The Physical Erasure of the Great Tartarian Empire

The Editing of Bells in the Moscow Kremlin

​

The reconstruction argues that the Romanov rewriting of history was not confined to manuscripts. It extended to metal, stone, and monumental objects.

One of the clearest examples given is the large bell standing in front of the Archangel Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin. It is officially dated to 1552, bearing the inscription “summer 7060, 3rd July,” referring to the era from the creation of the world .

At first glance, the bell appears to confirm the accepted version of history. It names Czar Ivan Vasilievich and gives the expected date. However, close inspection reveals that the inscription is not cast as part of the bell, but soldered letter by letter onto the surface after the original inscription had been removed .

The convex inscriptions on bells are normally formed during casting: wax letters are applied to the mold and molten metal fills the spaces, producing a smooth integral surface. On this bell, however, the surface under the inscription is uneven, beaten, and roughly processed. The letters appear clumsy and attached afterward, with metal smudges visible beneath their edges .

The reconstruction interprets this as direct physical evidence that an earlier inscription was deliberately cut off and replaced.

If so, the question arises: what was written originally?

The source states that the Romanovs had strong incentive to eliminate references that preserved the memory of the Great Horde Tartarian Empire. Therefore, inscriptions naming titles inconsistent with the new narrative would have been removed and replaced with corrected versions .

The pattern is not isolated. Other XVI-century bells show partially erased inscriptions. In one Pskov bell of 1544, parts of the inscription were erased while decorative elements remained intact . In another case, the name of Czar Boris Fyodorovich was knocked off the Annunciation bell donated to the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery .

The text concludes that bell inscriptions were systematically reviewed and corrected where necessary .

The reconstruction then draws attention to the disappearance of the largest XVI-century bells.

According to the referenced bell history publication, several massive bells once existed:

​

• The 1000-pood bell of Vasily III (1533)
• The 2200-pood “Swan” bell of Ivan IV
• The 2000-pood “Godunov” bell
• The 3233-pood bell of 1600 cast for the Assumption Cathedral

 

These were among the largest bells in the world . Yet none of them survived. By contrast, smaller and less significant bells remain. Only three XVI-century bells are preserved in the Kremlin, and even those are described as not the most characteristic examples . The reconstruction argues that this pattern is unlikely to be accidental. Russia demonstrably possessed advanced bell-casting technology, as shown in seventeenth-century drawings depicting the raising of enormous bells in Moscow .

If the largest bells existed and later disappeared while smaller ones survived — and if surviving examples show edited inscriptions — then the disappearance is interpreted as intentional destruction rather than random loss.

Melting such bells would remove inscriptions, dedications, and titles cast into their surfaces. The physical metal could be reused while eliminating inconvenient testimony.

Even more significant than bells were written records.

The reconstruction describes the fate of the so-called archive of Ivan the Terrible. It states that the Romanovs likely removed and opened the underground royal archive, dividing its contents into two parts:

​

• A large portion allegedly destroyed
• A smaller portion edited and reissued as “authentic” documents

 

The text is explicit: old documents, especially defters and Horde-era records, would have been burned .

It further claims that the surviving “old princely letters” displayed today lack the tugra — the authentic imperial sign used on genuine medieval royal documents — suggesting that they are later Romanov-era reproductions rather than originals .

The destruction of archives is described as systematic. The inventory of the Czar’s archive reportedly survived “accidentally,” while the majority of chests containing original documents did not .

Thus, according to the reconstruction, the Romanovs achieved two things simultaneously:

​

1. Removal of primary Horde documentation.

2. Creation of edited replacements aligned with the new narrative.

 

The destruction of material evidence coincided with political consolidation.

After the defeat of the last Horde attempts to restore imperial unity in the eighteenth century, a final ideological restructuring took place. The Romanov regime, supported by Western European scholars, finalized the historical version that minimized or reinterpreted the Great Empire .

German historians such as Miller, Schlözer, and Bayer compiled the official version of Russian history in the eighteenth century .

Chronology became the central technical instrument of this restructuring.

The reconstruction argues that once the extended timeline was fixed and the archives revised, the physical remnants of the Horde state — inscriptions, bells, titles, archives — were either edited, melted, or destroyed.

After the Romanov period had institutionalized the extended chronology and erased much of the documentary memory of the Great Empire, the twentieth century introduced a new ideological framework: Marxist-Leninist historiography.

The Soviet state did not revive the memory of Tartaria. On the contrary, it inherited the Romanov-era historical structure and integrated it into a new ideological system.

In the early Soviet period, especially under the Cheka and later the NKVD, intellectual life was subject to strict political supervision. Historians were expected to conform to dialectical materialism. Any interpretation that emphasized imperial continuity, alternative chronologies, or non-Marxist explanations of state formation could be labeled counter-revolutionary.

​

Archival access became tightly controlled. Large portions of pre-revolutionary archives were reorganized, reclassified, or sealed. The state became the sole custodian of historical memory.

The reconstruction emphasizes a pattern that had already begun under the Romanovs: control the documents, control the narrative. Under Soviet rule this principle took bureaucratic form. Publishing houses were state-run. Academic appointments required ideological loyalty. Historical institutes operated under party oversight.

Scholars who deviated from official doctrine faced consequences. During the 1930s in particular, many intellectuals were arrested, exiled, or removed from academic positions under charges of anti-Soviet activity. Historical research that contradicted Marxist interpretations of feudalism, class struggle, or state formation could be suppressed.

The result was not necessarily the creation of a new chronology, but the freezing of the inherited one. The extended timeline remained untouched. Romanov-era frameworks were repackaged in Marxist terminology. The Horde became a “feudal Mongol yoke.” Medieval empire became class exploitation. The imperial unity of Eurasia disappeared into economic determinism.

A striking example concerns the fate of the Bulgar chronicle known as Djagfar Tarikhy. According to the published account, this collection of Bulgar chronicles survived in a manuscript written in a national Bulgar-Arabic script. In the late 1930s, a campaign of destruction targeted books and manuscripts written in this “old alphabet.”

To save the text, Ibrahim Nigmatullin transcribed the chronicle into Russian alphabet notebooks. Soon afterward, he was reported to the NKVD and summoned for interrogation. At the time, possession of documents written in an old script could result in ten years in Stalin’s camps. The original folios in the old alphabet were reportedly found and destroyed by Chekists. The Russian-alphabet notebooks survived only because they were no longer in the prohibited script.

The account explicitly states that in the late 1930s there was a “campaign of total destruction of books and manuscripts written in our national Bulgar-Arabic script.”

The reconstruction uses this as a model of how historical memory can be physically erased through alphabet reform. Once the script changes, the old books become unreadable to new generations. They can then be confiscated and destroyed by officials who do not even need to understand their contents — they need only recognize the forbidden font.

​

The text makes the mechanism explicit:

​

After one or two generations, the overwhelming majority of people can no longer read their old books. They fall out of circulation. It becomes easy to destroy them by order. One does not need to understand what is written — only to identify the script.

This is presented as analogous to earlier Russian script reforms in the XVII–XVIII centuries, when Glagolitic and early Cyrillic forms were replaced and older books vanished from use.

Thus the Soviet campaign is interpreted not as an isolated incident, but as a continuation of a long pattern: change the alphabet, remove the sources.

Another example concerns the researcher Ignatiy Stelletsky, who investigated underground Moscow — the same subterranean complex identified in the reconstruction as the true “Egyptian Labyrinth.”

Stelletsky attempted to publish materials on underground Moscow but encountered persistent obstruction. Publishing houses refused to release his book under various pretexts.

During metro construction near the Kremlin, an ancient cemetery was discovered and destroyed in the course of tunneling operations.

Stelletsky cleared underground staircases and passages, only to find that at night someone deliberately damaged vaults, making further work dangerous. A negative report was then written by archaeologists from the Moscow branch of the State Academy of the History of Material Culture and circulated without informing him.

In 1933 he wrote directly to Stalin requesting permission to search for the library of Ivan the Terrible in the Kremlin. He received permission and excavated for eleven months. The works were stopped in 1935. Stelletsky believed this occurred due to “court intrigues,” and he reportedly did not blame Stalin personally.

After his death, part of his archive was transferred to state archives, while other materials disappeared into private hands. Later authors used fragments of his underground Moscow plan without crediting him.

The reconstruction interprets this pattern — obstruction of publication, administrative interference, destruction of archaeological contexts, disappearance of materials — as consistent with a broader unwillingness to allow full investigation of Moscow’s subterranean past.

According to the reconstruction, the twentieth century did not create the falsified chronology. That had already been established in the XVII–XVIII centuries. But Soviet power ensured that alternative historical materials — especially those preserved in old scripts or outside official archives — would not easily survive or be published.

The destruction described includes:

​

• Confiscation and burning of manuscripts in prohibited alphabets
• Suppression of independent archaeological investigation
• Blocking publication of research on underground Moscow

 

Thus the Soviet period becomes, in the reconstruction, the final layer of stabilization over an already revised historical structure.