"Tartaria" is a myth and didn't exist

[yoxdo]

I dont think tartaria is a myth, but I could see how it could be used to help speed up globalism. The last decade there has been a heavy push to get the public to hate nationalistic "values". Defunding the police, heavy iconoclasm, all of those audit vids on youtube, just tons of stuff to tear at the fabric of the nation's structure. Revealing tartaria brings about a sympathy perhaps and therefore a disregard for the powers concealing the truth, it at least shows people theyve been lied to and by its current masters. According to Fomenko you have an empire that at one time was reaching globally that fell basically because of lack of communication amongst other things, it was fought against and carved up into nation states by those pesky "liberals". Once technology evolved to the point where communications are expounded and everyone can be tracked so now nation states can be torn apart and a global empire can proceed.
Too late to edit I made some mistakes there.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Regardless of where you fall on the "tartarian conspiracy theory" it really amazes me how lazily the mainstream attempt to "debunk" using poor rhetorical tactics.

I was quoting from Wikipedia, however, these are not necessarily my own views. I thought it would be interesting to see the mainstream take on the "conspiracy." I was also being lazy when contrasting Tartarus with Tartary. Please don't shoot the messenger.

Every meme has pinch of truth.

After all, if you start actively (on the part of official science and history) to debunk the myth of the "Tartarian" past, underground cities and other things, many people will start to study hundreds of cities for information about underground tunnels, passages, etc.

Then it won't be possible to build up theories about private cases (foreign engineers who build sewers; slave owners who use tunnels to secretly transport slaves from one place to another; hiking sites for the wealthy, etc.) in each individual city.

That's counterintuitive.

 

[iseidon]

I was quoting from Wikipedia, however, these are not necessarily my own views. I thought it would be interesting to see the mainstream take on the "conspiracy." I was also being lazy when contrasting Tartarus with Tartary. Please don't shoot the messenger.

Every meme has pinch of truth.



That's counterintuitive.

What's counterintuitive?

Now the history of many cities (and sometimes countries) is built on the fact that wonderful foreign skilled people (engineers, builders, criminals, religious, etc.) came from abroad and built incredible buildings, sewers, underground passages, etc.

If one studies thousands of cities and sees that each city has its own "private" or "special" case, one might ask oneself the question. What are the special and particular cases? Isn't there a unified system that logically explains such "specials" all over the world?

In order to avoid such (and other) questions, official science does not raise the topic of Tartary, which contradicts the national and narrow territorial dogmas that now prevail.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Not only did they have flags, distinct borders on maps, kings, and large cities - they also likely had the same on the American continent.

In this case, of what race were the American Tartarians? Were they indigenous or were they the same race as the Russian Tartarians? Did the native American Tartarians invade the Chinese and Russian Tartarys? What is the definition of a Russian Tartarian - were they all of the same race? Were the Chinese Tartarians the same race as the Russian ones? How's about the New Zealand Tartarians - how are they related to any of the others? Did all of these Tartarians speak the same language?

 

[Blackdiamond]

In this case, of what race were the American Tartarians? Were they indigenous or were they the same race as the Russian Tartarians? Did the native American Tartarians invade the Chinese and Russian Tartarys? What is the definition of a Russian Tartarian - were they all of the same race? Were the Chinese Tartarians the same race as the Russian ones? How's about the New Zealand Tartarians - how are they related to any of the others? Did all of these Tartarians speak the same language?

?

Anyway. Sibir natives have similar features as north american natives. Because they came from the sibir area or the other way around. All northern people from the white sea to northern china have had the same genetics in archeological finds*.
South americans are totally different kind of people. Make of it what you will.

 

[Safranek]

What is the definition of a Russian Tartarian - were they all of the same race? Were the Chinese Tartarians the same race as the Russian ones?

According to extensive research on the Huns by Modi, Jivanji Jamshedji , the Tartars were Huns. And not only the Tartars but also some of the Persians, Ephtalites, Indians, Armenians, Uzbeghs, etc. all come from a common origin.

Source: The Early History of the Huns and their Inroads in India and Persia

This article well deserves its own thread, if someone has time and interest, it would certainly open up an additional path of research in a different direction. If his assessment is correct, that would also indicate a common linguistical basis at some point in time.

It would also be interesting to see how much of the most recent genetic research matches this historical record.

 

[trismegistus]

I was quoting from Wikipedia, however, these are not necessarily my own views. I thought it would be interesting to see the mainstream take on the "conspiracy." I was also being lazy when contrasting Tartarus with Tartary. Please don't shoot the messenger.

Another reason why this site has so much value is because we have people like you who actually ask the right questions about theories and use a reasonable amount of evidence to support their point. My statement was not pointed at you in the slightest.

In this case, of what race were the American Tartarians? Were they indigenous or were they the same race as the Russian Tartarians? Did the native American Tartarians invade the Chinese and Russian Tartarys?

This is sort of a chicken versus egg question. There is some supporting evidence in the scientific lexicon that supports the haplogroup similarities between Siberian/Tartar and Native America

Haplogroup Q-M242 - Wikipedia

SH Archive - Inca Empire capital - Cusco in 1530s. Did it look European?

As to which direction these arrows flow...that could certainly be up to interpretation. The standard model would say that the migration reflects the movement shown above - but as to what metrics they use to determine the movement may be based off standard models of relative dating and assumptions in history that may or may not be correct.

There is also the matter of history discussed in the early 19th century - from American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West, 1832

Also see: SH Archive - Fou-Sang & 1870s board game: Voyage from New York to San Francisco upon the Union Pacific Railroad

It goes without saying that your mileage may vary, depending on how much "truth" one would believe this research actually contains. Even if we operate under the mainstream assumption that "Tartary" is simply a colonial placeholder for areas of the world they did not understand - the fact is there were distinct references of both Chinese Tartars and post Scythia Russian/Siberian Tartars in early America.

Furthermore, as I've pointed out in this thread the Scythians and the Mound Builder race of north america share the trait of constructing mounds for purposes that have only been speculated on, but have been noted to contain burials of native americans and other artifacts (again - whether or not this was their original purpose is, in my opinion, still up for debate).

How's about the New Zealand Tartarians - how are they related to any of the others?

Perhaps this last one was a bit tongue in cheek on your part...as you may have gleaned from my posts I don't explicitly connect the Tartars I reference above with the "tartarian structures" YTers like King Dave speak of. The global unified architectural style is a separate issue all on its own, that shouldn't be lumped in with the Tartar question. That said - if the Tartars figured out how to get over to North America I'd imagine they would have little issue navigating to New Zealand as well, but that is purely supposition.

​

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Make of it what you will.

Nonsense maybe?

the Tartars were Huns

So, Tartaria was a worldwide civilisation comprised of Huns? What race were the Huns?

also some of the Persians, Ephtalites, Indians, Armenians, Uzbeghs, etc. all come from a common origin.

So were they Tartarians as well? Therefore, anyone who didn't share that "common origin" wasn't Tartarian? Did these Tartarians invade China and the Americas?

Perhaps this last one was a bit tongue in cheek on your part

Finally, someone with a sense of humour! Yes and no really. What I meant to convey was that this Tartarian theory is what... 7 years old now and yet it hasn't progressed one iota. There's still no agreement amongst Tartarian advocates about who the Tartars were, or where they were, or when they were - as can be seen from the replies above.

Regarding haplotypes and genetic studies - I'm afraid I lost all faith in such things back in the early 2000's when they started being used to support certain agendas - I don't think they're any more reliable than a PCR test. That's why my question was about races as in tribes or ethnic groups. Perhaps I should have asked if all Tartarians have almond eyes?

I have expressed my opinion about the Lost Tribes of Israel on many occasions - it's a legend that has no basis in fact, only in faith. This is, of course, my own personal opinion based upon research, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

The global unified architectural style is a separate issue all on its own, that shouldn't be lumped in with the Tartar question.

And yet, so many comments and posts on this forum state that very issue as being the overall definitive proof that the one-world civilisation of Tartaria is an undeniable fact...? ...¿ even. So, do you see what I mean about the 7 year old legacy of inconsistency and disagreement about Tartaria even amongst its proponents?

Perhaps it would be easier if I asked where Tartaria wasn't? Who were not Tartarians? ...but then it wouldn't be a worldwide civilisation, would it?

 

[trismegistus]

So, do you see what I mean about the 7 year old legacy of inconsistency and disagreement about Tartaria even amongst its proponents?

you won’t find someone more frustrated with this issue than me. I can’t point to exact threads and replies, but there were still a fair amount of people back on the old site who were making this distinction. The problem is instead of this discussion being amplified, the meme magic version of advanced tartaria spread.

I find the question of tartaria only somewhat interesting - it is a tiny drop of information in a much bigger question of who we are and why we are here. There may be some answers in Tartaria, but after beating our heads against it for years it’s a tree that yields little fruit. Why it’s so amplified in the discussion of the old world is beyond me. Perhaps a question for the CIA…

i do think it’s an undeniable fact that the planet has a global technological fingerprint in the form of buildings, canals, and other terraforming. Whether this was one unified nation, or how long ago this existed is beyond me at this time.

 

[QuakerTheOat]

The global unified architectural style is a separate issue all on its own, that shouldn't be lumped in with the Tartar question.

It certainly is a separate issue. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that if we were to dig back through the 'History of the Tartarian Global Theory' that we would find that whomever was among the first to associate these two things is/was a disinfo actor/group associated with other hollow theories. A common method used for theories to take root is: several 'people/groups' post similar narratives based on truth on some of the more popular platforms, then more of these 'people/groups' begin to popularize and 'like' the narrative and *poof* - a theory is born. Theories like this are *glamorous*. They present an almost irresistible shiny object. The 'people' behind things like this are literal masters of the human psyche and this is how they roll.

I find the question of tartaria only somewhat interesting - it is a tiny drop of information in a much bigger question of who we are and why we are here. There may be some answers in Tartaria, but after beating our heads against it for years it’s a tree that yields little fruit. Why it’s so amplified in the discussion of the old world is beyond me. Perhaps a question for the CIA…

Ah! The CIA. They report to Avril Haines the Director of National Intelligence. Check out her 'Early Life and Education' lol. This information is critical for the understanding of the 'who' that create these hollow theories. Every. Single. Time.

What I meant to convey was that this Tartarian theory is what... 7 years old now and yet it hasn't progressed one iota. There's still no agreement amongst Tartarian advocates about who the Tartars were, or where they were, or when they were - as can be seen from the replies above. I have expressed my opinion about the Lost Tribes of Israel on many occasions - it's a legend that has no basis in fact, only in faith. This is, of course, my own personal opinion based upon research, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

To me, these are examples of 'theories' with evidence of what I posted above: a hollow theory propped up by both shills and the star-struck innocent. These 'people' use faith as a weapon; creating false narratives that can never be proven - ever - without it. What makes them self-sustaining are groups of people that have drank the kool-aid trying with every fiber of their being to get unbelievers into the fold because if they can 'convert' even 1 person into being a 'believer', it reinforces their faith as truth. And if they can convert more than 1, well the, God must be on their side.

Regarding haplotypes and genetic studies - I'm afraid I lost all faith in such things back in the early 2000's when they started being used to support certain agendas - I don't think they're any more reliable than a PCR test. That's why my question was about races as in tribes or ethnic groups. Perhaps I should have asked if all Tartarians have almond eyes?

If there's one piece of this Tartarian global theory that totally fits, it is that 'Tartary' became a multicultural empire and either imploded/destroyed itself, or was easily conquered by the current regime. History repeats itself. All you have to do is look around you no matter where you are to see it happening - possibly again. 'Studies' are no longer studies. 'Science' is no longer science. 'Facts' can be 'racist'. It's pure madness.

 

[EJDoyle]

View attachment 18703
Tartary, a vast country in the northern parts of Asia... This is called Great Tarary (1771, Encyclopedia Britannica)​

As we got many new users during the last months, some from Youtube, I think it's time to start a thread on this topic.

Many people in the alternative history community believe there was a unified civilization until recently, and that it was called "Tartaria". The idea of calling this civilization "Tartaria" is mostly being spread on Reddit and Youtube, and is being promoted by Youtubers who earn money with creating an almost religious following.

Read this to get an overview of previous research on Tartaria: SH Archive - Tartary - an Empire hidden in history. It was bigger than Russia once...

I think everyone who uses the term Tartaria to describe the Old World continues to cement a misleading view of alternative history.

While Tartary itself was real, it was not what many people now think it was. I do think there once was a unified civilization, with a unified architecture. But "Tartary" is a wrong name for it.

The myth came about when Russians started to realize that before their country was called Russia, it was named "Tartaria" on old maps. And it didn't only span Russia, but most of Asia.

Tartaria was split into different parts - Russian (Muscovite) Tartary, Chinese Tartary, etc.

Later some people found evidence that there were remains of Tartaria in America, mostly Western America, too. So the idea spread that Tartaria was literally everywhere.

And this is where things started to move into the wrong direction. In reality, Tartaria was simply a geographic area in Asia, with some of those Tartarians also influencing the American culture.

There is nothing more to it. It was part of the "Old World", but it wasn't exclusively the Old World.

So using the term Tartaria everytime one speaks about this old world cements a misleading view of a Slavic-centric world, where for some reason Russian culture dominated everything else.

To this date, not a single proof has been presented why this geographically limited region in Asia called "Tartary" was worldwide.

It is now simply a meme, and in my view it is a dangerous meme, because it limits our possibilities of what the Old World really was.

View attachment 18704
Country Flag of Tartary, independent of China, indeed suggesting a political structure. Another map here.​

Yes, Tartary was somehow forgotten after the communist revolution. Yes, Tartary was probably not a geographical area but a kingdom of sorts, with a flag and political unity. Yes, it was probably powerful at one point. Yes, Tartarian influence extended probably to America. No, it was not a worldwide advanced civilization that somehow dominated all of the other kingdoms we see on old maps.

View attachment 18665​

A quick glance on the oldest maps of Tartary show that not the entire world was Tartary, surprinsigly.​

South of Tartary you see Arabia, Persia, India, China and Japan. To the West is Europe.

If anything, Tartary should be understood as a symbol for forgotten knowledge - that's why we have the Tartary Griffin in our logo.

I will use this thread to collect more information on this, with the goal to publish an extensive article on this topic, wich can be provided as a reference whenever the topic of Tartary comes up.

Many scientists from Western Europe considered the Great Tartary a huge empire stretching from the Urals to the Pacific Ocean. For example, the Italian diplomat and Jesuit Giovanni Botero in his work “Universal Relation” (Relationi universali), dated 1595, wrote that this country used to be called Scythia. And it occupies half of Asia, in the west bordering on the Volga region, and in the south – with China and India. At the same time, the lands of a huge empire on one side are washed by the waters of the Caspian Sea, and on the other by the Bering Sea.​

​

Another representative of the Jesuit order – the French Orientalist Jean-Baptiste Duhalde – in 1735 published a scientific work entitled “Geographical, historical, chronological, political and physical description of the Chinese Empire and Chinese Tartary.” In his opinion, in the west this huge country borders with Muscovy, in the south – with Mongolia and China, from the north this state is washed by the Arctic Sea, and the East Sea separates Tartarius from Japan.​

Where was the Great Tartary? | Earth Chronicles News

The pseudohistorical conspiracy theory about Great Tartaria first appeared in Russia, popularized by Nikolai Levashov, and in Anatoly Fomenko’s New chronology. In Russian pseudoscience, known for its nationalism, Tartaria is presented as the "real" name for Russia, which was maliciously "ignored" in the West (for example, the 2011 film "Great Tartary - Empire of the Rus", posted on YouTube). Since about 2016, conspiracy theories about the supposed lost empire of "Tartaria" have gained some steam on the English-speaking part of the Internet.​

​

The conspiracy is based mostly on a misunderstanding of architectural history. Adherents suppose that demolished buildings such as the Singer Building, or the temporary grounds of the 1915's World's Fair were actually the buildings of a vast empire based in Tartary that has been suppressed from history. Sumptuously styled Gilded Age buildings are often held out as really having been built by the supposed Tartaria. The conspiracy is very light on details, and only vaguely describes how such a supposedly advanced civilization which had reputedly achieved world peace could have fallen and been hidden. The idea that a "mud flood" wiped out much of the world and thus old buildings is common, supported only by the fact that some buildings have basements which had windows. World War I & II are cited as a way in which Tartaria was destroyed and hidden, reflecting the reality that the extensive bombing campaigns of World War II did destroy many historic buildings. The general evidence for the theory is that there are similar styles of building around the world, such as capital buildings with domes, or star forts. However, such designs exist globally due to colonialism by empires such as Britain, Spain, and Portugal, not some lost empire such as Tartaria. The theory reflects a cultural discontent with modernism, and a supposition that traditional styles are inherently good and modern styles are bad.​

Tartary - Wikipedia

Just like so much these days, nit picking and obfuscation of the bigger story, be it the pandemic lie or political theater, this give and take about Tartary is blowing smoke over the FACTS, not opinions, that SOMETHING is very wrong with history as it has been told. To waste so much time on this Tartarian stuff is keeping the reality of a mud flood or two, the manipulation of "time" and a unified world peaceful expression from the spot light.

I agree about the youtube nonsense that shows up. When the Mandela Effect was hot just before the planedemic (2019) there were dozens of goof ball sites all copying each other in the way of that generation brought up on a cartoon reality and lack of a real moral compass. I was in the SF Bay Area in the 60's when the same sort of tactics were done with the creation of the "hippies" demeaning the true explorers of consciousness through sacred teacher plants.

It is of great importance to have adults in the room these days as we are dealing with a dumbed down, cliche' driven population of arrested adolescent "kids" lost in their clown world. The controllers are brilliant but psychopathic and have a lot of "fires" to put out once again, the conversation of possible nuclear war is another way to create fear and redirect focus.

We are on to something VERY significant and IMO we should make a big attempt to document and explore and most of all work together to help lift the curtain.

It certainly is a separate issue. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that if we were to dig back through the 'History of the Tartarian Global Theory' that we would find that whomever was among the first to associate these two things is/was a disinfo actor/group associated with other hollow theories. A common method used for theories to take root is: several 'people/groups' post similar narratives based on truth on some of the more popular platforms, then more of these 'people/groups' begin to popularize and 'like' the narrative and *poof* - a theory is born. Theories like this are *glamorous*. They present an almost irresistible shiny object. The 'people' behind things like this are literal masters of the human psyche and this is how they roll.

Ah! The CIA. They report to Avril Haines the Director of National Intelligence. Check out her 'Early Life and Education' lol. This information is critical for the understanding of the 'who' that create these hollow theories. Every. Single. Time.


To me, these are examples of 'theories' with evidence of what I posted above: a hollow theory propped up by both shills and the star-struck innocent. These 'people' use faith as a weapon; creating false narratives that can never be proven - ever - without it. What makes them self-sustaining are groups of people that have drank the kool-aid trying with every fiber of their being to get unbelievers into the fold because if they can 'convert' even 1 person into being a 'believer', it reinforces their faith as truth. And if they can convert more than 1, well the, God must be on their side.


If there's one piece of this Tartarian global theory that totally fits, it is that 'Tartary' became a multicultural empire and either imploded/destroyed itself, or was easily conquered by the current regime. History repeats itself. All you have to do is look around you no matter where you are to see it happening - possibly again. 'Studies' are no longer studies. 'Science' is no longer science. 'Facts' can be 'racist'. It's pure madness.

Well said. I would offer that "facts" when looked at with a true scientific eye far outweigh the rumors, etc. Cremo and Thompson's seminal work on Forbidden Archeology or the work of Randal Carlson and Graham Hancock on the Younger Dryas Ice Age or Gobekli Tepi discovery clearly shows skeletal and funereal evidence of sentient life here MILLIONS of years ago. So in essence, the grand architecture still standing is wonderful evidence, still fresh and explore-able. Very exciting time to be alive hey?

 

[Safranek]

We are on to something VERY significant and IMO we should make a big attempt to document and explore and most of all work together to help lift the curtain.

This is exactly what what needs to be done if we want to make REAL headway into this topic.

So, Tartaria was a worldwide civilisation comprised of Huns? What race were the Huns?

Let's not jump the gun. I did not mention worldwide civilization. However, there seems to be ample evidence in primary sources that the Tartarians were Huns, but only one or some tribes of them.

See excerpt from the source I quoted in my previous post, which I think is a pretty important source as it comes from mostly non-European chroniclers, which we have not come across yet, to the best of my knowledge (at least I haven't).

"In the few centuries before and after Christ, there existed the following great kingdoms :

I China in the East,
2 Rome in the West,
3 Persia under the Parthian rule and
4 India. The last two stood between the first two, as connecting links

The Huns, under different names, had relations with the nations of all these four great kingdoms, and lived, at times, now and then,. here and there, on the frontiers of these four great kingdoms, harassed their people and had long wars with them. Again, at times, they lived as subjects of these kingdoms and at times, as their allies. We will speak of the relations of the Huns with these four great powers at or about the commencement of the Christian era. Our sources of information on the history of the Huns are various.

I. Firstly, as to their relation with China, we have to look to the Chinese annals, which give us also a glimpse into their origin and very early history. We find a good account based on these annals, in the " Histoire Generale des Huns, des Turcs , des Mogols, et des a utres Tartares occidentaux, &c.", by M. Deguignes. In this connection, we must bear in mind, that the Huns were known in different countries and in different ages by various names, such as, Turcs, Mongols, Tartares, Haeta lites, &c.

2. For their relations with Rome, in whose decline and fall, they had a strong hand, we have to look to various classical writers, whose accounts have been presented to us by various recent writers. Gibbon has spoken of them in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

3. As to Persia, we have references to them in the Avesta and Pahlavi books of the Parsees, where they are spoken of as Hunus. I will not speak of these references here, as I have referred to them, as said above, in a separate paper in the Bhandarkar Memorial Volume. Several Mahomedan writers on the history of Persia, such as Firdousi, Macoudi, and Tabari, have spoken of them. But they have not spoken of them under their original name of Huns but as Haetalites, Turcs, &c. I will refer to them, when I speak of the inroads of the Huns in the Sassanian times.

4- Coming to our own country, India, they are referred to in Indian books and in Indian inscriptions. Just as they had, following the inroads of the German and Gothic tribes, a strong hand in bringing about the downfall of the Roman Empire, and just as they had, followed by the Arabs, a hand in the downfall of the Sassanian Empire of Persia, they had a hand in the downfall of the Indian Empire of the Gupta dynasty. Again, their inroads into India should not be taken as a separate event in their history. Just as in times before Christ, the check, which they had received in their inroad into China by the construction of the Great China Wall, had forced them to turn to the West, towards the countries of the Roman Empire, so the check, which some of their tribes received in Europe, partially in, and mostly after, Atilla's time, drove them back towards the East, towards Persia and India. Though their inroads into Persia had weakened the Persian Empire, they had a substantial check there and it was this check again that drove them strongly towards India .

Before coming to the subject proper of this Paper, viz., their inroads into the countries of the above four great kingdoms in the first century before Christ, we will say a few words on their origin and earlier history, for which subject the Chinese annals, as studied and described by M. Deguignes, are our main authority.

The writer of the article on Runs in the Encyclopedia Britannica says : "We have no adequate philological data for conclusively determining the ethnological position of the ancient Huns..•..•. The Huns, in all probability, belonged to the Turkish branch of the great Turanian race." The Avesta and Pahlavi books of the Parsees support this view.

Tartary has been the name by which a very extensive part of Asia, north of India, has been known. It has been divided into Eastern Tartary and the Western Tartary. Their people, the Tartars, and especially the Western Tartars, are known as Huns. The Eastern Tartars have played a n important part in the history of Asia, forming powerful empires here and there, but it was very rarely that they marched towards Europe. The Avars, who latterly played some important part in the history of Western Asia and Eastern Europe, are the only branch of the Eastern Tartars who went to the East. But, though they themselves did not go to the West, it is they, who, as it were, forced the Western Tartars, the Huns, to go to the W est. They invaded the country of the Western Tartars and made them fly to the West. It is the 'Western Tartars who marched towards the West, towards India and Persia in Asia , and towards Rome, France, Germany, etc. , in Europe, that are known as Huns. They a re called Hunus by Iranian writers, Hunas by Indian writers and Huns by Roman writers. In Tartary itself they bore the name of Hiengnou. M. Deguignes identifies them with the Heungnoo or Hiungnu, who, according to Chinese writers, owned a great empire from the Caspian to the frontiers of China. This empire then fell into a state of anarchy and lost all its influence at the end of the first century A.D. One section of this fallen race went to the West, settled in the country near the river Ural and became the ancestors of the Huns, who, 300 years after, re-asserted their power and influence under Balamir and came into contact with the Romans.

... and

In or about the 5th century after Christ, the Huns began to lose or Huns began to be known as Turks, and, later on, as Mongols or Moguls. lost their original name of Hiongnou or Huns. One of their hordes or tribes, which was known as the Turks becoming very powerful, gave its name to the whole Hun nation. So, the Huns began then to be known among the neighboring nations by the name of Turks. Later on, when Chengiz Khan, the chief of the horde or tribe of the Mongols or Moguls became very powerful, his tribe gave its name to the whole nation. The whole Tartar nation then began to be spoken of as the Mongols or Moguls.

Just as one and the same river receives different names in the different parts of the country, through which it runs from its source to its mouth. so, the one and the same nation, the Hiongnou or Huns received different names during its progress from the time of its origin up to now, and from its original home to different countries. The horde or the tribe of the Turks who gave its name to the Huns later on, was called TouKioue by the Chinese and Turks by the other adjoining nations.

... and

Among the above named four great kingdoms, Persia was one, with whom the Huns had frequent quarrels a and fights. Under their different names of Huns, Turks, Haetalites, Khazars, &c., they were in frequent wars, one may say' in continuous wars, with the Persians.

... and

We saw above, that the Hun had, at first, their home in the steppes of Central Asia, They moved eastward towards China. They moved westward and divided themselves into two branches, one towards the valley of the Oxus and the other to that of the Volga. The division, which went towards the valley of the Volga, invaded, in about 375 A.D., Eastern Europe and drove before them the Goths (who also were an offshoot of some early Hun stock) , who thus driven, invaded the dominions of the Roma n emperors, fighting with them, in what
is known as the Gothic War, in which Emperor Valens lost his life in 378 A. D. The Huns, with Attila at their head, harassed the Roman Empire, both, the Western at Ravenna and the Eastern at Constantinople. Attila died in 453 A.D. His Hunnic Empire was broken by an other branch of their original stock in the North. The invasion and ravages of this Hunnic division in Europe were quick in their result, and did not continue long; but in the case of the inroads of the other division, that in Asia itself, they were slow and lasted long .

So if we can trust any of those sources any more than the European or Roman ones, we can deduce that what we are certainly faced with is a written history where the names of the 'players' were continuously changed. Additionally, we can see that many of these 'adversaries' were of common stock.

I would like to add here that Modi's assessment based on the primary sources he used is a fair assessment based upon them. However, I'm not in complete agreement with the whole narrative as - if we read the entirety of his paper - we are shown that there are significant discrepancies in the description of the events, their outcomes and even chronologies by the various chroniclers. I still feel this paper is important as it may contain pieces of the puzzle to the answers we seek.

Additonally, from here:

A major source of information on steppe warfare from the time of the Huns comes from the 6th-century Strategikon, which describes the warfare of "Dealing with the Scythians, that is, Avars, Turks, and others whose way of life resembles that of the Hunnish peoples."

For those interested, the whole WP article is worth a read for some background.

So what we have according to 'official' history (as described in WP and oozing contradictions) for the area now talked about as Tartaria:

Scythians

The Scythians arrived in the Pontic Steppe in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE as part of a significant movement of the nomadic peoples of the Eurasian Steppe.

Of course, nomadic peoples carry around their foundries to make stuff like this in their spare time.

.... and we have,

The Huns

The Huns were a nomadic people.
...
The origins of the Huns and their links to other steppe people remain uncertain:[6] scholars generally agree that they originated in Central Asia but disagree on the specifics of their origins. Classical sources assert that they appeared in Europe suddenly around 370.

Gotta love them classical sources, where people just appear suddenly, like magic.

Strangely, like the Scythians, they were nomadic people who also and liked to carry around their foundries and make stuff like this in their spare time:

And we have the Tatars

The active use of the toponym (place name) can be traced from the 13th to the 19th centuries.

Thanks to our industrious 'historians' we now have a page on Tartary where the conspiracy theory section is bigger than the actual historical article about a territory much more in our very recent history and taking up a good portion of the world map. I think they REALLY don't want people to start investigating into that direction.

So we have these 3 'peoples' occupying that region for over 2k years where none of the anthropological, archeological, linguistic, or genetic information matches hardly ANY of the historical narrative. As is the case with other parts of the world.

The logical conclusion would be that the core of the region would have been inhabited by the same 'peoples' through that whole time period. Nobody disappeared and nobody suddenly appeared. They were divided and conquered and almost successfully erased from history.

 

[EJDoyle]

This is exactly what what needs to be done if we want to make REAL headway into this topic.


Let's not jump the gun. I did not mention worldwide civilization. However, there seems to be ample evidence in primary sources that the Tartarians were Huns, but only one or some tribes of them.

See excerpt from the source I quoted in my previous post, which I think is a pretty important source as it comes from mostly non-European chroniclers, which we have not come across yet, to the best of my knowledge (at least I haven't).


... and

... and

... and


So if we can trust any of those sources any more than the European or Roman ones, we can deduce that what we are certainly faced with is a written history where the names of the 'players' were continuously changed. Additionally, we can see that many of these 'adversaries' were of common stock.

I would like to add here that Modi's assessment based on the primary sources he used is a fair assessment based upon them. However, I'm not in complete agreement with the whole narrative as - if we read the entirety of his paper - we are shown that there are significant discrepancies in the description of the events, their outcomes and even chronologies by the various chroniclers. I still feel this paper is important as it may contain pieces of the puzzle to the answers we seek.

Additonally, from here:


For those interested, the whole WP article is worth a read for some background.

So what we have according to 'official' history (as described in WP and oozing contradictions) for the area now talked about as Tartaria:

Scythians

Of course, nomadic peoples carry around their foundries to make stuff like this in their spare time.

View attachment 22092

.... and we have,

The Huns


Gotta love them classical sources, where people just appear suddenly, like magic.

Strangely, like the Scythians, they were nomadic people also and liked to carry around their foundries and make stuff like this in their spare time:

View attachment 22094

And we have the Tatars


Thanks to our industrious 'historians' we now have a page on Tartary where the conspiracy theory section is bigger than the actual historical article about a territory much more in our very recent history and taking up a good portion of the world map. I think they REALLY don't want people to start investigating into that direction.

So we have these 3 'peoples' occupying that region for over 2k years where none of the anthropological, archeological, linguistic, or genetic information matches hardly ANY of the historical narrative. As is the case with other parts of the world.

The logical conclusion would be that the core of the region would have been inhabited by the same 'peoples' through that whole time period. Nobody disappeared and nobody suddenly appeared. They were divided and conquered and almost successfully erased from history.

Your assumptions and "facts" like many things these days can be overwhelming diversion from the points made, word salad that can obfuscate or divert the discussion. Indeed history is important and the goal of this blog, but...
1. We have skeletal and funereal evidence of sentient life forms from 300+ MILLION years ago, perhaps as much as 600 million years.
2. Gobekli Tepe and other recent discoveries indicate a highly advance culture with knowledge of astrology, astronomy, physics, agriculture skill and more from a realatively recent few thousands of years ago in comparison.
3. There is evidence of a multiple meteor strike including Northern US and Canada melting an estimated 2 mile high glacier raising the ocean level 400 feet which co-insides with the religious myth of Noah and other myths.
4. For various reasons people have been lying, hiding, etc. the true history of everything from the pyramids, mound building to the similarity of Ayahuasca formulas found on different continents at a time when there was no international travel and from the thousands of plants to be experimented with. The battle of the 60's was about limiting humans exploration of consiousness.

All the various historical tribes and groups named just confuse the facts that "SOMETHING" happened quite recently of major significance. A liquifying of much of the planet's "dirt" burying and affecting incredibly sound, and attractive buildings and smaller ones also. So IMHO it is more important to identify just WHAT happened and WHO did it rather then get lost in unnecessary discussions about tribal cultures minutia.

 

[Safranek]

Your assumptions and "facts" like many things these days can be overwhelming diversion from the points made, word salad that can obfuscate or divert the discussion.

Such as this post of yours which is off-topic and derailing the thread from the OP.

Indeed history is important and the goal of this blog

Indeed it is, hence the name StolenHistory.

So IMHO it is more important to identify just WHAT happened and WHO did it rather then get lost in unnecessary discussions about tribal cultures minutia.

As important as that is, the reason we have threads on certain topics is to create focus on them by gathering RELEVANT info.

Additionally,

Your 4 points do nothing to clarify the matter in a thread regarding the 'Existence of Tartaria'.

If you wish to talk about those subjects, post them in their appropriate thread, or if one doesn't exist, create an original thread for it.

But if you're going to make a claim such as this one:

1. We have skeletal and funereal evidence of sentient life forms from 300+ MILLION years ago, perhaps as much as 600 million years.

then the burden of proof is upon you to show evidence regarding how something has been validly dated into that time-frame, but NOT in this thread.

 

[QuakerTheOat]

1. We have skeletal and funereal evidence of sentient life forms from 300+ MILLION years ago, perhaps as much as 600 million years.
2. Gobekli Tepe and other recent discoveries indicate a highly advance culture with knowledge of astrology, astronomy, physics, agriculture skill and more from a realatively recent few thousands of years ago in comparison.
3. There is evidence of a multiple meteor strike including Northern US and Canada melting an estimated 2 mile high glacier raising the ocean level 400 feet which co-insides with the religious myth of Noah and other myths.
4. For various reasons people have been lying, hiding, etc. the true history of everything from the pyramids, mound building to the similarity of Ayahuasca formulas found on different continents at a time when there was no international travel and from the thousands of plants to be experimented with. The battle of the 60's was about limiting humans exploration of consiousness.

You should start a thread for this. Looks interesting.

So IMHO it is more important to identify just WHAT happened and WHO did it rather then get lost in unnecessary discussions about tribal cultures minutia.

I agree that it's more important to identify the 'who' - although, for me it's really more of a conformation than a discovery of their identity. Then again, it can also be said that if we can understand those tribal cultures, we can have a really good idea of the who caused it and the what happened.

 

[EJDoyle]

Such as this post of yours which is off-topic and derailing the thread from the OP.


Indeed it is, hence the name StolenHistory.


As important as that is, the reason we have threads on certain topics is to create focus on them by gathering RELEVANT info.

Additionally,

Your 4 points do nothing to clarify the matter in a thread regarding the 'Existence of Tartaria'.

If you wish to talk about those subjects, post them in their appropriate thread, or if one doesn't exist, create an original thread for it.

But if you're going to make a claim such as this one:



then the burden of proof is upon you to show evidence regarding how something has been validly dated into that time-frame, but NOT in this thread.

Apparently I am ignorant of all the nuances and rules here. I just talk from the heart and after years of all the shills, trolls, and such on the political blogs I just put my thoughts out there. Sorry if I have stepped on toes or been inappropriate. I have a 50+ year history of counter culture and social and political activism, having been shot at, phone tapped, tailed and more and I can be heavy handed. Probably best if I just don't come back.

 

[trismegistus]

Apparently I am ignorant of all the nuances and rules here. I just talk from the heart and after years of all the shills, trolls, and such on the political blogs I just put my thoughts out there. Sorry if I have stepped on toes or been inappropriate

What you spoke of in your previous posts related to tartary as a psyop is welcome here, on this thread. The issue is your later points regarding the YDIH (Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis) and the global civilization spoken of by those like Hancock are interesting, but the conversation does not need to go there in this particular thread. Strangely enough we don’t have a thread on that here (and I have personally met and gone on one of Randall Carlsons scabland tours to show exactly what you describe), but in any case try not to take offense when we are recommending conversations to stay in their lane related to the topic.

 

[Safranek]

Apparently I am ignorant of all the nuances and rules here. I just talk from the heart and after years of all the shills, trolls, and such on the political blogs I just put my thoughts out there. Sorry if I have stepped on toes or been inappropriate. I have a 50+ year history of counter culture and social and political activism, having been shot at, phone tapped, tailed and more and I can be heavy handed. Probably best if I just don't come back.

As you noticed, I liked and quoted your comment that pertained to the content of the thread, but without those rules and as you say 'nuances', it would be impossible to keep discussions coherent on any blog, political or historical, and it applies to all of us. As you can see, your experience and sincere input is appreciated when in context with the purpose of a thread.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Let's not jump the gun. I did not mention worldwide civilization.

This thread is about Tartaria, which is promoted as having been a worldwide civilisation, so if I am jumping the gun then perhaps you are dodging the bullets.

See excerpt from the source I quoted in my previous post, which I think is a pretty important source as it comes from mostly non-European chroniclers, which we have not come across yet,

I note that this source was written or 'read' right in the middle of World War One. So it's a paper about 'The Hun' which seems to be intent on debunking the Kaiser's claim to descent from those ancient warriors. Could there be a conflict of interests there? Have you read the ancient sources that this paper is based upon?

The logical conclusion would be that the core of the region would have been inhabited by the same 'peoples' through that whole time period. Nobody disappeared and nobody suddenly appeared. They were divided and conquered and almost successfully erased from history.

So the claim that Tartaria was a worldwide civilisation is a myth then. Is that also part of your conclusion?

 

[EJDoyle]

As you noticed, I liked and quoted your comment that pertained to the content of the thread, but without those rules and as you say 'nuances', it would be impossible to keep discussions coherent on any blog, political or historical, and it applies to all of us. As you can see, your experience and sincere input is appreciated when in context with the purpose of a thread.

Thanks for your input. I am obviously out of my comfort zone with a lack of much pop culture/tech, etc. experience...no SMART phone, no TV for 50 years, etc. but rather a life of pragmatic experience with tribal cultures, writing music, etc. So I have missed the natural evolutionary progress of most from books to digital reality. I don't know how to play with others I guess. I'll just come lurk a bit now and then.