Bulgarians Mentioned In Egyptian Papyri From Fayoum
Bulgarians Mentioned in Egyptian Papyri from Fayoum
What was Ordinary in the Antiquity looks Odd today, due to the Greco-centric Fallacy of the Biased European Colonial 'Academics'
A while back, I received a brief email from a Bulgarian friend, who urgently asked me to watch a video and comment on the topic. The video offered links to a blog in Bulgarian and to an Austrian site of academic publications. The upsetting affair was the mention of a Bulgarian, or to put it rather correctly of a Bulgarian item or product which was imported in Coptic Egypt. As I understand Bulgarian to some extent, due to my Russian, I read the long presentation of the informative blog, and then replied to my friend. The video was actually a most abridged form of the article posted on the blog of a non-conventional Bulgarian blogger.
Contents
Introduction
I. Fayoum, Al Bahnasa (Oxyrhynchus), and Ancient Egyptian Papyri
II. Karl Wessely and his groundbreaking research and publications
III. Papyrus fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII
IV. Βουλγαρικ- (Vulgarik-)
V. Eastern Roman Emperor Maurice's Strategicon and the Bulgarian cloaks
VI. Historical context and the Ancient History of Bulgars
VII. Historical context, the Silk Roads, and Bulgarian exports to Egypt
VIII. Academic context and the Western falsehood of a Euro-centric World History
i- the conceptualization of World History
ii- the contextualization of every single document newly found here and there
iii- the stages of historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years
iv- the forgers themselves and their antiquity
v- and last but not least, several points of
a) governance of modern states
b) international alliances, and
c) the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it
Introduction
What follows is my response on the topic; although it concerns an undeniably very specific affair, it helps greatly in making general readership aware of how deeply interconnected the Ancient World was, of how different it was than it is presented in conventional publications, and of how many layers of fact distortion, source concealment, systematic forgery, academic misinterpretation, and intellectual falsification have been adjusted to what average people worldwide think of as 'World History'. In brief, the modern Western colonial presentation of World History, which was dictatorially imposed worldwide, is nothing more than a choice-supportive bias and a racist construct. You can also describe it as 'Hellenism', Greco-centrism or Euro-centrism.
----- Response to an inquisitive Bulgarian friend -----
My dear friend,
Your question and the associated topic are quite complex.
The video that you sent me is extremely brief and almost introductory.
Папирусът от Фаюм
However, in the description, it offers two links.
I read the article in the blog; I noticed that it was published before 12-13 years (13.10.2011). Папирусът (който щеше да бъде) с истинското име на българите?
The author seems to have been taken by surprise due to the Fayoum text, but as you will see, there is no reason for that.
The second link included in the video description offers access to Tyche, an academic annual (Fachzeitschrift) published by the Austrian Institut für Alte Geschichte und Altertumskunde, Papyrologie und Epigraphik der Universität Wien. But this is an introductory web page (https://tyche.univie.ac.at/index.php/tyche) that has links to many publications, which you can download in PDF.
You must not be surprised by such findings; they are old and known to the specialists; there are many Bulgarian professors specializing in Ancient Greek. Some of them surely know about the text. But it is in the nature of the Western sciences that scholars do not write for the general public; it is very different from what happened in the Soviet Union and the other countries of the Socialist bloc. Reversely, all the average bloggers, who find every now and then a historical document known but not publicized, think that they discovered something incredible, but in most of the cases, we don't have anything to do with an extraordinary discovery. Simply, History has been very different from what average people have been left to believe.
I. Fayoum, Al Bahnasa (Oxyrhynchus), and Ancient Egyptian Papyri
Fayoum by the way is an enormous oasis. It has cities, towns and villages. In our times, it was one of the strongholds of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Former president Muhammad Morsi got ca. 90% of the votes locally. About:
The discoveries of papyri in Egypt started mainly in the 19th c.; excavators unearthed tons of valuable documentation, unfortunately in fragmentary situation most of them; indicatively:
Such is the vastness of the documentation that either Egyptologists or Coptologists or Hellenists, there are many scholars of those disciplines who specialize in papyri only: the Papyrologists.
Fayoum map with Ancient Greek names
Fayoum Lake (above) - Wadi El Rayan waterfalls (below)
Temple of Soknopaios at Soknopaiou Nesos (Island), Fayoum (viewed from the SE)
Fayoum: a tourist destination
Another major site of papyri discovery is Oxyrhynchus (Ancient Greek name of the Egyptian site Per medjed / Oxyrhynchus is merely the Ancient Greek translation of Per medjed), i.e. the modern city of Al Bahnasa. Indicatively:
To get a minimal idea of the vastness of this field of research, go through the following introductory readings:
Cairo Fayum Papyri: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/Fayum.html
II. Karl Wessely and his groundbreaking research and publications
The fragment of papyrus that mentions in Ancient Greek an adjective, which means «Bulgarian» in English, was found in the Fayoum (you can write the word with -u or -ou). It was first published by a great scholar C. (Carl or Karl) Wessely (1860-1931).
He was one of the 10 most prominent scholars and philologists of the 2nd half of the 19th and the 1st half of the 20th c. He published a voluminous series of firsthand publications of discoveries, which was named Studien zur Paleographie und Papyruskunde (SPP). As you can guess, this took decades to be progressively materialized. Here you have an online list:
Unfortunately, the volume VIII (Leipzig 1908), which is mentioned in the article of the blog, is missing in the wikisource list!
No problem! You can find the PDF in the Internet Archives site. Here is the link:
You will find the text’s first publication on page 189 of the book; this is the page 63 of 186 of the PDF. This means that you will find this indication at the bottom of the PDF: 189 (63 / 186).
This volume, as stated on p. 7, contains «Griechische Papyrusurkunden kleineren Formats», i.e. Greek papyri documents of smaller format. If you find it strange that on the first page of the main text (137 (11 / 186) as per the PDF), the first text has the number 702, please remember that this is an enormous documentation published in the series of volumes (SPP) published by Wessely between 1900 and 1920.
III. Papyrus fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII
As you will see, the text slightly differs from what is shown in either the blog article or the video. It is indeed the 1224 papyrus fragment as per the enumeration of the publication. Similarly to many other cases, most of the text is lost; this is quite common. Few things are easy to assess, if you through the entire volume; apparently the background reflects Coptic Egypt, which means that all the texts date between the early 4th and 7th c. CE. This is clearly visible because the dating system is based on indiction, which was a Roman system of periodic taxation and then chronology. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiction
This Latin word was accepted in Greek: ινδικτιών,
We can also understand that the person, who wrote this specific document, was following (not the Julian calendar but) the Coptic calendar, because on the 8th line the remaining letters αρμουθί (armouthi) help us reconstitute the well-known Coptic month of Pharmouthi (or Parmouti) which corresponds to end March-beginning April (in the Julian calendar) or April and early May in the Gregorian calendar. In Arabic, it is pronounced 'Bermouda' (unrelated to the Bermuda islands).
About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmouti
It has to be noted that the pagan Greek calendar was abolished, and that the use of 'Greek' ('Alexandrine Koine, to be correct) in the Fayum papyri texts and elsewhere does not imply 'ethnic' membership but rather religious affiliation (in this case, in contrast to Coptic).
About the Coptic calendar:
In addition, you can see the first letter of the word «indiction» ι (ι) after Pharmouthi.
Apparently, this papyrus documented a transaction effectuated by a certain Cyril (Cyrillus / Κύριλλος). Only the letters «rill» (ριλλ) are saved, as you can see, but the high frequency of the name among the Copts makes of this word the first choice of any philologist. By the way, the name is still widely used among today’s Copts as «Krulos».
I fully support Wessely’s reconstitution of the document on lines 7, 10 and 11.
Line 7 (εγράφη out of εγρα-), i.e. «it was written»
Line 10 (απείληφα out of -ειλ-), i.e. «I received from»
Line 11 (και παρών απέλυσα out of -αρω-), i.e. «I set free by paying a ransom or I disengaged or I released». Details:
Now comes a thorny issue, because on line 6, Wessely wrote «λαμιο(υ)» (: lamio reconstituted as lamiu), and went on suggesting a unique term «χαρτα-λαμίου» (charta-lamiou). This is not attested in any other source. Λάμιον (lamium) is a genus of several species of plants, whereas Lamios (Λάμιος) is a personal name. About:
Also: (ἡμι-λάμιον) https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dh(mila%2Fmion
But «χαρτα-λαμίου» (in Genitive declension) is a hapax. Still the opinion of the first explorer and publisher is always crucial; but as in many other cases, these people publish such an enormous volume of documentation that they do not have enough time to explain their suggestions and reason about their choices. To them, publishing hitherto unpublished material is undisputedly no 1 priority.
Other scholars attempted a different approach; they hypothetically added «υιός» (yios), i.e. «son», before λαμίου (Lamiou)
Personally, I find it highly unlikely. First, I most of the times support the first explorer’s / publisher’s approach.
Second, I believe that those, who add «υιός» (yios), i.e. «son» on line 6, are forced to reconstitute Βουλγαρικ̣[ὸς on line 5. This is most probably wrong.
But Wessely did not attempt something like that, preferring to leave the only saved word on line 5 as it is «Βουλγαρικ̣».
Now, what stands on lines 1 to 4 is really too minimal to allow any specialist to postulate or speculate anything. Perhaps there was something «big» mentioned on line 3 («-μεγ-»/«-meg-»), but this is only an assumption. Also, on line 4, we read that something (or someone) was (or was sent or was bought) from somewhere, because of the words «από της» (apo tis), i.e. «from the» (in this case, «the» being the feminine form of the article in Genitive declension).
IV. Βουλγαρικ- (Vulgarik-)
Now, and this is the most important statement that can be made as regards this fragment of papyrus, the word that stands on line 5 is undoubtedly an adjective, not a substantive! This is very clear. This means that the word is not an ethnonym. In English, you use the word «Bulgarian», either you mean a Bulgarian man (in this case, it is a noun) or a Bulgarian wine (on this occasion, it is an adjective). Bulgarian is at the same time a proper noun and an adjective in English.
However, in Greek, there is a difference when it comes to names of countries and nations. When it is a proper noun (substantive), you say «Anglos» (Άγγλος), «Sikelos» (Σικελός), «Aigyptios» (Αιγύπτιος), etc. for Englishman, Sicilian man, Egyptian man, etc. But you say «anglikos» (αγγλικός), «sikelikos» (σικελικός), «aigyptiakos» (αιγυπτιακός), etc. for adjectives of masculine gender.
Discussing the word attested on line 5 of the papyrus fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII, I have to point out that in Ancient 'Greek' and in Alexandrine Koine, there is a vast difference between Βούλγαρος (Vulgaros) and βουλγαρικός (vulgarikos).
The first denotes a Bulgarian national, someone belonging to the ethnic group / nation of Bulgars and/or Bulgarians. At this point, I have to also add that these two words in English are a modern academic convention to distinguish Proto-Bulgarians (Bulgars) from the Bulgarians, who settled in the Balkan Peninsula. However, this distinction did not exist in Late Antiquity Greek texts and in Eastern Roman texts.
The second is merely an adjective: βουλγαρικός (vulgarikos), βουλγαρική (vulgariki), βουλγαρικόν (vulgarikon) are the three gender forms of the adjective: masculine, feminine and neutral.
So, as the preserved part of the word being «βουλγαρικ-» (vulgarik-), we can be absolutely sure that the papyrus text mentioned a Bulgarian item (a product typical of Bulgars or an imported object manufactured by Bulgars) — not a Bulgarian man.
All the same, it makes sure the following points:
a. in 4th-7th c. CE Egypt, people imported products that were manufactured by Bulgars in their own land (Bulgaria).
b. since the products were known, imported and listed as «Bulgar/Bulgarian», people knew the nation, which manufactured them, and its location.
c. considering the magnitude of the documentation that went lost, we can safely claim that there was nothing extraordinary in the arrival of Bulgar/Bulgarian products in in 4th-7th c. CE Egypt.
d. the papyrus in question presents the transaction in terms of «business as usual».
This is all that can be said about the papyrus text, but here ends the approach of the philologist and starts the viewpoint of the historian. However, before presenting the historical context of the transaction recorded in the fragmentarily saved papyrus from Fayoum, I have to also discuss another issue, which was mentioned in the blogger's interesting discussion.
V. Eastern Roman Emperor Maurice's Strategicon and the Bulgarian cloaks
Of course, as anyone could expect, several historians and philologists would try to find parallels to the mention of Bulgarian imports made in this papyrus fragment.
And they did. In his presentation, the blogger already mentioned several academic efforts. So, the following paragraphs, which are to be found almost in the middle of the article (immediately after the picture), refer to two scholarly efforts to establish parallels:
«Публикуван е за пръв път от SPP VIII 1124, Wessely, C., Leipzig 1908 и по - късно препубликуван от Diethart, в публикация с многозначителното заглавие „Bulgaren“ und „Hunnen“, S. 11 - 1921. Въпреки това папирусът не стига много бързо до родна публика.
"По пътя" един учен, Моравчик, стига и по - далеч при превода. Той разчита в откъсите и думата "Пояс" и включва в теорията ново сведение(Mauricii Artis mllltaris libri duodecim, Xll (ed. Scheffer), p. 303) , където се казва, че пехотинците трябвало да носят "ζωναρία bм λιτά, xal βουλγαρική cay ία" - т.е. смята, че става дума за носен в Египет от военните "български пояс"(сведенията за публикациите дотук са по Иван Костадинов).
Вдясно виждате лична снимка. Коптска носия от 4-ти век н.е. Пази се в етнографския музей на александрийската библиотека. По необходимост за пустинния климат е от лен. Оттам вече аналогиите оставям изцяло на вас.
Папирусът "идва в България" късно. По спомени казвам ,че мисля, че първият публикувал го е доста уважаваният Иван Дуриданов, който с радост представя на българската публика вече 4 деситилетия предъвкваният от западната лингвистика български папирус. Той публикува радостна статия, с която приветства откритието».
Certainly, Gyula Moravcsik (1892-1972) and Johannes Diethart (born in 1942) proved to be great scholars indeed. About:
The adjective Vulgarikos, -i, -on («Bulgarian» in three genders) is attested in a famous Eastern Roman text, which is rather known under the title «Maurice’s Strategicon»; this was a handbook of military sciences and a guide to techniques, methods and practices employed by the Eastern Roman army. It was written by Emperor Maurice (Μαυρίκιος- Mauricius /reigned: 582-602) or composed according to his orders. About:
I did not read Moravcsik’s article, but I read the Strategicon; it does not speak of «Bulgarian belts», but of «Bulgarian cloaks». In this regard, the blogger mentions a very old edition of the text, namely Mauricii Artis mllltaris libri duodecim, Xll (ed. Scheffer), p. 303). This dates back to 1664:
At those days, all Western European editions of Ancient Greek texts involved Latin translations. Scheffer's edition of the Strategicon can be found here:
https://books.google.ru/books?id=77NODQEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 303)
George T. Dennis' translation (1984) makes the text accessible to English readers:
In the 12th chapter, which is the last of the Strategicon, under the title "Mixed Formations, Infantry, Camps and Hunting", in part I (Clothing to be Worn by the Infantry), on page 138 (University of Pennsylvania Press), the word σαγίον (sagion) is very correctly translated as "cloak". The author refers to "βουλγαρικά σαγία" (Latin: sagia Bulgarica) in plural; this is rendered in English "Bulgarian cloaks", which are thought to be very heavy. Already, the word σαγίον (sagion) is of Latin etymology. About:
and https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100436640
Also: https://greek_greek.en-academic.com/151302/σαγίον
In that period and for more than 1000 years, what people now erroneously call «Medieval Greek» or «Byzantine Greek» (which in reality is «Eastern Roman») was an amalgamation of Alexandrine Koine and Latin. There were an enormous number of Latin words written in Greek characters and in Alexandrine Koine form. Indicatively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
At this point, I complete my philological commentary on the topic. I read the Strategicon of Emperor Maurice when I was student in Athens in the middle 1970s.
I did not remember the mention of Bulgarian cloaks, but I know however that the Bulgars, who founded the Old Great Bulgaria, appear in Eastern Roman texts at least 100 years before the purported establishment and growth of that state (632–668). The academic chronology for the First Bulgarian Empire may be correct (681–1018), but the dates given for the Old Great Bulgaria and the Volga Bulgaria (late 7th c.–1240s) are deliberately false. General info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars#Etymology_and_origin
VI. Historical context and the Ancient History of Bulgars
It is now time for me to briefly discuss the historical context within which the aforementioned topics took place. Let’s first ask some questions:
Is it strange that a Fayoum papyrus of the 3rd-7th c. CE mentions Bulgarian products that arrived in Egypt?
Is it odd that in Emperor Maurice’s Strategicon we find a mention of Bulgarian cloaks used or not used by the Eastern Roman army?
In both cases, the response is «no»!
From where did these Bulgarian products come?
Where did Bulgars (or Bulgarians) live at the time?
My personal response is somehow vague: they came from some regions of today’s Russia’s European soil, either in the southern confines (the Azov Sea, the northern coast of the Black Sea, and the North Caucasus region) or in the area of today’s Tatarstan and other lands north-northeast of the Caspian Sea.
It is not easy to designate one specific location in this regard, and this is so for one extra reason: it seems that there were several tribes named with the same name, and they were distinguished among themselves on the basis of earlier tribal affiliations, which may go back to the Rouran Khaganate (330-555 CE). There are actually plenty of names associated with the early Bulgars, notably the Onogurs, the Kutrigurs, etc. About:
Many readers may be taken by surprise because I go back easily from the time of the Old Great Bulgaria (630-668 CE) to that of the Rouran Khaganate and the Huns. All the same, there is no surprise involved in this regard. Western European historians deliberately, systematically and customarily underestimate across the board the value of Oral History and attempt to dissociate Ethnography from History; these approaches are wrong. It is quite possible that, from the very beginning of the establishment of Rouran Khaganate, many tribes, clans or families (which later became nations) started migrating. The very first Bulgars (Bulgarians) may have reached areas north of the Iranian borders in Central Asia or in Northern Caucasus much earlier than it is generally thought among Western scholars. See indicatively:
Now, the reasons for which I intentionally date the first potential interaction of Bulgars/Bulgarians with other tribes (or nations) in earlier periods are not a matter of personal preference or obstinacy. There is an important historical text named «Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans». It has not been duly comprehended let alone interpreted thus far. About:
Three Russian copies of the text have been saved (in Church Slavonic); they date back to the 15th and 16th c. They are generally viewed as later copies of a potential Old Bulgarian text of the 9th c. Other specialists also pretend that there may/might have been an even earlier text, in either Eastern Roman («Medieval Greek») or Bulgar, which was eventually a stone inscription.
In this document, the highly honorific title «Knyaz» (Князь) is given to Asparuh (ca. 640-700) and to his five predecessors. I must add that the said document was always an intriguing historical source for me due to two bizarre particularities to which I don't think that any scholar or specialist gave due attention, deep investigation, and persuasive interpretation.
First, the antiquity of the document is underscored by the fact that the early Bulgar calendar, which is attested in this text, appears to be an adaptation of the Chinese calendar. This fact means that the primeval Bulgars, when located somewhere in Eastern Siberia or Mongolia, must have had dense contacts with the Chinese scribal and imperial establishment; perhaps this fact displeased other Turanian-Mongolian tribes of the Rouran Khaganate and contributed to the emigration of those «Ur-Bulgaren». The next point is however more impactful on our approach to the very early phase of the Bulgars.
Second, although for most of the rulers immortalized in the historical document, the duration of their lifetimes or tenures are of entirely historical nature (involving brief or long periods of 5 up to 60 years of reign or lifetime), the two first names of rulers are credited with incredibly long lifetimes. This is not common; actually, it does not look sensible; but it is meaningful.
More specifically, Avitohol is said to have lived 300 years, whereas Irnik is credited with 150 years. But we know who Irnik was! Irnik or Ernak was the 3rd son of Attila and he is said to have been his most beloved offspring. Scholars fix the beginning of his reign in 437 CE, but this is still not the important point. The crucial issue with the partly «mythical» and partly historical nature of the text «Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans» is the fact that the two early rulers, whom the Bulgarians considered as their original ancestors, are credited with extraordinarily long and physically impossible lives. General reading:
This can therefore imply only one thing: at a later period, when the earlier memories were partly lost for various reasons, eventually because of the new environment namely the Balkan Peninsula, in which the then Bulgars were finding themselves, Avitohol and Irnik were retained as the leading figures of ruling families, and not as independent rulers. Consequently, the dates given for their lives were in fact those of their respective dynasties. It was then that the very early period of Bulgar History was mythicized for statecraft purposes, mystified to all, and sanctified in the national consciousness.
Many Western scholars attempted to identify Avitohol with Attila, but in vain; I don’t think that this attempt can be maintained. So, I believe that the Bulgars were one of the noble families of the Huns (evidently involving intermarriage with Attila himself), and that before Attila, the very earliest Bulgars were ruled by another dynasty which had lasted 300 years. But if it is so, we go back to the times of the Roman Emperor Trajan (reign: 98-117 CE), Vologases III of Arsacid Parthia (110–147 CE) and the illustrious Chinese general, explorer and diplomat Ban Chao (32-102 CE) of the Eastern Han dynasty. About:
The latter fought for 30 years against the Xiongnu (Hiung-nu/匈奴, i.e. the earliest tribes of the Huns, consolidated the Chinese control throughout the Tarim Basin region (today's Eastern Turkestan or Xinjiang), and was appointed Protector General of the Western Regions. He is very famous for having dispatched Gan Ying, an envoy, to the West in 97 CE. According to the Book of the Later Han (Hou Hanshu/後漢書), which was compiled in the 5th c. CE by Fan Ye, Gan Ying reached Parthia (Arsacid Iran; in Chinese: Anxi, 安息) and gave the first Chinese account of the Western confines of Asia and of the Roman Empire. About:
It is n this historical environment that we have to place the very early ancestors of the Bulgars.
VII. Historical context, the Silk Roads, and Bulgarian exports to Egypt
Consequently, I believe that it is more probable that the Bulgarian products of those days were first appreciated by the Iranians and later sold to Aramaeans, Armenians, Iberians and other nations settled in the western confines of the Arsacid (250 BCE-224 CE) and the Sassanid (224-651 CE) empires, i.e. in Mesopotamia and Syria, and thence they became finally known in Egypt as well.
The incessant migrations from NE Asia to Central Europe and to Africa, as a major historical event, were not separate from the 'Silk Roads'; they were part, consequence or side-effect of that, older and wider, phenomenon. Actually, the term 'Silk Roads' is at the same time inaccurate and partly; the magnificent phenomenon of commercial, cultural and spiritual inter-exchanges, which took place due to the establishment (by the Achaemenid Shah Darius I the Great) of a comprehensive network of numerous older regional trade routes, is to be properly described as 'silk-, spice-, and perfume-trade routes across lands, deserts and seas'. About: https://silkroadtexts.wordpress.com/
It has to be said that, after the Achaemenid Iranian invasion, annexation and occupation of Egypt, Sudan and NE Libya (525-404 BCE and 343-332 BCE), Iranian settlers remained in Egypt; they were known to and mentioned by the Macedonian settlers, who manned the Macedonian dynasty of Ptolemies (323-30 BCE). General info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Achaemenid_conquest_of_Egypt
Those Iranian settlers were called 'Persai (ek) tis epigonis' (Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς), lit. 'Iranian settlers' descendants'. About:
Pieter W. Pestman, A proposito dei documenti di Pathyris II Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς
Xin Dai, Ethnicity Designation in Ptolemaic Egypt https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329265278_Ethnicity_Designation_in_Ptolemaic_Egypt
See a text from the time of the Roman Emperor Domitian (reign: 81-96) here: https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.athen;;23
See another text from the time of the Roman Emperor Nerva (reign: 96-98) here:
There were also in Egypt Jewish Aramaean descendants of the early Iranian settlers: "οἱ τρ(ε)ῖς | Ἰουδαῖοι Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς τῶν [ἀ]πὸ Σύρων κώ- | μης" (lit. Jewish Iranians, who were the descendants of an Aramaean town) - From: Database of Military Inscriptions and Papyri of Early Roman Palestine https://armyofromanpalestine.com/0140-2
Please note in this regard that the title given to the web page and the document is very wrong and extremely biased: "§140 Loan between Jews and Lucius Vettius"; the three persons who received the loan were not ethnic Jews. Their religion was surely Judaism, as it was the case of the renowned Samaritan woman with whom Jesus spoke according to the Gospels. Several other nations accepted Judaism, notably Aramaeans in Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia (they were called 'Syrians' by the Macedonians and the Romans). It is well known that there were many clashes and strives between them and the ethnic Jews. The latter were few and lived either in Jerusalem (and its suburbs) or in Egypt (in Alexandria and many other locations) or in the centers of Talmudic academies in Mesopotamia (namely Nehardea, Pumbedita and Mahoze / Ctesiphon). About:
If I expanded on this topic, it is precisely because the merchants, who were most active across the Silk Roads, were the Aramaeans, and that is why Aramaic became almost an official language in the Achaemenid Empire of Iran, whereas at the same time it turned out to be the lingua franca alongside the trade routes. Furthermore, a great number of writing systems in Central Asia, Iran, India, and Western Asia were developed on the basis of the Aramaic alphabet. Last but not least, Arabic originates from Syriac, which is a late form of Aramaic. About:
It is therefore essential to state that the Bulgarian products, which (either from North Caucasus and the northern coastlands of the Black Sea or from the regions around the north-northeastern shores of the Caspian Sea) reached Egypt (via most probably North Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine), were transported on camels owned by Aramaean merchants and due to caravans organized and directed by Aramaeans.
It is also noteworthy that, during the Arsacid times, several buffer-states were formed between the eastern borders of the Roman Empire and the western frontiers of Parthia: Osrhoene, Sophene, Zabdicene, Adiabene, Hatra, Characene, Elymais, Gerrha (the illustrious port of call and major trade center of the Persian Gulf that rivaled with Alexandria in the Mediterranean), the Nabataean kingdom, and the short-lived but most formidable Tadmor (Palmyra). This situation favored the world trade between East and West, as well as North and South. General info:
The great rivalry and ferocious antagonism between the Romans (and later the Eastern Romans) and the Iranians after the rise of the Sassanid dynasty (224 CE) did not affect in anything the good relations and the trade among Egyptians, Aramaeans, and Iranians; there were numerous Aramaean populations in both empires, so, we feel safe to conclude that any products from lands north of Caucasus mountains and north of Iran were transported by Aramaeans via Palestine or Nabataea to Egypt.
There have been additional reasons for the good feelings of the Egyptians toward the Iranians, and they were of religious nature. The Christological disputes generated enmity and great animosity between
a) the Copts (: Egyptians) and the Aramaeans, who adopted Miaphysitism (also known as Monophysitism), and
b) the Eastern Romans and the Western Romans, who thought they preserved the correct faith (Orthodoxy).
One has to bear always in mind, that in order to define themselves, the so-called Monophysites (also known more recently as 'Miaphysites') used exactly the same term (i.e. 'Orthodox'), which means that they considered the Eastern Romans and the Western Romans as heretics. The patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were split. Atop of it, other Aramaeans (mostly in Mesopotamia and Iran) accepted the preaching of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was also deposed as a heretic (in August 431). For the aforementioned religious reasons, the Eastern Roman armies were most loathed in Syria, Palestine, North Mesopotamia (today's SE Turkey), and Egypt as oppressors. About:
In addition, one has to take into consideration the fact that the Jews, who inhabited the eastern provinces of the Roman (and later the Eastern Roman) Empire, were also pro-Iranian and they expected that the Iranians would liberate them one day from the Roman yoke pretty much like the Achaemenid Iranian Emperor Cyrus delivered their exiled ancestors from the tyranny of Nabonid Babylonia (539 BCE).
The Axumite Abyssinian invasion of Yemen (ca. 530 CE; in coordination with the Roman Emperor Justinian I), the ensued Iranian-Axumite wars, the Iranian invasion of Yemen (570 CE; known as the Year of the Elephant among the Arabs of Hejaz), and the incessant battles and wars between the Eastern Roman and the Sassanid Iranian armies were closely watched by all populations in Egypt. The third Iranian conquest of Egypt (618 CE) was a matter of great jubilation for Copts and Jews; Egypt was annexed to Iran for ten (10 years), before being under Eastern Roman control again for fourteen years (628-642 CE) and then invaded by the Islamic armies. General info:
Indicative of the good Egyptian feelings for the Sassanid emperors and Iran is a tapestry weave found by Albert Gayet in his 1908 excavations in Antinoe (also known as Antinoöpolis, i.e. the town of Sheikh Ibada in today's Egypt); this is a textile fragment of legging that dates back to the late 6th and early 7th c. (Musée des Tissus, in Lyon-France; MT 28928). It features the scene of an unequal battle that has been identified as one of the engagements between the Sassanid and the Axumite armies in Yemen; Iranian horse-archers are depicted at the moment of their triumph over Abyssinian infantry opponents, who appear to be armed with stones. In the very center of the scene, an enthroned figure was often identified with the great Iranian Emperor Khosrow (Chosroes) I Anushirvan (Middle Persian: Anoshag ruwan: 'with Immortal Soul'), who was for Sassanid Iran as historically important as Justinian I, his early rival and subsequent peace partner, for the Roman Empire. About:
This was the wider historical context at the time of the arrival of the first Bulgarian exports to the Sassanid Empire of Iran, the Eastern Roman Empire, and Egypt more specifically. And the Bulgarian cloaks, as mentioned in Maurice’s Strategicon, make every researcher rather think of heavy winter cloaks, which were apparently not necessary for the Eastern Roman soldiers, who had to usually fight in less harsh climatological conditions. It is possible that those heavy cloaks were eventually used by the Iranian army when engaged in the Caucasus region, and thence they were noticed by the Eastern Romans.
With these points, I complete my philological and historical comments on the topic. However, the entire issue has to be also contextualized at the academic-educational level, so that you don't find it bizarre that not one average Bulgarian knew about the topic before the inquisitive blogger wrote his article and the YouTuber uploaded his brief video.
VIII. Academic context and the Western falsehood of a Euro-centric World History
This part does not concern the Fayoum papyri and the Strategicon of Emperor Maurice; it has to do with what non-specialists, the average public, and various unspecialized explorers do not know at all.
This issue pertains to
i- the conceptualization of World History;
ii- the contextualization of every single document newly found here and there;
iii- the stages of historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years;
iv- the forgers themselves and their antiquity, and last but not least; and
v- several points of
a) governance of modern states,
b) international alliances, and
c) the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it.
As you can guess, one can write an encyclopedia on these topics, so I will be very brief. Attention: only at the end, you will understand that all these parameters fully precondition the topic that we already discussed, and any other that we have not yet discussed, because simply it does not exist as a standalone entity but as a fact entirely conditioned by what I herewith describe in short.
What I want to say is this: if tomorrow another Fayoum discovery brings to light a 3rd c. BCE papyrus with the mention of something Bulgarian (Voulgarikon), this will not affect in anything the prevailing conditions of the so-called academic scholarship. In other words, do not imagine that with tiny shreds of truth unveiled here and there, you are going to change anything in the excruciatingly false manner World History was written.
i- the conceptualization of World History
It may come as a nasty surprise to you, but what we know now about History is not the conclusion or the outcome of additional discoveries made one after the other over the past 400-500 years. Contrarily, it was first preconceived, when people had truly minimal knowledge of the past, and after they had forged thousands of documents and manuscripts for at least 500-600 years, long before the early historiographical efforts were undertaken during the Renaissance.
After they destroyed, concealed and rewrote tons of manuscripts of Ancient Greek and Roman historiography from ca. 750 CE until 1500 CE, Western European monks and editors, philosophers and intellectuals, popes, scientists and alchemists started propagating their world view about the assumingly glorious past of their supposedly Greek and Roman ancestors – a nonexistent past that the Renaissance people were deliberately fooled enough to believe that they had lost and they had to rediscover it. In fact, all the discoveries made afterwards, all the decipherments of numerous ancient writings, and all the studies of original material from Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, Caucasus, Central Asia, China and India was duly processed and adjusted in a way not to damage or challenge in anything the preconceived scheme which was named 'World History' by the vicious and criminal Western European forgers.
This means that you should never expect 'new discoveries' to challenge the officially established dogma of the Western academia; it is not about Bulgars and the past of today's Bulgarians, Thracians, Macedonians, etc., etc., etc. It is about all. What type of position the Bulgarians, the Russians, the Turks, the Iranians, the Egyptians and all the rest occupy in today's distorted historiography had been decided upon long before the establishment of the modern states that bear those names.
ii- the contextualization of every single document newly found here and there
Any finding unearthed by anyone anytime anywhere means nothing in itself; this concerns every historiographer, truthful or dishonest. What truly matters for all is contextualization. It so did for the original forgers. Theirs was an arbitrary attempt; they contextualized the so-called 'Ancient Greece' in a way that would have been fully unacceptable, blasphemous and abominable for the outright majority of all the South Balkan populations during the 23 centuries prior to the foundation of Constantinople by Constantine the Great.
It was peremptory, partial and biased; according to the fallacious narratives of the forgers, centuries were shrunk and shortened in order to fit into few lines; moreover the schemers stretched geographical terms at will; they did not use various terms, which were widely employed in the Antiquity; they passed important persons under silence, while exaggerating the presentation of unimportant ones. This is what contextualization was for the forgers: they applied a Latin recapitulative name (Graeci) to a variety of nations, which never used this Latin term or any other recapitulative term for them; they applied a non-Ionian, non-Achaean, and non-Aeolian term (Hellenes) to them and to others; and after the decipherment of many Oriental languages, they did not rectify their preposterous mistakes, although they learned quite well that the two fake terms about those populations (Graecus and Hellene) did not exist in any other language of highly civilized nations (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite, Hurrian, Canaanite, Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Old Achaemenid Iranian).
Consequently, every other information, data and documentation pertaining to any elements of the said context was concealed, distorted or misinterpreted in order to be duly adjusted to the biased context that had been elaborated first.
iii- the stages of historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years
Following the aforementioned situation, many dimensions of historical falsification were carried out and can actually be noticed by researchers, explorers, investigators and astute observers. The 'barbarian invasions' (or Migration Period) is only one of them; I mention it first because it concerns the Bulgars. Long before distorting the History of Great Old Bulgaria and that of Volga Bulgaria systematically, Western historical forgers portrayed Bulgars and many other highly civilized nations as barbarians. Why?
Because the historical forgers of the Western World hate nomads! This is an irrevocable trait of them; that's why they fabricated the fake term 'civilization' in their absurd manner: originating from the Latin word 'civitas', the worthless and racist term 'civilization' implies that you cannot be 'civilized' unless you are urban. This monstrous and unacceptable fact reveals the rotten roots of the hideous, vulgar, sick and villainous Western world and colonial academia.
In the Orient, there was never a cultural divide between urban populations and nomads; some nomadic tribes were considered as barbarians; that's true. But also settled populations and urban inhabitants were also considered as barbarians (like the Elamites, who were considered as inhuman by the Assyrians). The rule was that the settled nations were nomads in earlier periods. But the status of a society was irrelevant of the consideration and the esteem (or lack thereof) that others had about a certain nation. This started with the Romans and their interpretation of the South Balkan, Anatolian, and Cretan past. It was then re-utilized and modified by Western Europeans. To some extent, the papal approval was tantamount to acquisition of credentials and to promotion to 'civilized nation status'. Actually, this is today the nucleus of the whole problem concerning Ukraine.
That is why the so-called Migration Period was so terribly distorted by Western historians. Western historians deliberately preferred to stay blind and not to study the Ancient Mongol chronicles (notably the Secret History of The Mongols) in order to avoid assessing the Mongol-Turanian standards and principles of civilization. Had they proceeded in the opposite way, they would have discovered that, for the nomads, it is the settled people and the urban populations, who are barbarians, decayed and shameful.
The truth about the fallacious term 'Migration Period' is simple: there was never a migration period before 1500 CE (and certainly none afterwards), because every century was actually a migration period. Human History is a history of migrations.
The distorted linguistic-ethnographic division of the migrant nations helped forgers to dramatically increase the confusion level; as a matter of fact, there was no proper ethnic division (in the modern sense of the term) among Mongols, Turanians, Slavs and several other migrant nations. The languages change when people migrate and settle, resettle, move again, and end up in faraway places. For Muslim historians, the khan of the Saqaliba (: Slavs) was the strongest of all Turanian rulers. The arbitrary distinction of the migrant nations into two groups, namely Indo-European and Ural-Altaic/Turco-Mongolian nations was done deliberately in order to intentionally transform the face of the world and adjust it to the so-called Table of Nations, a forged text that made its way into the biblical book of Genesis in later periods (6th–4th c. BCE). General reading:
The Western academic tyranny is so deeply rooted that, irrespective of your political, ideological or philosophical affiliation (fascist, Nazi, communist, conservative, social-democrat, liberal, atheist, evolutionist, creationist, anarchist, etc.), you always have to adjust your seminars, courses, lectures, contributions, books and publications to the fallacy of Genesis chapter 10. The absurd logic of this system is the following: "since no Bulgars are mentioned in the Table of Nations, they must be a later tribe". Then, believe it or not, whatever documentation may be found in Aramaic, Middle Persian, Pahlavi, Brahmi, Kharosthi, Avestan, Sogdian, Tocharian, Chinese or other texts about the Bulgars will be deliberately presented as irrelevant to Bulgars. If a new Sogdian document is found in Central Asia (dating back to the middle Arsacid times: 1st c. CE) and there is a certain mention of Bulgars in the text, the criminal gangsters and the systematic fraudsters of the Western universities and museums will write an enormous amount of articles to stupidly discredit the document or attribute the word to anything or anyone else.
iv- the forgers themselves and their antiquity
The above makes it clear that the foundations of today's Western academic life, historiographical research, sector of Humanities, and all the associated fields of study were laid by the Western European Catholic monks and only after the end of the Eastern Roman imperial control, appointment and approval of the Roman popes (752 CE).
This changes totally the idea that you and the entire world have of the History of Mankind because it means that the Benedictine-Papal-Roman opposition to and clash with the Eastern Roman Empire (and the subsequent schisms of 867 and 1054) were entirely due to the resolute papal attempt to forge the World History, to substitute it with a fake History, and to diffuse all the Anti-Christian schemes that brought the world to today's chaos. As the Muslims were totally unaware of the confrontation, the Crusades were undertaken against (not the Caliphate but) Constantinople. All the Christian Orthodox monasteries and libraries were controlled by Catholic monks, scribes, copyists and priests who had the time (from 1204 until 1261) to rob whatever manuscripts they had to rob, destroy whatever manuscripts they had to destroy, and leave all the rest as 'useless' to their enterprise.
That is why modern scholars are ordered to jubilate every time a papyrus fragment is found in Egypt with few lines of verses from Homer, Hesiod and the Ancient 'Greek' tragedians, historians or philosophers! They publicize these discoveries in order to make every naïve guy believe that the bulk of their forged documentation is genuine. But it is not.
v- and last but not least, several points of
a) governance of modern states
The consolidation of the historical forgery was top concern for the colonial puppets of the Western European powers and for the powers hidden behind the scenes. I still remember the blogger's comments about the late 19th and early 20th c. Bulgarian statesmen, politicians and academics, who were not so enthusiastic about the Fayoum papyrus! He made me laugh at; of course, he was very correct in writing what he did. Absolutely pertinent! But also very naïve!
He failed to remember that the top Ottoman military officer in Salonica during the First Balkan War, lieutenant general Hasan Tahsin Pasha (also known as Hasan Tahsin Mesarea; 1845-1918), as soon as he learned that the 7th Bulgarian Division was coming from the northeast, decided on his own to surrender the Salonica fortress and 26000 men to the Greek crown prince Constantine, being thus deemed a traitor and sentenced to death by a martial court.
No Bulgarian (or other) official had ever the authority to go beyond the limits specified as regards either borderlines or historical approaches and conclusions.
b) international alliances, and
The same is valid today; it would be bizarre for Bulgarian professors of universities and academics to teach, diffuse, publish and propagate ideas, concepts and interpretations that contravene the worldwide norm that the Western colonials imposed across the Earth. It is as simple as that: Bulgaria, as EU member state, participates in many academic projects like Erasmus, etc. The professor, who would challenge the lies and the falsehood, which are at the basis of the so-called European values, principles and standards, would automatically become a problem for his rector, who would be receiving most unpleasant if not threatening calls from every corner of the Earth, as well as demands to fire the uncooperative, 'controversial' professor.
c) the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it
Actually, it is not a matter of Bulgaria and how the true History of Bulgaria is hidden from the Bulgarians; the same is valid in Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Israel, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, etc. As I lived in all these countries, I have personal experience and deep knowledge as regards their pedagogical systems and the contents of their manuals. In Egypt, schoolchildren study the History of Ancient Egypt down to Ramses III only (ca. 1200 BCE) and next year, they start with the beginning of Islam (642 CE). Why?
Because during the falsely called Roman times, Egyptian mysticisms, religions, spirituality, cults, sciences, arts, wisdom, cosmogony, cosmology, and eschatology flooded Greece, Rome, the Roman Empire, and even Europe beyond the Roman borders. The Egyptian pupil must not learn that the Greeks, the Romans, and the Europeans were dramatically inferior to his own cultural heritage. That's why stupid and illiterate sheikhs, ignorant imams, and evil theologians intoxicate the average Egyptians with today's fake Islam, which is not a religion anymore but a theological-ideological-political system at the antipodes of the true historical Islam. It cuts the average Egyptian from his own cultural heritage, thus making him stupidly care about the wives and the prematurely dead children of prophet Muhammad, as well as other matters of no importance for the spiritual-cultural-intellectual phenomenon of Islam.
Best regards,
Shamsaddin
More Posts from S-afshar and Others
Sumerian Taxes
Whenever spring rolls around and I do my taxes, I think of the Sumerians. Cuneiform may have been used to write literary works, hymns of praise, and personal letters, but a massive chunk of the texts in Sumerian we have today are account ledgers, business records, and especially tax documents. It’s been theorized that the earliest writing was, in fact, developed for the purpose of keeping track of property and taxation records.
This tablet, from the Indiana State Library, is a list of taxable produce from about 2350 BCE. It predates what was probably the pinnacle of the Mesopotamian tax system, called bala taxation, in the 22nd and 21st centuries. Under the bala system, tens of millions of liters of grain were moved around Mesopotamia to support a population of state workers possibly numbering as many as 500,000, using an accounting system of thousands of tablets a year. More than ten thousand such tablets have been found at Puzrish-Dagan, an administrative center founded by King Shulgi at which tax records from across the Neo-Sumerian Empire. When I send my tax forms in to the IRS center in Austin, Charlotte or Kansas City, I think of it as a modern Puzrish-Dagan.
Though the damage on the right side of the above tablet is probably more recent, I like to imagine someone got frustrated with the local tax-collector-scribe and tried to deface their documentation. So when you fill in those tax forms, think of the Sumerians, and the connections we have across millennia, with love, and sometimes just a touch of frustration.
Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ: Σταυρόσχημοι Λαξευτοί Τάφοι των Αχαιμενιδών & Ανάγλυφο του Βαλεριανού, Αιχμάλωτου Ρωμαίου Αυτοκράτορα, Γονατιστού προ του Έφιππου Σαπούρ Α’ (240-270)
Naqsh-e Rustam: Cruciform Carved Tombs of the Achaemenid Dynasty & Relief of the Roman Emperor Valerian Captive and Kneeling before Emperor Shapur I (240-270)
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 19 Σεπτεμβρίου 2019. Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης παρουσιάζει όψεις της διαχρονικής σημασίας της αχαιμενιδικής νεκρόπολης του Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ, βασιζόμενος σε στοιχεία τα οποία παρέθεσα σε διάλεξή μου στο Καζακστάν (τον Ιανουάριο του 2019) σχετικά με την εσχατολογική σημασία ορισμένων ιερών χώρων του Ιράν.
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/09/19/ναξ-ε-ρουστάμ-σταυρόσχημοι-λαξευτοί-τ/ ================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Πολύ πιο εντυπωσιακό από την κοντινή (10 χμ) Περσέπολη είναι το απόμακρο Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ (نقش رستم / Naqsh-e Rostam / Накше-Рустам, δηλαδή ‘η Εικόνα του Ρουστάμ’, ενός Ιρανού μυθικού ήρωα), ένας κορυφαίος προϊσλαμικός ιρανικός αρχαιολογικός χώρος που τα πελώρια μνημεία του, λαξευτά στον βράχο, ανάγλυφα ή οικοδομημένα αυτοτελώς, καλύπτουν 1200 χρόνια Ιστορίας του Ιράν, από την αρχή των Αχαιμενιδών (Χαχαμανεσιάν / 550-330 π.Χ.) μέχρι το τέλος των Σασανιδών (Σασανιάν / 224-651 μ.Χ.)
Εδώ βρισκόμαστε στα ιερά και τα όσια των Αχαιμενιδών: ο επιβλητικός βράχος λαξεύτηκε επανειλημμένα για να χρησιμεύσει ως αχαιμενιδική νεκρόπολη. Είναι αλήθεια ότι οι Πάρθες, οι οποίοι αποσχίσθηκαν από την Συρία των Σελευκιδών (το μεγαλύτερο κράτος των Επιγόνων) το 250 π.Χ. κι έστησαν την μακροβιώτερη ιρανική προϊσλαμική δυναστεία (τους Αρσακίδες – Ασκανιάν: 250 π.Χ. – 224 μ.Χ.), δεν ένοιωσαν κανένα δεσμό με τον συγκεκριμένο χώρο και δεν ανήγειραν κανένα μνημείο στην περιοχή. Άλλωστε, η Περσέπολη παρέμεινε πάντοτε εγκαταλελειμένη μετά την καταστροφή της από τον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο.
Και το Ιστάχρ, η μεγάλη σασανιδική πρωτεύουσα που είναι επίσης κοντά, ήταν μια μικρή πόλη, η οποία απέκτησε ισχύ μόνον μετά την άνοδο των Σασανιδών. Ουσιαστικά, για να αντλήσουν πειστήρια ιρανικής αυθεντικότητας και ζωροαστρικής ορθοδοξίας, οι Σασανίδες απέδωσαν εξαιρετικές τιμές στους σημαντικούς αχαιμενιδικούς χώρους δείχνοντας έτσι ότι επρόκειτο για ένα είδος επανάκαμψης ή παλινόστησης.
Για να επισκεφθεί κάποιος το Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ, το Ιστάχρ και την Περσέπολη σήμερα, πρέπει μάλλον να μείνει στην Σιράζ (شیراز / Shiraz / Шираз) που απέχει περίπου 40 χμ και είναι σήμερα η πέμπτη μεγαλύτερη πόλη του Ιράν και η πρωτεύουσα της επαρχίας Φαρς, δηλαδή της καθαυτό Περσίας. Αυτό είναι μια ακόμη απόδειξη του γεγονότος ότι κάνουν τρομερό λάθος όσοι Έλληνες από άγνοια αποκαλούν το Ιράν ‘Περσία’. Η Περσία είναι μόνον μια επαρχία του Ιράν κι οι Πέρσες είναι ένα μόνον από τα έθνη του Ιράν. Κι έτσι ήταν πάντα – για πάνω από 2500 χρόνια Ιστορίας του Ιράν. Η Σιράζ ήταν η πρωτεύουσα των ισλαμικών δυναστειών των Σαφαριδών και των Βουγιδών (Μπουαϊχί) που αποσπάσθηκαν από το Αβασιδικό Χαλιφάτο της Βαγδάτης στο δεύτερο μισό του 9ου χριστιανικού αιώνα.
Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ (Νουπιστάς/Nupistaš στα Αρχαία Αχαιμενιδικά)
Οι λαξευτοί αχαιμενιδικοί τάφοι στο Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ είναι ορατοί από χιλιόμετρα μακριά κι ένας ταξιδιώτης τους επισκέπτεται καλύτερα (με άπλετο φως και χωρίς σκιές) το μεσημέρι, καθώς οι προσόψεις των πελωρίων διαστάσεων λαξευτών τάφων στρέφονται προς τα νότια, καθώς ο τεράστιος βραχώδης λόφος έχει διάταξη από ανατολικά προς δυτικά.
Δεν κάνω μια τυπική αρχαιολογική παρουσίαση για να δώσω τις διαστάσεις με λεπτομέρειες, γι’ αυτό σημειώνω εδώ μόνον ενδεικτικά στοιχεία για τον τάφο του Δαρείου του Μεγάλου: η απόσταση του χαμηλότερου επιπέδου της πρόσοψης του τάφου από το έδαφος μπροστά σ’ αυτό (όπου στέκονται οι επισκέπτες του χώρου) είναι περίπου 15 μ.
Αυτό σημαίνει ότι όλοι οι τάφοι είναι υπερυψωμένοι κι έτσι λαξεύθηκαν και φιλοτεχνήθηκαν. Το ύψος της σταυρόσχημης πρόσοψης είναι 23 μ περίπου και η απόαταση του υψηλότερου επιπέδου της πρόσοψης του τάφου από την κορυφή του βραχώδους λόφου είναι σχεδόν 26 μ.
Η υπεράνω του κεντρικού τμήματος της σταυρόσχημης πρόσοψης πλευρά έχει ύψος περίπου 8.50 μ. Η υποκάτω του κεντρικού τμήματος της σταυρόσχημης πρόσοψης πλευρά έχει ύψος περίπου 6.80 μ. Το πλάτος των πλευρών αυτών είναι το ίδιο, περίπου 10.90 μ. Η λαξευτή αίθουσα του τάφου έχει μήκος (: βάθος μέσα στον βράχο) 18.70 μ, πλάτος 2.10 μ, και ύψος 3.70 μ. Περίπου 350 μ3 βράχου ανεσκάφησαν για να δημιουργηθεί η κοιλότητα η οποία διαμορφώθηκε ως ταφική αίθουσα, χωρισμένη σε τρία τμήματα.
Το Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ είχε κατοικηθεί ως χώρος για τουλάχιστον μια χιλιετία πριν φθάσουν οι Πέρσες στην περιοχή αυτή του Ιράν. Οι πρώτοι κάτοικοι δεν είχαν καμμιά σχέση με Ιρανούς: ήταν Ελαμίτες.
Το Αρχαίο Ελάμ ήταν ένα αρχαίο έθνος και βασίλειο – τμήμα της Ιστορίας της Αρχαίας Μεσοποταμίας και όχι της Ιστορίας του Ιράν.
Οι Ελαμίτες ήταν τόσο αρχαίοι όσο και οι Σουμέριοι και ο πολιτισμός τους τεκμηριώνεται από τα αποκρυπτογραφημένα αρχαία ελαμικά που διακρίνονται σε δύο μεγάλες ιστορικές περιόδους και καλύπτουν την περίοδο από τα τέλη της 4ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας μέχρι το 640 μ.Χ., όταν ο Ασσουρμπανιπάλ της Ασσυρίας εξόντωσε το Ελάμ κι εξολόθρευσε το σύνολο του ελαμικού πληθυσμού.
Κέντρο του Ελάμ ήταν τα Σούσα στην Νότια Υπερτιγριανή, τα οποία οι Αχαιμενιδείς βρήκαν σε ερειπία, ανοικοδόμησαν και κατοίκησαν.
Ήδη στα χρόνια των Αχαιμενιδών τα ελαμικά ήταν μια νεκρή γλώσσα (αντίθετα με τα βαβυλωνιακά) την οποία έμαθαν οι Ιρανοί ιερείς και γραφείς από φιλομάθεια, χάρη στους Βαβυλώνιους δασκάλους τους.
Έτσι, πολλές αχαιμενιδικές αυτοκρατορικές επιγραφές υπήρξαν τρίγλωσσες, σε αρχαία αχαιμενιδικά περσικά (Old Achaemenid), βαβυλωνιακά και ελαμικά (Elamite) – όλα σφηνοειδή.
Στο Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ υπάρχουν και ελαμικά ανάγλυφα ήσσονος ωστόσο σημασίας σε σχέση με τα ιρανικά μνημεία.
Σύχρονοι γλωσσολόγοι θεωρούν τους Δραβίδες που κατοικούν το Ντεκάν, δηλαδή το νότιο μισό της ψευτο-χώρας ‘Ινδία’, ως απογόνους των Αρχαίων Ελαμιτών, δεδομένου ότι υπάρχουν εμφανείς γλωσσολογικές ομοιότητες και συνάφεια ανάμεσα στα αρχαία ελαμικά και στις δραβιδικές γλώσσες.
Τέσσερις λαξευτοί τάφοι των Αχαιμενιδών βρίσκονται στο Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ με την εξής σειρά από τα αριστερά προς τα δεξιά: ο τάφος του Δαρείου Β’ (423-404 π.Χ.), ο τάφος του Αρταξέρξη Α’ (465-424 π.Χ.), ο τάφος του Δαρείου Α’ του Μεγάλου (522-486 π.Χ.), και του Ξέρξη Α’ (486-465 π.Χ.). Ένας πέμπτος ημιτελής λαξευτός τάφος πιθανολογείται ότι ετοιμαζόταν για τον Δαρείο Γ’ (336-330 π.Χ.).
Δυο σημαντικές επιγραφές σε αρχαία αχαιμενιδικά έχουν αναγραφεί στην πρόσοψη του λαξευτού τάφου του Δαρείου Α’, η πρώτη, περισσότερου ιστορικού, αυτο-βιογραφικού χαρακτήρα, στο άνω τμήμα της πρόσοψης του τάφου (γνωστή ως DNa) και η άλλη, περισσότερο θρησκευτικού και ηθικού χαρακτήρα, στο κάτω τμήμα της πρόσοψης (γνωστή ως DNb).
Επίσης, έχουν φιλοτεχνηθεί ανάγλυφες αναπαραστάσεις στρατιωτών των εθνών που συμπεριλαμβάνονταν στην αχαιμενιδική αυτοκρατορία και φέρουν σύντομες τρίγλωσσες αναφορές που δηλώνουν την ταυτότητα του κάθε αναπαριστώμενου στρατιώτη.
Επίσης στα αχαιμενιδικά χρόνια ανάγεται ένα κυβικού σχήματος κτήριο που ονομάζεται Κααμπά-γιε Ζαρντόστ, δηλαδή το Ιερό του Ζωροάστρη, σε αντιδιαστολή με τον Κααμπά της Μέκκας. Η ονομασία αυτή έχει δοθεί στο κτήριο κατά τα πρώιμα ισλαμικά χρόνια, όταν οι κατακτημένοι από τις ισλαμικές στρατιές Ιρανοί προσπαθούσαν να διατηρήσουν την ιστορική, θρησκευτική και πολιτισμική ταυτότητά τους.
Ωστόσο, μια σασανιδικών χρόνων επιγραφή πάνω στους τοίχους του κτηρίου διασώζει την μέση περσική ονομασία: Μπουν Χανάκ, δηλ. Θεμέλιος Οίκος. Η θρησκευτική λειτουργικότητα του κτηρίου είναι εμφανής, αν και υπήρξαν σύγχρονες επιστημονικές προσπάθειες να το δουν ως χώρο της αυτοκρατορικής στέψης.
Τέσσερις συνολικά επιγραφές σασανιδικών χρόνων έχουν αναγραφεί πάνω στους εξωτερικούς τοίχους του κτηρίου αλλά η πιο σημαντική ιστορικά είναι η περίφημη Επιγραφή του Καρτίρ, κορυφαίου αρχιερέα, ιδρυτή του Μαζδεϊσμού (ως ζωροαστρικής ορθοδοξίας), θεωρητικού της αυτοκρατορικής ιδεολογίας των Σασανιδών, και αυτοκρατορικού κήρυκα του σασανιδικού οικουμενισμού.
Κααμπά-γε Ζαρντόστ – το Ιερό του Ζωροάστρη
Τα μνημεία σασανιδικών χρόνων που σώζονται στο Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ είναι κυρίως τεραστίων διαστάσεων ανάγλυφα.
Διακρίνονται κυρίως τα εξής:
Α. Ενθρονισμός και Στέψη του Αρντασίρ Α’ (226-242), ιδρυτή της σασανιδικής δυναστείας
Β. Θρίαμβος του Σαπούρ Α’ (241-272), όπου αναπαρίστανται δύο ηττημένοι Ρωμαίοι αυτοκράτορες, ο Φίλιππος Άραψ (244-249), ο οποίος δεν είχε στρατιωτικά νικηθεί αλλά συνάψει μια ειρήνη με πολύ ταπεινωτικούς για την Ρώμη όρους, και ο Βαλεριανός (253-260), ο οποίος ηττήθηκε κι αιχμαλωτίσθηκε στην Μάχη της Έδεσσας της Οσροηνής (Ουρχόη, σήμερα Ούρφα στην νοτιοανατολική Τουρκία) το 260, είχε επακολούθως ταπεινωτική ζωή κι αργότερα οικτρό θάνατο στο Ιράν.
Γ. Ο Μπαχράμ Β’ (276-293) με τον Καρτίρ και Σασανίδες ευγενείς
Δ. Δύο ανάλυφα του Μπαχράμ Β’ έφιππου
Ε. Ενθρονισμός και Στέψη του Ναρσή (293-303)
ΣΤ. Ανάγλυφο του Χορμούζντ Β’ (303-309) έφιππου
Σχετικά με την ήττα του Βαλεριανού από το Σαπούρ Α’ και σχετικά με την παγκοσμίως κορυφαία μορφή του Καρτίρ θα επανέλθω.
Στην συνέχεια, μπορείτε να περιηγηθείτε στο Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ χάρη σε ένα βίντεο, να διαβάσετε επιλεγμένα άρθρα, και να βρείτε συνδέσμους για περισσότερη έρευνα αναφορικά με την προαναφερμένη θεματολογία.
Ο ηττημένος Βαλεριανός γονατιστός προ του Σαπούρ Α’
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Накше-Ростам: римский император Валериан, стоящий на коленях перед Шапуром I (после поражения у Эдессы в Осрене) 260 г. н.э.
https://www.ok.ru/video/1511021677165
Περισσότερα:
Недалеко от Персеполя находится огромный каменистый холм, который в настоящее время укрывает значительную часть 1200-летнего доисламского исторического и культурного наследия Ирана. Крестообразные и высеченные глубоко в скале императорские гробницы Дария I, Ксеркса I и других ахеменидских шахов. Рядом с ними можно полюбоваться великолепными барельефами Сасанидов, на которых изображены два римских императора, униженных перед Сасанидским шахом Шапуром I. Также можно увидеть другие снимки двора Сасанидов.
00:56 гробница Ксеркса I
01:40 Расследование Нарсеха
01:50 гробница Дария I Великого
02:26 Два барельефа Баграма II верхом на лошади
02:46 Триумф Шапура I с двумя униженными римскими императорами, Филиппом Арабским и (стоящим на коленях) Валерианом
03:02 гробница Артаксеркса I
03:31 Хормузд II верхом на лошади
03:41 гробница Дария IΙ
04:26 Баграм II верхом на лошади
04:43 Кааба-Зардошт (Храм Зороастра)
05:44 Расследование Ардашира I
06:10 Баграм II с дворянами Картиром и Сасанидами
Династии Ахеменидов принадлежат четыре гробницы со скальными рельефами. Они расположены в скалах на существенной высоте над землёй. Одна из гробниц принадлежит царю Дарию I, что установлено по надписям (522—486 до н. э.). Про остальные гробницы предполагают, что в них похоронены цари Ксеркс I (486—465 до н. э.), Артаксеркс I (465—424 до н. э.), и Дарий II (423—404 до н. э.).
Пятая неоконченная гробница, по предположениям, предназначалась царю Артаксерксу III, но более вероятно — царю Дарию III (336—330 до н. э.). Гробницы были заброшены после покорения Персии Александром Македонским.
На территории некрополя расположено квадратное в сечении здание высотой двенадцать метров (большая часть из которых находится ниже современного уровня земли) с единственным внутренним помещением. Народное название этого сооружения — «Куб Заратустры» (Кааб-е Зартошт).
Из научных версий наиболее распространена версия о том, что здание служило зороастрийским святилищем огня. По другой, реже упоминаемой версии, под сооружением может находиться могила Кира Великого. Однако ни одна версия не подтверждена документально.
На «Кубе Заратустры» имеются клинописные надписи, сделанные от лица Картира (одного из первых зороастрийских священников), портрет которого можно увидеть неподалеку в археологической зоне Накше-Раджаб.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Накше-Рустам
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Naqsh-e Rostam: Roman Emperor Valerian kneeling in front of Shapur I (after the defeat at Edessa of Osrhoene) 260 CE
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240307
Περισσότερα:
Not far from Persepolis, there is an enormous rocky hill which shelters today a significant part of 1200 years of Pre-Islamic Iranian Historical and Cultural Heritage. Cruciform and hewn deep in the rock are the imperial tombs of Darius I, Xerxes I, and other Achaemenid shahs.
Next to them, one can admire the magnificent Sassanid bas-reliefs that depict two Roman emperor humiliated in front of the Sassanid Shah Shapur I and other snapshots of the Sassanid court.
00:56 Tomb of Xerxes I
01:40 Investigation of Narseh
01:50 Tomb of Darius I the Great
02:26 Two bas reliefs of Bagram II riding his horse
02:46 Triumph of Shapur I with two humiliated Roman emperors, Philip the Arab and (kneeling) Valerian
03:02 Tomb of Artaxerxes I
03:31 Hormuzd II riding his horse
03:41 Tomb of Darius IΙ
04:26 Bagram II riding his horse
04:43 Kaaba-ye Zardosht (the Shrine of Zoroaster)
05:44 Investigation of Ardashir I
06:10 Bagram II with Kartir and Sassanid noblemen
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ: Ανάγλυφο του Βαλεριανού γονατιστού προ του Σαπούρ Α’ & Σταυρόσχημοι Τάφοι Αχαιμενιδών
Περισσότερα:
Όχι μακριά από την Περσέπολη ένας τεράστιος βράχος αποτελεί σήμερα την παρακαταθήκη 1200 χρόνων προϊσλαμικής πολιτισμικής κληρονομιάς. Οι σταυρόσχημοι λαξευτοί τάφοι του Δαρείου Α’, του Ξέρξη και άλλων Αχαιμενιδών βρίσκονται δίπλα σε μεταγενέστερα σασανιδικά ανάγλυφα που απεικονίζουν την ταπείνωση δυο Ρωμαίων αυτοκρατόρων προ του Σάχη Σαπούρ Α’ και άλλα στιγμιότυπα της σασανιδικής αυλής.
00:56 Τάφος του Ξέρξη Α’
01:40 Ενθρονισμός και Στέψη του Ναρσή (293-303)
01:50 Τάφος του Δαρείου Α’
02:26 Δύο ανάλυφα του Μπαχράμ Β’ έφιππου
02:46 Θρίαμβος του Σαπούρ Α’ με δύο Ρωμαίους αυτοκράτορες, τον Φίλιππο Άραβα και τον Βαλεριανό γονατιστό
03:02 Τάφος του Αρταξέρξη Α’
03:31 Χορμούζντ Β’ έφιππος
03:41 Τάφος του Δαρείου Β’
04:26 Μπαχράμ Β’ έφιππος
04:43 Κααμπά-γιε Ζαρντόστ (το Ιερό του Ζωροάστρη)
05:44 Ενθρονισμός και Στέψη του Αρντασίρ Α’
06:10 Μπαχράμ Β’ με τον Καρτίρ και Σασανίδες ευγενείς
Naqsh-e Rostam (Persian: نقش رستم) is an ancient necropolis located about 12 km northwest of Persepolis, in Fars Province, Iran, with a group of ancient Iranian rock reliefs cut into the cliff, from both the Achaemenid and Sassanid periods. It lies a few hundred meters from Naqsh-e Rajab, with a further four Sassanid rock reliefs, three celebrating kings and one a high priest.
Naqsh-e Rostam is the necropolis of the Achaemenid dynasty (c. 550–330 BC), with four large tombs cut high into the cliff face. These have mainly architectural decoration, but the facades include large panels over the doorways, each very similar in content, with figures of the king being invested by a god, above a zone with rows of smaller figures bearing tribute, with soldiers and officials. The three classes of figures are sharply differentiated in size. The entrance to each tomb is at the center of each cross, which opens onto a small chamber, where the king lay in a sarcophagus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqsh-e_Rostam
The Ka’ba-ye Zartosht is 46 metres (151 ft) from the mountain, situated exactly opposite Darius II’s mausoleum. It is rectangular and has only one entrance door. The material of the structure is white limestone. It is about 12 metres (39 ft) high, or 14.12 metres (46.3 ft) if including the triple stairs, and each side of its base is about 7.30 metres (24.0 ft) long. Its entrance door leads to the chamber inside via a thirty-stair stone stairway. The stone pieces are rectangular and are simply placed on top of each other, without the use of mortar; the sizes of the stones varies from 0.48 by 2.10 by 2.90 metres (1 ft 7 in by 6 ft 11 in by 9 ft 6 in) to 0.56 by 1.08 by 1.10 metres (1 ft 10 in by 3 ft 7 in by 3 ft 7 in), and they are connected to each other by dovetail joints.
The structure was built in the Achaemenid era and there is no information of the name of the structure in that era. It was called Bon-Khanak in the Sassanian era; the local name of the structure was Kornaykhaneh or Naggarekhaneh; and the phrase Ka’ba-ye Zartosht has been used for the structure since the fourteenth century, into the contemporary era.
Various views and interpretations have been proposed about the application of the chamber, but none of them could be accepted with certainty: some consider the tower a fire temple and a fireplace, and believe that it was used for igniting and worshiping the holy fire, while another group rejects this view and considers it the mausoleum of one of the Achaemenid shahs or grandees, due to its similarity to the Tomb of Cyrus and some mausoleums of Lycia and Caria.
Some other Iranian scholars believe the stone chamber to be a structure for the safekeeping of royal documents and holy or religious books; however, the chamber of Ka’ba-ye Zartosht is too small for this purpose. Other less noticed theories, such as its being a temple for the goddess Anahita or a solar calendar, have also been mentioned. Three inscriptions have been written in the three languages Sassanian Middle Persian, Arsacid Middle Persian and Greek on the Northern, Southern and Eastern walls of the tower, in the Sassanian era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka%27ba-ye_Zartosht
================
Διαβάστε:
Naghshe Rustam
Eras
Naghshe Rustam complex is within a 6-kilometer distance to Persepolis and is located in Haji Abad Mountains. This complex encompasses three eras:
Elamite relics belong to 2000-600 B.C.
Achaemenid relics belong to 330-600 B.C.
Sasanian relics belong to 224-651 A.D.
Mausoleum of Achaemenid Kings
Some of the greatest kings of Achaemenid’s tombs are in Naghshe Rustam. Xerxes (Khashayar Shah) (486 to 445 B.C.), Darius I (522 to 486 B.C.), Ardashir I (465 to 424 B.C.), and Darius II (424 to 405 B.C.) tombs are located in Naghshe Rostam.
The Tombs
The width of each tomb is 19 meters and the length is about 93 meters. The tombs are about 26 meters above the ground level.
Symbolism of the outer space of the tombs
The carving of the king with an arc in the hand is visible on top of the platform. This arc is a symbol of strength. In front of the king, the carving of Ahuramazda is visible. In this carving, two places are visible in which sacred fire is burning. In the right top of the picture, the carving of the moon is visible which shows the world instability.
In the bottom of the platform, the representatives of different nations are holding the kingdom throne. There are also columns; on top of each column, you can see a two-headed cow. Some roaring lions are visible in the bottom of the motifs. The lions are decorated with some lotus. Lotus is a symbol of sincerity and being free of any sin.
Mausoleum Structures
The entrance of each mausoleum is square shaped. These doors were being locked in ancient times. Additionally, Darius Mausoleum has some cuneiform writing. In this writing, Darius is praising Ahuramazda and he mentions his victories. He also speaks of his thoughts. The corridor in Darius Mausoleum has a length of 18.72 meters and a width of 3.70 meters. In this mausoleum, there are nine stone coffins which are dug in a stone row. They belong to the Great Darius, the Queen, and other relatives. Their dimensions are 2.1*1.5*1.5. Each tomb is covered with a big stone.
Kabaye Zartosht (Cube of Zoroaster)
In front of the Naghshe Rustam, in a whole, there is a beautiful cube that they call it the Cube of Zoroaster –who is an Iranian Prophet-. This building is made of big stones. The proficiency and precision used in cuttings and carvings in the black and white stones show the capability of the architectures in Achaemenid Dynasty. On top of the cube, there is a 2.5*2.5 square meters room. There are different beliefs about this room.
Some believe that Avesta (the religious texts of Zoroastrianism) which was written on 12000 cowhides has been stored in this room. Some others believe that this room is the tomb of Bardiya the son of Cyrus who was killed by his brother Cambyses.
Some of the historians believe that the sacred fire was stored in this room. Recently it is said that this room was an observatory. During the Sasanian Empire, some of the important governmental documents were kept. A Sasanian inscription is in three languages. This inscription mainly talks about the historical events in Shapour I in Iran and Rome battles in which the Valerian (Rome Emperor) was defeated and prisoned in Bishapur.
The Excavation of Naghshe Rustam
For the first time, it was excavated by Ernst Herzfeld (German archaeologist and Iranologist) in 1923. Herzfeld excavated the last vestiges of Sasanian towers. After that, this place was analyzed several times from 1936 to 1939. Some important heritage like Persian Inscriptions and some buried stone belonging to Sassanid Era were found. In central Excavations, they reach a building. And in the western parts, the last vestiges of two buildings with muddy bricks were found.
https://apochi.com/attractions/shiraz/naghshe-rustam/
Ο ηττημένος Βαλεριανός γονατιστός προ του Σαπούρ Α’
Naqš-e Rostam
Naqš-e Rostam, a perpendicular cliff wall on the southern nose of the Ḥosayn Kuh in Fārs, about 6 km northwest of Persepolis; the site is unusually rich in Achaemenid and Sasanian monuments, built or hewn out from the rock. The Persian name “Pictures of Rostam” refers to the Sasanian reliefs on the cliff, believed to represent the deeds of Rostam.
Achaemenid Period. The most important architectural remains are the tower called Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (Kaʿba of Zoroaster, Ar. kaʿba “cube, sanctuary”) and four royal tombs with rock cut façades and sepulchral chambers.
(1) The Kaʿba-ye Zardošt is a massive, built square tower, resting on three steps (7.30 x 7.30 x14.12 m) and covered by a flat pyramidal roof (Stronach, 1967, pp. 282-84; 1978, pp. 130-36; Camb. Hist. Iran II, pp. 838-48; Schmidt, pp. 34-49). The only opening is a door. But on all four sides there is a system of blind windows in dark grey limestone, set off by the yellow color of the general structure, between the reinforced corners, and the walls are covered with staggered rectangular depressions. Both systems have no other purpose than to relieve the monotony of the structure. A frieze of dentils forms the upper cornice. A staircase of 30 steps, eight of which are preserved, led to the door (0.87 x 1.75 m) in the upper part of the north wall. Originally, the two leaves of a door opened into an almost square room (3.72 x 3.74 x 5.54 m) without any architectural decoration and no provisions for lighting (Schmidt, p. 37).
There is an analogous, though much more decayed, structure, called Zendān-e Soleymān (lit. prison of Solomon), in Pasargadae (Stronach, 1978, pp. 117-37; 1983, pp. 848-52). Its stone technique does not yet show traces of the toothed chisel (Stronach, 1978, p. 132), and the building can thus be dated to the last years of Cyrus II the Great (r. ca. 558-530 BCE), whereas due to chisel marks the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt can be dated to the early years of Darius I (r. 522-486), around 500 BCE. The Achaemenid structures do not have exact prototypes, but their plan is comparable with those of the earlier Urartian tower temples (Stronach, 1967, pp. 278-88; 1978, pp. 132-34).
On the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt, three exterior sides bear the famous inscription of Shapur I. (r. 241-72 C.E.). The Res gestae divi Saporis (ŠKZ) was added in Greek on the south wall, in Sasanian Pahlawi (Parsik) on the east, and in Parthian (Pahlawik) on the west (Back, pp. 284-371), while the north wall with the entrance has remained empty. Beneath the Parsik version on the east wall, the high priest Kirdīr had his own inscription incised (Sprengling, pp. 37-54; Chaumont, pp. 339-80; Gignoux, pp. 45-48).
Evidently, in Sasanian times the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt—like the tower at Paikuli with the inscription of Narseh (r. 293–302; cf. Humbach and Skjaervø)—served, in addition to other functions, as memorial. Perhaps the two towers in Naqš-e Rostam and Pasargadae already had a similar significance in Achaemenid times, albeit this cannot have been their main function.
In Kirdīr’s inscription the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt is called “bun-xānak.” W. B. Henning proposed the translation “foundation house,” and concluded that the tower was of central religious significance. He suggested that the empty high room was destined “for the safe keeping of the records of the church and even more for the principal copy of the Avesta” (Henning).
Though other translations of “bun-xānak” have been discussed (Gignoux, pp. 28-29 n. 61), it seems the most convincing interpretation that these two towers served as depositories. The lack of any provision for the ventilation of a fire excludes the towers’ use as fire temples (Stronach, 1978, pp. 134-35).
Their staircases were designed “for the solemn ascent and descent of persons who in some manner attended the sacred structure” (Schmidt, p. 41). They indicate that the towers did not serve as royal tombs (Stronach, Camb. Hist. Iran II, p. 849 n. 2), because those have entrance walls that are smoothed beyond their facades, down to the original ground, to make them inaccessible.
N. Frye (1974, p. 386) first expressed the opinion that “the intention was . . . to build a safety box for the paraphernalia of rule in the vicinity of Persepolis as had been done at Pasargadae,” though E. F. Schmidt (p. 44) had dismissed the interpretation of the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt as depository. But Plutarch (46-after 119 C.E.) mentions in Artoxerxes 3 that at Pasargadae one temple belonged “to a warlike goddess, whom one might conjecture to be Athena” (Sancisi-Weerdenburg, p. 148).
At this sanctuary the Achaemenid kings were crowned. During the coronation ceremony the new monarch took a very frugal meal, and was dressed in the robes which Cyrus the Elder wore before assuming kingship. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg was the first to identify the Zendān-e Soleymān as Plutarch’s temple (Gk. hieron).
Consequently, she interpreted this building, as well as the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt, as “coronation tower.” Her view that these towers had dynastic functions, rather than a purely religious significance and definitely no funeral purposes, has become widely accepted, though her suggestion that a sacred fire was also kindled in these towers can no longer be upheld.
(2) The Royal Tombs. In the cliff wall four monumental tombs are cut out from the native rock (Schmidt, pp. 80-107). The oldest tomb (Tomb I) has inscriptions that assign it to Darius I.
The other three (Tomb II-IV) can only tentatively be attributed to Xerxes (east-northeast of Darius I), Artaxerxes I (west-southwest of the tomb of Darius I) and Darius II (westernmost).
The four monuments follow the same pattern. But it is completely different from that of the older tomb of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae, which is a built structure consisting of a stepped platform and a tomb with a gabled roof. The model was first used for Darius I and has no exact prototypes in the Near East, Egypt or Greece, though the stone technique is Urartian in origin (Calmeyer, 1975, pp. 101-7; Gropp, pp. 115-21; Huff, 1990, pp. 90-91).
The rock tomb is characterized by the contrast between a cruciform composition in relief on the exterior wall and a very simple interior of chambers and grave cists. The center of the relief ensemble is a facade that represents the front of a palace with four engaged columns. On this architectural component rests a throne bench (Gk. klinē, OPers. gathu in inscription DNa) that is supported by 30 representatives of the empire’s peoples. The throne bench in turn serves as the platform of a religious scene with king, fire altar, and divine symbols.
The architectural register recalls the palace of the living monarch because the portico’s dimensions on the tomb of Darius I. are almost identical to those of his palace on the terrace of Persepolis (Schmidt, p. 81). A significant feature is the use of engaged columns, which appear on his tomb for the first time in rock architecture.
The so-called Median rock tombs, which are imitations of the Achaemenid monuments, do always show free standing columns (von Gall, 1966, pp. 19-43; 1973, pp. 139-154; 1988, pp. 557-82; “Dokkān”); the exception is the tomb of Qizqapan, where half columns have been placed on the rear of the antechamber (von Gall, 1988, pl. 23).
But at many tombs in the Median province, the originally freestanding columns have collapsed under the pressure of the superimposed rock. Consequently, there was not only the esthetic reason of creating the illusion that the antechamber’s front side and back wall were on the same level. More important were statical considerations. The architects and sculptors of the royal tombs used engaged columns because they could withstand the rock pressure despite their high slender shape.
In the middle register, the mighty throne bench with its 30 armed carriers does not show a realistic scene, and is not considered pictorial evidence for the supposition of real processions on the roofs of Achaemenid palaces (Schmidt, p. 80). It rather is a simile of the Achaemenid empire, the throne bench of which is supported by its peoples, dressed in their distinctive costumes and headgears (Schmidt, pp. 108-118).
On the tombs of Darius I in Naqš-e Rostam and that of Artaxerxes II (r. 404-359 BCE) in Persepolis, inscriptions describe the peoples’ order, and this order seems to correspond with the official geographical records of the empire’s extension (Calmeyer, 1982, pp. 109-123). According to P. Goukowsky (p. 223; cf. Calmeyer, 1982, p. 113 fig. 3) the empire was divided in three concentric zones: Persians, Medians and Elamites live in the inner circle.
An axis is leading from the center to the east, listing Parthians, Arians, Bactrians, Sogdians, and Chorasmians. Then the enumeration turns southeast, naming Drangians, Arachosians, Sattagydians (Thataguš), Gandharans, and Indians and reaches Central Asia, where the haoma-venerating Scythians and pointed-hat Scythians already inhabit the periphery.
On a second axis leading to the south the Babylonians, Syrians, Arabians, and Egyptians (Mudraya) are aligned, whereas on a third axis to the northwest the Armenians, Cappadocians, Lydians (Sparda), and Ionians are represented. Finally in the western periphery there live the Scythians beyond the Sea, the Thracians (Skudra), and the Petasos bearing Ionians.
The Libyans (Putaya) and the Ethiopians (Kušiya) roam the empire’s southernmost countries. Two men stand outside the throne bench, and their hands help lifting the platform which is slightly elevated above the ground.
They are a Makan (Maka, i.e., Oman and probably also the region on the Persian side of the Gulf) and a Carian (Karka). P. Calmeyer (p. 120) has convincingly argued that their exceptional corner positions reflects that these two peoples inhabit the south and the west corners of the empire, at the shore of the ōkeanos which in antiquity was believed to flow around the inhabited earth (Gk. oikoumenē).
All men (Schmidt, figs. 39-50), with the exception of the Babylonian (ibid., fig. 50 no. 16), are wearing weapons, mostly daggers and swords, and some also pairs of javelins.
Bearing arms in the presence of the monarch was a sign of honor and trust, so that the unarmed Babylonian represents an act of deliberate humiliation.
Since Xerxes (r. 486-465 BCE) probably supervised the final work on the tomb of his father Darius I (Schmidt, pp. 116-18 part. 117), this humiliation is likely to reflect to repeated rebellions of the Babylonians against him as well as against his father.
The scene in the top register has religious significance. The king is standing on a three-stepped platform, his left resting on a bow, while his slightly lifted right hand points to the winged symbol hovering above the scene. Since the late 19th, early 20th century, the winged ensign with a human figure, emerging from a circle, has been understood as a representation of Ahura Mazdā (Root, pp. 169-79), and recent attempts to interpret this symbol as the royal genius Frawahr have been rejected.
The king faces a blazing fire altar, though he stands at a considerable distance, whilst the ensign of a disc with inscribed crescent is hovering in the upper right corner. In general, scholars agree that this scene shows how the king is worshipping the holy fire. But the gesture of the king’s right hand corresponds in all details with that of the right hand of the Ahura Mazdā symbol.
The representation thus stresses the close connection between the king and Ahura Mazdā, whose will is decisive for the king’s actions. This interpretation is supported by the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, which are directly related to the reliefs.
On tomb I, Darius I wears a headdress (Gk. kidaris) with an upper rim of sculptured stepped crenellations. Reliefs on the jambs of the southern doorway in Darius’s Palace (Tilia, pp. 58-59) indicate that this was the personal crown of Darius, which was also worn by Xerxes as long as he was crown prince (von Gall, 1974, pp. 147-51).
On Tomb II, which is ascribed to Xerxes, in the king’s crown the rest of a sculptured crenellation is visible (von Gall, 1974, pl. 134 no. 2; 1975 fig. 3), suggesting that this monument was completed before he became the absolute monarch (von Gall, 1974, p. 151). The representations of this late time show a straight cylindrical crown without any decoration. All succeeding rulers of the Achaemenid dynasty adopted this shape, allowing only minor deviations (von Gall, 1974, pp. 150-60; 1975, pp. 222-24).
Another invariable detail of the royal tombs is the discoid symbol hovering in the upper right corner. The inscribed crescent indicates its Assyrian origins. While it represents the moon god Sin in Assyrian art, on the Achaemenid tombs its meaning is difficult to comprehend. Opinions differ whether the symbol has to be interpreted as lunar or solar (cf. Root, pp. 177-78), and there are no written sources to corroborate either view. E. F. Schmidt (p. 85) interpreted the sign as a symbol of Mithra.
But the Persian moon god Māh is relatively well documented in the imagery of the Achaemenid seals. In the central panel above the fire altar scene of the rock tomb of Qizqapan, this type of moon god is also represented (von Gall, 1988, pp. 571-72). These images, in connection with other, though scanty, pictorial evidence (von Gall, 1988, p. 572 n. 55), suggest that the moon played a certain role in Achaemenid concepts of death and afterlife.
On the tomb of Darius, the framework of the throne bench shows three superimposed figures on each side. On the left, two dignitaries are inscribed as the lance bearer Gobryas (Gaubaruwa) and the bearer of the royal battle-ax Aspathines (Aspačina), while the lowest man is an unnamed guard (Schmidt, pp. 86-87). On the right, three unarmed men are clad in the long Persian garment. Their gesture of raising a part their upper garment to the mouth has been interpreted as an expression of mourning, comparable to the Greek custom (Schmidt, p. 87).
More recently, scholars have suggested that this gesture captures the imperative of ’do not pollute the holy fire’ (Hinz, p. 63 n. 4; cf. Seidl, p. 168) or shows respect for the king’s majesty (Root, p. 179), but both alternatives seem less convincing. Additional figures are on the side walls of the recesses into which the tomb facade was carved. On the left, there are three superimposed panels with guards holding long lances. On the right, three mourners who need be considered either courtiers or members of the royal family (Schmidt, p. 87) stand above each other.
Two larger cuneiform inscriptions, as well as legends with the names of Darius I, of his two supreme commanders, and of the 30 bearers of the throne bench, are found in the facade of Tomb I. One is in the top register, to the left of the king (DNa), and the other (DNb) stands in the architectural register, on three of the five panels between the half columns of the portico.
Both are written in three languages, but DNa in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian (Weissbach, pp. 86-91), and DNb in Old Persian, Elamite and Akkadian (Hinz, pp. 52-62 including R. Borger’s edition of the Akkadian version). In the Seleucid period, an Aramaic version was added to DNb below the Elamite text (Frye, 1982).
In stark contrast to the rich architectural decoration of the façade, the interior is bare of any architectural and figural elements. The general layout is also best demonstrated with the tomb of Darius I: A long vestibule is running parallel to the facade, and three doors in the back wall of this vestibule are leading to three separate barrel-vaulted tomb chambers. In each tomb chamber, a trough-like cavity was hewn into the solid rock to hold a probably wooden sarcophagus or klinē. These cists were sealed with monolithic lids after the deposition of the corpses, but nothing has remained of the original interments.
The combination of an oblique corridor and burial chambers with cists was preserved in the other three tombs, assigned to Xerxes (Tomb II), Artaxerxes (Tomb III), and Darius II (Tomb IV).
Yet they show inferior craftsmanship, because the chambers are not running axially, but obliquely to the facade. At Persepolis, the interior organization of the two tombs is also identical.
(3) Other architectural remains. In the Center Test of his 1936 and 1939 excavations, E. F. Schmidt found a building (Schmidt, pp. 10 and 64). In the West Test, he discovered remains of two mud-brick buildings, as well as evidence of an enclosure of the royal tombs (ibid., pp. 10, 54-55). In the west of the cliff, a polygonal cistern (diam. 7.20 m) hewn out from the native rock was excavated (ibid., pp. 10, 65).
The Sasanian Period. A fortified enclosure ran around the major part of the sculptured cliff, and its west and east ends were abutting with the rock. Seven semicircular towers strengthened this structure (Schmidt, pp. 55-58, figs. 2, 4; cf. Trümpelmann, p. 41, fig. 68, drawing by G. Wolff). On the slope of the Hosayn Kuh, there are two cut rock structures in the shape of a čahārṭāq. They are generally assumed to be Sasanian fire altars, but D. Huff (1998, p. 80 pl. 10a; “Fārs,” pp. 353-54 pl. 3) identifies them as astōdāns.
Τις βιβλιογραφικές παραπομπές μπορείτε να βρείτε εδώ:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/naqs-e-rostam
Η νίκη του Σαπούρ Α’ επί των Ρωμαίων Αυτοκρατόρων Βαλεριανού (γονατιστού) και Φίλιππου του Άραβα
Επιπλέον:
Γενικά για τα μνημεία και τις επιγραφές:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqsh-e_Rostam
ttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Накше-Рустам
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Darius_the_Great
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNa_inscription
Τα κείμενα των επιγραφών, φωτοτυπίες, μεταγραμματισμός κι αγγλική μετάφραση:
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/dna/?
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/dnb/
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/dne/
https://www.livius.org/articles/place/naqs-e-rustam/
Το Ιερό του Ζωροάστρη:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka%27ba-ye_Zartosht
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartir
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartir%27s_inscription_at_Naghsh-e_Rajab
Σχετικά με τον Σαπούρ Α’, τον Φίλιππο Άραβα, τον Βαλεριανό και την Μάχη της Έδεσσας της Οσροηνής (260 μ.Χ.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapur_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerian_(emperor)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edessa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameo_with_Valerian_and_Shapur_I
Η ταπείνωση και αιχμαλωσία του Ρωμαίου Αυτοκράτορα Βαλεριανού από τον Σαπούρ Α’ όπως αναπαριστάθηκε σε πίνακα του 16ου αιώνα από τον Γερμανό ζωγράφο Hans Holbein der Jüngere (Hans Holbein the Younger) – 1521. Ο καλλιτέχνης δεν είχε υπόψει του το σασανιδικό ανάγλυφο του Ναξ-ε Ρουστάμ και κανένας Ευρωπαίος ταξιδιώτης, έμπορος, διπλωμάτης ή ερευνητής δεν είχε φθάσει ακόμη εκεί αλλά οι Ευρωπαίοι διετήρησαν πολύ αρνητικές αναμνήσεις από τον Βαλεριανό, δεδομένου ότι ο Ρωμαίος αυτοκράτορας είχε κηρύξει διωγμούς κατά των Χριστιανών και Χριστιανοί συγγραφείς είχαν δικαιολογημένα χαρεί από το ελεεινό τέλος του Βαλεριανού που μάλιστα περιέγραψαν ως πολύ χειρότερο από το ιστορικά τεκμηριωμένο τέλος του.
Το περίφημο καμέο του Σαπούρ Α’ νικητή στην Έδεσσα της Οσροηνής (Ούρχα, σήμερα Ούρφα στην νοτιοανατολική Τουρκία) επί του Ρωμαίου αυτοκράτορα Βαλεριανού που αιχμαλωτίστηκε.
======================
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε PDF:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/240270
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/_-_fdcde1b109b965
https://vk.com/doc429864789_619827582
https://www.docdroid.net/tIpNqbY/naks-e-roystam-stauroskhimoi-laksefti-tafoi-ton-akhaimenidwn-anaghlifo-toy-balerianou-aikhmalotoy-romaioy-autokratora-gonatistou-p-pdf
The Historian, Elizabeth Kostova
The Stele of Roma the Doorkeeper, Dedicated of the Goddess Astarte
The Egyptians almost never depicted illness. This instance is one of the exceptions. One of the man’s legs is withered and the foot only supports itself on the toes. It is the opinion of quite a number of doctors that these deformities are due to polio. This may be the world’s oldest representation of that disease.
New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty, ca. 1401-1363 BC. Now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen. ÆIN 134
Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Απσού: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία-1989
Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Απσού: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, Ελληνική Εκπαιδευτική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, 1989
Кузьма Мегаломматис, Абзу (и Апсу): мировая мифология, Греческая педагогическая энциклопедия, 1989
Kosmas Megalommatis, Abzu: Weltmythologie, Griechische Pädagogische Enzyklopädie, 1989
Kosmas Gözübüyükoğlu, Apsû: Dünya Mitolojisi, Yunan Pedagoji Ansiklopedisi, 1989
قزمان ميغالوماتيس، آبزو : اساطیر جهانی، دایره المعارف آموزشی یونانی، 1989
Côme Megalommatis, Apsû (et Abzu): Mythologie mondiale, Encyclopédie pédagogique grecque, 1989
1989 قزمان ميغالوماتيس، أبزو: الأساطير العالمية، الموسوعة التربوية اليونانية،
Cosimo Megalommatis, Apsû: mitologia mondiale, Enciclopedia pedagogica greca, 1989
Cosimo Megalommatis, Apsú (o Abzu): mitología mundial, Enciclopedia pedagógica griega, 1989
Cosmas Megalommatis, Apsu: World Mythology, Greek Pedagogical Encyclopedia, 1989
=================
Скачать PDF-файл: / PDF-Datei herunterladen: / Télécharger le fichier PDF : / PDF dosyasını indirin: / :PDF قم بتنزيل ملف / Download PDF file: / : یک فایل دانلود کنید / Κατεβάστε το PDF:
BRICS+: Bright or Dark Perspectives of a Block of Countries in the Path to Real or Delusional Multipolarity
When last August, in the XV BRICS summit (22-24.8.2023), it was announced that the five constituent members of the Block (China, India, Russia, and Brazil, as initial members in 2006, with the addition of South Africa in 2010) agreed to admit another six (6) countries, namely Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and UAE (herewith mentioned in alphabetic order; Argentina did not make use of the offer, following the recent presidential elections), the member states ushered the world community in a new era. The groundbreaking decision will be effect January 1st 2024. The development -in and by itself- is neither good nor bad; the outcome will depend on the choices that will be made and the changes that will be implemented with respect to the nature, the status, the function, the targets, and the international role of the Block itself. In fact, right now, all options are open.
Contents
I - What BRICS is and what it is not
II - Strong points of BRICS
III - Weak points of BRICS
IV - The Expansion of BRICS
V - What next for the BRICS?
VI - Economic interests can be the basis of only loosely associated states (or a League), not a union of states
VII - Multilateral organizations of states can never be established as an opposite pole of a world power
VIII - Multipolarity: a reality or a delusion?
IX - Multipolarity tomorrow: a reality only through the isolation of the unipolar world center
What is better or more suitable? Is it wise to enlarge BRICS or to deepen the integration of this block of 11 countries? The challenges are enormous and the repercussions will be cataclysmic for the entire world. This topic has indeed been controversial for some time; Russia, India and Brazil were not enthusiastic about China's incessant suggestions for the "influx of fresh blood". In fact, the decision to invite six emerging market group countries was a compromise; several other states had expressed their wish to join, but after numerous deliberations, for various reasons they were not accepted now.
Before new members arrive, the existing partners should define what they truly want BRICS or BRICS+ to be; this issue is still perplex, diverse and vague. In this regard, it is crucial to always recall that the original concept of BRIC (for only four countries) is credited to an Englishman, namely Jim O'Neill (Baron O'Neill of Gatley), who was at the time the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management; the idea was first expressed within very different context -quite noticeably- in November 2001.
However, the governments concerned took some time to explore and evaluate the thought before adapting it to their interests and perspectives; the first high-level meetings started in 2006, and the first formal summit (4 members) was held in Yekaterinburg in July 2009. Everyone today effortlessly understands that the world was very different at the time; meanwhile, the achievements of the 5-country block, although significant for the beneficiaries, were modest at the international level.
Consequently, before considering BRICS as the perfect counterbalance to the West (as President Putin stated openly last year), it is essential for anyone to accurately understand what BRICS is, what it is not, what it can be, and what it cannot.
I - What BRICS is and what it is not
BRICS is not an 'organization' like the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), which is a Eurasian political, economic, international security and defense organization, and the EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union), which is an economic union of several post-Soviet states located in Eurasia. To be constructive and effective in his approach to this topic, an astute observer should dissociate three totally distinct issues:
a- the hitherto achievements of the 5-country block;
b- what BRICS is nowadays; and
c- what BRICS can become in the future. In this regard, what Muhammad Kamal wrote in the Egyptian daily Al Masry al Yom (« نحو عضوية «البريكس; Towards BRICS Membership) is totally inconsistent; worse, his pessimism for Egypt's adhesion to the 5-country block only reflects the wishes of the idiotic and corrupt stooges of Western embassies in Cairo. This type of thought may be disastrous for Egypt. If BRICS did not achieve 'much' in the past, this fact hinges on eventually misplaced worldviews and pointless considerations that the member states may have had. All the same, with a new approach, with an accurate perception of what an expanded BRICS can or cannot become, and with a strong commitment to the interests of these countries' populations, one can certainly mark a spectacular success.
Definitely, BRICS is not an organization; it is not an economic bloc, in spite of the numerous projects launched and materialized, such as the New Development Bank (launched in 2014-2015), the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), the BRIC Cable (the construction of which has not yet started), joint publications, and various initiatives. Under discussion are issues of paramount importance, namely a potential BRICS payment system and an eventual common currency. It becomes therefore evident that there are slow steps toward a comprehensive partnership.
Precisely because BRICS is not an organization, they don't have a proper portal, as it happens in the case of existing international bodies like the SCO, the Turkic Union or the African Union. Instead, they have a rudimentary site with basic info, and every annual meeting comes up with a separate, new site.
The rest is up to private initiatives, think tanks, research centers, online magazines, and the world's mass media.
As group of countries, BRICS is a heteroclite array of states with certain common interests, but also with very divergent economies, structures and legislations, and partly different socioeconomic visions; until now, no common long-term perspective has been envisaged – let alone agreed upon. This means that the governments of the member states have to seriously consider and scrupulously study how they will manage to set up a common economic space and how to first offer themselves the necessary tools in order to advance in that direction.
Many charts, tables, drawings and tables have been produced in order to highlight to all what BRICS really is; but this approach comprises also a drawback that can cause confusion and misjudgment. This is due to the fact that each visual representation highlights only one aspect of the reality; however one gets a complete idea of the reality, only if one goes through illustrations of all the existing aspects of the reality. One missing diagram about the BRICS is enough to obscure our understanding and confuse our perception.
II - Strong points of BRICS
As of end 2023, over 3.3 billion people lived in the BRICS countries, making more than 40% of the world population; BRICS states stretch over 30% of the world's land surface and account for 26% of the global economy. The 5-country block represents 18% of trade in goods and 25% of foreign investment. At this point, we already face some challenges in our effort to quantify the reality. Verifiable facts like the area and the population of a country are undeniable points of reference; the area of a country is measured in kilometers square, whereas the population is estimated in millions or thousands of people. However, when it comes to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a country, there are two diametrically opposed methods of calculation; the end results may be very divergent.
GDP estimates published by financial and statistical institutions are calculated at market or government official exchange rates. But what is called 'Nominal GDP' is stated without taking into consideration the existing differences in the cost of living among the countries. This means that the data presented can vary enormously from one year to another due to fluctuations in the currency exchange rates; but this may be temporary and therefore irrelevant.
That is why GDP (PPP) forecast estimates are to be considered as a better reflection of the economic realities, and of the comparison between two countries; to sort this data and publish their databases, financial and statistical institutions calculate using both, market and government official exchange rates. PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) is a method of measuring that takes into consideration the relative cost of local goods, services and inflation rates of the country.
The ensuing difference can be colossal: China's nominal GDP for the year 2023 is 19.37 trillion US$, but the PPP-based GDP of China for the same year is 33 trillion US$; on the contrary, on either case, US GDP amounts to 26.85 trillion US$. As it can be surmised, PPP-based GDP is preferable for comparison; all the same, the size of an economy being also a matter of political propaganda, many Anglo-Saxon institutions deliberately show a predilection for Nominal GDP in order to occasionally show that Russia is not among the top ten economies of the world.
III - Weak points of BRICS
Be that as it may, the aforementioned impressive figures about the BRICS are not attested on other occasions; for instance, the total voting quota of the 5-country block in the IMF is only 14.7%, although in 2021 they accounted for about a third of world GDP, a fifth of world trade, about a quarter of direct investment, and their foreign exchange reserves reached 35% of the world's total. This point was highlighted by President Putin in his address to President Xi Jinping on 22nd June 2022.
On another note, in the US$ 109 trillion world stock market, BRICS represent only a small segment of the world market capitalization (around 20%), whereas the US, which is home to 39 of the 100 largest companies in the world, has more than 40% of the market and the European Union amounts to ca. 11%.
IV - The Expansion of BRICS
On the basis of the above mentioned data, one can understand that the recently admitted six (6) countries do not constitute a major expansion. When it comes to total area (in kilometers square), the six states {Argentina (2.780.400 km2), Saudi Arabia (2.149.690 km2), Iran (1.648.195 km2), Ethiopia (1.104.300 km2), Egypt (1.002.450 km2) and UAE (83.600 km2)} amount to ca. 20% (8768635 km2) of the land surface of the BRICS countries (ca. 40 million km2).
Similarly, with respect to population, the six newly accepted states {Ethiopia (107.334.000), Egypt (105.388.000), Iran (85.298.600), Argentina (46.654.581), Saudi Arabia (32.175.224) and UAE (9.282.410)} have a total population of 386.132.815 people, which is around 10% of the current population of BRICS. However, the 11-country block will be home to almost half the population of the world (46%); this marks a significant threshold indeed.
Similar conclusions we draw concerning the economic indicators of the six newly admitted states and notably their PPP-based GDP; combined the GDP of the six countries {Saudi Arabia (2.300.967 US$ million), Egypt (1.803.584 US$ million), Iran (1.691.819 US$ million), Argentina (1.274.807 US$ million), UAE (890.171 US$ million), Ethiopia (393.847 US$ million)} is around 8.350.000 US$ million; in other words, the six states produce only one seventh (1/7) of the total GDP of the current BRICS member states (56 US$ trillion).
This aspect was duly discerned also by those who are accustomed to rather take into account the nominal GDP; that's why they underscored the fact that "Saudi Arabia is the only trillion-dollar economy being added to the BRICS".
Combined the nominal GDP of the six new member states {Saudi Arabia (1.061.902 US$ million), Argentina (641.102 US$ million), UAE (498.978 US$ million), Egypt (378.110 US$ million), Iran (367.970 US$ million), Ethiopia (156.083 US$ million)} amounts to 3.1 US$ trillion; this is about one ninth (1/9) of the nominal GDP of the current BRICS member states (27.7 US$ trillion).
If we stop at this point and we do not further explore the manifold aspects of BRICS expansion, we will be left with the idea that, due to necessary compromises, the first major phase of BRICS expansion did not include several other countries, which also expressed the interest to join, notably Algeria, Belarus, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc. But this will prevent us from observing a very interesting and crucial aspect of the development. As a matter of fact, this was not particularly highlighted by anyone in the world's mainstream mass media. There is indeed one economic sector in which the present stage of BRICS expansion made a significant breakthrough; this is the energy sector, and more particularly, the Oil production.
As a matter of fact, the addition of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the UAE will more than double BRICS' share of global oil production. With six out of the nine top oil producers being BRICS+ member states (Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Brazil, Iran, UAE), the 11-country block represents 43% of the world oil production.
This means that, in spite of the compromises made, BRICS made a big step ahead in preparing their forthcoming transformation from an ill-defined block of countries to a well-defined organization that will change the post-WW II world drastically and irrevocably. As I already said, the concept that they will have to adopt for their alliance is that of the common economic space.
V - What next for the BRICS?
Dangling between long term strategy and everyday opportunities, the governments of the 5- or 11-country block can really make of their partnership whatever they want. They can turn it to the tool par excellence for the transformation of the present world; indeed, they can make of the BRICS+ the cornerstone in the foundation of a human world order of unity, equity, justice, lawfulness, concord, and worldwide cordiality. Reversely, they can neglect their imagination, fail to create a vision, ignore their intellect, and thus waste their time.
In this regard, it is clear that BRICS+ will be the reflection of the shared vision that the member states, the respective governments, and -above all- the civil societies will initiate. It is therefore essential to avoid extreme optimism or pessimism and to make an effort not to mix a long term perspective with any type of unnecessary political propaganda. The difference can be understood in the following examples:
Speaking about Russia’s vision of the BRICS+ format as early as February 2018, Sergey Ryabkov, a noteworthy statesman and Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister since 2008, stated: «we suggest that our partners consider BRICS+ as a platform for developing what could be termed an 'integration of integrations'».
This sounds as sheer advocacy of the 'single economic space' concept, which leads to economic union. Quite contrarily, Sergei Lavrov (Center for World Politics and Strategic Analysis) and Kirill Babaev (Director of the Institute of China and Modern Asia), both of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in their article «И вширь, и вглубь - Пути укрепления институциональной основы БРИКС» (Both in breadth and in depth - Ways to strengthen the institutional framework of BRICS / Бабаев К.В., Лавров С.В. И вширь, и вглубь // Россия в глобальной политике. 2023. Т. 21. № 5. С. 69–81)
present a far more realistic approach, opting for the 'common economic space' concept.
There are important differences between the two concepts, and it is essential to make this point clear, because the 'single economic space' concept simply cannot work in the case of BRICS, and even more so that of BRICS+. This is exactly what the authors of the aforementioned article do; the question is whether this is enough.
VI - Economic interests can be the basis of only loosely associated states (or a League), not a union of states
At this point, taking into consideration the international situation as it is evidently downgrading over the past few years, the governments of the BRICS+ member states must truly become consciously serious in their judgment, drastically bold in their action, and greatly resourceful in their vision before they are soon met with an aggravated deterioration of the world order in which their efforts will unfortunately be irrevocably meaningless.
Although BRICS+ governments are correct in their analyses and conclusions as regards the major structural problems of the world economy, they all apparently fail to understand where the world community is led to; this is due to the prevailing, very confusing, and definitely perplex situation. But the present condition of the world affairs makes of the aforementioned economic problems only a tiny sector of the very grave troubles that currently exist and impact every human across the Earth.
Consequently, in spite of the fact that the world economy is in major trouble, all its aspects cannot be tackled independently of the other, grave and thorny, issues of intellectual, academic, educational, scientific, cultural, and socio-governmental order that we are currently facing. As a matter of fact, erroneous intellectual concepts, delusional interpretations of the reality, intentional distortions of World History, ideological aberrations, and overwhelming oppression of indigenous cultures are at the origin of developments that brought the world economy to the brink of collapse. Scientific absurdities, military interventions, and corrupt governmental practices contributed to the overall deterioration, and have therefore to be also taken into consideration.
As far as BRICS+ member states are concerned, there is one word that terminally encapsulates the aforementioned reality in its totality: Western colonialism. What matters in this regard is that this term is not to be identified with only its military, political and economic dimensions.
Colonialism is basically a criminal and anti-human development the most crucial dimension of which is cultural; culture determines the psychology of people, nations, ruling classes and governments, and this -in turn- impacts the local economy.
In addition to the aforementioned points, there is a critical factor which must also be taken into account: only a union of loosely associated states can ever be successfully established on the basis of economic interests. This is a fundamental condition to retain. As situation, it is due to the fact that states do not exist in themselves, but constitute the receptacle of human activity related to the administration and the governance of the society.
Consequently, a number of states can form an effective organization that will impact worldwide developments only on the basis of major decisions taken by conscious peoples and statesmen genuinely representing their societies, which are known for their historically diverse values, distinct moral principles, varied cultural heritage, but shared goals and common vision. But this is much broader than an economic union.
The perfect example of failure is in this regard offered by the European Union. The debilitated union of states started before 72 years with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC; 1952), which was designed to integrate the coal and steel industries in Western Europe (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg). Evaluated for that purpose, ECSC was good, but it could never progress in the direction of transformation from an economic community to one nation-state.
Different peoples do not integrate into one nation-state without a unifying force; this can certainly be a faith, a cult, a worldview or even an ideology, but never economic interests. That is why BRICS+ member states, although they are forced to define how to set up a 'common economic space', have to broaden the box and try to see things as widely as they can.
VII - Multilateral organizations of states can never be established as an opposite pole of a world power
In spite of the urgency of their economic demands for new standards and rules or a new world order (as many people say), BRICS+ member states have got to approach the world affairs in a different, far broader, and definitely comprehensive manner. This imperative is due to both, their incomparably enormous size and the undeniable fact that they altogether constitute a worldwide organization with major, not only economic, interests that they have in common. Actually, the troubles that all these countries face at the level of the international trade and world economy are due to
a- political developments that took place over the last70-80 years,
b- two successive World Wars,
c- numerous earlier conflicts,
d- extreme ideological aberrations,
e- preposterous intellectual assumptions,
f- outrageous educational-academic forgeries, and
g- a 5-century long, nefarious and calamitous, colonial legacy.
In this case, BRICS+ member states cannot possibly imagine that they are able to rectify a so deeply rooted injustice and inhumanity that prevail worldwide by merely sidestepping the US dollar via
- local currency trading,
- Mbridge (a multi-central bank digital currency platform, which is shared among participating central banks and commercial banks, as it is built on distributed ledger technology in order to enable instant cross-border payments and settlement) or
- other alternative payment routes and methods of de-dollarization.
In fact, their true problem is what is accurately called 'the Collective West' in its entirety. The US dollar replaced indeed the British pound as the world’s reserve currency (in 1944 following the Bretton Woods Agreement); it ceased unilaterally to be convertible to gold (in 1971, due to the so-called Nixon shock); and it became the sole currency in which Saudi Arabia is paid for Oil (in 1974, as per the terms of the Saudi Arabia and US Agreement on Cooperation, signed June 8, that made the petrodollar possible, which also known as 'the petrocurrency effect' and 'the petrodollar recycling').
However, all these developments consist, truly speaking, in Microhistory, if viewed within a wider context. In fact, they constitute only in the latest episodes of the colonial conquest, contamination and putrefaction, which have progressively enveloped the world. That is why BRICS+ member states must see things within a macrohistorical context and shape their decision making processes accordingly.
Precisely because the aspects of the world troubles are so many, BRICS+ member states have to realize that the country, which capitalized on its monetary privilege, namely the petrodollar, did so while also defending all the other aspects of the 5-century long Western predominance, which proved to be catastrophic for the entire world, except for the West European colonial powers and their annexes.
As a matter of fact, the historically true definition of the USA is not "the country with the US dollar as national currency", but "the heir of 5-century long, colonial legacy". This is what the US stands for – not just a currency.
Indeed, the US dollar is not only the default world currency, but at the same time, the strongest currency of the Western world. All the same, people often tend to forget that the American currency was first one of the strongest in the Western world, then its strongest, and only 'recently' the world's medium of exchange. It is therefore undeniable that, also at the financial and economic level, it represents the 'Collective West'.
Due to the successive historical developments, which led the entire Mankind to the present occurrence and on which the US predominance has persistently based its delusional legitimacy, it would be foolish to believe that the US will ever accept the reduction of the systemically omnipotent Western world into merely two or three poles (EU, US, and -eventually- Japan) of a delusional multipolar system composed by them and by the rising, major BRICS+ forces. Nuclear wars of any form are far more plausible to take place than a multipolar world to be potentially formed with the participation of the EU and the US.
To put it in simple words, you can never possibly ask someone, who considers himself as extraordinarily enormous as a 'dinosaur', to condescend to accept few 'cockroaches' as equal; this metaphor does not constitute the exact representation of the reality, but it accurately reflects the mentality of the people who currently run the EU, the US, the UK and their annexes. These forces have by now carried out a fully obvious colonial agenda across the Earth; even worse, they are evidently intending to implement the next parts of the agenda, which has already been proven as inherently unacceptable to the mankind – the majority of the misfortunate inhabitants of the Collective West included. In other words, the world situation is far worse than what most of the foolish or fooled leaders of the BRICS+ member states have imagined.
VIII - Multipolarity: a reality or a delusion?
Discussing about the chances for the emergence of a multipolar world system does not hinge only on a qualitative examination of intentions and a quest for world peace and security; it is not sufficient to only scrutinize the purposes of the decayed and ailing but raucous and rancorous elites of US, Germany, France, England and Italy from one side and assess the aspirations of the ruling classes of China, India, Russia, Brazil and a nebula of several heavily populated countries, namely Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Ethiopia, Egypt, Congo, Vietnam, Turkey, Iran, Thailand, Tanzania and South Africa.
Despite the undeniable importance of all the aforementioned parameters, there is another factor that determines even more conclusively the outcome of the present cleavage. This pertains to the process of historical developments that brought about the present state of international affairs. There are only specific procedures that allow a multipolar world community to be formed; it cannot rise anytime anywhere.
The past eighty (80) years have been characterized by a unipolar system of world governance; this was not the first time in World History in which a very large part of the Earth was under the control of one state (the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Achaemenid Iran, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan, the Chagatai Empire of Timur/Tamerlane, etc.) without any other state being able to challenge it.
Several political commentators often dare to portray the present period as the first time in which one country 'controlled' almost the totality of the surface of the Earth, but this is definitely a maximalist approach. In fact, as description, it is wrong. As conclusion, it has only a nominal value; this is so because the 'control' was asserted only via various layers of proxies, who were, practically speaking, unable to always govern all the territory that they claimed to possess.
It is essential not to confuse the present conjecture with the days that antedated WW II or WW I; many irrelevant historians and inconsistent intellectuals are pleased to draw parallels between 1914 and 2024 or between 1939 and 2024, but they are very wrong, confusing, and dangerously deceitful.
Parallels as regards the ensuing consequences or outcome cannot be drawn between a past circumstance and the present occurrence; this is so because people know what came next, after the past circumstance that they take as one pole of the parallel, but only assume that the other pole (namely the present occurrence) will have the same exit (namely a war).
Parallels can be drawn between a past circumstance and the present occurrence only with respect to the anteriority of both moments that are taken as parallels. In this case, we know very well that no unipolar system of world governance existed either in the period 1870-1914 or during the interval between the two world wars.
Prior to WW II, the world community revolved around six major poles, i.e. England (as the British Empire), USSR, USA, France, Japan and Germany; the six powers gradually formed two heteroclite groups of allies of which one prevailed in 1945.
Prior to WW I, the world community revolved around nine major poles, i.e. England (as the British Empire), the Russian Empire, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, the Ottoman Empire, USA, and Japan.
It is very critical at this point to comprehensively comprehend that those major poles or constituents of the world community did not seek to establish a multipolar system of world governance either in 1914 or in 1939; it is actually necessary to take into consideration the fact that the concept of 'world community' had not yet been formed or formulated as a substitute to the criminal colonial activities of England and France, which attempted to divide Africa, Western and South Asia, and Oceania among themselves.
Even worse for the silly raiders of the lost multipolarity, it is even more crucial to take into account that, if a proposal for the establishment of a multipolar system of world governance was made back in 1914, the colonial powers England and France would be the first to reject it. Actually, the criminal gangsters, who always ruled Paris and London and later hijacked Washington D.C., deliberately triggered WW I, by duly utilizing their paranoid Serbian lackeys.
Why England and France back in 1914 would vehemently oppose any proposal for the establishment of a multipolar system of world governance is easy to assess; this development would block their effort to terminally dismantle Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, while also effectively carrying out cruel operations of regime change in the German and the Russian Empires.
Furthermore, we have to also reckon with the fact that, if someone advanced a proposal as regards the establishment of a multipolar system of world governance back in 1939, he would surely be resolutely reprimanded by the criminal colonial rascals of London and Paris. England and France declared war on Germany, because they did not want to establish a multipolar world community including the USSR, Japan, Germany, and Berlin's ally Italy. As we all know, regime change operations took place in the latter three states in 1945, and 40-45 years later in the (until then greatly marginalized, continually defamed, and shamelessly vilified) USSR.
So, to conclude the present assessment, we have to perceive the establishment of the so-called 'world community' and the inception of the 'international law' as mere tricks, intentional schemes, and colonial contrivance deceitfully presented but successfully elaborated by England, France and their successor, namely the US. In fact, on multiple occasions over the past 80 years, it was fully proven that there is no world community, but a perilous jungle inhabited by ferocious monsters, which are more incensed and more devilish than any wild animal, those of the Mesozoic included.
The sole reality is this: what the mankind attested for 300 years -from the Carnatic Wars (1740-1763; Anglo-French wars in India) to the end of WW II- was only the rise of the Western colonial powers to world predominance. The world impressively shifted from a multipolar system of world belligerency (with 11 poles, namely Spain, Portugal, England, France, Holland, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Safavid-Afshar Iran, Mughal India, and Qing China) to a unipolar system of world governance, which can be conclusively described as the Western barbarism and colonial tyranny over mankind.
The above makes clear to all that the termination of a unipolar system of world governance can never happen through negotiations with the central pole of the system; in a Jurassic environment, only idiots would believe in and count on such 'negotiations'.
IX - Multipolarity tomorrow: a reality only through the isolation of the unipolar world center
It would be anything between foolish and paranoid to imagine that the forces, which controlled the Western states and elites over the past five centuries, will be ready to yield power to those whom they have been considering, for at least 350-400 years, as targets for conquest and world dominance.
BRICS+ member states stand therefore in front of a dilemma: either reject the Western unipolar dominance or capitulate. Since the latter is a non-option, it would be useful to explore the possible ways to reject the barbarian, catastrophic and heinous Western rule. However, before pondering on how the 5-century long colonial impact can be overthrown by the countries that represent ca. 90% of the world population, it would be essential for all of them, and more particularly, for the BRICS+ governments, to specify the sectors in which the rejection of the colonial rule (or unipolar system of world governance) must take place.
Because it will be partly functional and basically ineffective, if the BRICS+ member states challenge the Collective West only at the monetary, financial and economic levels, it is imperative for the respective governments to come to an agreement about launching BRICS+ commissions specializing in almost all the sectors for which there are presently fully-fledged UN Specialized Agencies, Programmes and Funds, Research and Training Institutes, Other Entities and Bodies, as well as Related Organizations. A separate commission in Decolonization and De-Westernization should be added, involving groups of study and rejection of all aspects of academic, educational, scientific, intellectual, cultural, moral, behavioral and socio-governmental colonialism.
Following a 6-month period of tense consultations, the commissions and the groups of study should come up with conclusive proposals about the restructuring of all the international bodies, their priorities, works, methods and processes. Effectively backed by a comprehensive refutation of the 5-century long Western colonial order, an overwhelming denunciation of the racist and fallacious Western version of World History, and an all-encompassing condemnation of the preposterous and biased function of the UN for 80 years, BRICS+ member states and all their allies should irrevocably withdraw from all the UN organizations, unequivocally deny any legitimacy to the fake international body, and immediately launch the All Peoples Assembly, as the sole legitimate international body. This will convene initially for an indefinite period of time and institute the fair, just, unquestionably multilateral, and solid international milieu to which all the people worldwide have long aspired. A new Internet will have to be rapidly launched for all the member states totally independently from the US-based legacy system.
This will be tantamount to complete transformation of the BRICS+ into the new international body, which has been badly missing to almost all the people across the Earth. All the employees of the new international body and its specialized agencies, institutes and related organization will have to be proportionally hired on the basis of ethnic origin, language and religion/belief. It will therefore be impossible for a group that constitutes approximately 0.2% of the 8 billion world population to literally invade key positions, promote sectarianism, and thus become the well-justified reason of its own rejection by all the rest.
Subsequently, BRICS+ member states and all their allies will be accepted as members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (CSO), which will turn out to be the de facto guarantee of worldwide peace and security. International relations with the NATO member states, their allies and satellites will be totally severed at all levels, commercial, educational, recreational, academic, intellectual, scientific, technological, economic, social, governmental and military.
This abrupt separation will evidently produce a tremendous international economic shock; but the BRICS+-led countries will be able to face the challenge, recover in relatively short time, and adapt in a far better environment totally void of the Western colonial barbarism, horrific criminality, heinous inhumanity, and evil delusions.
The Collective West must die and it will die; powerfully quarantined, asphyxiated within its borders, economically collapsed, socially imploded, and irreversibly poisoned by the evil delusions, sick literature, inhuman governance, rotten thoughts, insidious ideas, demented ideologies, corrupt arts, suicidal philosophies, absurd disbelief, and utter nonsense that their supposed spiritual, religious, intellectual and social leaders produced, the Western world will totally perish in the most deserved hecatomb, which will be the price they will pay for the unipolar system of world governance that they imposed and for the plans of human annihilation that they developed.
Quite unfortunately for the BRICS+ member states and their allies, there is no alternative; by totally isolating the unipolar world center (namely Canada, USA, UK, EU, Australia and New Zealand), which is what is called the 'Collective West', they will be in a position to effectively install a genuinely representative, peaceful, secure, sustainable multipolar system of world governance, which will extend covering the quasi-totality (ca. 90%) of the world population.
The only other possible transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world is nuclear; if the eventually foolish and fooled leaders of the BRICS+ member states do not truly know or do not duly expect this, it will certainly be too bad for them. If they do not act immediately according to the aforementioned description, they will inevitably offer their worst enemies the privilege of a surprise attack. This is so because the Collective West is very close to the point of no return; they reached the stage of irreparable social disintegration. Consequently, their own chance of survival is to trigger further wars abroad. This is actually what these barbarians have always done after 1492; but this time, it will surely be nuclear.
All those, who 'calmly' wait for the US presidential elections to take place and -even worse- anticipate the victory of Donald Trump, will be proven as the best, although unpaid, agents of the Collective West among the leadership of the BRICS+ member states.
And the establishment of a country, which is hit by a nuclear attack of any type, will have either to cause tremendous nuclear devastation -which involves also terrible collateral damages- or to leave in History the memory of a protracted but failed tenure. It will be a shame and an example to avoid.
Architecture of Isfahan
Source: 1, 2, 3
Ashurbanipal: the Righteous Suffering - Part I / Ασσουρμπανιπάλ Πάσχων – Α' (1987)
Ashurbanipal: the Righteous Suffering - Part I
In this 2-series article (published back in 1987), I present a brief diagram of the Messianic Assyrian dynasty of the Sargonids (722-609 BCE), who ruled Nineveh as the exemplary universal empire of the World History; accepting Jonah's preaching, Sargon of Assyria (722-705 BCE) and his son and grandson, Sennacherib (705-681 BCE) and Esarhaddon (681-670 BCE), ushered the world to the Messianic Era of Ashurbanipal (669-625 BCE), who lived a first life as the Suffering Messiah, on the basis of contemporaneous historical texts and personal declarations, only to leave to posterity the claim to his exulted return and celestial reign. All posterior adaptations and identifications being fraudulent, the Second Coming of Ashurbanipal is instantly corroborated by the nature of his magnum opus. The two titles of the series are: "Ashurbanipal: the Righteous Suffering" and "Ashurbanipal: the Coming King".
Ашурбанипал: Праведный Страдающий - Часть I
В этой 2-серийной статье (опубликованной еще в 1987 г.) я представляю краткую схему мессианской ассирийской династии Саргонидов (722-609 гг. до н. э.), правивших Ниневией как образцовой универсальной империей Всемирной истории; приняв проповедь Ионы, Саргон Ассирийский (722-705 гг. до н.э.) и его сын и внук Сеннахирим (705-681 гг. до н.э.) и Асархаддон (681-670 гг. до н.э.), открыли миру мессианскую эру Ашшурбанипала (669–625 гг. до н. э.), который прожил первую жизнь как Страдающий Мессия, на основании современных ему исторических текстов и личных заявлений, только для того, чтобы оставить потомкам притязания на его ликующее возвращение и небесное правление. Все последующие адаптации и отождествления являются мошенническими, и Второе пришествие Ашшурбанипала немедленно подтверждается характером его великого произведения. Два названия сериала: «Ашурбанипал: Праведный Страдающий » и «Ашурбанипал: грядущий царь».
Ασσουρμπανιπάλ Πάσχων – Τμήμα Α'
Σε αυτή την σειρά δύο άρθρων (δημοσιευμένων το 1987), παρουσιάζω ένα σύντομο διάγραμμα της Μεσσιανικής Ασσυριακής δυναστείας των Σαργονιδών (722-609 πτεμ), οι οποίοι κυβέρνησαν τη Νινευή ως την υποδειγματική παγκόσμια αυτοκρατορία της Παγκόσμιας Ιστορίας. Αποδεχόμενοι το κήρυγμα του Ιωνά, ο Σαργών της Ασσυρίας (722-705 π.Χ.), καθώς και ο υιός και εγγονός του, Σεναχειρίμπ (705-681 πτεμ) και Ασσαρχαδδών (681-670 πτεμ), οδήγησαν τον κόσμο στη Μεσσιανική Εποχή του Ασουρμπανιπάλ (669-625 πτεμ), ο οποίος έζησε μια πρώτη ζωή ως ο Πάσχων Μεσσίας, με βάση τα σύγχρονα τότε ιστορικά κείμενα και τις προσωπικές του διακηρύξεις, μόνο για να αφήσει σε όλους τους επόμενους την αξίωση για την εξυμνηθείσα επιστροφή του και την ουράνια βασιλεία του. Καθώς όλες οι μεταγενέστερες προσαρμογές του θέματος και ταυτίσεις προσώπων είναι ολότελα δόλιες, η Δευτέρα Παρουσία του Ασουρμπανιπάλ επιβεβαιώνεται ακαριαία από τη φύση του μεγάλου έργου του. Οι δύο τίτλοι της σειράς είναι: «Ασσουρμπανιπάλ Πάσχων» και «Ασσουρμπανιπάλ Ερχόμενος».
-------------------------------
Main units:
Introduction
Who were the Assyrians?
Jonah's Sermon at Nineveh
The structure of Assyrian society and power
The transfer of the Ten Tribes of Israel to Assyria
Sennacherib: the destroyer of "nations"
The Assassination of Sennacherib
Esarhaddon and the Tree of Life
The Great Opus and Ashurbanipal
The Particularities of Ashurbanipal
The last conspiracy
Appendices:
Assyrian expansion and obstacles
Ashurbanipal and ... Sardanapalus
in: Inexplicable, January 1987, pp. 212-223
----------------------
Основные главы:
Введение
Кем были ассирийцы?
Проповедь Ионы в Ниневии
Структура ассирийского общества и власти
Переселение десяти колен Израиля в Ассирию
Синаххериб: разрушитель «наций»
Убийство Синаххериба
Асархаддон и Древо Жизни
Великий Опус и Ашшурбанипал
Особенности Ашшурбанипала
Последний заговор
Приложения:
Ассирийская экспансия и препятствия
Ашурбанипал и ... Сарданапал
в: Необъяснимое, январь 1987 г., стр. 212-223.
--------------------------
Κυρίως ενότητες:
Εισαγωγή
Ποιοι ήταν οι Ασσύριοι
Το Κήρυγμα του Ιωνά στη Νινευή
Η δομή της ασσυριακής κοινωνίας και εξουσίας
Η μεταφορά των Δέκα Φυλών του Ισραήλ στην Ασσυρία
Σεναχειρίμπ: ο εξολοθρευτής των "εθνών"
Η δολοφονία του Σεναχειρίμπ
Ο Ασσαρχαδών και το Δέντρο της Ζωής
Το Έργο και ο Ασσουρμπανιπάλ
Οι ιδιαιτερότητες του Ασσουρμπανιπάλ
Η τελευταία συνωμοσία
Παραρτήματα:
Ασσυριακή εξάπλωση και εμπόδια
Ασσουρμπανιπάλ και ... Σαρδανάπαλος
στο Ανεξήγητο, Ιανουάριος 1987, σ. 212-223
----------------------
Κατεβάστε το άρθρο: / Download the article: / Скачать статью:
An Armenian decorated incipit page of the Canon Tables with a portrait of its author, Eusebius, by Malnazar (active about 1630s), and Aghap'ir (active about 1630s), Isfahan, Persia, 1637-38.
Getty Center (Ms. Ludwig I 14 (83.MA.63), fol. 488v)
From Jean Baptiste Duroselle (and his Book) to the Making (and Unmaking) of Europe to (the Rise of) the Final Empire in Russia
Several friends from different countries read with great interest and greater amusement my recent article about the Duroselle Affair back in 1990-1991:
Plea for Jean Baptiste Duroselle's Brilliant Book, Europe: A History of its Peoples
Most of them did not know either the late French academician or his book, let alone the ridiculous and ignominious reaction of the average Greeks and of the barbarian Modern Greek elite to the truths revealed in the book of the French academician.
Then, these friends of mine made their own research for some time; subsequently, they came back with plenty of questions as regards my wholehearted support for Jean Baptiste Duroselle and his book. Some of them asked me why I supported so fervently a book that does not reflect my approach and evaluation of the History of Europe. Others asked me at what point this affair stands in my progressive adhesion to Islam, because in reality 25-26 months after the moment I wrote the Plea, I took my final decision to become Muslim.
Their questions offer me therefore the opportunity of a retrospective view on my spiritual path, academic career, intellectual progress, and cultural development; they are therefore quite challenging for me as they force me to stand in front of the mirror of my life.
I - My view of Europe in the 1980s and now
Since my childhood, I have never been Euro-centric; I went to a French school during the primary and the secondary education, but this was not a reason for me to see France as the sole point of reference. I went to France for postgraduate studies, but this was only one of the countries where I pursued this level of studies. I spent my life's first 27 years in six European countries, also traveling to many other European states, but I was not Eurocentric at all. Until the end of 1983, my few travels to non-European lands were not the reason of my universalism. Certainly, this tendency must be attributed to aspects of inherent spirituality, to home culture and education, to my personal readings, and above all, to the fact that my parents and grandparents were -all- born in Anatolia, a major Asiatic land of civilization and eschatology.
Due to my strong European linguistic background (seven modern and two ancient European languages), I was well versed in European History; but I never viewed it as an autonomous historical knowledge, markedly delineated and clearly distinct from that about other lands or continents. In other words, I never felt and I never experienced, let alone accepted, the existence of borders; to me all borders are meaningless, useless and even profane. Therefore, I never considered Europe as a possibly standalone entity or land. My strong family connections with Turkey and Russia, my knowledge of these major European and Asiatic languages, and my intensive studies in Orientalist disciplines made me 'balance' and 'temper' what was absolute for many of the institutions that I frequented: the European culture and civilization.
This was my feeling at the time (and still is today): if you take off from Lisbon and land in Chelyabinsk, you will find an enormous cultural and behavioral difference; then you conclude that somewhere in-between there must be 'borders'. But in real terms, this is absolutely fictional. How can you understand that? If you travel by land, you will see the many similarities and the few dissimilarities that you will encounter every now and then from Lisbon to Valladolid, to Montauban and thence to Strasbourg, Dresden, Warsaw, Minsk, Moscow, Kazan, Ufa and Chelyabinsk. In reality, cultural continuity prevails over state borders.
My long years in the Middle East (where, while exploring the past, I extensively became acquainted with the local culture and the daily life of numerous nations and ethnic-religious groups) helped me shape my approach, corroborate my conclusions, and consolidate my conviction about the disappointing limits of the conventional modern scholarship (including my Greek, French, English, Belgian and German professors). Still, there was no systematic criticism of the European project of 'unification' from my side at the time; it simply did not interest me. Last, I did not express a straightforward rejection of the European colonial powers, of their deeds, and of the ensuing calamitous results back in the middle-late 1980s.
All the same; at the time, I did not approach the topic (History of Europe) in the same manner (as Jean Baptiste Duroselle did) either. To me, his approach was only one out of many possible approaches. I remember very well that at those days I was saying (as I do right now) that the History of Europe begins in Egypt and in Mesopotamia. This means automatically that I already did not accept either borders or continents.
II - Europe begins in Egypt and in Mesopotamia
There cannot be History of Europe without
- the Phoenician colonization of the Aegean Sea, South Balkans, and North Africa,
- the Carthaginian presence in Sicily, Sardinia and the Iberian Peninsula,
- the Scythians, the Cimmerians, the Celts and the Teutons, who are of Asiatic origin,
- the Egyptian priests of Isis, Horus, Anubis and Sarapis, who propagated their cults,
- the Mithraic pirates who imposed Mithraism in South Balkans and South Italy,
- the Mithraic priests, who revealed Mithras' mysteries throughout Europe,
- the Aramaean origin Emperor Elagabalus, for whom Syria was holier than Europe,
- the Edict of Caracalla that turned Syrians, Egyptians & Berbers to Roman citizens,
- the Chaldean Oracles & the Babylonian spiritual heritage that they brought in,
- the Manicheans, whose faith was preached by an Iranian mystic in Mesopotamia,
- the Huns and all the other Turanian or not invaders who settled in Europe,
- the Muslims of Andalusia, who turned their land into Europe's scientific center,
- the Volga Bulgars who were Islamized before the Kievan Rus were Christianized,
- the Tatars & the Mongols (Golden Horde), who are Russia's vertebral column, and
- the Ottomans, whose European lands were larger than any other European empire's except for Napoleon's momentary state, Russia, and the Roman Empire.
Still, all this was missing in Jean Baptiste Duroselle's book.
Certainly, an academic criticism of Duroselle's book could be founded, but any perspicacious scholar would instantly understand the purpose of that book: it was not a strictly educational material. It was written to become (as it really did) the cornerstone of the European unification. Today many people forget that, when Duroselle was writing his book, the USSR and the Warsaw Pact were still there. As educational material, it was meant to be that of at least one generation.
Then, why should one write an academic criticism of a book that has an exclusively political purpose and scope (except the scope is nefarious and destructive)?
I never believed that Duroselle's book was written with bad intentions. As member of the same elite, which sought to establish the European Union on sound and solid bases, Jean Baptiste Duroselle advanced, at the academic/educational level, in the same manner statesmen and legislators did at the political level: step by step. Or if you prefer, one step at a time! The European Coal and Steel Community had only six (6) member states in 1952; but the European Communities had twelve (12) member states when, 37 years later, in 1989, Duroselle was writing his book.
Then, I realized that in the elaboration of the (demanded by the Commission of the European Communities) book, Duroselle proceeded in the same manner. Most probably, if everything went well, another historian 25-30 years later would compose another «Europe: A History of its Peoples» to incorporate material, facts, cultures and nations that I suggested (as per above) and which Duroselle fully omitted. Then, a fully successful European Union would incorporate Turkey and Russia, thus transforming its nature and changing its name (once more) into Eurasiatic Union. This would be a most propitious development – not only for Europe but for the entire world.
As I saw the entire project as an open-ended effort, I did not feel the need to criticize Duroselle's book at the time, hoping that things would progress beneficially to all, with the elimination of narrow-minded approaches, discriminatory theories, and racist schemes which help raise fictional barriers and fake borders, turning peoples and nations to conflicting parts in a destructive game.
III - Many different plans for a Unified Europe
One should not associate Jean Baptiste Duroselle and his book with today's calamitous and anti-European leadership of the European Union and of many of its countries. Duroselle belonged to a totally different elite, which simply failed to keep the evil forces out.
It is also erroneous to think that the problem is due to a divide between forces that intend to establish and consolidate a Unified Europe and those who intend to plunge the countries of the European Union into endless strives, fraternal conflicts, and catastrophic wars. I don't mean that there are not forces acting to damage the European Union; they certainly exist and they deploy every possible effort to harm the European project.
However, the greatest trouble has been the existence of several parallel agendas providing for different versions of the European project. There were plans which equated the European unification, not only with the fall of the Soviet system but also, with the split and destruction of Russia. Duroselle was a close associate of Jean Monnet and a French Freemason. But their plans about Europe included also the split and destruction of Russia (then known as USSR). This became fully evident with Charles de Gaulle, who did not say the words «Union soviétique» (or U.R.S.S.) even once. He used to call it «Russie». So, de Gaulle spoke about a Europe «de Lisbonne aux Ourals», which means a de facto split of Russia.
I beg you not to misunderstand me! I do not equate Charles de Gaulle with all those who wanted to destroy Russia. His idea reflected the targets and the agenda of only one group. That group wanted (and still wants) to include European Russia into the European project. But there are other groups with other targets and very different agendas, as per which Russia must not be cut to just two parts, but to ten or fifteen pieces.
With the aforementioned, I don't mean recent but old groups, secret societies, and long enduring, evil plans providing for Russia's pulverization. To add further perplexity to the already confusing story, I must add that there is no unity of purpose even among those who intend to fully pulverize Russia. There are some who are very cheerful for the European unification project and have malicious intentions toward Russia; and there are others who want to see both, Europe and Russia, plunged in division, turned to endless battlefields, and mercilessly destroyed.
IV - Serious mistakes committed by past European leadership
And the forces that were in charge committed many mistakes. Things did not go out of control with the beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine in 2022; the real problems started at the time of Mitterrand (1916-1996), Kohl (1930-2017) and Gorbachev (1931-2022). The earliest form of these problems appeared in the minds of people like Jean Monnet (1888-1979), Pierre Renouvin (1893-1974), and Jean Baptiste Duroselle (1917-1994), who kept in their heads a pre-WW II image of the world. This fact prevented them from fully realizing that their project was in striking contrast with three different agendas:
- the Jesuit agenda providing for European unification and for Russia's division and subordination,
- the US-Zionist agenda implying US predominance in Europe, and Russia's final pulverization, and
- the UK-Fake Freemasonic agenda intending to cause conflict everywhere between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Of course, the existence of an agenda does not mean that it will be materialized, but for this to be done, mistakes must not be made. Unfortunately, the aforementioned three leaders made colossal mistakes. Their intention to advance in small steps only guaranteed that catastrophic errors would be produced in the process; they should have advanced in a very bold and most impulsive manner, which would change everything in the horizon so quickly that others would never be in a position to react. Many times, what does not change in a second, fails to evolve and, due to other changes occurred elsewhere, becomes obsolete.
Mitterrand, Kohl and Gorbachev should make an agreement as per which the termination of the Soviet/Russian presence in East Germany would imply the immediate termination of French/English/ American presence in West Germany.
UK and US should be kept out of every discussion pertaining to Germany and France. Gorbachev's agreement with Helmut Kohl dates back to July 1990 (during their meeting on 14th July); but the Warsaw Pact was dissolved one year later (July 1991). East Germany's exit from the Warsaw Pact should occur at the same moment as West Germany's exit from NATO. The momentous advent of a neutral, united Germany should be the sole and undisputed target of Mitterrand, Kohl and Gorbachev. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the leading states of the European Communities, namely France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, should withdraw from NATO to become militarily neutral countries – just like Germany and all the former Warsaw Pact member states.
European Communities should then immediately start discussions with Russia and other Eastern European states for the establishment of a new European organization of security and military cooperation.
All the other European Communities member states that had not withdrawn from NATO should be asked to either follow the example of the major states or cease to be part of the European project.
Specific legislation in the European Parliament should be voted to permanently block academic exchanges with US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and with UK if the insular state did not withdraw from NATO), making it impossible for European students to ever study in US, Canadian, etc. universities. The relations between the European Communities and the US should be limited at the level of simple trade.
As a matter of fact, the mistakes of Mitterrand, Kohl and Gorbachev were those of their mentors, and the reason for them was the fact that they kept having a pre-WW II world view in a post-WW II world. This was preposterous. They failed to accurately assess the deep seated hatred that post-WW II American elites had of Europe, and which was superbly encapsulated in John Kennedy's silly words about France ('a country the size of Texas' having the pretension of 'grandeur' and 'universal relevance').
Example of typically American trash that is absolutely impermissible on European soil: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/france-united-states-iraq/
Post WW II America evolved from a supportive friend of Europe to an encumbering ally only to dare finally assert her claim to world supremacy. It goes without saying that the rise of an empire is achieved either in parity with another or with the collapse of another. In fact, after the end of what is conventionally called WW II, any truthful vision of a United Europe is that of an Empire, and it cannot be achieved within the concept of a Res Publica. Consequently and by definition, the US and the UK are the 'enemies' and all the states of Asia and Africa are the potential allies.
V – The rise of a self-destructive establishment in Europe
Failing to understand that America is the enemy and not the ally or partner of Europe was not the only mistake of the last representatives of the old guard of European statesmen and politicians. They failed to identify a series of challenges, to come up with their own responses to them, to spot groups using a perverse language to corrupt European ideals and principles, to outmaneuver them, to eliminate subversive theories like today's biased and fake multiculturalism, to find various alternatives to the supposed 'need' of cheap labor force (which in turn translates to unnecessary millions of 'refugees'), to examine worldwide threats, notably the case of Islamic extremism, to avert the existing dangers, to address all major issues (Food and Water, Energy, Labor, Worldwide Competitiveness, Security, Health, Education, Internet-Mobile Telephony-Disruptive Technology, and the inevitable termination of the Welfare State), and to envision common national and supranational survival in an exceptionally different future.
The old guard of European statesmen and politicians proved to be too small, too mean, and too conventional to possibly stand the exam. Their traditional practice to please all the important groups of power by means of endless compromises, their unconditional relativism, their tactics to promise everything to everyone, and their absurd aversion to fix strict limits to their concepts, principles and values made them look absolutely useless. This situation was exemplified by Jacques Chirac, who was foolish enough not to realize that, when you don't stand for your values, you get supplanted. Elasticity is not a virtue for emperors.
And this is what really happened in Europe; the old guard of European statesmen and politicians, provenly useless, got effectively supplanted by valueless aliens and enemies of the European culture, who can easily promote by means of lawless laws any sort of bestial and villainous absurdity to a supposed 'value', only thanks to the long lasting relativism that corrupted the European societies.
The rise of a self-destructive establishment in Europe did not and will not end up with its subordination to the US; this is so because the American society collapsed too due to the rise of similar chaotic and inhuman elements and groups. And this is exactly what the old guard of European statesmen and politicians (Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl and Chirac) failed to understand: it they put strict limits, stated their purposes clearly, and clashed with the disparate, corrupt and chaotic elements of the Evil Left, there would be a thunderous clash and they would eliminate the evilness, preventing the corruption from spreading across their societies. Their conformism, compromises and conventionalism (superbly described and decried by the perspicacious Pope Benedict XVI as 'relativism') did actually ensure calmness and placidity in their time only to bring about corruption, disintegration, and dissolution 20-30 years later.
Now, alas, it will take extreme brutality, foremost violence, and overwhelming totalitarianism to save the European Union; but what will be saved will have nothing to do with 'democracy', 'human rights', 'civil rights', and 'republican' states. It will come with dozens of millions of dead on European soil and -above all- with fierce countenance. Many expect it to be based in Eastern Europe; they believe that the land of Russia, east of Moscow, the confines of Volga Bulgaria, the periphery of the Tatars, and Sibir (Siberia), as far as Chelyabinsk, are the world's most blessed Earth as past covenant and future pledge. It may appear to be like the Jack of all trades; what Christianity and Islam failed to achieve with their interminable wars, Tengrism and Shamanism may eventually achieve. And who knows? Those who wanted for more than 100 years to consecrate Russia may see their urban state desecrated forever! I guess one would even call it orbital deformity!
What was then Duroselle's error? I would not call it like that; as a matter of fact, it was an oversight. Although he fortunately avoided referring to nonsensical lines of division of which others were fascinated, he did not explicitly state that in Eastern Europe the only possibly peaceful borders are those between Austria-Hungary, Imperial Germany, and Czarist Russia.
---------------------
Download the article in Word doc.:
