- Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Part 9 - Part 10 - Part 11 - Part 12 - Part 13 - Part 14 - Part 15 - Part 16 - Part 17 - Part 18 - Part 19 - Part 20 - Part 21 - Part 22 - Part 23 - Part 24 - Part 25 - Part 26 - Part 27 - Part 28 - Part 29 - Part 30 - Part 31 - Part 32 - Part 33 - Part 34 - Part 35 - Part 36 -
The fortress is taken from the inside.
Russian folk saying
Fortress Kalamita. Object "Y"
How often do we use words without bothering to penetrate with thought into their content, meaning, deep meaning! We pronounce the Word like this, WORD it is a meaningless set of sounds that someone accidentally, at his own whim, appropriated to any concept, judgment or definition. But this is not so. Any word has its incredibly harmonious, logical, regular elements, in which a certain providence of higher powers is unconditionally guessed.
Each Word is not just a set of sounds and symbols that designate them, but is a logical structure, the fruit of unconditional design and multifunctional, multi-level construction, which in principle excludes the possibility of accidental origin. It serves to prevent distortion of the essence and meaning of what this Word stands for. Even though on Earth, through the efforts of unscrupulous managers, a whole line of artificial, man-made information transmission systems, such as Latin, Esperanto, or a series of "new languages" for emerging out of the blue, never existed states and nations, has been created, the true meaning of the original and derivative Words cannot be changed.
For example, the word "fortress". What is it? Do we fully understand what was originally called a fortress? It is important to understand here that the properties of something, for example, "strength of the spirit", is a concept primary in relation to the concept of "strength", and not secondary, as it might seem at first glance, which is formulated in all dictionaries approximately the same:
Promotional video:
And what about the primary concept of "strong"? Obviously, "krѣp" is the basic designation of all words with the root "crepe". This is what connects separate parts of something into a single functional whole. That is, it is a structure of many parts, which, thanks to stable, reliable connections, has acquired a new reliable property, which is so needed by a person who is defenseless against the external environment. This property is protection.
Protection is the main and most important meaning of the fortress. Fortress - it protects. As a coast (omitting vowels that are not the basis of any Word - brg) protects a person from the sea, read - death (МР - pestilence, more, morte, muerte). This means that "brg" in any language can mean only one concept associated with protection, amulet - fortress. She, the fortress, is both "berg" and "borg" and "burg". And no matter how anyone tries to modify this word, to give it a foreign "gloss", St. Petersburg, Sveaborg and Sachsenberg mean the same thing, only with the indication of the object of the amulet: Petrov's city, Swedes 'city and Saxons' city.
And it turns out that the matrix for all these Words is the primary concept given in the Russian language - fortress. She's a city. Because the definitions of the words "fortress" and "city" are almost identical:
I made such a long digression because in this chapter we often use the terms “fortress” and “city”. And you need to understand very well the meaning of the Words that denote them. So, let's dwell in more detail on one more of the elements of "Object No. 23".
The security plate has been preserved since the times of the USSR.
The official version, explaining what it is, reads as follows:
Whoever wrote this was clearly misinformed, misled by the "interpreters" who lived and worked earlier. In my opinion, all these references to "ancient Greek" and "modern Greek" (for reference: jokers from linguistic science also distinguish "Middle Greek") are nothing more than Jesuitism, designed to confuse and hide the true purpose of real objects and the essence of events, phenomena and concepts behind layers of senseless heaps of sounds and symbols. As one of the heroes of the popular Soviet comedy film said, "so that no one would guess."
Probably the only surviving graphic symbol in the fortress.
Tower number 3 of the Kalamita fortress is called Gateway
Here, in the destroyed section of masonry, a stunning fragment is visible:
In itself, the use of debris as a scrap that is no longer needed due to the deterioration of objects is not news. But look at the fragment of this vessel: it is not made of ceramic! This is the same limestone from which the sedimentary rocks that formed all the surrounding rocks are composed. And the premises of the "underground city" have already been "cut down" in them. If my delight is not clear to everyone, I will explain.
This artifact fully confirms my version that the "cave city" was not cut out in the rock, but was carved in the deposits of soft clay, which later turned into stone. The jug was also made not of terracotta, but of the same mud - a water-dispersed paste, consisting of liquid, lime and the remains of sea molluscs.
First of all, it is necessary to understand why the “ancient Crimeans” (Or the Karaites? After all, without the vowels, the words “Crimea”, “Crimea” and “Karaite” are identical) needed shelter. From whom did they protect themselves and their loved ones in it? Why did they choose a high rock for shelter on the right edge of the canyon, in a quiet place, away from the Black River, roads and villages.
General view of the fortress, drawing 1783
The fortress, allegedly of the sixth century, consisted of six towers connected by four curtains (walls connecting the towers), three of which have not survived. It was built from rubble stone and blocks of limestone mortar. The thickness of the walls of the fortifications ranged from 1.2 to 4 meters, and the height of the towers was 12 meters. The total length of the structure is 234 meters, and the area is about 1,500 m2.
1 - 6 - Tower numbers, I - "church in Kalamita", II - siege well, III - the temple in the southwest corner of Kalamita.
It is no longer possible to understand the general structure of the fortress, because it is completely destroyed, and the stones were most likely used by local residents for their needs.
Remains of towers No. 1 (right) and No. 2.
Remains of tower No. 5 and curtains.
Tower number 2.
Tower number 4 is the best preserved, so it is the most interesting. Carried out beyond the moat, this tower served as a barbican and was actually an independent structure of the fortress. It was connected with the main fence by a wall laid across the moat. Along the top of this wall, soldiers could move from tower to fortress and back. In the 18th century, tower number 4 contained a prison:
Tower number 4.
In some places, there are preserved elements of the structure made of wood, which looks almost like new, which indicates that the fortress was used quite recently, possibly during the civil war of the 20th century.
Tower number 2.
Between the barbican (a semicircular fortification on one side that protects the entrance to the fortress) and the tower following it, in front of the moat, there is a small cemetery. As expected, almost all of the images from the gravestones were knocked down. Mercy awaited only tombstones with conventionally Christian symbols. “Conditionally,” I said because not all crosses are a sign of Christianity.
Relatively modern burials are also located here:
One of them is a granite obelisk with the inscription: "MT Medvedev, flight mechanic, died at a glorious post on July 14, 1938" and the image of a propeller.
The second is a concrete tombstone with the inscription: "To machine gunner Dmitrichenko, who died heroically on May 2, 1942, covering the retreat of the wounded, women and children."
Once again, we are faced with incredible confusion. All epochs have mixed here, as if in a bartender's shaker, and now even specialists find it very difficult to separate what was built here at what time, how it was used, when and by whom it was destroyed. Construction is credited, as you might guess, to the ubiquitous Genoese. There is even a statement that once on the territory of the fortress there was a stone with an inscription made in Greek:
"This temple was built with a blessed fortress, which is now visible, in the days of Mr. Alexei, the ruler of the city of Theodoro and Pomorie and the patron of the glorious, divinely crowned, great kings and Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine and Helena in the month of October, indict of the sixth, summer 6936".
Apparently, historians cannot present this stone to the public. In Crimea, they generally have great difficulties with inscriptions. Well, they didn't hurry up in time to, following the example of the Mediterranean, ascribe everything that is possible to the glorious "ancient Greeks" and wise "ancient Romans".
According to official science, Alexei was the prince of the Republic of Theodoro with its capital in Mangup. Doesn't Alexei's title seem strange to you? It seems to me rather unusual for the Mediterranean civilization. Also surprising are many Crimean place names that do not fit with the "ancient Roman" or "Byzantine" mythologemes. What are such names as "Gazaria" and "Kalamira", which historians ascribe to Kalamita.
It seems to me that no Khazar Kaganate actually existed. There was an area on the Don, which the local Greek merchants called in their own way "Caesarea", that is, literally, the Kingdom. Khazaria is a distorted name that appeared as a result of the lack of skills in reading ancient texts among illiterate historians of the nineteenth century.
Most likely, it was they who put forward the version that Cesaria is a proper name, which was borne by a certain kaganate. But in fact, it was probably about a medieval military-political formation, which the Greeks simply called: the Kingdom (Cesaria).
The toponym "Kalamira" also evokes persistent associations with the word "Kolomira", which is quite consistent with the traditions accepted among the Slavs. The words "colo" and "world" do not require decoding, and the modern jargon of "The Navel of the Earth" can be considered an analogue of Kolomir. And if my thoughts have even the slightest meaning, then the "comrades of the Genoese" who allegedly founded the fortress should be considered not as part of the peoples inhabiting the Roman Empire, but as our Slavs. In order to be convinced of this, it is enough to consider how the word "Genoa" is spelled in Latin. See for yourself: Genova …
How could anyone dream of the word "Genoa" in this spelling ?! “Nova” is “Newa”, that is, “New”, the prefix “ge”, or, in other words, “he”, could well be considered an analogue of the prefix “ue”, which gives the word immediately after it, the status of seniority. This rule is clearly demonstrated by such words as jerusalem, hierarch, hieromonk, etc. The word "nova" was popular in those days when the Russian language outside the "iron curtain" seemed a mystery, and Western marketers, without knowing it, revealed the intent of forgers, using it as an exotic, attention-grabbing advertising "beacon". What can you do for the sake of the buyer to turn Cinderella into a princess in one fell swoop! This is how the name of one of the Chevrolet models was born:
Chevy Nova, 1983.
Therefore, "genova" or "yenova" can literally mean "new". That is, Genoa in the past could have been a household name, meaning “newer than new”. And if the assumption is correct, then we can confidently assert that a huge layer of history can and should be rethought literally from the very beginning.
Then it becomes clear why the “Italians” from Genoa did not leave a single inscription in Italian in their “Crimean colonies”. All the inscriptions that "miraculously survived" were supposedly made in Greek, but their authenticity raises a lot of questions and doubts. It is very likely that such inscriptions were created after someone strong and large declared the Black Sea region a "zone of strategic interests" of the ancient Mediterranean. Well, how else! Saki (they are probably the Saxons), Scythians, Sarmatians and Goths were wild, according to historians, and fortresses for them could only be built by "enlightened ancient Greeks and Romans."
And could it be otherwise, if even buckwheat, according to scientists, was "invented" by the Greeks, because it allegedly follows from its name. But few people know that this is a historical tale that has nothing to do with reality. In fact, buckwheat has long been growing in Turan (Siberia) and Altai, and the inhabitants of today's Russia ate it 2000 years ago, and the name itself became official after the 15th century. This theory is supported by the fact that buckwheat tartar, tartar Siberian grouse, kyrlyk (Fagopyrum tartaricum) grows wildly in Siberia and is found in two forms: common and rye, or rye (F. tartar. G. var. Stenocarpa).
In Greece itself, they practically do not know about this product, because its homeland is North India and Nepal, where it is called "black rice". Wild plant forms are concentrated on the western spurs of the Himalayas. Buckwheat was introduced into the culture at least 5 thousand years ago.
Around that time, it penetrated into China, Korea and Japan, then into the countries of Central Asia, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and only then into Europe. Perhaps during the western campaign of Batu Khan (1236-1242), but perhaps even earlier, during the campaign against Rome by the troops of Prince Attila, at the beginning of the fifth century. Therefore, it is also called a tartar plant, a tartar.
In France, Belgium, Spain and Portugal it was called "Arabian grain", in Italy - Turkish, and in Germany - simply pagan grain. In many European countries, it is called “beech wheat” (German Buchweizen) because of the similarity of the seeds in shape to beech nuts. Hence the Latin name of the genus Fagopyrum - "beech-like nutlet". In Greece, it is called μαυροσίταρο - black wheat or φαγόπυρο, which is clearly the original basis for the Latin name.
Analyzing these facts, it is easy to come to the conclusion that nothing in this world changes; what was, so will be, and what is above, so below. This means that, as today, in the past times, Crimea had to defend itself against the "concern" of Europeans about the civil rights of the indigenous population of the Crimean peninsula and from the "brotherly help" of the Ottomans to their co-religionists and bloodlines.
Let us assume that everything was so in reality. Then let us imagine for a moment ourselves in the place of the ancient builders of the defensive structure. Here we come to the chosen place and find there an extensive network of underground structures and communications. Are we going to build primitive fortifications from rough boulders right on top of them, not using what has already been built before us?
Obviously not. Any sane person tries as much as possible to use the features of the terrain to equip a defensive line. But why, then, in the fortress there are only a few grotto-crypts, which do not in the slightest way contribute to an increase in the defensive capacity of the fortification facility?
Grottoes in the inner territory of the Kalamita fortress.
Most likely, because they did not have any defensive function initially and subsequently could not be adapted for it in principle. In the same way, other "holes", known as the "cave city", could not be used directly in the interests of defense. In the best case, they could store some supplies, mainly food.
The cave city of Kalamita.
The origin of this "anthill", created in the thickness of the rock, will be discussed below, but it is necessary to say about its use right now. The fact is that almost all structures ever created by man or another form of intelligent life were used at different times for a variety of purposes. Here's a good example.
After the revolution of 1917 and the civil war that followed in Russia, a huge number of places of worship were simply out of work. Some of the parishes were physically exterminated, some migrated to quieter regions (to the Ottoman, German, Austro-Hungarian, British empires, as well as to France, Italy, China and the United States), and the remaining ones were not particularly went to church.
Then a huge number of temples, churches and cathedrals began to fall into desolation, which was more a natural process than the result of persecution of the church. Was it reasonable to destroy the empty temples? Not! It is unreasonable. Therefore, they were used in accordance with the requirements of daily life presented to a person at a given moment. It was foolish not to use a ready-made grain storage room, for example. That is why clubs, cinemas and vegetable stores began to appear in the cult premises that had become unclaimed for their intended purpose. In my opinion, there can be no question of any deliberate "desecration of the abode of God". But this question is quite sensitive and controversial. Let's leave it for culturologists and theologians.
The main thing is to understand that there is nothing supernatural in the fact that buildings and structures, in accordance with human needs, periodically change their purpose. So it is with the "cave cities". Which, by the way, Christians themselves defiled at one time, according to those who used them before the appearance of hermit monks in the caves. Indeed, before the advent of Christians, grottoes were used by the local population as tombs. Each room in the rock was once a crypt for a deceased person. Or even a family crypt. But then the monks came, collected the remains in a heap and reburied them in pits cut out in the rock - ossuary.
Ossuary.
And then, right on the bones of the dead, the first Christians - the Catacombniks - began to perform their religious rites. Well, how can we deal with this? The so-called "cave cities" - is this: cemeteries or catacombs of Christians, in which they hid from "persecution for the faith" by godless pagans? This is one of the most important problems in the identification of ancient structures. No one knows how many times during their existence they changed their purpose and owners.
In the case of multi-level rooms, interconnected by corridors and staircases, arranged at high altitudes in the rocks of dolomite, marl, limestone and shell rock, we see at least three periods of their use:
- as a temporary shelter for their builders;
- as necropolises;
- as housing and places of worship for Christians-catacombers.
But later they were used more than once. Surely they were useful for the inhabitants of the garrisons of later fortresses, such as Kalamita, for storing supplies and as housing. Later, they were even used by partisan detachments both during the Civil War and during the Great Patriotic War.
Backla cave city. An inscription in German in a grotto with a proposal to the partisans to end resistance in exchange for a pardon.
But even today there are many believers who prefer to fast in solitude, far from the benefits of civilization.
A grotto built by a modern hermit in the cave town of Bakla.
This is all about the "cave cities". But in the place of the fortresses, we also observe several historical layers. One of them, obviously, is antique, which, in my opinion, was created immediately after the megalithic antediluvian. Take a look at the base of the central part of the fortress, now almost completely destroyed:
The blocks, crafted with great skill, were exposed in the midst of primitive structures using raw stone. Such elements are typical for most of the buildings, attributed by historians to the times of antiquity. And here's a more interesting find:
The foundation of the citadel.
Part of the citadel itself can be seen in the watercolors of the "ruinist" artist of the first half of the nineteenth century:
Ruins of a Genoese fortress in Inkerman. Carlo Bossoli.
Now look at what I found in the layer exposed from under the clay layer:
This is no longer a primitive masonry, but a real megalith weighing several tens of tons.
Breaks in the megalithic foundation were laid much later by builders who no longer possessed the required level of technology.
And here is an object that has a lot of signs of a high-tech unit in the past, on which there are no removable parts now:
Apparently, including the level of erosion, this artifact may be one of the oldest on the territory of the Kalamita fortress. Only the megaliths at the base of the citadel are younger than him. The "cave city" itself has an even more modest age and here are the elements that tourists for some reason pay the least attention to:
The "melted road" leading from the inner part of the fortress to the arch of tower No. 1.
There is no doubt that no one really melted it. This stone got its appearance thanks to its processing at a time when it was still unfossilized mud.
Parapet, built from blocks that are carved from stone, which is the main building material in Inkerman. These blocks are interesting not only for their geometry and impressive mass. The main thing in them is that they have pronounced traces of water erosion, characteristic of the impact on a still soft, not crystallized material, such as clay, for example. A similar structure is acquired, for example, by snow, which becomes spongy from a drop dripping on it in spring.
In addition, the intensity of desert sunburn may also indicate the age of these stones.
The site at the Siege Well, from which the stairs leading down to the caves of the church in Kalamita begin.
Staircase leading to the dungeon of the church.
Supports of antique balusters, cast directly onto a shell rock block, with the remains of cavities that previously contained fittings.
A fragment of a monolith with notches and channels of unknown purpose, similar to the installation sites of some parts that are currently missing. It is possible that they were made of some kind of metal.
The device of the Siege Well seems to be very interesting. Traces of civilizations of various levels of development are also visible here. Approximately such "delights of folk tuning" can be seen after repairing a modern car in a private garage by an enthusiastic locksmith, who hastily fixes the parts that have fallen off with the help of a sledgehammer, wire and a strong word.
Well, the latest traces left by a man in Inkerman amaze visiting tourists with their scale. The limestone quarry at the foot of the Kalamita fortress, of course, cannot be compared in size with the Chernaya river canyon, but it looks very impressive:
It was here that some episodes of the famous film "Inhabited Island" directed by Fyodor Bondarchuk were filmed - a Russian science fiction film, an adaptation of the novel of the same name by the Strugatsky brothers. It was released in 2009 in two parts.
The shooting location of the base of the guards in the film * Inhabited Island *.
No less limestone quarry is impressive in the adits of the cement quarry on the side of the canyon opposite to the Kalamita fortress:
These gigantic structures were not cut out by giants or aliens, as some exalted tourists seem to think. In fact, everything is much simpler: this is the result of the activities of the military construction detachment (construction battalion), which was mining limestone here, suitable for the production of cement.
As soon as the reserves of gray lime were completely removed from the quarry, the cement plant at the foot of the mountain also stopped. His remains stand to this day:
It's a little sad that these objects do not belong to the megalithic civilization, but many more genuine sensations await us ahead. The next stop of the expedition "Crimea - 2018" was another mountain, which is considered part of the object number 23.
Continued: Part 38
Author: kadykchanskiy