Tang Gaozong questioned the carving of the Assyrian kings, the WestCentury farce
At the SCO summit, Samarkand, a thousand-year-old city, stood out. As an important node of the overland Silk Road, Samarkand has deep historical ties with China.
During the Sui and Tang dynasties, it was the capital of Kangguo, a city-state founded by the Sogdians in the Western Regions. Under the leadership of Su Dingfang, the Tang Dynasty army successfully eliminated the Western Turks, and then established the Kangju Governorate in Kangguo, which was subordinate to the Anxi Metropolitan Protectorate to ensure the smooth flow of the Silk Road.
At the same time, the Sogdians thus became one of the nine surnames of Zhaowu.
In 1868, the ruins of the capital city of Kangguo were discovered. By the 60s of the 20th century, the site began to undergo systematic archaeological excavations. In 1965, an important archaeological discovery was made here, which was the excavation of the murals of the Ambassador's Hall of King Vargoman of the Tang Dynasty (also known as the murals of the Ambassador's Hall in the ancient city of Samarkand).
It is said that this hall was once the place where the king received dignitaries in Fuhuman. The four sides of the hall are painted with large murals, showing the Persian New Year "Nauruz", the Hindu mythological epic, and the historical memory of the Turkic, Tibetan, Goryeo, Tang and Persian missions.
Particularly striking are the themes depicted on the north wall as scenes of the Dragon Boat Festival, with the protagonists Tang Gaozong hunting and Wu Zetian (throwing zongzi on the Qujiang Pond to feed the fish) while boating in the Taiye Pond.
Wu Zetian, who rode the dragon boat, was majestic, showing the tenacity and courage of women.
In the mural of the ambassador hall, one figure is particularly eye-catching, he is Tang Gaozong Li Zhi. I saw that he was tall and majestic, and a cheetah next to him was also at his feet, as if to salute him.
This mural not only shows the majesty of Tang Gaozong Li Zhi, but also reflects the important position of hunting culture at that time.
A beautiful painting depicting a hunting scene of Tang Gaozong.
According to the Westerners, it was modeled on this map, and it was changed to an Assyrian lion hunting picture, and the cheetah was replaced by a lion hunt. This relief was originally unearthed at the site of the palace of King Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, Iraq, and is now in the collection of the British Museum.
In the Western Regions of the Tang Dynasty, the Sogdians were known for their prowess and hunting, and their king was described as brave and majestic. During the Assyrian Empire, lion hunting was also seen as a sport of kings as a symbol of the ruler's authority and ability.
Between 645 and 635 B.C., Ashurbanipal, the last king of the Assyrian Empire, built a huge palace in Nineveh, and a large number of relief works of art were created on the walls of the palace, including scenes of lion hunting by kings.
Today, the works are on display in Room 10a of the British Museum, revealing for us the history and culture of the Assyrian Empire.
In the history of the Assyrian Empire, there is a famous siege event, which is the "siege of the city of Laj by Sena Creb". This event is recorded in the Book of Yah, so it is a typical legend of the Book of Yahwa.
However, can the authenticity of this incident be proven?If the artifacts excavated at the site of Nineveh stand up to examination, then it is possible to prove that the account of the Book of Yahwa is authentic.
But do the Nineveh ruins and the artifacts unearthed stand up to scrutiny?Let's review the archaeological excavation process throughout the site. At present, it is generally accepted that the reliefs unearthed at the site were excavated by the British archaeologist Austin Henry Lyard, which is indisputable.
Leyard is the founder of Near Eastern archaeology, a cuneiform expert, and an expert in art history, and his title is glorious. So, only through rigorous archaeological excavations and scientific research can we draw real conclusions about this event.
For those familiar with the archaeological history of the 19th century, doubts may arise about the identification of the Nineveh site. This is because, at the time, the identification of the Nineveh site was controversial.
Although Claudius James Ritchie published an article in 1836 that identified the Kuyunjik and Nebiyunus mounds as Nineveh sites, he did not excavate them.
Later, the Briton Leyard made a name for himself when he excavated in Nimrud, Iraq, and published Nineveh and its remains. Paul Emir Bhatta, on the other hand, excavated in Hersabad, Iraq, and published the book "Monuments of Nineveh", arguing that Hersabad was the real site of Nineveh.
Although we now know the exact location of the Nineveh site, at the time, the controversial designation cast doubt on archaeological research.
The identification of the three people on the site of Nineveh is inconsistent, and the official cannot be determined, and the most famous version prevails. In the 19th century, the so-called pioneers of Assyriology turned out to be overseas colonial soldiers and diplomats with no professional or archaeological skills.
They deal with academic problems with the mentality of completing tasks, and leave the knowledge of cuneiform interpretation to others to ponder. The real identities of the two famous archaeologists, Botta and Léad, were **public officials, and they were ordered to "tour Persia according to the instructions of *** and the instructions of the Institut Française".
Thus, Nimrud was successfully identified as the royal palace of the Assyrian Empire also because of their successful operation. This can't help but make people sigh: in this world, strength is the most important thing.
In the 19th century, excavations at the Nineveh site were fraught with rawness, inefficiency, and irresponsibility. In 1847, Léard began shipping statues, reliefs and other artifacts he had "found" to England.
These artefacts, which he considered "precious", were exhibited at the British Museum when they arrived in London in October 1848. Then, those opportunistic cultural relics dealers took the opportunity to speculate and make a lot of money......In order to make his archaeological excavations look more realistic, Leyard left behind a number of manuscripts and publications of records.
However, when Léard died in July 1894, why did the drawings of these publications not correspond to the actual objects exhibited? Haven't they always been declared to be consistent?
Isn't it claimed that the drawing data is from the excavation site?
Among the statues of Assyria, one of the most striking is the "five-legged man-headed cow". The statue is unique in that the body of the cow is designed to have only four legs, but the head of the human-headed cow has five legs.
This begs the question, why does the statue have five legs when a real cow has only four legs? It turned out that in the later construction process, some people mistakenly confused the side relief with the round carved cow, so the four-legged human head cow of the original design was changed to a five-legged cow.
So, can such a five-legged human-headed cow be considered a sacred cow? In fact, the sacred cow does have five legs, so this statue can be said to be a perfect representation of the image of the sacred cow.
It's never too late to make amends. The destruction of original design materials and manuscripts is the most important action we should take now. Although the information has been published, we cannot ignore the existence of loopholes.
Although Lyard's design is intimate, his manuscript material becomes evidence of skepticism. The counterfeiting of large bronzes is a huge problem, and once other artifacts unearthed are taken for identification, the traces of forgery will be exposed.
As a result, almost all of the large bronzes in the West were fished from the sea. Lyard did not understand these and left a flaw, and the manuscript materials are still preserved in the British Museum.
We cannot allow this material to continue to exist and must be destroyed.
Of the two drawings in the same scene, one is the original plan and the other is the design with the damage information added. This "aging" process originates from Panjiayuan.
Although the original plan was supposed to be kept secret and could not be published, due to the death of Lyard, this mistake was ignored, or some people thought that even if it was published, it would not attract attention, and as a result, it was unexpectedly published together, and I have to sigh that the eyes of the masses are bright.
Let's take a look at the issue of the horse's tail in the relief, which also appears in the so-called Greek frescoes.
When you compare the images of horses in horse-drawn carriages in Chinese and Western artifacts, you may notice an interesting detail. The horse's tail in Chinese terracotta warriors is often tied up, while in Western artifacts, the horse's tail is flowing and spreading.
The carriage is particularly majestic and magnificent under the pull of two famous ancient Egyptian horses, and the mural art shows the exquisite skills of the ancient Egyptian people to worship and control horses.
The horses in ancient Chinese murals always have their tails tied up when pulling carts. This detail not only adds to the vividness of the mural, but also reflects the reverence and understanding of horses in ancient times.
The terracotta figurines in the mausoleum of Qin Shi Huang show the style of the Qin Dynasty army with exquisite skills.
The knotted ponytail is not a problem that can be fooled by the phrase "different habits". In actual driving, if you don't tie the knot, the horsetail can easily get caught in the rope, resulting in a tragedy of car crash and death.
Linguist Professor Cao Xianzheng once pointed out in the book "Why Should the Horse's Tail Be Knotted in the Qin Warriors" that tying the knot on the horse's tail and tying it tightly can prevent the tail tip from being entangled in the rope and prevent accidents caused by the horse's fright.
Cavalry horses do not need to think about this, the tail of the horse is combed into a long braid, which can play a balancing role when galloping at high speeds. In addition, the horse's tail is more powerful when it is flailed, which may cause injury to the driver or groom, and even block the view.
Therefore, tying up the ponytail has both practical needs and safety considerations. In ancient China, thumb shooting was a common technique in the small and medium-sized bow drawing method.
Originally, it was supposed to be a Mediterranean-style shooting, but in the process of carving, a Mongolian-style shooting appeared, and it seems that the carver had forgotten the original plan.
It is undoubtedly ridiculous that some people try to support their views with falsified ancient Roman and Greek histories. They should be aware that once history has left a flaw, it will become very difficult to repair it.
According to the history constructed in the West, the Assyrian civilization existed earlier than the Common Era, and has a long history, so it is impossible to have the Mongol style of archery thousands of years later. As for the stirrups, as can be seen from the reliefs, their design differs from modern stirrups in that there is no design of stirrups in the position of the feet.
The relationship between a cavalryman and a stirrup is like that between a driver and a seat belt. The stirrups act like harnesses, providing protection for the cavalry and making them more fearless on the battlefield.
It provided stable support for the cavalry, allowing them to maintain their balance during fast runs and avoid injuries from falling off their horses. The appearance of stirrups greatly increased the combat superiority of cavalry.
The stirrup of the Qin and Han dynasties in China, which was first discovered in the tomb of Beiyan in the 3rd century, was invented by the Xianbei people in Northeast China, and is the earliest stirrup that appeared in China and the earliest existing stirrup in the world.
Although the invention of the stirrup helped the cavalry in battle, how did the Assyrian cavalry charge into battle without stirrups? The Englishman Hobsbawm revealed in his book "The Invention of Tradition" that many of the so-called traditions in Europe are actually the products of the Victorian era, such as the Scottish tartan and the pompousness of the British royal family, and many of the praised traditions are actually foreign.
Renowned British archaeologist and art historian Paul Craddock has uncovered the inception of several ancient artifacts, including the Medum Goose Painting, the Cross Tablet, the Famine Tablet, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Statue of Tetis, the Stone Statues of Prince Rahotep and Princess Nafir, and the Book of the Dead.
These artifacts have all been proven to be forgeries, and there are problems such as chronicle errors. In fact, many of the chronicles of ancient Egyptian dynasties were also fabricated in the late 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries on the basis of vague assumptions, so they are not credible.
Although these artifacts were proven to be fakes, they still had an important impact on the study of ancient history and culture.