Tartary - an Empire hidden in history. It was bigger than Russia once...

ScottFreeman

Active member
Messages
63
Reactions
212
I'm very grateful for having found this site and, while I don't intend to bring current politics into this thread, it is from that angle that I ask myself:

"When we "return the power to "The People"" as nationalist leaders use the term, is there perhaps a country that we fall back into where a handshake is a contract and truth and honesty are prized? That sounds like Tartary to me, so could it rise again from the ashes?
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,233
Reactions
10,783
Ancient Rome (whatever it was) had slavery, US allegedly had slavery, eastern Russia had serfdom aka slavery. We have ancient roman type architecture and statues all over the world. Whose there to say that slavery was not a common thing in Tartary. All three of the above could be sharing the remaining traits of Tartary. A hypothesis I’ve heard says that slavery could be a voluntary thing back then, and was not considered something negative but we do not know that.

I just think that the verdict on the righteousness of Tartary is not out yet.
 

UnusualBean

Well-known member
Messages
167
Reactions
636
Ancient Rome (whatever it was) had slavery, US allegedly had slavery, eastern Russia had serfdom aka slavery. We have ancient roman type architecture and statues all over the world. Whose there to say that slavery was not a common thing in Tartary. All three of the above could be sharing the remaining traits of Tartary. A hypothesis I’ve heard says that slavery could be a voluntary thing back then, and was not considered something negative but we do not know that.

I just think that the verdict on the righteousness of Tartary is not out yet.
The "slaves" of ancient Egypt had houses, food, and healthcare. Even in slavery era America many of them had houses, and they ate better than "free" people today do (but worse than free people of the time did).

There isn't even an ancient word for slave. In Indo-European languages we get it from Slav, because Slavs were apparently forced into servitude at some point. In other language families, the word for slave seems to share origins with terms like "subordinate" or "servant", which aren't inherently forceful or oppressive words.
 

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Messages
591
Reactions
2,283
Excellent find @anotherlayer .

Tartarians were excellent butter makers. Cooley's Cyclopædia of Practical Receipts and Collateral Information in the Arts, Manufactures, Professions, and Trades..., Sixth Edition, Volume I 1880.

Preservation. 1. Melt the butter in a stoneware or a well-glazed earthen pan set in a water bath at a heat not exceeding 180° Fahr., and keep it heated, skimming it from time to time until it becomes quite transparent; then pour off the clear portion into another vessel, and cool it as quickly as possible by placing the vessel in very cold water or ice. This is the method employed by the Tartars who supply the Constantinople market. In this state it may be preserved perfectly fresh for 6 or 9 months, if kept in a close vessel and a cool place. This is the plan so strongly recommended by M. Thénard. Mr Eaton states that butter melted by the Tartarian method, and then salted by ours, will keep good and fine-tasted for two years.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,233
Reactions
10,783
Does anyone these days still speak Tartarian?
Added to the OP.

This Tartarian language is an interesting research direction. Ran into the North American Verendrye Stone + Verendrye Runestone + Verendrye Stone Mystery
  • The Vérendrye stone was allegedly found on an early expedition into the territory west of the Great Lakes by the French Canadian explorer Pierre Gaultier de Varennes et de La Vérendrye, in the 1730s. It is not mentioned in the official records of La Vérendrye's expeditions, but in 1749 he discussed it with visiting Swedish scientist Pehr Kalm, from whose writings virtually all information about the stone is taken.
  • La Vérendrye told Kalm that the tablet was sent back to Quebec, where Jesuit priests concluded that it was written in "Tatarian" writing. They reportedly then sent it to the French Secretary of State, the Comte de Maurepas. There are no descriptions of the stone after that time, but it has been claimed that it was shipped with other artifacts to a church in Rouen (the Rouen Cathedral?), later to be buried under a pile of rubble when the building which housed it was destroyed during World War II. The Minnesota Historical Society has offered a $1000 reward for the stone's rediscovery.
  • Some people, in particular Hjalmar Holand, have speculated that the inscription was in fact in Norse Runes and is potentially related to the Kensington Runestone, the inscription on which claims it was left in 1362 by an expedition "west from Vinland." Holand argued that resources depicting "Tatarian" writing (such as the Old Hungarian script and its ancestor the Orkhon script) available to the Jesuit priests in Quebec would have shown examples containing a large percentage of characters which are identical to Norse characters. The scripts are of separate origins, but presumably the similar use (engraving in stone) led to similar structure of many characters.
Of course, the official history listed the stone as Tatarian, not Tartarian.

And this passage below from: 1739 Book. Backwards, and forwards... how about that?

Tartarian_Language.jpg
 

ScottFreeman

Active member
Messages
63
Reactions
212
Added to the OP.

This Tartarian language is an interesting research direction. Ran into the North American Verendrye Stone + Verendrye Runestone + Verendrye Stone Mystery
  • The Vérendrye stone was allegedly found on an early expedition into the territory west of the Great Lakes by the French Canadian explorer Pierre Gaultier de Varennes et de La Vérendrye, in the 1730s. It is not mentioned in the official records of La Vérendrye's expeditions, but in 1749 he discussed it with visiting Swedish scientist Pehr Kalm, from whose writings virtually all information about the stone is taken.
  • La Vérendrye told Kalm that the tablet was sent back to Quebec, where Jesuit priests concluded that it was written in "Tatarian" writing. They reportedly then sent it to the French Secretary of State, the Comte de Maurepas. There are no descriptions of the stone after that time, but it has been claimed that it was shipped with other artifacts to a church in Rouen (the Rouen Cathedral?), later to be buried under a pile of rubble when the building which housed it was destroyed during World War II. The Minnesota Historical Society has offered a $1000 reward for the stone's rediscovery.
  • Some people, in particular Hjalmar Holand, have speculated that the inscription was in fact in Norse Runes and is potentially related to the Kensington Runestone, the inscription on which claims it was left in 1362 by an expedition "west from Vinland." Holand argued that resources depicting "Tatarian" writing (such as the Old Hungarian script and its ancestor the Orkhon script) available to the Jesuit priests in Quebec would have shown examples containing a large percentage of characters which are identical to Norse characters. The scripts are of separate origins, but presumably the similar use (engraving in stone) led to similar structure of many characters.
Of course, the official history listed the stone as Tatarian, not Tartarian.

And this passage below from: 1739 Book. Backwards, and forwards... how about that?

KD, you have probably seen these maps (I've never seen some you've posted so you must be a collector) but someone asked me for video in another thread so I was down the Youtube hole already. In the first three minutes of this history he's laid out the older maps in order and overlaid them to show the rise and fall of a global Tartary, starting in Europe, extending into South America, then to North America then out of Europe...very interesting, watching the rest now.

 

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
109
Reactions
467
I've been going through some old encyclopedias on what they are saying about Tartary.

I came up with the 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th edition from Encyclopedia Britannica and decided to make a post about them to see the evolution on how things have changed. This is an important reminder for everyone, even professional scholars that reading a book alone is not enough, it is important to refer for a specific edition of the book where you came up with that certain information.

The first pictures are from the 3rd edition from 1788, the book itself has been republished as the same edition in 1797.

#1 eb1797 3 tar1 — Postimage.org
#2 eb1797 3rd tartary2 — Postimage.org
#3 eb1797 3rd tartary3 — Postimage.org

The second one are from the 4th edition from 1801. Here we already see quite a bit of a change. At least one less page.

eb1801-4th-tartary1.pngeb1801-4th-tartary2.pngeb1801-4th-tartary3.png

Thirdly we have a 6th edition from 1823, which is pretty much the same as from 1801.

#1 eb1823 6th tartary1 — Postimage.org
#2 eb1823 6th tartary2 — Postimage.org
#3 eb1823 6th tartary3 — Postimage.org

And the fourth one from the 14th version from 1920 where it's completely missing. But refers to Tartars as Tatars, like they should be, same people, same location, same time period.

#1 eb1926 14th tartarymissing — Postimage.org

I wasn't able to upload some of these pictures to the forum for thumbnails as they were too large from 0,5Mb onwards.

I think it would be interesting to see from which edition it was then completely faded out the first time. I'll take a look but finding all the versions is a bit of a task and my attention span and drive to do that is just for random moments now. Perhaps some of you have already taken a look at that.

eb1.png

When I take a look at these topics and what referals the topic of Tartary ties up in the end we can also see a bit of an evolution what has happened to narrative on history. It seems as portions of it has just been moved under other topics and this way the topic under Tartary itself could've become smaller and smaller without anyone ever thinking that history as such is being erased. It just became more sliced and diced by time and then eventually harder to make the connections and eventually vanished out totally. Perhaps by intention, perhaps not, I can only guess at this moment.

Now I propose that we could do the same in a backwards motion. Instead of slice & dice, rather glue and tie everything together who are known to have affiliations to a previous "mother group" like Tartary. That would include all the Turks aka Ottoman etc. and write down and see maps yourself how they have progressed over time to see an overall picture of the whole progression of the situation. Just for curiousity sake, I will do this on my own at least sometime in the future, but it's not a task I will go head on now, it's huge

This could also be why there has never been talk about a Tartarian empire in recent times, because everything under it became sliced and diced to their own groups. But still the dilemma on the coat of arms and flags etc. exist and how in the past people have talked about Lord of Tartary etc. Perhaps the late Tartary was just a type of confederation that tied in many nations, groups, tribes and people instead of a single empire representing a group of single people, rather truly khan of khans. The banners and origins were taken from something that stood for good as a continuation.

This would also bring aspect to all the different Tartaries. There's been a grand Tartary representing all the unified people and then as they've been split, there's been different representations of smaller Tartaries and their people's sharing that common vision. This would also make it very hard for map makers in general to stay on put what's going on.

So nothing extraordinarily revealing here, but just some information how things have progressed on the narrative regarding Tartary.


[Add #1] The Manchurians have been a big part of Chinese Tartary at least as people. I will be interested to search out and find their true origins and who they are now. [/add]

[Add #2] Also before they mostly talked about Temujin as a Mogul, which I think might've meant the Mogul / Mughal empire rather than the Kholka Mongols. We have the following information from the 3rd version of Encyclopedia Britannica where it hints they might be the same, but I am compelled to look deeper and farther.

mogulmongul.png

This also is an important information regarding the thread on Temujin possibly being a pseudo character. It is not set on stone at all. Here we have written history from him that we can elaborate over 100 years before the publication of the Secret history of Mongols. This I think just further suggests that the book itself has been a part of the Spring of nations movement like the possible eradication of Tartary as a concept from the minds of the people. I am not saying that the writer of the book was one of the TPTB, but give a man with a nationalist man with an agenda some evidence and sources and he will create the rest of the story to fill in the gaps to fit his desired narrative. This also does not refute that there was no history written on 'Moguls' in previous times.

I should probably add these deductions to that thread, and will do so later.[/add]

[Edit] Ps. So one idea for the eradication of Tartary from people's memories would be in line with the Spring of nations, it would absolutely fit the timeline as well. From that perspective it would be imperative to remove something like that from especially the Asiatic and Turkic people's memory so they would not look back and remember that we can all be a force together.

I still think the Russian wars against them would still be very much their own struggles against them and I don't think they would've had any part with that narrative on changing history as at that time with their own conflicts against the people who did the change on this narrative and who supported the theme on Spring of Nations in Treaty of Vienna 1812, when Russia didn't go along with it.

^ This recent line of thought came out after KorbenDallas suggested me to reconsider the history I've been set upon in this post. Thank you for that, now I'm certain to be on the right tracks.

Pps. I've been a bit cautious on the approach towards what Tartary and Tartarians might've represented and whom they really are. And I'm willing to change my overall stance on that a bit after figuring out that it's most likely just been a confederation or union like the "united states of Tartary". That it's just specific groups from that area that require my suspicion and not what it represents as a whole.

In the past everyone's pretty much had their moments as villains in the wars.[/edit]

Couldn't modify the above post anymore so I'll just add to that here that topic under the name Tartary is already missing from the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica published 1910.

There was something I did not check on the other versions that what they stated under the topic of "Tatars", but here on the 11th version we can find it state that the "common form tartars would be less correct". Which I find funny, because they've always been said to be Tartars before that. This just sounds like an agenda to hide the truth.

This is on line what I wrote above on how you could modify history over time by diminishing certain terms and concepts from existance this way. You could also make subtle changes to aspects of history by making "new discoveries" by academy that change the narrative for newer versions to be false ones.

I think the truth of our recent history exists in these old books, but it's been scattered to different topics if we apply this line of thought what has been done to topic Tartary in Encyclopedia Britannica over the period of time.

There exists a version in archive.org for Encyclopedia Britannia marked for the year 1768, which is supposedly made to fool the reader to think it's the first version. But that version of the encyclopedia you can find under it's year is not the correct one. It can easily fool you to think so with having the original year 1768 shown there many times, but the original edition had afaik only 3 volumes. People may be mislead with that. So I just want to say that it's not the first version of this encyclopedia in existence and not the best one for refering to different topics. Perhaps this encyclopedia series would deserve an own thread so we could work to find all the versions and see how also other narratives might've been changed over time.

Ok, another addition to the above. Should probably make a summarization of these changes to a chronological at one point.

In the 1875 9th edition the general topic of Tartary is already missing. But this still had the topic of "Tartars" there. They're also already using the term Mongols in general and the old term Mogul has disappeared.

#1 Page 1
#2 Page 2

There's some really interesting information regarding the Tartars and Finns right there. And those that don't know it already you might wanna check out the banner for one of our army regiments.

1024px-UtJR_flag.gif

The topic of "Tartars" was changed to "Tatars" in 1902 10th edition finally removing the link to the name Tartary.

Can't edit my post so I'm just fillling in on an error I noticed on writing things out on the fly, on a treaty of Vienna and 1812 I mean of course the Congress of Vienna and mostly of 1815. An error I've propably written that on a couple occasions on the fly. Just being human here.

But so far to sum it up we're narrowed down the disappearance of Tartary from this encyclopedia to either the seventh edition from 1830 or eight edition from 1853 because it was already missing from the ninth in 1875, this is absolutely fitting the timescale we've been talking about a massive change on history in general starting to take place, the previous one was the invention of Scaligerian chronology.
 
Last edited:

Heartfire25

New member
Messages
3
Reactions
11
It appears, the issue is more complicated than just Russian history. Looks like it spreads throughout everything related to the not so distant past. Judging by some of the older maps, Tartary was well into both Americas at one time or another.

I'm still trying to figure out the meaning of all the color coding present on those maps. It's amazing how those outlines of dominance change with time. Another strange fact is that we only have 3-4 different colors representing kingdoms, or whatever they were called.

For example, the below map from 1652 suggests that North America was ruled by the same power Tartary was. Moscow was governed by Europeans. It also shows that there were only 3 world powers at the time. What's your opinion on that?

Anyone followed some of Sean Hross's work on the Pharaohs dispersing around the world and how the colours, blue, white, red and yellow are used to symbolise their various territories? Fascinating stuff.
 

ScottFreeman

Active member
Messages
63
Reactions
212
I hadn't
Anyone followed some of Sean Hross's work on the Pharaohs dispersing around the world and how the colours, blue, white, red and yellow are used to symbolise their various territories? Fascinating stuff.
I hadn't seen him. Thanks!

I can't help but think that there is much more to the symbolism going on all around us that we aren't able to see yet. That's exciting.
Ancient Rome (whatever it was) had slavery, US allegedly had slavery, eastern Russia had serfdom aka slavery. We have ancient roman type architecture and statues all over the world. Whose there to say that slavery was not a common thing in Tartary. All three of the above could be sharing the remaining traits of Tartary. A hypothesis I’ve heard says that slavery could be a voluntary thing back then, and was not considered something negative but we do not know that.

I just think that the verdict on the righteousness of Tartary is not out yet.
I agree completely. If we get rid of the man made word "slavery" and go back to what it was once called it may take on more meaning.

An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a signed or forced contract to work for a particular employer for a fixed time.

The parts about unfree and forced bother me. Servitude can be completely voluntary and can benefit both parties greatly. If you are indentured then you agree to work within the rules of your 'teacher', to listen and assist them, while they agree to provide for your needs during the same time. This certainly doesn't sound like 'slavery' to me. Once the words with a negative aspect are removed it becomes much more clear.

An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of labor who is bound by a signed contract to work for a particular employer for a fixed time.
 
Last edited:

Heartfire25

New member
Messages
3
Reactions
11
Scott, his stuff makes so much sense. If only we knew real time lines and stuff, but that will come eventually. If we're only coming out of a low consciousness cycle (as in the vedic yugas) we are experiencing such a small blip on the radar of the big picture. Hard to imagine so many so oblivious right now, but we know how drastically cultures have shifted before.
 

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
308
Reactions
613
And this passage below from: 1739 Book. Backwards, and forwards... how about that?
holy smokes! that just blew my mind..
these english symbols can be read that way: A H I M O T U V W X Y
out of those, only these four can also be read from above and below: H I O X - X O I H

fascinating! anyone aware of other Languages that can be read like the Tartarian mentioned in that book? or how many symbols from other languages work the way Ive shown these english ones? this may show us some things we havnt noticed before too.

there was a man who claimed to be an 82degree mason with multiple incarnations (professional reincarnator) who went by the name David-Wynn: Miller who established what he termed QUANTUM-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR that read the same from right to left as it did from left to right but not exactly how you would think of it.

he did so using mathematics and his main goal was to eliminate the fraudulent conveyance of language in contracts. because as he said "nobody ever went to war over a math problem" he did this in all the living languages. he also was known for making many outlandish claims, some even too difficult for me to consider true but Ive never tried to verify those. many people use it his language now in legal battle with varying success but it is very difficult to learn how it works. (the math behind it) Russell-J: Gould is his protege and also just as far out with wild claims. FWIW

I do think that we will make the most sense of these Tartarian mysteries through language in one way or another though. it would be really great if we could find original examples, it could possibly be 'just what the doctor ordered' so to say, to get beyond the mind virus of corrupted languages/writing.? [Babel]
 

Rarity

New member
Messages
1
Reactions
10
Regarding the CIA document linked in the OP, one thing that jumped out to me was that the communists were purging and rewriting Tartartian history in the middle of World War II. I wasn't entirely sure what the condition of the Eastern front was in 1944 and it looks like the Soviets had regained control of most of their territories and were actively on the offensive against the German lines according to this Wikipedia timeline, with at least two big operations underway at the time of the August 9th directive being issued (Operation Bagration and Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive). Interesting that they would choose to go after Tartarian history over other priorities, but I suppose it would be easy to sweep it under the rug.

Another article from 1819. This one makes me smile. The Cham of Tartary was a cool dude.

I read this post this morning and felt that "Cham of Tartary" was probably something that could be searched for more information as it should be fairly unique phrasing. The first thing I found was online dictionaries, according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (dating unknown), Cham (kăm) refers to the "sovereign prince of Tartary" and it is "now usually written khan." Some others say it is an archaic, obsolete, or former spelling for khan. The above quoted 1819 article refers to "the great Cham of Tartary" and some other sources reference a "Grand Cham of Tartary."

When I was at the dictionary site it had quotations using the word cham as examples, one of them caught my eye and I did a search for the source and luckily it had an ebook available and it ended up providing quite the description of the Cham. The following quotation is from Jacob Abbot's Peter The Great, a book which first seems to have been published in 1859, and it describes the Cham of Tartary as having "great power and dignity" and as having an "ancient treaty" with the Czars which forced them to recognize and acknowledge the superiority of the Cham to the Czar and had stipulations such as that when the Cham and the Czar should meet, the Czar had to hold the stirrup of the Cham's horse as he mounted it and the Czar had to feed the horse with oats out of his cap.
(On a related note, I had found something earlier today, possibly a post from a different forum, which claimed the Tartar rulers had married into the Imperial Russian line as a way to hold power over them or something like that, can't find it again but I did find this site which says the Russian nobility had descendants from "Tartar Royal Houses and Tartar Khans." I think it was in this thread, but I also recall reading excerpts talking about daughters of the Cham of Tartary being potential brides for some nobleman.)

"The Princess Sophia was now in full possession of power, so that she reigned supreme in the palaces and in the capital, while, of course, the ordinary administration of the affairs of state, and the relations of the empire with foreign nations, were left to Galitzin and the other ministers. It was in 1684 that she secured possession of this power, and in 1689 her regency came to an end, so that she was, in fact, the ruler of the Russian empire for a period of about five years.

During this time one or two important military expeditions were set on foot by her government. The principal was a campaign in the southern part of the empire for the conquest of the Crimea, which country, previous to that time, had belonged to the Turks. Poland was at that period a very powerful kingdom, and the Poles, having become involved in a war with the Turks, proposed to the Russians, or Muscovites, as they were then generally called, to join them in an attempt to conquer the Crimea. The Tartars who inhabited the Crimea and the country to the northeastward of it were on the side of the Turks, so that the Russians had two enemies to contend with.

The supreme ruler of the Tartars was a chieftain called a Cham. He was a potentate of great power and dignity, superior, indeed, to the Czars who ruled in Muscovy. In fact, there had been an ancient treaty by which this superiority of the Cham was recognized and acknowledged in a singular way—one which illustrates curiously the ideas and manners of those times. The treaty stipulated, among other things, that whenever the Czar and the Cham should chance to meet, the Czar should hold the Cham's stirrup while he mounted his horse, and also feed the horse with oats out of his cap."
So at this time Crimea is ruled by the Turks and Tartars are living there and in "the country to the northeastward of it" and joined the side of the Turks when the Poland-Czar alliance invaded. The invasion forces failed and while they were retreating the expeditions leader, a Russian Prince who was forced to "make a very unsatisfactory peace" with the Tartars, lied and sent messages back to Moscow and Poland which claimed they had instead scored great victories against the Tartars, conquered their territories, and "finally compelled them to make peace on terms extremely favorable."

"Mazeppa was a well-educated man, and highly accomplished in the arts of war as they were practiced in those days. He soon acquired great popularity among the Cossacks, and, in the end, rose to be a chieftain among them, and he distinguished himself greatly in these very campaigns in the Crimea, fought by the Muscovites against the Turks and Tartars during the regency of the Princess Sophia.

If the war thus waged by the government of the empress had been successful, it would have greatly strengthened the position of her party in Moscow, and increased her own power; but it was not successful. Prince Galitzin, who had the chief command of the expedition, was obliged, after all, to withdraw his troops from the country, and make a very unsatisfactory peace; but he did not dare to allow the true result of the expedition to be known in Moscow, for fear of the dissatisfaction which, he felt convinced, would be occasioned there by such intelligence; and the distance was so great, and the means of communication in those days were so few, that it was comparatively easy to falsify the accounts. So, after he had made peace with the Tartars, and began to draw off his army, he sent couriers to Moscow to the Czars, and also to the King in Poland, with news of great victories which he had obtained against the Tartars, of conquests which he made in their territories, and of his finally having compelled them to make peace on terms extremely favorable. The Princess Sophia, as soon as this news reached her in Moscow, ordered that arrangements should be made for great public rejoicings throughout the empire on account of the victories which had been obtained. According to the custom, too, of the Muscovite government, in cases where great victories had been won, the council drew up a formal letter of thanks and commendations to the officers and soldiers of the army, and sent it to them by a special messenger, with promotions and other honors for the chiefs, and rewards in money for the men. The princess and her government hoped, by these means, to conceal the bad success of their enterprise, and to gain, instead of losing, credit and strength with the people."
The book had one final mention of Tartars, when Peter the Great declared war against them and the Turks before starting the Azov campaigns.

"Not very long after this the emperor had an opportunity to make a commencement in converting his nautical knowledge to actual use by engaging in something like a naval operation against an enemy, in conjunction with several other European powers, he declared war anew against the Turks and Tartars, and the chief object of the first campaign was the capture of the city of Azof, which is situated on the shores of the Sea of Azof, near the mouth of the River Don."
Henry More: A Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity, Book Two, Confuting Grotius (1664)

"This quadrimular Antichrist shall not onely over-run Christendom, but subdue the Grand Signior, over-run the Persian, make the Tartarian Cham submit to him in the North, and extort Homage from the remotest Kingdoms of Africa. Which is such a piece of Prophetick Fabulosity as no man would ever vent in the most Romantick History. So incredible therefore is this Exposition of Ribera in this regard also concerning the Seven Heads of the Beast."
I don't know what the sourcing is on this but this site "Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary" says, "The learned commonly acknowledge the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Teutonic, Sclavonian, Tartarian, and Chinese languages, to be original. The rest are only dialects from these."

Something published in 1718 is titled "The character of Sultan Galga, the present Cham of Tartary. Drawn by a Walachian." I did an image search for Sultan Galga and the linked image says he is a Tartarian general and brother to the Great Cham.

While looking at these things I came across the phrase "to catch a Tartar" which means something to the effect of "To encounter or be forced to reckon with someone or something that proves more powerful, troublesome, or formidable than one expected." It supposedly originated in the mid 1600s. The Farlex Partner Idioms Dictionary adds that Tartar was a byword for ferocity.

JM Wilson began publishing local stories between 1832 and his death in 1835, he published them in volumes titled "Wilsons Tales of the Borders, and of Scotland," his widow and other editors continued to publish stories up until 1840. Tartars were mentioned in several of the volumes, and the "to catch a Tartar" expression is used.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32862/32862.txt
"Whom have we here?" said she, as she communed with herself, and nodded her head, still apparent through the loophole. "By'r Lady! neither Gascon nor Fleming, or my eyes are no better than my father's, when he looks at _antiques_ through the red medium of his vintage of '90. Perchance, a lover come to run away with Kate Kennedy. Hey! the thought tickles my wild wits, and sends me on the wings of fancy into the regions of romance. Yet I have not read that the catching and carrying off of _Tartars_ hath anything to do with the themes of romantic love-errantry. I'm witty at the expense of this poor packman; but, seriously, Katherine Kennedy must carry off her lover. True to the difference that opposes me to the rest of my sex, I could not love a man whom I did not vanquish and abduct, as a riever does the chattels of the farmer."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31593/31593.txt
"Silly wench!" replied the captain. "Peace!--I say, peace! These are the same rascals who were watching us this whole afternoon. How the devil came they here, if they have not some knowledge of our proceedings? Look to your arms, my lads! We will shew them they have caught a Tartar." I heard one pistol cocked, then another. How I restrained myself from shewing my agitation I know not; I was nearly fainting.
I'm not exactly sure on the Scottish dialect, but I think this is meant to say that the farmer would defend the thief even if King James was someone more formidable? like the Cham of Tartary or had three king's heads on his shoulders. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34144/34144.txt
"Will ye gie me up to the beadles, freends," cried the beggar, "or will ye stand by him wha has sought yer protection, and partaken o' yer hospitality?"

"Gie ye up!" ejaculated the spirited old farmer; "in faith, na. If King Jamie war the Cham o' Tartary, or had three kings' heads on his shouthers in place o' ane, we'll defend ye while there's a flail in the barn o' Cairnkibbie."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34146/34146.txt
"It would be tedious for me to tell you of all the difficulties I had to encounter before I could obtain an audience of the theatrical managers, or what was called the committee of management. I found them more difficult of access than the Cham of Tartary. As well might I have undertaken a mission to Pekin, with the intent of pulling the celestial emperor by the button."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34151/34151.txt
When the king's troopers heard that the Covenanters were encamped at Newburn, they galloped out o' Newcastle, sword in hand; each man swearing lustily that he would kill a dozen o' the blue-bonneted Jockies--as they called the Covenanters in derision--and boasting that they would make prisoners o' all who escaped the sword. But when the inhabitants o' the canny toon heard the braggadocio o' the redcoats, as they galloped through the streets, flourishing their swords, "Dinna brag tow fast, lads," said they, shaking their heads; "words arena deeds; and tak care that each ane o' ye doesna catch a Tartar."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/47011/47011.txt
"'Keep down your sticks, lads--keep down your sticks. That's no the game we are accustomed to play at; when we begin, cheeks and chaft blades are apt to dance a Highland fling. Keep off your hands, or, by the mettle of this old Ferrara, which never yet failed me against Turk or Tartar, ye shall have fewer hands to keep off.'"

"Nashon bought Copperbottom, ran him, carried the prize, and sold him next day for ten pounds of profit; on which great occasion
he informed his housekeeper, Esther Maclean, that he intended to entertain the whole Soho Club at Outfieldhaugh--a communication that produced a mixed feeling of terror and wonder on the part of the old housekeeper, which she had no words adequately to express. She wished him to be genteel, and like the other gentlemen of the neighbourhood; but she had heard hints that he was getting fast into the vortex of a sportsman's dissipation; and the intelligence that he was to entertain the "Soho"--equal, in her estimation, to dining the Cham of Tartary and his staff--confirmed the report, and filled her with sorrow and regret. All her efforts to dissuade her master from his purpose were unavailing: cards were issued to forty gentlemen; the question put by Esther, where he was to find the necessary service of table apparatus, the wine, the cooks, and the waiters, required to be answered; and he was at no loss for an answer on a subject he had deeply considered."
In 1864, Mark Twain was working as a San Francisco newspaper's reporter and wrote about a domestic disturbance involving a German couple and a woman with the surname of Kahn. Twain called her the "Kahn of Tartary" and referred to her as a Tartar while providing a humorous retelling of the fight between the three which ended up in court.

In Lewis Mellville's 1926 book Nell Gwyn: The Story of Her Life, he sourced a letter from George Legge to Lord Preston, which describes a Prince of France (Prince de Rohan) having died around the same time as they learned about the death of the Cham of Tartary, which Gwyn used to joke on her rival.

"When the King of Sweden died, Louise went into mourning. Shortly after the King of Portugal died, and Nell drove about in a mourning coach. Then, attired in solemn black, she said to her rival before a large company: "Let us agree to divide the world: you shall have the Kings of the north, and I the Kings of the south."

This sort of joke was an unfailing joy to Nell Gwyn, and a delight to the Court. She was never tired of playing it though it was not quite fair, because the de Keroualles were really a family of great lineage. However, a trifle like that did not deter Nell, and it served her well at intervals throughout the life of King Charles. Even so late as 1682, she played the same prank, as is recorded in a letter from George Legge to Lord Preston:

"Nell was often successful in throwing ridicule on her rival, the Duchess of Portsmouth, who pre-tended to be related to the best families of France, and when one of their number died [the Prince de Rohan], she put herself in mourning.

"It happened that news of the Cham of Tartary's death had lately reached England. A Prince of France was also recently dead, and the Duchess of Portsmouth was, of course, in sables. Nell came to Court in the same attire, and, standing close by her Grace, was asked by one of her friends why she was in mourning.

'Oh,' said Nell ,'have you not heard of my loss in the death of the Cham of Tartary?'

'And what the deuce was the Cham of Tartary to you?'

'Oh, exactly the same relation that the French Prince was to Mademoiselle de Keroualle.'"
Pierre Pomet wrote about Unicorns in "Histoire Générale Des Drogues, b. 1 of Animals, ch. 2" and a 1748 translation by John Hill describes a Unicorn Hog found in the "Dominions of the Great Cham of Tartary."

"The Unicorn Hog is so called from his Head, being like a Boar's or Hog's Head, found, as some Authors say, in the Dominions of the Great Cham of Tartary. This Species of Unicorn is somewhat less than the Elephant; they have Hair like Oxen, Heads like Hogs, Feet like Elephants, a sharp and thorny Tongue, and a Horn in the midst of the Forehead, wherewith they destroy both Man and Beast. Had this Horn grown out of its Snout, it would have been a Rhinoceros; but as it does not, it must be taken for one of the Kinds of Unicorns."
Robert Browning's 1842 The Pied Piper of Hamelin references the piper freeing the Cham of Tartary from a huge swarm of gnats.

The following is from Bentley's Miscellany, Volume I, a collection of stories and poems published in 1837. (One of the stories also has the line "The lawless but exemplary idol of her heart had rescued herself and nurse from these Tartar hordes[…]")

THE GRAND CHAM OF TARTARY, AND THE HUMBLE-BEE.

Abridged from the voluminous Epic Poem by Beg-beg (formerly a mendicant ballad-singer, afterwards Principal Lord Rector of the University of Samarcand, and subsequently Historiographer and Poet Laureate to the Court of Balk,) by C. J. Davids, Esq.
I. The great Tartar chief, on a festival day,
Gave a spread to his court, and resolv'd to be gay;
But, just in the midst of their music and glee,
The mirth was upset by a humble-bee—
A humble-bee—
They were bored by a rascally humble-bee!

II. This riotous bee was so wanting in sense
As to fly at the Cham with malice prepense:
Said his highness, "My fate will be felo-de-se,
If I'm thus to be teas'd by a humble-bee—
A humble-bee—
How shall I get rid of the humble-bee!"

III. The troops in attendance, with sabre and spear,
Were order'd to harass the enemy's rear:
But the brave body-guards were forced to flee—
They were all so afraid of the humble-bee—
The humble-bee—
The soldiers were scar'd by the humble-bee.

IV. The solicitor-general thought there was reason
For indicting the scamp on a charge of high-treason;
While the chancellor doubted if any decree
From the woolsack would frighten the humble-bee—
The humble-bee—
So the lawyers fought shy of the humble-bee.

V. The Cham from his throne in an agony rose,
While the insect was buzzing right under his nose:—
"Was ever a potentate plagued like me,
Or worried to death by a humble-bee!
A humble-bee—
Don't let me be stung by the humble-bee!"

VI. He said to a page, nearly choking with grief,
"Bring hither my valiant commander-in-chief;
And say that I'll give him a liberal fee,
To cut the throat of this humble-bee—
This humble-bee—
This turbulent, Jacobin, humble-bee!"

VII. His generalissimo came at the summons,
And, cursing the courtiers for cowardly rum-uns,
"My liege," said he, "it's all fiddle-de-dee
To make such a fuss for a humble-bee—
A humble-bee—
I don't care a d—n for the humble-bee!"

VIII. The veteran rush'd sword in hand on the foe,
And cut him in two with a desperate blow.
His master exclaim'd, "I'm delighted to see
How neatly you've settled the humble-bee!"
The humble-bee—
So there was an end of the humble-bee.

IX. By the doctor's advice (which was prudent and right)
His highness retired very early that night:
For they got him to bed soon after his tea,
And he dream'd all night of the humble-bee—
The humble-bee—
He saw the grim ghost of the humble-bee.

MORAL. Seditious disturbers, mind well what you're arter
Lest, humming a prince, you by chance catch a Tartar.
Consider, when planning an impudent spree,
You may get the same luck as the humble-bee—
The humble-bee—
Remember the doom of the humble-bee!
In another collection published in 1895 and supposedly containing content from 1869 and 1895 (and possibly earlier) titled Curiosities of Olden Times, an "amusing anecdote" was told by a traveler named Volguard Iversen, who went to Agra, "the capital of the Great Cham" and Iversen had an audience with the Great Cham, simultaneously described as the emperor, during dinner. The emperor was "hungry as a hunter" after having just returned from "the expedition" and proceeded to cram his mouth full of rice and dislocated his jaw by doing so. The emperor started to turn purple in the face and all of his subjects were frozen with uncertainty. Iversen ran up and slapped the emperor twice to knock the rice out of his mouth and "set the jaw once more in working order." The others prepared to cut down Iversen for daring to touch the emperor, but the emperor recovered in time to calm his people and rewarded Iversen with 1,000 rupees.

"Lockjaw is to be treated in the same manner, asserts our author, and he tells an amusing anecdote on the subject from Volquard Iversen.

Nicolas Vorburg was an Oriental traveller. In the course of his wanderings he reached Agra, the capital of the Great Cham. The European was introduced to His Majesty at the dinner-hour, and found the monarch just returned from the expedition, and as hungry as a hunter. A bowl of rice was brought in. The Great Cham dipped his hands into it, and ladled so much rice as they would hold into his capacious mouth, distended to the utmost conceivable extent. But the Great Cham had overestimated the capabilities of the distension of his jaws, and they became dislocated. At the sight, the servants were distracted with fear. The nobles stroked their chins in uncertainty how to act, the priests had recourse to their devotions, but no one assisted the monarch out of his dilemma. He sat upon his imperial throne purple in the face, his eyes distended with horror, his mouth gaping, and full of rice. Suffocation was imminent. Nicolas Vorburg, without even prostrating himself before the emperor, ran up the steps of his throne, and hit him a violent crack with the palm of his hand upon the cheek. The rice fell out of his mouth upon the imperial lap, some, it is surmised, descended the imperial red-lane. Another slap accomplished the relief of the monarch, and set the jaw once more in working order. At the same moment the servants screamed at the outrage committed upon the sacred majesty of the emperor, the nobles drew their swords to avenge it, and the priests converted their prayers for the recovery of their king into curses on the head of him who had sacrilegiously raised his hand to violate his divinity. Poor Vorburg would have been made into mincemeat, had not the emperor providentially recovered his breath in time to administer a reproof to his over-zealous subjects. He acknowledged the relief afforded him by the stranger by a present of a thousand rupees."
Does anyone know which Islanders these would be that were "in the Frozen Sea above Tartary" and called Tautæ? and Mansa? which the Tartars would invade during the winter and "march to them upon the ice"?
 

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
308
Reactions
613
hey Rarity, Wow what a great First Class Post! (and how!)

I read this post this morning and felt that "Cham of Tartary" was probably something that could be searched for more information as it should be fairly unique phrasing. The first thing I found was online dictionaries, according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (dating unknown), Cham (kăm) refers to the "sovereign prince of Tartary" and it is "now usually written khan." Some others say it is an archaic, obsolete, or former spelling for khan. The above quoted 1819 article refers to "the great Cham of Tartary" and some other sources reference a "Grand Cham of Tartary."
my favorite online source for Noah Websters and it confirms 'Cham' as "The sovereign prince of Tartary. Usually written Khan" in three different editions: https://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/cham

this word 'Cham' would seem to be also where the word 'Champion' might originate? also IIRC, the word Khan is also related to Kohen which sometimes means 'King' but Kohen/Cohen is also related to Cowan.

FWIW a comprehensive downloadable dictionary source for anyone doing word searches: https://web.archive.org/web/20121109051435/http://www.mindserpent.com:80/American_History/reference/dictionaries/dictionaries_index.html


I don't know what the sourcing is on this but this site "Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary" says, "The learned commonly acknowledge the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Teutonic, Sclavonian, Tartarian, and Chinese languages, to be original. The rest are only dialects from these."
Sclavonian & Chinese certainly seem to be but Greek and Latin has come under critical scrutiny recently as possibly being 'faked' and used to rewrite histories then insert them into the fake 1000 years or so that Fomenko has uncovered. all hearsay to me but not that hard to swallow IMO, Hebrew seems to be rooted in Phoenician.


While looking at these things I came across the phrase "to catch a Tartar" which means something to the effect of "To encounter or be forced to reckon with someone or something that proves more powerful, troublesome, or formidable than one expected." It supposedly originated in the mid 1600s. The Farlex Partner Idioms Dictionary adds that Tartar was a byword for ferocity.
from: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/tart 'tart' has an interesting definition somewhat related to this term I think:
"2. sharp in character, spirit, or expression: a tart remark."

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31593/31593.txt


I'm not exactly sure on the Scottish dialect, but I think this is meant to say that the farmer would defend the thief even if King James was someone more formidable? like the Cham of Tartary or had three king's heads on his shoulders. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34144/34144.txt
this is an interesting passage considering the Scots definition of Devil (court advicate/adversary/attorney) and combined with the mention of 'proceedings'


In 1864, Mark Twain was working as a San Francisco newspaper's reporter and wrote about a domestic disturbance involving a German couple and a woman with the surname of Kahn. Twain called her the "Kahn of Tartary" and referred to her as a Tartar while providing a humorous retelling of the fight between the three which ended up in court.
was he using this agent/pen name (second mark) or under the principal name Samuel Clemens for this?


not to discredit your post or intellect in anyway and your post was very comprehensive eitherway but you have a database software that helps you locate all these things or something like that? if so, please share the name if it is commonly available. I could use some such on other subjects of study.

really great post Rarity, lots of new leads within it. welcome to SH
 

mateohielo

New member
Messages
7
Reactions
21
I have a small bit to add that may not have been mentioned yet:
Săliștea (German: Tschorren; Hungarian: Alsócsóra), known as Cioara until 1965, is a commune located in Alba county, Romania. The old name of Cioara is still widely used, especially by local residents.
It is composed of four villages: Mărgineni, Săliștea, Săliștea-Deal and Tărtăria (Alsótatárlaka).
It's even on google maps:
Google Maps
 

Similar threads


Top