Tartarian City of Norumbega was conquered to become Washington, DC

The initial article ended up being bigger than I expected. To avoid having a 10 mile long page, it was logical to create a Part II of sots. So, if you did not read the beginning of what follows below, please familiarize yourself with Part I of the City of Norumbega topic. It's somewhat of a prerequisite, I guess.
Washington D.C. and Co.
Had a chance to sleep on this entire topic. I think the area named Nurumbega was a part of the Tartarian Union with the city visited by David Ingram being the City of Bega, or the City of Nurumbega. Was the city actually named Nurumbega? I do not know, could be either way.


The City of Bega (to become Washington DC in my opinion) was not the only city in Nurumbega Region. The list of the pre-existing Nurumbega region cities is not limited to the below ones:
Obviously we do not know what the original names of the above locations were. I think whoever's holding those 300 year old classified documents could indulge us. They obviously will not, but they are the ones who know WHAT and WHY.

Washington D.C. History
wiki version
The United States capital was originally located in Philadelphia. In June 1783, a mob of angry soldiers converged upon Independence Hall to demand payment for their service during the American Revolutionary War.

Independence Hall, Philadelphia

Congress requested that John Dickinson, the governor of Pennsylvania, call up the militia to defend Congress from attacks by the protesters. In what became known as the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, Dickinson sympathized with the protesters and refused to remove them from Philadelphia.
  • The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 (also known as the Philadelphia Mutiny) was an anti-government protest by nearly 400 soldiers of the Continental Army in June 1783.
As a result, Congress was forced to flee to Princeton, New Jersey, on June 21, 1783. Dickinson's failure to protect the institutions of the national government was discussed at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. The delegates therefore agreed in Article One, Section 8, of the United States Constitution to give the Congress the power:
  • To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;
On December 23, 1788, the Maryland General Assembly passed an act, allowing it to cede land for the federal district. The Virginia General Assembly followed suit on December 3, 1789. The signing of the federal Residence Act on July 16, 1790, mandated that the site for the permanent seat of government, "not exceeding ten miles square" (100 square miles), be located on the "river Potomack, at some place between the mouths of the Eastern-Branch and Connogochegue". The "Eastern-Branch" is known today as the Anacostia River. The Connogocheque (Conococheague Creek) empties into the Potomac River upstream near Williamsport and Hagerstown, Maryland. The Residence Act limited to the Maryland side of the Potomac River the location of land that commissioners appointed by the President could acquire for federal use.
  • The Residence Act authorized the President to select the actual location of the site. However, President George Washington wished to include the town of Alexandria, Virginia within the federal district. To accomplish this, the boundaries of the federal district would need to encompass an area on the Potomac that was downstream of the mouth of the Eastern Branch. The U.S. Congress amended the Residence Act in 1791 to permit Alexandria's inclusion in the federal district. However, some members of Congress had recognized that Washington and his family owned property in and near Alexandria, which was just seven miles (11 km) upstream from Mount Vernon, Washington's home and plantation. The amendment therefore contained a provision that prohibited the "erection of the public buildings otherwise than on the Maryland side of the river Potomac".
On March 30, 1791, Washington issued a presidential proclamation that established "Jones's point, the upper cape of Hunting Creek in Virginia" as the starting point for the federal district's boundary survey. The proclamation also described the method by which the survey should determine the district's boundaries. Working under the general supervision of the three commissioners and at the direction of President Washington, Major Andrew Ellicott, assisted by his brothers Benjamin and Joseph Ellicott, Isaac Roberdeau, Isaac Briggs, George Fenwick, and an African American astronomer, Benjamin Banneker, then proceeded to survey the borders of the Territory of Columbia with Virginia and Maryland during 1791 and 1792.

On January 1, 1793, Andrew Ellicott submitted to the commissioners a report that stated that the boundary survey had been completed and that all of the boundary marker stones had been set in place. Ellicott's report described the marker stones and contained a map that showed the boundaries and topographical features of the Territory of Columbia, The map identified the locations within the Territory of the planned City of Washington and its major streets, as well as the location of each boundary marker stone.

Plan of the City of Washington
wiki version
In early 1791, President Washington appointed Pierre Charles L'Enfant to devise a plan for the new city in an area of land at the center of the federal territory that lay between the northeast shore of the Potomac River and the northwest shore of the Potomac's Eastern Branch. L'Enfant then designed in his "Plan of the city intended for the permanent seat of the government of the United States ... " the city's first layout, a grid centered on the United States Capitol, which would stand at the top of a hill (Jenkins Hill) on a longitude designated as 0,0°. The grid filled an area bounded by the Potomac River, the Eastern Branch (now named the Anacostia River), the base of an escarpment at the Atlantic Seaboard Fall Line along which a street (initially Boundary Street, now Florida Avenue) would later travel, and Rock Creek.

KD: a short summary here:
  • In 1790 it was decided to establish a 100 square mile property for the permanent seat of government. By 1793 all the boundary measurements were completed and presented to the commissioners. Three years prior to the boundary measurement completion, and to be exact "in early 1791", President Washington appointed Pierre Charles L'Enfant to devise a plan for the new city in an area of land at the center of the federal territory that lay between the northeast shore of the Potomac River and the northwest shore of the Potomac's Eastern Branch.
    • L'Enfant then designed his "Plan of the city intended for the permanent seat of the government of the United States ... " the city's first layout.
L'Enfant's 1791 Plan
Original L'Enfant Plan of Washington from national archives. I was unable to find a bigger version of this particular "original". We do have an 1887 copy of the original provided by the Library of Congress. If interested in all the writings, make sure you check the copy out, some of the resolutions are incredible.

1887 copy of 1791 original: Plan of the city intended for the permanent seat of the government of the United States : projected agreeable to the direction of the President of the United States, in pursuance of an act of Congress passed the sixteenth day of July, MDCCXC (1790), "establishing the permanent seat on the bank of Potowmac".

  • We do not think much of it, but them using MDCCXC instead of 1790 could have a meaning.
1887 copy of 1791 original

Andrew Ellicott's revision of L'Enfant's plan

Andrew Ellicott's revision of L'Enfant's 1791 plan.jpg

Thackara & Vallance's 1792 print
Thackara & Vallance's 1792 print of Ellicott's "Plan of the City of Washington in the Territory of Columbia" showing street names, lot numbers, depths of the Potomac River, and legends - source
Whatever the reason was, but Washington dismissed L'Enfant.
  • L'Enfant died in poverty on June 14, 1825. He was originally buried at the Green Hill farm in Chillum, Maryland. He left behind three watches, three compasses, some books, some maps, and surveying instruments, the total value was forty-six dollars.
Ellicott gave the first version of his own plan to James Thakara and John Vallance of Philadelphia, who engraved, printed and published it. This version, printed in March 1792, was the first Washington city plan that received wide circulation.


Real 1792 State of Washington, DC
Here you can see what the Washington, DC area was supposed to look like in reality. To be clear, above are plans for future development. Below is what the area allegedly looked like in 1792. - source


KD: By the way, I think we might experience a very similar map shenanigans pertaining to the list of the cities mentioned in the list mentioned above these plans.

This is the point after which the construction was supposed to begin. According to the official version it had to. I have a different opinion on the matter. To a certain degree all this plan vs reality shenanigans reminded me of another city far away. They also claimed to have it built.
US vs. UK war of 1812
Hopefully I'm not gonna get crucified for it, but in my opinion the City of Bega (later Washington, DC) remained under Tartarian control as late as 1812-1814. Suspicions coincidences rule our history. In this case we sure have a few very suspicious ones.

To understand my train of thought, you will probably have to familiarize yourself with the following article:
Back to the coincidences...

Coincidence #zero
We have two initial events during which, according to my current hypothesis, Tartaria was attacked from the West first (in current Russia), and from the East second (in the US).
I do not know whether Tartaria was fighting back, or what, but something ended up causing the second conflict which materialized in what we know as the Wars of 1812. Once again in both Russia, and the United States.
Coincidence #1
Coincidence #2
Coincidence #3
  • Similar looking uniforms
According to the uniform design, every single military of the day (besides the Tartarian one) had the same uniform provider. If you want to get really confused you can look at the 1812 uniforms in general, as they pertain to all the armies out there. For right now scroll on down below, and take a look at British vs. US, and at France vs. Russia.
UK vs US

France vs. Russia

We could wonder how these armies could fight each other in the dark. We could find a plausible explanation as to why their uniforms look like they all came from the same designer. Me personally, I start to think that they were representing the same side.

To be honest, I think the "uniform issue" is the case with every single Independence War of the 19th Century. Google Chilean, or Venezuelan Independence wars and see what you end up with. Below is an example of what you will see. For the image below, take away the flag, and nobody will have a clue what army it is.


Now, in the Russia vs. France case, the Militia units were in reality fighting on the Tartarian side. The official history placed them on the Russian side. Just to make things clear, in my opinion in the Russia vs. France war of 1812, Russia and France were allies, and they fought against Moscovian Tartaria represented by what historians called Militia.

I suspect something similar could be the case with USA vs. Great Britain war of 1812. Meaning USA (or whatever it was called in reality) were allies, and fought Tartarian Government which still existed on the North American continent. The units fighting against the UK/USA alliance, in my opinion, were incorporated into the US Army, just like it was done in the Russia vs. France case.

KD: if you know of any other coincidences, please share.

Back to Washington, DC
What is the best way to indoctrinate a conquered city? You simply present it like it was already yours. Sure there would be some documentation related difficulties along the way, but writing a thousand papers is much easier then erecting a thousand buildings. From this perspective statements like the one below do not strike as unusual. May be things were not as destroyed as they were advertised to be.
  • A committee appointed by Congress to investigate the damage to the District concluded that it was cheaper to rebuild the already existing and damaged buildings than to build an entirely new one.
They did it with Moscow, and they did it with Washington, DC. Well, at least it appears that way.

And of course in the process we had to end up with somewhat puzzling images like the composite one below. If it was not for the year being 1814, I would swear the bottom image was a disguised photograph. Well, may be it was a photograph, and we simply have no clue when the photography came to be. It's like the painting was done based on the below "photograph", and not the other way around.


This capitol building above. That is a story of its own. It took them 20 years (1793-1813) to almost finish The Capitol, and another 12 years to fix it after it was burnt by the British in 1814. Even the burning had to have a twist:
  • ...only a sudden rainstorm prevented its complete destruction
For comparison, in 1850s in under five years The Capitol Building was "allegedly" tripled in size:
  • By 1850, it became clear that the Capitol could not accommodate the growing number of legislators arriving from newly admitted states. Two new wings were added – a new chamber for the House of Representatives on the south side, and a new chamber for the Senate on the north.
  • When the Capitol was expanded in the 1850s, some of the construction labor was carried out by slaves "who cut the logs, laid the stones and baked the bricks". The original plan was to use workers brought in from Europe; however, there was a poor response to recruitment efforts, and African Americans, some free and some enslaved, composed the majority of the work force.
  • The old dome was removed in 1856, and 5,000,000 pounds of new masonry was placed on the existing Rotunda walls. Iron used in the dome construction had an aggregate weight of 8,909,200 pounds and was lifted into place by steam-powered derricks.
    • Regardless of how fast they allegedly built two new wings, the dome they apparently had a problem with. In 1861, during Lincolns inauguration the dome was only partially completed. That's what Wikipedia says, but if you look at the actual photo, you will see that it was far from being "partially" completed.

By the way, I was only fortunate enough to locate photographs of the 1861 construction of the dome. If you want a little challenge, see if you can find a photograph with the incomplete wings.

I think this is where I'm gonna end this article. Architectural abnormalities of Washington D.C. should probably be an article of their own. I have tons of questions pertaining to various structures, their designs and images associated with their existence.

This is part II.
Decided to bump this series of posts because I don't think it's gotten enough exposure on the rebooted blog, and I also stumbled upon a few details that I was unaware of regarding Washington DC and the earlier "founding" of Maryland. This seems like the most appropriate post to attach this information to, but please make sure to read all three of KD's posts in this series, the contextual information makes all of this a bit more interesting.

Several of these details were brought to my attention in a video by aplanetruth (on his 9th channel, so don't expect this video to necessarily be around long):

I don't necessarily agree with some of his conclusions, but the raw information is intriguing. First of all, did any of you know that there was a (small) area in what is now Washington, D.C. that used to be called "Rome"?

The ground on which the United State Capitol now stands was from the earliest moments of English settlement known as the New Troy tract. Granted in 1663 by the Second Lord Baltimore to George Thompson, it was one of three substantial parcels that Thompson would own within the bounds of the future District of Columbia. His holdings encompassed some 1800 acres or slightly more than one-fourth of all the land that would be allotted for the site of the capital city. While the 500 acres that constituted New Troy would change hands six times, it was until 1791 never known by any other name (see Fig. 1, below). When Daniel Carroll of Duddington finally conveyed this property to the Federal Government, the site for Capitol was still indicated on the official deed as New Troy. The classical allusion encountered in this name was consistent with other names that other early settlers had assigned to their farms. Thompson's neighbor Francis Pope called his 400-acre farm " Rome" and the stream that flowed along its eastern edge the " Tiber." It was, he must have thought, a much better and more imaginative name than its earlier and more prosaic designation of " Goose Creek." Classical allusions signaled lofty goals and they would prove to be very appealing all across the nation well into the nineteenth century

Some interesting names on that map too. I'm more amused though by this story of a guy named Pope naming a small section of the area Rome. To me, it sounds like some sort of joke... or moreso a wink and a nod? I still feel like we're missing context for a lot of what we perceive to be simply city names nowadays. Perhaps even being beyond titles, it strikes me as a type of magical ritual ("spells" after all), but that's a story for another day.

So, this got me looking into the overall founding of Maryland, led by the Calvert family. Cecil Calvert was the aforementioned Second Lord Baltimore and as such, he didn't actually personally travel to the "New World", he sent his brother Leonard:

Led by Leonard Calvert, in November 1633, two ships, The Ark and The Dove, set sail from the Isle of Wight, loaded with settlers, Jesuit missionaries and indentured servants. After a long, rough sea voyage with a stopover to resupply in Barbados, they arrived in what is now Maryland in March 1634. They made their first permanent settlement in what is now St. Mary's County, Maryland choosing to settle on a bluff overlooking the St. Mary's River, a relatively calm, tidal tributary near the mouth of the Potomac River where it empties into the Chesapeake Bay.

The site had been occupied by members of the Yaocomico branch of the Piscataway Indian Nation, who had abandoned it as being vulnerable to attack by the Susquehanna. The settlers had with them a former Virginia colonist who was fluent in their language and they met quickly with the chief of the region. The Tayac Kittamaquund, paramount chief of the Piscataway Indian Nation, sold thirty miles of land there to the English newcomers

First of all, "The Ark" and "The Dove" seem like we're laying it on a bit thick here. It could be interpreted in a lot of alternative ways, such as recontextualizing the 16th to 18th centuries as not “discovery” (which is demonstrably nonsense in the accepted chronology anyway by the presence of natives) but “damage assessment.” If if you’re not into a recent (like 600ish years ago) cataclysm, what’s good to take away is the corporate nature of all of this and how what’s standard practice today also existed to “found” America. You have a scouting party come in, they assess viability, and then they subcontract out to a land company, who surveys the land and auctions it off. Along the way, you eliminate other potential stakeholders to the land in question by bribery, intimidation, or murder. Eventually, you have a country.

Speaking of that, what happened to our natives?

The settlers who arrived to found the English colony of Maryland purchased land for their first settlement from the Yaocomico. By the late 17th century, the tribe had disappeared from the historical record. Historians believe this was mostly due to epidemics of newly introduced infectious disease and to pressure from European settlers and other Native groups.“The settlers who arrived to found the English colony of Maryland purchased land for their first settlement from the Yaocomico. By the late 17th century, the tribe had disappeared from the historical record. Historians believe this was mostly due to epidemics of newly introduced infectious disease and to pressure from European settlers and other Native groups.”

Dead men tell no tales. So, I'm gonna just assume they all caught the flu.

So, the Jesuit that was on The Ark was Father Andrew White, the "Apostle of Maryland." The aplanetruth video asserts that the White House itself was eventually named after him (after Jefferson Davis, Confederate President, coined the term in what seems to be a case of "throwing shade"), but I can't corroborate that. Wouldn't surprise me though as my understanding of what the Civil War actually was slowly transforms. Anyway, I thought it was also noteworthy that it seems that most of the historical accounts we have from this era in this particular area of Maryland are from White’s journals. Wonder how many other times it’s a Jesuit or another True Believer of whatever cause they’re serving that are the only eye witnesses to our entire current “historical understanding” of vast periods of time. A late 19th translation of some of White's journals are available here.

Anyway, Calvert, White, and the rest of their crew founded St. Mary's City, upstream from today's Washington, D.C. near the mouth of the Potamac River. Brief passage from the wiki:

It is also an internationally recognized archaeological research area and training center for archaeologists, and is home to the Historical Archaeology Field School. There have been over 200 archeological digs in St. Mary's city over the last 30 years. Archaeological research continues in the city.

One of those digs in 1990 revealed some interesting finds:

Archaeologists excavating the remains of the Great Brick Chapel in St. Mary's City have detected a mysterious object beneath the 323-year-old Catholic church's ruins.... But, after clearing away the grass and topsoil that covered the spot, archaeologists have found clues suggesting a more intriguing possibility. They suspect it may be the sealed lead coffin of Philip Calvert, Maryland's first chancellor and half brother of Cecil Calvert, Lord Baltimore.... "We're not going to dig it up," said archaeologist Timothy B. Riordan. "We're going to excavate just enough to find out what it is. But we'll conveniently excavate that portion where there might be a name plate."
"Conveniently." Heh. More of their findings later. Continuing on with this article:


The (not original) Great Brick Chapel
The Great Brick Chapel at St. Mary's City was built around 1667 -- just 33 years after Maryland's founding. It replaced the original St. Maries Chapel, the first Catholic chapel in English America. The first building was a wooden structure burned in 1645 by Englishmen working for the anti-Catholic Parliament during England's Civil War.​

There's a 33, so you have to drink. Sorry, I don't make the rules.

St. Mary's City declined when the capital was moved to Annapolis. The place became a ghost town. The brick church stood until 1705. It was demolished by the Jesuits after Maryland's governor ordered it locked following the establishment of the Anglican Church as the colony's official religion...

...No descriptions or drawings of the church are known to have survived. Its location was preserved in local memory by the name given to the place by farmers: Chapel Field.

Archaeologists working for Historic St. Mary's City began looking in earnest for the outlines of Maryland's "lost" capital in 1980, when the land was purchased by the state.
Now we get to the real interesting parts:

The remains of the Brick Chapel itself, buried for 250 years, were not fully exposed again until this past August, and its dimensions were startling.
To their surprise, Miller said, St. Mary's turned out to be a carefully planned little "city" of the Italian Baroque design popular in Europe, with the brick church and the statehouse situated prominently at opposite ends of the main street.

Excavations since then have consistently astonished archaeologists. Survey pits dug on a 20-acre site on Mill Field across the road from Chapel Field turned up 28 significant sites, Miller said, "a remarkable density of archaeological remains."

"Every time we go to a new area to expand what we know, we're amazed," he said. "Just across the road here we found eight other 17th century sites we had no record of."...

"This is an absolutely massive building for the period; it shocked us," Miller said.

The cruciform building was 55 feet long and 58 feet wide at the transepts. The nave is about 31 feet wide. The brick foundation walls are 3 feet thick, dug more than 5 feet into the ground.

"In the Colonial period, most big brick buildings had walls 2 to 2 1/2 feet wide," Miller said. Most were dug no more than 18 inches deep.

The thick foundation walls suggest a building 30 feet high -- "an immense pile of brick" for a frontier settlement of a few hundred people, he said. "It was built to last, and also to be a very powerful symbol, a statement of the role of religious freedom in Maryland."

So what about the coffin that they detected under the remains of the church? It turned out to actually be 3 lead encased coffins, the largest weighing upwards of 1500 lbs!


You can read the entire process of discovery here (and you should, lots of fun details, like the way they determined these were the remains of Philip Calvert, his wife, and apparently bastard baby son is very presumptuous), but I basically wanted to raise the question of how reasonable is it that you have a group of settlers, in the early to mid 16th century, sail over, design a fairly elaborate city with larger than expected buildings and have enough resources that they can encase coffins in 1000 pounds of lead? Oh, and by the way, a few decades later, you abandon all of this to move 60 miles down the river. Maybe what was waiting for them was worth it...

While writing this, I also stumbled upon the following page which travels down a lot of the same routes that KD took in this thread originally. Haven't had a chance to read it all yet, but thought I would post it because it more directly relates to Washington, D.C. (after I took us on a trip up the Potamac).
Last edited:

Similar articles