Where is Samarkand? Is Oxus Civilization a lie?

A while ago, I wrote an article on the age of the Aral Sea. In the process, I noticed that the city of Samarkand was not properly placed on our contemporary maps. In other words, our contemporary Samarkand is not the same Samarkand from where Tamerlane used to rule over his Timurid Empire. These two locations are not even close to each other.

The Aral Sea is indeed much younger than we are being told. Sounds like the Aral Sea formed in or around 1719, according to this 1739 source.
aral-sea-1719.jpg

The above text also tells us that river Oxus (we are told it's Amu Darya today) did some serious shenanigans with its course. The most important part about the Oxus river is that it used to flow into the Caspian Sea in mid-1600s. As you can see below, today, Amu Darya (Oxus) flows into the Aral Sea.

Aral_Sea_watershed.jpg

Source
The general area depicted below is a truth seeker's gold mine. Some facts you inevitably end up discovering, cast some serious doubt on the qualification of professional historians and archeologists covering the area. They even created this fictional Oxus civilization.
  • The Bactria - Margiana Archaeological Complex (aka the Oxus Civilization) is the modern archaeological designation for a particular Middle Bronze Age civilization of southern Central Asia also known as the Oxus Civilization.
  • The civilization's urban phase or Integration Era, was dated in 2010 by Sandro Salvatori to c. 2400–1950 BC, but a different view is held by Nadezhda A. Duvoba and Bertille Lyonnet, c. 2250–1700 BC.
  • The Oxus Civilization
"Professional" historians sell us this ridiculous fiction of some recently discovered 4,500 year old civilization. IMHO, this civilization never existed during the suggested time period, And when it did exist, it was no separate "civilization." It was merely an area of the world populated by people representing the general world civilization of the time. And the time when this "Oxus Civilization" collapsed was roughly between ~1640 and 1680s, when the Caspian Sea changed its shape. So... about 400 years ago?
  • That is using the conventional chronological time line.
The Area in Question.
caspian-area.jpg

Map Source
It's not hard to see the outlines of the below c. 1635 Caspian Sea on the above Google Maps cut out.

My best overlaying attempt produced the following image.

cs-2.jpg

Naturally, I figured that coastal cities of the 1600s Caspian Sea should still be present in some shape or form.

border-1.jpg

The below video can give you an idea on the narrative compliant version of the events in the area outlined above.




Willem Guilielmus Janszoon Blaeu
For my research, I chose this map, allegedly produced by Willem Blaeu around 1635. There are other similar looking maps out there, but this one stands out. Willem Blaeu was a Dutch cartographer who died in 1638. If we are to believe the narrative, then there is nothing more important in his bio than this line here:
220px-Willem_Jansz_Blaeu.jpg

And while the Dutch East India Company had no apparent interest in the Caspian region, I doubt that they would rely on some bogus and inaccurate maps in their colonization endeavors.

Latitude and Longitude
Not trying to insult anyone's intelligence here, but do have to cover this Geographic Coordinate System. It's gonna be easier to explain certain things as we go.
Lat_Long.jpg

1 degree of Latitude = 69 miles:
  • A degree of latitude, one degree north or south, is about the same distance anywhere, about 69 miles (111 kilometers).
1 degree of Longitude - varies:
  • A degree of longitude, one degree east or west, is a different distance at different points on the globe. At the equator, a degree of longitude is the same as a degree of latitude, about 69 miles (111 km). But it decreases as you move closer to the north or south pole.
Longitude degree distance calculator: link
  • For the purpose of this article 1 degree of longitude equals
    • 52 miles at 40 degrees north of Equator.
    • 50 miles at 43 degrees north of Equator.
    • 48 miles at 45 degrees north of Equator. - the one I'm actually gonna use.
A Prime Meridian
While everyone appears to have no issue with where the Equator is, the Prime Meridian had to be agreed upon. Today we use the Greenwich Meridian. Back in the day there were tons of different Prime Meridians. In this article we will utilize the Prime Meridian used by Willem Blaeu.
Today, we have the following, Greenwich based coordinates for:
Now let's compare the relative placement of Astrakhan vs. Samarkand on the Blaeu's (~1635) Map, and compare it to what we have today.

1635
Samarkand-2.jpg

On the above map, we have approximately (102-77) 25 degrees of Longitude between Astrakhan and Samarkand.
  • 25 degrees x 48 miles = 1200 miles west to east distance in 1635.​
Today
Samarkand-3.jpg

On the current today's map, we have approximately (66.5 - 48) 18.5 degrees of Longitude between Astrakhan and Samarkand.
  • 18.5 degrees x 48 miles = 888 miles west to east distance in 2023.​
Naturally, the discrepancy in west to east distance between 1635 and today equals approximately (1200 - 888) 312 miles.
  • Approximate vertical, south to north latitudinal distance differential you can calculate yourself.
  • On today's map, we have approximately 7 degree difference between the two.
  • On the 1635 map we have 2.5, may be 3 degrees separating Astrakhan and Samarkand.
  • The 1635 map's latitudinal scales do not go that far north.
  • At 69 miles per degree... you be the judge.
When placed on a contemporary map, the geographical discrepancy should look something like this.

map-33.jpg


Where was Samarkand in 1635?
When we use distances established using the 1635 map, the original Samarkand should be located (approximately of course) at the following coordinates:
  • ~ 45 degrees North and ~ 73 degrees East.
  • Obviously, the margin of error is 69 miles north-south, and 48 miles east-west.
samarkand34.jpg


KD: Where am I wrong? And if I'm not...
  • What not so ancient city is impersonating Samarkand today?
  • What city is impersonating Bukhara?
  • What happened to the original cities in question?
 
Here a simple example of how historians tend to apply their "methods" in a random way.

In a previous source mentioned by KD we read:

x1.jpg
So basically historians claim that the regional geography was always like today because of a couple reasons:
  1. An "ancient" geographer and traveller supposedly said so.​
  2. The translation of that "ancient" geographer book transforms the "lake of Kharezm" into the Aral Sea.​
There's no need to point at the absolute vagueness of the main source. All is needed is take into consideration the "map" of the Caspian Sea by the same author to understand that no real definitive conclusion can be obtained.
So with this in mind we turn to our present day and we see that a similar story of rivers and sources of water diverted in the region is at the base of the modern draught which led to the disappearance of the Aral Sea (Stalin's plan for the transformation of nature).
In this case historians say it's true because it's a recent event with tons of proofs and modern sources, while the events described for the year 1719 should be dismissed by an Arab who didn't even mention the Aral by its name!

If this can be done for an entire sea I suppose the same can be done for a city, no matter how big and important it was (and I'm not saying it was done). I also wonder what local source tells of the events of the year 1719. If none can be found then I suppose that "locals" are probably not always the ultimate source of "The Truth".
 
Why do people have the tendency to twist in the wrong way what I say? I never said that!
I believe your words do say that even if you did not say it directly. Whether you meant that or not is a separate question.

I will just bring these two images from the above post.

Tashkent- A Newe Mape of Tartary augmented by John Speede . . . 1626 (1).jpg

Tashkent.jpg

It appears that a cartographer who is off by 700 miles would by definition be an incompetent moron.
They were traveling on horse and carts in a caravan through the most beaten path of other caravans and they were able to chart the route and the towns and cities along that route with good accuracy, but outside the path there was endless desert in which no one ventured to go in because it meant death due to lack of water and food. No one is idiot enough to go 50-60 km outside of the beaten path, not even cartographers where it is just the unknown and you can go but risk to not come back.
This would be a pure speculation on your part, unless you are able to provide some first hand accounts provided by the cartographers who produced the maps in question. I am not saying that your estimate is not correct, but without some sort of substantiation, it's just a speculation.

How would you explain the instance below, where something that was well known, and mapped became not only forgotten, but totally reshaped?
  • It's a well known fact (per the contemporary narrative) that Africa was unexplored until the 19th century.
1570-1812_Map of Africa.jpg

Source

Going back to the Caspian debacle. Somehow, same cartographers were able to get the outline of the Black Sea correctly, but were time and time again wrong about the size and shape of the Caspian Sea.
  • The mapped shape change progression of the Caspian Sea can be seen here.
map11.jpg

map12.jpg

And to be clear, we are not talking about some minor discrepancy.
Considering that the Silk Road was allegedly passing through the area for god knows how long, this should have been the best mapped area in the world. Trade routes, to exist for so long, should have been secured by trade/commercial interests of the local rulers and neighboring cities. Hence safe for mapping.

Yet, for over a 1500 years, those who traveled through the area were unable to figure out that the Caspian Sea was:
  • north-south 750 miles long and east-west 200 miles wide
  • not north-south 345 miles long by east-west 870 miles wide
silkr1.jpg

Coincidentally, there is also a clear and discernable outline of the 17th century Caspian Sea on the contemporary areal view map.

coincident.jpg
 
I believe your words do say that even if you did not say it directly. Whether you meant that or not is a separate question.

I will just bring these two images from the above post.
Akhabarr could be a mistake from my part and it was an extra piece when I said that Samarkand is found many times in between Bukhara in the left and Tashkent in the right in an oblique North-East line, Akhabar was unnecessary to make my point because I already proved the position of the three cities, it was again extra, and the fact that is wrong and your only problem with that line of reasoning of mine, it means that you desperately were searching for something to prove me wrong. Even small unnecessary details like that.
This would be a pure speculation on your part, unless you are able to provide some first hand accounts provided by the cartographers who produced the maps in question. I am not saying that your estimate is not correct, but without some sort of substantiation, it's just a speculation.
Granted I don't have proof at the moment, it's speculation.
Going back to the Caspian debacle. Somehow, same cartographers were able to get the outline of the Black Sea correctly, but were time and time again wrong about the size and shape of the Caspian Sea.
I never debated that point. Hydro-graphy of the region could have changed through the years and I'm fine with it. But in the same time Samarkand changes it position in different maps too, so you should keep in mind that also.
How would you explain the instance below, where something that was well known, and mapped became not only forgotten, but totally reshaped?
For me the old map of Africa is a forgery and a copy of the current models, it has sensationalistic value only for conspiracy sites. I'll keep this position until proven otherwise.

It looks like you make threads with open ended question marks, but you don't like the answers that people come up with. Or better, you like certain answers only customized to your idea and bias. If this is so, then don't have people going around in vain in circles and searching for stuff you don't agree with, just put your own answer and be done with it. It feels like you're playing with people.
Good luck with your research for Samarkand I don't have anything more for it.
 
Last edited:
It looks like you make threads with open ended question marks, but you don't like the answers that people come up with. Or better, you like certain answers only customized to your idea and bias. If this is so, then don't have people going around in vain in circles and searching for stuff you don't agree with, just put your own answer and be done with. It feels like you're playing with people.
Good luck with your research for Samarkand I don't have anything more for it.
I am not sure what civilized debating has anything to do with liking or disliking. Me having an opposing point of view does not mean I like or dislike your answer. I simply disagree with it, and try to bring whatever evidence our history left us with, to support my point of view. Granted, the pickings are slim, but there are some things that we do have.

The way I see it, we simply operate differently. For me nothing is a matter of unsubstantiated belief.
For me the old map of Africa is a forgery and a copy of the current models, it has sensationalistic value only for conspiracy sites. I'll keep this position until proven otherwise.
I'm not considering Latitudes and Longitudes because I repute them to be wrong, the grid system could not be synced to the map and does not correspond to the terrain.
These old maps were not meant to be accurate but to give a general idea of where cities, towns, rivers, lakes deserts are located so someone can take a quick look and understand how many geographical features are there, either from a military point of view or commercial. Which city is after the next and so on. These maps are not made so you can plot a course of travel on them and expect to exactly reach the destination by navigating the land with today's accuracy.
It's obvious that current maps do not correspond with older maps. The question is why, and the answer should be beyond a simple belief, otherwise it becomes a matter of faith, not fact.
 
Some links for the history of cartography well researched from the University of Chicago. It shows how hard it was to survey the land with different methods and how those methods evolved. Including, instruments for measuring bearings, latitudes through the Polar star and eclipses, value tables from other surveyors with different mathematical methods, how to account for magnetic declination, inaccuracy of methods and distortion of the shape of continents through the years, the Mercator projection and much more.

Sources that map makers used when engraving their atlases, like the Jesuits missionaries surveys, the Bible, Pliny and Ptolemy.

The Mapmakers Who Made the 17th Century

The History of Cartography - Uni of Chicago
That site has it all and it is relevant to the thread.
 
Last edited:

Similar articles

Back
Top