Tartaria (or Tartary)
Tartaria (or Tartary) is one of those historical-geographical names that started out quite real — and then, in recent years, got swept into some big internet myths.
The Historical Tartary
-
When it was real: From the Middle Ages up to the 19th century, European maps and writings used the word Tartary to label huge, vaguely understood lands in Central Asia, Siberia, and parts of the Far East.
-
What it meant: It wasn’t a single country or empire — more like a “here be dragons” label for places Europeans didn’t have detailed knowledge of. It covered Mongol territories, nomadic steppes, and later Russian-controlled Siberia.
-
People: “Tartars” (or Tatars) were Turkic and Mongolic peoples in those regions, not one single ethnic group.
The Modern Myth Version
In the last decade, especially on YouTube and fringe history forums, “Tartaria” has been reimagined as:
-
A lost advanced civilization supposedly erased from history in the 19th century.
-
Connected to claims of “free energy,” “mud floods,” and giant architecture hidden in plain sight.
-
Often tied to conspiracy theories that mainstream history is deliberately hiding evidence of this civilization.
Why historians push back:
There’s no credible archaeological or historical evidence for a unified “Tartarian Empire” with high technology. The modern version often mixes:
-
Old maps showing “Tartary” (misinterpreted as proof of a single empire)
-
Architectural styles from the 18th–19th centuries (claimed to be much older)
-
Selective readings of unexplained events like mudslides or fires.
In short:
-
Historically: Tartary was a vague map label for a vast, little-known region of Asia.
-
Modern internet lore: A speculative “lost civilization” theory, popular in alternative history circles but not supported by mainstream evidence.
Alright — lace up your imaginary explorer boots, because the “Tartaria” rabbit hole winds through dusty map rooms, abandoned World’s Fair pavilions, and a lot of suspiciously clean brickwork.
Step 1 — The Old Maps
-
In the 1500s–1800s, European mapmakers used “Tartary” for any part of Central Asia, Siberia, or even Manchuria that wasn’t well documented.
-
On these maps, you’ll see:
-
Great Tartary (Siberia, Mongolia)
-
Little Tartary (Crimea area)
-
Chinese Tartary (Manchuria)
-
-
Modern Tartaria theorists look at these labels and say:
“See? Here’s proof of a real empire they don’t tell us about today.”
-
Reality: it’s like finding an old atlas that labels North America as “New France” and assuming France still secretly owns it.
Step 2 — The Mud Flood Theory
-
Some believe a worldwide cataclysm in the 1800s buried cities in mud, erasing a high-tech civilization.
-
Evidence they point to:
-
Buildings with half-buried ground floors or windows below street level.
-
Perfect stonework and massive arches in places supposedly too “primitive” at the time.
-
-
Historians explain it with:
-
Urban regrading (cities raising street levels)
-
Basement windows for ventilation
-
19th-century construction techniques
-
Step 3 — The Architecture Twist
-
Big, ornate stone buildings from the late 1800s–early 1900s — like courthouses, railway stations, and world fair structures — are claimed to be inherited from Tartaria rather than built by the people of the time.
-
The claim:
“They couldn’t have built this in 1890 with horse-drawn carts and steam engines.”
-
The counterpoint:
The industrial revolution + skilled stonemasonry = absolutely possible, and well documented.
Step 4 — The World’s Fairs Connection
-
Theorists often focus on World Expositions (like Chicago 1893), saying the grand “White City” buildings were actually Tartarian leftovers.
-
Officially, these were temporary plaster-covered structures, built fast and demolished after.
-
Conspiracists: “Why demolish? Because they didn’t want you to know they were ancient.”
Step 5 — Why It Stuck Online
-
Mystery + aesthetics = clickbait gold.
-
Tartaria appeals because it mixes:
-
The romance of lost civilizations (Atlantis vibes)
-
Visible, tangible “evidence” (photos of old architecture)
-
A distrust of mainstream history
Comments
Post a Comment