- Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 -
Digression with explanation to the previous parts:
Many reproached me for not mentioning forest fires, which regularly destroy millions of hectares of forests in Siberia, when I spoke about the age of the forests. Yes, indeed, forest fires over a large area are a big problem for the preservation of forests. But in the topic that we are considering, it is important that there are no old forests on this territory. The reason they are missing is another matter. In other words, one can accept the version that the reason that the forests in Siberia “live no more than 120 years” (as one of the commentators stated) is precisely the fires. This option, in contrast to the “relict” forests, does not contradict the fact that at the beginning of the 19th century a large-scale planetary catastrophe occurred in the Trans-Urals and Western Siberia.
However, it should be noted that fires cannot explain a very thin layer of soil in the territory of the forest belt. In case of fires, only the two upper horizons of the soil layer with indices A0 and A1 will burn out (decryption in part 3b). The rest of the horizons practically do not burn and should have survived. In addition, I was sent a link to one of the works where the consequences of forest fires are investigated. It follows from it that it is easy to determine from the soil layer that there was a fire in this area, since a layer of ash will be observed in the soil. At the same time, according to the depth of the ash layer, one can even approximately determine when the fire occurred. So if you carry out research on the spot, you can tell for sure whether the ribbon burs ever burned or not, as well as the approximate time when this happened.
Another addition relates to the part about the fortress in the village of Miass. Since this village is located 40 km. from Chelyabinsk, where I live, then one weekend I made a short trip there, during which I personally had no doubts that the fortress was once on the site of the island, and the channel that now separates the island is what was left of the moat that surrounded the fortress and the houses adjacent to it.
Firstly, on the terrain, where, according to the fortress's scheme, there should be an upper right corner of the channel with a protruding "ray", there is a hill about 1.5 meters high with rectangular outlines. From this hill towards the river one can see a rampart, the direction of which also coincides with the direction of the channel in the diagram. This shaft is cut approximately in the middle by a duct. Unfortunately, it was not possible to get to the island, since the bridge, which is visible in the picture, is no longer there. Therefore, I'm not 100% sure, but from this bank it seems that on the opposite bank in the place where the fortress should have been, there is also a rampart. At least that bank is noticeably higher. Where the upper left corner of the fortress should have been, which is now cut off by a channel, there is a flat rectangular area on the ground.
But the most important thing is that I managed to talk right on the shore next to the channel with the local residents. They confirmed that today's bridge is new, the old bridge is below, next to the island. At the same time, they do not know exactly where the fortress was, but they showed me the old foundation of some structure, which is located in their garden. So this foundation runs exactly parallel to the direction of the channel, which means the position of the old fortress, but at an angle to the existing layout of the village.
The question remains, however, why the fortress was built so close to the water, because it would have to be flooded during the spring flood. Or was the presence of a moat with water that protected the fortress and the village much more important for them than the spring flooding?
Promotional video:
Or maybe there is another answer to this question. It is possible that at that time the climate was different, there was no big spring flood at all, so it was not taken into account.
When the first part was published, some of the commentators pointed out that such a large-scale catastrophe must have affected the climate, but we allegedly have no evidence that climate change occurred at the beginning of the 19th century.
Indeed, in such a catastrophe, when forests are destroyed over a large area and the top fertile layer of the soil is damaged, serious climate changes are inevitable.
Firstly, forests, especially coniferous ones, play the role of heat stabilizers, preventing the soil from freezing too much in winter. There are studies that show that in cold weather the temperature near the spruce trunk can be 10C-15C higher than in open space. In summer, on the contrary, the temperature in the forests is lower.
Secondly, forests provide water balance, preventing water from escaping too quickly and the earth from drying out.
Thirdly, during the catastrophe itself, during the passage of a dense meteorite stream, both overheating and increased pollution will be observed, both from those meteorites that collapsed in the air before reaching the Earth, and from the dust and ash that will form during the fall and surface damage by meteorites, the size of which, judging by the traces in the images, from several tens of meters to several kilometers. In addition, we do not know the real composition of the meteor shower that collided with the Earth. It is very likely that in addition to large and very large objects, the traces of which we observe, this stream also contained medium and small objects, as well as dust. Medium and small objects should have collapsed when passing through the atmosphere. At the same time, the atmosphere itself should have been warmed up and filled with the decay products of these meteorites. Very small objects and dust should have slowed down in the upper layers of the atmosphere, forming a kind of dust cloud, which can be transported by winds thousands of kilometers from the crash site, after which, with an increase in atmospheric humidity, it can fall down as mud rain. And all the time, while this dust was in the air, it created a shielding effect, which should have had consequences similar to "nuclear winter". Since sunlight does not reach the surface of the Earth, the temperature should have dropped significantly, causing a local cooling, a kind of small ice age. And all the time, while this dust was in the air, it created a shielding effect, which should have had consequences similar to "nuclear winter". Since sunlight does not reach the surface of the Earth, the temperature should have dropped significantly, causing a local cooling, a kind of small ice age. And all the time, while this dust was in the air, it created a shielding effect, which should have had consequences similar to "nuclear winter". Since sunlight does not reach the surface of the Earth, the temperature should have dropped significantly, causing a local cooling, a kind of small ice age.
In the museum, which is located next to the monument, you can see a detailed model of the structure shown in the photographs. It consists of two rings, which are formed by elongated living quarters, with an exit from each to the inner circle. The width of one section is about 6 meters, the length is about 30 meters. There is no passage between the sections, they are located close to each other. The whole structure is surrounded by a wall that is higher than the roofs of the internal buildings.
At one time, when I first saw the reconstruction of Arkaim, I was struck by the very high technical and technological level of the residents of Arkaim. Building a structure with a roof 6 meters wide and 30 meters long is far from the easiest technical task. But this is not what interests us now.
When designing any buildings and structures, the designer must take into account such a parameter as the snow load on the roof. The snow load depends on the climate characteristics of the area where the building or structure will be located. Based on long-term observations, a set of parameters for such calculations is determined for all regions.
From the construction of Arkaim it follows absolutely unambiguously that at the time when he existed, there was no snow in this area at all in winter! That is, the climate in this area was much warmer. Imagine that a good snowfall has passed over Arkaim, which is not uncommon in winter in the Varna district of the Chelyabinsk region. And what to do with the snow?
If we take a typical village today, then there are usually enough steep gable roofs on the houses so that the snow itself rolls down from them as it accumulates or when it melts in spring. There are long distances between houses, where this snow can accumulate. That is, usually a modern resident of a village house or cottage does not need to do anything specifically to solve the problem of snow. Unless in case of very heavy snowfalls, help the snow down in one way or another.
Arkaim's design is such that in case of snowfall, you have a lot of problems. The roofs are flat and large. That means they will collect a lot of snow and it will remain on them. We have no gaps between sections to throw snow there. If we throw snow into the inner passage, it will fill up with snow very quickly. Throw it out through the wall above the roof? But, firstly, it is very long and laborious, and secondly, after a while a snow shaft will form around the wall, and quite dense, since the snow becomes noticeably compacted during cleaning and dumping. And this means that the defensive ability of your wall is sharply reduced, since it will be easier to climb the wall along the snow shaft. To spend a lot of time and energy on pushing the snow further away from the wall?
Now let's imagine what will happen to Arkaim if a snow storm begins, which also occurs in that area quite often in winter. And since there is a circle of steppes, in case of strong snow storms, houses can be covered with snow to the very roofs. And Akraim, in the event of a strong snow storm, can bring snow along the outermost walls! And it will certainly sweep all the internal passages to the level of the roofs of the residential sections. So if you do not have hatches in the roofs, then getting out of these sections after the storm will not be so easy.
I have great doubts that the residents of Arkaim would build their city without taking into account the problems listed above, and then suffer every winter with snow and drifts during a storm. Such a structure could be built only where there is either no snow at all in winter, or there is very little and very rarely, without forming a permanent snow cover. This means that the climate at the time of Arkaim in the south of the Chelyabinsk region was similar to the climate of southern Europe or even milder.
But, skeptics may notice, Arkaim existed for a long time. For several thousand years from the moment Arkaim was destroyed, the climate could have changed many times. From what follows that this change took place precisely at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century?
Again, if such a climate change happened so close to us, then there must be evidence of a sharp cold snap in documents, books and newspapers of that time. And, indeed, evidence of such a sharp cooling in 1815-1816 is abundant, 1816 is generally known as the "year without summer".
Here's what they wrote about this period in Canada:
Similar evidence can be found in the United States and in European countries, including Russia.
But according to the official version, this cooling was allegedly caused by the most powerful eruption of the Tambora volcano on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa. It is interesting that this volcano is located in the southern hemisphere, while the catastrophic consequences for some reason were observed in the northern hemisphere.
The eruption of the Krakatau volcano, which occurred on August 26, 1883, destroyed the tiny islet of Rakata, located in a narrow strait between Java and Sumatra. The sound was heard at a distance of 3,500 kilometers in Australia and on Rodriguez Island, which is 4,800 kilometers away. It is believed that this was the loudest sound in the entire written history of mankind; it was heard in 1/13 of the globe. This eruption was somewhat weaker than the Tambor eruption, but there was practically no catastrophic effect on the climate at all.
When it became clear that the eruption of Tambora volcano alone was not enough to cause such catastrophic climate changes, a cover legend was invented that in 1809, allegedly somewhere in the tropics, another eruption occurred, comparable to the eruption of Tambora, but which no one was recorded. And it was thanks to these two eruptions that an abnormally cold period from 1810 to 1819 was observed. How it happened that such a powerful eruption was unnoticed by anyone, the authors of the work do not explain, and the eruption of the Tambora volcano is still a question of whether it was as strong as the British write about it, under whose control the island of Sumbawa was at that moment. Therefore, there is reason to assume that these are just legends of covering up the true reasons,which caused catastrophic climate change in the Northern Hemisphere.
These doubts arise also because in the case of volcanic eruptions, the impact on the climate is temporary. Some cooling is observed due to ash, which is thrown into the upper atmosphere and creates a shielding effect. As soon as this ash settles, the climate is restored to its original state. But in 1815 we have a completely different picture, because if in the USA, Canada and most European countries the climate gradually recovered, then in most of Russia there was a so-called "climatic shift", when the average annual temperature dropped sharply and then did not return. No volcanic eruption, and even in the Southern Hemisphere, could cause such a climatic shift. But the massive destruction of forests and vegetation over a large area, especially in the middle of the continent, should have just such an effect. Forests act as temperature stabilizers, preventing the land from freezing too much in winter, as well as heating up and drying out too much in summer.
There is evidence that before the 19th century the climate in Russia, including St. Petersburg, was noticeably warmer. The first edition of the Britannica encyclopedia from 1771 says that the main supplier of pineapples to Europe is the Russian Empire. True, it is difficult to confirm this information, since it is almost impossible to get access to the original of this publication.
But, as in the case of Arkaim, a lot can be said about the climate of the 18th century from the buildings and structures that were built at that time in St. Petersburg. During repeated trips to the suburbs of St. Petersburg, in addition to admiration for the talent and skill of builders of the past, I drew attention to one interesting feature. Most of the palaces and mansions that were built in the 18th century were built for a different, warmer climate!
First, they have a very large window area. The walls between the windows are equal or even less than the width of the windows themselves, and the windows themselves are very high.
Secondly, in many buildings, a heating system was not originally envisaged; it was built later into the finished building.
For example, let's look at the Catherine Palace in Tsarskoye Selo. A stunning huge building. But, as we are assured, this is a "summer palace". It was built supposedly only to come here exclusively in the summer.
If you look at the facade of the palace, you can clearly see a very large area of windows, which is typical for the southern, hot regions, and not for the northern territories.
Later, at the beginning of the 19th century, an annex was made to the palace, where the famous lyceum was located, in which Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin studied together with the future Decembrists. The annex differs not only in its architectural style, but also in the fact that it has already been built for new climatic conditions, the area of the windows is noticeably smaller.
The left wing, which is next to the Lyceum, was substantially rebuilt at about the same time as the Lyceum was being built, but the right wing remained in the same form as it was originally built. And in it you can see that the stoves for heating the premises were not originally planned, but were added later to the already finished building.
This is how the cavalry (silver) dining room looks like.
The stove was simply placed in a corner. Wall decoration ignores the presence of a stove in this corner, that is, it was done before it appeared there. If you look at the upper part, you can see that it does not fit snugly against the wall, since the curly gilded relief decoration of the top of the wall interferes with it.
It can be clearly seen that the wall decoration continues behind the stove.
Here is another of the halls of the palace. Here the stove fits better into the existing corner design, but if you look at the floor, you can see that the stove is just standing on top. The pattern on the floor ignores the presence of the stove, going under it. If the stove was originally planned in this room in this place, then any master would have made a floor pattern with this fact in mind.
And in the great hall of the palace there are no stoves or fireplaces at all!
The official legend, as I have already said, says that this palace was originally planned as a summer palace, they did not live there in winter, so it was built like that.
Very interesting! In fact, this is not just a shed, which can easily overwinter without heating. And what will happen to the interiors, paintings and sculptures that are carved from wood if the premises are not heated in winter? If you freeze all this in winter, and let it damp in the spring and autumn, then how many seasons can all this splendor stand, on the creation of which huge efforts and resources were spent? Catherine was a very intelligent woman and she had to understand such and such things well.
Continued: Part 7