in the fragmentarily saved papyrus from
Fayoum, I have to also discuss another issue, which was mentioned in the
blogger's interesting discussion.
V. Eastern
Roman Emperor Maurice's Strategicon and the Bulgarian cloaks
Of course, as anyone
could expect, several historians and philologists would try to find parallels
to the mention of Bulgarian imports made in this papyrus fragment.
And they did. In
his presentation, the blogger already mentioned several academic efforts. So,
the following paragraphs, which are to be found almost in the middle of the
article (immediately after the picture), refer to two scholarly efforts to
establish parallels:
«Публикуван е за пръв
път от SPP VIII 1124, Wessely, C., Leipzig 1908 и по - късно препубликуван от
Diethart, в публикация с многозначителното заглавие „Bulgaren“ und
„Hunnen“, S. 11 - 1921. Въпреки това папирусът не стига много бързо до родна
публика.
"По пътя" един учен, Моравчик, стига и по - далеч при превода.
Той разчита в откъсите и думата "Пояс" и включва в теорията ново
сведение(Mauricii Artis mllltaris libri duodecim, Xll (ed. Scheffer), p. 303) , където
се казва, че пехотинците трябвало да носят "ζωναρία bм λιτά, xal βουλγαρική cay ία" - т.е.
смята, че става дума за носен в Египет от военните "български
пояс"(сведенията за публикациите дотук са по Иван Костадинов).
Вдясно виждате лична снимка. Коптска носия от 4-ти век н.е. Пази се в
етнографския музей на александрийската библиотека. По необходимост за пустинния
климат е от лен. Оттам вече аналогиите оставям изцяло на вас.
Папирусът "идва в България" късно. По спомени казвам ,че мисля,
че първият публикувал го е доста уважаваният Иван Дуриданов, който с радост
представя на българската публика вече 4 деситилетия предъвкваният от западната
лингвистика български папирус. Той публикува радостна статия, с която
приветства откритието».
Certainly, Gyula
Moravcsik (1892-1972) and Johannes Diethart (born in 1942) proved to be
great scholars indeed. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula_Moravcsik
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diethart
The adjective Vulgarikos,
-i, -on («Bulgarian» in three genders) is attested in a famous Eastern Roman
text, which is rather known under the title «Maurice’s Strategicon»; this was a
handbook of military sciences and a guide to techniques, methods and practices
employed by the Eastern Roman army. It was written by Emperor Maurice (Μαυρίκιος- Mauricius /reigned: 582-602) or
composed according to his orders. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_(emperor)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategikon_of_Maurice
I did not read Moravcsik’s
article, but I read the Strategicon; it does not speak of «Bulgarian belts»,
but of «Bulgarian cloaks». In this regard, the blogger mentions a very old
edition of the text, namely Mauricii Artis mllltaris libri duodecim, Xll (ed.
Scheffer), p. 303). This dates back to 1664:
At those days, all Western
European editions of Ancient Greek texts involved Latin translations.
Scheffer's edition of the Strategicon can be found here:
https://books.google.ru/books?id=77NODQEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (page
303)
George T. Dennis'
translation (1984) makes the text accessible to English readers:
https://archive.org/details/maurices-strategikon.-handbook-of-byzantine-military-strategy-by-maurice-dennis-
https://ia903403.us.archive.org/33/items/maurices-strategikon.-handbook-of-byzantine-military-strategy-by-maurice-dennis-/Maurice%E2%80%99s%20Strategikon.%20Handbook%20of%20Byzantine%20Military%20Strategy%20by%20Maurice%20Dennis%2C%20George%20T.%20%28trans.%29%20%28z-lib.org%29.pdf
In the 12th chapter, which
is the last of the Strategicon, under the title "Mixed Formations,
Infantry, Camps and Hunting", in part I (Clothing to be Worn by the
Infantry), on page 138 (University of Pennsylvania Press), the word σαγίον
(sagion) is very correctly translated as "cloak". The author refers
to "βουλγαρικά
σαγία" (Latin:
sagia Bulgarica) in plural; this is rendered in English "Bulgarian
cloaks", which are thought to be very heavy. Already, the word σαγίον
(sagion) is of Latin etymology. About:
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dsagi%2Fon
and https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100436640
Also: https://greek_greek.en-academic.com/151302/σαγίον
In that period and for
more than 1000 years, what people now erroneously call «Medieval Greek» or
«Byzantine Greek» (which in reality is «Eastern Roman») was an amalgamation of
Alexandrine Koine and Latin. There were an enormous number of Latin words written
in Greek characters and in Alexandrine Koine form. Indicatively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
At this point, I
complete my philological commentary on the topic. I read the Strategicon of
Emperor Maurice when I was student in Athens in the middle 1970s.
I did not remember the
mention of Bulgarian cloaks, but I know however that the Bulgars, who founded
the Old Great Bulgaria, appear in Eastern Roman texts at least 100 years before
the purported establishment and growth of that state (632–668). The academic
chronology for the First Bulgarian Empire may be correct (681–1018), but the
dates given for the Old Great Bulgaria and the Volga Bulgaria (late 7th c.–1240s)
are deliberately false. General info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars#Etymology_and_origin
VI.
Historical context and the Ancient History of Bulgars
It is now time for me to briefly
discuss the historical context within which the aforementioned topics took
place. Let’s first ask some questions:
Is it strange that a Fayoum
papyrus of the 3rd-7th c. CE mentions Bulgarian products that arrived in
Egypt?
Is it odd that in Emperor
Maurice’s Strategicon we find a mention of Bulgarian cloaks used or not
used by the Eastern Roman army?
In both cases, the response is
«no»!
From where did these Bulgarian
products come?
Where did Bulgars (or Bulgarians)
live at the time?
My personal response is somehow
vague: they came from some regions of today’s Russia’s European soil,
either in the southern confines (the Azov Sea, the northern coast of the Black
Sea, and the North Caucasus region) or in the area of today’s Tatarstan and
other lands north-northeast of the Caspian Sea.
It is not easy to designate one
specific location in this regard, and this is so for one extra reason: it seems
that there were several tribes named with the same name, and they were
distinguished among themselves on the basis of earlier tribal affiliations,
which may go back to the Rouran Khaganate (330-555 CE). There are actually plenty
of names associated with the early Bulgars, notably the Onogurs, the Kutrigurs,
etc. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutrigurs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onogurs
Central Asia ca. 300 CE
Many readers may be taken by
surprise because I go back easily from the time of the Old Great Bulgaria
(630-668 CE) to that of the Rouran Khaganate and the Huns. All the same, there
is no surprise involved in this regard. Western European historians deliberately,
systematically and customarily underestimate across the board the value of Oral
History and attempt to dissociate Ethnography from History; these approaches
are wrong. It is quite possible that, from the very beginning of the
establishment of Rouran Khaganate, many tribes, clans or families (which later
became nations) started migrating. The very first Bulgars (Bulgarians) may
have reached areas north of the Iranian borders in Central Asia or in Northern
Caucasus much earlier than it is generally thought among Western scholars.
See indicatively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouran_Khaganate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6kt%C3%BCrks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Turkic_Khaganate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Turkic_Khaganate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubrat
Great Old Bulgaria
Now, the reasons for which I
intentionally date the first potential interaction of Bulgars/Bulgarians with
other tribes (or nations) in earlier periods are not a matter of personal
preference or obstinacy. There is an important historical text named
«Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans». It has not been duly comprehended let alone
interpreted thus far. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalia_of_the_Bulgarian_Khans
https://web.archive.org/web/20120204205748/http://theo.inrne.bas.bg/~dtrif/abv/imenik_e.htm
From the Great Old Bulgaria to the beginnings of Volga Bulgaria
Three Russian copies of the text have
been saved (in Church Slavonic); they date back to the 15th and 16th c. They
are generally viewed as later copies of a potential Old Bulgarian text of the
9th c. Other specialists also pretend that there may/might have been an even earlier
text, in either Eastern Roman («Medieval Greek») or Bulgar, which was
eventually a stone inscription.
In this document, the highly
honorific title «Knyaz» (Князь) is given to Asparuh (ca. 640-700) and to his
five predecessors. I must add that the said document was always an intriguing
historical source for me due to two bizarre particularities to which I don't
think that any scholar or specialist gave due attention, deep investigation,
and persuasive interpretation.
First, the antiquity of the
document is underscored by the fact that the early Bulgar calendar, which is
attested in this text, appears to be an adaptation of the Chinese calendar. This
fact means that the primeval Bulgars, when located somewhere in Eastern
Siberia or Mongolia, must have had dense contacts with the Chinese scribal and
imperial establishment; perhaps this fact displeased other Turanian-Mongolian tribes
of the Rouran Khaganate and contributed to the emigration of those «Ur-Bulgaren».
The next point is however more impactful on our approach to the very early
phase of the Bulgars.
Second, although for most of the
rulers immortalized in the historical document, the duration of their lifetimes
or tenures are of entirely historical nature (involving brief or long periods
of 5 up to 60 years of reign or lifetime), the two first names of rulers are
credited with incredibly long lifetimes. This is not common; actually, it
does not look sensible; but it is meaningful.
Petrograd manuscript of Nominalia
The Old Bulgarian calendar and the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans
More specifically, Avitohol
is said to have lived 300 years, whereas Irnik is credited
with 150 years. But we know who Irnik was! Irnik or Ernak was the 3rd son
of Attila and he is said to have been his most beloved offspring. Scholars fix
the beginning of his reign in 437 CE, but this is still not the important
point. The crucial issue with the partly «mythical» and partly historical nature
of the text «Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans» is the fact that the two early
rulers, whom the Bulgarians considered as their original ancestors, are
credited with extraordinarily long and physically impossible lives. General
reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avitohol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Huns
This can therefore imply only one
thing: at a later period, when the earlier memories were partly lost for
various reasons, eventually because of the new environment namely the
Balkan Peninsula, in which the then Bulgars were finding themselves, Avitohol and
Irnik were retained as the leading figures of ruling families, and not as
independent rulers. Consequently, the dates given for their lives were in fact
those of their respective dynasties. It was then that the very early period of
Bulgar History was mythicized for statecraft purposes, mystified to all, and sanctified
in the national consciousness.
Many Western scholars attempted
to identify Avitohol with Attila, but in vain; I don’t think that this attempt
can be maintained. So, I believe that the Bulgars were one of the noble
families of the Huns (evidently involving intermarriage with Attila himself),
and that before Attila, the very earliest Bulgars were ruled by another dynasty
which had lasted 300 years. But if it is so, we go back to the times of the
Roman Emperor Trajan (reign: 98-117 CE), Vologases III of Arsacid Parthia
(110–147 CE) and the illustrious Chinese general, explorer and
diplomat Ban Chao (32-102 CE) of the Eastern Han dynasty. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vologases_III_of_Parthia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Chao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan
The latter fought for 30 years
against the Xiongnu (Hiung-nu/匈奴, i.e. the
earliest tribes of the Huns, consolidated the Chinese control throughout the
Tarim Basin region (today's Eastern Turkestan or Xinjiang), and was appointed Protector
General of the Western Regions. He is very famous for having dispatched Gan
Ying, an envoy, to the West in 97 CE. According to the Book of the Later Han (Hou
Hanshu/後漢書), which was compiled in the 5th c. CE by Fan Ye,
Gan Ying reached Parthia (Arsacid Iran; in Chinese: Anxi, 安息) and gave the first Chinese account of the Western
confines of Asia and of the Roman Empire. About:
https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiung-nu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gan_Ying
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Later_Han
It is n this historical
environment that we have to place the very early ancestors of the Bulgars.
Noin-Ula carpet, embroidered rug imported from Bactria and representing Yuezhi
VII.
Historical context, the Silk Roads, and Bulgarian exports to Egypt
Consequently, I believe that it
is more probable that the Bulgarian products of those days were first
appreciated by the Iranians and later sold to Aramaeans, Armenians, Iberians
and other nations settled in the western confines of the Arsacid (250 BCE-224
CE) and the Sassanid (224-651 CE) empires, i.e. in Mesopotamia and Syria,
and thence they became finally known in Egypt as well.
The incessant migrations from NE
Asia to Central Europe and to Africa, as a major historical event, were
not separate from the 'Silk Roads'; they were part, consequence or side-effect of
that, older and wider, phenomenon. Actually, the term 'Silk Roads' is at
the same time inaccurate and partly; the magnificent phenomenon of commercial, cultural
and spiritual inter-exchanges, which took place due to the establishment (by
the Achaemenid Shah Darius I the Great) of a comprehensive network of numerous
older regional trade routes, is to be properly described as 'silk-, spice-, and
perfume-trade routes across lands, deserts and seas'. About: https://silkroadtexts.wordpress.com/
It has to be said that, after the
Achaemenid Iranian invasion, annexation and occupation of Egypt, Sudan and NE
Libya (525-404 BCE and 343-332 BCE), Iranian settlers remained in Egypt; they
were known to and mentioned by the Macedonian settlers, who manned the
Macedonian dynasty of Ptolemies (323-30 BCE). General info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Achaemenid_conquest_of_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Achaemenid_conquest_of_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Persian_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Dynasty_of_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-first_Dynasty_of_Egypt
Those Iranian settlers were
called 'Persai (ek) tis epigonis' (Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς), lit. 'Iranian settlers'
descendants'. About:
Pieter W.
Pestman, A proposito dei documenti di Pathyris II Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41215889
Xin Dai, Ethnicity Designation in
Ptolemaic Egypt https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329265278_Ethnicity_Designation_in_Ptolemaic_Egypt
https://elephantine.smb.museum/project/work.php?w=H9YQWMB5
See a text from the time of the
Roman Emperor Domitian (reign: 81-96) here: https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.athen;;23
See another text from the time of
the Roman Emperor Nerva (reign: 96-98) here:
https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.ryl;2;173A
There were also in Egypt Jewish
Aramaean descendants of the early Iranian settlers: "οἱ τρ(ε)ῖς | Ἰουδαῖοι Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς τῶν [ἀ]πὸ Σύρων
κώ- | μης" (lit.
Jewish Iranians, who were the descendants of an Aramaean town) - From: Database
of Military Inscriptions and Papyri of Early Roman Palestine https://armyofromanpalestine.com/0140-2
Please note in this regard that
the title given to the web page and the document is very wrong and extremely
biased: "§140 Loan between Jews and Lucius Vettius"; the three
persons who received the loan were not ethnic Jews. Their religion was surely
Judaism, as it was the case of the renowned Samaritan woman with whom Jesus
spoke according to the Gospels. Several other nations accepted Judaism, notably
Aramaeans in Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia (they were called 'Syrians' by
the Macedonians and the Romans). It is well known that there were many clashes
and strives between them and the ethnic Jews. The latter were few and lived
either in Jerusalem (and its suburbs) or in Egypt (in Alexandria and many other
locations) or in the centers of Talmudic academies in Mesopotamia (namely
Nehardea, Pumbedita and Mahoze / Ctesiphon). About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehardea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumbedita
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10292-mahoza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesiphon
If I expanded on this topic, it
is precisely because the merchants, who were most active across the Silk Roads,
were the Aramaeans, and that is why Aramaic became almost an official language
in the Achaemenid Empire of Iran, whereas at the same time it turned out to be
the lingua franca alongside the trade routes. Furthermore, a great number of
writing systems in Central Asia, Iran, India, and Western Asia were developed
on the basis of the Aramaic alphabet. Last but not least, Arabic originates
from Syriac, which is a late form of Aramaic. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Aramaic#Name_and_classification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet#Aramaic-derived_scripts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_language
It is therefore essential to
state that the Bulgarian products, which (either from North Caucasus and the
northern coastlands of the Black Sea or from the regions around the
north-northeastern shores of the Caspian Sea) reached Egypt (via most probably North
Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine), were transported on camels owned by Aramaean
merchants and due to caravans organized and directed by Aramaeans.
It is also noteworthy that, during
the Arsacid times, several buffer-states were formed between the eastern
borders of the Roman Empire and the western frontiers of Parthia: Osrhoene,
Sophene, Zabdicene, Adiabene, Hatra, Characene, Elymais, Gerrha (the
illustrious port of call and major trade center of the Persian Gulf that
rivaled with Alexandria in the Mediterranean), the Nabataean kingdom, and the
short-lived but most formidable Tadmor (Palmyra). This situation favored the
world trade between East and West, as well as North and South. General info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osroene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabdicene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataean_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymais
https://www.academia.edu/23214313/Meluhha_Gerrha_and_the_Emirates_by_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyrene_Empire
The great rivalry and ferocious
antagonism between the Romans (and later the Eastern Romans) and the Iranians
after the rise of the Sassanid dynasty (224 CE) did not affect in anything the
good relations and the trade among Egyptians, Aramaeans, and Iranians; there
were numerous Aramaean populations in both empires, so, we feel safe to
conclude that any products from lands north of Caucasus mountains and north of
Iran were transported by Aramaeans via Palestine or Nabataea to Egypt.
Aramaic inscription from Hatra, NW Iraq
There have been additional
reasons for the good feelings of the Egyptians toward the Iranians, and they
were of religious nature. The Christological disputes generated enmity and great
animosity between
a) the Copts (: Egyptians) and
the Aramaeans, who adopted Miaphysitism (also known as Monophysitism), and
b) the Eastern Romans and the
Western Romans, who thought they preserved the correct faith (Orthodoxy).
One has to bear always in mind,
that in order to define themselves, the so-called Monophysites (also known more
recently as 'Miaphysites') used exactly the same term (i.e. 'Orthodox'), which
means that they considered the Eastern Romans and the Western Romans as
heretics. The patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were split.
Atop of it, other Aramaeans (mostly in Mesopotamia and Iran) accepted the
preaching of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was also deposed as a
heretic (in August 431). For the aforementioned religious reasons, the Eastern
Roman armies were most loathed in Syria, Palestine, North Mesopotamia (today's
SE Turkey), and Egypt as oppressors. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism
In addition, one has to take into
consideration the fact that the Jews, who inhabited the eastern provinces of
the Roman (and later the Eastern Roman) Empire, were also pro-Iranian and they
expected that the Iranians would liberate them one day from the Roman yoke
pretty much like the Achaemenid Iranian Emperor Cyrus delivered their exiled ancestors
from the tyranny of Nabonid Babylonia (539 BCE).
The Axumite Abyssinian invasion
of Yemen (ca. 530 CE; in coordination with the Roman Emperor Justinian I), the
ensued Iranian-Axumite wars, the Iranian invasion of Yemen (570 CE; known as
the Year of the Elephant among the Arabs of Hejaz), and the incessant battles
and wars between the Eastern Roman and the Sassanid Iranian armies were closely
watched by all populations in Egypt. The third Iranian conquest of Egypt (618
CE) was a matter of great jubilation for Copts and Jews; Egypt was annexed to
Iran for ten (10 years), before being under Eastern Roman control again for
fourteen years (628-642 CE) and then invaded by the Islamic armies. General
info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksumite%E2%80%93Persian_wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Sasanian_War_of_572%E2%80%93591
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Sasanian_War_of_602%E2%80%93628
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_conquest_of_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuzistan_Chronicle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_Egypt
Iranian Emperor Khosrow (Chosroes) I Anushirvan on Coptic textile fragment
Indicative of the good Egyptian
feelings for the Sassanid emperors and Iran is a tapestry weave found by Albert
Gayet in his 1908 excavations in Antinoe (also known as Antinoöpolis, i.e. the
town of Sheikh Ibada in today's Egypt); this is a textile fragment of legging
that dates back to the late 6th and early 7th c. (Musée des Tissus, in Lyon-France;
MT 28928). It features the scene of an unequal battle that has been identified
as one of the engagements between the Sassanid and the Axumite armies in Yemen;
Iranian horse-archers are depicted at the moment of their triumph over
Abyssinian infantry opponents, who appear to be armed with stones. In the very
center of the scene, an enthroned figure was often identified with the great
Iranian Emperor Khosrow (Chosroes) I Anushirvan (Middle Persian: Anoshag ruwan:
'with Immortal Soul'), who was for Sassanid Iran as historically important as
Justinian I, his early rival and subsequent peace partner, for the Roman Empire.
About:
http://warfare.6te.net/6-10/Coptic-Textile-Battle-Tissus.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antino%C3%B6polis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrow_I
This was the wider historical
context at the time of the arrival of the first Bulgarian exports to the
Sassanid Empire of Iran, the Eastern Roman Empire, and Egypt more specifically.
And the Bulgarian cloaks, as mentioned in Maurice’s Strategicon, make every
researcher rather think of heavy winter cloaks, which were apparently not
necessary for the Eastern Roman soldiers, who had to usually fight in less
harsh climatological conditions. It is possible that those heavy cloaks were
eventually used by the Iranian army when engaged in the Caucasus region, and
thence they were noticed by the Eastern Romans.
With these points, I complete my philological
and historical comments on the topic. However, the entire issue has to be also
contextualized at the academic-educational level, so that you don't find it
bizarre that not one average Bulgarian knew about the topic before the
inquisitive blogger wrote his article and the YouTuber uploaded his brief
video.
VIII.
Academic context and the Western falsehood of a Euro-centric World History
This part does not
concern the Fayoum papyri and the Strategicon of Emperor Maurice; it has to do
with what non-specialists, the average public, and various unspecialized
explorers do not know at all.
This issue pertains to
i- the
conceptualization of World History;
ii- the
contextualization of every single document newly found here and there;
iii- the stages of
historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years;
iv- the forgers
themselves and their antiquity, and last but not least; and
v- several points of
a)
governance of modern states,
b)
international alliances, and
c)
the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into
the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it.
As you can guess, one
can write an encyclopedia on these topics, so I will be very brief. Attention:
only at the end, you will understand that all these parameters fully
precondition the topic that we already discussed, and any other that we have not
yet discussed, because simply it does not exist as a standalone entity but as a
fact entirely conditioned by what I herewith describe in short.
What I want to say is
this: if tomorrow another Fayoum discovery brings to light a 3rd c. BCE papyrus
with the mention of something Bulgarian (Voulgarikon), this will not affect in
anything the prevailing conditions of the so-called academic scholarship. In
other words, do not imagine that with tiny shreds of truth unveiled here and
there, you are going to change anything in the excruciatingly false manner
World History was written.
i- the conceptualization
of World History
It may come as a nasty
surprise to you, but what we know now about History is not the conclusion or
the outcome of additional discoveries made one after the other over the past
400-500 years. Contrarily, it was first preconceived, when people had truly
minimal knowledge of the past, and after they had forged thousands of documents
and manuscripts for at least 500-600 years, long before the early historiographical
efforts were undertaken during the Renaissance.
After they destroyed,
concealed and rewrote tons of manuscripts of Ancient Greek and Roman
historiography from ca. 750 CE until 1500 CE, Western European monks and
editors, philosophers and intellectuals, popes, scientists and alchemists
started propagating their world view about the assumingly glorious past of their
supposedly Greek and Roman ancestors – a nonexistent past that the Renaissance
people were deliberately fooled enough to believe that they had lost and they had
to rediscover it. In fact, all the discoveries made afterwards, all the
decipherments of numerous ancient writings, and all the studies of original
material from Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, Caucasus, Central Asia, China
and India was duly processed and adjusted in a way not to damage or challenge
in anything the preconceived scheme which was named 'World History' by the
vicious and criminal Western European forgers.
This means that you
should never expect 'new discoveries' to challenge the officially established
dogma of the Western academia; it is not about Bulgars and the past of today's
Bulgarians, Thracians, Macedonians, etc., etc., etc. It is about all. What type
of position the Bulgarians, the Russians, the Turks, the Iranians, the
Egyptians and all the rest occupy in today's distorted historiography had been
decided upon long before the establishment of the modern states that bear those
names.
ii- the
contextualization of every single document newly found here and there
Any finding unearthed
by anyone anytime anywhere means nothing in itself; this concerns every
historiographer, truthful or dishonest. What truly matters for all is
contextualization. It so did for the original forgers. Theirs was an arbitrary
attempt; they contextualized the so-called 'Ancient Greece' in a way that would
have been fully unacceptable, blasphemous and abominable for the outright
majority of all the South Balkan populations during the 23 centuries prior to
the foundation of Constantinople by Constantine the Great.
It was peremptory,
partial and biased; according to the fallacious narratives of the forgers, centuries
were shrunk and shortened in order to fit into few lines; moreover the schemers
stretched geographical terms at will; they did not use various terms, which
were widely employed in the Antiquity; they passed important persons under
silence, while exaggerating the presentation of unimportant ones. This is what
contextualization was for the forgers: they applied a Latin recapitulative name
(Graeci) to a variety of nations, which never used this Latin term or any other
recapitulative term for them; they applied a non-Ionian, non-Achaean, and
non-Aeolian term (Hellenes) to them and to others; and after the decipherment
of many Oriental languages, they did not rectify their preposterous mistakes,
although they learned quite well that the two fake terms about those
populations (Graecus and Hellene) did not exist in any other language of highly
civilized nations (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite, Hurrian, Canaanite,
Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Old Achaemenid Iranian).
Consequently, every
other information, data and documentation pertaining to any elements of the
said context was concealed, distorted or misinterpreted in order to be duly adjusted
to the biased context that had been elaborated first.
iii- the stages of
historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years
Following the
aforementioned situation, many dimensions of historical falsification were
carried out and can actually be noticed by researchers, explorers,
investigators and astute observers. The 'barbarian invasions' (or Migration
Period) is only one of them; I mention it first because it concerns the Bulgars.
Long before distorting the History of Great Old Bulgaria and that of Volga Bulgaria
systematically, Western historical forgers portrayed Bulgars and many other
highly civilized nations as barbarians. Why?
Because the historical
forgers of the Western World hate nomads! This is an irrevocable trait of them;
that's why they fabricated the fake term 'civilization' in their absurd manner:
originating from the Latin word 'civitas', the worthless and racist term
'civilization' implies that you cannot be 'civilized' unless you are urban.
This monstrous and unacceptable fact reveals the rotten roots of the hideous,
vulgar, sick and villainous Western world and colonial academia.
In the Orient, there
was never a cultural divide between urban populations and nomads; some nomadic tribes
were considered as barbarians; that's true. But also settled populations and
urban inhabitants were also considered as barbarians (like the Elamites, who
were considered as inhuman by the Assyrians). The rule was that the settled
nations were nomads in earlier periods. But the status of a society was irrelevant
of the consideration and the esteem (or lack thereof) that others had about a
certain nation. This started with the Romans and their interpretation of the
South Balkan, Anatolian, and Cretan past. It was then re-utilized and modified
by Western Europeans. To some extent, the papal approval was tantamount to
acquisition of credentials and to promotion to 'civilized nation status'.
Actually, this is today the nucleus of the whole problem concerning Ukraine.
That is why the
so-called Migration Period was so terribly distorted by Western historians.
Western historians deliberately preferred to stay blind and not to study the
Ancient Mongol chronicles (notably the Secret History of The Mongols) in order
to avoid assessing the Mongol-Turanian standards and principles of
civilization. Had they proceeded in the opposite way, they would have
discovered that, for the nomads, it is the settled people and the urban
populations, who are barbarians, decayed and shameful.
The truth about the
fallacious term 'Migration Period' is simple: there was never a migration
period before 1500 CE (and certainly none afterwards), because every century
was actually a migration period. Human History is a history of migrations.
The distorted
linguistic-ethnographic division of the migrant nations helped forgers to
dramatically increase the confusion level; as a matter of fact, there was no
proper ethnic division (in the modern sense of the term) among Mongols,
Turanians, Slavs and several other migrant nations. The languages change when
people migrate and settle, resettle, move again, and end up in faraway places.
For Muslim historians, the khan of the Saqaliba (: Slavs) was the strongest of
all Turanian rulers. The arbitrary distinction of the migrant nations into two
groups, namely Indo-European and Ural-Altaic/Turco-Mongolian nations was done
deliberately in order to intentionally transform the face of the world and
adjust it to the so-called Table of Nations, a forged text that made its way
into the biblical book of Genesis in later periods (6th–4th c. BCE). General
reading:
https://www.jassa.org/?p=7616
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khordadbeh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Roads_and_Kingdoms_(Ibn_Khordadbeh)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqaliba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_from_the_Varangians_to_the_Greeks
The Western academic
tyranny is so deeply rooted that, irrespective of your political, ideological
or philosophical affiliation (fascist, Nazi, communist, conservative,
social-democrat, liberal, atheist, evolutionist, creationist, anarchist, etc.),
you always have to adjust your seminars, courses, lectures, contributions,
books and publications to the fallacy of Genesis chapter 10. The absurd logic
of this system is the following: "since no Bulgars are mentioned in the
Table of Nations, they must be a later tribe". Then, believe it or not,
whatever documentation may be found in Aramaic, Middle Persian, Pahlavi, Brahmi,
Kharosthi, Avestan, Sogdian, Tocharian, Chinese or other texts about the
Bulgars will be deliberately presented as irrelevant to Bulgars. If a new
Sogdian document is found in Central Asia (dating back to the middle Arsacid
times: 1st c. CE) and there is a certain mention of Bulgars in the text, the
criminal gangsters and the systematic fraudsters of the Western universities
and museums will write an enormous amount of articles to stupidly discredit the
document or attribute the word to anything or anyone else.
iv- the forgers
themselves and their antiquity
The above makes it
clear that the foundations of today's Western academic life, historiographical
research, sector of Humanities, and all the associated fields of study were
laid by the Western European Catholic monks and only after the end of the
Eastern Roman imperial control, appointment and approval of the Roman popes
(752 CE).
This changes totally
the idea that you and the entire world have of the History of Mankind because
it means that the Benedictine-Papal-Roman opposition to and clash with the
Eastern Roman Empire (and the subsequent schisms of 867 and 1054) were entirely
due to the resolute papal attempt to forge the World History, to substitute it
with a fake History, and to diffuse all the Anti-Christian schemes that brought
the world to today's chaos. As the Muslims were totally unaware of the
confrontation, the Crusades were undertaken against (not the Caliphate but)
Constantinople. All the Christian Orthodox monasteries and libraries were
controlled by Catholic monks, scribes, copyists and priests who had the time
(from 1204 until 1261) to rob whatever manuscripts they had to rob, destroy
whatever manuscripts they had to destroy, and leave all the rest as 'useless'
to their enterprise.
That is why modern
scholars are ordered to jubilate every time a papyrus fragment is found in
Egypt with few lines of verses from Homer, Hesiod and the Ancient 'Greek'
tragedians, historians or philosophers! They publicize these discoveries in
order to make every naïve guy believe that the bulk of their forged
documentation is genuine. But it is not.
v- and last but not
least, several points of
a)
governance of modern states
The
consolidation of the historical forgery was top concern for the colonial
puppets of the Western European powers and for the powers hidden behind the
scenes. I still remember the blogger's comments about the late 19th and early
20th c. Bulgarian statesmen, politicians and academics, who were not so
enthusiastic about the Fayoum papyrus! He made me laugh at; of course, he was very
correct in writing what he did. Absolutely pertinent! But also very naïve!
He
failed to remember that the top Ottoman military officer in Salonica during the
First Balkan War, lieutenant general Hasan Tahsin Pasha (also known as Hasan
Tahsin Mesarea; 1845-1918), as soon as he learned that the 7th Bulgarian
Division was coming from the northeast, decided on his own to surrender the Salonica
fortress and 26000 men to the Greek crown prince Constantine, being thus deemed
a traitor and sentenced to death by a martial court.
No
Bulgarian (or other) official had ever the authority to go beyond the limits
specified as regards either borderlines or historical approaches and
conclusions.
b)
international alliances, and
The
same is valid today; it would be bizarre for Bulgarian professors of
universities and academics to teach, diffuse, publish and propagate ideas,
concepts and interpretations that contravene the worldwide norm that the
Western colonials imposed across the Earth. It is as simple as that: Bulgaria, as
EU member state, participates in many academic projects like Erasmus, etc. The
professor, who would challenge the lies and the falsehood, which are at the
basis of the so-called European values, principles and standards, would
automatically become a problem for his rector, who would be receiving most
unpleasant if not threatening calls from every corner of the Earth, as well as
demands to fire the uncooperative, 'controversial' professor.
c)
the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into
the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it
Actually,
it is not a matter of Bulgaria and how the true History of Bulgaria is hidden
from the Bulgarians; the same is valid in Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Sudan,
Israel, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, etc. As I lived in all these countries, I have
personal experience and deep knowledge as regards their pedagogical systems and
the contents of their manuals. In Egypt, schoolchildren study the History of
Ancient Egypt down to Ramses III only (ca. 1200 BCE) and next year, they start
with the beginning of Islam (642 CE). Why?
Because
during the falsely called Roman times, Egyptian mysticisms, religions, spirituality,
cults, sciences, arts, wisdom, cosmogony, cosmology, and eschatology flooded Greece,
Rome, the Roman Empire, and even Europe beyond the Roman borders. The Egyptian
pupil must not learn that the Greeks, the Romans, and the Europeans were
dramatically inferior to his own cultural heritage. That's why stupid and
illiterate sheikhs, ignorant imams, and evil theologians intoxicate the average
Egyptians with today's fake Islam, which is not a religion anymore but a
theological-ideological-political system at the antipodes of the true
historical Islam. It cuts the average Egyptian from his own cultural heritage,
thus making him stupidly care about the wives and the prematurely dead children
of prophet Muhammad, as well as other matters of no importance for the
spiritual-cultural-intellectual phenomenon of Islam.
Best regards,
Shamsaddin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download the article in PDF:
https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2024/04/05/bulgarians-mentioned-in-egyptian-papyri-from-fayoum/
https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_11072%2Fall
https://www.academia.edu/117104006/Bulgarians_Mentioned_in_Egyptian_Papyri_from_Fayoum
https://www.4shared.com/web/preview/pdf/3EOEiEkufa?
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/muhammad-shamsaddin-megalommatis-677982143_bulgarians-mentioned-in-egyptian-papyri-from-activity-7182092930755551232-B9fK/
https://www.calameo.com/read/0071568974889d2abff3e
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/bulgarians-mentioned-in-egyptian-papyri-from-fayoum/267130826
https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Bulgarians_Mentioned_in_Egyptian_Papyri_from_Fayoum/25555977
https://www.patreon.com/posts/bulgarians-in-101785588
No comments:
Post a Comment