-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't find any translations of the book, so here's mine. This is a part of the introduction and the chapter 13:
The vast majority of manuscripts dating from the dark and ancient ages have no reference at all to the chronology, except for the one written out by scientists retroactively on the basis of the ideas of the scientists themselves about how everything should actually be. Interestingly, paleography (that is, the science of the peculiarities of the development of writing in time) arose in the XVIII century as a response to the assumption of the Jesuits about the forged nature of many ancient documents. That is, initially the goal of paleographers was not to reveal the truth, but to powder the brains of all who doubted the authenticity of old papers and parchments.
And the reasons for suspicion were very strong. They are most fully set out in the works of Jean Hardouin, a French theologian-encyclopedist that knew ancient languages brilliantly and explained quite popularly why most of the so-called ancient manuscripts are outright fakes of the Renaissance. Under the hot hand and sharp pen of the truth-lover Hardouin, both secular and ecclesiastical sources fell, so the spread of the works of the Jesuit-intellectual was not provided. That is, they could not put them under the spot for that simple reason, that the quality of Hardouin's works turned out to be simply exemplary and there was no way to challenge them, but the Roman rulers refrained from advertising and launching the masses of heretical books. Just think: Hardouin, on the basis of textual analysis, came to the conclusion about the fictitious nature of the records of all (emphasis: ALL!) church Councils, up to the Trident, and this is the middle of the XVI century. A few decades earlier, another French researcher, Spondanus, came to a similar conclusion about the chronicles of the Fourth Council of the Lateran. And Hardouin, without dwelling on the documents of the Councils, rode through the manuscripts of the Greek fathers of the Church, sarcastically noting their gaping absence in the Greek-speaking part of the Ecumene, but littering the French libraries. One of the features of these works, as Hardouin points out, is the striking similarity of the language of the authors, who wrote in the same way for 1500 years. Any normal language changes quickly enough, Hardouin said, and it is hard not to agree with him. But in the Greek Hall, the vocabulary and syntax have not changed for centuries, and they all use the same dialect of the Greek language. The same inescapable constancy is present, according to Hardouin, in some Latin texts as well. "Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodorite (
Obviously, this refers to the Orthodox theologian Theodorite of Kirsky), Justin were co-owners of one library ... - the French Jesuit quipped, - ... they praise the same authors, they prove the falsity of the same stories. It's the same with the others," Hardouin said (
Hereinafter, Arduin's book “Prolegomena ad censuram veterum scriptorum” is quoted).
Very categorical was the theologian-encyclopedist about the Bible in Greek. "Now it has finally become obvious to me that until the beginning of the fourteenth century, or until the end of the thirteenth century, the Greeks had no other Bible than the Latin, and no other liturgy than the Latin, just as it is now in the Indies and throughout America. I tell you, it is clear to me that until that time there was no Bible in Greek, there was not even a Psalter. The Greek Bible we now have is monstrously distorted and is designed to support the wicked assumption that denies the existence of a true God. It is for this reason that the Greeks do not have a printed Old Testament; because they never had a common single text, and the manuscripts differed greatly." Note that by the time of writing the work of Hardouin, the Complutensian Polyglot (
The first complete edition of the Old Testament in Greek with parallel Hebrew and Latin texts, as well as the New Testament text in Greek) was published for almost two centuries, the publications of the Antwerp, Heidelberg, Hamburg and Paris polyglottes were carried out, the Sistine Bible was printed, etc. And the Greeks, who would have been the first to perpetuate the sacred text in their native language, did not deign to swing to do it.
Hardouin's rhetorical question is unflattering: how in Spain from the "approximately VII century" to the "approximately XV century" there were only seven writers. The Jesuit scholar ridicules the practice of corralling most medieval authors into the Paris herd: "Hence their unsubstantiated statement that almost all Germans, Italians, Englishmen studied or taught in Paris: Alcuin, Raban, Peter of Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and countless others". Quite amusing. For some reason, all the authors did not live where they were born, studied and taught not where their works were later discovered, wrote not about their era, but about centuries distant and dark. And this applies not only to the above-mentioned "French" of different origin. Suffice it to recall Matthew of Paris. According to historians, even if he left his deep English province, it was not for long and for Norway, he had nothing to do with Paris in principle. Or Gallus Anonymous, who, despite his "French" name, wrote a chronicle of the kings of Poland (in Latin, of course).
Of course, Jean Hardouin was not the only one who noticed the total falsification of secular and ecclesiastical history. However, in his works, the theme of the terrible dependence on unreliable, purposefully introduced into circulation sources is revealed most fully. Simultaneously with Hardouin and subsequently on the issues of falseness of history and chronology wrote Isaac Newton, Robert Baldauf, Wilhelm Kammayer, Nikolai Morozov, Immanuel Velikovsky, Mikhail Postnikov and other authors.
Of our contemporaries, it is necessary to mention Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky, who made a huge contribution to the debunking of many myths of history and created their original version of historical events, Yaroslav Kesler and Igor Davidenko, whose natural-scientific approach to the study of the development of civilization does not leave any chance for history fairytellers to quietly multiply their opuses, as well as Alexander Zhabinsky, Dmitry Kalyuzhny, Sergei Valyansky, Herbert Illig, Jordan Tabov, Uwe Topper, Andreas Churilov and Evgeny Gabovich, with facts in their hands showed all the defectiveness and inconsistency of traditional history.
With these and other authors who wrote and continue to write about the strangeness of chronology and life descriptions, you can agree or disagree on a number of issues, you can accept or not accept their reconstruction of history, you can blame them as much as you like for not having a special education and a diploma with an appropriate record. However, the essence of the questions to the general idea of the past of mankind formed over the centuries will not change from this. The traditional picture of history is thoroughly false, monstrously politicized, commercially dependent and banally implausible. Armed with such a canon as knowledge, you can go anywhere, but not in a civilized future. And the whole world was and still is hostage to this paradigm. But the destruction of the illusion of the past should not be in a hurry. Because people who are part of the "circles close to those close to them" understand perfectly well what the slightest surrender of positions in the myths of ethnogenesis, antiquity or the birth of a particular religion can turn into. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't see the machinings of the world’s “behind the scenes” in every line of the history textbook. However, the tenacity with which certain historical clichés are promoted to the masses leaves no doubt that any truth about the past gives a lot of headaches to some in the present. Therefore, despite the colossal breakthrough in information technology, the availability of almost any sources and the obvious inconsistency of the current picture of the history of the ancient (and not very ancient) world, in the field of perception and decoding of the acts of the past, we are not far from the first humanists of the new era, who lived (approximately) in the XV-XVI centuries, and perhaps even lag behind them.
Otherwise, the Tatar-Mongol horde would not have wandered through the pages of history, the saga of the Vikings, who almost subjugated the whole world, would not have been spread over the pages of history as well, the Al-Quds would never have gained the glory of Jerusalem, and there would have been many more things if once the recorded history had not been launched like a pony in a circle. And everything that does not fit, according to circus performing historians, into the fairy-tale world of a pony winding meaningless mileage, is withdrawn from circulation with stunning shamelessness. Incorrect, from the point of view of current historians, sources are lost, spoiled, disappear, hushed up, distorted, corrected, etc. From the latest egregious examples - the "scientific" restoration of the fresco in Italy, in the city of Massa Marittima, where the plot of the presumably XIII century was decided to be slightly corrected, removing some details and destroying images of phalluses hanging from the fertility tree. Indeed: how could such indecencies be painted in the absolutely Catholic Italy, and even close to the popes?! It just couldn't be. It shouldn't have been. Hence the restoration zeal of the "real scientists”.
Even those sources and artifacts that can no longer be withdrawn from circulation due to their prevalence or great value are reflected in historical science, as in a crooked mirror. That is, literally one thing is written or depicted, but all claim that it meant something completely different. And hypnosis works. For some reason, in the history books of Russia, there are no chapters about the Great Tartary, although on all European and even Russian maps until the middle of the XVIII century, this formation is present. Not one clear comment is heard from connoisseurs of antiquity about the epitaph on the facade of the villa of Pharaoh Mennel; on stone plates among the cities destroyed in 1631, the "ancient" Pompeii and Herculaneum are mentioned, which seem to have gone into oblivion more than 1500 years ago. None of the historians are touched by the phrase of the Italian humanist Leon Battista Alberti: "undoubtedly, the temple is the abode of the gods" (just in case, a reminder that this is not written by an ancient pagan writer, but by an adviser on architecture to Pope Nicholas V at the end of the XV century). A phrase from the Chronicler of Hellada and Rome that "Constantine and his warriors went to Britannic Galilee" is skipped by commentators, as well as other revelations of the same source, placing Galilee not at all in the Middle Eastern context.
The amount of evidence is high. But anything that does not fit into the historical pattern is contemptuously studied with eyes wide shut. And the comments after familiarization are always of the same type: the author was mistaken, the scribe was poorly educated, the reader did not understand everything at all, etc. The apotheosis of rejection usually becomes the accusation of everyone and everything in unprofessionalism, misguided patriotism, cheap vilification and an attempt to undermine the foundations. Putting on top of the above stamps the stigma of "pseudoscience", representatives of this large, official science usually calm down and continue to stamp opuses about the role of predicative quintessence in quasi-amorphic syntax. And if not about this, then at least about the Swedish roots of Rurik. Or the role of Homer's stanza in Nero's suicide. Which certainly brings science to a new level of development. And all those interested in history are closer to understanding its mechanisms.
The narrative of the emergence and spread of Christianity, as well as the history of the Church, suffer from the same sores as secular life. Moreover, it was in the bowels of the Church that the entire event fabric of the current historical picture of the development of civilization was woven, and it was the Church that once decided that humanity lives in a certain year from the Incarnation of the Lord, making Christmas the main reference point of the chronology. Within the framework of the church tradition, the accomplishments of the past and the people involved in these acts were built and linked together on the timeline. As mentioned above, the chronological canon was finally formed after the Council of Trident, in the middle of the XVI century. But this does not mean that by the decision of the Council all historical realities were located on the shelves automatically, taking the places prepared for them. The process of finding out which historical characters should go to distant antiquity, and which should be located closer to modernity, dragged on for a couple of centuries. Therefore, for example, there is nothing strange in the fact that, according to people who lived in the XVIII century, in the city of Bologna "... in the Library of the Dominican Monastery the parchment (charter) of the Old Testament is kept, written by the hand of the Prophet Ezra in the Hebrew language”. Indeed, by that time the named prophet had apparently not yet been exiled in the minus sixth century, and what he personally wrote could have been accessible. So had many poets, philosophers, and scientists, of whom humanists wrote about as older contemporaries or figures of recently departed generations, not yet found their place in antiquity. And according to Saxon Grammaticus and Mavro Orbini, who quoted him, in Scandinavia, the following happened: "When Svev Arngrim, who later became the son-in-law of the Danish king Froton, attacked them and defeated them, the fleeing Finns threw three pebbles into the enemy's face, which seemed to the pursuers to be as impregnable mountains. [...] When they were defeated the third time ... they surrendered and almost became tributaries of the Danish kingdom. At that time, their king was Tengil. These events, according to Saxon Grammaticus (V), occurred shortly before the coming of Christ to earth" (
Rot E.R. Old in Europe. М., 1782. С. 58. Orbini M. Slavic kingdom. М., 2010 - The book was first published in Italy in 1601). The prototypes of Arngrim and Froton (even according to the now accepted historical tradition) could live no earlier than the IV century AD, which, of course, is very far-fetched. The Danish kingdom - not earlier than the X century (the first king of Denmark, according to traditional sources, died in 950). The manuscripts of the "Acts of the Danes" - not earlier than the XIII century, published by Pedersen in 1512. Thus, it turns out that Christ, according to Saxon Grammaticus, appeared after (sic!) Danes, their kingdom, Finns and all the northern dealings between them. And books of this content were obviously not perceived in Europe in the seventeenth century as something out of the ordinary, although, from the point of view of the Roman Church, they contradicted its new ideas about the glorious past, which stretched for more than 1500 years.
There are several reasons why the Curia needed a historical road lost beyond the horizon line.
First, to justify the supremacy of the Roman pontiff over representatives of all other Christian confessions, especially the Orthodox. Obviously, the split, which on paper is removed from sight down to the dark year 1054, occurred much later, if at all. Traces of the late division are especially clearly visible on the Catholic periphery, where Orthodoxy in one form or another persists almost to this day. By creating a list of popes and connecting it to St. Peter, the RCC formulated its claim to supremacy in Christendom. It is worth noting here that even in the not-too-distant fourteenth century, the Roman rulers were not quite Roman. What was before the Avignon captivity of the popes (or the Babylonian captivity, as it was called in ancient times), the question is not cheerful. But the Vatican strongly needed a continuous tradition that connected them with the Apostle Peter.
Secondly, the Crusades against brothers in faith, called heretics after the fact, have just died down. In order to somehow culturally explain why Christians were ruined and killed, Rome needed an impressive history of the struggle against sects and heresies, leading to the idea that some comrades of the RCC are not comrades at all, and for a very long time.
Thirdly, the RCC of the time of the Council of Trident did not resemble the Apostolic Church of the first years of Christianity. The persecuted turned into a oppressor, a non-possessor turned into the largest owner of Europe, Christ's call to "give caesar's things to Caesar, and God's to God", to put it mildly, was ignored. Popes have become more like jewish high priests of Old Testament times than shepherds who care about understanding the New Testament. And this metamorphosis had to be explained somehow. It was for this that a long history was needed with wars for the faith, the works of the Holy Fathers, giving the necessary explanations from the "gray antiquity", the Councils and documents of these Councils, from which it was clear that "enemies are everywhere", etc. Another - purely mercantile - task was to find a place in history for all church saints, and there were many of them. The lengthening of history gave a simple and uncomplicated solution to the problem: each saint found a place on the 1500-year scale.
Fourthly, the antiquity of Christianity made it possible to painlessly talk about the Gospel events, as they say, from a distance. That is, it was a long time ago, in a distant land, almost on the outskirts of the empire, who was involved in this atrocity is unknown, for 1500 years Christianity has grown stronger, survived all the crises and diseases of growing up, and the RCC from time immemorial leads its sheep in the right direction.
And finally, fifthly, the stretch of Christianity in time made it possible to send to the distant past the necessary precedents, decisions of church councils or works of phantom authors, the reference to which would confirm the unconditional correctness of the popes in the contemporary political situation. Refuting sources of unthinkable prescription, allegedly consecrated by centuries-old traditions, is not the same as starting a dialogue from scratch. Therefore, potential opponents of Rome in advance were in an unequal position with the heirs to the throne of St. Peter.
The almost total illiteracy of the population, the lack of access to the fundamental historical chronicles and documents, the high cost of books, the actual church monopoly on history and chronology, the ease of replacing some Latin or Greek manuscripts by others within the Church itself, the lack of a single biblical canon and the presence of other similar factors suggest that before the beginning of the era of printing, changing the past was not the most time-consuming task. Given the RCC's desire to bring its history almost to Noah and the possibilities that this organization undoubtedly possessed, it is not surprising that the papal office rooted itself in the historical landscape in the most shameless way. This was partly explained to the public by Hardouin, although the purpose of his work was not initially to denounce the RCC, but only to point out some dark personalities who poured heretical water on the Greek mill. Later it became clear to many, but only a few decided on an open revision of the history of Christianity and the Church. After all, the RCC has not left the historical scene and still has considerable weight on it. And church history is the basis for most national and genealogical stories, and this private world is very well-guarded: any attempt to change at least one letter (even on logical grounds) is considered an attempt on the most sacred and at best meets with a harsh rebuke.
Chapter 13. The Gallic Question
There are topics in history that are not supposed to be touched. That is, the fact lies in plain sight, lying around, one might say, for many centuries, but discussing it is taboo. It's like there is a spell on it or some kind of curse. Linguists and historians wince squeamishly at the mention of such topics and almost always hang on the person invading the closed zone, the label of an amateur. At best, you can hear something like "nonsense" or "random coincidence" from professional humanitarians; and at worst: "Where do you go with your pig snout in a kosher reserve, where every creature has long been registered?!" Neither the first nor the second reaction implies a detailed conversation about an interesting topic, only puts a fat cross on it until another doubter stirs up a dull professional anthill. And then - again: "Nonsense, coincidence, accounting and control, and you are an amateur!" etc.
One of these topics ordered for non-professionals is the presence of the Gallic belt of Eurasia. Anyone who is even partially familiar with the history, geography and toponymy of the Old World will be able to easily find this zone running from the Atlantic to the Middle East. This now invisible belt begins in Portugal, then goes through Spanish Galicia, continues in France (Gaul), Germany (also part of Gaul, plus the remnants of former luxury: Holstein and the city of Halle), Austria (Hallstatt), Italy (the entire upper part of the Italian boot, almost to Rome, was once Gaul, and today this is reminded with a huge number of placeholders such as Galliate, Galarate, Semigallia, etc.) and Switzerland (Helvetica), flows into Galicia (now Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine, Russia), islets reminds of itself in Romania by the city of Galati and Latvia (Latgale), goes south and reveals itself in all its glory in present-day Turkey (ancient Galatia and the Hellespont) and Israel (Galilee). And that's just what's on the surface. A more scrupulous study of the map of Europe and parts of Asia will surely lead to a multiple expansion of the above list. ( There is another Galatia in the Italian Compagnia. In a small piece of space there are three towns with speaking names: Calatia, Caiatia, and Calles. There is an exact same Calles in Spain, on the southern coast, near Valencia)
But in the scientific literature the term "Gallic belt" is absent. As if it does not exist at all. Indeed, what kind of kinship can there be between Galicia (Галисия) and Galicia (Галиция)? There can be none. Here is a noble linguist Fasmer in the article Galicia: "... coincidence... a pure chance." And what else remains to the great etymologist who derives the name of the city of Galich from the word "galitsa" (jackdaw, that is)? In his competent opinion, the whole of Galicia is carried by a bird-jackdaw (not to be confused with Gogol's bird-troika) through the expanses of European history. The performance is, frankly, at the level of "bears walk the streets in Moscow", but the scientific world considers Fasmer to be almost the chef of the etymological plates in Russian-speaking culture.
Well, other German etymologists do not lag behind the glorious Max Julius Friedrich Fasmer. Speaking about the origin of the name of the Gauls, Western linguists then derive it from the Greek ethnonym
Galatians (and it, in turn, from the word
milk), then remember the Irish Goydels, which in the ancient world no one knew, then suddenly the Gauls come from the German Walh (a stranger, with the replacement of the initial W with G). Doesn’t matter that the Germanic word could acquire its current form only during the formation of the French language (that is, in the late Middle Ages), and the Galatians were already Galatians in the minus III century (Traditional History). Never mind that omniscient historians consider the Galatians to be Gauls who migrated to Asia Minor. Arrived, were called milky-white, declined. And the sediment in the form of a name remained. And where did it remain and how it returned to Gaul is not very clear, but in the ancient world all kinds of miracles happened, so who knows.
And during the Renaissance, the strange Franks for some reason began to associate the word "Gaul" with the word "rooster" and even made the latter a symbol of Gaul, not realizing that this is just an homonymy of gallus (in Latin means both a Gaul and a rooster). But the fasmers opened their eyes, opened them. And now the French know for sure what gallus really is. And all sorts of Swiss Helvetians there are not Gauls at all, but are... who knows who they are.
As for the Holsteins, their ancestors were recorded as a certain mythical tribe mentioned by Adam of Bremen, so that there would be no associations with french frogs. And where did the first part in the name of the Austrian Hallstatt came from, scientists writing about the Celtic Hallstatt culture, simply can not imagine. Well, indeed, the Celts and the Gauls: what can there be in common?
In short, there is a Gallic toponymy, there are plenty of ancient sources indicating the presence of this toponymy, but all this is absolutely accidental. Analogies are groundless, fabrications are chauvinistic, attempts to anything bring together are absurd.
Why? Because the simplest etymology of the word "gall" lies on the surface. But, taking it into service, you are faced with the need to take the next suggestive step. And this step, to put it mildly, turns around some ideas about the history of Europe. And who needs it?! Why root the glorious, good past, which now brings some groups of individuals good dividends?
However, we were not hired to play according to the rules of "separate individuals", so we will step when and wherever we like. And first of all, let's go in the direction of common sense, which suggests that there are no such accidents that they want to make us believe. And then - everything is simple. In etymological dictionaries and reference books there are a lot of useful articles, bringing the data from which together, we will get a more than satisfactory result and find that all sorts of European Gauls are chicks of one ancestral nest.
To begin with, let's turn to Fasmer's dictionary and find in it the Old Russian word
гологолить (gologolit‘): "to talk", Old Slavonic глаголъ (glagol) "word", глаголати "to speak", Czech hlahol "talk, speech", hlaholiti "to sound, to proclaim".
The double root seems to be related to the word голос (voice) and Middle Irish gall "glory; swan", Cymraeg galw "to call", Old Icelandic kalia "to call, to sing", Upper-Middle German kaizen, kelzen "to talk, to boast"; see Thorpe 41; Elquist 1, 435; Holthausen, Awn. Wb. 148; Berneker 1, 323; Meye - Vayan 31. A comparison with the Old Indian gargaras "type of a musical instrument" or Old Indian ghargharas "thundering, gurgling, noise" (see Berneker 1, 320; Meyer, Et. 229) is doubtful, because here “g” is of Indo-European origin, as in the Greek γαργαρίζω "gurgle". Hardly a better comparison with the Old Icelandic gala "to sing" (see галдётъ и галитъся), as well as with Armenian gai. galium "strepito, susurro" (from *ghl-ghl-); see Petersson, ArArmSt. 99.
Note that Irish
gall means
glory. Also, do not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with the so-called double root (GOL / GOL), and this root is in such important words from a cultural point of view as голос (voice), глаголица (Glagolitic), глагол (verb) (in the meaning of a word, нагал (Old Russian password), etc.
Now let's move on and open the article голос:
Ukrainian голос, Belarusian голас, Old Slavonic гласъ φωνη, Bulgarian гласът, Serbo-Croatian niâc, Slovenian glâs, Czech. hlas, Polish glos, Upper-Sorbian hiös, Lower-Sorbian gîos. || Formation of -so is similar to Lithuanian garsas "sound", Old Indian bhäsä "speech, language", Lithuanian balsas "voice": bilti "to speak|| Middle Ossetian yalas "voice" (Hubschman, Osset. Et. 33), further, Old Icelandic kalia "to shout, to speak", Irish gall (*galno-) "famous", Cymraeg galw "to call, to summon"; see Fortunatov, AfslPh 4, 578; Berneker 1, 323; Trautman, BSW 77; Thorpe 42; Meyer, MSL 14, 373; Persson 852 (according to which, correlation to Latin gallus "rooster"; against see Walde - Hofm. 1, 580 and pp.); Stokes 107. Next, here is нагал "password".
Fasmer was unable not to point out the kinship of the Russian golos and the Latin gallus (rooster). This was above his Germanophilia and Russophobia.
Let's remember this magnificent passage and open the dictionary of Dahl, who wrote that the голосовик (golosovik) is "a bird with a good, loud voice; vocal." And why is the same rooster (
gallus) not
gallus'ovic?
Now we return to the medieval Gauls, who chose as their symbol a vocal bird named gallus. Homonymy, you say? Well-well.
And having compared all the above, someone else doubts what kind of people the Gauls are?
Gauls are talking people who speak (GOL/GOL), that is, people of the verb = people of the word. In Russian, these guys are called: people of слово (word) / слава (glory). Or Slavs.
And in this scenario, everything suddenly falls into place. People of the verb (words) are not an ethnic criterion, but a linguistic, cultural one! And then it is clear why we find the so-called Slavic roots throughout Europe. It is not the inheritance of the Russians, as Fomenko writes. Russians are part of a huge Slavic culture that includes all people of the word/verb (voice). And this culture was really spread from the Atlantic to the outskirts (hello Israeli Galilee!). And Holstein is also part of the culture of the voice, no wonder even the Germans recognize there an essential Slavic component. And Galicia (Галиция) and Galicia (Галисия) are not unrelated, but are a part of a single cultural space.
And it becomes clear why the last words of Christ were words in one of the Slavic dialects (compare "Eloi, Eloi! lamma savakhfani?" (the evangelist's rendering of the text in an incomprehensible language) and "Lele, Lele, lem z mya sya ostash" (a Lemki dialect of the Ruthenian language). The translation is almost identical: "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?")..And in what other language should the Galilean (or Gaul?) speak, the God of the Word, as the whole world calls Him, or the God of Glory, as he was often called by the Slavs? Some aspects of the development of Christianity also appear, which could not arise in the Semitic Middle Eastern environment for the simple reason, that it was dominated by a completely different culture and ethics, which fundamentally contradicted the culture of the word.
In this perspective, you can take a completely new look at the fate of the famous Glagolitic Reims Gospel, on which the French (Gallic) kings swore. It was their native, primordial language, and all sorts of Latin there were brought by the papal comrades who "came here".
Well, etymology is good, but material evidence is better. And it would be quite curious if there are any different conclusions here than from philological arguments in favor of the fact that the Celts (Gauls) are the same Slavs.
It turns out that such evidence and arguments exist. But they are resolutely rejected (or, let's say, until recently resolutely rejected) by all advanced carriers of scientific knowledge - both in our country and abroad. Despite the universally cited visual aids in the form of maps of the culture of the fields of burial urns:
or Hallstatt and then Laten culture:
Hallstatt and Laten cultures
And after all, it is enough to overlap what is recorded on the maps with the Gallic belt and the area of settlement of the Slavs. However, on the cage of the elephant still hangs a sign "buffalo".
Here is what the conscientious Soviet historian-archaeologist V.V. Sedov wrote in 1979:
"The identification of the Slavs with the various ethnic groups mentioned by the ancient authors is characteristic of the Middle Ages and the first stage of the new time. In the writings of Western European historians, you can find the statement that the Slavs in ancient times were called Celts. Among the South Slavic scribes it was widely believed that the Slavs and the Goths are the same people. Quite often the Slavs were identified with the Thracians, Dacians, Getae and Illyrians.
At present, all these conjectures and theories are of only historiographic interest and do not represent any scientific significance. Those who wish to get acquainted with them in more detail can be sent to an interesting book by I. Pervolf and the first pages of the article by V. Antonevich. "
That’s it: if some
Pervolf and Antonevich in the XX century acquainted all those interested in details, then the topic is closed, and the significance of the reports of ancient authors on this account was exaggerated by the ancient authors themselves. Well, these dark scribes and Pharisees could not rise to the heights of truly scientific knowledge, they could not. They did not master it. They did not digest it. Allowed themselves to sink to matters unworthy of a real kulturtrager.
However, as it turned out a little later (however, I suspect that this was always known, just not voiced), medieval writers knew what they were writing about. And in 2002, the same historian-archaeologist V.V. Sedov - as if he‘s a different person:
Slavic blacksmithing craft of the I millennium AD, as shown by metallographic surveys, in its features and technological structure is closest to the metalworking craft of the Celts and the provinces of the Roman Empire, where the traditions of iron processing of the Celts continued and developed. This applies not only to the Vistula-Oder region, but also to the Slavic population that spread to the East European Plain. It would seem that the carriers of the Chernyakhov culture, among whom were the Slavs, should be the successors of the high skill of the Scythian artisans in the processing of ferrous metals. But it turns out that the technique of processing iron in the Chernyakhovsky population was not based on the experience of the blacksmiths of Scythia, but developed on Celtic traditions.
Pottery production of the Przewor culture was also a legacy of Celtic craft. In Lesser Poland, on a number of Przewor monuments (Igolomya, Zofipol, Tropiszów), excavations investigated several dozen bugles for firing pottery, similar in design to Celtic pottery kilns. They actively functioned already in Roman times, when pottery became widespread in the Przewor area. It is obvious that the basis for the development of pottery technology in the Vistula-Oder region was the local Celtic traditions.
Celtic influence, as shown by the Polish researcher J. Rosen-Przeworska, is manifested not only in material culture, but also in the spiritual life of the Slavs. It was so powerful that traces of this influence are found even in pagan religious buildings of the early Middle Ages. For example, the pagan cult building of the ninth to twentieth centuries and the temple building of the seventh to eighth centuries at Feldberg in the district of Neubrandeburg studied in the Slavic settlement of Gross Raden in Schwerin find analogies in the Celtic cult building. Wooden stylized figures discovered at Gross Raden find parallels in Celtic art. The temples of the Celts are also comparable to the Slavic sanctuary in Arkona on the island of Rügen, known from the descriptions of Saxon Grammaticus. It is quite obvious that the cult pagan buildings of the north-western Slavs of the early Middle Ages date back to the temple construction of the Celts of Central Europe. Moreover, J. Rosen-Przeworska sees Celtic traditions in the sculpture of a number of early Christian buildings in Poland.
No, well, what a revolutionary discovery: they had to develop in the bosom of the Scythian blacksmith traditions, but followed the Celtic! And in pottery technique Celtic motifs somehow appear. And before they were not noticed, because, following the great fasmers and non-fasmers of the Russian land, they considered medieval authors to be dreamers and fantasists, disgraceful. The buildings of the Slavs, as it turned out unexpectedly, are exactly the same as the Celtic ones. And wooden figures, you know, are already finding parallels in Celtic art. Previously not found, and now – here you go.
Of course, there is no question that the Slavs invented something of their own or used the experience of their ancestors, it’s simply inconceivable, because what savages and cannibals have inventions or traditions? Here at the Germans - yes, they have them. The Romans have them. The Greeks (this is before their last 700 years of complete stagnation, but before that - they have Socrated and Plato-ed so much!). Even the Celts can have cultural traditions and the development of crafts. But the Slavs - those are only able to borrow. And not from the first-class civilizations, but from the peripheral ones. Peasants...
However, the fact that the connection between Celtic and Slavic is established and fixed, albeit at a primitive level, is a great victory. And unsuccessful shameful attempts to draw a line between Celtic and Slavic are doubly pleasing.
It is impossible to explain within the framework of traditional history how at a certain historical stage everything Celtic suddenly abruptly and without noise became Slavic. To recognize that the Celts and Slavs are the same peoples, as medieval authors wrote, by the way, historians are not able, because the picture of the world is already well-settled and to destroy it - too expensive for everyone. Therefore, they will see the commonality and talk about the influence of the Celts on the Slavs, and they are already doing it. But the next step, most likely, will have to wait a very long time.
In 2005, an excellent
monograph by S.V. Tsvetkov entitled "
Celts and Slavs" was published. The author analyzes with heartbreaking scrupulousness all aspects of the cultural heritage of the Celts and Slavs and comes to the following conclusions:
“Look at how many similarities are found in the Slavic and Celtic tribes:
The Hyperboreans, Venetians, Neurs and Antes were mistaken by various authors for the Slavs and for the Celts, not to mention their cultural closeness and continuity. In many ways, the confusion created by ancient authors is caused by their rather contemptuous attitude towards barbarians. In addition, when dealing with the highest layer of tribes of Central Europe, where the tone was set by the Celts and Germans, they were the main informants of the Romans, the Slavic tribes were attributed to one of these two peoples, especially since the Celts themselves were not ethnically united people.
Taking into account the fact that the formation of the Slavic ethnos took place on the territory of Vistula not only with the huge cultural influence of the Celts, as evidenced by the study of the Przeworsk archaeological culture, but also there was a possible significant ethnic "infusion" of the Celts into the Proto-Slavic environment, we can say that the Slavic tribes themself, already known by this name to Byzantine, Arab and Western European sources, were a mixture of Celtic and Proto-Slavic tribes (perhaps the Venetians, who have long been part of what we today call the Celtic civilization). Moreover, it is possible that the Slavic tribes under the name of the Venetians, Andes, Lugians and, possibly, under other names were originally part of the multi-ethnic composition of the Celtic community. There is no doubt about the common anthropological type of both tribes, especially since anthropologists have
a special "Celtic-Slavic" type of skull structure. Both Celts and Slavs are connected by many purely humane characteristic features: good-naturedness, traditional hospitality, fearlessness in battle, love of dance and music, attitude to power and religion. Both of them were considered the most cruel peoples of Europe. Without going into moral and ethical assessments, let us only note that in many respects the cruelty of the Celts and Slavs was caused by religious and mystical ideas about the world, where a clear distinction between people of "their own", that is, living in the real world, and "aliens", that is, representatives of the other world. It gave reason to look at people of other tribes as "undead", which should be dealt with accordingly.
Ideas about the origin of the world and man among the Celts and Slavs are not just similar, but have deep Indo-European roots, which allows us to talk about the unusually archaic ideas of these peoples even in the I millennium AD. e. Many similar features are in the customs and rites of these two peoples, in particular, the funeral rite, and it was from the Celts that the custom came to the Slavic environment to bend the swords of buried soldiers, breaking or bending their weapons. The sacrifices offered to the various gods practically do not differ both in their systematization (bloodless sacrifices, bloody sacrifices and plant sacrifices), and in the ceremonial side, not to mention the repetition of the act of creating the world during the dismemberment of the sacrifice.
Volokhs from chronicles are Celts, whose name was used to call the Russian pagan priests Volkhvs (and most likely it was the Celts, or rather their priests-druids who were the first Russian Volkhvs, as well as, subsequently, the Greeks were the first Orthodox priests in Russia). Both the Slavs and the Celts had the power of the priests. Only after the adoption of Christianity did the situation change among both peoples, and secular power began to stand above spiritual power. Thus, the torch of ancient Celtic culture was transferred by the druids into the safe hands of the Volkhvs.
The Celts, having adopted the construction of pagan temples from the Romans, passed these traditions to the Slavs. This also applies to the construction of defensive structures. In the fortress construction of the Slavs used the same principles and the same technological techniques as the Celts.
The pagan pantheons of celts and Slavs are close. Close were also the relationship to especially revered natural objects: trees, groves, forests, springs, streams, rivers, hills, mountains, stones. Very close is the sacred, especially solar symbolism, which has common Indo-European roots.
The Celts, being the best blacksmiths in Europe, transferred knowledge to the Slavs in this industry, making them the main suppliers of iron products in Central Europe. All blacksmith and foundry technological techniques of the Slavs have roots in the Celtic world.
Celtic traditions in decorative and jewelry art were reflected in the Slavic traditions, especially in the north of Ancient Russia, which, apparently, until the late Middle Ages did not lose ties with the remnants of the previously powerful Celtic world. The closeness of Russian and Celtic traditions in the manufacture of book miniatures is striking, although, if we recall the version that the first Slavic writing, Glagolitic, was invented by an Irish monk, then this commonality of traditions becomes more understandable.
In addition to mutual influence in the pagan period, the Celts had a great influence on the Slavic countries during the formation and spread of Christianity, moreover, they laid the foundations of Byzantine and, subsequently, Russian Orthodoxy.
From all of the above, it naturally follows that the early medieval Slavs are in many ways direct descendants of the Celts and not only heirs, but also carriers of Celtic traditions and Celtic culture. The very phenomenon of the Celtic civilization, as, subsequently, slavic, in its multi-ethnicity and in the superiority of spiritual values over worldly ones. Perhaps that is why, already under the banner of Christianity, a real Celtic renaissance swept the whole of Europe. The scholarship and bookishness nurtured in irish monasteries spilled out into wild Europe, laying the foundations of poetry, prose literature and many other forms of art there. Thanks to the last remnants of the Celtic civilization on the islands, modern Europe was able to become a stronghold of world civilization. Let's not forget to whom we owe it.”
And if it were not for the bad chronology followed by the author, he would have come to exactly the same conclusion as I did on the basis of an analysis of the etymological material. However, we can definitely say that S.V. Tsvetkov (now, alas, deceased) was more astute than most historians, who did not even encroach on thinking that "the early medieval Slavs are in many ways direct descendants of the Celts and not only heirs, but also carriers of Celtic traditions and Celtic culture."
Yes, the Slavs are indeed descendants of the Celts (Gauls). As well as the Celts (Gauls) - descendants of the Slavs. Because it is the same community of people from which the professional masters of the world stole the past in order to deprive it of its future. Which is greatly successful. I want to believe that it is temporary. Nothing personal, but still...
And in order to finally draw a line under the theme of Celto-Slavic unity, I hasten to convey unlaconic greetings to all restorers of true antiquity from Bartholomew of England.
There was such a medieval author, as if of the XIII century. Living, according to contemporary historians, in France, Saxony, Bohemia, Poland and the devil knows where, bore the normal Jewish name
Bartholomew (Bar Tolmai) and, apparently, for this unearthly cosmopolitanism nicknamed Anglicus (that is, English).
So, this same learned man wrote a book "
On the Properties of Things", which sets out some ideas about the historical geography and ethnogenesis of peoples. Of course, there is no certainty that the work that appeared in the heyday of the humanistic boom did not come out from the pen of some German author of the late XV century, but let's not be petty. In any case, "On the Properties of Things" is quite an ancient work. Even if it is not of the declared XIII century.
Here is a piece from a treatise of Bartholomew of England:
"Gallatia is an area in Europe occupied by ancient Gallic tribes, from which it takes its name, as Isidore says in books IX and XV. After all, the Gauls, called to help the king of Bethynia, divided the kingdom when they brought him victory. So, then mingling with the Greeks, the Gallogreks first [formed]. Now, from the ancient name of the Gauls, they are called Gauls, and their edge is called Gallatia. And this region is the most extensive and fertile, including most of Europe, which is now called Ruthenia by many."
Wonderful, isn't it? Especially about Gallatia, which occupies most of Europe and is called Ruthenia by many. And another thing:
"Rutia, or Rutena, aka the province of Moesia, is located on the border of Asia Minor, bordered by the Roman borders to the east, Gothia to the north, Pannonia to the west, and Greece to the south. The land is huge, and the speech and language [of it] is the same as that of the Bohemians and Slavs. And it is in some part called Galatia, and its inhabitants were once called Galatians. It is said that the Apostle Paul sent a message to them. See above about Galatia."
In my opinion, it is stated bluntly that the Galatians/Gauls of Galatia speak the same language as the Slavs and Bohemians. And it was to them that the Apostle Paul sent the Epistle. And what kind of message it is, everyone already knows. Yaroslav Arkadievich Kesler explained everything very culturally to everyone (
Kesler Y.A. Where Christ was crucified and when the Apostle Paul lived). So, before whose foolish eyes was Jesus Christ crucified?
And from the same Anglicus about Latvian realities:
"Semigallia is a small province located beyond the Baltic Sea, near Ozilia and Livonia in lower Moesia(?), called this way because it is inhabited by Galatians, who captured it and mingled with the inhabitants of [this] land. That is why the Semigalls are called those who descended from the Gauls, or Galatians, and the local peoples. The land is beautiful and rich in bread, pastures and meadows, but the people are pagan and rough, harsh and cruel."
So, it seems that Latgale is from the same opera as Semigallia, aka Zemgale, the middle part of Latvia.
