- 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 -
The next continuation of the cycle is about structures covered with soil, which cannot be explained by cultural layers or by the answer “they built it this way”.
Catacombs of Domicilla, Rome.
Lyrical introduction.
Many readers ask: what's the point if the 265th part of this series of articles comes out again? Collecting facts, marking time. There is a sense! While there is a question and no answer, these collections of facts (albeit not always bright and revealing) will be published. There are versions that only superficially explain this phenomenon. There is an official answer from archaeologists and historians (cultural layer or subsidence of buildings), which few people are satisfied with.
There are also new readers who come across this topic for the first time.
In addition, similar works by other authors on these topics appear (mainly on YouTube), they show other facts. Many people watch the channels: Chairman, Freethinker, History of Pi, etc. No, but drawing attention to the topic. If we do not talk about this, then everything will come to naught to the level of the daily routine of our life and blinkered views.
Observation from auffallend: An interesting article about a complex of buildings in Arkhangelsk, where the first described building is clearly buried on one floor, which is confirmed by the drawing given here, but this does not bother the author of the article at all.
Promotional video:
Link
Excerpts from the article:
The foundation stone of the building was carried out on June 8, 1779 by Archbishop Benjamin himself.
The complex consists of 5 buildings, some of which have come down to us since the construction of the complex - this is a bishop's house and an outhouse.
Count how many floors, remember the type of building.
See the difference? This is not a basement floor, but a full floor!
It can be assumed that at the beginning of the 19th century. something happened that led to the onset of the Little Ice Age, a year without summer in 1816. and so on. And such a picture appears: the entry of buildings built at the end of the 18th century. several meters with clay.
Then, logically, clay is settled dust, volcanic dust, mudflows? Just don’t ask again why it’s not in books, chronology, history, etc. I also answered this.
***
Sent by one of the readers:
Excavations. Gregorian Etruscan Museum, Vatican. Prétoire Julianum - Via Flamina - B. Nocchi (1780).
As they say, no comment. Although, no, I will add my comment. Ancient buildings in Rome and other cities in Italy at a depth of 8m are the consequences of a mudflow. This is not the accumulation of cultural layers and the subsidence of buildings into the ground. In Piranesi's paintings, these consequences are well shown.
Catacombs of Domicilla, Rome.
The feeling is that these are buildings and floors of an ancient city. In the Middle Ages, they were dug up and called the catacombs. Others were dug up from the surface. Otherwise, what's the point of using such a huge volume of bricks in dungeons? When digging, the pillars of soil are left as props and arched vaults are made.
If the catacombs were formed after the extraction of limestone, then why weren't the columns, pillars, vaults built from the same limestone? Why did they lower the brick?
***
Basement of one of the buildings on Nevsky Prospekt in St. Petersburg. Is the house on the foundation of something older?
Year of construction of the house: 1770. about … Reconstruction took place in 1910, and it consisted of a partial reconstruction of the building, the addition of two upper floors …
***
In the "country of cities", not far from Arkaim, there is an archaeological complex of Sintashta similar in structure. Excavations were also carried out there:
The remains of a chariot and a "burial ground" of horses were found. The scheme of the alleged burial is shown in the diagram in the lower right corner.
Maybe this is not a burial, but traces of the catastrophe that covered the settlement? What is the practical sense of burying a chariot with the deceased and killing the horses?
I do not believe that the ancients were so blinkered at cults that in fact they were engaged in the destruction of the most valuable things and means of transportation.
***
Tehran goes underground
Information as an addition to the previous part.
The study found that in some places the city is sinking at an alarming rate of about 25 cm per year.
The researchers used Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) to detect even the smallest difference in ground deformation.
We also found out that the land around Tehran's international airport drops by almost 5 cm per year. The reason the city goes underground is that Iran's many underground water bodies are severely depleted. From 1984 to 2011, the average groundwater level in Tehran decreased by almost 12 meters. Some cracks in the ground southeast of Tehran range from several kilometers in length to four meters in width and depth.
How can this process be related to the imported buildings? I think it can. For example, this suggests that groundwater levels change over time. Previously, it was much higher and liquefied the soils, they became saturated with water and the buildings in them slowly, but sank. Videos and examples were given in the previous part.
Also, such a rapid departure of groundwater can be associated with a natural process. If we assume that all the soil in the region is the consequences of a flood several hundred years ago, then it will dry out for centuries, and the water lenses in it will disappear.
***
It turned out that in my archives for several years there has been a small selection of the entered temples. I take it out for review and discussion.
Observations from readers:
iatr: there is the Temple of Sophia the Wisdom of God on the Sofia embankment, directly opposite the Kremlin. So this Temple is 2 meters drowned in the ground, and the year of construction is 1682.
At least one more floor suggests itself. In this form, the temple does not look harmonious, somehow low.
Based on the photographs I found on the network, I could not verify the fact of entry by soil. Maybe someone was there and saw the picture. Please comment.
***
evatutin: there are photos of the Znamensky Monastery in Kursk - it is also buried in the ground at least 2-3 meters
Obviously, the entrance was on the floor below.
That is, judging by the old photo, the building was repaired, dug up and buried again?
Continuation across Kursk:
Pavlunovsky Street. 51 ° 43'34.35 "N 36 ° 9'59.65" E in Google Maps.
Puzanov's mansion (51 ° 43'33.67 "N 36 ° 10'45.81" E).
***
axsmyth:
Many years ago I came across an abandoned church in the New village of the Uglich region. There were very indicative nuances. The church consists of three parts: a bell tower with an entrance to the building, the building itself, one-story with a gable roof, and a standard five-tower attached to it. The bell tower and the five-tower tower exceed the height and area of the church building itself. At the same time, it was striking that the building with a gable roof stands on either arches, or a basement room with arches, which by now is almost completely below ground level. Only closer to the building, the ground level drops slightly, revealing the "basement" arches.
So, the first nuance: the central part of the church, that is, the building, differs from the five-tower and the bell tower in the nuances and style of construction. Which, upon close examination, turn out to be attached to this very central part of the church. Moreover, the style of decoration and construction suggests that the central part was built much earlier, when there was no bell tower or five-tower in the plans. Moreover, strange traces are found on the vaults of the "basement", which most likely remained from the richest figural moldings that adorned the vaults of the "basement". All this is in an extremely deplorable and irreparable state.
The second nuance: the "basement" of the central part of the church, of course, is not a basement, but the former first floor, long ago covered with a thick layer of clay. At the same time, neither the five-tower nor the bell tower has such a "foundation" at all and are built at the modern level of the surface, and at the same time they are attached to the central part so as to make the most common composition. Although the stylistic difference is still noticeable. The combination of a very simple style of external decoration of the central part, more artless than the bell tower and the five-tower, with the richest stucco molding of the internal decoration, or rather its traces, also looks strange.
And the third nuance: of course, the fact that the first floor of the central part is drifted just cries out for the same reason that you consider already reconstructed. But. The whole church stands on a rather prominent hillock, like a small hill, not in the very center of this hill, but slightly shifted to its edge. Only slightly and in height it stands on its top. The height of the hill above the surrounding surface is from five to ten meters.
Now I can understand that on the plains or lowlands, such drifts during floods and floods are natural. But how did this become possible (in fact) on the hill? When even the top of the hill was covered with more than two meters of clay. Here I can’t figure it out.
***
Rostov the Great. Church of the Ascension on the Ramparts
The temple of the Ascension of the Lord is better known as the temple of Isidor the Blessed on the ramparts. This structure was built in 1566. The church is one of the most ancient temples that have survived to this day in the city of Rostov.
It is known that the Church of Isidor the Blessed is located on the site where Isidor Tverdislov (or Isidor the Blessed), one of the Rostov Orthodox saints, was buried in the past. The inhabitants of the city of Rostov decided to bury him at the place where the saint died, namely, at the defensive rampart.
As you can see, it is either surrounded by a rampart, or it is soil from excavations. They couldn't build a church like that from the beginning. They are built on heights. And here, it turns out - in a hole.
Or was the church protected from something? Or was it built inside the shafts already existing at that time?
The shafts were long ago, these are not modern excavations. The dome on the church was also different. Now she is less expressive.
Continued: Part 34
Author: sibved