Silk Roads - Blog Posts
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
Χούνζα, Μπαλτί, Ισλάμ, Βουδισμός, οι Στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου κι οι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού, των Μπαχαρικών και των Λιβανωτών
Hunza Valley, Baltistan, Islam, Buddhism, Alexander the Great's soldiers, and the Silk-, Spice-, and Incense Roads
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 8η Μαΐου 2019.
Ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης ανασυνθέτει υλικό από πρότερες δημοσιεύσεις μου για τους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού και στοιχεία από ομιλία μου σχετικά με τους Δρόμους των Λιβανωτών και των Μπαχαρικών ανάμεσα στο Κέρας της Αφρικής και την Κεντρική Ασία, την οποία έδωσα στο Καζακστάν τον Ιανουάριο του 2018.
----------------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/08/χούνζα-μπαλτί-ισλάμ-βουδισμός-οι-στρ/ ==================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Κοντά στα σύνορα με την Κίνα, στο βόρειο άκρο του Πακιστάν και τριγύρω από το Γκιλγκίτ, πολλές μικρές κοιλάδες κατοικούνται από διαφορετικά μικρά έθνη με μεγάλη Ιστορία και μεγαλύτερο ηρωϊσμό.
Οι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού, των Μπαχαρικών και των Λιβανωτών δεν περνούσαν πάντοτε από εδώ. Στην εντελώς αρχική τους μορφή, οι εμπορικοί δρόμοι ξεκινούσαν από την Μεσοποταμία και κατέληγαν στην Κίνα και στην Ινδία: επρόκειτο για διαφορετικούς δρόμους.
Και η Μεσοποταμία, αν και μακρύτερα, ήταν πολύ πιο νωρίς συνδεδεμένη με την Κίνα, επειδή πολιτισμός στην Ινδία (ακόμη κι ο πρώιμος, μη ινδοευρωπαϊκός ‘πολιτισμός της Κοιλάδας του Ινδού’) είναι μία πολύ καθυστερημένη περίπτωση, αν πάρουμε ως μέτρα και σταθμά την Σουμέρ, το Ελάμ, την Ακκάδ, την Ασσυρία και την Βαβυλώνα.
Επίσης, στην αρχική μορφή των εμπορικών δρόμων, το Μετάξι δεν ήταν ένα από τα προϊόντα. Αλλά πολύτιμοι λίθοι, σπάνια ορυκτά, μπαχαρικά και λιβανωτά ήταν πάντοτε στο επίκεντρο του εμπορικού ενδιαφέροντος.
Η πραγματική ‘επανάσταση’ στους εμπορικούς δρόμους ανάμεσα στην Μεσοποταμία, την Κίνα και την Ινδία έγινε στα αχαιμενιδικά χρόνια (550-330 π.Χ.) και κυρίως χάρη στην τεράστια σημασία που έδωσαν οι πρώτοι σάχηδες του Ιράν να εγκαθιδρύσουν ένα πολύ σύνθετο σύστημα αυτοκρατορικών οδών, πολύ καλά οργανωμένων, επιμελημένων και προστατευμένων, διά ξηράς, ερήμου και θαλάσσης.
Το μεγάλο αυτό συγκοινωνιακό και εμπορικό δίκτυο προσέφερε πολλές εναλλακτικές δυνατότητες: αντί να στείλουν προϊόντα, αποστολές, στρατό, κοκ από την Αίγυπτο (ιρανική αχαιμενιδική σατραπεία) διά ξηράς στο Φαρς (κεντρική επαρχία του Ιράν), δηλαδή μέσω Παλαιστίνης, Συρίας, Μεσοποταμίας και Ελυμαΐδας (: Νότιας Υπερτιγριανής), μπορούσαν να τα στείλουν από τα αιγυπτιακά λιμάνια της Ερυθράς Θαλάσσης στον Περσικό Κόλπο.
Ο Δαρείος Α’, προνοητικός, άνοιξε εκ νέου την από αιώνες κλεισμένη, αρχαία διώρυγα του Σουέζ, η οποία ήταν ολότελα διαφορετικής κατεύθυνσης από την σύγχρονη (δηλαδή από τα δυτικά προς τα ανατολικά) και συνέδεε τον Νείλο (από την περιοχή περίπου του σημερινού Καΐρου) με την Ερυθρά Θάλασσα.
Κάτι ακόμη πιο σημαντικό που επιτεύχθηκε από την αχαιμενιδική ιρανική εμπορική και συγκοινωνιακή κοσμογονία ήταν το γεγονός ότι διαφορετικοί εμπορικοί δρόμοι αλληλεξαρτήθηκαν για πρώτη φορά, έτσι καθιστώντας γνωστά σε πολύ μακρινά σημεία πολλά προϊόντα μέχρι τότε άγνωστα.
Το εμπόριο μεταξύ Μεσοποταμίας και Κίνας, ή Μεσοποταμίας και Ινδίας (: Κοιλάδας του Ινδού) ανάγεται εύκολα στην 3η προχριστιανική χιλιετία στα τέλη της οποίας βλέπουμε ένα πλήθος διαδοχικών αρχαιολογικών χώρων να χαράσσουν μια γραμμή που μέσω Κεντρικής Ασίας συνέδεε την κοιλάδα των Διδύμων Ποταμών (Τίγρη κι Ευφράτη) με την κοιλάδα του Κίτρινου Ποταμού. Αλλά η Αίγυπτος ελάχιστα επωφελήθηκε των ασσυροβαβυλωνιακών εμπορικών δρόμων κι ανταλλαγών.
Από την άλλη, η Αίγυπτος είχε ήδη από τα τέλη της 3ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας διαμορφώσει ένα μεγάλο εμπορικό δίκτυο διά του Αρχαίου Βασιλείου του Κους (: Αιθιοπίας, δηλαδή του σημερινού Σουδάν) με την Σαχάρα, διά της Λιβύης με τον Άτλαντα, και διά της Ερυθράς Θαλάσσης με το ανεξάρτητο σομαλικό βασίλειο του Πουντ στην ανατολική ακτή της Αφρικής πέρα από το Κέρας της Αφρικής. Αλλά η Ασσυρία κι η Βαβυλώνα ελάχιστα επωφελήθηκαν των αιγυπτιακών εμπορικών δρόμων κι ανταλλαγών.
Όμως στα αχαιμενιδικά χρόνια, όλα αυτά τα εμπορικά δίκτυα αναμείχθηκαν και αλληλοσυνδέθηκαν σε ένα μείζον εμπορικό και συγκοινωνιακό δίκτυο από τον Αφρικανικό Άτλαντα μέχρι τα ανατολικά παράλια της Ασίας.
Η πρώτη παγκοσμιοποίηση ήταν γεγονός.
Ήταν απλώς θέμα χρόνου πάνω στους εμπορικούς δρόμους αυτούς να μην μετακινούνται μόνον προϊόντα αλλά επίσης γραφές, γλώσσες, θρησκείες, λατρείες, πίστεις, κοσμογονίες, θεουργίες, μυστήρια και μυστικά κυκλώματα.
Μια πρώιμη μετακίνηση ήταν αυτή του εκδιωκόμενου από την Βόρεια Ινδία Βουδισμού προς τις ανατολικές επαρχίες του αχαιμενιδικού Ιράν ήδη τον 6ο – 5ο προχριστιανικό αιώνα.
Σ’ αυτό βοήθησε πολύ η θρησκευτική ανοχή που επικρατούσε στην αχανή αυτοκρατορία που ξεκινούσε από τα σύνορα της Ινδίας με το Πακιστάν κι έφθανε στο Αιγαίο, ενώ είχε συνενώσει όλες τις εκτάσεις από το Ουζμπεκιστάν και την νότια Ουκρανία μέχρι το Σουδάν και το Ομάν.
Από το ανατολικό αχαιμενιδικό Ιράν (δηλαδή τις εκτάσεις των σημερινών Πακιστάν, Αφγανιστάν κι Ουζμπεκιστάν), ο Βουδισμός διαδόθηκε αργότερα προς την Κεντρική Ασία κι έγινε μια από τις πολλές θρησκείες που πολλά τουρανικά έθνη αποδέχθηκαν. Από εκτάσεις της Κεντρικής Ασίας (του σημερινού Καζακστάν και Ανατολικού Τουρκεστάν, δηλαδή της βορειοδυτικής επαρχίας Σινκιάν της Κίνας) διαδόθηκε αργότερα ο βουδισμός στην καθαυτό Κίνα.
Το ίδιο εμπορικό δίκτυο συνέχισε να λειτουργεί μετά την εκ μέρους του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου κατάληψη της αχαιμενιδικής αυτοκρατορίας και ανάληψη καθηκόντων σάχη και συνεπώς εγγυητή και συνεχιστή της αυτοκρατορικής παράδοσης.
Το ίδιο συνέβηκε και στα χρόνια των Επιγόνων παρά τους διάφορους πολέμους που οι ίδιοι δεν έπαυσαν να κάνουν.
Με τους Αραμαίους να ελέγχουν το διά ξηράς και δι’ ερήμου εμπόριο και με τους Υεμενίτες (οργανωμένους στα ανεξάρτητα και πολύ εύπορα βασίλεια Καταμπάν, Χιμυάρ, Σαβά και Χαντραμάουντ) να ασκούν μια σχεδόν αποκλειστική θαλασσοκρατορία στην Ερυθρά Θάλασσα και στον Ινδικό Ωκεανό (μέχρι την Ινδοκίνα και την Ινδονησία), η αλληλεξάρτηση των συμβαλλομένων μερών εντάθηκε.
Η σύσταση από Χαλδαίους Αραμαίους εμπόρους της Γέρρας, της πόλης με τα αλάτινα τείχη, στα δυτικά παράλια των συγχρόνων Εμιράτων, δυτικά του Αμπού Δάμπι, ήταν ένα κοσμοϊστορικό γεγονός.
Οι Χαλδαίοι έμποροι που ίδρυσαν την μεγαλύτερη εμπορική πόλη του κόσμου ανατολικά της Αλεξάνδρειας ήξεραν πάρα πολύ καλά τι έκαναν: εκμεταλλευόμενοι την σχετική αδυναμία του παρθικού αρσακιδικού κράτους του Ιράν βρήκαν ένα κομβικό σημείο από όπου περνούσε ένα μεγάλο τμήμα του εμπορίου μεταξύ Δύσης κι Ανατολής και θεμελίωσαν εκεί μια πόλη-εμπορείο που μπορούσε να θησαυρίσει και από το εμπόριο μεταξύ Νότου και Βορρά.
Η Γέρρα – στην οποία αναφέρονται ο Πτολεμαίος Γεωγράφος, ο Στράβων κι ο Πλίνιος – προσέφερε στην Κίνα ανατολικό αφρικανικό εμπόρευμα το οποίο, αντί να περιπλέει την Ινδία και την Νότια Ασία, διοχετευόταν από την Υεμένη στα νότια παράλια του Περσικού Κόλπου κι από κει προς την Κεντρική Ασία, εκτός των συνόρων του Ιράν έτσι αποφεύγοντας δασμούς.
Με τον τρόπο αυτό όμως ενισχύθηκαν φυγόκεντρες τάσεις στο Ιράν και συστάθηκαν ανατολικά ιρανικά και τουρανικά κράτη, όπως το ινδοπαρθικό κράτος με πρωτεύουσα την Μινναγάρ και επίνειο το Βαρβαρικόν (κοντά στο σημερινό Καράτσι) και το Κουσάν με πρωτεύουσα την Καπίτσα (κοντά στην Καμπούλ) που ήταν τρόπον τινά μια συνέχεια του βασιλείου της Βακτριανής.
Τότε ανοίχθηκε για πρώτη φορά (κατά τον πρώτο προχριστιανικό αιώνα) ο εμπορικός δρόμος που συνέδεε την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού με την Γιαρκάντ και το Χοτάν στα νότια άκρα του Ανατολικού Τουρκεστάν.
Φυσικό ήταν να ακολουθήσει ένα νέο στάδιο διάδοσης του Βουδισμού από τις ανατολικές ιρανικές επαρχίες (ή αυτονομημένα βασίλεια) προς την Κεντρική Ασία και αυτό να ακολουθήσει τον νέο αυτό δρόμο. Λίγο αργότερα, από κει (όπως και από αλλού) θα περνούσαν ο Μανιχεϊσμός και το Ισλάμ.
Ανάμεσα στους Χούνζα σήμερα έχει επικρατήσει το Ισλάμ αλλά ανάμεσα στους Μπουρούσο του Μπαλτιστάν υπάρχουν ακόμη βουδιστές.
Ο εξισλαμισμός των Μπαλτί ήταν υπόθεση 15ου – 16ου αιώνα. Όμως οι Χούνζα αποδέχθηκαν το Ισλάμ νωρίτερα. Αλλά το αίμα των απογόνων των στρατιωτών του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου έβραζε στις φλέβες τους μέχρι πρόσφατα.
Αν και ελάχιστοι τον αριθμό, πριν από 400 χρόνια οι Μιρ (ισλαμικός περσικός τίτλος κατ’ αποκοπήν από το αραβικό εμίρ/εμίρης) των Χούνζα αναγνώριζαν το μικροσκοπικό κράτος τους και την Κίνα ως τα ισχυρώτερα κράτη στον κόσμο!
Η διασπορά των απογόνων των Επιγόνων ήταν μεγάλη αλλά μετά από αρκετές γενεές, είτε είχαν αποδεχθεί τον Βουδισμό, είτε πίστευαν σε διάφορες μορφές ανατολικών Μιθραϊσμών, είτε είχαν ασπασθεί τον αρσακιδικό ζενδισμό (που ήταν μια ηθική ερμηνεία της ζωροαστρικής μεταφυσικής), όλοι τους αποτελούσαν τμήμα των ανατολικών πολιτισμών, παιδείας και παραδόσεων.
Η φυλετική αναγωγή τους στους στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου δεν είχε κανένα ρατσιστικό ή εθνικιστικό χαρακτήρα επειδή δεν υπήρχε κάτι τέτοιο στην Αρχαιότητα.
Ήταν θέμα ηθικής, πολιτισμικής κι εσχατολογικής διάστασης γι’ αυτούς και οι στρατιωτικές επιτυχίες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου ήταν ένα ολότελα ασήμαντο σημείο αναφοράς μπροστά στο ψυχικό έργο του και στον μυθικό, μεσσιανικό κι αποκαλυπτικό συμβολισμό του έργου του.
Ήταν συνεπώς φυσιολογικό για τους τελευταίους ελληνόφωνους απογόνους των Επιγόνων να αναμειχθούν με διαφορετικά κατά τόπους έθνη, επειδή η φυλετική – εθνική υπόστασή τους ήταν για τους ίδιους ολότελα ασήμαντη μπροστά στην ένταξή τους σε ένα Θείο Έργο ψυχικών διαστάσεων και κοσμοϊστορικής σημασίας που είχαν ήδη επιτελέσει οι πρόγονοί τους μαζί με τον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο – ένα έργο-προτύπωση του Έργου του Μεγάλου Βασιλέα (Αποκάλυψη ΙΔ’ 14) στο Πλήρωμα του Χρόνου.
Αυτό το Έργο πρώτος κατέγραψε σε ελληνικά στον Βίο Αλεξάνδρου ο ανώνυμος συγγραφέας που αποκαλείται Ψευδο-Καλλισθένης επειδή δεν σχετίζεται με τον γνωστό ιστορικό.
Για τους τελευταίους ελληνόφωνους απογόνους των Επιγόνων η Μόνη Αλήθεια κι Αξία στα ανθρώπινα πράγματα ήταν ο Μύθος – κι όχι ο σατανικός κι απάνθρωπος ‘Λόγος’.
Κι έτσι στον Μύθο αποτυπώθηκε όλη η ουσία του κορυφαίου έργου του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου που μόνον σημερινοί κρετίνοι ψάχνουν να βρουν σε ‘στρατιωτικές κατακτήσεις’ και σε ψέμματα περί ‘εκπολιτισμού άλλων εθνών’.
Μυούμενος ο Αλέξανδρος σε ανατολικά μυστήρια, στην Αίγυπτο, στην Περσία, και στην Βαβυλώνα, εκπολιτίσθηκε ο ίδιος κι έγινε Μεγάλος.
Και γι αυτό σήμερα βρίσκουμε την αναφορά στους στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου σε πολλά και διαφορετικά έθνη που μιλάνε ολότελα διαφορετικές γλώσσες και πιστεύουν ολοσχερώς αντίθετες θρησκείες, και όμως θεωρούν εαυτούς απογόνους των στρατιωτών του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου. Οι Καλάς και οι Χούνζα του βόρειου Πακιστάν είναι μόνον ένα μικρό παράδειγμα. Θα χρειαζόταν μια ολόκληρη εγκυκλοπαίδεια για να καταγραφούν μικρές και μεταξύ τους διαφορετικές πληθυσμιακές ενότητες που ανάγουν την καταγωγή τους στους στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου.
Σημεία της ορεινής γης των Χούνζα και των Μπαλτί
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Форт Балтит в долине Хунзы: маленький Тибет на севере Пакистана
https://ok.ru/video/1362004609645
Baltit Fort in Hunza Valley: a Small Tibet in Northern Pakistan
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240158
Κάστρο Μπαλτίτ στην Κοιλάδα Χούνζα: ένα Μικρό Θιβέτ στο Βόρειο Πακιστάν
Περισσότερα:
Baltit Fort is situated in Karimabad, once was capital of the state of Hunza, now Tehsil Headquarter of District Gilgit. It is approached by Karakuram Highway from Gilgit, the capital of Northern Areas, Pakistan. The Baltit Fort stands on a artificially flattened spur below the Ulter Glacier. Strategically located with a commanding view of the Hunza Valley and its tributaries, its inhabitants controlled the seasonal trans-Karakuram trade between south and Central Asia. The Baltit Fort is rectangular in plan with three floors and stands on a high stone plinth Fig-I. Whilts the ground floor consist mainly of storage chambers, the first floor is oriented around as open hall.
A staircase leads to the second floor which was mainly used during the winter months and contains an audience hall, guest room, dining hall, kitchen and servants quarters. A further staircases leads up to the third floor, which is partly open to the elements and contains the summer dining room, audience chamber, bedroom and reception hall. Inhabited by the Mir, or ruler of Hunza until 1945.
The conservation work carried out in the 1990 indicated that the core of the structures, a single defensive timber and stone tower, had been built in the eight century A.D. This tower was augmented by additional towers and linked by a single story construction consisting of small rooms and sub-surface storage chambers. The complex was then later expanded by the addition of a second, and then a third floor. The structure’s stone walls, built in an area of frequent seismic movements, were provided with a traditional internal framework of timber for greater stabilisation. https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1882/
Also: Baltit Fort (Urdu: قلعہ بلتت) is a fort in the Hunza valley, near the town of Karimabad, in the Gilgit-Baltistan region of northern Pakistan. Founded in the 8th CE, it has been on the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative list since 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltit_Fort and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cultural_heritage_sites_in_Gilgit-Baltistan
————————————————————–
Σχετικά με τους Χούνζα και τους Μπαλτί:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunza_Valley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_of_Hunza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunza_(princely_state)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burushaski
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burusho_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balti_people
Σχετικά με την διάδοση του Βουδισμού στο Πακιστάν, Ιράν, Κεντρική Ασία και Κίνα:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargah_Buddha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondrani
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Central_Asia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaguptaka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4%81ran_Buddhist_texts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvastivada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulasarvastivada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_transmission_of_Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_transmission_of_Buddhism#Central_Asian_missionaries
https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-buddhism/about-buddhism/the-world-of-buddhism/spread-of-buddhism-in-asia
http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/artl/buddhism.shtml
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/buddhism.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Iran
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/buddhism-i
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137022943_2
——————————————-
According to a Buddhist legend preserved in Pali (an ancient Prakrit language, derived from Sanskrit, which is the scriptural and liturgical language of Theravada Buddhism), the first instance of Buddhism entering Iran seems to have been during the life of the historical Buddha, Sakyamuni (roughly 5/6th century BCE.
The legend speaks of two Merchant brothers from Bactria (modern day Afghanistan) who visited the Buddha in his eighth week of enlightenment, became his disciples and then returned to Balkh (major city of Bactria) to build temples dedicated to him.
Whatever the historical validity of this story, there is strong evidence to show that Balkh did become a major Buddhist region and remained so up until the Arab Muslim invasion of the 7th century.
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/non-iranian/buddhism_iran.htm
-------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250645898
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/hunza_balti_islam_buddhism_alexander_the_great
https://vk.com/doc429864789_620740190
https://www.docdroid.net/9CAJCUX/xounza-mpalti-islam-boydismos-oi-stratiwtes-toy-meghaloy-aleksandroy-ki-oi-dromoi-toy-metaksiou-docx
Πόλο, Πόλεμος, το Τζυκανιστήριον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, οι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού κι οι Τουρανικές – Ιρανικές Βάσεις της Ρωμιοσύνης
Polo Games, War Games, the Tzykanisterion of Constantinople, the Silk Roads, and the Turanian-Iranian Foundations of Romiosyni, i.e. today's Eastern Romans (falsely denigrated as 'Greeks')
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 4η Μαΐου 2019.
Αναπαράγοντας τμήμα ημερησίου σεμιναρίου, το οποίο είχα παρουσιάσει στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 σχετικά με ορισμένα σύγχρονα ψευδο-έθνη της Ασίας, της Ευρώπης και της Αφρικής, τα οποία έχουν παρασκευασθεί από τους δυτικούς αποικιοκράτες, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης, στο κείμενό του αυτό, απαριθμεί μία σειρά ιστορικών θεμάτων σχετικών με την παρασκευή της ψευδέστατης ταυτότητας των δήθεν Νεο-ελλήνων και την σύσταση της ψευδοϊστορίας που διδάσκεται στην δήθεν 'Ελλάδα'. Είναι φυσικό ότι όλα αυτά τα θέματα, τα τόσο καθοριστικά για το παρελθόν και την ταυτότητα της Ρωμιοσύνης, ολοσχερώς αγνοούνται από τους σημερινούς ψευδο-Νεοέλληνες του επάρατου νοτιο-βαλκανικού κρατιδίου, επειδή αυτοί έχουν πέσει θύματα αμορφώτων και τρισαθλίων παραχαρακτών, δηλαδή των 'ελληνιστών' και των 'βυζαντινολόγων'. Έτσι, τυφλοί και άχρηστοι οι σημερινοί ψευδο-Νεοέλληνες, έχοντας απωλέσει την ρωμέικη ορθόδοξη ταυτότητά τους, βρίσκονται σε κατάσταση δουλείας ασυγκρίτως χειρότερης εκείνης της οθωμανικής περιόδου.
-----------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/04/πόλο-πόλεμος-το-τζυκανιστήριον-κωνστ/ ======================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Αμόρφωτοι κι ανιστόρητοι οι διάφοροι Νεοέλληνες εθνικιστές ή προπαγανδιστές ελληνοκεντρισμού, ελληνισμού κι αρχαιολατρείας θέλουν να ξεχνούν ότι στα χρόνια της Χριστιανικής Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας, οι Ρωμιοί ένοιωθαν αποστροφή για τους Ολυμπιακούς Αγώνες της Αρχαιότητας αλλά ελάτρευαν κι έπαιζαν μετά μανίας το Τζυκάνιον.
Αν θέλετε να τιμήσετε τον Κωνσταντίνο ΙΑ’ Παλαιολόγο, αν θέλετε να πιστεύετε ότι πάλι με χρόνια με καιρούς πάλι δικά μας θάναι, αν σέβεστε την θρησκεία των προγόνων σας, αν είστε Χριστιανός Ορθόδοξος, τότε πρέπει να ξέρετε ότι τζυκανιστήρια (τεράστια στάδια όπου έπαιζαν το τζυκάνιον) υπήρχαν σ’ αρκετές πόλεις της Ρωμανίας – όχι μόνον στην Κωνσταντινούπολη.
Κι’ αυτό συνέβαινε για τον πολύ απλό λόγο ότι αυτό το τουρανικής – ιρανικής καταγωγής άθλημα που από την σασανιδική ιρανική αυλή του 5ου αιώνα μεταδόθηκε στην Βασιλεύουσα του Θεοδοσίου Β’ βοηθάει πολύ στην εξάσκηση του αυτοκρατορικού ιππικού. Το τζυκάνιον είναι αυτό που λέμε σήμερα πόλο.
Οι Ακρίτες κι η ακριτική παράδοση το τίμησαν, ο Βασίλειος Α’ Μακεδών το λάτρευε, ο ‘αὐτοκράτωρ πιστὸς εὑσεβὴς βασιλεὺς’ Αλέξανδρος Γ’ που βασίλευσε 13 μήνες το 912-913 σκοτώθηκε παίζοντας τζυκάνιον, και πολλοί Ρωμιοί ιστορικοί όπως ο Ἰωάννης Κίνναμος έγραψαν γι’ αυτό. Η Άννα Κομνηνή διασώζει κι αυτή πληροφορίες για τα θρυλικά τζυκανιστήρια της αυτοκρατορίας.
Σχετικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_(Byzantine_emperor)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kinnamos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzykanisterion
Ενδεικτικό του πως γράφεται και ποια είναι η πραγματική Ιστορία που είναι απαγορευμένη στο νεοελληνικό ψευτοκράτος των θεόστραβων κι αργόσχολων μονιμάδων του Δημοσίου, τζυκανιστήρια αναφέρονται ότι υπήρχαν στην Σπάρτη και στην Αθήνα, πόλεις-εμβλήματα της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας που συμμετείχαν στους Ολυμπιακούς Αγώνες αλλά στα χριστιανικά χρόνια προτιμούσαν αθλήματα τουρανικής κι ιρανικής προέλευσης.
Ειρωνεία της Ιστορίας κι εκμηδενισμός των ανεγκέφαλων κι αμόρφωτων της ΕΣΤΙΑ TV κι άλλων ψευτομασωνικών, φιλοσιωνιστικών και νεο-ναζιστικών ομάδων που με τακτική Γκαίμπελς επαναλαμβάνουν το αισχρό κι αυτοκαταστροφικό ψέμμα του ‘διαχρονικού ελληνικού πολιτισμού’…..
Σε Αθήνα και Σπάρτη πριν από 1000 χρόνια, οι Ρωμιοί προτιμούσαν την τουρανική και την ιρανική πολιτισμική κληρονομιά, το αυτοκρατορικό άθλημα της θρυλικής δυναστείας των Καϋανιδών που περιγράφει ο Φερντοουσί στο Σαχναμέ, κι απολάμβαναν το τζυκάνιον μιμούμενοι τον Σιγιαβάς, θρυλικό ήρωα του Ιράν, και τον Αφρασιάμπ, μυθικό βασιλιά του Τουράν (που το όνομά του είναι το παραδοσιακό όνομα της Σαμαρκάνδης). Κι όλα αυτά για αιώνες πολλούς πριν το Μαντζικέρτ και πριν να φανούν στον ορίζοντα οι Σελτζούκοι.
Αυτό ήταν μία μόνο διάσταση των πολιτισμικών ανταλλαγών που έγιναν χάρη στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού – ένα θέμα που οι Έλληνες ψευτο-πανεπιστημιακοί είχαν εξοστρακίσει κι απαγορεύσει από τον φόβο τους ότι η αληθινή Ιστορία θα ισοπέδωνε τα βρωμερά, ψευτο-μασωνικά, σιωνιστικά, ρατσιστικά, φασιστικά, νεο-ναζιστικά ψέμματά τους περί της τάχα ‘ανωτερότητος του αρχαίου ελληνικού πολιτισμού’ – κάτι που έμπρακτα οι απόγονοι των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων έδειξαν ότι δεν πίστευαν.
Τώρα όμως που η Κίνα επιβάλλει παγκοσμίως την θεματολογία των Δρόμων του Μεταξιού, η αληθινή Ιστορία θα σβύσει το ψέμμα του ‘ελληνισμού’ που κατέστρεψε την Ρωμιοσύνη και την Ορθοδοξία, ξεφτιλίζοντας την Ελλάδα σαν ένα ανίκανο και χρεωκοπημένο κρατίδιο.
Το πόλο λοιπόν παραπέμπει στους ιρανικούς θρύλους και συμβολισμούς, καίριο ηρωϊκό πρόσωπο των οποίων είναι ο Σιγιαβάς του οποίου το όνομα κατέληξε ως ‘σαβάς’ (Savaş) να σημαίνει στα τουρκικά ‘πόλεμος’. Ο πόλεμος μεταξύ του Σιγιαβάς, διαδόχου του θρόνου του Ιράν, και του Αφρασιάμπ, βασιλιά του Τουράν, ήταν μια τρομερή σελίδα του ιρανικού-τουρανικού θρύλου που γράφηκε με φόντο το τζυκάνιον (πόλο) και που πρέπει να ξέρουμε πολύ καλύτερα από τις ιστορίες του εμφυλίου των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων που γράφει ο Θουκυδίδης.
Γιατί οι θρύλοι είναι προτύπωση των εσχάτων με συμβολικούς όρους, ενώοι ιστορίες του παρελθόντος δεν αφορούν ούτε το παρόν ούτε το μέλλον.
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Поло в Гилгите, Северный Пакистан – Как древний имперский спорт распространился из Турана и Ирана через Великий шелковый путь
https://ok.ru/video/1357665602157
Polo at Gilgit, North Pakistan – How an Ancient Imperial Sport spread from Turan & Iran across the Silk Road
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240156
Πόλο στο Γκιλγκίτ, Πακιστάν – Διάδοση ενός Πανάρχαιου Αθλήματος πάνω στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού
Περισσότερα:
Το πόλο – αρχικά γνωστό σε αρχαία ιρανικά κείμενα ως τσαουκάν – είναι ένα τουρανικό – ιρανικό άθλημα του οποίου οι απαρχές χάνονται στην Κεντρική Ασία της 2ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας. Αν η θήρα λεόντων ήταν το αυτοκρατορικό άθλημα των Ασσυρίων μοναρχών κι αν η θήρα ιπποποτάμων ήταν το βασιλικό άθλημα των Αιγυπτίων φαραώ, το κατ’ εξοχήν άθλημα των Αχαιμενιδών σάχηδων κι όλων των διαδόχων τους μέχρι τα μέσα ισλαμικά και τα νεώτερα χρόνια ήταν το πόλο (τσαουκάν σε μέσα περσικά και τσοβγάν σε νέα περσικά).
Καθώς το άθλημα αγαπήθηκε στο Θιβέτ, στην Κίνα, στην Ινδία. και στην Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία, ήταν ένα ακόμη τουρανικό – ιρανικό πολιτισμικό στοιχείο που χάρη στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού διαδόθηκε σε όλες τις μεγάλες χώρες του προαναγεννησιακού κόσμου.
Το όνομα, με το οποίο το έμαθαν οι Άγγλοι στην Ινδία και στην συνέχεια το διέδωσαν σε άλλα μέρη του κόσμου, είναι ωστόσο όχι το τουρανικό – ιρανικό όνομά του αλλά το θιβετιανό όνομα του αθλήματος. Πούλου σημαίνει μπάλα στην θιβετιανή γλώσσα Μπαλτί που ομιλείται και στο Γκιλγκίτ, στα βόρεια άκρα του Πακιστάν.
Το θιβετιανό όνομα του αθλήματος διέδωσαν στην Ινδία Τούρκοι και Μογγόλοι που συχνά από στρατιώτες και στρατηγοί έγιναν αυτοκράτορες στο Δελχί. Ένας απ’ αυτούς μάλιστα σκοτώθηκε σε αγώνα πόλο – ο Κουτμπουντίν Αϊμπάκ που βασίλεψε ως σουλτάνος στο Δελχί από το 1206 μέχρι το 1210.
Το πόλο έγινε αυτοκρατορικό άθλημα επίσης στην Κίνα ήδη από την εποχή της δυναστείας Τανγκ (7ος – 10ος αι) και σε αυτοκρατορικούς τάφους βρίσκονται αγαλματίδια αθλητών πόλο είτε ανδρών είτε γυναικών. Συνέβαλε στην διάδοση του πόλο στην Κίνα η παρουσία των εκεί καταφυγόντων μελών της ιρανικής σασανιδικής δυναστείας που δεν αποδέχθηκαν την κατάκτηση του Ιράν από τους πρώιμους μουσουλμάνους στρατιώτες.
Στην Κωνσταντινούπολη το πόλο διαδόθηκε αρκετά νωρίς και στα χρόνια του Θεοδοσίου Β’ (408-450) αναγέρθηκε ολόκληρο Τζυκανιστήριο ώστε να παίζουν οι ευγενείς Ρωμιοί το … Τζυκάνιον (παραφθορά του περσικού τσαουκάν). Τζυκανιστήρια υπήρχαν επίσης στην Τραπεζούντα, την Έφεσο και αλλού. Ο λόγος που το άθλημα λατρεύθηκε από αριστοκρατίες και αυλές είναι απλός: αποτελεί εξαιρετική εκπαίδευση και προετοιμασία για το αυτοκρατορικό ιππικό μιας χώρας.
Ωστόσο, πουθενά αλλού το άθλημα δεν λατρεύτηκε περισσότερο από όσο ανάμεσα στους Πέρσες του Ιράν και τους Τουρανούς της Κεντρικής Ασίας. Ο λόγος είναι απλός: οι καταβολές του είναι από εκεί κι ανάμεσα σε Τουρανούς κι Ιρανούς το πόλο έγινε αντικείμενο μακροσκελέστατων επικών συνθέσεων. Ο εθνικός ποιητής του Ισλαμικού Ιράν Φερντοουσί κάνει λόγο για το πόλο που έπαιζε ένας από τα πιο σημαντικά πρόσωπα του ιρανικού θρύλου: ο Σιγιαβάς, γιος του Σάχη Κεϊκαούς.
Η ιστορία του Σιγιαβάς, Ιρανού διαδόχου του θρόνου που για να αποδείξει την αθωότητά του πρέπει να καταφύγει στον Αφρασιάμπ, βασιλιά του Τουράν, είναι από τα σημαντικώτερα σημεία του Σαχναμέ,του τεράστιου επικού ποιήματος του Φερντοουσί.
Ωστόσο οι εναλλαγές κι οι αντικατοπτρισμοί είναι έντονοι και το Καλό και το Κακό παίζουν περίεργα παιχνίδια ενοχής κι αθωότητας για τους ήρωες της Καϋανικής Δυναστείας που μέσα στο έργο του Φερντοουσί προηγείται της Αρσακιδικής Δυναστείας (Ασκανιάν) αλλά δεν μπορεί να ταυτιστεί με την ιστορική δυναστεία των Αχαιμενιδών που όντως στην Ιστορία προηγήθηκαν των Αρσακιδών. Ο συμβολικός χρόνος στο έργο του Φερντοουσί έχει τελείως άλλη υπόσταση και χρησιμεύει ώστε να περιγράφονται αποκαλυπτικά κι εσχατολογικά στοιχεία ως υπόθεση του παρελθόντος αν και ανήκουν ουσιαστικά στο μέλλον.
Έτσι ο Αφρασιάμπ σκοτώνει τον Σιγιαβάς του οποίου το όνομα αρχικά σήμαινε κυριολεκτικά “αυτός με το μαύρο άλογο” αλλά κατέληξε ως ‘σαβάς’ (Savaş) να σημαίνει στα τουρκικά ‘πόλεμος’.
Σχετικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siyâvash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrasiab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_K%C4%81vus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Khosrow
-------------------------------
Η ιστορία του Αρχαίου Αθλήματος Τσαουκάν – Τζικάνιον:
The game first played in Persia (Iran) at dates given from the 5th century BC, or much earlier, to the 1st century AD and originated there, polo was at first a training game for cavalry units, usually the king’s guard or other elite troops. To the warlike tribesmen, who played it with as many as 100 to a side, it was a miniature battle. In time polo became an Iranian national sport played normally by the nobility.
Women as well as men played the game, as indicated by references to the queen and her ladies engaging King Khosrow II Parviz and his courtiers in the 6th century AD. Certainly Persian literature and art give us the richest accounts of polo in antiquity. Ferdowsi, the famed Iranian poet-historian, gives a number of accounts of royal polo tournaments in his 9th century epic, Shahnameh (the Epic of Kings). In the earliest account, Ferdowsi romanticizes an international match between Turanian force and the followers of Siyâvash, a legendary Iranian prince from the earliest centuries of the Empire; the poet is eloquent in his praise of Siyâvash’s skills on the polo field.
Ferdowsi also tells of Emperor Shapur II of the Sassanid dynasty of the 4th century who learned to play polo when he was only seven years old. Naqsh-i Jahan Square in Isfahan is in fact a polo field which was built by king Abbas I in 17th century. Naqsh-e Jahan Square in Isfahan is the site of a medieval royal polo field.
Sultan Qutb-ud-din Aibak, the Turkic Emperor of North India, ruled as an emperor for only four years, from 1206 to 1210 but died accidentally in 1210 playing polo. While he was playing a game of polo on horseback (also called chougan in Persia), his horse fell and Aibak was impaled on the pommel of his saddle. He was buried near the Anarkali bazaar in Lahore (which is now in Pakistan). Aibak’s son Aram, died in 1211 CE [2], so Shams-ud-din Iltutmish, another ex-slave of Turkic ancestry who was married to Aibak’s daughter, succeeded him as Sultan of Delhi.
From Persia, in medieval times polo spread to the Byzantines (who called it tzykanion), and after the Muslim conquests to the Ayyubid and Mameluke dynasties of Egypt and the Levant, whose elites favored it above all other sports. Notable sultans such as Saladin and Baybars were known to play it and encourage it in their court. Polo sticks were features on the Mameluke precursor to modern day playing cards.
A Persian miniature from the poem Guy-o Chawgân (“the Ball and the Polo-mallet”) during Safavid dynasty of Persia, which shows Persian courtiers on horseback playing a game of polo, 1546 AD
Later on Polo was passed from Persia to other parts of Asia including the Indian subcontinent and China, where it was very popular during the Tang Dynasty and frequently depicted in paintings and statues. Valuable for training cavalry, the game was played from Constantinople to Japan by the Middle Ages, known in the East as the Game of Kings. The name polo is said to have been derived from the Tibetan word “pulu”, meaning ball. https://royalpoloclubrasnov.ro/history-of-polo/
Επίσης:
https://irandoostan.com/polo-or-chogan-the-unesco-intangible-cultural-heritage-of-persia/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polo#Origins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chovgan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzykanisterion
-----------------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250620160
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/polo_games_war_games_the_tzykanisterion_of_const
https://vk.com/doc429864789_620278896
https://www.docdroid.net/LUrtK69/polo-polemos-to-tzikanistirion-konstantinoypoleos-oi-dromoi-toy-metaksiou-ki-oi-toyranikes-iranikes-baseis-tis-romiosynis-pdf
Αφρο-Ευρασιατική Γεωπολιτική, οι Νέοι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού, το Ινδο-Ειρηνικό Σύμπλεγμα, η Διάλυση της Δύσης και το Τέλος της Ψευτο-Ιστορίας του ‘Ελληνο-Ρωμαϊκού Πολιτισμού’
Afro-Eurasiatic Geopolitics, the New Silk Roads, the Indo-Pacific Region, the Collapse of the West, and the End of the Fake History of ‘Greco-Roman Civilization’
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 30 Αυγούστου 2019.
Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης παρουσιάζει ορισμένα από τα δεδομένα τα οποία παρουσίασα σε μια ομιλία μου στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2019. Κατά την ομιλία μου περιέγραψα τρόπους αντι-αποικιοκρατικής συνεργασίας των εθνών της Αφρο-Ευρασίας και του Ινδο-Ειρηνικού Συμπλέγματος πάνω στην κοινή τους πολιτισμική κληρονομιά και πολιτιστική παράδοση. Αυτές βρίσκονται στους αντίποδες εκείνων των αποικιοκρατικών χωρών (Γαλλία, Αγγλία, Ολλανδία, ΗΠΑ, Αυστραλία) και αντιστρατεύονται τα ρατσιστικά δόγματα και τις ιστορικές διαστρεβλώσεις που οι εν λόγω χώρες χρησιμοποιούν ως εργαλεία διαφθοράς και εξάρτησης. Επίσης, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης προσθέτει πολλά ενδιαφέροντα στοιχεία για το Eastern Economic Forum 2019, το οποίο είναι ένα εξαιρετικό βήμα ανταλλαγής γνωμών, αναλύσεων και προοπτικών ανάμεσα σε αρχηγούς κρατών, στελέχη κυβερνήσεων, επιχειρηματίες, στρατιωτικούς, βουλευτές, ακαδημαϊκούς και δημοσιογράφους από τις χώρες της Ασίας και του Ινδο-Ειρηνικού συμπλέγματος.
-----------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/30/αφρο-ευρασιατική-γεωπολιτική-οι-νέοι/ ===================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Τίποτα δεν υπογραμμίζει καλύτερα την αποδυνάμωση και αποσύνθεση του δυτικού κόσμου καλύτερα από την οικτρή εικόνα της τελευταίας συνάντησης των αρχηγών κρατών μελών της οργάνωσης G-7 στο Μπιαρίτς της Γαλλίας. Το 45ο G7 summit αναφέρθηκε στο ενδεχόμενο επιστροφής της Ρωσσίας στην οργάνωση και συνεπώς μετατροπής της και πάλι σε G -8, αλλά την καλύτερη απάντηση σ’ αυτή την ιδέα έδωσε το ρωσσικό think tank Valdai Club που πρόσκειται στον Ρώσσο πρόεδρο.
Σημειώνοντας ότι το G-7 δεν έχει πλέον την σημασία που είχε προ 20 ετών, το εν λόγω ίδρυμα σε σχετική δημοσίευσή του (δείτε παρακάτω) αναρωτήθηκε τι έχει πλέον σημασία, το G-7 ή το G-20!
Λεπτομέρειες υπάρχουν πολλές (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45th_G7_summit), αλλά η πραγματικότητα φαίνεται σε λίγους μόνον αριθμούς:
Οι χώρες του G-7 (ΗΠΑ, Ιαπωνία, Γερμανία, Αγγλία, Γαλλία, Ιταλία και Καναδάς) με 766 εκ. πληθυσμό διαθέτουν μαζί το 30.1% του παγκοσμίου ΑΕΠ (σε αντιστοιχία αγοραστικής δύναμης / purchasing power parity).
Αλλά οι πέντε χώρες των BRICS (Κίνα, Ινδία, Ρωσσία, Βραζιλία, Νοτιοαφρικανική Ένωση) με 3165 εκ. εκπροσωπούν το 32.7% του παγκοσμίου ΑΕΠ, όντας έτσι πιο σημαντικές από το G-7, το οποίο είναι πολιτικά διαιρεμένο και οικονομικά κλυδωνιζόμενο.
Από την άλλη πλευρά, οι υπόλοιπες 7 χώρες του G-20 (το οποίο αποτελείται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και 19 χώρες, οι οποίες απαρτίζονται από τους BRICS, το G-7 και άλλες 7 χώρες), ήτοι Ινδονησία, Μεξικό, Τουρκία, Νότια Κορέα, Αργεντινή, Σαουδική Αραβία, και Αυστραλία, με 633 εκ. πληθυσμό έχουν το 10.8% του παγκοσμίου ΑΕΠ.
Με άλλα λόγια το G- 20 εκπροσωπεί το 75% της παγκόσμιας οικονομίας, μη αφήνοντας εκτός καμμιά παγκοσμίως σημαντική χώρα.
Αλλά το πολύ εντυπωσιακό δεδομένο (συγκριτικά με τον κόσμο προ 20 ή 30 ετών) είναι ότι μαζί οι Ινδονησία, Μεξικό, Τουρκία, Νότια Κορέα, Αργεντινή, Σαουδική Αραβία, και Αυστραλία διαθέτουν ήδη περισσότερο από το 1/3 του ΑΕΠ των χωρών μελών του G-7. Αυτό από μόνο του δείχνει πόση ισχύς έχει χαθεί από τις παλιές μεγάλες οικονομίες της Δυτικής Ευρώπης, Βόρειας Αμερικής, και Ιαπωνίας (που κάποτε απεκαλούντο ‘ο πρώτος κόσμος’). Για το G- 20 θα βρείτε λεπτομέρειες εδώ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20
Αν στα παραπάνω συνυπολογιστούν η δυναμική της οικονομίας των εκτός του G-7 χωρών, το δημογραφικό πρόβλημα (το οποίο είτε είναι πολύ σοβαρό είτε προξενεί πολιτικές αναταραχές στην αντιμετώπισή του) και ο εκπαιδευτικός – επιστημονικός – μορφωτικός παράγοντας, τότε συμπεραίνουμε ότι η καταβαράθρωση της Δύσης θα είναι γρήγορη και απόλυτη. Αυτή η διάλυση θα είναι μάλιστα γενική και όχι μόνον οικονομική-πολιτική. Μαζί με την Δύση, θα βουλιάξει όλο το ιδεολόγημα που προέκυψε από την Αναγεννησιακή Ευρώπη και έφθασε στις μέρες μας.
Άλλωστε, η Γερμανία είναι η Γερμανία του αφηγήματος του ‘ελληνορωμαϊκού ή ιουδαιοχριστιανικού πολιτισμού’, όσο παραμένει πληθυσμιακά όπως την ξέρουμε μέχρι σήμερα. Το ίδιο κι η Γαλλία, η Ιταλία ή η Αγγλία. Αλλά μια Γερμανία κατακλυσμένη από Τούρκους, Ιρανούς, Αφγανούς, Τουρκμένους κι Ιρακινούς αναγκαστικά χρειάζεται άλλο αφήγημα – κάτι που να την φέρνει κοντά στον Ταμερλάνο, στην Χρυσή Ορδή και στον Χουλάγκου Χαν.
Όλα αυτά φαίνονται ήδη πολύ καθαρά από τους κινητήριους μοχλούς σκέψης, τις γενικώτερες θεωρήσεις της Παγκόσμιας Ιστορίας, τις μεγάλες αναζητήσεις, και τις βασικές κατευθυντήριες γραμμές των κυριωτέρων σχεδίων που υλοποιούν οι εκτός του G-7 μεγάλες δυνάμεις. Η ανάδειξη της Κίνας σε πρώτη υπερδύναμη βγάζει αυτόματα τον Περικλή, τον Θουκυδίδη και τον Ιούλιο Καίσαρα από το επίκεντρο της Ιστορίας και εκεί τοποθετεί τον Κινέζο αυτοκράτορα Σουζόν (Suzong), ο οποίος έγραψε στον χαλίφη της Βαγδάτης ζητώντας του βοήθεια και στρατό για να καταστείλει την επανάσταση Αν Λουσάν ή τον ιδρυτή της δυναστείας Μιν αυτοκράτορα Χουνβού (Hongwu), ο οποίος το 1368 έγραψε ένα ποίημα 100 λέξεων για να εξυμνήσει τον Μωάμεθ Προφήτη του Ισλάμ.
Δεν είναι θέμα καν επιλογής ανάμεσα σε μια αλήθεια κι ένα ψέμμα. Είναι κάτι πολύ πιο μακριά από αυτό. Είναι θέμα ότι ‘αυτό’ ήταν η δική ‘σου’ αλήθεια και ‘εκείνο’ ήταν η δική ‘του’ αλήθεια, και τελικά αποδεικνύεται ότι η δική ‘σου’ αλήθεια (ακόμη κι αν είναι αληθινή) δεν είναι η πιο σημαντική, ή η πιο καθοριστική.
Πάρτε για παράδειγμα την βασική γεωπολιτική της Κίνας! Η Ευρώπη, ιδωμένη από το Πεκίνο, γίνεται νοητή ως μία χερσόνησος της Ασίας, δηλαδή κάτι σαν μια άλλη Ινδία, ενώ η Ασία κι η Αφρική νοούνται ως μία ενότητα γης της οποίας τα πολλά τμήματα είναι αλληλεξαρτώμενα, αλληλοσυνδεόμενα και αλληλοσυνεργαζόμενα, καθώς αποτελούν μια ενότητα. Και ακριβώς αυτή την θεώρηση αλλά και μέθοδο έρευνας κι ερμηνείας της Ιστορίας υλοποιεί το μεγαλόπνοο σχέδιο της Κίνας που εν συντομία αποκαλείται Νέος Δρόμος του Μεταξιού {Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) ή One Belt One Road (OBOR); Один пояс и один путь; 一带一路}. Σχετικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/一带一路
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Один_пояс_и_один_путь
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Belt,_One_Road
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRACECA
Η ιστορική επιστροφή στους – κατά ξηράν, έρημον και θάλασσαν – Δρόμους του Μεταξιού ντε φάκτο συνενώνει την αφρο-ευρασιατική γήινη έκταση, σβύννοντας ψεύτικες κι αναθεωρητικές γραμμές που είχαν επιβάλει οι διάφοροι αποικιοκράτες και οριενταλιστές. Ψευτο-γεωπολιτικές παρουσιάσεις που χωρίζουν την Αφρο-Ευρασία πετιούνται εκ των πραγμάτων στα σκουπίδια ως ιστορικά ανυπόστατες και ως οικονομικά – πολιτικά άχρηστες και βλαβερές. Η Ενδιάμεση Περιοχή του Δημήτρη Κιτσίκη δεν υπάρχει: ήταν μια στρεβλή κι άχρηστη επινόησή του.
Το ίδιο έχει να κάνει και με το ρατσιστικό αφήγημα των αποικιοκρατών του 18ου και του 19ου αιώνα. Άγγλοι και Γάλλοι αποικιοκράτες, ακριβώς για να επιβάλλουν την αποικιοκρατία τους, επιχείρησαν να αναθεωρήσουν την Ιστορία και να αρνηθούν το τι μέχρι τότε είχε συμβεί.
Η αναθεώρηση της Ιστορίας που οι Αγγλογάλλοι ελληνιστές, λατινιστές κι οριενταλιστές επέβαλαν είχε να κάνει με
α. μια παρά φύσιν και ψεύτικη διαίρεση του κόσμου σε Ανατολή και Δύση,
β. μια ανιστόρητη κι αυθαίρετη ταύτιση της Δύσης με πολιτισμό και πρόοδο και της Ανατολής με βαρβαρότητα κι ‘απολυταρχία’ (λες κι η ‘απολυταρχία’ είναι κάτι το οπωσδήποτε κακό!),
γ. μια παρανοϊκή κι εξωπραγματική αναγωγή του λεγόμενου ‘ελληνορωμαϊκού πολιτισμού’ σε επίκεντρο της Παγκόσμιας Ιστορίας, κάτι που αντιστρατευόταν τις ίδιες τις ιστορικές πηγές, και
δ. μια ολότελα αφελή ταύτιση των νεώτερων Ευρωπαίων με τους αρχαίους Ρωμαίους, Έλληνες και ακόμη τους Μυκηναίους και τους Μινωΐτες της 2ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας σε μια οικτρά ρατσιστική απόπειρα να παρουσιασθεί το παρελθόν των Ευρωπαίων αποικιοκρατών ως ‘ανώτερο’ και ‘αρχαιότερο’ εκείνου των εθνών των αγγλικών και γαλλικών αποικιών.
Όλα αυτά τα ψευδή, αυθαίρετα κι ανιστόρητα ‘αξιώματα’ επιβλήθηκαν με τυραννικές μεθόδους στην Ασία, την Αφρική κι ακόμη την Ευρώπη, αλλά εις μάτην.
Με την αναφορά στην αλήθεια των Ιστορικών Δρόμων του Μεταξιού, η Ιστορία επιστρέφει, οι αναθεωρητικές και ρατσιστικές απόψεις των νεώτερων Ευρωπαίων για ‘ελληνορωμαϊκό’ ή ‘ιουδαιοχριστιανικό’ πολιτισμό σβύννονται, και η ισότιμη συμμετοχή όλων των εθνών στο μελλοντικό γίγνεσθαι στηρίζεται στην πραγματική Ιστορία, την έρευνά της, την εκμάθησή της, την διάδοσή της, χωρίς τους εθνοκεντρικούς και ιδεολογικούς, παραποιητικούς φακούς.
Ποια ήταν λοιπόν η Ιστορική Αλήθεια των Δρόμων του Μεταξιού που επιστρέφει για να γίνει κτήμα όλων όσων θα συμμετέχουν στην εξέλιξη της Ανθρωπότητας;
Ένα πλήθος εθνών συμμετείχαν στις εμπορικές, μορφωτικές, θρησκευτικές και γενικώτερα πολιτισμικές ανταλλαγές μεταξύ Ρώμης, Συρίας Αλεξάνδρειας, Ανατολικής Αφρικής, Ινδίας, Ινδοκίνας-Ινδονησίας, Μεσοποταμίας, Ιράν, Κεντρικής Ασίας, Σιβηρίας και Κίνας.
Έλληνες, Ρωμαίοι και γενικώτερα οι ευρωπαϊκοί λαοί επηρεάστηκαν κατακλυσμικά από ανατολικές λατρείες, μυστικισμούς, θρησκείες, θεουργίες, τέχνες, τρόπους ζωής και πολιτισμούς, και μάλιστα είχαν συνείδηση αυτού του συμβάντος.
Η αυτοκρατορική Ρώμη ήταν μια ασιατική πρωτεύουσα, ένα αντίγραφο της Περσέπολης, της Βαβυλώνας, ή ακόμη της Νινευή. Κάθε αρχαιοελληνική ‘επίδραση’ στην Ρώμη είχε πλέον ολότελα σβυσθεί.
Αν και μεγάλο κράτος, η Ρώμη πολύ περισσότερο επηρεάστηκε παρά επηρέασε άλλα έθνη πάνω στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού, των Μπαχαρικών και των Αρωμάτων (Λιβανωτών). Έθνη που έπαιξαν καθοριστικό ρόλο στην ανάπτυξη αυτού του ιστορικού φαινομένου ήταν οι Ιρανοί, οι Αραμαίοι, οι Τουρανοί, οι Σογδιανοί, κι οι Υεμενίτες.
Οι Έλληνες αποδέχθηκαν τον Μιθραϊσμό, τις Ισιακές Λατρείες, Μυστήρια και Θεολογία, τον Μανιχεϊσμό, την Χριστιανωσύνη, και άλλα ανατολικά θρησκευτικά συστήματα.
Κανένας Αιγύπτιος, Βαβυλώνιος, Αραμαίος, Ιρανός ή Τουρανός δεν ενδιαφέρθηκε να μεταφράσει τα έπη του Ομήρου ή τους πλατωνικούς διαλόγους στα προχριστιανικά χρόνια.
Και κανένας Αιγύπτιος Βαβυλώνιος, Αραμαίος, Ιρανός ή Τουρανός δεν ελάτρευσε τον Ποσειδώνα ή την Αθηνά.
Αλλά η αποικιοκρατική και ρατσιστική, ευρωπαϊκή ακαδημαϊκή τάξη του 19ου και του 20ου αιώνα, αντί να αποκαλέσει την περίοδο από τον Αλέξανδρο έως τον Οκταβιανό ‘ανατολιστικά χρόνια’ (επειδή τότε σημειώθηκαν ανατολικές επιδράσεις πάνω σε Έλληνες, Ρωμαίους κι άλλους Ευρωπαίους), την ονόμασε ‘ελληνιστικά χρόνια’ (επειδή ορισμένοι ασιατικοί λαοί, όπως οι Φρύγες, οι Λυδοί, οι Κάρες, οι Λύκιοι κι οι Καππαδόκες εξελληνίστηκαν γλωσσικά).
Οι Ευρωπαίοι αποικιοκράτες έβλεπαν εαυτούς στην Ασία ως συνεχιστές εκείνων από τους Έλληνες στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου που έμειναν σε διάφορα σημεία της Ασίας, ανήγειραν πόλεις, διατήρησαν την τέχνη τους.
Αλλά αυτό ήταν μια αυθαίρετη ασυναρτησία που δεν δημιουργεί Ιστορία.
Αντίθετα από την ρατσιστική, εθνοκεντρική διαστροφή της Ιστορίας που ήταν το επακόλουθο του αποικιοκρατικού αφηγήματος, η νέα αφρο-ευρασιατική γεωπολιτική πραγματικότητα και οι Νέοι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού δεν αφήνουν κανένα περιθώριο – ειμή μόνον τον εξευτελισμό – σε όσους επιμένουν να μιλάνε εθνοκεντρικά και να βλέπουν μια ‘ιστορική ανωτερότητα’ για τους προγόνους τους.
Όσοι άθλιοι κι αμόρφωτοι στην Ελλάδα μιλάνε υποτιμητικά για Μογγόλους μόνο γελοιοποιούν την Ελλάδα και δείχνουν ότι η χώρα είναι ένα άχρηστο σκουπίδι μιας περασμένης εποχής.
Άλλωστε οι πρόγονοι αυτών των σημερινών αμορρφώτων Ελλήνων πήγαιναν πριν από 600 χρόνια στην Κεντρική Ασία για να σπουδάσουν σε αστεροσκοπεία με Μογγόλους καθηγητές.
Όταν υλοποιείται ένα τόσο σημαντικό, κοσμοϊστορικό σχέδιο, όπως οι Νέοι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού, ισχυρές χώρες προσπαθούν να βρουν καλύτερους τρόπους να ενταχθούν σ’ αυτό και προς τούτο η ιστορία κι η γεωγραφία μελετούνται υπό διαφορετικά πρίσματα, αναπτύσσονται νέες συνθέσεις, και επινοούνται συμπληρωματικές ερμηνείες και προσεγγίσεις.
Το Ινδο-Ειρηνικό Σύμπλεγμα είναι μια καθαρά ινδική θέση που επινοήθηκε για να ενισχύσει την θέση της Ινδίας μέσα στους Νέους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού.
Ιστορικά στηρίζεται στους τεκμηριωμένους θαλάσσιους εμπορικούς δρόμους, οι οποίοι κυρίως χρησίμευαν για την μετακίνηση μπαχαρικών, λιβανωτών και άλλων προϊόντων και είχαν φέρει κοντά την Ανατολική Αφρική, την Ινδία, την Ινδοκίνα και την Ινδονησία.
Στα σύγχρονα πλαίσια, μια τέτοια προσέγγιση συμφέρει την Ινδία, επειδή το Δελχί, βάζοντας έτσι στο αφρο-ευρασιατικό παιχνίδι σημαντικές οικονομίες όπως η Ινδονησία κι η Αυστραλία αλλά κι η Ανατολική Αφρική, λειτουργεί εξισορροπητικά απέναντι στην εμφανή κυριαρχία της Κίνας στο καθαρά ηπειρωτικό ευρασιατικό επίπεδο.
Αυτό είναι μια πολύ γνωστή τακτική στις διεθνείς σχέσεις: διευρύνεις το πεδίο ανταγωνισμού, όταν σε πιο ‘στενά’ όρια γίνεσαι ουραγός. Αλλά δείχνει ότι η Ινδία καταλαβαίνει ότι οι Νέοι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού είναι μονόδρομος των παγκοσμίων εξελίξεων. Και όπως είναι εύκολο να καταλάβει ο οποιοσδήποτε, είτε μουσουλμάνοι είτε ινδουϊστές, οι Ινδοί περιμένουν ανυπόμονα την ημέρα που οι παλιές αποικιοκρατικές δυνάμεις Γαλλία κι Αγγλία θα έχουν απομείνει με τόση ισχύ διεθνώς όση και η Σρι Λάνκα ή η Μαλαισία.
Αντίθετα, το σύνολο του αμόρφωτου, άρρωστου και ουσιαστικά σάπιου ελληνικού πολιτικού, πανεπιστημιακού και δημοσιογραφικού κατεστημένου εξακολουθεί να νομίζει ότι η Ελλάδα μπορεί να επιβιώσει μέσα στον σημερινό κόσμο είτε με προσήλωση στις παλιές συμμαχίες (Γαλλία, Αγγλία, ΕΕ, ΗΠΑ, ΝΑΤΟ), είτε με ελπίδες στηριγμένες στην ξεκάρφωτη, έωλη κι ανυπόστατη συμμαχία με το Ισραήλ και την Αίγυπτο.
Η αλήθεια είναι ότι η Ιστορία θα κτυπήσει τραγικά το νεώτερο αναθεωρητικό ψευτοκράτος Ελλάδα, όταν οι δημιουργοί του (Γαλλία, Αγγλία) παύσουν να υφίστανται.
Τόσο θα καταλάβουν όλοι οι Ρωμιοί ότι η Ελλάδα, αποσχισμένη από την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία, στερημένη από τη ρωμέικη ορθόδοξη ταυτότητά της, κι εκμαυλισμένη λόγω εκδυτικισμού, πίστευε για δική της μια ‘ελληνοκεντρική’ ψευτοϊστορία τόσο ψεύτικη όσο και το κρατίδιο του Όθωνα.
Με τον επερχόμενο θάνατο και διάλυση των δημιουργών του ψευτοκράτους, θα σβύσουν και τα ρατσιστικά αποικιοκρατικά αφηγήματα για την τάχα σημασία του αρχαίου ελληνικού πολιτισμού, την δήθεν κοσμοϊστορική απήχησή του, και την υποτιθέμενη επίδρασή του σε άλλα έθνη.
Δηλαδή, κοντά είναι η μέρα που, αν κάποιοι κομπλεξικοί, υστερικοί και διεστραμμένοι σκατόψυχοι ισχυριστούν ότι υπήρχαν Έλληνες στην Αρχαία Κίνα, ότι η επαρχία Γιουν-νάν της Κίνας είναι ελληνική (επειδή οι Έλληνες λέγονται ‘Γιουνάν’ στα αραβικά!!!!!), κι ότι τα αγάλματα (από τερακότα) του κινεζικού στρατού στο Σιάν (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army) είναι φτειαγμένα από Έλληνες, θα τρώνε κι ένα σκεπάρνι στο κεφάλι για να ξεμπερδέψουμε μια και καλή από τους ψευτομασώνους της κακιάς ώρας.
Στην προώθηση κι εμπέδωση των μακρόπνοων σχεδίων της αφρο-ευρασιατικής επανασύνδεσης συμμετέχει με ιδιαίτερη έμφαση και η Ρωσσία, επειδή έχει καταλάβει ότι αυτή η εξέλιξη συμφέρει και στην Μόσχα.
Το Eastern Economic Forum-2019, το οποίο λαμβάνει χώρα σε λίγες μέρες στο Βλαδιβοστόκ, είναι μια κορυφαία εκδήλωση απ’ αυτή την άποψη.
Ως μείζον γεγονός φέρνει μαζί αρχηγούς κρατών, υπουργούς, βουλευτές, διευθυντές κρατικών οργανισμών, εκπροσώπους της ιδιωτικής πρωτοβουλίας και του επιχειρηματικού κόσμου, πανεπιστημιακούς, ειδικευμένους επιστήμονες, και δημοσιογράφους οι οποίοι εξετάζουν δυνατότητες και παρουσιάζουν προτάσεις για την υλοποίηση του φιλόδοξου προγράμματος των Νέων Δρόμων του Μεταξιού.
Είναι μια κοσμογονία που στην Ελλάδα δυστυχώς θα μείνει ολότελα άγνωστη και δεν θα καλυφθεί από τα διαπλεκόμενα ΜΜΕ και τα social media των κρετίνων αρχαιολατρών κι ελληνο-αυνανιστών.
Παράλληλα και εντός των πλαισίων της οργάνωσης του Eastern Economic Forum-2019, κορυφαία think tanks οργανώνουν ιδιαίτερα σεμινάρια και συζητήσεις που φωτίζουν όψεις της αφρο-ευρασιατικής αναγέννησης.
Στην συνέχεια θα βρείτε μια σειρά από παρουσιάσεις εκ μέρους του ρωσσικού think tank Valdai Club το οποίο συμμετέχει επίσης στο γεγονός.
Στο τέλος, σύνδεσμοι σας παραπέμπουν στο σάιτ του Eastern Economic Forum. Επίσης επισυνάπτω μια έκδοση του Valdai Club για το Μέλλον του Πολέμου (The Future of War) για να δείτε πόσο διαφορετική μορφή θα έχουν οι αυριανοί πόλεμοι: κανένας στρατός δεν θα μπορεί να τους αντιμετωπίσει και μόνον οι επί τούτω οργανωμένες ιδιωτικές στρατιωτικές εταιρείες θα είναι ικανές να τους διεξαγάγουν επιτυχώς.
---------------------
Valdai Club at the Eastern Economic Forum-2019
This year, the Valdai Club will take part in the Eastern Economic Forum for a fourth time. On September 4, at 10:00 the Club will hold a session titled “The Asian Mirror: The Pivot to the East Through the Eyes of our Asian Partners” and on the same day, at 14:30, it is due to present a book titled “Toward the Great Ocean: A Chronicle of Russia’s Turn to the East”.
http://valdaiclub.com/events/own/valdai-club-at-the-eastern-economic-forum-2019/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
------------------
Valdai Club at the EEF-2019: The Asian Mirror: The Pivot to the East Through the Eyes of Our Asian Partners. Special Session
This year, the Valdai Discussion Club will take part in the Eastern Economic Forum for the fourth time. On September 4, at 10:00 the Club will hold a session titled “The Asian Mirror: The Pivot East Through the Eyes of Our Asian Partners”.
Logically and thematically, the session is a continuation of a series of events dedicated to the key focus of the Club’s work in 2019 – Russian politics in the East.
Our interest in the topic is due to the strengthening of Russia’s position in the East, the ambition of the country’s leaders to enhance the Eastern aspect of foreign policy, and the geopolitical events in the region, which have had an effect on the entire world.
The Valdai session’s main goal won’t be to discuss plans for the development of the Far East and its integration in the Asia-Pacific Region, but rather the things that have already been achieved. Russia’s turn to the East is gaining momentum.
The time has come to summarise its interim results and to hear the position of our Asian partners on how successful Russian policy has been, from their point of view.
The session will feature prominent experts and public opinion leaders from Russia and several Asian countries.
Together, they will answer: how do they regard the results of Russia’s turn to the East? What has it managed to do? What role does Asia want Russia to play?
Speakers:
To Anh Dung, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam
Fan Weiguo, Chief of Eurasian Bureau of Xinhua News Agency
Lee Jae-Young, President, the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Michael Tay, Founder and Director of the Foundation for the Arts and Social Enterprise, Ambassador of Singapore to Russia (2002-2008); Founder of the Russia-Singapore Business Forum
Andrey Bystritskiy, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for the Development and Support of the International Valdai Discussion Club
Apurva Sanghi, Lead Economist, World Bank in Russia
Moderator:
Timofei Bordachev, Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club; Academic supervisor of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, HSE
Working languages: Russian, English.
Venue: Vladivostok, Far Eastern Federal University, Building B, Conference Hall 6.
http://valdaiclub.com/events/announcements/valdai-club-at-the-eef-2019-the-asian-mirror-the-pivot-to-the-east/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
-------------------
Valdai Club at the EEF-2019: Presentation of a Book ‘Toward the Great Ocean: A Chronicle of Russia’s Turn to the East’
On September 4, at 14:30, in the framework of Eastern Economic Forum-2019, the Valdai Discussion Club is going to present a book titled “Toward the Great Ocean: A Chronicle of Russia’s Turn to the East”.
For years, the Valdai Discussion Club has been Russia’s leading analytical centre for discussing and developing the agenda for Russia’s turn to the East. Since 2013, when Russia’s leaders proclaimed that the development of the Far East is “a national task for the 21st century”, this project has become the most important engine of the country’s foreign and domestic policy.
Since 2012, the Club has published six analytic papers under the general title “Toward the Great Ocean”, which refers to the credo used by Russian pioneers from the 16th century until the early 20th century. The papers aim to both summarise the achievements and challenges of Russia’s turn to the East, and make suggestions for its development.
“Toward the Great Ocean: A Chronicle of Russia’s Turn to the East” is a collection of all the six analytic papers (2012–2018), as well as detailed comments by project manager Sergei Karaganov on each of its parts, as well as essays on the topic, delivered by prominent Asian scholars.
During the presentation of the book, attendees will also learn about the research work carried out by the Valdai Club and its plans for future publications.
Speakers:
Timofei Bordachev, Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club; Academic supervisor of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, HSE
Andrey Bystritskiy, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for the Development and Support of the International Valdai Discussion Club
Sergei Karaganov, Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at the National Research University Higher School of Economics; Honorary Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy
Thomas Graham, Senior Director, Kissinger Associates
Moderator:
Victoria Panova, Vice-President for International Affairs, Far Eastern Federal University
Working languages: Russian, English.
Venue: Vladivostok, Far Eastern Federal University, Roscongress & Governors ’Club, Building A, Level 4.
http://valdaiclub.com/events/announcements/valdai-club-at-eef-2019-presentation-of-a-book-toward-the-great-ocean/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
------------------------
The Indo-Pacific Concept First Hand: Indian Foreign Minister Speaks at Valdai Club
On Tuesday, August 27, Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar met with the Valdai Discussion Club’s experts. During the open part of the meeting, he spoke about the concept of the Indo-Pacific, as New Delhi sees it, about the key trends in modern international relations and the prospects for bilateral cooperation.
The day before, Mr. Jaishankar had arrived in Russia on his first visit as Minister of External Affairs in preparation for the Eastern Economic Forum, whose main foreign guest will be Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It is worth noting that the professional career of Subrahmanyam Jaishankar took him to Moscow almost forty years ago: for two years he worked at the Embassy of India as the third, and then the second secretary. At the beginning of the meeting at the Valdai Club, the Minister optimistically said that much has changed in the world over the years, but the Russian-Indian relations remain one of the stable factors in international life.
According to the minister, the most important trend in international relations is a movement towards multi-polarity. This is due to the weakening of US dominance, established after the end of the Cold War, and the emergence of new centres of power. “We believe that economic, political and technological power is more distributed around the world than ever before in history after 1945,” he said.
“Now there are more sources of influence in the world order, and the idea that one country can play a decisive role is out-dated.” This process is accompanied by the weakening of established rules and the growth of uncertainty. According to Mr. Jaishankar, the world goes from a system of alliances to a system of convergences, when countries join forces to solve common problems without entering into formal alliances.
As one example of such convergence, he named the concept of the Indo-Pacific region, which has become the hallmark of Indian foreign policy in recent years.
According to the minister, the connection between the regions of the Indian and Pacific Oceans have existed for centuries: five hundred years ago, India’s cultural, political and economic presence was felt in Southeast Asia and on the coast of China, and the policy of the British, who made India the centre of their colonial empire in Asia, can be described as Indo-Pacific project.
Everything changed after the Second World War, when the United States, which became the hegemon in the region, shifted its focus to the Pacific Ocean and made Northeast Asia the centre of gravity. Mr. Jaishankar believes that the concept of the Indo-Pacific region has allowed for the restoration of the artificially-broken connection between the regions of the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
The minister welcomed the fact, that the problems of the Indo-Pacific are beginning to be discussed more and more widely in Russia. According to him, it would be good if Russia formulates its own vision toward the Indo-Pacific region. “India is a strong power in the Indian Ocean with a serious interest in the Pacific Ocean, Russia is a strong Pacific power with an interest in the Indian Ocean,” he said.
‘How can we harmonize these interests – that’s the matter. We have such experience in the Eurasian space. It is important today to see where our interests in maritime cooperation can be translated into real interaction.”
Mr. Jaishankar emphasized that the concept of the Indo-Pacific is not directed against any countries, particularly China. According to him, the opinion that this concept is being promoted by Washington to contain Beijing’s influence is out-dated and reflects the Cold War paradigm. “India views the Indo-Pacific region in a more comprehensive manner,” he said.
Presentation of the Valdai Discussion Club’s Analytical Report “The Future of War”
On August 27, at 11.00, the Valdai Discussion Club hosted a presentation of Club’s new analytical report titled “The Future of War”.
http://valdaiclub.com/events/own/presentation-of-report-the-future-of-war/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
The Big Seven: The West Can No Longer Solve All Problems Alone
What is the “West”? Does the West still exist as such – in light of Britain’s exit from the EU and the US drift towards unilateral approaches? This question concerns many people now – mainly in Old Europe, writes Arnaud Dubien, head of the Observo Franco-Russian Analytical Centre.
Today, the G7 is going through difficult times – and even, perhaps, suffering a real existential crisis. This is due to at least two factors.
First, there is the presence in this club of an element that contrasts itself with the rest of the member countries – this, of course, is the United States. Since the US is the largest Western power, it has made the work of the organisation problematic: many experts say that on many issues it’s incorrect to think of the group as the G7, but rather “six plus one”.
Second, the weight and legitimacy of the Seven has been called into question, not only in connection with the absence or possible return of Russia to the group, but also because it is impossible to seriously discuss the fate of the world without China, India and other major world powers.
It would be more appropriate here to return to the idea of another French president – Giscard d’Estaing, who launched this project in the 1970s and saw what would become the “seven” as an informal conversation among Western democracies.
Now it better resembles something between the old “seven” and the current G20 with a joint agenda, which does not contribute to a better understanding of the group’s current tasks.
Even though, in order to avoid disagreements, the leaders of the G7 didn’t attempt to publish a joint communique, the benefits of the Biarritz summit were more than expected. Emmanuel Macron showed considerable energy and a lot of questions were brought up for discussion – these not only concerned the fate of the West, but also trade wars and Brazil’s fires.
As for Macron’s discussions about the future of the West and the role the G7, one can see here that the development of those thoughts surrounded his meeting with Vladimir Putin: the French president understands that the West can no longer solve all problems alone and that its influence is diminishing, although this does not need to be overestimated.
On the other hand, what is the “West”? Is there still the West as such – in light of Britain’s exit from the EU and the US drift towards unilateral approaches? This question is of concern to many now – mainly in Old Europe. If initially the European Union was created out of fear of the USSR, now it has to dissociate itself from the United States. If Europe, as Macron says, wants to be sovereign, it will have to assert itself and go against the ideas that have dominated for sixty years. Therefore, this process is becoming harder.
Whether negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif following his somewhat unexpected appearance at the summit have succeeded in influencing the fate of the JCPOA is not known, and one can only hope for that. However, in general, this once again shows that even within the G7, the United States has adopted an isolated stance on this issue.
Although this initiative originally belonged to Macron, it seems to have been supported by all other countries in Europe and even Japan. In other words, this is an attempt to show that Europe, at least on this issue, can assert its identity, take a unified position and force the United States to talk, and maybe even make concessions.
As for the question of Russia’s return, Moscow has little interest in re-creating the G8, because it never felt comfortable there; on the contrary, it often found itself alone against everyone else.
However, the very fact that this issue is being discussed, that new watersheds have appeared and frictions have arisen, is positive for Russia: this means that the topic is big and important for discussion in a club where Moscow does not represent itself.
This confirms Macron’s thesis that without Russia, serious global problems cannot be solved. For Moscow, at this stage, this is the most positive development.
http://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/the-west-can-no-longer-solve-all-problems/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
---------------------
G7 Summit in Biarritz: The End of Westernization
Biarritz was, if we must believe the French media, the centre of the world, on the occasion of the G7 summit this weekend (24th – 26th August). It was a summit that was dedicated, officially, to fighting inequality, but one where contentious topics were discussed: the GAFA tax, which had the unusual effect of uniting the French and the British against the Americans, the environment, the trade dispute between the United States and China, and the question of Iran, regarding which the US decision to withdraw from the JCPOA agreement has been widely criticised among European countries.
But this G7 summit, despite communications operations – like the arrival, presented as a “surprise,” by the Iranian Foreign Minister – could well turn out to be a failure. The member countries have taken action so that national policies and bilateral relations now outweigh multilateralism. In addition, it should be added that we are no longer where we found ourselves during the 1980s or 1990s. The G7, which claims to be the “club” of the richest and most powerful countries, has today been overtaken by the BRICS. In fact, it is the G20 that is increasingly emerging as the legitimate institution for dealing with the interweaving of economic, financial and strategic affairs.
The G7, official and unofficial agenda
Officially, therefore, the expected decisions concerned the reduction of inequality, an important topic in a world torn apart by inequalities. However, it is a subject on which we can expect a lot of beautiful words and very little concrete action. The issue of the environment has taken some urgency because of the devastating forest fires ravaging the Amazon.
This is obviously an important question, but also an issue where there is a lot of hypocrisy. This is because the Amazon isn’t just burning in Brazil (fires have also ravaged Bolivia, Paraguay and other countries), and also because the Amazon is not the only major forest to burn: forest fires that today rage in Africa are equally important, but no one speaks of it.
Similarly, this summer’s fires, which are certainly disastrous, are only slightly more numerous than those of 2016: 75,336 fires versus 69,310. It is true that the problem of deforestation, induced by the pressure of livestock and the cultivation of soybeans, is a major issue today in the Amazon. But it was, perhaps, an even more pressing problem twenty years ago.
Source:
https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/deforestation_calculations.html#content
The issue of trade negotiations and the role of multilateralism were also discussed. The United States and other countries differ on this point in important ways. We can also note that some issues which were not explicitly on the agenda were addressed: the instrumentalisation of trade in dollars for political purposes by the United States is a major problem, as well as the growing risks of recession and global crisis.
The United States has clearly expressed dissatisfaction with multilateral negotiations. The countries of the European Union are, rightly or wrongly, more attached to it. The membership of the United States in the WTO has therefore been called into question; it is indeed a central issue. If the US government were to decide to walk out of the WTO, it would probably sound the death toll for the organisation.
The question of Iran was also raised at the summit. The European countries have denounced the US decision to walk away from the agreement with Iran on nuclear weapons and technology. They have also denounced the US sanctions policy, which is hurting the European countries much more than Iran. The arrival of the Iranian Foreign Minister testifies to Emmanuel Macron’s willingness to restart negotiations at this point.
The challenges of this summit
Emmanuel Macron, who happens to be the President of the G7 this year, was playing a high-stakes game with this meeting. A clear failure, as in 2018 in Canada, would have lastingly compromised his claims to present himself as a great negotiator. He is also aware that the influence of the G7 has greatly diminished over the last ten years. The G7 is the distant heir of the G5, which was formed to try to coordinate the monetary policies of the major Western powers following the dissolution in 1973 of the Bretton Woods agreements.
Originally, the G7 was the brainchild of French President Giscard d’Estaing (1974-1981). The G7 has been tasked with coordinating currency movements as exchange rates have become flexible. Called first informally the G5, then provisionally the G6 when it was formally established in 1975, and later the G7 with Canada’s integration in 1976, its influence soon spread to other aspects of the economy, beyond mere monetary policy problems.
The G7 nations still had, at the end of the twentieth century, a dominant role in the world economy. This is no longer the case today. The process of the emergence of new economies has clearly changed the whole ball game. The expulsion of Russia from the G8 in 2014, an expulsion that is now regretted by both the Japanese and Italian leaders as well as Donald Trump, has certainly hastened its decline. Moreover, if we calculate in purchasing power parity terms, the G7’s share of global GDP is today lower than that of the BRICS, a forum which brings together five emerging market countries.
It is obvious that Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to invite other countries, such as Australia, India, South Africa and Chile, is a recognition of this state of affairs. However, it must be noted here that China and Russia were not invited, despite the major role they play. The invitations that were made were therefore intended to mask the G7’s loss of influence and prestige in comparison with the G20.
G7 or G20?
It is clear today that any closed club of rich countries no longer has any legitimacy making decisions on behalf of the emerging market countries or even just proposing them. The United States, for its part, has understood that it would like to re-invite Russia to participate in the G7, according to a statement mirroring one made by the Japanese prime minister. But it is unlikely that Russia would really be moved by such a proposal. It knows full well that the G7 is an institution that is nearing the end of its life. The G7 is thus being overtaken by the BRICS not only in terms of its percentage of world PPP-adjusted GDP, but also in terms of the proportion of investment being made worldwide.
This reflects not only the rise of investments being made in China, India and Russia, both internally and worldwide, but also the significant slowdown in investments made in the G7 countries, whether they be German or US investments. Again, it can be seen that until 2000, the G7 countries accounted for about 60% of global investment. The turning point therefore dates from the 21st century. Emerging market countries have significantly increased their share of investment. They caught up with the G7 countries in 2009, and they overtook them.
In fact, a comparison of the G20 with the G7 shows that the first group has taken precedence over the second. It is the G20 that has become the global forum that really counts. And this is true when you compare the weight of the G7 with that of the G20.
The G20 currently accounts for 73.6% of global GDP. The group is comprised of the G7 nations, the European Union, the BRICS and six other countries. It is this set of countries (along with the EU) that is most economically relevant.
What are final results of this summit?
The record that we can draw today from this summit is very mixed. Clearly, we have not gone beyond rhetoric in addressing the question of inequality or the environmental emergency. It could not have been otherwise, given the significant differences among the G7 countries.
The trade dispute between China and the United States, meanwhile, is more beautiful. On Friday, August 23rd, China re-launched the escalation of the trade war, with further tariff increases on products imported from the United States. The US administration immediately responded by increasing duties on products imported from China.
All this has been observed, by the European G7 countries, which have not reacted. Germany, in particular, fears being dragged into this trade war, as its economy is on the verge of a recession. Regarding the GAFA tax, which both the French and British governments are pushing for, an agreement could possibly be reached, but at the probable price of making a mockery of the very idea of taxing Internet giants.
With respect to the Iranian issue, it is clear that the discussions will continue. Both the United States and Iran want to find a way out of the current crisis. It is perhaps on this issue that progress is possible.
However, this summit has rammed home an important lesson. So we are witnessing the end of the Westernisation of the world, a process that took place between the late eighteenth century and the end of the twentieth century. We must make note of this. It is why Russia does not particularly want to return to the G7, even though it has been pleased to hear Donald Trump’s statements about its possible return.
The centre of gravity of the global economy is indeed no longer the Atlantic Ocean. It has moved to Asia with the rise of China, the world’s second largest economy (and even first if we calculate in Purchasing Power Parity terms) and a direct interlocutor of the United States. And this is not to mention India, which is also gaining strength and is now in 5th place, ahead of France. This is why the meeting of the G7 in Biarritz was no longer able to decide for the world, whatever the major French media and its journalists think.
The G7 countries, since the summit held in Canada in 2018, have measured what it would be like to show off their differences. At the same time, never have the latter been so important, and above all, seemed irremediable and irreconcilable. So, we cannot exclude the notion that the group is witnessing open failure. However, it is more likely that diplomats will find some beautiful hollow formulas that proclaim that the “club” still works even though it is patently acknowledged that the group is paralyzed and, above all, that it no longer has the importance it had 20 years ago.
http://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/g7-summit/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
Goodbye Pacific Rim, Hello Indo-Pacific?
THE EASTERN PERSPECTIVE
01.07.2019
By Anton Bespalov
In recent years, the term “Indo-Pacific” has been used more and more frequently. According to some analysts, it is replacing the well-established concept of the Asia-Pacific region, reflecting a new balance of power in Asia. Beijing is suspicious of the fact that the Indo-Pacific concept is being actively promoted by Washington, believing that its ultimate goal is to contain China.
We are investigating whether or not this is so – and whether Russia should be wary of the emergence of a new regional construct.
“Indo-Pacific” appeared for the first time as a geostrategic concept in a January 2007 article by analyst Gurprit Khurana for the magazine Strategic Analysis. The author, an Indian naval captain, postulates that for India, the safety of sea routes has become more and more important, since almost all of its foreign trade, including the import of energy resources, is by sea. Japan is in a similar situation – and therefore, in his opinion, the interests of the two countries will increasingly converge, which will lead to the creation of a special political and economic community uniting the two oceans.
The Indo-Pacific notion immediately gained recognition in India – if only because the concept of “Asia-Pacific” categorically did not suit Indians. In a publication dedicated to the tenth anniversary of the article “Safety of sea routes: prospects for Indian-Japanese cooperation,” Khurana quoted the former chief of staff of the Indian Navy, Aruna Prakash, who, speaking in 2009 at the Shangri-La Dialogue forum, said:
Every time I hear about the Asia-Pacific region, it seems to me, as an Indian, that my country is left out of the box. This region seems to include northeast Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, and ends at the Strait of Malacca. But the whole world begins west of the Strait of Malacca.
The new term appeared at an opportune time: India was becoming increasingly aware of itself as an independent actor in the global arena, which was reflected in the national consciousness. As for Japan, at the beginning of the 21st century, it was already headed for rapprochement with India. Also in 2007, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe spoke about the special role of the two countries in Asia in an address to the Indian parliament.
He called for the creation of an “arc of freedom and well-being” along the outer rim of the Eurasian continent. The Indo-Japanese partnership, according to Abe, should be built on “common values, such as freedom, democracy and respect for fundamental human rights, as well as strategic interests”.
The Japanese prime minister painted a grand picture – through their joint efforts, the two countries would create a new “open and transparent” community of freedom and democracy that will unite the entire Pacific region, including the United States and Australia, and ensure the free movement of people, goods, capital and knowledge.
“CONFLUENCE OF THE TWO SEAS” SPEECH BY H.E.MR. SHINZO ABE, PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN AT THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA
By Japan and India coming together in this way, this “broader Asia” will evolve into an immense network spanning the entirety of the Pacific Ocean, incorporating the United States of America and Australia. Open and transparent, this network will allow people, goods, capital, and knowledge to flow freely.
The word “China” was not heard in Abe’s speech even once, but both parties understood each other perfectly. The “arc of freedom” neatly bypasses the PRC, and the Asian giant remains outside the brackets of the “wide open Asia” that the Japanese prime minister spoke of.
During his second term in office, Abe perfected this concept, making Indo-Pacific a central theme of Japan’s security policy, economic aid and investment, writes Robert Manning, author of the Valdai Paper “United States Indo-Pacific Strategy: Myths and Reality.”
In a 2016 speech, Abe defined this concept, explaining that “the goal of this strategy is to turn the Indo-Pacific region into a zone free from violence and coercion, where the rule of law reigns and where the market economy rules, ensuring regional prosperity”. The three main pillars, according to Tokyo, are: values and principles – democracy, the rule of law, free markets and the improvement of physical and institutional connectedness; safety and stability; and ensuring freedom of navigation.
Another country where the new concept was adopted with enthusiasm was Australia, which is logical, given that the country is actually washed by the waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, despite being on the periphery of the newly-imagined region.
For more than a decade, the economic development of the country has relied on trade with China, and in recent years Australian policymakers have been increasingly talking about the influence of Beijing on the nation’s domestic policy. Becoming overly dependent on “undemocratic” and “unfree” China is the main nightmare of the elites of one of the most “Western” countries in the southern hemisphere..
In 2013, the country’s White Paper on Defence noted: “The continuing rise of China as a global power, the growing economic and strategic weight of East Asia, and India’s imminent transformation into a global power are all key trends affecting the development of the Indian Ocean region as being of heightened strategic importance. Taken together, these trends contribute to the formation of the Indo-Pacific region as a single strategic arc.”
As for the United States, the first mention of the Indo-Pacific by their officials was in 2010. “We understand how important the Indo-Pacific basin is for global trade,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, emphasising the importance of the interaction between the US Navy and India in the Pacific. At long last, “Indo-Pacific” entered the American foreign policy lexicon with Donald Trump.
It was during his presidency that the format of the quadrilateral security dialogue (QUAD), proposed by Shinzo Abe back in 2007, was revived. In November 2017, Trump took part in two important East Asian forums over the course of several days: the APEC summit in Da Nang, Vietnam and the ASEAN summit in Manila, Philippines.
As Valdai Club expert Viktor Sumsky wrote, in public statements, Trump made no mention of the Pacific Rim, a key feature of APEC rhetoric, speaking instead about the Indo-Pacific region. A working meeting among the diplomats of four countries on the sidelines of the East Asian Summit caused a wave of publications about the formation of a new security configuration in the region – directed against China.
It must be said that Beijing perceived the very first consultations in the quadrilateral format as being directed against China, and reacted with lightning speed. On the eve of the meeting, the representatives of Australia, India, the US and Japan in Manila on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum in May 2007, China sent a note to each of the four countries. Beijing’s attitude toward the Indo-Pacific concept was and remains negative, and is characterised by Valdai club expert Zhao Huasheng as one of “coldness and suspicion.”
But can it really be considered anti-Chinese? To what extent are the QUAD members attempting to contain China or confront it? Looking ahead, let’s say: no one wants confrontation, but there are nuances.
The idea of the Indo-Pacific has an anti-Chinese sound only as interpreted by Washington, says Valdai Club expert Alexei Kupriyanov, a researcher at IMEMO RAN. “In the US interpretation, the Indo-Pacific is structured around the QUAD as a prototype of a defensive alliance that operates in the most acceptable form to other participating states – without commitments and exclusively through informal consultations,” he says. “The United States wants to demonstrate its interest in this project without extra spending and commitment, by trying to establish an anti-China alliance with the participation of India and Australia.”
In turn, India seeks to maximize the use of Americans as a counterweight to China, the expert said. Delhi does not want to get too close to Washington and commit itself – and at the same time wants to increase its economic and political ties with Japan. “India is trying to maintain a balance between the US and China,” says Kupriyanov. “Although India’s political and military leaders are emphatically anti-China, its economic interests require cooperation with China. Although India bluntly rejects the idea of becoming China’s junior partner, it does not intend to take part in any anti-Chinese actions outside the Indian Ocean. ”
Japan is in a similar situation. According to Kupriyanov, it has to simultaneously cooperate and compete with China. “In addition, Japan is interested in access to the promising markets of the African countries and preserving its positions in Southeast and South Asia.
In August 2018, Indonesia announced its own vision of Indo-Pacific, and this was an interesting turn in the development of the concept. “ The importance of this step is hard to overestimate,” writes Kupriyanov. “For a decade, the ASEAN states denied the Indo-Pacific region the right to exist, fearing that the new geopolitical construct would destroy the familiar, well-known Asia-Pacific region, in which ASEAN had already staked out a key role.
The decision of Indonesia, which claims to be the unofficial leader of the Association, to abandon this practice and henceforth build its policy within an Indo-Pacific framework means that one of the most serious opponents of the Indo-Pacific construct has moved to the camp of its supporters, and others will follow. ”
This step was quite logical, since it is Indonesia that serves as a link between the Indian and Pacific oceans. It is noteworthy that its vision of the Indo-Pacific region has no anti-Chinese overtones. As can be seen, the US desire to create an alliance against Beijing contradicts the objective interests of other countries of the region being created. They not only do not want confrontation with China, but also realize that trade and economic ties with the Asian giant are the key to their successful development.
However, Washington is aware of the reluctance of Asian countries to enter direct confrontation with China. Therefore, the system of restraining China’s regional ambitions will be “elegant and subtle”, rather than taking the form of a defensive alliance, wrote Valdai club expert Anton Tsvetov in March 2018. Despite the continuing statements about shared values, the nature of the union, the backbone of which will remain the QUAD, will be pragmatic.
This is quite natural, given that a number of states that are concerned about the strengthening of China do not fall into the category of “free” and “democratic” at all. We are talking primarily about Vietnam, which is actively developing relations with the United States and with India, despite the differences in political systems. This transition to pragmatism is reflected in the fact that the Indo-Pacific region is less and less often categorized in terms of “maritime democracies”, notes Tsvetov: “instead of this phrase, the expression ‘like-minded states’ is used.”
It is interesting to look at how countries from this still largely imaginary region look at Chinese infrastructure projects as part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). In Asia, this initiative is perceived ambiguously: both as a chance for development, and as a means of promoting Beijing’s influence.
In February 2018, the QUAD member countries first addressed the creation of alternatives to the Chinese initiative, and the development of “quality infrastructure” was among the themes during the Japanese presidency of the G20.
The term “quality”, as you might guess, means infrastructure created not under the leadership of China or with Chinese money. So far, the results have been rather modest, but this does not mean that in the future the two projects will not be able to compete, for the benefit of the countries which receive infrastructure assistance.
“Currently, the BRI and the ‘free and open’ Indo-Pacific region are competing initiatives,” says Samir Saran, President of the Indian Observer Analytical Centre Research Foundation. However, the real choice will be made by developing states, who are currently leveraging both initiatives to obtain better deals.
It’s not inconceivable that in the long term, some multilateral arrangement will accommodate both initiatives. The ‘viability’ of these competing propositions will depend on which resonates more with the development and security needs of developing states in Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific. In the short term, both will co-exist and compete.”
Japan, despite being one of the key countries interested in creating an alternative to the Belt and Road, is “inclined to cooperate with China on the BRI to advance its own commercial interests,” adds Saran. As for India, it does not plan to participate in the BRI, believing that this project undermines its sovereignty and makes it difficult to defend interests in other areas. “On the other hand, China can become the largest investor in the economy of India. Delhi will have to pursue a steadfast course in foreign policy and develop economic cooperation with China,” the expert emphasises.
The Indo-Pacific project is only considered by Washington as a zero-sum game, says Alexei Kupriyanov: “For the US, freezing or liquidating all Chinese infrastructure and trade initiatives is beneficial, as it undermines China’s economic and political opportunities, destroys its safe rear, and forces resources and funds to be removed from the main, from the American point of view, theatre – the Pacific Ocean.”
For the rest of Asia, Indo-Pacific offers an alternative to the land projects of the Belt and Road. “It is quicker and easier to transport some goods by land and others by sea. If there is a problem with one, the other could compensate. The Indo-Japanese-Indonesian version of the Indo-Pacific and the Belt and Road project could be integrated if both sides are interested and have the political will: both initiatives increase Eurasia’s transport potential.”
That is why Russia should closely monitor the implementation of the Indo-Pacific concept, seeing in it not as a threat, but a chance for itself. “Russia should support the Indo-Japanese-Indonesian view of the Indo-Pacific as a maritime Eurasia to counterweigh the US concept of it as a space for an anti-China alliance. It is necessary to uphold the inclusive character of the Indo-Pacific (probably including renaming the concept the Indo-Asia-Pacific) and to facilitate China’s involvement in it,” Kupriyanov says.
“The Indo-Pacific project gives Moscow leverage with China in Eurasia,” believes Samir Saran, reflecting India’s traditional concern about the close ties between Moscow and Beijing. “Currently, Russia is subservient to China’s economy and, by consequence, its political vision. Moscow should recognize that while China may seek a multipolar world, its vision for Eurasia is unipolar. Russia will only benefit if both the Indo-Pacific and Eurasia are truly multipolar in their power structures.”
In this regard, questions arise regarding the quality of Russia’s relations with India and the ASEAN countries, as key participants in the region being created. This topic was discussed during two important events held by the Valdai Club in 2019: the Russia-India and Russia-Vietnam conferences. The participants have stated that there is a “demand for Russia” both in India and in Southeast Asia, but Russia’s ability to increase its economic and political presence in the region is limited. Moreover, the existing bias towards military technology cooperation (especially in relations with India) may result in the loss of strategic positions in the long run.
Therefore, it is time for Russia to form its own vision of Indo-Pacific and, importantly, bring it to the countries of the region. “A provision to the effect that Russia’s regions in the Far East (Primorye Territory and Kamchatka) are an inalienable part of the Indo-Pacific should play a key role in this respect,” Kupriyanov says.
“These regions should be viewed as gates to the north that can provide access to the wealth of northern Eurasia and the joining of great Eurasian overland routes with the sea routes along its southern coast. They should also be seen as gates to the Arctic, a storehouse of resources. The Far East should be positioned as one of the centers of attraction in the Indo-Pacific, its resource, scientific and, in perspective, also its production base.”
Thus, connecting to the Indo-Pacific project could provide for Russia an addition to its large-scale turn to the East. By providing an alternative to the main sea trade route of Eurasia, Indo-Pacific also fit into the logic of building a Greater Eurasia, as Moscow advocates. Washington’s attempts to “encircle” China run up against the resistance of regional powers that do not want confrontation with Beijing, as well as excessive US influence in Asia. The geostrategic landscape is changing rapidly, and the main thing for Russia is to keep up with these changes, taking advantage of opportunities as they arise.
http://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/goodbye-pacific-rim-hello-indo-pacific/
Σχετικά με το Eastern Economic Forum-2019, 4-6 Σεπτεμβρίου 2019:
https://forumvostok.ru/en/about-the-forum/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/cultural/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/organizing-committee-reception/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/combat-night/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/sport-programme/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/social-platform/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/partner-events/
-------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250591302
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/afro-eurasiatic_geopolitics_30_8_2019.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_619665631