"Tartaria" is a myth and didn't exist

[trismegistus]

I'm taking another dive into google books this morning, specifically for the time periods 1750-1840 to see if there are other works that emulate the thoughts of Priest and Gatch. Frustratingly, most are in other languages and my system of translation is shoddy at best, I'll continue to update as I find more. However I did still find some interesting things about Tartaria (though not explicitly connected to American settlement or origins), which I think help support the idea that Tartaria was indeed a nation with Kings, armies, and social structure contrary to the narrative that they were just nomadic steppe horse riders.

On Tartars and the destruction of Moscow:

Apparently Russians owed tribute to the Tartarian Emperor...this doesn't really support the narrative that they were a loose association of tribes. "If you don't pay me I will send 100,000 horse lords to your door" sounds like a threat that only a great empire could make on another.

Another interesting nugget - though admittedly someone who is actually familiar with Latin can hopefully translate this better, as I am relying on a machine to do it for me.

Index Rerum in Apocalypsi Revelata. Ex operibus posthumis Emanuelis Swedenborgii. [Edited by J. A. Tulk.]

Great Tartary is described in Asia from speech with spirits and angels, who are from there; and that with them the Word is ancient, n. 11

This book appears to be theological in nature, so its no surprise that this definition made its way in here. I am curious why Tartaria is an ancient word for "speech with angels who are from Great Tartary", if the translation is correct.

 

[dreamtime]

help support the idea that Tartaria was indeed a nation with Kings, armies, and social structure contrary to the narrative that they were just nomadic steppe horse riders.

When it comes to Tartary, it's one of the cases where the current official narrative ignores the previous official narrative. All old books I came across describe Tartary in the same way they described any other country on earth - with rulers, kingdoms, politics, culture, etc.

And those books seldom differ in their details, it's all pretty coherent. They were not described as an advanced civilization, quite the contrary, they were seen as pretty "wild" or rough.

Then at one point there was a break, possibly related to Russia conquering them, and the Russian Revolution as suggested by KD here: SH Archive - Tartary - an Empire hidden in history. It was bigger than Russia once...

The Romanovs seized Independent Tartary in 1868. With the tumultuous October Revolution only a couple decades later, the historical 'truth' somehow got lost.

Suppressing the narrative of Tartary as a normal country, vast but not special, mostly served the Russians. Question is why the West followed without objecting. Could be related to the inertia during the Cold War where every action was met with a reaction and after the fall of the Soviet Union, no one cared anymore.

 

[RedNeckGoober]

On Tartars and the destruction of Moscow:

Apparently Russians owed tribute to the Tartarian Emperor...this doesn't really support the narrative that they were a loose association of tribes. "If you don't pay me I will send 100,000 horse lords to your door" sounds like a threat that only a great empire could make on another.

Not only that, "I'll send 100,000 horse lords to your house even if it's 2,000 miles away and it'll only take me 2 months"

*cough*

 

[trismegistus]

Another book diving find:

A king I can't find reference of anywhere else except this single source.

The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe: a New and Complete Edition: with a Preliminary Dissertation, by the Rev. George Townsend ...

A. D. 1230. Thus the Christians being driven out of Asia by the sultans and Turks, yet the said Turks and sultans did not long enjoy their victory. For eftsoons the Lord stirred up against them the Tartarians, who breaking into Asia by the ports of Caspius, subdued divers parts of Asia, namely about Comana, Colchis, Iberia, Albania, &c. These Tartarians, as they had got many captives in their wars, so for gain they used to ship them over customably to Alexandria in Egypt to be sold; which servants and captives Melechsala the great sultan was glad to buy to serve him in his wars. Which captains and servants after they had continued a certain space in Egypt, and through their valiant service grew in favour and estimation with the said Melechsala, and began more to increase in number and strength; at length they slew him, and took to themselves the name and kingdom of the sultan. And thus ceased the stock of Saracon and Saladin aforementioned, which continued in Egypt about the space as is said of

A. D. 1240. After the death of Melechsala, the army of these aforesaid rascals and captives set up to themselves a king of their own company, whom they called Turquemenius. Who, to fill up the number of their company that it should not diminish, devised this order, to get or to buy Christian men's children, taken young from their parents, and the mother's lap; whom they used so to bring up, to make them to deny Christ, and to be circumcised, and instructed in Mahomet's law, and afterward to be trained in the feats of war; and these were called Mamalukes. Among whom this was their order, that none might be advanced to be king but out of their own number, or else chosen by them; neither that any should be made knights or horsemen, but only the children of Christians which should deny Christ before, called Mamalukes. Also it was among them provided, that to this dignity neither Saracens nor Jews should be admitted. Item, That the succession thereof should not descend to the children and offspring of these Mamalukes. Also that the succession of the crown should not descend to the children of the aforesaid sultan, but should go by voice and election. The Tartarians, with Turquemenius their king, about this time obtained Turquia, that is Asia Minor, from the Turks, and within two years after, prevailing against the Turks, expelled them from their kingdom; and so continued these Mamalukes reigning over Egypt, and a great part of Asia, till the time of Tomumbeius their last king, which was destroyed and hanged at the gates of Memphis, by Selim the Turk, father to this Solyman, as in his history is declared. These Mamalukes continued the space of

After that passage, he ends with a prayer against the Turks, for whatever reason. He was a puritan, and apparently a rather popular one for his time (whatever that means). However - most of the wiki seems to be written around one particular historical author JF Mozley. Mozley apparently does claim that Fox is likely a notorious forger, or at minimum is very loose with his writing style.

But what of the claim? I can't find any evidence of this Turquemenius existing anywhere outside of this document. Could it just be a macguffin?

Suppressing the narrative of Tartary as a normal country, vast but not special, mostly served the Russians. Question is why the West followed without objecting. Could be related to the inertia during the Cold War where every action was met with a reaction and after the fall of the Soviet Union, no one cared anymore.

This is the most logical reason I could see for eliminating Tartary from modern history. In America the "Native Americans" have been completely out of the scope of western historic documentation, outside of the meme of them being savages. So why would Tartaria be any different - even if there is potentially a connection between the American land mass and the Tartars? Why piss off the commies over some stuff 99.9% of people don't care about (from their perspective, of course)?

 

[jafa]

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A71025.0001.001/1:3?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

 

[Noahide]

Ʋnderstand my Friend one thing which I will tell thee, because I will thereby acknowledge thy affection to me, That my Mother was of the Race of Samson

Tamerlane is half Israelites

 

[Tsigan]

Ʋnderstand my Friend one thing which I will tell thee, because I will thereby acknowledge thy affection to me, That my Mother was of the Race of Samson

Tamerlane is half Israelites

This is the thing i cant wrap my mind around. Most people researching or putting out content of "stolen" history, and especially Tartaria are jews. They, as a re legion, would not benefit from this discovery. I see the jews in ukraine is trying to rename Mother Russia to Ol´ "Muscovy".
What is going here? Hiding the Rus root or something else?
Could it be ewar wooden nickels and berserkerbear are not at all mainstream masonic narrative shills, but really straight shooters, stand up guys? Or, did the Cabal realise that you cant have people waking up to this fact that they fooled "everyone" and killed the rest by the disguse as church holy wars etc. and still rule the world by their false re legion of christianity for the workers and occult judaism for the rulers? You say Timurs people were jews by heritage and not just converted? So, they slaughtered their way through mongolia northern china, northern persia, Sibir to make great united Russia, and now trying to hide it by running away and blame "some else" for their wars. It is after all exactly how us came to be. And if this is how they beat the Nordics with the help of frenchies, it mirrors the american story of their hostile take over pretty much to the letter. And why they all turned on a nikel and started making fun of tartarians instead of continue researching it. After all christianity isnt organic and royals seems to be of the hidden abrahamitic kind.

Too many thoughts. If does not make any sens please remove.

 

[Cinzana]

This passing reference from an 1850 book states that the Jews in Malabar are black, in China are Tartarians, in Palestine and it’s neighborhood are of olive-hue, etc. Tartarian, as used here, seems to be a reference to appearance and one that is distinct from the Chinese. In every other reference I have found, Tartaria was considered a country.

 

[Cinzana]

A few more mentions of Tartars/Tartaria:
A 1653 engraving

A listing in a chronology which shows Tartars at 170 BC (if Tartars and Phenicians are one in the same, then there are references to Phenicians as “shepherd kings” who take Egypt in 2085 BC and land a colony in Ireland in 2048 BC)

An architectural guide names the father of Ghengis Khan and otherwise offers some information on different groups of Mongols

There is even a source that seems to imply that the son of Kublai Khan made it to the Americas but I’m struggling with time and lack of Spanish fluency on that. A few more interesting tidbits (although I was unable to find the piece I had read that claimed Kublai Khan had been responsible for having canals built during his reign).

 

[Tsigan]

Alvin - Kavalleri från Tartariet

Picture of two Tartar riders. text is:
From Russia to the United States
Tartar Riders

 

[_harris]

The initial fascination with Tartaria was the way encyclopedia definitions have changed, and "common" consensus is that it wasn' a real place. I had heard of it before but just assumed the name had changed over time (it did). Just very strange how there is nothing in history about it. Any damn name of even a tribe gets attributed to some entire culture, let alone the name of half a continent... Surprising that historians haven't been on to that subject!

That, and there were cities mapped in 16/1700s which no longer exist, and using satellite imagery, it's easy to see huge parts of Kazakhstan and Mongolia that look thoroughly cataclysmed.. Mongolia is basically buried in sand (There's a few giant ex-lakes in the mountains..), and previously unknown ruined cities keep getting discovered.

[Kazakhstan is a whole other kind of messed up.. the surface looks totally annihilated]

It was bizarre to watch so many new "truther" channels appear and just morph the Tartaria thing to be definitive truth, taking forum speculations and creating an idea that doesn't make much sense if you look at anything other than old photos.. hehe.

I don't think i heard any channel ever just talk about the truthful parts (of what we do know) about Tartaria

PS-

There are a couple of old maps that depict Asia as America, but that's because the artist assumed that was how the world looked.
[People need to remember (or realise) that a majority of, if not all* cartographers were not sailors or explorers, and were experts at creating maps, on dry land, mostly from nautical charts, noted measurements and observations]
*i don't know figures but i'm not even sure if any cartographers did their own exploring??

 

[Tsigan]

Western state´s belonging persons are so quick and harsh to say its russian state propaganda when and where ever the question is raised. That, and the fact that we have the Tartar wall/city in Peking china and Tartar strait north of the sea of japan, the city os Novosibirsk as opposed to old Sibir. (Sib area?)

I think KD were on the raight path exploring the possibility that it was a world war supported by masonic europe red blue and white imperialist´s.

 

[wiremite]

Read Formenko. then reread him and review the references. After hundreds maybe thousands of hours researching his work, there is truth in his work. The work on Tolemy and the Egyptian star charts are chilling in their revelations. The weakness of historical dates earlier than 1500 given the true lack of documentation is real. One authentic piece would help prove that Plato did exist and live in the time era we are told. So much to uncover but without Formenko this Tartarian academic discipline would be just a vague conspiracy.

 

[JimDuyer]

We wouldn't have the Turks without Tartaria. It was not only their place of origin, originally, but the blond-haired and red haired mummies in the Mongolian border area. The Altai mountains spawned some very tough and angry warriors, for thousands of years. I would check their water supplies for radiation.

 

[Safranek]

We wouldn't have the Turks without Tartaria. It was not only their place of origin, originally, but the blond-haired and red haired mummies in the Mongolian border area.

Actually, Turk was a collective name used by a few historians of the time for the Hun nations, they were called many different names.

The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe

The Tatars were described by many historians as Caucasian and many of their customs and language resembled those of the Huns.

Pertinent paragraphs for those who don't wish to read the whole article:

For the sake of clarity it is also necessary to explain here in the introduction the relevance of the concept of ‘ethnicity’ to the subject matter of this book. I have already used terms such as ‘Germanic’, ‘Iranian’, ‘Turkic’, and ‘Turco-Mongol’. All these terms are broad, linguistic terms referring to speakers of groups of languages (belonging to language families38) and not specific ethnic appellations. In contrast terms such as Goth, Hun, Alan, Parthian, Scythian, Frank etc., which will regularly appear, refer to primarily political and ethnic categories. I need not remind the reader that the term ethnicity is a neologism coined in the middle of the 20th century. Yet in scholarship the ideas and concepts embraced by this neologism have often been used to define and categorize historical ethnic entities and political groupings39. An extended discussion of ethnicity is out of place here and I must refer the reader to my earlier publication40 on the subject, but a brief overview will be provided to clarify just what is meant when terms such as Hun and Goth are used in this book.

Scholarship on ethnicity is divided among those who follow the model of the Norwegian ethnologist F. Barth, the so-called Modernists (or instrumental approach), who argue that an ethnic group is in reality purely a self-created, artificial entity formed to protect specific political and economic interests41, and the primordialists (sometimes also called the perennialists) who tend to argue that ethnic groups are the product of specific cultural and historical realities such as blood ties (‘race’), language, common territory, common religion, and common historical memory that function as ‘primordial’ ties42. A synthesis of aspects of both positions is now generally accepted as best reflecting the reality of ethnicity and ethnic consciousness in history43.

As will be shown in due course, groups such as the Huns, the Goths and the Franks were neither entirely concrete ethnic entities in the sense advocated by the primordialists nor simply artificial political-economic constructs as proposed by the modernists. They were a complex agglomeration of peoples who were united for a number of different reasons: political, economic, military, putative blood links, at times by common language(s) and historical memory. Multilingualism was very often a feature of a number of these groups, especially those originating from Inner Asia, and heterogeneity both in terms of language and ‘genetic’ makeup, especially of the elite, was common. Therefore, when reference is made to the Huns or Goths, one should not consider automatically a racial category or a clear-cut ethnic identity. The reality was much more complex, fluid and ever-changing. Identity (both ethnic and political) was inherently unstable. A Hun could transform himself into the leader of the Goths or Franks whom he dominated, as we shall see, and become a Frankish or a Gothic leader. A Goth could also become a Hunnic noble. Such complexities should therefore be recognized when reference is made to ‘ethnic’ names such as the Huns and the Goths.

 

[Ayiio]

It may or may not be as what we’re told or what you said either .in Quebec , we have many things in French with Tartaria as adjectives .we have trees , plant (our native honeysuckle is in French chevrefeuille de tartarie), grains (like our native buckwheat is called Sarasin de tartarie i.e tatarian buckwheat.), insects etc . In Quebec we also have the name from that region including mount babel . The area that was previously known as St-Jerusalem here has been rebranded and magickaly it’s now native territory with golf course and other lands we are not allowed to do anything on . There’s old map in museum where this territory was known as la petite Tartarie (little tartary). It was definetly a worldwide thing but what it was exactly ,no one knows 100 % other than the creator the absolute truth. We’re all purely speculating .

 

[Tsigan]

It may or may not be as what we’re told or what you said either .in Quebec , we have many things in French with Tartaria as adjectives .we have trees , plant , insects etc . In Quebec we also have the name from that region including mount babel . The area that was previously known as St-Jerusalem here has been rebranded and magickaly it’s now native territory with golf course and other lands we are not allowed to do anything on . There’s old map in museum where this territory was known as la petite Tartarie (little tartary). It was definetly a worldwide thing but what it was exactly ,no one knows 100 % other than the creator the absolute truth. We’re all purely speculating .

If you can do it safely please take a picture of the map and post it here.

 

[Ayiio]

If you can do it safely please take a picture of the map and post it here.

I’m in Montreal, if I go back to Quebec City or Ottawa anytime soon I’ll definitely take some .

 

[JimDuyer]

Actually, Turk was a collective name used by a few historians of the time for the Hun nations, they were called many different names.

The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe

The Tatars were described by many historians as Caucasian and many of their customs and language resembled those of the Huns.

Pertinent paragraphs for those who don't wish to read the whole article:

"Actually, Turk was a collective name used by a few historians of the time for the Hun nations, they were called many different names."

Actually, that is not entirely correct. It is generally accepted that the name Turk is ultimately derived from the Old-Turkic migration-term Turuk or Toruk, which means 'created, born'. It was thus their name for their people.

Old Turkic is the earliest attested form of the Common Turkic languages and it is the oldest attested member of the Siberian Turkic branch of Turkic.

The Chinese, who fought the Huns and would know the difference, referred to the Turks in the Middle Chinese historical sources as the Tujué. According to Chinese sources, Tujué meant "combat helmet", reportedly because the shape of the Altai Mountains, where they lived, was similar to a combat helmet. So the Altai mountains, as I mentioned, was one area that they may have originated from.
Did they mix with many different ethnic peoples? Certainly. One branch of them was
to be found in the plains of Iran, and another intermarried and mixed with some of the groups
that we later called the Scythians.

But even better evidence comes from a Greek source. During the first century AD., Pomponius Mela refers to the "Turcae" in the forests north of the Sea of Azov. The Sea of Azov is an inland shelf sea in Eastern Europe connected to the Black Sea by the narrow Strait of Kerch, and is sometimes regarded as a northern extension of the Black Sea. The sea is bounded by Russia on the east, and by Ukraine. So this puts that name in the first century, before Ghingas of the Huns was even a twinkle in his father's eye, and in the area of southern Russia, quite easily within the Tartaria region.

I'm not sure which source you used, but at least some of the Turks were from Altai Mountains, Siberia and Southern Russia, some were from earlier than 100 A.D. and some part of them founded Turkey in Anatolia about 990 A.D. and murdered some one million women and children who were Christians, in the Genocide during and after WWI.

 

[Tsigan]

When it comes to Tartary, it's one of the cases where the current official narrative ignores the previous official narrative. All old books I came across describe Tartary in the same way they described any other country on earth - with rulers, kingdoms, politics, culture, etc.

And those books seldom differ in their details, it's all pretty coherent. They were not described as an advanced civilization, quite the contrary, they were seen as pretty "wild" or rough.

Then at one point there was a break, possibly related to Russia conquering them, and the Russian Revolution as suggested by KD here: SH Archive - Tartary - an Empire hidden in history. It was bigger than Russia once...

The Romanovs seized Independent Tartary in 1868. With the tumultuous October Revolution only a couple decades later, the historical 'truth' somehow got lost.

Suppressing the narrative of Tartary as a normal country, vast but not special, mostly served the Russians. Question is why the West followed without objecting. Could be related to the inertia during the Cold War where every action was met with a reaction and after the fall of the Soviet Union, no one cared anymore.

Regarding this and all the asylum posts and year 1902 that is popping up these couple days. Romanovs in russia started to let go of power this year to the bolsheviks. There is video somewhere where the ceasar czar tsar Nikolaj signs a paper with a couple of hidden hand men standing in frame whilst he signs.