Marco Polo⏤The Apostle Paul?

[Janusstark]

PART THREE​

In this respect, Ortelius's map (same with Urbano Monte's map) is more than a geographical representation. It is also a graphic representation of the international relations of its age. It illustrates the extent of exchanges between the Catholic West — symbolised by Jerusalem — and the Mongol East, influenced by the traditions of the Church of the East and symbolised by Xanadu: two poles of a shared historical narrative.

The annotation by Ortelius does not speak of a "schism" between Rome and Byzantium — this schism is a later construction, largely artificial. It refers instead to a far older and deeper difference in allegiance: that between Western Christendom (founded by Mark, and linked to Rome/Byzantium) and Eastern Christendom (founded by Thomas in distant Asia).

The accepted narrative today presents the great Christian schism as that of 1054 between Rome (Catholic) and Constantinople (Orthodox). Yet Ortelius's annotation suggests a very different fault line. In Ortelius's acceptance, it is not a schism between West and Byzantium — these two entities, within the logic of the map, are in fact aligned. The annotation specifies that the African Prester John is "obedient to Rome" (understood as the Romano-Byzantine sphere). Therefore, Mark (Africa) and Andrew (Scythia/Byzantium) belong to the same grouping.

The true division lies elsewhere: it opposes this Western coalition (Rome + Byzantium + Markan Africa) to the Eastern Christianity founded by Thomas in Asia, whose kingdom of Argon would represent it.

This Thomian Christianity, probably Nestorian, does not obey Rome — hence the annotation describing it as a "rival of Rome".

Its localisation is not imaginary. The strongest tradition places the tomb of Saint Thomas at Mylapore, near Chennai (modern-day Madras), on the Coromandel Coast of southern India, which even shows the extent of this kingdom.

The "Christians of Saint Thomas" in this region trace their origins to his apostolic mission, and local oral tradition supports this claim. Some more expansive traditions extend his journey as far as China, but the core of his missionary activity lies well beyond the Indus, in what the ancients called "India" in a broad sense — a region which, for sixteenth-century cartographers, included Tartary and the far reaches of Asia.

Martin Waldseemüller, the cartographer who in 1507 gave its name to America, corroborates this localisation. On his map, the centre of Eastern Christianity is placed in India/Afghanistan, confirming that the Thomian tradition was firmly anchored in this region. Thomas did not go to found a Church in Rome or Byzantium — he went to the ends of the known world, in far Asia.

The tradition concerning Saint Mark is equally clear, but oriented towards Africa. Saint Mark is traditionally regarded as the founder of the Church of Alexandria in Egypt, around AD 60.

He is considered the first Pope of Alexandria, that is, the first patriarch of the Coptic tradition. His tomb is located in Alexandria, although his relics were later transferred to Venice (hence the Lion of Saint Mark, symbol of the Venetian Republic).

This link between African Christianity and Mark is essential: it is through this lineage that the African Prester John (identified with Ethiopia by the Portuguese) is integrated into the Romano-Byzantine sphere of allegiance. Ethiopia, although Miaphysite, was perceived in Europe as a potential ally — a "sister" Christianity — hence the phrase "obedient to Rome" in its regard in the annotation.

Saint Mark and the African Kingdom of Prester John: an Essay on Institutional Lineage

Ortelius's map annotation refers to an African Prester John "obedient to Rome". To understand this formulation, it is not sufficient to invoke Ethiopia alone. One must trace a chain of institutional continuity linking African Christianity to the Apostle Mark, then to Byzantium, and ultimately to the Muscovite "Third Rome". This link is not direct, as in the case of Thomas and India; rather, it is hierarchical and ecclesiastical — a relationship of canonical dependence rather than primary evangelisation.

Tradition is both unanimous and ancient. Saint Mark did not go directly to Ethiopia. He established his residence in Alexandria, the great metropolis of Egypt, where he founded the Church and suffered martyrdom around AD 68. His tomb was originally in Alexandria, before his relics were transferred to Venice, which adopted him as its patron saint.

But the essential point lies elsewhere: Mark is regarded as the first Patriarch of Alexandria, the founder of the apostolic see from which the entire Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt — and, by extension, the Ethiopian Church — derives its lineage.

It is therefore not Mark himself, but his Church, that evangelised Ethiopia. The key figure in this mission was Frumentius, known to the Ethiopians as Abba Salama, "the father of peace". Frumentius was a young Christian from Tyre in Syria, thus connected to the Alexandrian milieu.

After being taken captive and later freed in Ethiopia, he organised the first Christian communities there. Around AD 330, he travelled to Alexandria to report his work. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria consecrated him as the first bishop of Ethiopia and formally sent him back as a missionary. This act is foundational: Ethiopian Christianity originates from a mission dispatched from the See of Saint Mark.

Athanasius's decision established a rule that lasted until the twentieth century. For nearly fifteen hundred years, the head of the Ethiopian Church — the Abuna — was not Ethiopian but a Coptic monk appointed by the Patriarch of Alexandria. This means that the successor of Saint Mark in Alexandria held direct authority over the Ethiopian Church.

Canonically, Ethiopia was a diocese of the Coptic Church. Only in 1959 did the Ethiopian Church obtain autocephaly. In 1994, Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria recognised the Ethiopian Patriarch as a "Second Patriarch of the See of Saint Mark". There are thus today two sister Churches claiming Mark's legacy: the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the latter having achieved emancipation after centuries of tutelage.

 

[Janusstark]

PART FOUR​

Yet the African kingdom of Prester John, in Renaissance cartographic imagination, is not limited to Ethiopia. It extends across a vast Christian continuum from Egypt to Ethiopia, including Nubia and the Great Lakes region.

This expanded conception draws on multiple sources. Early Church Fathers such as Eusebius of Caesarea described north-eastern Africa as an ancient Christian land evangelised by Mark in Alexandria and radiating southwards. Nubia — comprising Makuria, Alodia, and Nobatia — was Christian from the sixth century, filled with cathedrals and monasteries. Ethiopia, the Kingdom of Aksum, officially adopted Christianity around AD 330 under King Ezana following Frumentius's mission.

To medieval chroniclers, the entire Nile Valley — from the Mediterranean to the Ethiopian highlands — formed a coherent Christian continuum, even if its Churches followed different rites: Coptic in Egypt, Nubian in Nubia, Ethiopian in the highlands.

From the fourteenth century onward, Ethiopian embassies to Europe reinforced the idea of a powerful African Christian kingdom. Portuguese exploration later sought this kingdom along the African coast, initially confusing it with Guinea and even the Congo before eventually identifying Ethiopia through the missions of Pêro da Covilhã and Francisco Álvares.

Yet for sixteenth-century cartographers such as Abraham Ortelius, the identification remained fluid. The empire of Prester John in Africa was often depicted as stretching from Upper Egypt to Ethiopia, including Nubia and sometimes even the regions of the Great Lakes.

This vast African realm is connected to Saint Mark through a dual mechanism.

First, a direct link exists for Egypt and Alexandria: Mark founded the Church of Alexandria, the patriarchal see, and Upper Egypt falls naturally within its sphere.

Second, an indirect link exists for Nubia and Ethiopia: these regions were evangelised by missions sent from Alexandria — Frumentius for Ethiopia, Coptic missionaries for Nubia — and therefore remain canonically dependent on the Alexandrian patriarchate.

This is what Ortelius's annotation summarises through the phrase "obedient to Rome". Here "Rome" must be understood in its eastern sense — that is, Byzantium, via Alexandria. The African kingdom of Prester John is therefore not an isolated entity, but the southern extension of a wider Christian system whose spiritual head is the Patriarch of Alexandria, successor of Mark, himself in communion with Byzantium.

This continuous Christian domain — from Egypt to Ethiopia — did in fact exist between the fourth and fourteenth centuries, before collapsing under Islamic expansion. Nubian Christianity endured longest through agreements such as the Baqt, but ultimately disappeared between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. Upper Egypt saw its Christian populations shrink significantly, though remnants survived. Ethiopia remained Christian but increasingly isolated, surrounded by Muslim territories — hence its identification with Prester John.

By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Ortelius compiled his maps, this once-coherent Christian continuum no longer existed as a political reality. It survived instead as cartographic memory: a geographical myth still sought by Europeans hoping to find a Christian ally beyond the Islamic world.

Thus, when Ortelius's annotation refers to the African Prester John as "obedient to Rome", it is not because Ethiopia was directly founded by Mark, but because its mother Church — Alexandria — was. The obedience in question is institutional and apostolic: the African Church, understood as the Ethiopian realm and the broader Nile Valley continuum, is linked to Rome (Byzantium) through the apostolic chain originating in Mark, then extending through Andrew and the Eastern ecclesiastical order.

The African kingdom of Prester John is therefore not Ethiopia alone. In Renaissance cartographic imagination, it is a continuous Christian realm extending from Upper Egypt to Ethiopia, passing through Nubia, and rooted in the apostolic lineage of Mark via the patriarchate of Alexandria.

This expanded conception explains why the Portuguese, upon reaching Ethiopia, believed they had rediscovered not a remote kingdom, but the surviving fragment of a once-extensive Christian empire stretching to the Mediterranean.

Ortelius's map preserves the memory of this lost continuity. And it demonstrates that the figure of Mark, Apostle of Alexandria, functioned as the key link in a chain of authority connecting African Christianity to Byzantium — and, through the later dream of the Third Rome, to Meshec/Moscow itself along with Tubal/Tobolsk, which in turn would extend eastward into Siberia in search of the other lost kingdom, that of Thomas.

[Meshech and Tubal are biblical figures mentioned in the Old Testament, traditionally identified as sons of Japheth (one of the sons of Noah). They are now widely identified with the Mushki (Meshech) and Tabal (Tubal), groups mentioned in Assyrian records and classical texts like those of Herodotus, inhabiting areas of central and eastern Anatolia. This sounds with the Scythian affiliation, but not with the geographical location of the same Scythians, further east and north, thousands of km from Anatolia]. In the prophecy of the Book of Ezekiel 38, these peoples appear "under the rule of Gog, Prince of Magog (but we already identified Iadjudj and Madjudj = Gog and Magog = Mongol and Huns, from the Charta Rogeriana and other maps, in arctic Scythia). How facniting is the perspective of an historic contiunity between inner Africa and far eastern Asia ! Notice that French Learned Terrien de la Couperie, Joseph de Guignes or Charles de Paravey worked thoroughly on these matters.

 

[Janusstark]

Albert Étienne Jean-Baptiste Terrien de Lacouperie (1844–1894) was a French orientalist and comparative philologist, born in Normandy and later deceased in London. He is chiefly remembered for developing the theory of Sino-Babylonianism, which argued that the essential elements of ancient Chinese civilisation originated in Mesopotamia.

After spending time in Hong Kong, where he acquired a strong command of Chinese, Terrien de Lacouperie settled in London in 1879. He became a member of the Royal Asiatic Society and, in 1884, was appointed Professor of Comparative Philology at University College London.

Terrien de Lacouperie argued for an early affinity between Chinese and Akkadian. He compared Chinese characters with Akkadian hieroglyphic and cuneiform forms, and maintained that the foundations of the I Ching (Yijing, or Book of Changes) resembled the syllabaries of ancient Chaldea. According to his theory, key cultural, linguistic, and technological elements of early Chinese civilisation had been transmitted from Western Asia to China through ancient migrations.

Although his ideas were heavily criticised by prominent sinologists such as James Legge, his theory of a Mesopotamian origin for the Chinese people found a receptive audience among certain anti-Manchu Chinese nationalists, including Liang Qichao and Zhang Binglin. His ideas also gained considerable attention in Japan, where aspects of Sino-Babylonianism were discussed and, for a time, widely accepted in some intellectual circles.

Among his most significant publications are:

• The Oldest Book of the Chinese, the Yh-King (1892), in which he explored the origins and structure of the Yijing.
• Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilisation (1894), published posthumously and serving as a synthesis of his thesis that many fundamental aspects of early Chinese civilisation derived from the ancient cultures of Western Asia.

Although Sino-Babylonianism has been rejected by modern scholarship, Terrien de Lacouperie's work remains historically significant as an early attempt to trace large-scale cultural connections between China and the ancient Near East, and for its influence on intellectual and political debates in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century East Asia.

Joseph de Guignes (1721–1800) was a prominent French orientalist and sinologist, renowned for incorporating Chinese historical sources into the study of world history.
De Guignes succeeded Étienne Fourmont as Secretary-Interpreter of Oriental Languages at the Royal Library in 1745. He was appointed Professor of Syriac at the Collège de France in 1757 and later became Keeper of Antiquities at the Louvre in 1769.
He was the first scholar to identify the European Huns with the Xiongnu described in Chinese chronicles, a theory that was later popularised by Edward Gibbon. This pioneering work helped establish connections between Chinese historical records and the history of Central Eurasia.

De Guignes is also known for his monumental work, Histoire générale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongols, et des autres Tartares occidentaux (1756–1758), which sought to reconstruct the history of the great nomadic peoples of Eurasia through both Eastern and Western sources.

De Guignes advanced the theory that the Chinese were originally an Egyptian colony and that Chinese characters were related to Egyptian hieroglyphs. Although this hypothesis has long since been rejected by modern scholarship, it generated considerable debate among eighteenth-century scholars and reflected the era's growing interest in tracing the origins of civilisations through comparative linguistics and historical traditions.

His scholarly achievements earned him election to the Royal Society in 1752 and to the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres in 1754. Today, Joseph de Guignes is remembered primarily for his pioneering use of Chinese sources in the study of Eurasian history and for laying important foundations for the development of modern Sinology and Central Asian historical research.





Charles-Hippolyte de Paravey (1787–1871) was a French civil engineer, orientalist, and scholar of comparative civilisation. A graduate of the École Polytechnique and the École des Ponts ParisTech, he served as a Chief Engineer in the Corps of Bridges and Roads (Ponts et Chaussées). He is also known as one of the founders of the Société Asiatique in 1822.

Although trained as an engineer, Paravey made his greatest mark through his ethnological, historical, and comparative studies. He argued for the existence of a single cradle of civilisation and a common origin for humanity, which he believed lay in the ancient Near East. According to his theories, the major civilisations of the ancient world shared common cultural, linguistic, and astronomical traditions that could be traced back to this original centre.

Paravey's work frequently brought him into conflict with the more empirically minded and materialist scholars of his era, including figures such as Jean-Baptiste Biot and François Arago.

His research focused on identifying parallels among the constellations, writing systems, religious symbols, and mythological traditions of ancient Egypt, Chaldea, India, China, and Japan. He believed that these similarities provided evidence of a common historical and cultural origin.

His best-known publication is Illustrations de l'astronomie hiéroglyphique, in which he sought to demonstrate connections between ancient astronomical knowledge, symbolic writing systems, and religious traditions across Eurasia. Through comparative analysis of celestial symbolism and ancient iconography, he attempted to reconstruct what he considered a primordial scientific and religious heritage shared by multiple civilisations. He especially formalized the chinese early discovery of America in his essay : L'AMÉRIQUE SOUS LE NOM DE PAYS DE FOU-SANG.

Many of Paravey's hypotheses are no longer accepted by modern scholarship, particularly his diffusionist theories concerning the origin of civilisation and humanity. Nevertheless, his work remains significant as an example of nineteenth-century comparative thought, reflecting a period when scholars sought large-scale historical connections between the cultures of Europe, the Near East, and Asia. His efforts also contributed to the early development of Asian studies in France through his role in establishing the Société Asiatique.

 

[Janusstark]

PART FIVE​

To complete the picture, one must turn to the third apostle: Andrew, brother of Peter.

Tradition holds that Andrew evangelised Southern Scythia — the regions north of the Black Sea, corresponding to present-day Ukraine and southern Russia. Through this tradition, the Church of Byzantium (Constantinople) claims a direct apostolic foundation. Andrew is regarded as the founder of the Church of Constantinople, the "Second Rome".

On early maps, Scythia is generally placed north of the Black Sea, extending eastwards towards the Urals and beyond, into Tartary and hyperborean regions. This is the region that would later become the heart of Muscovite Russia/Rusia orda (not our modern Russia, as Muscovy extended from Rus' to the rings of Yenissei and Ob, from the White Sea to the Caspian, including Sibir/Tobolsk (the capital), Kazan and Astracan).

After the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453, Andrew's legacy was claimed by Muscovy. The monk Philotheus of Pskov formulated the doctrine: "Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth."

The first Rome (pagan and later papal) fell into heresy. The second Rome (Constantinople) fell to the infidels. The third Rome is Moscow, guardian of the true Orthodox faith — and heir to Andrew's apostolic mission in Scythia.

On early maps, this region is often labelled with evocative toponyms: Muscovy, Inner Scythia, or even Muscovite Tartary. The Volga (known in antiquity as the Rha) appears as a major axis linking Andrew's lands to the far reaches of Asia.

The picture is now complete. The three apostles divide the world, but their allegiances are in tension:

Thomas — Far Asia (India, Tartary, possibly China) — Argon kingdom / Nestorian Church — Independent, rival to Rome — India/Afghanistan (Waldseemüller), edges of Tartary.

Mark — Africa (Alexandria, then Ethiopia) — Church of Alexandria / Coptic Church — "Obedient to Rome" (Byzantine sphere) — Alexandria, Ethiopia.

Andrew — Scythia (north of the Black Sea, later Russia) — Byzantine Orthodox tradition — "Eastern Rome", later Third Rome (Moscow) — Scythia, Muscovy, Black Sea region.

The Western coalition (Mark + Andrew) is thus aligned with the Romano-Byzantine sphere. Markan Africa and Andrew's Scythia belong to the same bloc. Opposed to it stands Thomian Christianity in Asia — Nestorian, independent — which forms the other pole.

It is within this framework that Marco Polo's mission must be understood. His very name — Marco Polo — evokes the two apostolic figures of the Western coalition: Mark (evangeliser of Africa, obedient to Rome) and Paul (apostle of the Gentiles, founder of Western Churches). Marco Polo is literally the "messenger of Mark and Paul" — that is, the spokesperson of Western Christendom.

His diplomatic mission is therefore clear: to carry the goodwill of the Western bloc (Catholics and Orthodox aligned, with African Christianity included) towards the Eastern Christianity founded by Thomas — but belonging to a different allegiance (Nestorian). The aim is to restore contact, reopen dialogue, and if possible establish alliance.

The political context is that of the rising power of Islamic kingdoms across the medieval world:

In Africa, Islamic expansion threatens Christian Ethiopia.
In Iberia, the Reconquista is nearing its end (Granada falls in 1492).
In Asia, Turkish and Mongol sultanates — many of them Muslim — press upon Nestorian Christian kingdoms.

The kingdom of Argon (Prester John of Asia) is seen as a potential ally in this struggle. Marco Polo is the messenger attempting to rebuild the bridge between the two branches of Christianity: that of Thomas (Nestorian) and that of Mark/Andrew (Romano-Byzantine).

Meshec/Moscow's claim to be the "Third Rome" fits into the same logic. Russia, heir to Andrew, presents itself as the defender of the true Orthodox faith against Islamic expansion (the Ottomans) and Catholic deviation (the first Rome).

On early maps, this Third Rome is located precisely in the Scythia evangelised by Andrew. Russian chronicles — such as the Primary Chronicle — claim that Andrew travelled up the Dnieper to the site of future Kiev, then to Novgorod, blessing the land of Rus'.

Thus Andrew founds Byzantium (Second Rome), and his legacy is later claimed by Moscow (Third Rome). And in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this Third Rome expands eastwards into Siberia — into the very regions where early maps placed the Thomian kingdom of Argon, the lost tribes of Arsareth, and the peoples of Gog and Magog.

 

[Janusstark]

PART SIX​

Conclusion

Ortelius's annotation does not describe the supposed schism between Rome and Byzantium — a schism largely retroactively constructed by later historiography. It instead refers to a much older and deeper distinction: that between Western Christianity (Mark and Andrew, aligned with Rome/Byzantium) and Eastern Christianity (Thomas, Nestorian, located at the far edges of Asia).

Marco Polo — Mark-Paul — is the messenger of this Western coalition, carrying its diplomatic and religious outreach towards the lost Thomian kingdom in Asia. His name itself is programmatic: it symbolises the attempt to restore contact between the two poles of Christianity in the face of Islamic expansion.

The Third Rome (Meshec/Moscow), heir to Andrew, continues this trajectory eastwards into Siberia — the very lands where early cartography placed Argon, Asrareth, and Gog and Magog (BTW, until today, this is the region among all on the territory of Russia where the autonomous Jewish Republic of Russia is located). Ortelius's map is therefore not merely a geographical document: it is a theological and diplomatic diagram, tracing the fractures and possible alliances of Christendom at the dawn of the modern age.

There is therefore far more to be said about the children's game Marco Polo than might at first appear.

Once upon a time, there was a kingdom said to have been founded by the Apostle Thomas, ruled by a figure named John, and visited by Mark and Paul. This concentration of apostolic names could hardly be more intriguing in the context I have just outlined.

Whether coincidental, symbolic, or reflective of older narrative traditions, the convergence of Thomas, John, Mark, Andrew and Paul within the same geographical and historical framework invites closer examination. It is a striking pattern, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the religious and cartographic traditions discussed above.

 

[Janusstark]

I now dare this analysis :

ONE​

From the Griffin to the Helmet: How the West Betrayed the Mongols and Russia Inherited the Empire

The Founding Insult: Genghis Khan and Prester John

To understand the affront that would reshape the geopolitical balance of Eurasia and give rise to the European myth of Prester John, one must first identify the historical figure behind the legend. Medieval chroniclers, notably William of Rubruck and Marco Polo, identified the famous Asian "Prester John" with Toghrul, a powerful ruler of the Keraites, a Turco-Mongol tribe of central Mongolia. The Keraites were predominantly Nestorian Christians, which helped fuel the legend of a lost Christian kingdom in the heart of Asia. Toghrul bore the Chinese honorific title Wang ("king"), which Western accounts transformed into Ong Khan ("King John").

At the beginning of his rise to power, Genghis Khan—then known as Temüjin—regarded Toghrul as an adoptive father and powerful ally. Together they fought to unite the Mongol tribes. This quasi-filial relationship, forged through blood debts and alliances tested by hardship, made the subsequent rupture all the more devastating.

In steppe culture, a marriage proposal between ruling families was far more than a diplomatic formality. It sealed alliances, defined hierarchies, and established relations of vassalage. A refusal, especially one delivered with contempt, was interpreted as an open challenge and a declaration of hostility. Scholars of the Mongol Empire have noted that when a suzerain refused to give his daughter in marriage to a vassal, it was considered a grave insult. Such customs structured diplomatic relations across the steppe, where personal honour and loyalty outweighed written treaties.

This was the heart of the affront. In 1203, as Temüjin's power grew and he began to rival his former protector, he proposed a dynastic alliance. He asked for the hand of one of Ong Khan's daughters in marriage. Toghrul, increasingly influenced by his son Senggüm, rejected the proposal with disdain. Not only did he refuse, but he did so in a manner perceived as a profound personal insult, revealing the low esteem in which he held his former ally—who would soon become his overlord through force of arms.

What transformed this diplomatic rejection into an existential betrayal was what followed. Convinced by his son, Toghrul laid a trap for Temüjin. Pretending to accept the alliance, he invited him to a celebratory banquet. Trusting the word of the man he still regarded as a father, Temüjin set out with only a small escort. He escaped the ambush only because two shepherds overheard the Keraite plans and warned him in time. The ensuing battle ended in defeat for Temüjin, but Toghrul, perhaps underestimating his former protégé's resilience, chose not to pursue him. It proved a fatal mistake.

This sudden reversal—inviting and then betraying him—was viewed by Temüjin as the ultimate treachery. The bond of adoptive father and son was sacred, governed by oaths that, in steppe logic, were never to be broken. The insult of 1203 shattered that bond. Temüjin regrouped, swore the famous oath of Baljuna with his most loyal companions, and returned to crush the Keraites. By autumn 1203 he had defeated them. Toghrul was killed while fleeing towards the lands of the Naimans.

The destruction of the Christian Keraite kingdom marked a decisive turning point: Prester John was dead, and in his place emerged the Mongol power, now without rival on the steppe. Within a matter of months, the kingdom of Prester John disappeared beneath Mongol arms. Temüjin continued his conquests, destroyed the Naimans in 1204, and was proclaimed Genghis Khan in 1206. From this humiliation was born his determination to conquer and never again depend upon a suzerain. It was the birth of the Mongol Empire and the end of organised Christian power in Central Asia.

A fascinating detail concerns the transmission of the story. Nestorian monks amplified and transformed the legend. By emphasising its Christian and wondrous aspects, they obscured the reality of a bloody conflict between a Nestorian Christian ruler and a pagan shamanist rival, preferring to tell the story of a chosen people brought low by divine will rather than by the strength of a competitor. Thus, the affront was not merely the rejection of a marriage alliance. It symbolised the end of a Christian kingdom in Asia and the birth of the Mongol power that would go on to subjugate Eurasia.

 

[Janusstark]

TWO​

Marco Polo: The Mission After the Affront

But Marco Polo came later, did he not ? His mission must therefore be understood as part of the aftermath of this unhappy development between the eastern kingdom of Prester John, now dominated by the Khan, and the orphaned western kingdom of Prester John, desperately in need of support amid the remnants of a rival Christendom facing Muslim expansion.

The chronology is crucial. The conflict between Genghis Khan and Toghrul occurred in 1203. Marco Polo was born around 1254 and departed for Asia in 1271, nearly seventy years after the fall of Prester John's kingdom. The "Prester John" he encountered in stories was therefore no longer a reigning sovereign but already a legendary figure whose history survived through oral tradition.

The diplomatic mission of the Polos fits directly into the aftermath of these events. During the first journey of Niccolò and Maffeo Polo, Kublai Khan asked them to bring holy oil from the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and learned Christians to his court. Kublai Khan, grandson of Genghis, was renowned for his religious tolerance. Marco Polo reports that he welcomed Christians and requested their prayers. Kublai may have sought closer ties with Western Christendom, especially since Nestorian Christianity was already present within his empire.

By the time Marco Polo travelled, the geopolitical landscape had changed dramatically. Some Mongol rulers had converted to Islam, particularly the Ilkhans of Persia and the Golden Horde. The Muslim world was no longer merely an external adversary; it now existed within the successor khanates of the Mongol Empire itself.

Venice and Its Griffin: The Symbolic Legacy of the Affront

It is in this context that Venice enters the story. The Serenissima Republic, through its merchants, explorers, and diplomats, served as one of the principal gateways between the West and Asia. Its Black Sea trading posts, treaties with the Mongols, and role in transmitting Marco Polo's accounts made it a power intimately familiar with the mysteries of Tartary.

On early maps, Tartary is frequently populated with mythical creatures, among them the griffin. In travellers' accounts, medieval bestiaries, and the cartographic decorations of figures such as Gerardus Mercator and Abraham Ortelius, the griffin symbolises territories beyond the mountains, at the threshold of the unknown. It marks the limits of the known world and the entry into lands associated with Gog and Magog, the Lost Tribes of Israel, and the Thomist kingdom of Argon.

Venice itself never displayed a griffin directly in its official heraldry. Its emblem was the winged lion of Saint Mark, often accompanied by an intertwined serpent. Yet the combination of the lion's body and eagle's wings with the serpent's tail can be read symbolically as a complete griffin. In this interpretation, the coded griffin becomes the hidden signature of Venetian influence over the routes leading to Tartary which unified symbole was the actual griffin.

The purpose of this symbolic griffin, according to this interpretation, was to encourage Mongol intervention on behalf of the Christian West against Muslim powers. Venice presented itself as the hub of a grand anti-Islamic alliance, in which Western Christians and Mongols would unite against a common foe.

Yet the arrangement proved one-sided. Mongol rulers repeatedly sought alliances with the West, and some even promised to restore Jerusalem to Christian control in exchange for military cooperation. However, the West never fully reciprocated. Mongol diplomatic correspondence often demanded submission rather than mere partnership. The famous letter of Güyük Khan to Pope Innocent IV explicitly required obedience.

According to this interpretation, Western powers promised alliance, conversion, cooperation, and support, but delivered little. Kublai Khan requested a hundred learned Christians; only two were sent, and they soon turned back. The opportunity for a lasting alliance was lost.

When the Mongols realised that the West sought their military assistance without genuine reciprocity, they increasingly turned elsewhere. Some Mongol rulers converted to Islam, most notably Ghazan Khan in 1295. The irony is striking: in attempting to use the Mongols against Islam, the West may have helped push sections of the Mongol world towards Islam itself.

 

[Janusstark]

THREE​

Russia as Heir, back then as nowadays

The final stage of this narrative concerns Russia's inheritance of Mongol imperial traditions. Russian regalia preserve striking examples of the coexistence of Christian and Islamic symbols.

The famous Cap of Monomakh, long regarded as a symbol of Russian sovereignty, is now widely understood to have Eastern origins, likely connected to the Golden Horde. Similarly, ceremonial helmets associated with rulers such as Ivan IV of Russia and Alexander Nevsky bear Arabic inscriptions and Qur'anic verses alongside Orthodox imagery.

In this interpretation, such objects were not seen as contradictory. Rather, they reflected an inherited language of imperial legitimacy derived from the steppe empires. The tsars adopted and repurposed these symbols as heirs to the political traditions of the khans.

The helmet of Ivan the Terrible is incrusted with Qur'anic verses glorifying Allah. The helmet attributed to Alexander Nevsky, in the Kremlin Armoury, bears the inscription "Make the believers rejoice" from Surah 61. The helmet of Tsar Michael I, crafted by Nikita Davydov in 1621, juxtaposes an Orthodox cross and the Archangel Michael with the Muslim profession of faith: "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet."

Why would Orthodox rulers preserve such inscriptions on their ceremonial regalia? The answer is that these symbols were not perceived as alien. They were the marks of legitimate imperial power, inherited from the masters of the steppes. As one analyst expressed it, the khanates were the masters, and what came from the Horde was synonymous with quality, power, and supreme authority. It was a sign of the adoption of Ilam by the Mongols we just talked before.

For the tsars, there was no contradiction in praying to a Christian God while surrounding themselves with the symbols of Muslim authority. Contrary to the Western notion of a "clash of civilisations", Russia constructed an empire in which Islam became an essential pillar of Orthodox Russia. The Russian state did not hesitate to demand the loyalty of its Muslim subjects in the name of Allah and His Prophet. By presenting themselves as protectors of Islam and arbiters of disputes among Muslims, the tsars secured the support of local religious elites.

Thus, these artefacts represent not trophies of war taken from enemies, but rather insignia of Mongol imperial power that the tsars naturally integrated into their own regalia as heirs to the khans. Wearing these helmets was not an act of apostasy but an affirmation of sovereignty: they displayed the same source of power as their predecessors, the great khans of the Golden Horde, who had ruled those territories long before they became "Russian".

 

[Janusstark]

FOUR​

Conclusion

These artefacts suggest a world far more interconnected than later narratives often imply. While Western Europe developed myths about Tartary, Prester John, and distant Christian allies, Russia inherited elements of the Mongol imperial legacy directly. The griffin of Tartary, the legends of Prester John, the diplomatic missions of the Polos, and the regalia of the tsars all become part of a broader story linking medieval Christendom, the Mongol Empire, and the evolving political order of Eurasia.

They reveal a language of power in which symbols, religions, and empires intertwined—one that neither fit neatly into later notions of a clash of civilisations nor into the simplified narratives that would emerge in subsequent centuries.

What Venice had attempted through its coded griffin—to draw the Mongols into an anti-Islamic alliance—failed because of Western bad faith. The Mongols converted to Islam, and it was their Russian heirs who preserved the symbols of that empire. The Cap of Monomakh, the helmet of Ivan the Terrible, the helmet of Alexander Nevsky, the helmet of Michael I—all are silent witnesses to this historical synthesis.

They tell us that while the West was constructing a myth of the Griffin in an attempt to conquer the East, the Mongol East and its Russian heirs were forging a real empire, where Qur'anic verses and Orthodox crosses coexisted on the head of the same sovereign. They thus spoke a language of power that the West took centuries to understand: that of a sovereignty which does not need to erase the signs of the other to affirm its own, but rather interlaces them like the verses of a single imperial book.

There is therefore far more to be said about the children's game Marco Polo than might at first appear. Once upon a time, there was a kingdom said to have been founded by the Apostle Thomas, ruled by a figure named John, and visited by Mark and Paul. This concentration of apostolic names could hardly be more intriguing in the context just outlined. Whether coincidental, symbolic, or reflective of older narrative traditions, the convergence of Thomas, John, Mark, Andrew, and Paul within the same geographical and historical framework invites closer examination. It is a striking pattern, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the religious and cartographic traditions discussed above.

 

[HELLBOY]

PART ONE​

There is indeed, on Ortelius' Tartariae sive Magni Chami Regni, a note in Latin:

I have several pieces of information that I would like to add to this investigation. In fact, there are quite a few, and they could easily be developed into multiple separate topics, but for now I will present them together.

The Ortelius map alone raises numerous questions. It is dated to 1570, very close to 1587, when Urbano Monte produced his famous world map. Yet Ortelius chose to focus a significant amount of attention on Tartaria and, in particular, on the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Why? From what I have read, Ortelius was not even Jewish.

If we take the Assyrian conquest of the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BC as our reference point and calculate forward to AD 1570, we arrive at approximately 2,291 years. In other words, for a sixteenth-century cartographer, the Ten Tribes would have been lost for more than two millennia. This raises an obvious question: why did they continue to appear on maps of the period as though some geographical memory of them still survived?

But the map is not the only element that has caught my attention. I am also looking closely at the Göktürks as potentially important actors in this story. Their presence in Central Asia, their runic script, their connections to the Eurasian steppes, and their possible relationship to other peoples mentioned on early maps may provide additional clues for understanding the links between Tartaria, the Lost Tribes, and the historical traditions that seem to reappear across Eurasia.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The Göktürk Khaganate is officially regarded as the origin of many modern Turkic languages. However, there is one detail that rarely receives much attention. Its rulers used their own runic writing system, carved into stone monuments across the remote steppes of Mongolia. How did such a sophisticated script emerge in a region supposedly isolated from the great centers of learning of the ancient world? More importantly, how much of its history has been lost between the centuries?

The Orkhon inscriptions reveal the existence of an advanced political structure, a clearly defined cultural identity, and a literary tradition that seems to appear almost suddenly in the historical record.

Even more intriguing is the fact that numerous languages spoken today—from Turkey to Siberia and Central Asia—trace their origins back to this ancient empire. Turks, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Tatars, Uzbeks, and Uyghurs share linguistic roots that point toward a common ancestral past.

It is not that the runic alphabet itself survived. The script eventually disappeared and was replaced by Arabic, Cyrillic, and later Latin alphabets. What survived was the language. The Orkhon inscriptions (8th century AD) are written in an early form of Turkic known as Old Turkic, which is considered the ancestor of much of the Turkic language family spoken today.

The Orkhon stones can be seen as a snapshot of a common ancestor. Over more than a thousand years, the languages diverged into separate branches while preserving many similar words, grammatical structures, and linguistic features.

From a historical perspective, the Göktürk inscriptions represent the earliest known written testimony of a clearly defined Turkic identity. This is why some researchers ask an intriguing question: if by the 8th century there already existed such a developed language, a unique writing system, and a vast empire stretching across Central Asia, how long had that civilization been evolving before it suddenly appeared in the historical record?
Göktürks - Wikipedia

Continuing with the subject of the Goths, Gothic peoples, and their possible connections to the Tribes of Israel, the map contains two particularly intriguing annotations:
Verify Access

ARSARETH. According to the inscription, the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel withdrew to this region and later settled in the territory that would eventually be occupied by the Tartars. The text further states that from there they were called "Gauthi" or "Gauthay", supposedly in order to proclaim the supreme glory of God, and that from this same tradition emerged the famous Kingdom of Cathay. This claim is especially striking because it appears to connect the Lost Tribes, the Goths, and the peoples of Central Asia within a single historical narrative.

ARGON. This was once a Christian kingdom known as the realm of Prester John in Asia, established there by Saint Thomas in correspondence with the Roman Church through the African Prester John, who was said to be obedient to Rome. The text adds an intriguing detail: before being conquered by the Goths, this kingdom was known as "Criue Romo." The meaning of this name remains open to interpretation, as it may refer to an ancient designation connected with Rome, a Roman cross, or some forgotten tradition.

By the way, there is a very interesting thread that seems to connect many of these elements: Christianity, ancient maps, the Tribes of Israel, Tartaria, and Genghis Khan. When the references to Arsareth, Cathay, the Goths, Prester John, and the routes of Central Asia are examined together, they raise questions about possible historical, religious, and cartographic connections that are rarely discussed in conventional historiography.
The Inuit, Thule, & Tartarians - Was Jengiz Kaan The 2nd Coming Of Christ?

​

The "Kingdom of Argon" and Prester John​

In many medieval accounts related to Marco Polo, a kingdom called Argon, Argun, Arghun, or Argo appears, associated with the Nestorian Christians of Central Asia. Some alternative researchers have attempted to connect it with Aragon in Spain, but conventional historiography does not consider them to be the same place.

As for "Criue Romue," the exact spelling on the map would need to be examined carefully. On ancient maps, Latin transcriptions can be misleading. It could refer to a "Cross of Rome" (Crux Romana), "Roman Curia" (Curia Romana), or something entirely different depending on the cartographer.

The key question is the one you raise:

Which Rome?

Because in many medieval texts, several "Romes" coexisted:

• Rome in Italy.
• Constantinople (the Second Rome).
• Moscow (the Third Rome).
• And some alternative traditions even identify other "Romes" in Asia or around the Bosporus.

---

The Wolf: Göktürks, Romulus, and Remus​

Here we find a genuine parallel.

The Göktürks had the myth of Asena, the she-wolf who rescued the ancestor of the Turkish nation.

The Romans had the Capitoline Wolf who nursed Romulus and Remus.

Various steppe peoples—Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, and some Thracian and Dacian groups—also displayed strong wolf symbolism.

For this reason, some researchers have suggested that the Roman wolf myth may preserve elements of much older steppe traditions.

This is not a widely accepted theory, but the similarity is striking.

---

Romania, Rome, and the Romanians​

Officially:

• Romania derives from Romanus ("Roman").
• The Romanian language is classified as a Romance language.

However, the territory of ancient Dacia remained deeply connected to steppe populations for centuries.
Dacia - Wikipedia

This has led some alternative authors to ask:

Did the concept of Rome spread from Italy into the steppes, or did the steppes preserve an older Roman tradition of their own?

This is precisely the type of question raised by Anatoly Fomenko and other revisionist authors.

---

The Double-Headed Eagle​

The chronology here is fascinating.

The symbol existed long before Byzantium:

• The Hittites of Anatolia.
• Various Mesopotamian cultures.
• Armenia.
• Central Asia.

Later it appears in:

• The Byzantine Empire.
• The Seljuks of Rum.
• The Holy Roman Empire.
• Russia.

Therefore, Byzantium did not invent the double-headed eagle.

What is particularly interesting is that the Seljuks of Rum made extensive use of it in Anatolia.
Seljuk Empire - Wikipedia

View attachment 36470
View attachment 36471

 

[HELLBOY]

The Sultanate of Rum​

This point is extremely important.

The Seljuks conquered large portions of Byzantine Anatolia.

They named their state:

The Sultanate of Rum

The word Rum literally means:

"Rome"

in medieval Islamic usage.

This is because Anatolia was regarded as Roman territory.

For that reason, the Sultans of Rum presented themselves as rulers of the former Roman lands.

---

A Larger Pattern​

If all these elements are brought together:

• The she-wolf Asena.
• The wolf of Romulus and Remus.
• Scythian and Dacian wolf cults.
• The Göktürk runic script.
• Germanic runic scripts.
• The Seljuks of Rum.
• The double-headed eagle in Anatolia, Byzantium, and Russia.
• Prester John in Central Asia.
• Tartaria on early maps.

A broader question emerges:

What if the Eurasian steppes were not merely a peripheral region receiving symbols from other civilizations, but one of the major centers from which many traditions later associated with Rome, Byzantium, the Turks, and the Germanic peoples actually spread?

This is one of the recurring questions that arises when studying ancient maps, Tartaria, Scythia, and the interconnected cultures of Eurasia.

​

Upper Text (about Tabor)

"Tabor, or Tybur, the central region of all the Tartars, where, although they once lost their sacred books, they nevertheless remain united under a single king. In 1540, this king came to France before King Francis I and later paid the penalty for his infidelity at Mantua by order of Charles V, because he secretly sought to convert Christian princes to Judaism, a matter he had also discussed with Charles V himself."

Text beside the tent (Magnus Cham)

"The Great Cham (which in the language of the Tartars means 'Emperor'), the most powerful prince in Asia."

Lower Text (Mons Althay)

"Mount Althay, where all the Tartar emperors are buried. It appears to correspond to the place described by Hayton the Armenian under the name Belgia."

---

The Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 through the Edict of Granada issued by the Catholic Monarchs. Officially, the reason was religious: the authorities claimed that the Jewish presence influenced converted Christians and hindered the religious unity of the kingdom. However, for those who question the conventional historical narrative, an inevitable question arises: if the Jews represented a relatively small minority, why did so many European kingdoms spend centuries expelling them, monitoring them, or restricting their activities? What exactly were rulers afraid of?

Spain was not an isolated case. Jews were expelled from England in 1290, from France on several occasions during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, as well as from numerous German principalities, Italian regions, and other European territories. In some places they were allowed to return centuries later; in others they remained excluded for generations. This suggests that distrust toward Jewish communities was not exclusively a Spanish phenomenon but one that was widespread throughout Europe. Official explanations typically cite religious differences, moneylending activities, economic conflicts, accusations of external loyalties, and broader social tensions.

During the Habsburg period, particularly under the reigns of Charles V and Philip II, suspicion toward Jews and conversos remained strong. The Inquisition closely monitored those accused of secretly practicing Judaism. Even several generations after conversion, the doctrine of "purity of blood" (limpieza de sangre) could restrict access to public office, military orders, and prestigious positions. This institutional distrust persisted in Spain for centuries and only began to weaken gradually during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the rise of Enlightenment reforms and modern political transformations.

What is especially intriguing is that the map mentions a supposed Tartar king associated with Judaism who allegedly traveled to Europe during the reign of Charles V in an attempt to attract Christian princes to the Jewish faith. If the inscription reflects a genuine belief of the period, it would suggest that some sixteenth-century cartographers and chroniclers associated certain regions of Tartaria, the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and particular Jewish traditions within the same geographical and historical framework. It is precisely these kinds of references that make Ortelius's map such a fascinating source for those investigating possible connections between Tartaria, the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and the forgotten narratives of medieval Eurasia.

I do not know whether Tabor or Tybur might be related to present-day Tobolsk and, in some way, to Sibir. I also wonder whether they could have any connection to the biblical Tubal.

Tubal is a figure mentioned in the Bible as one of the sons of Japheth, grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:2), and also the name of a people associated with distant northern regions known for the trade of metals. In the Book of Ezekiel, Meshech and Tubal frequently appear together, linked to powerful nations located at the edges of the known world.

The most widely accepted academic interpretation identifies them with the peoples of Tabal and the Mushki of Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), who are also mentioned in Assyrian sources. However, some alternative researchers have proposed connections with much more northern regions, including Russia, Tobolsk, and Siberia, based on certain phonetic similarities between "Tubal" and modern place names.

Although this latter hypothesis is not accepted by conventional historiography, it is noteworthy that several ancient maps, especially those associated with Tartaria, place peoples connected with the Lost Tribes of Israel, Gog and Magog, Meshech, and Tubal in regions that would later be associated with Siberia and the vast Eurasian steppes. This raises an intriguing question: are these merely phonetic coincidences and cartographic reinterpretations, or do these names preserve the memory of much older geographical traditions?
SH Archive - The city of Sibir: ancient capital of the Tartars

 

[HELLBOY]

​

Region of TURKESTAN

"From where the allies of the Ten Tribes on this side of the mountains were called by the Persians, 900 years ago, against the arms of the Ishmaelites of Muhammad."

If we follow the conventional historical chronology:

• The Hephthalites (White Huns) reached the height of their power during the 5th and 6th centuries.
• They were defeated around 560 AD by the alliance of the Göktürks and the Sasanian Persians.
• At that time, Persia was Zoroastrian.
• Muhammad was born around 570 AD.
• Islam emerged during the 7th century.

Therefore, according to the accepted chronology, the Hephthalites could not have been fighting against the "Ishmaelites of Muhammad" in the 5th century, because Islam did not yet exist.

• Danites → Denmark
• Naphtalites → Hephthalites
• The Ten Lost Tribes → Central Asia
• Gog and Magog → Tartary
• Göktürks → Runic script
• Germanic peoples → Runic script
• Siberia and Scythia → Locations of biblical tribes on numerous historical maps.

​

"They were called Naphtalites after the tribe of Naphtali of Israel, and after the Danites, who in the punishment of the North came to be called Danes, because of Bilhah [the handmaid] of Rachel. They were placed second after the Hudos or Jews, and in the Year of Grace 476 they emerged victorious against the Persians; others mistakenly call them Hephthalites."

Contextual Notes​

Naphtalites / Hephthalites:
The text attempts to connect the Hephthalites (known in history as the White Huns of Central Asia) with the biblical tribe of Naphtali.

Imaginary Etymology:
The author employs a mythical geographical framework common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, linking Scandinavian peoples (such as the Danes or Danmarcki) with the Lost Tribes of Israel, particularly the tribe of Dan.

The Hephthalites, known to historians as the White Huns, were a powerful confederation that dominated much of Central Asia during the fifth and sixth centuries. The term "White Huns" was not their own name; it was a designation used by Persian, Byzantine, and Indian writers to distinguish them from other Hunnic groups.
Hephthalites - Wikipedia

The association relies largely on phonetic similarities between names such as Naphtali, Naphtalite, and Hephthalite. Some alternative researchers have suggested that certain peoples of Central Asia may have been connected to the Lost Tribes of Israel, although this remains outside mainstream historical scholarship.

Regarding Persia, the Hephthalites were indeed among the greatest enemies of the Sasanian Persian Empire, but this occurred before the rise of Islam. During the fifth century they defeated the Persians several times and even killed the Sasanian king Peroz I in 484 AD. For decades they forced Persia to pay tribute.

Later, an alliance between the Sasanian Empire and the Göktürks destroyed Hephthalite power around 560 AD. Therefore, when the Hephthalites fought against Persia, the Persians were Zoroastrians, not Muslims. Islam would not emerge until approximately a century later, during the seventh century.
----------------------------------

Bilhah (or Bilha) was the handmaid of Rachel. According to the biblical narrative, Rachel was unable to bear children for many years, so she gave Bilhah to Jacob in order to have descendants on her behalf, a practice that also appears in other accounts from the ancient Near East.

The sons that Bilhah bore to Jacob were:

• Dan
• Naphtali (Naphtali is precisely the tribe that some alternative authors attempt to connect with names such as Naphtalites or Hephthalites, although this connection is not accepted by conventional historiography.)

The biblical genealogy is therefore:

Jacob → husband
Rachel → principal wife
Bilhah → Rachel's handmaid
Dan and Naphtali → Bilhah's biological sons, but legally regarded as Rachel's children

Later, Rachel would have her own sons:

• Joseph
• Benjamin

What the map's text claims is that:

• The Danites (the tribe of Dan, son of Bilhah) migrated north after the captivity of Israel.
• Their name supposedly evolved into Dani, Danes, or Danes of Denmark.
• The Naphtalites (the tribe of Naphtali, also a son of Bilhah) became another branch of the same migration.
• The map's author argues that others incorrectly call them Hephthalites, suggesting that the proper name should be Naphtalites, derived from Naphtali.

Following this logic, the cartographer is constructing a kind of biblical genealogy of Eurasia:

Bilhah
↓
Dan → Danites → Danes → Denmark
↓
Naphtali → Naphtalites → Central Asia / Caspian Region

Historically, the Hephthalites (White Huns) did indeed defeat the Sasanian Persians during the fifth century, even killing King Peroz I in 484 AD. They were later destroyed around 560 AD by an alliance between:

• The Sasanian Persians (who were Zoroastrians)
• The Göktürks

One particularly intriguing detail is that the Göktürks and various Germanic peoples share a striking visual characteristic:

• The Göktürks used the Orkhon script (often called Turkic runes).
• The Goths, Vikings, and other Germanic peoples used Germanic runic alphabets.

Conventional scholarship considers these writing systems to be independent developments, although both feature angular characters well suited for carving into stone, wood, or metal.

This raises an interesting question: Why did some sixteenth- and seventeenth-century cartographers connect the Danes with Dan, the Naphtalites with Naphtali, Gog and Magog with Tartary, and the Lost Tribes with Scythia and Siberia?

For them, these were not isolated coincidences. They were attempting to fit the history of Europe and Asia into a vast biblical narrative of migrations, linking ancient peoples, medieval kingdoms, and distant regions of Eurasia to the genealogies found in Scripture.
--------------------------------------------

The figure of Tomyris, the queen of the Massagetae who defeated Cyrus the Great, presents certain symbolic parallels with Rachel and her handmaid Bilhah, the mothers of Dan and Naphtali in the biblical tradition. There is no accepted historical evidence identifying them as the same person; however, from a comparative perspective, it is striking that the peoples later associated with Dan and Naphtali are placed by some maps and chroniclers precisely in the regions of Scythia, the Caspian, and Central Asia.
Tomyris - Wikipedia

In this interpretation, Tomyris may represent the transformed memory of a great steppe matriarch. Just as Rachel occupies a central role in the genealogy of Israel, Tomyris appears as a founding and protective figure of her people. Furthermore, some medieval traditions attempted to connect the Danites with the peoples of northern Europe and the Naphtalites with the tribe of Naphtali, creating a narrative bridge between the Lost Tribes and the peoples of the Eurasian steppes.

The comparison becomes even more intriguing when we observe that both the Massagetae of Tomyris and the Hephthalites defeated and killed major Persian rulers in virtually the same geographical region. In both accounts we find a steppe people, a confrontation with Persia, and a victory that would have seemed impossible against one of the great powers of the age. The parallels are not proof of a direct connection, but they do create an interesting pattern.

If we also consider the cartographic traditions that linked Scythia, Tartary, Gog and Magog, and the Lost Tribes of Israel, a recurring theme begins to emerge. Some researchers regard these repetitions as remnants of older historical memories preserved through maps, legends, and genealogical traditions, while others view them as examples of how medieval and Renaissance scholars attempted to fit the peoples of Eurasia into a broader biblical framework.