Was Tamerlane a European and where is the spirit of war now unleashed?

Mar. 3rd, 2011 at 11:49 AM

The personality of the great Asian conqueror Timur (Tamerlane, Teimer-leng, Lame Timur) http://turkestan.ucoz.ru/publ/1-1-0-15 is of great interest. The history of Timur is closely connected with Russian history. Therefore, we cannot ignore the discussion of his conquests. After our analysis, it turned out that the resulting reconstruction differs significantly from the traditional point of view. However, as the reader will see, historians had problems with Timur before. For example, the still famous anthropologist and archaeologist M. Gerasimov found himself in a very difficult position, trying to reconcile the results of his study of Timur’s skull with the traditional point of view. This work of Gerasimov is so interesting that we will start with it.

THE APPEARANCE OF TIMUR, RESTORED FROM THE SKULL. WAS TIMUR A EUROPEAN?

Let's take the book "Tamerlane", published in Moscow in 1992. Along with the Autobiography of Tamerlane and the Code of Timur, it contains a number of scientific articles covering various aspects of the activities of the largest medieval commander in Asia. The book includes, among others, an article by M.M. Gerasimov "Portrait of Tamerlane". Gerasimov is famous for having developed a method for restoring a sculptural portrait from a skull. The restoration of the sculptural appearance of Tamerlane is one of his most famous achievements.

What does Gerasimov tell us about his work on the appearance of Timur? As is well known, Timur’s tomb was opened in 1941 during excavations in the Gur-Emir mausoleum (Samarkand). When opening it, a “wooden coffin was found, completely identical in shape to those now in existence.” Let us remind the reader that, according to traditional chronology, Timur died in 1405. Let's ask a simple question: how is it known that Timur really lies in this tomb (as traditional history insists)? We ask this question for a reason. The fact is that, as Gerasimov immediately reports, “one of the main tasks of the expedition was to document the authenticity of Timur’s burial.

The dedicatory inscription on the tombstone by itself did not resolve this issue. Only studying the skeleton could provide a definitive answer." So, before the opening of the tomb, some scientists doubted whether Timur was lying in it. Here, by the way, a second, no less interesting question arises: if the dedicatory inscription on the tombstone “by itself has not yet resolved this issue,” then what does it tell us? And anyway, what is written on the tomb? Why doesn’t Gerasimov provide the text of the funeral formula? Is it a coincidence?

Gerasimov further reports: “The peoples of the East have preserved to this day hundreds of legendary tales about the greatest conqueror of the 15th century. Not only Central Asia, but also distant China and India trembled before the name of the Iron Lame, and the fame of his power and fabulous wealth reached Europe. Biographers spared no expense in describing his great campaigns, but, unfortunately, they left very little information about his appearance; the information is contradictory and unclear." Here we are finally faced with the main mysterious contradiction that will now force Gerasimov to maneuver between the Scylla of the scientific method and the Charybdis of traditional history.

Here's the thing. On the one hand, it seems that “everyone knows” that Timur was a Mongol. On the other hand, numerous medieval sources claim that Timur looked like an Indo-European! Today they are usually not believed, claiming that “these sources were wrong.” Judge for yourself: who today would dare to say that “the Mongol Timur was of the Indo-European type”?

So, in front of Gerasimov lies Timur’s skull. He restores his sculptural portrait and is surprised to see that the result is a man of the Indo-European type. This is a natural European! Convex, not flat face. As a scientist, Gerasimov is unable to hide this fact, although during the reconstruction he probably tried (to the extent possible) to give the portrait as much Mongoloid features as possible.

Let's put ourselves in Gerasimov's place. Following his method, he obtains a portrait clearly depicting a European. But “everyone knows” that “Timur is a Mongol.” If Gerasimov declares publicly that the result is completely different, that Timur was a European, then Gerasimov himself will suffer first of all. They will immediately tell him: your method is bad, it turns a Mongol into a European! Your method is unscientific. As a consequence - a scandal, loss of scientific reputation, etc. On the other hand, Gerasimov still cannot falsify his result and fashion a Mongol, ignoring his own method. What to do? The only way out is to sculpt what you get (and it turns out European!), but repeat out loud all the time that the portrait “looks like a Mongol”, “looks like a Mongol”... (contrary to the evidence). This is exactly what Gerasimov does, placed in an almost hopeless situation.

Let's go through Gerasimov's article and see how he comments on his own shocking result in order to avoid the wrath of traditional history. Gerasimov carefully reports: “Time has not preserved a single plausible image of Timur. Numerous miniatures, mostly of Iranian and Indian origin, extremely dissimilar to each other and, moreover, dating from a much later time, cannot be accepted as reliable. A little can be gleaned from written sources.

However, the evidence that Timur comes from a Turkified Mongolian family is a document that will give the right to categorically refuse to consider Iranian and Indian miniatures that endow Timur with typical features of an Indo-European." Let us ask a reasonable question: why, in fact, the mentioned evidence of "Mongolian origin" of Timur should categorically cross out numerous other evidence speaking about the Indo-European appearance of Timur? Moreover, as we now understand, the words “Timur is a Mongol” actually mean only that he lived in the Mongol = Great (= Megalion) Empire.

And this empire, as we have already explained, is Ancient Rus'. Therefore, in reality there is no contradiction! Today, of course, the word “Mongolian” has lost its original meaning and acquired a different one - now it indicates belonging to the Mongoloid race. But the very name “Mongoloid race” appeared relatively recently on the basis of an already established historical tradition, which attributes the historical “Mongols” far to the East (modern Mongolia). However, we will pay tribute to Gerasimov’s scientific honesty.

Having reassured his historical censors with the previous paragraph and loudly declared his loyalty, Gerasimov then carefully reports the following: “The discovered skeleton belongs to a strong man, relatively tall for a Mongolian (about 170 cm).” But still, the main problem for Gerasimov is: how to explain to the reader the clearly European features of the sculptural portrait of the “Mongol” Timur he restored? And he finds this way out: “Despite the weakly expressed maxillary notch (canine fossa), due to the sharp relief of the zygomatic bones of their frontal part, the impression of a less flat face is created than is actually the case.”

If you say the same thing more simply, it will turn out: you see a European (not flat) face on the sculpture. But it only seems to you. In fact, it is flat! Having written this, Gerasimov, in the very next paragraph, tries to pay tribute to traditional history: “You don’t have to be astute to see typical Mongoloid features in Timur’s skull: bright brachyphaly, obviously a flattened face, its significant width and height. All this is just right.” is better connected with written documents testifying to the origin of Timur from the Barlas clan."

But open the first page of the book and look again at the photograph of Timur’s sculpture. Take away the contrived “Mongolian” hat that Gerasimov put on Timur’s head. And you will see a typical European. However, Gerasimov cannot sustain the “traditionally Mongolian note” he strikes for long. As soon as he relaxes for a second, his scientist’s hand involuntarily writes the following: “However, the significant protrusion of the root of the nose and the relief of the upper part of the eyebrow indicate that the Mongolian fold of the eyelid itself is relatively weakly expressed.”

And what else can scientist Gerasimov say? Further: “Contrary to the accepted custom of shaving his head, at the time of his death Timur had relatively long hair.” If Timur is a Mongol, then his hair should be black. But what do we actually see? Here Gerasimov is forced to tell the truth: Timur had European hair. In fact: “Timur’s hair is thick, straight, gray-red in color, with a predominance of dark chestnut or red. The eyebrow hairs are less well preserved, but still, from these remains it is not difficult to imagine and reproduce the general shape of the eyebrows. Well-preserved individual hairs.. Their color is dark chestnut... It turns out that Timur wore a long mustache, and not trimmed above the lip, as was customary by his faithful followers. Sharia... Timur’s small thick beard was wedge-shaped. Her hair was coarse, almost straight, thick, bright brown (red) in color, with significant graying.”

Traditional historians have long known that Timur was red-haired. This clearly contradicts his "Mongolian origin". What to do? After thinking about it, we found a seemingly good explanation. They suggested that Timur was still black, but he painted himself with henna, and therefore “appeared red.” Try dyeing the black hair of a Mongolian with Henna. What will come of this? It is unlikely that your hair will turn from black to red. But today, after the opening of Timur’s grave, we do not need to guess on this topic. Timur's hair was red. Here is what Gerasimov reports: “Even a preliminary study of the beard hair under a binocular convinces us that this reddish-reddish color is its natural color, and not dyed with henna, as historians described.”

This fact alone completely destroys all previous traditionally historical attempts to evade the obvious. In conclusion, we note another strange fact discovered by Gerasimov: “Despite Timur’s senile age (70-72), his skull, as well as his skeleton, do not have pronounced, actually senile features... All this speaks rather for the fact that that the skull of the skeleton belonged to a man full of strength and health, whose biological age did not exceed 50 years."

Summary: We are faced with the following dilemma.

1) If Timur really lies in Timur’s tomb, then he is a European with red hair. This conclusion is fully consistent with the results of Gerasimov’s reconstruction and with the statements of medieval sources who depicted Timur as a red-haired Indo-European.

2) If it is not Timur who lies in Timur’s tomb, then this casts serious doubt on the traditional historical version, which insists on the authenticity of Timur’s tomb. And the last question: when, by the way, did Timur live? The coffin is practically modern! Is this really 1405?